Easiest Warbird to Fly?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

FLYBOYJ said:
I'd have to say though in looking at a P-38 it seems no more difficualt to fly than any other twin I've seen or flown.
Click to expand...

Compared to most other twins of the day, the engine high power and light fighter weight appears to make single engine control rather touchy. I suspect minimum engine out airspeed would be very high with full power. You would have to be very careful on go-around. The Mosquito would be similar. Counter rotating props and tricycle gear would make some aspects easier than single engine figthers.

GrauGeist said:
The one thing I would think that would be a challenge to a new pilot of the P-39, would be the difference in the center of gravity,
Click to expand...

CG is a design point for stability. I doubt the P-39 CG location was particularly unique. However, Mass location near CG could possible make the aircraft quite agile and/or touchy. I have not read any reports that this was a problem.
 
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the F6F Hellcat. Most sources usually comment on its docile low speed handling and landing characteristics. Eric Brown certainly liked it. And yeah, I know that he could probably land anything...
 
Improper loading in the nose (ie the armament) on the P-39 could lead to serious stability promlems. (as the Soviets discovered when the cannon was removed)

I believe there were some problems with the P-39's gearbox (throwing oil) and occasional vibration problems with the extention shaft. (though iirc these mostly occured on early aircraft; P-39D and earlier)
 
From what I've read, a major cause for ground accedents with the P-40 was its tendency to ground loop. (in the air, it was apparently a faily pleasant aircraft to fly, with good control harmonization and stability, except for the P-40D/E/Kittyhawk-I/Ia which had some lateral stability pronlems -particularly in dives-)

Then there are aircraft not on the list, like the Brewster Buffalo which was supposedly had exceptionally friendly handeling on the ground and in the air. (and apparently made good advanced trainers after being withdrawn from combat duty in the US)
 
Hi RR

Interesting topic, and one that is almost impossible to answer for landlubbers like me. I can only report a few bits and pieces thast I have read here and there. I dont claim any sort of expertise at all in this subject

The Seafires carrier landing characteristics were pretty vicious, a combination of the narrow landing gear and big wing area leads me to suspect that they had a tendency to "bounce" on landing, something not good for a carrier based aircraft. Even land based spitfires suffered a higher accident rate than Hurricanes, which had a reputation as docile and forgiving for young inexperienced pilots.

Beaufighters had landing characteristicws that could be termed "tricky, which was partially solved in later marks by increased dihedral in the tail. I believe this issue arose from the direction of the rotation of the propellers (torque???), which gave the aircraft bad handling characteristics at low speed.

The mossie was apparently docile and easy to fly, despite its very high performance. I have no idea why...but the Mossie looks right, leading one to think that they ARE right. Typhoons early on had some problems in the tail, and the engine in them was a big thumper. I believe they were a big handfull to control. Would be interested to hear from our German friends as to the problems they perceive in their aircraft parks. We have pretty much debunked the myth that the Me109 suffered a high accident rate (compared to its other german contemporaries) in landings and take Offs (in another thread) but I suspect that the germans as a whole suffered high rates of attrition compared to the Allies as the war progressed.
 
All good stuff folks but the bottom line - an aircraft configured with a tri-cycle landing gear is going to be easier to fly, at least on take off and landing. One could master a taildragger but in the long run it would be like comparing a bicycle to a unicycle. Once you're in the air, its pretty easy, take off and landings are the challenge - especially in cross winds.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
I'd go with a P-39. As far as its spin characteristics - the pilot would have to induce the spin. As long as the aircraft is being flown by the numbers especially "low, slow and dirty" there shouldn't be any problems.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ on this one. The P-39 was involved in 395 fatal accidents in the US during WWII--a great majority of these accidents were spin related. The P-39 had a tendency to enter viscious end-over-end spins that were almost impossible to recover from. Many P-39 accident reports contain the phrase "unfavorable spin characteristics of the P-39 airplane."

During the research of my book FATAL ARMY AIR FORCES AVIATION ACCIDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1941- 1945, I discovered that on 5 Nov 1942 that a special test flight was flown to examine the P-39 spin characteristics and the end-over-end spin phenomenom. Well guess what happened? The test pilot was killed when he failed to recover from a deliberate spin.

P-39 spin characteristics also made for good dinner conversation. At dinner on 20 Sept 1942, 2nd Lt. Henry C. Garcia stated, "If a fellow uses his head, he can always bring a P-39 out of a spin." Well guess what happened on 21 Sept 1942? Lt. Garcia was killed when he failed to recover from a spin in a P-39D airplane. The P-39 could be a very dangerous airplane for those sloppy enough to let it get into a spin. It seems to be that very seldom were the spins that killed hundreds of P-39 pilots deliberately induced.

