Easy or hard to fly? How to define it?

[pbehn]

On another thread I made the simple and possibly flippant comment that by the end of WW2 all frontline fighters were hard to fly.


Biff an ex Eagle pilots commented

I would clarify the differences between operating limitations and hard to fly. A fully loaded P-51B,C,D with full internal fuel has AOA limitations (maneuvering limits due to CG / Fuel combo) that when burned out left you with a great flying plane. The power went up yes as did the amount of rudder you had to put in when your left hand goes forward, however I don't know if I (opinion only) would mean it was tougher to fly.

I think a blanket way of perhaps looking at it is accident / loss rate due to pilot error. Tougher to fly would probably have higher accident rate, while easier to fly lower. The P-38 seems to be a "harder to fly" by merit of it's pilot workload to go from cruise mode to combat mode. Another example would be when a planes fuel system is not intuitive, or has a heavy workload that might have caused an accident or loss.

Shortround posted

Some planes (even light planes) of the 30s and 40s needed almost constant attention. Others would cruise along straight and level (when trimmed) with little attention from the pilot. Others had, shall we say, peculiarities in certain parts of the performance spectrum while being benign in others.
There was certainly a lot of variation and one has to be careful when sorting out comments. Like the P-40 was supposed to be one of (if not the best) handling American fighter and was more maneuverable than any other Army fighter, however it was often called the most difficult to land, or if a pilot could land the P-40 he could land any other Army fighter.

So, as the old joke says, if take-offs are optional but landings are mandatory, does that make the P-40 difficult to fly?


XBe02 posted

Spoken like a true "Experten", Biff! You might consider "difficult to fly" in terms of how big a jump a fighter was from the trainers new pilots had been flying; what kind of quirks, pitfalls, coffin corners, and "gotchas" it had. Things that had become habitual with experience, but would catch a newbie who hadn't yet developed the proper reflexes of body and mind. Several good examples are mentioned in posts above. You hit the nail on the head with cockpit standardization. Sadly overdue by 1945.
Cheers,
And Biff posted

The two guys I flew Eagles with who have or are flying P-51s both said the Mustang was much easier to fly than the T-6. Landing was mentioned as the biggest difference, but beyond that didn't get much detail. The Eagle was much easier to fly than the T-38, MUCH, and way safer too!

 

[pbehn]

From Miflyer

The P-39, P-40, P-43, and even the P-26 were used as "advanced trainers" between AT-6's and operational fighters. Units were formed up with the lower performance fighters in the USA and then transitioned to the real operational aircraft, sometimes overseas. The famous 357th flew P-39's before they got Mustangs.

The funny thing was that the P-39 was enjoyed by the really good pilots even though they never flew it in combat. The ratio of movement between the stick and the control surfaces was high; You did not have to move the stick far to get a big result. That could get you into trouble if you did not have the experience, but if you could handle it, it was like a sports car. Capt Eric Brown of the Fleet Air Arm got a P-39 in order to help evaluate the use of tricycle gear on carrier aircraft and considered the airplane to be a real ball to fly, even though he flew far superior fighters. When a Bell company pilot came over to England after the war and asked to fly the P-39 for old time's sake, Brown let him, only to have the Bell pilot climb out shakily and say that he had never had flown an airplane so worn out. They scrapped it, much to Brown's disappointment

 

[pbehn]

I saw a documentary on WW1 aces that in passing mentioned the training losses of British pilots. Over 8,000 were killed in training accidents or other accidents. After a scheme was introduced by Trenchard accidents reduced by 50% which proves that how dangerous a plane is depends on how much others care about actually giving a novice a fair chance of flying it.

Statistics (as suggested by Biff) don't really work because accident rates must be cross referenced to training. The P 51 comes out well as far as training and operational accidents goes but the A 36 which was an almost identical plane in most respects comes out very badly. Training people on dive bombers and serving as dive bombers is a much more risky activity all around

Loss rates of new Battle of Britain pilots were severely affected by pilot training, a pilots chances of surviving increased with every mission because after only 50 hrs training on type they were learning by doing.

 

[Shortround6]

Some of the WW I aircraft were truly vicious.
Despite having low stalling speeds the stalls were sometimes violent. The plane either flying or not flying, no mushing or easing into the stall. This is one reason that Handley Page developed slats/slots as did his German counterpart (who, as the story goes, first came up with his idea while in hospital bed recovering from aircraft crash)
Some trainers would almost fly themselves and were very stable and required rather hefty inputs on the controls to get them to change direction. A lot of the fighters (as opposed to the two seat observation aircraft) had much more sensitive controls and pilots transitioning from trainers to operational types over controlled them.
The Sopwith Camel was notorious and is said to have killed almost as many allied pilots as enemy ones. due to the torque of it's rotary engine and the short distance from the prop to the rear of the pilots seat with ALL weight concentrated between it was said to turn 270 degrees one way as fast as turning 90 degrees the other.
For a good part of WW I getting into a spin was regarded as fatal, it was only from 1917 on the British were teaching spin recovery.

 

[BiffF15]

Gents,

How about a criteria list of flying "qualities" and "pilot training"? I would list the following:

Training:
Thorough / in depth enough for expected needs
For fighter guys, having someone with recentcy of combat experience teaching in both advanced trainers and RTU (replacement training unit, AKA fighter school)
Theater Top Off Program (AKA Clobber College)

Aircraft:
Ease of operation (controls / switches / knobs) fall readily to hand and are not cumbersome or task loading (SA draining)
Standardized layout of flight and engine instruments (all were pseudo bad at this)
Flying qualities commensurate with expected use (this is a big one: does the plane advertise or warn of a limit being approached, buffet prior to stall, indications ammo is low
Known performance (good and bad traits), and how it compares to the enemy A/C (Sun Tzu anyone)

Tactics:
Has the training and A/C combo been blended to get the most out of the plane / flight / squadron / wing?
If not successful is there a feedback process to ID shortfalls and rectify them?

Just a beginning.

Spears or additions?

Cheers,
Biff

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... The funny thing was that the P-39 was enjoyed by the really good pilots even though they never flew it in combat."
Chuck Yeager among others.
'Winkle' Brown loved his and had great confidence in his which he regularly tossed around ... when he was forced to retire his Cobra he was given a Fieseler Storch as his ride

 

[Peter Gunn]

^^^ Still one of the best looking WWII fighters ever (P-39).

But to the point of the thread, I find it amazing that even in 1945, cockpit layout/instrument standardization was still in its infancy. No wonder there were so many training or familiarization flight accidents.

 

[MIflyer]

I think that aircraft that are easy to fly are generally described as "forgiving." I fly the most forgiving aircraft ever built the 1946 Erco 415C. Stall it and it recovers all by itself, even if you do not release the back pressure. Stall it and then roll it into a steep turn and it does the same thing, just at a higher airspeed. You can get the controls crossed and spin it because there are no rudder pedals. The angle of incidence of the wing is such that it will roll right down on the runway at full power and not lift off until you pull back on the wheel. Landing, it is the same way; if you lack the skill set it down at stall speed, put on on the runway at high speed and step on the brakes. Ease of operation and safety of flight was the key design objective of the airplane, more so than performance.

But the USAAF flew the PT-22 in WWII and it was based on the Ryan ST. The wings were swept back in order to screw up the handling characteristics. They wanted a student to stall and spin, so he would learn and because if he did not they'd just as soon he kill himself in something cheaper than a P-39.

On the other hand, the F6F was larger, faster, far more powerful, climbed better, carried much more ordnance, was tougher, and had more range than the F4F it replaced. But it was easier to fly. In the words of one Grumman engineer, "We designed an old man's airplane." Young kids could learn to fly it easily and fly it on and off carriers. Some pilots describe the airplane as practically landing itself. When some of those kids got significant hours in the F6F and then encountered the F4F they thought it was terrific, "A sports car whereas the F6F was like a family sedan." The Wildcat was wild, harder to fly than the Hellcat, and not as good a weapon, either. The F8F was a whole'nuther story, more like the Wildcat.

A friend of mine told me that WWII ferry pilots were told not to fly a P-51 with any fuel in the fuselage tank behind the cockpit. He found out about that restriction when he was called to pick up a P-51 that a ferry pilot had left at an airfield. The ferry pilot explained that they could not fly with fuel in the fuselage tank and although it was empty when he took off, it kept filling up in flight! The pressure carb used in the Packard Merlin returned excess fuel to one of the main fuel tanks (which you had to burn down right after takeoff to prevent the fuel returned from the carb from being vented overboard). But for some reason the factory had hooked the return line to the fuselage tank on that particular Mustang. Clearly the P-51 was considered safe for a low time pilot to fly - but only if the fuselage tank was empty in order to prevent too far aft a CG.

 

[pbehn]

Wes,

The two guys I flew Eagles with who have or are flying P-51s both said the Mustang was much easier to fly than the T-6. Landing was mentioned as the biggest difference, but beyond that didn't get much detail. The Eagle was much easier to fly than the T-38, MUCH, and way safer too!

Cheers,
Biff

Interesting Biff, but isn't it the case that having trained on a T-38 you have learned skills that allow you to fly the Eagle safely. In the way that a new Ferrari is undoubtedly safer than a Fiat Lupo but if you make a mistake in a Ferrari it is more likely to kill you and certainly will cost many times more. Your friends flying P51s are flying them in the best condition, not loaded up with guns ammunition and fuel internal and external.

 

[BiffF15]

Interesting Biff, but isn't it the case that having trained on a T-38 you have learned skills that allow you to fly the Eagle safely. In the way that a new Ferrari is undoubtedly safer than a Fiat Lupo but if you make a mistake in a Ferrari it is more likely to kill you and certainly will cost many times more. Your friends flying P51s are flying them in the best condition, not loaded up with guns ammunition and fuel internal and external.

Pbehn,

I learned high speed flying, advanced formation, instruments etc. on the T38 and yes those transitioned into the Eagle. However, I could have went straight into the Eagle, or flown something else and still gained those skills. The T-38 is fun, and I would love to own one. But, it's not a forgiving plane in the pattern and you must be fairly cautious with it. One could make equal mistakes in the T38 as well as the Eagle and you would be lucky to survive in the Talon and the Eagle would give you much more advanced warning and then still shrug it off.

An example would be transitioning from super to subsonic while pulling G. In the T38 you had to be careful not pull as the airflow over the horizontal tails changed so abruptly you could over G or severely damage the plane. Not so in the Eagle. Pull, listen for the G limit (beeper in headset) and continue fighting.

T38 engine blades are bendable with your fingers. Not good in FOD / ICE scenarios. The US Eagles all have Pratts, which can eat a lot of stuff and keep on working.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[parsifal]

I would have thought a major factor is whether the aircraft being flown, if you make a mistake, will let you live after that mistake.

 

[pbehn]

Gents,

How about a criteria list of flying "qualities" and "pilot training"? I would list the following:

Training:
Thorough / in depth enough for expected needs
For fighter guys, having someone with recentcy of combat experience teaching in both advanced trainers and RTU (replacement training unit, AKA fighter school)
Theater Top Off Program (AKA Clobber College)

Aircraft:
Ease of operation (controls / switches / knobs) fall readily to hand and are not cumbersome or task loading (SA draining)
Standardized layout of flight and engine instruments (all were pseudo bad at this)
Flying qualities commensurate with expected use (this is a big one: does the plane advertise or warn of a limit being approached, buffet prior to stall, indications ammo is low
Known performance (good and bad traits), and how it compares to the enemy A/C (Sun Tzu anyone)

Tactics:
Has the training and A/C combo been blended to get the most out of the plane / flight / squadron / wing?
If not successful is there a feedback process to ID shortfalls and rectify them?

Just a beginning.

Spears or additions?

Cheers,
Biff

Just a few thoughts.

1. How easily a pilot can be trained for a situation. With a plane that stalls or spins readily but cannot recover you have an obvious problem. Standardisation is an obvious plus, but anything new can catch even the experienced out, I am thinking of things like Polish pilots not lowering the landing gear and Spitfire pilots getting caught out by the opposite rotation of a Griffon.

2. How far the plane had diverged from the original design and design role. The original Lancaster prototype was said to be a beautiful plane to fly, with only a pilot, engineer and technician, no bombs, turrets and half a tank of fuel it was comparatively powerful and agile. A complete difference to a Lancaster with front and rear turret full crew and a Grand Slam strapped underneath which had to be brought back if not used by the single pilot who has been flying for six hours. Same for P 51s loaded up with fuel and Typhoons with armour and bombs. All planes seemed to be loaded up to their absolute limit. Perhaps the worst case was the Bf109. For experts who grew up with it each new variant was just a more powerful version with some new quirks but a completely different proposition for a novice pilot who had in any case fewer hours on less powerful trainers.

 

[pbehn]

I would have thought a major factor is whether the aircraft being flown, if you make a mistake, will let you live after that mistake.

I agree but after reading about training in WW1 I think they were testing out a Darwinian theory, those with an aptitude for flying were known as survivors. I wonder if the push to reduce accidents was because of the loss of lives or the cost of machines.

 

[MIflyer]

In WWI they did not even have features like washout on the outer wings to reduce the chance of stalls at high angles of attack. They did not even understand stalls very well. The rotary engines used by many of the airplanes added a true gyroscopic factor (not just P-factor). And rotary engines could not be throttled very well and so had "blip" switches that enabled the pilot to turn off the ignition momentarily to enable them to land. And finally, the most "reliable" engines of the time in fact were not very. It was the technology of the time that drove the mishap rate.

 

[pbehn]

In WWI they did not even have features like washout on the outer wings to reduce the chance of stalls at high angles of attack. They did not even understand stalls very well. The rotary engines used by many of the airplanes added a true gyroscopic factor (not just P-factor). And rotary engines could not be throttled very well and so had "blip" switches that enabled the pilot to turn off the ignition momentarily to enable them to land. And finally, the most "reliable" engines of the time in fact were not very. It was the technology of the time that drove the mishap rate.

In part, but the Germans had approximately a quarter of the training losses that the UK had. In the early days pilots flew solo frequently with only 1 to 3 hours flying under instruction and then were sent to the front with 20 hours. They were in effect teaching themselves to fly.
Major Smith=Barry and the "Gosport system" changed things and reduced accidents by 50%.

 

[The Basket]

One aircraft that's interesting is the early Gloster Meteor 2 seater. If you lost an engine on take off then basically your pooped. Too underpowered and not enough rudder as the yaw got too much.
Add the usual poor British weather and low fuel reserves and the Meatbox was high on losses.

 

[Ascent]

One aircraft that's interesting is the early Gloster Meteor 2 seater. If you lost an engine on take off then basically your pooped. Too underpowered and not enough rudder as the yaw got too much.
Add the usual poor British weather and low fuel reserves and the Meatbox was high on losses.

Strangely enough there were more pilots killed practicing for single engine takeoff and landing then were killed in real emergencies. It was the 50's before they looked at the statistics and actually realised that and changed the training.

 

[BiffF15]

I would have thought a major factor is whether the aircraft being flown, if you make a mistake, will let you live after that mistake.

Parsifal,

That is an excellent summation of what I was trying to say. I look at an aircrafts performance as a box. Some are rectangular, some are long, some are short, etc. It's the edges and the approach to them that are what defines a lot of Flying characteristics. In an F16 as you approach and enter a stall the plane feels no different, and it's only noticeable by watching the instruments. The Eagle gives you many noises and buffeting on a wide scale as you approach the stall. It's easier to fly eyes out due to that however the F16 has a larger flight envelope / box. It's edges are defined by a computer (actually several) while the Eagle has an edge defined by a paper chart and pilot feel. They may be exceeded but will cause damage to A/C parts and pieces.

The Eagle is the last of the old school gunfighters and the Viper the first of the new.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[MIflyer]

Strangely enough there were more pilots killed practicing for single engine takeoff and landing then were killed in real emergencies

Statistically, with light aircraft, you are more likely to be killed in a twin engined airplane that loses an engine than in a single engined airplane that loses its only engine. The 2nd engine often merely ensures a delayed arrival at the crash site.

 

[davparlr]

BiffF15 post

I learned high speed flying, advanced formation, instruments etc. on the T38 and yes those transitioned into the Eagle. However, I could have went straight into the Eagle, or flown something else and still gained those skills. The T-38 is fun, and I would love to own one. But, it's not a forgiving plane in the pattern and you must be fairly cautious with it. One could make equal mistakes in the T38 as well as the Eagle and you would be lucky to survive in the Talon and the Eagle would give you much more advanced warning and then still shrug it off.

The T-38 was designed and bought when the AF pilots were transitioning into F-100s, F-101s, F-102s, F-104s (!), F-105s, and F-106s, aircraft in themselves with issues. If you were transitioning to one of these, you certainly wanted to train in the T-38 vs. a T-33 before you did. In my day, fighter pilots went into F-4s. I don't remember the T-38 as being difficult to fly. Very agile. Stall characteristics was benign. Acro was straight forward and stable (had to be, the Thunderbirds flew them). With no wings to speak of, airspeed always needed minding, especially on final. You never wanted to get behind the power curve in that era of high performance jets. Good power response for the day. I flew the T-38 47 years ago and those very same aircraft are still training pilots at Vance AFB, and will so for quite a few years yet. Of course, I never flew a fighter, but rather ended up flying another great airplane, the C-141. Different world.

An example would be transitioning from super to subsonic while pulling G. In the T38 you had to be careful not pull as the airflow over the horizontal tails changed so abruptly you could over G or severely damage the plane. Not so in the Eagle. Pull, listen for the G limit (beeper in headset) and continue fighting.

Because of its responsiveness, it was easy to over G. But, it is obviously a tough bird. No beep, just a feeling in your gut every fighter pilot has had through the ages, real man stuff! Lol.

T38 engine blades are bendable with your fingers. Not good in FOD / ICE scenarios. The US Eagles all have Pratts, which can eat a lot of stuff and keep on working.

Yep, like razor blades.

The Eagle is the last of the old school gunfighters and the Viper the first of the new.

I think the F-4 was the last old school US fighter. The F-15 was a transitional fighter. The F-15 did not have fly-by-wire technology the F-16 has, but it did have a lot of gizmos and thingamabobs to provide limits, ease workload and effectiveness, as you have mentioned.

Today, the ease of operation and desired maneuverability are established by simulation and programmed in. I remember when we were working with the full motion B-2 simulator during display work, which I was responsible for, there was talk about working on aircraft dynamics in a simulator that have software compatible with the flight control software and, when the simulator was satisfactorily defined, the software would be transferred to the flight control computers. We were not at that level however and the simulator software had to be modified to meet flight control requirements and then installed. Basically, the pilot now flies just the autopilot, which actually flies the plane.