Warbird Information Exchange

Here's something I've wondered about. Of the WWII era warbirds commonly seen on the airshow circuit (not including one-of-a-kind rarities), what are some of the most difficult single engine and multi-engine birds to fly? Obviously, every plane has its strengths and its vices, and difficulty is a relative term based on an individual pilot's abilities (and that ANY plane can get you into trouble if you don't know it well)...but I'm curious which ones are "more than a handful" for even a moderately experienced pilot.

Watching the Roaring Glory DVDs, I'm struck by how often Steve Hinton and Jeff Ethell talked about how easy certain planes were to fly...but I assumed that was relative to their own experience (i.e. a plane that's easy for Hinton may be way too much for another guy).

I've also heard people refer to the P-51 as "an easy plane to fly, but a difficult plane to fly well."

Finally, who is busier in the cockpit...the single engine fighter pilot all on his own or the multi engine bomber pilot with a guy sitting next to him?

I'm just curious what people's thoughts are on this topic...

Delete

Amen!!!

_________________
John Lane, Jr.

Do you three point the Buchon, or wheelie it on ? Either way, it looks like you had better be ready or you might be watching your own tail passing by.

On another note - I recall a conversation with the late Jack Rogers where he felt that the Sea Fury was easier to fly than the Mustang. Any thoughts from someone who has flown both ?

Stearman

Is there design advatage to have outward retracting wheels vs. inward retracting wheels? Or were there specific reasons why certain aircraft (ME-109, Spit) had outward retracting wheels?

I love the 1943 training footage for the P-47 showing how well it ground loops. Weeeeee!!!!

The reason why the wheels on the Spit and Bf 109 retracted outwards was because they were attached to the fuselage, which made the track very narrow.

It saved on weight.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

Okay...that makes sense. Thanks.

A geezer once told me that you had to land the 109 directly into the wind, on grass, and in the 3 point attitude. Failing to do any one of those raised the risk factor dramatically. Failing to do at least two of those was very risky. Avoiding all three would almost certainly lead to a groundloop.

[quote="srpatterson"]
I remember Skip said to watch him on landing, because if the Buchon didn't touch down just right that he would be going around, and that is just what happened.
[quote]

Did I miss something? Did the CAF already ground loop the Buchon?

I believe he was referring to a true 'go around' rather than a groundloop. Like I learned when I was attempting to master the Harvard, if it doesn't feel right... theres no shame in going around.

I found an interesting link to some Me-109 pilot reports if anyone is interested:
http://www.bf109.com/flying.html
Jason

Isn't there one flown in Texas which lands on a paved runway all the time? I know the E-3 model flown by the former Santa Monica Museum of Flying landed on a paved runway all the time.

if memory serves me correctly, the Spitfire main gear attached to the wings, not directly to the fuselage; they did however on the 109. Is there any particular reason that the Spitfire had such an easier time with landing than the '109? They both seem to have a very narrow track.


cheers

greg v

I would wager that the paramiters in which the airplanes are flown is very strict ie wind speed and direction, density altitude ect.
I've been in the back of 2 T-6 groundloops and one blown engine and I can't say I recommend it to anyone. One word of advice to anyone contemplating a ride. Know your pilot!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

The bottom line is that the further towards the aircraft centerline the gear are, the less bending moment is exerted on the wing so the aircraft is lighter. Mount the gear on the fuselage and it is lighter yet because the wing doesn't need to carry any of the gear loads.

I suspect the narrow track was much more acceptable on the grass aerodromes seen in Europe before the war, and early in the war. You couldn't get much grip on the grass so the tires could slide sideways more easily slowing your entry into a groundloop. What little grass I have flown on also seems to add a stabilizing affect (from the drag on the wheels?).

Since the US entered the war a little later, I suspect the doctrine of gear design had evolved a little more towards a wider track more suitable for hard surfaced runways.

So what about mjanovec's original questions? I'm curious to know too. What are the harder aircraft to fly? Who's busier, a single-seat pilot or muti-engined pilot with someone else?