Easiest Warbird to Fly?

[BobB]

A former Marine pilot who flew F6F, F8F, F4U and AD-1 in advanced training in 1950 said that the F6F flew like a big Cub. He had just completed primary training and carqual in SNJ so his idea of "easy to fly" would be different from that of a Cessna 150 driver but he had some light airplane experience before being accepted for USMC flight training. And a Cub is said to be easy to fly but hard to fly right.

 

[rednev]

The easiest wardbird to fly was probably one of the grasshopper series L2 L3 L4 .
despite not being hairy chested beasts they did serve on front line .

 

[jetcal1]

Nope, ya'll are missing the boat. The easiest warbird to fly is a T-41.

 

[Elvis]

...nevermind….

 

[Elmas]

I had the possibility to interview some Italian Pilots that made the last courses in T-6, early '60s.
They told me that it wasn't such an "honey" to fly, but a plane that had to be treated with the utmost respect.
Certainly there were Pilots and.. Pilots.

View attachment 557398

I forgot to say that this picture was taken exactly over the Taranto Naval Base.
I don't think that sailors, from Admirals ro Recruits, didn't take too well this aerobatics exibition over their heads, after what happened 12 Nov. 1940.

 

[swampyankee]

Nope, ya'll are missing the boat. The easiest warbird to fly is a T-41.

L-4s were in combat. Were T-41s?
(seriously asking)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

As this was a resurrection of an old thread, I'll quote the OP's first post:

"Hey folks, new guy here. Great site!

What would you kids say was the easiest warbird to fly? Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft. For example, how would you rank the following aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness?"

North American P-51D Mustang
Republic P-47D Thunderbolt
Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat
Curtis P-40E Warhawk (or Kittyhawk if you prefer)
Bell P-39D Airacobra
Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair
Lockheed P-38J Lightning

As I understand it, the Mustang is a sports car with a relatively high stall speed (100mph?) and, as such, requires some skill and respect to fly. And the Corsair (my favorite warbird) flies like a dream, I hear, but requires some serious skill for take-offs and landings... and the nerves to calmly ignore the oil slowly coating the windscreen

Being a "tricycle" configuration, the P-38 probably has the best site lines for take-offs and landings, but then you have the whole twin-engine thing to worry about (though certainly a welcomed worry for many fighter pilots).

But for the average, relatively new pilot... coming from T-6 Texan training, let's say, how would you rank the above aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness" or "ease of operation" overall?

And for comparison's sake, I don't object to throwing in a Spitfire, Zero, and/or Bf-109 or FW-190. Thanks!


Fred B."

 

[jetcal1]

L-4s were in combat. Were T-41s?
(seriously asking)

Nope, but still a "T" designation and thus a "warbird" like a U-3 or a T-42.

 

[jetcal1]

As this was a resurrection of an old thread, I'll quote the OP's first post:

"Hey folks, new guy here. Great site!

What would you kids say was the easiest warbird to fly? Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft. For example, how would you rank the following aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness?"

North American P-51D Mustang
Republic P-47D Thunderbolt
Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat
Curtis P-40E Warhawk (or Kittyhawk if you prefer)
Bell P-39D Airacobra
Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair
Lockheed P-38J Lightning

As I understand it, the Mustang is a sports car with a relatively high stall speed (100mph?) and, as such, requires some skill and respect to fly. And the Corsair (my favorite warbird) flies like a dream, I hear, but requires some serious skill for take-offs and landings... and the nerves to calmly ignore the oil slowly coating the windscreen

Being a "tricycle" configuration, the P-38 probably has the best site lines for take-offs and landings, but then you have the whole twin-engine thing to worry about (though certainly a welcomed worry for many fighter pilots).

But for the average, relatively new pilot... coming from T-6 Texan training, let's say, how would you rank the above aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness" or "ease of operation" overall?

And for comparison's sake, I don't object to throwing in a Spitfire, Zero, and/or Bf-109 or FW-190. Thanks!


