Bearcat & Mustang pilot skills question

[ww2John]

Warning
Question from a non-pilot...

We have had many good discussions here on WIX about the high level of pilot skills and proper attitude & mindset required by high-performance propeller driven a/c, specifically WWII vintage a/c and most frequently regarding the P51 Mustang.

How do the Bearcat & Mustang compare from a pilot skills and handling standpoint?

I would appreciate hearing any specific details in laymans language from pilots who have flown both a/c. Nothing against arm-chair pilots, but would really like to hear from those who have been there & done that.

Many Thanks in advance.

John

[bipe215]

Go to www.airbum.com and click on 'pilot reports'. Budd Davisson went through Junior Burchinal's warbird school in the 70's and flew them both. Its good reading about a 'regular' taildragger pilot getting to try on the hottest piston stuff around. He said any competent taildragger pilot could fly the Bearcat (with a little training of course), and the P-51 was maybe a little more demanding. Remember, these things were designed to be flown by 200 hr pilots, straight out of T-6's. They always say: Fly the Bearcat, the P-51 and then your ready for the T-6

Steve G

[Dudley Henriques]

Warning
Question from a non-pilot...

We have had many good discussions here on WIX about the high level of pilot skills and proper attitude & mindset required by high-performance propeller driven a/c, specifically WWII vintage a/c and most frequently regarding the P51 Mustang.

How do the Bearcat & Mustang compare from a pilot skills and handling standpoint?

I would appreciate hearing any specific details in laymans language from pilots who have flown both a/c. Nothing against arm-chair pilots, but would really like to hear from those who have been there & done that.

Many Thanks in advance.

John

This question is better handled in the general sense rather than with specifics.
Flying high performance propeller fighter planes requires specific skills and these specific skills are common to all of them. There are subtle differences of course. For example, climbing out of a Mustang or Bearcat and into a Griffon Spitfire will require a change in the way yaw and torque forces are addressed but aside from a few macro factors like this, if you are competent in one prop fighter you should have little trouble flying another after a thorough checkout on systems and procedures.
Naturally every type has its idiosyncrasies and differences, but generally speaking, if you can fly one, you should be able to fly another.
The secret in flying these airplanes is in mastering the macros involved, then becoming totally familiar with the micros involved with each type you fly.
Just as a rough example of what I'm talking about, both the Bearcat and the Mustang are well served on takeoff by not forcing the stick forward early in the run. You have a bit more leeway in this respect in the 51 then you do in the Bear and knowing exactly how much leeway that is can save you the price of a new prop for your Bearcat )
Dudley Henriques

[ww2John]

Thank-you Dudley & Steve,
Exactly what I was looking for.
Anyone else???
thanks,
John

[Bill Greenwood]

I can only give 2nd hand info, or what might be one and a half hand info. I have not flown a Bearcat, ,but I have discussed it with Howard Pardue who is our most experienced Bearcat pilot as well as having flown most other types. Howard says the Cat is easy. It handles great in the air, and the gear is so wide that it is very stable on landing. Howard said he doesn't worry about crosswind landings in his F8, he hardly even needs to think about the wind. I have seen him land that plane a hundred times, virtually all were excellent 3 point touchdowns, and I've never seen him swerving are appearing to have to do much correction on roll out. It lands pretty slow and stops well. We did sort of a mini brief when I thought I might try to become a flying sponsor of one. The only two cautions were to be careful on power application like a go around ( there's lots of power) and to raise the gear promptly as it accelerates very fast after takeoff and can exceed the gear speed. The only other aspects is that is is hot in the cockpit and blind over the nose on the ground, as are many other planes.

I have some Mustang time, enough to be rated, though I am not at all current, with only a little air time in the last year or two, but I can form an opinion. A Mustang is not hard to fly, even to land. The takeoff is really about as hard as any part. Throttle application needs to be smooth and progressive, and don't rush it or force the tail up early; else it can take a lot of right rudder. The takeoff roll is pretty long and you want a good bit of speed, perhaps 85 before liftoff. There is 3 way trim to help. The noise at 55 or 60 inches is deafening. It is not just in your ears, it feels like it is in your bones. You have to reach a ways down to the left front sidewall to raise the gear, once it is up the plane is fast and stable. It feels bigger than you'd think. Visibility is excellent in the D model, except down under the wing. You level off in cruise perhaps at 8500 AGL and 275 mph and you have just seen another world, regular gen aviation will never seem the same.

