Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
L-4s were in combat. Were T-41s?Nope, ya'll are missing the boat. The easiest warbird to fly is a T-41.
Nope, but still a "T" designation and thus a "warbird" like a U-3 or a T-42.L-4s were in combat. Were T-41s?
(seriously asking)
"Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft." - Well that took the wind out of my smart-a s s sails.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."
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.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.
The OP's question was about Fighter/interceptor aircraft that fought during WWII.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.
Which gets back to the original question on which warbird/s being easiest to fly. Do jets fall into the definition of "warbird?"