Fred B."

"Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft." - Well that took the wind out of my smart-a s s sails.

 

[Big Jake]

According to a friend who flew "everything", the F4U is a much easier airplane to fly than a P-51 but as someone else commented, any airplane will kill you if you don't pay attention and respect... It's quite interesting how the US training was set up - you started with the most difficult airplane (a Stearman), progressed to a lesser evil (a T-6) and then graduated to the easiest of them all (relatively speaking - any fighter)...
Jake

 

[pinehilljoe]

How about the Hurricane? Legend has it that after the first historic flight, George Bulman said to Sydney Camm, 'It's a piece of cake, I could even teach you to fly it,' after he landed.

 

[Skyediamonds]

If I may add to Flyboy's repeating of the original OP, he did quote "..... for example..." & went on to list what types of warbirds were considered easiest to fly. I interpreted his original opening remarks to mean WWII type aircraft that served or were designed to serve in combat during that era. That's why he gave a short list of aircraft to begin with; to help narrow down the types of which aircraft would be classified A) as a warbird as defined within the narrow scope of his definition & B) did it fly or serve in combat to have enough pilots, to subjectively describe what they considered "easy." Not trainers converted or modified into warbirds such as the Piper L-4s & Cessna T-41s which, by the way is just a military designation for the venerable -172 that came into existence long after the war was over.

L-4s did serve in the war, but did they serve in combat? That answer is "affirmative" because in addition to serving as liaison or even FACs (Forward Air Control) it was also occasionally field modified to be equipped with rockets. But was it originally designed for combat? To that, I'd have to question.

So in keeping what is the easiest warbird to fly would have to include the skill level of the pilot (which may or may not be a reflection of his training), the aircraft itself as it relates to control harmony & (yes) forgiveness, & design for ease of flight (just look at the attrition rate of the Me-109 due to its splayed out narrow tracked landing gears) & then somehow objectively combine them together to give a short list. I used the term "list" as in my humble opinion, no single aircraft qualifies.

 

[michael rauls]

A thought on easiest warbird to fly. Seems there are different ways of looking at this and the aircraft that would qualify could be different depending on the definition.
Example; easiest defined as takes the least training, has a well layed out cockpit, and doesn't keep the pilot too busy or easiest defined as least likely to get ones own self into trouble with. i.e. stall or spin characteristics for example.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Michael r:
Exactly my point. Once this definition is clarified, refined & accepted: then we can focus on what truly constitutes the definition of what is the easiest warbird to fly. IMHO: the least easiest would be the Mustang & Me-109 for starters. The -109 was previously explained, but on the Mustang with that unforgiving laminar flow wing combined with a powerful Merlin or Packard, a tail dragger that will emphasize the torque & P-factor combined with gyroscopic precession, she has to be treated with utmost respect on takeoffs, landings & combat maneuvering. That last note is for the pilot to be constantly aware of high speed stall-spin. I'll admit there would probably be a debate on this but isn't that the point of this discussion?

 

[swampyankee]

While I did include an answer that was a tad outside what the OP meant, my definition of " easy to fly" would include well-harmonized controls, good departure characteristics, well-laid out cockpit, and good visibility.

All the air forces paid at least some attention to all those issues but many air forces would also tolerate some nasty aircraft behavior, mostly because good handling is hard to achieve (even for aircraft where high performance isn't the primary driver) but also because the skills of pilots, especially the comparatively less-trained wartime pilots, were overestimated. Of course, even those pre-war pilots were going to have off-days, as wartime operations will continue in weather that may ground the same service in peacetime, have a much higher sortie rate, so pilots will be more fatigued, and much higher stress levels because wartime.

