Easiest Warbird to Fly?
- Thread starter Ronald-Reagan
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Welcome to the forum Mr. Peglar! Unfortunately. I think a few of the members that posted here have moved on. But that doesn't mean your input will be wasted! I would love to hear some more. Check out some of the other threads, usually in the "Aviation" section where many threads ask similar questions. Welcome!
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Mr Peglar I'm going to assume this link is yourself I hope you stay around so we can pick your brains , its nice to meet someone who did a bit of their training at 9 EFTS
Warren Peglar
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Thank you Mr. Peglar.
You have confirmed what I have heard B of B pilots say about the Spitfire - "forgiving and a joy to fly".
MM
You have confirmed what I have heard B of B pilots say about the Spitfire - "forgiving and a joy to fly".
MM
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Boone Guyton, the guy who flew most of the test hours for the F4U during it's development flew the Spitfire and the Zero and said that both were delightful and easy to handle. The FW190, except for some stall characteristics must have been very pilot friendly since prop control, mixture and supercharger were all automatic, controlled by the throttle. For US warbirds, the Hellcat, except for being a tail dragger was reputedly very docile with few bad habits.
baldpuki
Airman
For what it is worth, my father who flew Mustangs in combat and also had about 100-200 hours in Corsiars as a liason to the Navy, siad that he couldn't make a bad landing in the Corsair. Wide gear and great shock absorbing capability. He said most of the time, he didn't even know when it hit the ground.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
That was the late war Corsair, though, because early models could be very difficult in landings. To me, the interesting point about the Corsair was that many fighters, as they evolved during the war picked up some bad flying characteristics because of more power, more weight, perhaps other changes. Some later models of the Spitfire were not as delightful to fly as earlier models, I understand, as well as the A6Ms and FWs and ME109s. However, each successive model of the Corsair during WW2, as it evolved was reportedly a more biddable airplane, in spite of the big performance gains.
timmo
Airman
Of 45 flown, I'll go for the Hurricane - despite the 'bag of of spanners' label.
So docile that you could do finals actually on the stall. An interesting profile!
I note the comment on toe brakes. Well - they stopped you dead - unlike ours. Consequently, I've seen more than one nose-over in a
Comment on the Spitfire - so true!!
= Tim
So docile that you could do finals actually on the stall. An interesting profile!
I note the comment on toe brakes. Well - they stopped you dead - unlike ours. Consequently, I've seen more than one nose-over in a
Comment on the Spitfire - so true!!
= Tim
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
like was said before none of them are going to be "entry level" aircraft and very few here have flow or been in one. but i will give you what i know from listening to my father...who did fly some of these.
the P40 would be my choice. the fact being it was used as a trainer ( advanced ) in 43/44. it was user friendly enough to be used in that role. my dad went from a PT19 to BT13 to AT6 and finally P40. he was in Georgia and yes while waiting in line to take off most guys had to shut the engines off or would overheat. he liked the plane. after the progression of the others he enjoyed taking it up. he did say it had a quirk on landing or take off i cant recall.... he didn't sit in a P51 until he got to the UK and had 10 hours seat time before going on his first mission.
the P39 was what his group originally flew but had transitioned to 51s prior to my dad getting in. still have his souvenir 37mm round on the shelf. from what i gather the 39 had a tendency to "tumble"..not spin out but nose over tail tumble ( maybe because of the placement of the engine was behind the pilot?). once in this tumble there was no recovery. this may be why the accident/death was higher on this craft than others. they would let guys take them up and intentionally get it into the "tumble" and try to devise a maneuver to bring it back under control. at that time no one could....a majority of them were sold to the russians.
the P38....is a twin engine with duel engine and propeller controls....its more complicated to fly a twin than a single engine. but it and the P39 are tricycle gear and that is a bit easier to land ( not taking into acount anything else ) than a tail dragger.... at least to me...but then it might be all dependent as to what you were taught in.
the P40 would be my choice. the fact being it was used as a trainer ( advanced ) in 43/44. it was user friendly enough to be used in that role. my dad went from a PT19 to BT13 to AT6 and finally P40. he was in Georgia and yes while waiting in line to take off most guys had to shut the engines off or would overheat. he liked the plane. after the progression of the others he enjoyed taking it up. he did say it had a quirk on landing or take off i cant recall.... he didn't sit in a P51 until he got to the UK and had 10 hours seat time before going on his first mission.
the P39 was what his group originally flew but had transitioned to 51s prior to my dad getting in. still have his souvenir 37mm round on the shelf. from what i gather the 39 had a tendency to "tumble"..not spin out but nose over tail tumble ( maybe because of the placement of the engine was behind the pilot?). once in this tumble there was no recovery. this may be why the accident/death was higher on this craft than others. they would let guys take them up and intentionally get it into the "tumble" and try to devise a maneuver to bring it back under control. at that time no one could....a majority of them were sold to the russians.
the P38....is a twin engine with duel engine and propeller controls....its more complicated to fly a twin than a single engine. but it and the P39 are tricycle gear and that is a bit easier to land ( not taking into acount anything else ) than a tail dragger.... at least to me...but then it might be all dependent as to what you were taught in.
