Most Pilot friendly fighter?

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe the question was about "high-performance fighters."

The P-39 doesn't qualify.

Why not if we're talking low altitude..

I'll stick with the Hellcat. For a taildragger, it is simplicity itself.

It will still do all the nasty things a taildragger would do in a crosswind or if a low time pilot gets slow on the rudders...

 

[BAGTIC]

The P-39 [P-400] still achieved a 2:1 kill ratio in US hands even against the Zero. In Russian US it was much more successful against both German bombers and fighters especially the Me109.

At low altitudes it was the fastest fighter of its day and outclimbed early P-51's. It was short on range and lighter armed than later fighters but its armament was comparable to other fighters at the time of its introduction.

 

[Civettone]

Was there any operational US fighter which carried a heavier armament than the P-39 with its 37mm cannon?


Kris

 

[timshatz]

I think the Russians put a 45mm cannon into a limited production run of the Yak-9. Strictly for test. Did not become standard issue.

Beyond that, dunno.

 

[Civettone]

The only US fighter with a heavier armament has to be that pre-war Bell FM-1 Airacuda with two 37mm guns. But that didn't enter production.

Btw, was the P-47 easy to fly?? It's a monster but I can imagine a rookie feeling quite safe in one.

Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

From what I understand once a rookie pilot got used to a P-47 they really liked it.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Wasn't the Mustang a rookie pilot killer?

Lets start talking about the WORST fighter planes for rookies.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Lets start talking about the WORST fighter planes for rookies.

the Corsair and Helldiver

 

[Civettone]

I recall someone mentioning the Fw 190 but I have my doubts about that. It had a higher landing speed and worse stall characteristics than the Bf 109. The Bf 109 did have a narrow undercarriage and the bizarre problem of ground looping.

I was reading a thread at LEMB about non-combat losses of the Bf 109 and Fw 190, and there was no clear difference in numbers. So I think the Bf 109 and Fw 190 were either just as easy or just as difficult to handle.
Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Bf 109 was a terror to land though for a rookie pilot. The landing gear was too narrow and atleast on earlier varients was not very sturdy. The aircraft was very hard to take off and land, atleast for a rookie pilot.

 

[renrich]

Flyboy, the one lever does all did not die in Germany with the FW. I recall a number of years ago Porsche was trying to sell a replacement engine for a/c that was a version, I think, of the engine in the 911. It had one control for prop, throttle and mixture. That arrangement would have never worked for Lindberg. He could fine adjust an engine in flight where he reputedly would use substantially less fuel than the army and navy pilots he helped in the Pacific.

 

[davparlr]

The Navy comparison of the Fw-190 to the F4U-1 and F6F stated that the Fw-190 was easy to fly and their only complaint about the single throttle lever was that it made it difficult to fly formation.

 

[GregP]

Mr. Lindberg really DID use less fuel. What he did was to run the engine at lower RPM and higher manifold pressure. It was supposed to be "bad" for the engine, but his engines never showed the strain at all ... another myth down the drain.

Oh yeah, about the easiest to fly fighter for rookies, I'll stay with the Hellcat. Yes, the P-39 was high performance at low altitudes and yes, it was used in the USA for training, but ANYBODY could fly a Hellcat if they could fly a T-6 or a Stearman / N3N, and EVERYONE who trained to fly fighters in the USA for WWII trained on one of these types, so there were no real "taildragger rookies" that got out of US flight schools ... they all could fly conventional gear planes.

The P-39 WAS heavily armed, but it was mostly heavy weight, not heavy fire power. The 37 mm cannon installed in it had poor ballistic characterisctics, was VERY prone to jamming, and was simply thrown away by the Russians, who replaced it with a suitable Russian cannon, usually either the NS-23 or NS-37 ... either one of which was worth 10 of the cannons that came with the P-39's.

Personally, I LIKE the P-39 and wish it had received a turbocharger but, in the end, it was a mediocre plane unles used at low altitude. At anything below 10 or 12,000 feet, the P-39 was a dangerous opponent, but its handling characteristics were never as good at low speeds as those of the Hellcat.

So ... I'll stick with the Hellcat.

As for the worst-handling plane for a rookie, I'll go with the Messerschmitt Me-210. Famed the world over for its bad traits. The only worse planes I can think of would be the Natter (not many made and almost all were fatal if flown).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Mr. Lindbergh really DID use less fuel. What he did was to run the engine at lower RPM and higher manifold pressure. It was supposed to be "bad" for the engine, but his engines never showed the strain at all ... another myth down the drain.

Lindbergh did this but he did not go with extremely high MP pressures - he just flew above the MP/ RPM setting recommended by the factory and assured he was always leaning for altitude. Continual high manifold pressures at low RPM will destroy an engine, if could be a Merlin or an O-360 - that is a fact.

