Warbird Information Exchange

From talking to a few old timers, the ME109 was definitely a handful, and
the f4f wildcat not far behind (granted, any runway that moves up and
down adds a another dimension to the equation.. not to mention catching
a wire.) A Hellcat carrier pilot once told me that you could walk up to just
about anyone that really was WWII carrier qualified, ask them how many
times they landed on one and they could usually tell you very quickly and
not have to even think about it. I've tried it a few times. he was right.

Also, the ME109 was designed to be much more field servicable as well,
and often when transported they didn't have to have the wings on to be
moved around. (tight manufacturing spaces included). At oshkosh if
you ever get a chance to see a forum by a guy named siddiqi - he's a
got a talk on WWII aircraft that go into all kinds of nuances and trivia on
armaments, servicing, flyability, graphs, all that stuff.. The geeky side
of warbirds comes out in a big way.

As for landing on grass - its much softer, more forgiving and slows you
down much more than asphalt which for a tailwheel means that you get
the plane under control much quicker, less time to have things go wrong.
Notice I didn' t say anything that may resemble bumps or holes and such
that throw you for a extra surprise. In the citabria that I've done my
tailwheel flying in, it has spongy springy gear in it and I'll take that on
grass over concrete any day. I has a much better control feel to it.

anyway, my .02 c.

henning

_________________
"The best way to control the future is to create it".

Delete

Wow Steve:

That's quite an explanation. I can imagine that people get themselves killed when they're too cocky with warbirds. Any sort of circus tricks like flying under bridges or flying too low for too long w/ not enough experience do not contribute to a long life.

I suppose if you know your plane and stay ahead of it, then you'll live long.

Chris

Now that Steve has said there is no answer, I'll give my opinion...(from my VERY limited experience).

The multi engine pilot has more stuff to monitor, and always more to worry about since one engine will always be slightly different than another. Is that becuase there is a problem, or because each engine has its own personality? You don't have this worry in a single engined airplane.

If the engine quits in a single, you land (or jump out given sufficient altitude). Some you walk away from. In a twin, you either keep flying or the second engine will take you to the scene of the crash that much faster- it is just noisier on the way down I suppose. Either way you need to keep the aircraft under control or you are a goner for sure. There are plenty of stall/spin accidents after engine failures either way- trying to stretch the glide too far or turning back to the airport are common errors when under that kind of pressure for singles, and not flying by the correct speeds or mismanaging the engine controls (feathering the wrong engine for example) are common errors for twins.

I think the generally accepted thinking is that a twin is more complicated to fly and takes more training (that is why there is a special multi-engine rating).

In general aviation the statistics show that landing under control is survivable in most terrain, while spins are almost never survivable.

The P-38 and the A-26 are examples of large/heavy single pilot twins. Two pilot aircraft have the advantage I think when the crew is properly trained. With inadequate training you could be worse off I suppose.

So as Steve said, the answer is: there is no answer. There are too many complicating issues. Add the psychological pressure of an emergency to the mix and things get even more problematic.

Delete

If our B-25 is anything for comparision. When we've had an emergency (yes, we've had a few), both of'em seemed fairly busy.
I was with JCW once in our T-6G 4269E when the engine blew just has the mains came off the ground. BOOM-It was loud and violent! Prop seized and the force jerked the 6 about 40' to the left. Jeff got her straight, back on the ground and even made the first turn off the active and we coasted to a stop. Like I said before, if your going for a ride know your pilot. I learned the hard way once that just because someone flies a T-6 he isn't necessary up to the challenge.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

What you say is certainly true. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of an engine failure on takeoff. Are warbird pilots more experienced and/or proficient than a military pilot back in the day? In any case, a failure on the way down is far less exciting than one on the way up I think.

I have had two engine "failures" in twins. One was on my first lesson for my twin rating when we feathered an engine and couldn't unfeather/restart it. My first twin landing was with one feathered.

My second was during my checkride when an engine lost power because the intake trunk hose collapsed. The engine started to lose power during the flight and quit completely on the landing rollout. The examiner was impressed enough by my ability to taxi back to the ramp on one that he gave me my ticket anyhow.