Obviously, high-power, highly loaded aircraft, like fighters will be much more difficult to design for good handling -- "easy to fly" -- than a light plane, but the excuse that the pilots are so good that handling doesn't matter is BS. At least part of the reason the Hellcat did so well was because the pilots could fly the airplane to its limits without worrying that it was going to bite them in their asses and that they could get back onto a carrier while tired, recovering from an adrenaline high, and with their blood sugar crashing.

 

[michael rauls]

While I did include an answer that was a tad outside what the OP meant, my definition of " easy to fly" would include well-harmonized controls, good departure characteristics, well-laid out cockpit, and good visibility.

All the air forces paid at least some attention to all those issues but many air forces would also tolerate some nasty aircraft behavior, mostly because good handling is hard to achieve (even for aircraft where high performance isn't the primary driver) but also because the skills of pilots, especially the comparatively less-trained wartime pilots, were overestimated. Of course, even those pre-war pilots were going to have off-days, as wartime operations will continue in weather that may ground the same service in peacetime, have a much higher sortie rate, so pilots will be more fatigued, and much higher stress levels because wartime.

Obviously, high-power, highly loaded aircraft, like fighters will be much more difficult to design for good handling -- "easy to fly" -- than a light plane, but the excuse that the pilots are so good that handling doesn't matter is BS. At least part of the reason the Hellcat did so well was because the pilots could fly the airplane to its limits without worrying that it was going to bite them in their asses and that they could get back onto a carrier while tired, recovering from an adrenaline high, and with their blood sugar crashing.

I think that's a great discription of how/ why a good, docile handling fighter is such an asset for the legeons of new pilots comming on line so to speak.
Although I'm not a pilot I've thought more than once about if I were put into a ww2 fighter after probably less than an ideal amount of training under high stress wartime conditions what would I want it be.
Given that realistically I should probably be worried at least as much about killing myself in an accident as the enemy taking me out the best/easiest two fighters from this perpective, at least my impression, are 1: the F6f and 2: Thunderbolt.

 

[Elvis]

If I may add to Flyboy's repeating of the original OP, he did quote "..... for example..." & went on to list what types of warbirds were considered easiest to fly. I interpreted his original opening remarks to mean WWII type aircraft that served or were designed to serve in combat during that era. That's why he gave a short list of aircraft to begin with; to help narrow down the types of which aircraft would be classified A) as a warbird as defined within the narrow scope of his definition & B) did it fly or serve in combat to have enough pilots, to subjectively describe what they considered "easy." Not trainers converted or modified into warbirds such as the Piper L-4s & Cessna T-41s which, by the way is just a military designation for the venerable -172 that came into existence long after the war was over.

L-4s did serve in the war, but did they serve in combat? That answer is "affirmative" because in addition to serving as liaison or even FACs (Forward Air Control) it was also occasionally field modified to be equipped with rockets. But was it originally designed for combat? To that, I'd have to question.

So in keeping what is the easiest warbird to fly would have to include the skill level of the pilot (which may or may not be a reflection of his training), the aircraft itself as it relates to control harmony & (yes) forgiveness, & design for ease of flight (just look at the attrition rate of the Me-109 due to its splayed out narrow tracked landing gears) & then somehow objectively combine them together to give a short list. I used the term "list" as in my humble opinion, no single aircraft qualifies.

The OP's question was about Fighter/interceptor aircraft that fought during WWII.
While my beloved L-4 was pressed into fighter service once, as you say, it was never designed for such a role.
This is why I never included it in my remarks, but I still say the easiest to fly was probably one of the jets.
Going off of pilot reactions during that time (and especially after the war), one thing they seemed to love was how easy they were to fly.
JMHO.


Elvis

 

[Skyediamonds]

Which gets back to the original question on which warbird/s being easiest to fly. Do jets fall into the definition of "warbird?"

 

[Elvis]

Gloster Meteor, Bell P-59 Airacomet and Messerschmitt 262 all flew during WWII, so I would have to say Yes.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Which gets back to the original question on which warbird/s being easiest to fly. Do jets fall into the definition of "warbird?"

Why wouldn't they?