Easiest Warbird to Fly?

[jetcal1]

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 rectractable 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.

Funny how we see the same thing with 20 series Learjets, MU2's. It isn't too difficult as long as you follow the rules of insert name of airplane being flown here flying. (And stay proficient. Not just current)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Errrr, NO.

It was an easy aircraft to fly if you were properly TRAINED to fly it. It could take several hundred hours to get proficient in flying a high performance twin.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

Sorry but none of that shows that it was the easiest to fly. The fact that it has two engines already kind of takes it out of the running, especially for pilots with less experience.

And any aircraft trimmed properly by the pilot will do the same in a turn when taking your hands off of the control. I can do that with the Piper Cherokee I fly. It can fly perfect circles without losing or gaining altitude as long as I trim it correctly.

 

[michael rauls]

Fascinating thread. I have yet to read it all and someone my have already mentioned this but judging from what ive read pilots say independent of carrier oparations the F6f was apparently a dream to fly as were most of the early war Japanese types.

 

[pbehn]

I think, apart from all the take off and landing nonsense and that complicated stuff about stalling and snap rolls an' all, it is much easier flying a plane 40MPH faster than your opponent than 40MPH slower. You can then go back home and practice your three point landings.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think, apart from all the take off and landing nonsense and that complicated stuff about stalling and snap rolls an' all, it is much easier flying a plane 40MPH faster than your opponent than 40MPH slower. You can then go back home and practice your three point landings.

The part missing there - Emergencies. The thing that will kill you quicker than any enemy.

 

[pbehn]

The part missing there - Emergencies. The thing that will kill you quicker than any enemy.

True, but I assume those risks are evenly distributed, from what I have read there were some very dangerous planes for inexperienced pilots that were not at the top end of the performance envelope. Like the Dewotine 520 as an example.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

True, but I assume those risks are evenly distributed, from what I have read there were some very dangerous planes for inexperienced pilots that were not at the top end of the performance envelope. Like the Dewotine 520 as an example.

Not really - while some aircraft are more of a handful than others, a properly trained pilot should be considering emergency procedures during every aspect of flight. Now, during the heat of combat is this possible? Probably not, but that's where extensive training kicks in enabling a pilot to recognize an emergency while occupied with another task, but at the end of the day, easier said than done.

 

[pbehn]

Not really - while some aircraft are more of a handful than others, a properly trained pilot should be considering emergency procedures during every aspect of flight. Now, during the heat of combat is this possible? Probably not, but that's where extensive training kicks in enabling a pilot to recognize an emergency while occupied with another task, but at the end of the day, easier said than done.

That was actually my point, did anyone lobby for guns to be fitted to a Texan A-6 because it was easier to fly? To an inexperienced pilot all of these planes are potentially dangerous to an experienced pilot they are all pretty much the same but all pilots would prefer 40MPH on their opponent to just get out of a bad situation.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That was actually my point, did anyone lobby for guns to be fitted to a Texan A-6 because it was easier to fly? To an inexperienced pilot all of these planes are potentially dangerous to an experienced pilot they are all pretty much the same but all pilots would prefer 40MPH on their opponent to just get out of a bad situation.

Agree -

Actually T-6s were fitted with guns and used in primary gunnery training

 

[michael rauls]

Agree -

Actually T-6s were fitted with guns and used in primary gunnery training

And by New Zealand. I believe one actually shot down an A6m if memory serves.

 

[rednev]

And by New Zealand. I believe one actually shot down an A6m if memory serves.

dunno about a new zealand tr shooting down a zero but an australian wirraway did shoot down a zero. ( luckiest australian meets unluckiest japanese ).
And no the the wirri aint a t6 it may look like one and perform much the same but the basic structure is very different.

 

[michael rauls]

dunno about a new zealand tr shooting down a zero but an australian wirraway did shoot down a zero. ( luckiest australian meets unluckiest japanese ).
And no the the wirri aint a t6 it may look like one and perform much the same but the basic structure is very different.

I think your right it was Wirraway. The point of confusion being that several articles on the net say the Wirraway was a liscence built T6 so I thought they were one in the same plane.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think your right it was Wirraway. The point of confusion being that several articles on the net say the Wirraway was a liscence built T6 so I thought they were one in the same plane.

The Wirraway was based on the NA-16, the NA-16 evolved into T-6

 

[rednev]

The Wirraway was based on the NA-16, the NA-16 evolved into T-6

If the wirraway had come before the t6 it would be seen as a natural evolution but as it came after it is a bit of an oddity.
Lots of minor differences but the big one is the the fuselage wooden formers and fabric covering as opposed to the metal covered t6

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If the wirraway had come before the t6 it would be seen as a natural evolution but as it came after it is a bit of an oddity.
Lots of minor differences but the big one is the the fuselage wooden formers and fabric covering as opposed to the metal covered t6

No it didn't come after - read what I wrote. The Wirraway was based on the NA-16, the predecessor to the T-6. The NA-16 first flew in 1935.

"The Texan originated from the North American NA-16 prototype (first flown on April 1, 1935) which, modified as the NA-26, was submitted as an entry for a USAAC "Basic Combat" aircraft competition in March 1937. The first model went into production and 180 were supplied to the USAAC as the BC-1 and 400 to the RAF as the Harvard I. The US Navy received 16 modified aircraft, designated the SNJ-1, and a further 61 as the SNJ-2 with a different engine."

 

[swampyankee]

Easiest warbird to fly?

Piper L-4?

(ducks and sneaks out of room)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Easiest warbird to fly?

Piper L-4?

(ducks and sneaks out of room)

You might be right...lol

 

[Elmas]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

I almost had an opportunity to fly in a T-6, my friend Doug Gilliss had a lot of time in them, he said the same thing, said they could be squirly when taxiing in high winds (like any taildragger). We have to remember the T-6 was an advanced trainer and had to have some degree of instability to get students ready for the next level.