Easiest Warbird to Fly?

HoHun · Oct 19, 2008

Hi Trackend,

>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 Lysander actually had some interesting characteristics that would exclude it from the "easy" categroy in my opinion ... effectiveness of elevator control depended strongly on trim, and trim took a lot of time to change. Elevator trim also depended strongly on the power condition as the propeller slipstream would make the horizontal tail more effective so that applying power for a go-around would immediately mess up your trim.

That's nothing really serious, but it meant that you had to be ahead of the aircraft at all times, and failure to pay close attention to the trim at take-off and landing might get you into difficulties.

I guess the reason for these characteristics is the intended use as artillery spotter, making stability in constant-speed level flight an important issue. The Lysander was not built for extreme STOL - unlike the Fieseler Storch, which reportedly required much pilot attention to keep it on a straight and level flight path on a hot day with some turbulence.

As usual in aviation, it's a trade-off ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Soren · Oct 19, 2008

The Storch would be a very good candidate, esp. because of its very low stall speed and docile nature because of the slots.

HoHun · Oct 19, 2008

Hi Graeme,

>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.

The German attempt at a safe and easy aircraft to fly was the Zaunkönig. If I remember correctly, Eric Brown reported that they tested one at RAE Farnborough, and taught a "ground lubber" to fly it in a very short time, maybe actually a day.

The Akaflieg Braunschweig demonstrated ease of use for the type in 1955 by converting ten glider pilots to the Zaunkönig with just some minimal ground schooling and no dual instruction on motor aircraft.

However, former Luftwaffe experte Heinz Bär died in a Zaunkönig in 1957 ... while trying to demonstrate extreme slow flight to a commission of the Deutscher Aeroclub. Perhaps this serves to demonstrate that you are only safe if you keep away from the edges of the envelope.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

mkloby · Oct 19, 2008

Ronald-Reagan said:
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.

Sure it's a natural progression - I began with C-172, then T-34C, C-12B, TH-57B/C, and MV-22B.

FLYBOYJ · Oct 19, 2008

TonyM said:
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.

Good info Tony but the point here is where and when are these spins being induced? I think you'll find that many of the spin related P-39 accidents happened during aerobatic or combat training. Flying the aircraft in normal ops, take off, patterns and landings shouldn't be that dangerous, again maintaining the published numbers.

Also you need to look at the time periods - in 1943/ 44 the P-40 was right behind the P-39. Why? Because of the heavy training environment both aircraft were being flown in stateside. 150 - 200 hour pilot in either aircraft is a lot to ask for at least by today's standards. Throw in the fact that most aircraft were tail draggers and compounds the situation.

FLYBOYJ · Oct 19, 2008

Ronald-Reagan said:
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.

I think Bill hit it in the money for the most part with the exception of going from a Cessna 140 into a T-6. That's a alot of airplane when compared to a Cessna 140. In the middle maybe a Cessna 170 or even a 150 HP Super Cub, but Bill managed it fine!

FLYBOYJ · Oct 19, 2008

davparlr said:
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.

Actually duing engine out you reduced power on the good engine - the P-38 had no critical engine and in the early war years the transition training into the P-38 was almost non-existent.

davparlr said:
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.

Actually the P-39 had 2 CG points - one at the station lines and another at the water line. They had to me maintained pretty close to each other especially when doing any type of aerobatic maneuvers.

drgondog · Oct 19, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
I think Bill hit it in the money for the most part with the exception of going from a Cessna 140 into a T-6. That's a alot of airplane when compared to a Cessna 140. In the middle maybe a Cessna 170 or even a 150 HP Super Cub, but Bill managed it fine!

Joe - you would be right. I didn't mention V-35 time because it was tricycle gear. What he put me through was an interesting transition

What I think I said earlier is that I went from Cessna 140 to back seat in a 51 for ~ 20+ hours of following him through the manuevers, rudder pressure, stick, etc in the 51.. then to the back seat of an AT-6, then to solo on the AT-6. The 140 was strictly for tail dragger sensation.

Then it was Him in back seat in the 51 and me in front for about 10 more hours of dual, mostly takeoffs and landings... with particular emphasis on touch and go's.

I believe that anyone who moved from Cessna 140-180, V-35, etc without a methodical approach to acquaint one with Mr Torque and Mr Rudder on take off is a medium to high accident probability. The AT-6 was an amazing difference from both the 140 and the V-35.

In other words I could not agree with you more. I actually think someone today with game simulator experience could easily fly a J-3 or the 140 right away (not safely relative to procedures) but takeoff, go around, set up and land. but NOT step from low time 140 to AT-6..

FLYBOYJ · Oct 19, 2008

On the money Bill and that V-35 time is perfect for complex training. What described was probably a lot more training than was was given during the war in preparing a low time fighter pilot for flying high performance tail draggers.

TonyM · Oct 19, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
Good info Tony but the point here is where and when are these spins being induced? I think you'll find that many of the spin related P-39 accidents happened during aerobatic or combat training. Flying the aircraft in normal ops, take off, patterns and landings shouldn't be that dangerous, again maintaining the published numbers.

Also you need to look at the time periods - in 1943/ 44 the P-40 was right behind the P-39. Why? Because of the heavy training environment both aircraft were being flown in stateside. 150 - 200 hour pilot in either aircraft is a lot to ask for at least by today's standards. Throw in the fact that most aircraft were tail draggers and compounds the situation.