Oh yeah, about the easiest to fly fighter for rookies, I'll stay with the Hellcat. Yes, the P-39 was high performance at low altitudes and yes, it was used in the USA for training, but ANYBODY could fly a Hellcat if they could fly a T-6 or a Stearman / N3N, and EVERYONE who trained to fly fighters in the USA for WWII trained on one of these types, so there were no real "taildragger rookies" that got out of US flight schools ... they all could fly conventional gear planes.

Not really...

Most of those pilots who graduated out of T-6s and Stearmans barely had 100 hours. As stated going from a 300 hp Stearman or even a 600 hp T-6 into a 12 or 1,300hp aircraft was a whole other animal. Although many competent pilots were turned out by all sides you still had high accident rates, especially for the USAAF in 1943. In the 3rd quarter of that year I remember reading that the flight training syllabus was expanded and the following year saw less accidents.

My point in all this being that an aircraft with a nose wheel will always be easier to fly than a tail dragger. If the US had a capable tri-gear aircraft available, training and post combat accidents would of been a lot less.

As for the worst-handling plane for a rookie, I'll go with the Messerschmitt Me-210. Famed the world over for its bad traits. The only worse planes I can think of would be the Natter (not many made and almost all were fatal if flown).

Agree The Me-110 or 210. A twin engine tail dragger - it doesn't get any worse.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Agree The Me-110 or 210. A twin engine tail dragger - it doesn't get any worse.

At least the P-38 had tricycle gear.

Was it easier to land or take off in the tricycle P-38 with two engines instead of a tail dragger fighter, say the P-40, P-47, or P-51?

 

[mkloby]

At least the P-38 had tricycle gear.

Was it easier to land or take off in the tricycle P-38 with two engines instead of a tail dragger fighter, say the P-40, P-47, or P-51?

takeoffs in twins are easier than single engine A/C. Left turning tendencies are not nearly as pronounced as in single engine birds.

Single engine birds entail being a trim jockey, which is pretty annoying.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

At least the P-38 had tricycle gear.

Was it easier to land or take off in the tricycle P-38 with two engines instead of a tail dragger fighter, say the P-40, P-47, or P-51?

YES! Especially in a crosswind. Where the danger lies in a twin engine aircraft is having an engine fail on takeoff. The P-38 had propellers rotating in the same direction, that meant it had no critical engine. When the engine failed you had to immediately shut it completely down, feather it and trim out the aircraft and reduce - that's right - reduce power on the good engine. If any of the engine out emergency procedures were done wrong or sluggish the aircraft would roll on its back and crash. Even today, the biggest killer in General Aviation is low time or "rusty" pilots flying twins and having an engine out on take off.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

takeoffs in twins are easier than single engine A/C. Left turning tendencies are not nearly as pronounced as in single engine birds.

Single engine birds entail being a trim jockey, which is pretty annoying.

YEP!!! And picture the left turning tendencies with a 2000 hp engine!

 

[Civettone]

The Bf 109 was a terror to land though for a rookie pilot. The landing gear was too narrow and atleast on earlier varients was not very sturdy. The aircraft was very hard to take off and land, atleast for a rookie pilot.

Adler, I have to disagree. I have read this many times before but the Bf 109 was really not very hard to take off and land.
Apparently this story comes from the high number of non-combat accidents at the end of WW2 when the average German pilot was hardly able to perform the basic take off and landing. About 10% crashed on either occasions... try fighting a war that way.

There's a Finnish website which I can look up for you if you want which is completely dedicated to breaking the myths on the Bf 109 (that its wings fell of in a steep dive, that the Bf 109s controls locked up high speed, that the stick required too much arm strength, ...) and also makes clear that the aircraft was easy to land and even easier to take off with. The only thing they all stress is that you have to unlock the tail wheel, something some recruits tend to forget. Although it mainly quotes Finnish pilots, it also refers to German pilots.
There are also other stories of other German pilots available on the net and they always tell the same story. Of course these pilots were experienced but in fact, they had to fly the Bf 109 when they were rookies. As you know, the weight of the Bf 109 hardly increased, especially between 1942 and 1945 it hardly differed.
Finally, there's a document (which I can also quote for you if you want me to) written by an official Luftwaffe committee in which operational fighter pilots complain about the new recruits getting false information about the Bf 109 during their training. Apparently the recruits were being scared by the instructors (I think, to keep them sharp) about the difficult handling of the Bf 109. The operational fighter pilots make it clear that this should stop as there is no reason for it.

A final indication would be to compare the Bf 109 with other planes with a narrow undercarriage like the Spitfire or Martlet. Or with other planes with a similar wing loading.

PS. I did write about this a couple of months ago in another discussion. If someone recalls which, please tell me. It would save me some time in looking up and copying the information.
Kris

 

[Desert Fox]

Civettone,
I would like to read that site, it sounds very interesting. Could I have the address please?