The most dangerous warbird to operate?

[JDK]

Playing catch up here - lots of great thought provoking responses, but first...

My concern here is that you've taken a modern result-driven training regime that fits within an (agreed) basic military principle and reasoned backwards that that was what happened in earlier periods - including those periods when they were pushing them through schools in less time than it takes to get a driving licence today.

Completely valid point -- I don't know what the syllabus was in any of those aircraft.

Thanks very much for that Randy, it's appreciated. To clarify the earlier discussion, I used a somewhat imprecise term that I think Randy quite rightly picked up on and corrected - which is as it should be, and was also appreciated.

Another interesting aspect of this to ponder is "flight characteristics expectations" in general. For most of the cadets in question, there must have been very little other frame of reference, meaning that what we would look at as ill behaved today was purely common place in their training realm.

And we tend to underestimate out mechanical aptitude and their lesser familiarity. While many drove cars in the USA, that was certainly NOT the case elsewhere - many became fighter pilots without having managed anything more demanding than a bicycle!

BTW in my most simple of mindedness of research (internet nonsense) I seem to remember reading that the Mossie was / is a very tempermental and extremely non-forgiving airplane to fly. Any input?

In adition to the good previous responses - the Mosquito was lethal with engine failure in the circuit or take off, and had a major swing. The nasty characteristics with twins of the period were normal - those that could manage with an engine failure on take off were the exceptions.

Structural failure was an issue with some poor production etc. On the other hand the Mustang did have occasional structural failures (under hard manoeuvring) but its fame(?) and effectiveness made that a negligible factor, IMHO.

BTW, BTW, would it be too far a stretch to offer the assumption that many front line warbirds are very few or extinct because of dangerous handling characteristics? And that even though many would have served a valuable resource after the war, they simply were deemed too hard to fly?

Another good question. I can't think of any examples. The Me 163 and 262 are marginal, as discussed, through engine issues rather than fundamental performance issues.

Otherwise there's the other German experiments - the Bachem Natter was a failure and probably never flew properly anyway; the He 162 'Volksjager' had construction issues, a problem engine, and some odd characteristics. A 162 was traded recently with a view to making it fly, but was decided against - so maybe the job was 'too much', even for that highly skilled 'shop'.

Also early Autogyros have some nasty characteristics, including ground resonance. The Spanish built a replica Avro (Cierva) C 30 Rota, and flew it for a bit, but decided long-term operations weren't on. OTOH, the Cierva based Pitcairn designs have been flown successfully in the US for some years now.

James, I can tell you only of the exploits of my father who trained in PT-19's, BT-13's, T-6's, P-40's, then P-47's and P-38's....

Thanks for that!

A good fighter aircraft must be on the edge of instability to make it a good fighter. An advanced trainer must therefore have a little of that built in so pilots can get a bit of that feel before strapping on twice or three times the HP and making a smoking hole on their first flight!

The problem was that design of the period not only resulted in inconsistent control forces, but nasty characteristics in otherwise benign types, so as you say...

Knowing the differences in how different models behave IS the difference between life and death. It would be my guess that these similar but different models caught many a pilot unaware with tragic results.

But then, there wasn't the training time spent on that kind of depth of knowledge.

You also don't want to have to 'learn the trainer,' but the skills for the "big 'plane".

An example of this kind of trouble. I had a 1975 VW camper/van with a 4 speed manual tranny. My mother had a 79 VW Bus with an Automatic. Felt the same, looked the same, smelled the same, except I kept slamming my left foot to the floor at every stop while driving her vehicle. Funny, yes, but if you are in a trainer at the edge of stall on final, and something happens a bit different from what you expect...NOT FUNNY!

Good example! A neat trick is to tuck the left foot under your right leg, which keeps it out of the way - but it's fun switching...

I spent about an hour chatting with Chuck Wentworth about varying things at last year's Chino Airshow. One of the topics we discussed was the flight characteristics of the WW1 fighters he has flown over the years. When I asked what the stall characteristics of these early aircraft were like he said he didn't know. He said he would never get them close enough to that area of the envelope to find out... This from a very accomplished antique, warbird, display and movie pilot that owns and flies both a TBM and a Corsair.

I've stalled a number of WW1 aircraft replicas, and some are pretty benign, especially the Fokker types with thick airfoils. Any reasonably good tailwheel pilot would have a ball with a Fokker D.VII or an SE-5a.

Interesting point, and one of the values of accurate modern replicas with original engines. Shuttleworth do not 'explore the envelope' with their pre-W.W.I and W.W.I aircraft; they're too valuable, and engine time is too limited. But you can take a replica Camel up high and explore the spin, I guess.

OTOH, many of these aircraft aren't certified for this kind of aerobatics, and so those skills are never explored - until it's too late at times.

Great thread!