The controls are responsive, if not light, they get heavier with higher speeds. Speed and power changes need trim changes. If you are a Spitfire pilot you look down at the fuel gauges and feel like you just found an extra $ thou in your bank account. For acro, it dives great, loops, and rolls good. Dives can easily get you in the 300 mph indicated ASI where most G A planes don't go. It turns good, just not as effortless as a Spit. The stall, especially power on, has a small warning buffet, and seems to take some time to recover airspeed. TO ME, it does not seem that dangerous, even before the stall buffet you can sense the controls getting soft and sloppy. You need a healthy respect for the high wing loading and the high speed aspect of the wing design. It is not a Spit or a Hurri to be wrenched around at minimum speed, it sure ain't no Zero. It feels like it was made to go somewhere, like the excellent long range escort it was.

Getting slowed down to gear speed takes room. It is all too easy to come in with 30 in and nose down and find you are 100 mph too fast. Most 51 pilots seem to use a notch of flaps to slow down before putting down the gear. I never liked this, but it is SOP, and you can also use a break turn to slow down. Again a bit of a reach to get the gear lever all the way in the down detent. Once down the plane is stable and easy to manage. It is just that you are going so fast. Downwind in a 51 at 150 mph, is twice as fast as in a C 172. It is 60 mph faster than in my Bonanzaso there is just less time to do things and easy to get behind. The flaps can be lowered in notches around the pattern, they are effective and help slow down. The last notch on final allows a nose lower approach so that you can see some of the runway. The MP gauge reads in inches all the way down to 20 so it is easy to set power and I seem to remember about 22 in as the figure turning final. At about 90 the ailerons are a bit soggy, but there is still enough elevator to flare. It wheel lands fine, but also felt good to me as a tail low not quite 3 pt. The main tires are big and absorb the touchdown and it seems stable on roll out. I have never done more than a hop, I would not like to get into a real hard big bounce, on the edge, recovery. Touch and go, or go around seems ok, there just is a lot of noise and not much go until you get the big flaps up. It feels big.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[DenverWarbirdFan]

Hey Bill,

Please check your PM's.

Thanks.

[Vessbot]

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182122-1.html

[Ztex]

Great write-up Bill.

You level off in cruise perhaps at 8500 AGL and 275 mph and you have just seen another world, regular gen aviation will never seem the same.

This is a great line....how cool would that be to experience...Looking at my December Ghosts calendar photo, a P-51 turning away made me think about how wild it must have been for the 20 year olds of the day to have that kind of machine as a mount.


Bud Davisson's PIREPS are podcasted as well...great stuff.
http://www.flightjournal.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=9453C1928AC24B3D9505B8F3E1625B4F&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=8889597305B0472BA9ACB3953D8999ED

[Jim Beasley]

I have time in both and this may be heresy but the Bearcat is so well laid out and performs so well it's almost boring (in a good way). In spite of the power the torque effect is relatively minimal and feels like it's on rails. It hits 300 without even thinking, and has exceptional aerobatic performance. It may be the most perfect piston engine fighter. I am much more partial to the 51 for a variety of reasons including (primarily) sentimental ones and it too is an excellent machine, and the fact that you can carry someone, lots of stuff, and go really far distances (I've done Philly to Ft. Lauderdale 3 hrs nonstop) makes it a ride you can't beat. I also like the 51 more because I believe it requires more skill to do proper, advanced acro than in the bearcat.

Jim

[Glenn Wegman]

Got time in both too.