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Welcome aboard. Tell us a bit about your flying experiences, what models, where, comparisons etc. Generally, everyone is hungry for info from people with first hand experiences.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Hi Warren and welcome aboard, appreciate the input. How much rudder authority did each aircraft comparatively have in cross winds? I've flown only light taildraggers and always wondered how they'd compare to warbirds.
One of out members (Bill) has flown P-51s and have provided some great insight on flying these aircraft, just wanted to get a second opinion (no offense Bill, I'd fly with you any time, any day).
One of out members (Bill) has flown P-51s and have provided some great insight on flying these aircraft, just wanted to get a second opinion (no offense Bill, I'd fly with you any time, any day).
Last edited:
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
On the link to Mr. Warren Peglar's website, there are photos of him with Bill's father!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Thanks Mike!
I flew L-21B a lot. It was a nice small airplane, and was easy to land than the DH-82a Tigermoth. In case of biplane and you flew from the rear seat, you cannot see the ground well when making a hold off than the SuperCub. That is only what I can say.
BTW quotes from
PROOF DEPARTMENT TACTICAL COMBAT SECTION ARMY AIR FORCES PROVING GROUND COMMAND EGLIN FIELD, FLORIDA
FINAL REPORT ON TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-51 TYPE AIRPLANE 30 December 1942
"d. Pilots become completely at home in this aircraft immediately after the first take-off due to the remarkable sensitivity of control, simplicity of cockpit, and excellent flying characteristics.
"The flying characteristics of the P-51 are exceptionally good and the aircraft is very pleasant and easy to fly.
"A pilot flying this plane for the first time feels immediately at home when this ship leaves the ground, and he has a feeling that he has flown this ship for a large number of hours.
It is amazing such style of writings made in a wartime official document.
BTW quotes from
PROOF DEPARTMENT TACTICAL COMBAT SECTION ARMY AIR FORCES PROVING GROUND COMMAND EGLIN FIELD, FLORIDA
FINAL REPORT ON TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-51 TYPE AIRPLANE 30 December 1942
"d. Pilots become completely at home in this aircraft immediately after the first take-off due to the remarkable sensitivity of control, simplicity of cockpit, and excellent flying characteristics.
"The flying characteristics of the P-51 are exceptionally good and the aircraft is very pleasant and easy to fly.
"A pilot flying this plane for the first time feels immediately at home when this ship leaves the ground, and he has a feeling that he has flown this ship for a large number of hours.
It is amazing such style of writings made in a wartime official document.
Last edited:
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
interesting P 39 stuff. was surprised to see it was used in the pacific to the extent it was. always hear about P 40 there but not too much about 39s.
P-39 Airacobra Aces of World War 2 - Google Books
P-39 Airacobra Aces of World War 2 - Google Books
Robert98948
Recruit
- 8
- Oct 19, 2019
Opps, didn't mean to repost. The easiest ww2 aircraft to fly is the De Havilland Mosquito. I think it's name is the reason it's forgotten. It has 2 Rolls-Royce Merlin liquid cooled engines. Over 400 mph with ease, fly and climb with 1 engine. It could carry a 4000lb.load. It was a fighter-bomber, 20mm cannon 4 50 cal. Machine guns and 8 rockets for ships. Only 11 lost in first 1000 sorties. You can let go of the stick while turning and it flies perfectly. It's a very easy stick to control. It was a British aircraft but the United States used this plane. Sadly there are few still flying. I think 3, I have been lucky enough to get a ride quite a few times since I maintain one that still flies.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Don't know of any Mossies armed with four 50 cals - 4 x 20mm and 4 x .303, yes.
And although nice to fly, it could turn and bite you fatefully,, if not careful with asymetric power settings.
And although nice to fly, it could turn and bite you fatefully,, if not careful with asymetric power settings.
I think that with an engine out they are very difficult to fly.
GregP
Major
I'll tell you what a very active P-51 pilot told me. I asked him how difficult it was to fly a P-51. His answer was, "How hard can it be? It was designed to be flown by 19-year-old kids with 250 hours in a T-6." What he meant, as he explained, is that it is NOT a SIMPLE aircraft to fly but, if you have 250 hours in a WWII advanced trainer, it also isn't too difficult as long as you follow the rules of P-51 flying.
I take that to mean that I, who has hours in Cessna and Pipers, would likely kill myself trying to fly one by myself without any type training, but that it isn't especially difficult if you have some decent experience in complex (meaning constant-speed prop and rectactable landing gear) aircraft with WWII fighter-type wing loading and some decent horsepower. I have leaned over a friend's shoulder and played with the control stick while in the back seat of a P-51, and it flew EXACTLY as I imagined with would. We were at cruise power.
So ... not much help, but also not totally unknown.
I take that to mean that I, who has hours in Cessna and Pipers, would likely kill myself trying to fly one by myself without any type training, but that it isn't especially difficult if you have some decent experience in complex (meaning constant-speed prop and rectactable landing gear) aircraft with WWII fighter-type wing loading and some decent horsepower. I have leaned over a friend's shoulder and played with the control stick while in the back seat of a P-51, and it flew EXACTLY as I imagined with would. We were at cruise power.
So ... not much help, but also not totally unknown.
