Easiest Warbird to Fly?

[renrich]

I had an uncle who flew both P39s and P47s in WW2. He mentioned something about that in a spin in the P39 the pilot was sometimes beat up badly by hitting his head on the sides of the canopy. It was designed for a pilot no more than 5 ft 8 in. I got the distinct impression he preferred the P47. In Dean's "America's 100 Thousand," he states that the Corsair and P40 were the most difficult to land of the fighters although the F4F could be a handfull to land on a landing strip although easy on a carrier. There is a persistent story which may or may not be true about a Texas oil man after WW2 who had a wife who had a private ticket and who wanted a Corsair. He wanted a divorce and did not want to go to that expense and trouble. He bought her the Corsair and sure enough she killed herself trying to land it.

 

[davparlr]

FEs always fly the aircraft - the pilots just steer!

The navigator was there to yell "Hee" and "Haw" to the pilots and throw banana pills.

 

[kool kitty89]

I had an uncle who flew both P39s and P47s in WW2. He mentioned something about that in a spin in the P39 the pilot was sometimes beat up badly by hitting his head on the sides of the canopy. It was designed for a pilot no more than 5 ft 8 in. I got the distinct impression he preferred the P47.

In terms of stalling characteristics you can't get much farther apart than those two, the P-47 having a very forgiving stall by all accounts I've read. (the P-38 did too -being pretty much impossible to spin accedentally, though in its case this was partially due to the lack of torq -with both engines at the same power settings obviously)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

BTW - the P-38s POH also said that intentional spins were prohibited.

 

[Elvis]

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.

I too am not a pilot, but I was going to say the same thing and for the same reason.
One other plane missing from your list, HoHun, is an Auster.
I understand its basically the British version of an L-4 (Piper Cub).
IIRC, the plane lived through to the 60's, both in military service and private aviation.
The attached pic is an Auster Mk.V, built in 1944. The nose is a bit different from the versions that came along later (due to an engine change, I suppose).

There was some early discussion about T/O and landing of a Spitfire.
Not long ago, I ran across a sort of Pilot's report concerning that very thing and I came away with the understanding that the Spit was actually a very easy plane to take-off and land.
I think there was something about a relatively low stall speed, so the pilot did a big half circle, upon landing, in order to keep the runway in his sights for as long as possible, all the while slowing the plane.
By the time he cut the throttle, he flaired it and made a 3-point landing.
I got the impression he thought that would be a much harder task than it really was.
I'll search around for the article and if I find it, I'll post the link in this thread.



Elvis

 

[chuckn49]

I find this thread to be interesting both as an aviator and a fan of the P-38. I do have some small amount of time in several tail draggers from an L-5 to BT-13 and all of them offer unique challenges to any pilot. Most of us modern pilots are rather spoiled by the landing, takeoff and taxing virtues of the tricycle gear.

However, my brother did fly the P-38 and the P-51. I enjoyed many conversations with him about the various virtues of each type. He always loved the P-38 the most.

Anyway, I know he felt that the P-38 in the hands of a competent pilot was a very forgiving airplane, in general, with the one exception he always mentioned of its dive problem. Here, too, he felt a competent pilot would avoid that difficulty.

I discussed with him the obvious question of an engine out on take-off and he used to grin saying, "I'd rather have an engine out in a P-38 on takeoff than in a P-51 any day. After all, there is only one possible outcome in the '51." I do know that he mentioned the biggest mistake rooky pilots made in that situation with the P-38 was failing to come back on the power of the good engine until they had control before advancing it back up. Most fighter pilots in those days had little or no multi-engine training, apparently, which meant they had very little power out trainng when transitioning into the P-38.

Nevertheless, because of its counter-rotating props, he felt it was an exceptionally stable aircraft on take-off and landing with little of the torgue issues facing a single engine plane, especially noticeable in a tail dragger.

He never flew the P-39 so I have no information on its handling characteristics. However, I once discussed the rather high accident rate for the P-38 which he felt was contributed to by the fact that they were so inherently stable taxiing, etc. that they were a favorite aircraft for difficult fields such as those in the Pacific Islands and the Aleutians. He observed that when you fly airplanes into and out of mud holes you are bound to have very high landing, take-off and taxiing accident rates.

Apparently, a couple of his buddies from flight school ended up in the Aleutians where the tricycle landing gear and multi-engine reliability of the P-38 was seen as a definite asset. I know he did have a little time in the P-40 and thought it was a horrible taxiing plane.

I realize this is all anecdotal and far from the usual scientific standards valued in these discussions, but I thought I'd throw it in for whatever value it has.

