Love Those P-39 Ads!
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Production of the 9,600 P-39s ended in May 1944, between 1943 and 1945 there were 275 G-55s built between 1943 and 45. A plane being easy to fly is a relative term, and being easy to fly is desireable but not essential. The Spitfire started off very easy to fly and became more and more of a beast, by 1945 no propeller driven single engine fighter was easy to fly.
- Thread starter
- #43
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I recall reading that a highly experienced group of BF-109 pilots was retreating West away from the advancing Soviets, flying BF-109G. When they got to Hungary they encountered the first concrete runway any of them had seen in over 2 years; they had been operating off of grass and dirt. Concrete runways are tricky with that narrow track angled gear with its very skinny tires. Something like 27 out of 30 of them crashed on landing.
Grass lets you slide sideways without catastrophic results. A friend of mine had a Waco 10 that used F4F Wildcat wheel hubs modified to take reproduction 1920's automobile tires. He vastly preferred grass for landing.
Grass lets you slide sideways without catastrophic results. A friend of mine had a Waco 10 that used F4F Wildcat wheel hubs modified to take reproduction 1920's automobile tires. He vastly preferred grass for landing.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Hmm... Well I really didn't want to instigate a P-39 v MC 205/G 55 debate, I was merely questioning the use of the statement:
"Is this trash the technical wonder of the Allies?"
I took it to be rather apocryphal, but if anyone (especially a skilled, veteran fighter pilot) HAD said it, I'd assume it was in jest, simply because there were far better examples flying around... literally.
I was finding it hard to believe a veteran Italian pilot would say that especially after having possibly had to throw down on some Jugs or Lightnings let alone Mustangs.
"Is this trash the technical wonder of the Allies?"
I took it to be rather apocryphal, but if anyone (especially a skilled, veteran fighter pilot) HAD said it, I'd assume it was in jest, simply because there were far better examples flying around... literally.
I was finding it hard to believe a veteran Italian pilot would say that especially after having possibly had to throw down on some Jugs or Lightnings let alone Mustangs.
Last edited:
Pbehn,
A question I would ask is what constituted a "hard to fly" rating / ranking on a late war SE fighter? I'm not attacking, just wish to define it in some way. I would think with automatic cooling doors, automatic superchargers, automatic boost control they would have been a bit easier to fly (regardless of no standardized instrument layout that was just starting). Also, there weren't many two seaters which would have been an indication of "tougher to fly". More adverse yaw due to bigger props / more power means more options available in a fight, which could mean tougher to fly.
Just asking to get some opinions.
Cheers,
Biff
Good point Biff. I was referring to the condition of planes like the Typhoon and P51 as they were used in WW2. That is with a full load of fuel, oil, weapons, armour, external tanks etc. I read one Typhoon pilot who used to set off in the direction of the control tower knowing the swing on take off would pull the plane around into the desired direction for take off. A fully laden P51 was good for take off and climb only almost anything below 10,000ft and a minimum airspeed was risky.
Pbehn,
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.
I'm just putting words down on paper / pixels, or thinking out loud.
Comments?
Cheers,
Biff
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.
I'm just putting words down on paper / pixels, or thinking out loud.
Comments?
Cheers,
Biff
I am thinking,,,,,,,,,,,,, it hurts.
Shortround6
Major General
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?
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?
- Thread starter
- #50
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
A friend of mine, Lt Col Ward Duncan, was maintenance chief of the 9th PRS in WWII (see: 9th PHOTO RECON SQUADRON) He told me of numerous cases in which pilots flying the F-4 and F-5 versions of the Lightning got into trouble due to the complexities of operating the airplane. A few times he even squeezed into the cockpit with a pilot (not behind the pilot, beside him), to check out the problems they were describing. It was amazing how easy things could get screwed up with a perfectly good airplane.
Tony Levier described checking out Jimmy Stewart on the P-38. No problem, right? Col Stewart was a highly experienced pilot. But when he did not come back at the time expected, Tony got worried. Finally the P-38 appeared, flying slowly with the gear down. After he landed Jimmy admitted he had forgotten to turn on the hydraulic system before pulling the gear extension handle and it took a while for him to figure out what was wrong. The P-38 was nearly unique in that respect..
Tony Levier described checking out Jimmy Stewart on the P-38. No problem, right? Col Stewart was a highly experienced pilot. But when he did not come back at the time expected, Tony got worried. Finally the P-38 appeared, flying slowly with the gear down. After he landed Jimmy admitted he had forgotten to turn on the hydraulic system before pulling the gear extension handle and it took a while for him to figure out what was wrong. The P-38 was nearly unique in that respect..
fshort
Airman
Hi MIflyer:
Great ads!
Thanks for posting them!
Regards,
James
Great ads!
Thanks for posting them!
Regards,
James
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,
Wes
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
Come a long way, haven't we? The T6 and T38 were both excellent for their role for that very reason. But I bet the Talon was a big step from the Tweet, n'est ce pas? And if you went back to the Talon now, from your pinnacle of experience, would you still consider it "difficult"?
Big difference, I would think, for a hastily trained WWII pilot going from a T6 to a P38, P39, or P40 with no dual control trainer version. Texan and Mustang were out of the same shop, so a certain similarity in design philosophy and ergonomics could be expected. Or how about a "Jug"?
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #55
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
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
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
MIFlyer I just created a thread to discuss this, hope you don't mind, I just copied your post over.
- Thread starter
- #57
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Yes, I think that is good idea. We have strayed rather far afield from comic pictures.
Wes,
The T38 was a huge step up from the T37. It would have been easier to go straight to the Eagle as it was much easier to fly. The confidence builder was shooting the Widowmaker Approach into Roswell and beating it (no IP intervention required) and then signing the board inside. The final turn was not to be trifled with as you could develop such a sink rate in 1-2 seconds that you could not recover or safely eject. I'm surprised we don't lose someone every year in it. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed flying it and could roll out in the final turn or grease it on long before the end of pilot training. It was fast, responsive but took 10k to do a mil power loop (burner was a bit less). It was a great manual bomber due to wing loading!
As for going from a T-6 to the P38, I think they had a stop between those two to get some multi time. The 38 to me would have been the toughest to fly due to all the engine out considerations that aren't a player in a SE fighter.
I would think towards the end of the war the fighters became more automated therefor easier to fly, and pilot training had become a well oiled machine for making the kind of grad they wanted.
Cheers,
Biff
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
The 357th started out as a 39 unit and flew them in Tonopah. Because of that a lot of them thought they were going to the pacific. Reactions among the pilots varied...some ( not a heck of a lot tho ) liked the plane. Others like Obie OBrien were happy they never had to get behind the stick of one ever again...
I know a lot of tail dragger pilots who prefer a grass strip to paved. It may have something to do with a fixed tail gear as opposed to free. I have heard some say it takes longer to get the feel for a paved strip or that the plane acts too squirrelly on a hard surface.
I know a lot of tail dragger pilots who prefer a grass strip to paved. It may have something to do with a fixed tail gear as opposed to free. I have heard some say it takes longer to get the feel for a paved strip or that the plane acts too squirrelly on a hard surface.
- Thread starter
- #60
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
An advantage a grass trip for taildraggers is that often it is a lot wider than a paved runway. Also the grass enables you to slide sideways a bit if you have a bit too much rudder applied.
