The most dangerous warbird to operate?

JDK · **Posted:** Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:18 pm

Steve T wrote:

Bright red Me163B, plainly in the air recently...what the...!! More details please.

Glad someone bit on my hook! Yes, it's a Me163 replica glider. In Germany.

The two problems with the 163 were the fuel and the skid not extending for the high speed landing, potentially causing spinal injuries.

No engine, no fuel, modern skid-extension mechanism, no problem.

Which touches on how to make an unviable 'warbird' viable. The Me262 replicas with modern engines are another version of this approach.

Quote:

Most of the Yales were eventually converted to train radio operators rather than future fighter pilots...of course by that stage (1942-43) there were plenty of Harvards available.

Thanks! I vaguely recalled the 'radio trainer' role, which always struck me as a 'what can we use it for' job rather than a great idea. I think we now know why.

More soon, great thread!

sdennison · **Posted:** Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:20 pm

Quote James K.

"I'd be interested in any evidence of AHC training, or a good idea of the syllabus of the Empire Training Scheme of the USAAC - do you have any?"

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. His tales were pretty consistent in the fact that once out of the two seaters, the routine was to know the aircraft inside and out, pass a blind-fold test with the instructor as to the cockpit layout and then with a pat on the butt, go fly kid and get to know your airplane. Prime example was the transition from training P-47's stateside to fully armoured and weaponed versions in Theater. Quite an enlightening experience for a 19 year old, he related. After pulling a loop the first time in a combat version (at significant altitude, he added) he GLOC'd and wound up in a significant spin. After coming to and regaining control, flew up to 10K feet and smoke a pack of cigarettes whilst digesting the learning exercise.

However, simple that may sound, there was a lot of "discovery" in the boundaries of the envelope as related by the instructors and veteran pilots to the young guns. Clear and concise syllabus, I think not but plenty of "if you do this, it will do that" to be discovered at altitude on your own. So, I think that Randy is spot on but as the aircraft have evolved over the years, so has the teaching methodology for the boundary layer performance characteristics of the aircraft.

My humble opinion as a Citabria "Stick" :wink:

Holedigger · **Posted:** Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:24 pm

Here is a little more on the 163 GLIDER, pics at least with some German....

http://www.flying-wing.de/fw_me163.html

Steve T · **Posted:** Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm

James--

Thanks for the info. Messerschmitt Foundation, I'm guessing?

IMO here's how to do a 163: BD5J Microjet engine in the aft end; the small windows behind the cockpit would be fold-in air intakes; to get the "rocket" effect there'd be an airshow-style smoke system! (I suggested that idea to Jerry Yagen once and he asked me whether I'd be the test pilot...) :roll:

S.

Holedigger · **Posted:** Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:34 pm

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! 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.

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!

dhfan · **Posted:** Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:03 pm

Hellcat wrote:

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 my, reading not actual, experience, it seems for every one that says the Mossie was difficult, you'll find half a dozen that say it wasn't. I don't think I've ever read of a pilot complaining about it or even not actively liking the aircraft. As pilots will know far better than me, it's probably down to flight envelopes and knowledge of the characteristics more than anything.

Steve T · **Posted:** Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm

DH--

For "difficult" read "challenging"...and you'd probably get near-unanimity about the Mossie. George Stewart, for example, who gave a talk on just that topic at an avart conference at CWH last fall, made it his sole goal during World War II to fly the Mosquito on ops. Talk to George (who is 84, looks 54, and acts 24!) for longer than 30 seconds and you're sure to hear something rhapsodic about the Wooden Wonder. But not everyone could quite handle deHavilland's lady: George spent considerable time in Nationalist China after the war, training neophyte pilots there on the surplus Canadian-built Mossies they'd acquired...some of those tales are hair-raising and sidesplitting in equal measure...But I don't doubt that George would enthusiastically fly a Mossie today if handed the controls. For him, and many others, flying Mossies was one of those ambitions that turns out even more rewarding than expected once it becomes a challenging reality!

S.

John Dupre · **Posted:** Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:52 pm

I don't know whether he thought it was truly dangerous but I remember the late Jeff Ethell writing about a certain South African aircraft (Bosbok?) that he described as being the worst handling tail wheel aircraft he had flown. It was apparently a South African version of an Italian version of the L-19.....

Baldeagle · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:23 am

bdk wrote:

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.

-

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:54 am

it is really a simple answer, the most dangerous warbird to operate is the one you are about to crash in.

It does not matter how many fighters, bombers or anything else you fly, when you screw up, you can die.

Jim Orten and Jim Malone, died in a crash of Orten's PT-22. Both grew up flying warbirds, both were Reno Race pilots in the Unlimited class. Orten was chief pilot of the AZ wing on SJ. Malone was the son of the founder of the Planes of Fame and grew up around planes.

so here are 2 very experianced warbird pilots that died on a lowly primary trainer.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id= ... 240&rpt=fi

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:27 am

Matt Gunsch wrote:

so here are 2 very experianced warbird pilots that died on a lowly primary trainer.

A sad loss. Interestingly IIRC, the PT22 was mentioned earlier as being one of the types with (I'm looking at Randy here, and trying to get it right...) unusually extreme departure characteristics for the class of aircraft and its role.

Likewise the highly experienced Luftwaffe Expert ace Heinz Bär (1,000 combat missions, 220 victories) was killed in a Winter Zuankonig, an aircraft that was designed to be ultra-safe and (almost) foolproof.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bar.html

Quote:

In 1957, while performing aerobatics in a light plane on the anniversary date of his 200th aerial victory, Heinz Bär was killed instantly when he suddenly spun in from a low altitude.

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:10 am

JDK wrote:

the PT22 was mentioned earlier as being one of the types with (I'm looking at Randy here, and trying to get it right...) unusually extreme departure characteristics for the class of aircraft and its role.

James, I wasn't disputing that there are primary trainers with bad habits.

The root of my argument was your statement that these airplanes were "Unexpectedly lethal".

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:25 am

Oh, sure, I was just trying to use the correct terminology to keep my favourite F-15 driver happy...

old iron · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:18 am

a CAF PBY?

spookythecat · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:43 pm

Watching Bud Granley fly aerobatics as well as warbirds 3-4 times during a single airshow all summer long at 70+ years old the age arguement can be thrown right out. That man is truly amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QQKHtJ26SE

Warbird Information Exchange

The most dangerous warbird to operate?

Who is online