FlyboyJ,

Yes, you are right. Most of the P-39 spin accidents occurred while the airplane was being used and not while flying in the pattern or on climb out. But the P-39 spin phenomenom was serious enough to prompt the AAF to conduct a seperate test of an in-service aircraft. I have been finding that some of these spin accidents were happening overseas but no where near in the numbers they were happening in the states, probably indicating the growing experience of the pilots.

TonyM.

Amsel · Oct 19, 2008

The Basket said:
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.

That is interesting. Maybe worthy of its own thread.

FLYBOYJ · Oct 19, 2008

The Basket said:
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.

Amsel said:
That is interesting. Maybe worthy of its own thread.

I have found over the years many high time fighter pilots with all type of jet time have difficulty in flying tail draggers and light GA aircraft. The big key is the lack of power and in the case of tail draggers understanding what the aircraft will do on take off and landing, especially in a cross wind.

My father in law once told me that an F-16 pilot with little GA experience will kill himself quicker in a Cessna 172 than the 172 driver in an F-16.

drgondog · Oct 19, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
On the money Bill and that V-35 time is perfect for complex training. What described was probably a lot more training than was was given during the war in preparing a low time fighter pilot for flying high performance tail draggers.

I suspect the fact that I was his only (known) son and the fact that my mother would have killed him if I screwed up had a lot to do with the process - and I was 15 going on 16 when I got my license and the intial flights in the 51. He told me I was retarded and he needed the extra time taeching me how to fly.

Dad had 3 hours in a 51 before his first combat mission. The fact that he 2000 hours at the time had nothing to do with it, of course.

I still miss him.

FLYBOYJ · Oct 19, 2008

drgondog said:
I suspect the fact that I was his only (known) son and the fact that my mother would have killed him if I screwed up had a lot to do with the process - and I was 15 going on 16 when I got my license and the intial flights in the 51. He told me I was retarded and he needed the extra time taeching me how to fly.

Dad had 3 hours in a 51 before his first combat mission. The fact that he 2000 hours at the time had nothing to do with it, of course.

I still miss him.

Great info Bill!

mkloby · Oct 19, 2008

drgondog said:
I suspect the fact that I was his only (known) son and the fact that my mother would have killed him if I screwed up had a lot to do with the process - and I was 15 going on 16 when I got my license and the intial flights in the 51. He told me I was retarded and he needed the extra time taeching me how to fly.

Dad had 3 hours in a 51 before his first combat mission. The fact that he 2000 hours at the time had nothing to do with it, of course.

I still miss him.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean having 2000 hours has nothing to do with it - I'm guessing you're talking mostly about monkey skills. While every a/c is different, hours and experience in the cockpit are very valuable in general, especially since wiggling sticks is only one aspect of aviation.

drgondog · Oct 19, 2008

mkloby said:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean having 2000 hours has nothing to do with it - I'm guessing you're talking mostly about monkey skills. While every a/c is different, hours and experience in the cockpit are very valuable in general, especially since wiggling sticks is only one aspect of aviation.

I was being 'ironic'.

Given that most USAAF fighter pilots came into ETO with 250-300 hours, the old man was stuck in Training Command for three years. He graduated in Class40-A, so he was part of the pre-draft build up in USAAF so he had a tougher flight school and accumulated a lot of hours.

At he time he came to ETO he actually had 2200 hours total time in every trainer, in the B-26, the P-40, the P-47, the B-25 and the P-39..all he did at Goxhill was fly the Link to demonstrate that he could still IFR, read the 51 Handbook and get 3+ hours in Touch and Go and a little formation time.

Prior to that however he flew P-40's for six months at Sarasota and accumulated about 180 hours in it so he wasn't a stranger to long nosed, powerful tail draggers.

He never flew the P-38 - at least no log time.

Ronald-Reagan · Oct 19, 2008

Thanks Bill and everyone! I see there's no easy answer to my original question. Can someone give me an estimate of suggested flight time by type before advancing (I realize there's more to proficieny than flight time alone, but I mean in general and assuming average learning ability)? We'll use a variation of Bill's example:

Cessna 140, Areonca Champ or Piper Cub
Cessna 170, Super Cub or Stearman Kaydet
AT-6 Texan, Navy SNJ

And the final advancement is, let's say, to the F4U-4 Corsair.

Would something like a Cessna 195 be advised as an intermediate between the 170 AT-6? I know it probably couldn't hurt, but would it be necessary?

Fred B.

kool kitty89 · Oct 19, 2008

If you want to include all the aircraft used in combat or millitary operations durring the war (as with the Cub, Storch, and Swordfish), you may want to consider the Po-2. Polikarpov Po-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FLYBOYJ · Oct 19, 2008

Ronald-Reagan said:
Would something like a Cessna 195 be advised as an intermediate between the 170 AT-6? I know it probably couldn't hurt, but would it be necessary?

Fred B.

Its funny, I was thinking about that as well. The 190/ 195 could be a little tricky, I knew at least 2 people who ground looped them, one was damaged. I guess planting the tail too early could be a problem if you're caught in a cross wind or gust.

davparlr · Oct 19, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
Actually the P-39 had 2 CG points - one at the station lines and another at the water line. They had to me maintained pretty close to each other especially when doing any type of aerobatic maneuvers.

I think I need a bit more info. As far as I know, there is only one cg point, which has three components, longitudinal (station line?), vertical (waterline?) and lateral, which every aircraft has. If you are saying that both the longitudinal and vertical cg components of the cg point must be closely maintained, I would understand, but I am confused about the two points.

You always have to be careful of the cg, as new pilots found out about the P-51 with a full fuselage tank.

Easiest Warbird to Fly?

Tech Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Attachments

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Recruit

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads