Easy or hard to fly? How to define it?

[The Basket]

Another story with the early Meteors is a new pilot went to his squadron and asked the CO about practicing single engine landings. The CO replied they do glide in dead stick landings so engine out is not an issue.
With aircraft like the Gnat and Lightning with emergency fuel even before you take off then any bad weather is a nightmare.

 

[MIflyer]

I just got a new book in, "Flying to the Limit - testing WWII Single Engined Fighter Aircraft." Have not looked at it much yet, but I think it will be very interesting.

 

[Glider]

My experience is on gliders but the basic question what is easy to fly is a simple question but such a complex one to reply too.

The only simple answer I can think of is 'is it predictable' and does what I want it to do. This covers all types but if I could concentrate on one category, trainers it might help.

So for instance the best initial trainer I have used is a K13. This is light on the controls but needed care to get the best out of it, it didn't bite just 'nibbled you a bit' if you made a mistake, enough to get your attention. It was a good glider to learn to spin as it responded well to all situations. It also had a reasonable performance and you could thermal it with ease.

Others I used to any degree were
The Capstan which was safe (you could put it in a vertical dive and pull the airbrakes without it falling apart) but lacked performance and was good for learning circuits and the early stages of learning.

A K21 which was the follow on from the K13. A much better performance all round but as a trainer it had a major problem in that it couldn't be put in a spin. If you want to start learning aerobatics and cross country then this is the one for you as you were safe but I always wanted the edge which was missing

A Twin Astir. This I disliked as it was very heavy on the controls and you felt as if you were hauling it around the sky, but it was fast and good in the climb. It was actually good for learning how to race as you don't thermal much and speed with climb is more important

Duo Discus. Modern glider ideal for cross country training ( used by the USAF ) limited aerobatic abilities

A Fox which is a specialised aerobatic trainer stressed to +9 -6. As you would expect it's sensitive, rolls well and a joy to throw around (think Pitts Special) but you would never try and thermal in it or try to travel a distance in it.

A rookie would find a Fox almost impossible to fly and an experienced pilot a Capstan difficult as they would want it to do more than it can. A cross country pilot could forgive the Twin Astir is heaviness on the controls whereas I liked the challenge of thermalling and would avoid it if at all possible. An aerobatic pilot would love the Fox and the K21

They all have their strengths and weaknesses but are only difficult to fly if you try to do something that they were not really designed to

 

[MIflyer]

Talk about difficult to fly! I went up in a Blanik, and after we released the tow rope and did a hard 270 degree climbing turn it seems that the pilot of the Scout towplane (a Navy guy waiting for his training slot) decided to practice a power on stall. He forgot to latch his harness properly and when the stall broke he got thrown up to the top of the cabin and let go of the controls. The Scout promptly entered a spin. So there we were at 1500 ft AGL in the glider and got to see the Scout spin past us maybe 50 feet away.

I knew right then those people were crazy. And I used to think the guys with the F-105's I was working on were nuts; at least they had ejection seats.

 

[The Basket]

One aircraft that always interested me was the MiG-23 Flogger.
It was said to be awful but as long as you flew it by the numbers it was safe.
It's swing wings made take off and landing far easier than earlier jets so most crashing happens on landing and take off so that's where the safety is most important.

 

[fastmongrel]

Easy to fly = you are able to trim it hands off and throttle the engine to a pleasant thrum, watch the scenery go by and land refreshed and ready to go again

Hard to fly = you are constantly juggling flight and engine controls the engine seems to be extra noisy (did that sound like a tappet), you dont see anything out of the cockpit not even that big cloud with a ski lift on the side, you land shattered sweat stained and wonder why you didnt take that job as an insurance salesman

 

[Glider]

Talk about difficult to fly! I went up in a Blanik, and after we released the tow rope and did a hard 270 degree climbing turn it seems that the pilot of the Scout towplane (a Navy guy waiting for his training slot) decided to practice a power on stall. He forgot to latch his harness properly and when the stall broke he got thrown up to the top of the cabin and let go of the controls. The Scout promptly entered a spin. So there we were at 1500 ft AGL in the glider and got to see the Scout spin past us maybe 50 feet away.

I knew right then those people were crazy. And I used to think the guys with the F-105's I was working on were nuts; at least they had ejection seats.

I learnt to fly in the Navy and the gliding club was just that, a club with its own rules. In the club I was an Air Experience Instructor which meant that I did that, basic circuits and jolly flights. In the navy I was an apprentice Artificer which was the considered the lowest of the low as we had to complete five years of training before getting any real rank. I was also pretty young only just 18 at the time
A number of Midshipmen turned up to try gliding, they were at Culdrose to learn how to fly helicopters. One of them was less than impressed to be given to me to show him the ropes, he knew it all, had a PPL with a decent number of hours, how difficult could it be, you get the picture.
After a very detailed ground briefing which he didn't pay much attention too we went to the glider. The air tow took us up to 6000 ft and after demonstrating some of the peculiarities of flying a glider and taking into account his experience I gave him control. As soon as I asked him to make a turn he was in trouble and within about 90 seconds we were in an incipient spin. At approx. 4,000ft we were in a spin and he was panicking, I took control, left it rotate one more time and we recovered and landed.

The CFI who had seen the difficulty I was having with this guy on the ground took me on one side and asked why hadn't I let it rotate twice before pulling out. The midshipman didn't come back and speaking to the others it transpired that he was a pain in the proverbial and they didn't mind at all, particularly after most of them went solo.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Whether an aircraft is easy or hard to fly may also be relative. Any pilot can learn how to best fly any aircraft, and get the most out of it.

Not saying some aircraft did not have better qualities than others, just that every aircraft has its quirks. Some more than others, and every aircraft has it's envelope that it is best operated in.

 

[Barrett]

IMO "easy to fly" translates as focused on the mission rather than the airplane. Many knowledgable comments here so I'd just say that inherent stability is a huge part of the equation. I grew up flying airplanes older than I was, mainly biplane trainers, and got limited time in SNJ/AT-6s and our SBD. The Dauntless of course had stability in its DNA, implanted by Ed Heinemann (a wonderful gent.) As a dive bomber, stability and "pointability" were essential. (Ailerons were light throughout the maneuvers we ever did.) But as a carrier plane, stability in landing also was important.

Ref. the T-6 v P-51: obviously the 'stang's wider gear was a factor despite higher landing speeds. But it's still true 70 years later: if you can land a T-6, you're an aviator.

Fourth-generation "fighterjets" are intended to be easily flown (within broad limits) so pilots/crews can concentrate on the mission. I did not fully appreciate how well designers had done their job until I flew an F-16 simulator at Luke. I'd been out of the cockpit for many years, and though I'd cajoled the AF into an Eagle ride, that was mainly as a passenger. Dang if I didn't land the Viper (intact) on first attempt, though technique needed improvement. From habit I flared rather than flying the thing onto the ground, and used almost every yard of a 10,000 ft runway.

 

[Zipper730]

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)

I would never have thought of it being AoA limits so much as the CG making it very twitchy. But, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong...

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.

Plus I wouldn't be surprised if some planes pitched up violently, or just dropped without any pitching

This is one reason that Handley Page developed slats/slots as did his German counterpart

To reduce the amount of stalling and improve stall-characteristics?

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.

Is this why there are now fighter trainers?

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.

Yeah, the rotary-engines were crazy awful: I don't even remember all the bizarre quirks those things produced, pitch-up and you yaw/roll left, push down and you roll-right, and something strange about the rudder that I forgot.

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.

Saved a lot of lives though

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.

Possible, but I wouldn't consider it a smart move -- there are many people who will learn quite a lot if they survive long enough!

I wonder if the push to reduce accidents was because of the loss of lives or the cost of machines.

I'm not entirely sure...

 

[pbehn]

I would never have thought of it being AoA limits so much as the CG making it very twitchy. But, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong...

Plus I wouldn't be surprised if some planes pitched up violently, or just dropped without any pitching
To reduce the amount of stalling and improve stall-characteristics?
Is this why there are now fighter trainers?
Yeah, the rotary-engines were crazy awful: I don't even remember all the bizarre quirks those things produced, pitch-up and you yaw/roll left, push down and you roll-right, and something strange about the rudder that I forgot.
Saved a lot of lives though

Possible, but I wouldn't consider it a smart move -- there are many people who will learn quite a lot if they survive long enough!
I'm not entirely sure...

You've done it again Zipper, cutting multiple posts together!

 

[Zipper730]

You've done it again Zipper, cutting multiple posts together!

Maybe I did make it a little long, but it would require too many posts to cover everything. I'll try and keep it down in size...

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.

So the only standardization up to this point was very basic (throttle on the left side if a fighter, in the middle if a bomber or transport; rudder peddles at the end of each leg; stick or yolk for pitch and roll control), and basic guidelines for instrumentation set-up?

 

[pbehn]

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.

The envelope of an aircrafts performance is always based on weight, unfortunately as soon as a design became a plane everyone and anyone wanted to add something, fuel armament or just a new gizmo like a warning device. To increase the weight new suspensions and tyres were developed and much research done to determine the limits of the envelope. The P 51 frequently figures in many discussions on this forum, hardly a surprise because it was a great plane. Sometimes the discussion is about take off and landing on grass or concrete/tarmac at other times it is about the range. However once you load up the P51 with a war time loading of full internal fuel with rear tank and maximum external tanks it is a completely different animal. I don't know anything about USA flying regulations but I suspect the owner of a P51 with both internal tanks full and two circa 100 gallon drop tanks would be laughed at if he wanted to make a public display taking off from grass.

