Easiest Warbird to Fly?

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


Pilots shouldn't have to deal with badly behaved aircraft; they already have enemy combatants trying to kill them.
 
Last edited:
michael rauls said:
As a side note I think the ki100 is one of the realy under appreciated planes pf the war.
Click to expand...

Or one of the most overrated, depending how you see it. Having a much better power-to-weight ratio than its predecessor, the Ki-61, it outclassed the latter in every aspect of dogfight other than speed and dive I suppose, because the radial engine was much draggier.
They say it could fight a Mustang, but I think only if the Pony pilot plays by the Ki-100 strength.
But which pilot at this stage of war would engage in a low-speed dogfight with supremely agile yet slow Japanese fighters?
At this stage of war anything reliable and easy to maintain and fly would be hailed as outstanding by Japanese personell.
I think the Ki-100 was able to outfight the Hellcat, against faster US fighters I really have my doubts.
Was it really the best Japanese fighter?
 
swampyankee said:
Pilot's shouldn't have to deal with badly behaved aircraft; they already have enemy combatants trying to kill them.
Click to expand...
I agree, but was making a different point. A loss rate of 0.007% is 7/100,000 missions. The bomber credited with the most missions was Mosquito F-Freddie which completed 213 missions. Some of the raids I quoted above had loss rates of 25% and 33%.
 

I understand it was quite effective against the F6F and the B-29 which implies a rather large performance envelope since the two allied aircraft mentioned operated at significantly different altitudes. Against a Mustang? Probably not so hot. Still a decent last ditch airplane that is under appreciated.
 
From what I read the easiest warbird to fly in terms of actually a novice actually flying with minimum training would be Fairey Swordfish.
 
It's funny you chose the F6F, Spicemart, since the Hellcat had the best air-to-air kill ratio of ANY fighter series used by the U.S.A. in the entire war by a rather wide margin and made more aces than any other mount. The Ki-100 was maneuverable, but the F6F was faster, climbed better, was WAY better armored, and was our best fighter at turning (not so much rolling). Many say the FM-2 had the best kill ratio, but the FM-2 properly belongs with the F4F family of aircraft. Taken as a series, the F4F wasn't even close to the F6F, and it also never fought in the major front-line battles. It gained a great reputation in mop-up operations from Jeep carriers in places the main fleet had bypassed. These small bases normally didn't have the cream of the crop of Japanese opposition to start with and, once bypassed, weren't a major threat to anybody who was reasonably alert.

The F6F-5 was some 30 mph faster and the F6F-3 was maybe 20 - 25 mph faster than the Ki-100.

The Ki-100 had a slight armament advantage with 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 50-cal, but not a large advantage. A hit on the F6F would result in some major damage, but so would a full volley of 6 * 50-cal versus the Ki-100. The thing to remember is that the 20 mm cannon and the two MG did NOT have the same ballistics. If you were hitting with the 50s, you were missign with the 20s and vice verse. It would have been MUCH better to have four 20s.

All this has been discussed at length in here and I'm not saying anything you didn't already know. Cheers.
 

Take issue that Japanes did not have the cream of the Crop.
Their Fighter Pilots were very good throughout the war.
Just not enough of them and survivors were shipped back to Japan.
Leaving a ton of perfectly good aircraft behind.

FM2 did meet fighter Japanese Navy opposition and against the Zeke was a good match.
It was agile and no slouch as most of the engagements were at low and mid altitudes.
FM2 had the 1350 HP radial engine with taller Tail and Rudder.
Would give the Corsair or F6F fits in a dogfight.
 
Spitfire easiest by far !
 
My guess would be an Me-262, or possibly a Gloster Meteor.
When the jets started to replace the prop aircraft, after the war, a lot of pilots exclaimed how easy the jets were to fly, due to their simplicity.
Stick, rudder and the Go-Lever. No mixture controls or prop settings to worry about, just shove the throttle forward (or back) if you wanna go faster.
Only two jets I know that actually served during the war were the Schwable and the Meteor.

Elvis
 

They might be easy to fly, by a really experienced pilot, but managing the engines was pretty sporty, from what I've read. I think the early jets were pretty troublesome in that regard. The P-80 Lockheed DID kill some pilots while they were learning engine management, and the throttle response wasn't the best, and I'm sure the Swallow was no different. Dunno enough about the Meteor to say anything.
 
I had worked with Corky Meyers on a couple of projects. During one of our conversations I asked him that very question since he was a chief test pilot for Grumman aircraft corporation.

He said unequivocally it was the F6F hellcat because we design for Young pilots with less than 200 hours of flying time.v during one of our conversations I asked him that very question since he was a lead test pilots for Grumman aircraft corporation and did much of the testing and development on the F6F.

He said, unequivocally, it was the F6F hellcat because we designed for young pilots with less than 200 hours of total flying time. He had flown most of the aircraft on the list of this question, and he thought they were very fine aircraft is their own right (especially the Spitfire); but from the standpoint of ease of flight it was the F6F- cockpit size, instrument panel/cockpit layout, ground and deck handling, control balance, stall characteristics, etc. All which are considerations for "piloting" a bird.
 
Haven't had time to skim the entire thread but it looks almost entirely fighter-centric.
The SBD was "a baby buggy of a carrier plane." When we started flying ours, the conventional wisdom was "Flies like a big SNJ." Which was largely true.
 
glennasher said:
They might be easy to fly, by a really experienced pilot, but managing the engines was pretty sporty, from what I've read.
Click to expand...

I think you read some over-exaggerations. It's true that if you slammed the throttles in either direction you could do some pretty bad things to the turbine, at least a flame out, but that was typical through out the first and second generation of jet fighters and early trainers. Once you learn and understand the acceleration and deceleration characteristics, turbine aircraft are real easy to fly. As an old instructor once told me about flying the L29, "It takes a bit to spool up but it also take a bit to slow it down, you just have to stay ahead of the jet." I found this to be typical on some the jet trainers I had the opportunity to fly (L29, L39, T-33, MiG-15UTI and Fouga Magister)

I'll let the more experienced jet-jocks chime in on this anytime.
 
Not sure about the easiest to fly, but I spoke with an old F4U Corsair driver and he said it waz a bit$h to land. He was terrified in any kinda crosswind & said because of the long cowling, it was tough to taxi because the tailwheel was cable controlled, at slow speeds it was impossible to S turn.
 
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
1K
Admiral Beez
A
S
How feasible would it have been in reality for the fictitious "J7W2" to actually be built and fly?
Replies
0
Views
599
Spindash64
S
C
What aircraft did 10 and 11./JG 51 fly in January and February 1944?
Replies
5
Views
549
CHen10
C
Favorite Aircraft? Doesnt have to be just one.
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Time from 1st Aircraft to 1,000th Aircraft
Replies
15
Views
1K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register