See the AAF Aircraft Accident Report for the test flight mentioned above:

AAF Aircraft Accident Report Microfilm
Call # 46137, 5 November 1942, Accident # 1.

Every documented fatal P-39 spin accident that occurred in the United States during World War II can be found in:

FATAL ARMY AIR FORCES AVIATION ACCIDENTS
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1941-1945

TonyM.
 
Great info, Tony...I didn't know that.

I know the Jug had the '39 beat on fatalities, but the spin issue has me wondering...

Was that fatal spin the result of an inherent design flaw, or the result of inexperienced pilots?
 
GrauGeist,

Perhaps a little of both. The center of gravity on the P-39 airplane probably contributed and the relative inexperience of the pilots involved aggravated the problem I would reckon.

The Republic P-47 airplane was involved in 462 fatal accidents in the United States during World War II. There were probably more P-47s produced than P-39s I would guess, so if that is true then the 395 fatal P-39 accidents really stand out. Don't know the production numbers for both airplanes, but it makes an interesting comparison.

TonyM.
 
So do you guys think, like drgondog's route, that progressing from a Cessna 140, to an AT-6, to an F4U-4 Corsair would be a realistic (safe) transition?

My brother was a private pilot (Cessna 152), and a good family friend was a private pilot (Cessna 172), but I don't know anyone personally with experience flying warbirds. The family friend died as a passenger in an Aeronca Champ, but I don't think he ever piloted a tail dragger himself.

Thanks for the warm welcome, btw!


Fred B.
 
Was the problem most prominant on the early P-39's. I've read comments on how these characteristics were improved on the later models. At least a note on the improvements on the P-39N, and moreso with the later Q.

I've also read that a significant contributor to the instability was one of the changes made at Wright field in the name of "streamilining". Along with the fateful deletion of the turbocharger, the rear fusalage was lenghtened which shifted the CoG further aft and worsened the XP-39's (alryeady somewhat marginal) stability.
(additionally the wings were clipped back -increasing wing loading and stall speed- and, probably the only positive change, the vertical stabilizer was enlarged which solved the lateral instability problems)
 
I've always heard that the Hellcat was a pilot's plane, and in flight sims it's not bad to fly. I still suck at flying it into combat. I once asked Jason Somes, one of the pilots at the CAF in Camarillo, about flying the Hellcat and Bearcat. He said they're both great to fly.

As for the P-39, I guess it depends from pilot to pilot. I once started "An Ace of The Eighth," and the guy said he really liked flying the P-39 the short time he did. Preferred it over the P-40.

Anyway, no matter what you fly, it is probably best to train like they did during the war, in a T-6 Texan. I'm no pilot, but all the guys around me who fly Mustangs, Hellcats, Bearcats, Zeros, and more agree that time in a trainer like the Texan is really important.
 

I have no data on sorties, only flying hours. It is possible that different planes were used for somewhat different type of training. As long as there is not detailed breakdown, one can only speculate.
Below is a more detailed yearly comparison (1942 is left out because flying hours are not available, so the numbers are slightly different than in my first post).

 
The operational loss rate of F4U's (i.e., not directly caused by the enemy) remained significantly higher than F6F's.(comparison 1944-45, when both operated from carriers and with (supposedly) similar missions):



And the conclusion:
 
Not being an aviator I can only guess but I would of thought something like the Piper Cub, Storch, Lysander or Stringbag would be the most forgiving of ww2 aircraft to fly having such slow stall speeds it must give the pilot much more correction time if they **** up.
 
The easy aircraft to fly was the Fairey Swordfish. I recall an airshow pilot saying the Swordfish could be flown by anyone with a ppl.

An intersting note on the Hurricane is a BOB airshow pilot who had 3000 hours jet time but the Hurricane was a total bag of spanners. He wondered how anyone could have a few hours and then flown into combat. He didn't find it easy.
 
trackend said:
Not being an aviator I can only guess but I would of thought something like the Piper Cub
Click to expand...

This is the sort of logic I was thinking of as well. Mr Google kept pointing me to the Ercoupe as the "safest and easiest aircraft to fly".

According to the article it could be soloed in an 8-hour day.




I know it's not a "warbird", but it was considered as a drone...

PQ Series

...and it was the first American aircraft to be fitted with JATO...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
B-25 Hard to Fly?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
8
Views
430
Snautzer01
Short Brothers flying boat conversion to land based transport?
Replies
4
Views
512
chris ballance
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
AAF TECHNICAL REPORTS: Where to find?
Replies
5
Views
429
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register