I think I have lost the taste I had in my younger days for worn out airplanes- hence the fresh engine going into the T-6!

I've enjoyed the discussion and learned a bit as usual tonight.

BDK,
Your mention of old twins made me remember out here about 10 years ago a fellow was taking his multi check ride in a old Geronimo when the left engine blew and tossed a jug through the cowling. The IP was going take over the my friend asked him not to unless it got to extreme. Needless to say he brought her in and made a textbook single engine landing and got his rating. Trial by fire I guess.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Steve must have seen the posts lately on the FLYPAST boards asking what the most over-rated fighter of WWII is. I agree its a bad question. Just think if that conversation was had in a bar instead of cyberspace. How quick would someone be holding their bloodied nose? Also I know a current WILDCAT pilot and he says its a big pussy-cat to fly,Three point it and it rolls straight even if a strut drops more than the other.And one usualy does.
And as for my .02 cents on the fighter VS bomber debate. A friend of mine who was a fighter pilot and later a airline pilot described the two jobs as totaly different. Fighter pilots are independent and must decide and do all things themselves. Where as a bomber /airline pilot is part of a committee operating the airplane. The two types of flying are totally different and directly comparing the two is a apples and oranges situation.
As fo whichone is more difficult, I think it has more to do with what kind of personality you have. A do it yourself guy is better for single seat,and a TEAM PLAYER sort of fellow is best in multi engine crew aircraft. This is just a opinion of one person about to ge to bed and is subject to changing in the morning or whenever else I want to.

I once asked a P-40 pilot a few questions about his experiences. When I asked about the M and N versions being easy to handles on landings due the extended fuselage he looked at me has if i was nuts. Then I guess looking upon me has some misguided soul he said stuff like that was meaningless. All he cared about was how fast it could dive, how tight it could turn, how much firepower it had and how much armor was protecting his backside. He seamed to have his priorities in order!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

N/A

I have had two engine "failures" in twins. One was on my first lesson for my twin rating when we feathered an engine and couldn't unfeather/restart it. My first twin landing was with one feathered.

My second was during my checkride when an engine lost power because the intake trunk hose collapsed. The engine started to lose power during the flight and quit completely on the landing rollout. The examiner was impressed enough by my ability to taxi back to the ramp on one that he gave me my ticket anyhow.


BDK
Did you get your Multi at Red Bird in Dallas??? I did and the same thing happened to me there!!!

_________________
Live to fly, Fly to live.....

Lemme jump into this. I say the multis are more difficult to fly for the simple reason that they have more than one stove.

Something I learned from my Cessna 208 training, ya know the big PT-6A powered 172, is that when you have just one engine, things are simple :

- if it works, good!
- if it's crapping out, let it crap out, you only have one anyways.
- if it quits, glide!

Doesn't come any simpler than that.

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

Delete

This a really neat discussion and all, but the actual question was:



It's all good and well to discuss who is busier while flying from point A to point B, but the *real* discussion has to involve what these airplanes were designed to do: be employed as weapons.

There is a world of difference between being able to *fly* an aircraft and *employ* an aircraft tactically as a weapon system. There's an even bigger jump when you start talking about employing that weapon system in actual combat.

I can tell you from experience that having multiple eyes, multiple ears, and multiple hands in a combat situation is orders of magnitide easier than doing it with one set of eyes, ears, and hands. I can list numerous instances where, in my previous 2-seat fighter aircraft, having a back-seater with an extra set of eyes literally saved my a$$. It also divided the workload, making it easier for me to concentrate on things like not getting shot down, and let my WSO concentrate on things like flying a bomb directly into the target he wants to hit.

Statistics from Desert Storm back up the fact that crew aircraft have higher bomb-hit ratios. The paradigms have obviously been shifted with the advent of the GPS-guided bomb, though.

So, what's the point of all this? Employing a single-seat fighter aircraft is far more task-intensive than flying a crewed aircraft, without a doubt.