 

[Zipper730]

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.

Which was dangerous combined with the fact that it had almost no stall response: They actually told pilots not to engage in turning fights at low altitudes because if you over-did it, you'd just go into the ground before you could recover.

Those with skill seemed to know how far they could push it.

I think that aircraft that are easy to fly are generally described as "forgiving."

Yeah, I think a good summary would be the combination of performance (and in the right areas), human factors, and forgiveness.

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.

How do you yaw it without pedals?

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.

They actually deliberately made it harder to handle?

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.

The F6F was almost totally a better aircraft than the F4U except in terms of speed (which was at least partially due to position errors), and roll-rate.

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.

The shift in the C/L forward would make it significantly more pitch sensitive?

 

[pbehn]

Maybe I did make it a little long, but it would require too many posts to cover everything. I'll try and keep it down in size..

Zipper, instead of firing off posts like a machine gun why not use google, I do admire you questioning a trained combat pilot on his posts though

 

[BiffF15]

I would never have thought of it being AoA limits so much as the CG making it very twitchy. But, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong...

Zipper,

We will have to get Bills input to this for correct interpretation. However, i'm speaking about AoA limits from a current perspective. In the Eagle no matter the CG, or load out, the limitation was expressed in AoA for most things that would result in loss of control. For the Eagle it was referred to as Cockpit AoA as the gauge in the cockpit was not a true representation but something Mac D wanted the pilot to have.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Zipper730]

Zipper,

We will have to get Bills input to this for correct interpretation. However, i'm speaking about AoA limits from a current perspective. In the Eagle no matter the CG, or load out, the limitation was expressed in AoA for most things that would result in loss of control. For the Eagle it was referred to as Cockpit AoA as the gauge in the cockpit was not a true representation but something Mac D wanted the pilot to have.

Now that's something I never even would have thought of... I just thought of AoA as the angle of the wing to the airflow.

That like totally blew my mind maaan.... *does his Tommy Chong hippy voice*

 

[pbehn]

Zipper,

We will have to get Bills input to this for correct interpretation. However, i'm speaking about AoA limits from a current perspective. In the Eagle no matter the CG, or load out, the limitation was expressed in AoA for most things that would result in loss of control. For the Eagle it was referred to as Cockpit AoA as the gauge in the cockpit was not a true representation but something Mac D wanted the pilot to have.

Cheers,
Biff

From what I have read not only the change to CoG but the increase in weight of rear and external tanks meant that the performance in all respects was marginal even a sudden increase or decrease on the throttle could cause a stall snap roll or other "nasty".

 

[MIflyer]

You don't yaw an Ercoupe. If there is a crosswind you land it in a crab, like a T-38 or Boeing 707.

Yep, they made the PT-22 harder to fly. They also made the PT-13 and PT-17 harder to fly by adding a stall strip along the top wing leading edge.

I think the F4U could carry more ordnance than the F6F.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

For the Eagle it was referred to as Cockpit AoA as the gauge in the cockpit was not a true representation but something Mac D wanted the pilot to have.

During my brief stint with Eastern Airlines as a sim tech, I had several conversations with a MacD engineer who was there to support the sim's visual system. He had been working in SIM development for an "advanced fighter" and he used the term "cockpit AOA" to describe an AOA indicator corrected to compensate for limitations imposed by configuration, MAC CG, mach #, G load, thrust level, and who knows what else. Apparently it was supposed to show the pilot what percentage of the usable AOA range under instantaneous flight conditions he was at.

STANDARDIZATION: I had the opportunity to sit in the cockpit of a privately owned early model Corsair with a largely unmodified instrument panel. Forward visibility sucked, to put it mildly, and imagining trying to fly it on the gauges was unsettling. I learned to fly instruments in the more or less "modern" era (classic T instrument layout, visually representative AI, DG, turn coordnator, and NAV indicators). This Corsair had an old style white on black "dash-dot-dash and line" artificial horizon with a big caging knob, a counter-intuitive edge card Directional Gyro (another big knob), a hand crank RDF and a legacy HF AN range receiver, all randomly scattered about the panel. I tried to imagine my instrument scan while attempting to wrestle this coffin down through a turbulent night approach to minimums while trying to blend dot-dash and dash-dot into a steady tone. No wonder they had a high loss rate. I salute those who did fly those dinosaurs.
Cheers,
Wes