 

[kool kitty89]

I've read that the P-39 was used in similar "mud hole" locations, due to the ground handling characteristics and the ground clearance allowed by the tall tricycle landing gear. (with many taildraggers having problems with the mud, particularly with a bomb or drop tank on the belly)

 

[Graeme]

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.

Afternoon Henning!

Lucky for the Concorde programme that the "ground lubber" in question survived...?!

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

The P-39 had a tendency to enter viscious end-over-end spins that were almost impossible to recover from.

Well the Il Sturmovik game got that right. Spins in the P-39 almost always end up fatal for the plane, and often the pilot too. When you fly with an average rated wingman in the game, he's always getting killed due to poor spin tactics.

 

[davparlr]

T-37 spin recovery procedures

1. Throttles-Idle
2. Rudder and Ailerons-Neutral
3. Stick-Abruptly Full Aft and Hold
4. Rudder-Abruptly Apply Full Rudder Opposite Spin Direction and Hold
5. Stick-Abruptly Full Forward One Turn After Applying Rudder
6. Controls-Neutral After Spinning Stops and Recover From Dive


T-38 spin recovery procedures

1. Handgrips raise
2. Trigger pull

 

[drgondog]

T-37 spin recovery procedures

1. Throttles-Idle
2. Rudder and Ailerons-Neutral
3. Stick-Abruptly Full Aft and Hold
4. Rudder-Abruptly Apply Full Rudder Opposite Spin Direction and Hold
5. Stick-Abruptly Full Forward One Turn After Applying Rudder
6. Controls-Neutral After Spinning Stops and Recover From Dive


T-38 spin recovery procedures

1. Handgrips raise
2. Trigger pull

IIRC the T-38 procedures were universally adopted for F-4, F-8 and always at the 'ready' for the F-14?

 

[HoHun]

Hi Graeme,

>Lucky for the Concorde programme that the "ground lubber" in question survived...?!

Thanks, that was a bit of the story I had forgotten That's a high-value guinea pig Brown was using!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[davparlr]

IIRC the T-38 procedures were universally adopted for F-4, F-8 and always at the 'ready' for the F-14?

IIRC, the T-38 and F-5 were extremely difficult to spin. I think test pilots had to use unusual techniques to force spins.

 

[VMF-214]

Just wanted to say many thanks to Ron for creating this thread and many thanks as well to all who have contributed so much info to it! I really enjoyed reading the seven pages, thus far.

All the best - Always!

 

[magnu]

I remember reading a comment on the Piper Cub from aircraft international "The Piper Cub an aircraft so safe it can barley kill you". At the field I used to fly from was a WW2 vet cub and the pilot used to open the cabin door on approach as his stall warning.
As far as the discussion of trike vs. tail dragger goes most aircraft of the period were tail draggers so that is what the pupils of the time would have experience of and not really be a factor for someone just out of a T6
The toe, heel braking difference may have caused some consternation though. As far as a first time fighter goes I would have to go with the Hurricane. Good visibility when ground handling, wide track undercart with plenty of travel, good low speed characteristics and docile in the air

 

[FLYBOYJ]

As far as the discussion of trike vs. tail dragger goes most aircraft of the period were tail draggers so that is what the pupils of the time would have experience of and not really be a factor for someone just out of a T6

With hindsight being 20/20 had tricycle been the norm for combat aircraft of the period, there would of been fewer accidents and washouts because of zero time student attempting to master "torque abundant" tail draggers, especially in a cross wind. The design philosophy of the day was to go with a tail wheel configuration as it did better on dirt fields and adding the nose gear increased complexity and weight.

The toe, heel braking difference may have caused some consternation though.

As far as I know, with the exception of the Piper Cub, most US military aircraft had toe brakes. I know there were a number of aircraft made with the now popular "Soviet Style" of differential braking through a single bicycle grip on the stick.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Speaking of Piper Cubs, how is yours coming along Joe?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Speaking of Piper Cubs, how is yours coming along Joe?

It's basically complete - I'm going to post some info in my thread about it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Looking foward to it as always.

 

[Warren Peglar]

Hello everbody...I'm Fl/Lt Warren Peglar..retired...served with the RCAF, RAF, and the US 8th Air Force.
During WW11 I flew, in combat, Spitfires, P51's, and Tempests. If you wondered which was the easiest aircraft to land I think you might consider my opinion. It was the Spitfire...once on the runway, it was almost hands off the control column....I trained on Harvards (AT6) and that helped greatly in landing the
P51. Because of the large fuselage, the Mustang, on landing, wanted to ground-loop!! Any cross-wind landing was an adventure! The Tempest was also difficult to put down. Hope this helps in the discussion.