The Bearcat was the first fighter I flew and hopped out of the T-6 and into it. Cockpit is fairly small and pretty much perfectly laid out. Everything is in easy reach and fairly comfortable. Did a 4 hour 20 minute leg one time with a 150 gal drop and it got a little uncumfy after about the third hour though! There was a fair amount of heat radiating through the firewall and up from the front floor and my heels got toasted and hurt pretty good. ATC thinks your a stealth G-1 if you call in as a Grumman as your showing about 230 knots, so they get a little confused at that as they don't encounter too many Cats!! It pretty much flies itself and crosswinds are a non event. Actually flown a couple of them. First one had a 2800CB and the other a 2800-34 which was noticeably lazier on take off and climb performance. They go straight down the runway coming and going and really have no bad habits. Landed one time and went to unlock the tail wheel to turn off the runway, and it was already unlocked as I apparently forgot to lock it on takeoff. Couldn't tell the difference! Wasn't too wild about having to wash it after every flight though. Down side can be a pretty fumy cockpit, oily mess on the fuselage sides and upper wing if it has not been flown regularly. One time after a flight I chose to go up over the windshield, along the top cowling and swing down off of the prop to keep from sliding off of the wing and breaking my neck!

A Mustang's a Mustang! A little more work to fly. Not quite as stable on the ground, A good crosswind will make you sit up a little straighter and pay attention. I like not having to wash it after every flight! Seating position is usually a little farther from the panel and gear handle so a little more reaching is in order, but hey, it's got a back seat. A little noisier in the cockpit than the Cat, but not as fumy. Mustangs don't burn or loose wings either!

Glenn

[steve dickey]

I have time in both and this may be heresy but the Bearcat is so well laid out and performs so well it's almost boring (in a good way). In spite of the power the torque effect is relatively minimal and feels like it's on rails. It hits 300 without even thinking, and has exceptional aerobatic performance. It may be the most perfect piston engine fighter. I am much more partial to the 51 for a variety of reasons including (primarily) sentimental ones and it too is an excellent machine, and the fact that you can carry someone, lots of stuff, and go really far distances (I've done Philly to Ft. Lauderdale 3 hrs nonstop) makes it a ride you can't beat. I also like the 51 more because I believe it requires more skill to do proper, advanced acro than in the bearcat.

Jim

Hey Jim which Bear did you fly and how long ago?

To add a little to what Bill said about talking to Howard; He's told me its a "finger tip airplane no matter what your speed" the controls don't load up(same for the Sea Fury) or get heavy(unlike a Mustang, no disrespect Jim!) and doing his acro routine at a show he sets the power to one setting and keeps it there and uses his fingertips throughout

[Randy Haskin]

Do any of you guys with Bearcat time have any issues with the size of the cockpit?

I'm 6'2" and 200#, and was less than comfortable sitting up there with the canopy closed. For me mostly it was that both of my upper arms were pressed against the canopy rails (it was just too narrow side-to-side) and I had to hunch over just a bit to give my nugget some room under the glass. Is the seat height adjustable? That could fix some of those complains, I suppose.

The cockpit floor is also up much higher than a T-6 or a Corsair.

[steve dickey]

Do any of you guys with Bearcat time have any issues with the size of the cockpit?

I'm 6'2" and 200#, and was less than comfortable sitting up there with the canopy closed. For me mostly it was that both of my upper arms were pressed against the canopy rails (it was just too narrow side-to-side) and I had to hunch over just a bit to give my nugget some room under the glass. Is the seat height adjustable? That could fix some of those complains, I suppose.

The cockpit floor is also up much higher than a T-6 or a Corsair.

Hey Randy, Howards about the same as you and he has no problem sitting in it. The rudder pedals are adjustable but not the seat. Theres about three adjustments on the pedals and Howard keeps his one stop before full fwd travel!

[JDK]

... It may be the most perfect piston engine fighter...

Not an unknown sentiment.

Of course the comparison of the Bearcat shouldn't be with that funny square NA product but the Hawker Sea Fury, a peer in many ways, and with, I understand, the Bear and the Fury having certain advantages over each other.

One of my treasured memories is seeing Ray Hanna in the OFMC Fury and Stephen Grey in the TFC Bearcat alternating as double-joker at the end of a Flying Legends show.

The best stuff.

[Jim Beasley]

Hey Jim which Bear did you fly and how long ago?

the last time was in Tom Freidkin's about a month ago or so.