Warbird Information Exchange

Delete

No, must have been places like that all over in the 80's! I guess some FBO's believe that a twin allows you to fly with engines more worn out and poorly maintained than you would tolerate on a single.

No, it's simpler. More micro-management yes, but it's simpler. And the 208 has a PT-6, so yu just turn it on and it stays there until you run out of fuel.

It either runs or quits. Eh.

If it quits, you stop flying.

It's the basic yes/no situation in a single.

I prefer flying a single to a twin anytime.

In the Focke-Wulf, things are simple too. Mixture is either on or off. Just remember to put the gears down before landing and you are done.

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

There are a lot of dynamics going on with this discussion. You've got the inexperienced folks, like myself, asking the dumb questions. You've also go the seasoned pilots involved. There needs to be respect from the "greenhorns" to the seasoned pilots, and the seasoned pilots should recognize that they were "greenhorns" at one time too. A seasoned pilot should do this much like a military leader to their own subordinates.

Keep in mind that the warbird owners don't own war history. It's there for the whole world to enjoy or study. If I were a seasoned professional warbird pilot I would remember every day I sit in the cockpit that I am an example to the public of historic aircraft, whether I like it or not.

If someone sees me in my hanger getting my Harvard going, I'm going to be very kind, even to "silly" questions.

Just wait until you panit it the Wrong color

Just joking

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

Yes, that'll be a test of character. Good for growning hair on the chest.

Interesting topic and discussion. This topic caught my eye, so I began reading the posts - enjoying the opinions expressed. Then I came to a reply in which it seemed someone had an axe to grind or woke up on the wrong side of the bed. What gives? This is a message/discussion board where any and all express there opinions and knowledge about aviation subjects. The originator of the thread simply asked for peoples' thoughts, feelings, and opinions to a legitimate question/topic. Why the negativity towards this man's questions? It doesn't matter if someone is green or highly experienced, everyone deserves respect and curteousy. If that cannot be given, don't post. As a casual reader of this message board, I don't care to read someone else marginally berate another's post. Post that stuff on some other board. I can't imagine other readers enjoying this type of board behavior. If you can't say anything nice, say it elsewhere.
Thanks to all that have posted there constructive opinions on this topic.

Tommy

Steve,

Since I asked the original question, accept my apologies if the question was "dumb." (If that was the case, please feel free to not answer it, unless you're interested in showing off your superior knowledge or enjoy pointing out other people's shortcomings) As a non-warbird pilot, yet a warbird enthusiast (i.e. someone who's usually more interested in the history behind the planes than in flying them), I was just interested in some hearing some opinions, POVs, and anecdotes...not black and white statements. Until I asked the question, I was unaware of that particular difficulty in landing the Buchon (which you provided, thank you). That's what I was looking for.

We all have to ask the dumb questions at least once, I guess. Next time I'll try to be a little less dumb about it. And if I fail in that regard, please feel free to pass it by. Or show the same respect that you would expect in return if you were asking about something that is outside your realm of experience. After all, if I knew the answer, I wouldn't need to ask the question, would I? I'd rather ask dumb questions than just continue making dumb assumptions.

Plus my original question had enough caveats to point out that a pilot can find themselves in over their head in any plane, if they didn't have the experience to handle the situation. Read the question again. It wasn't a black and white question. I didn't just say "What's the hardest warbird to fly? Period." I wasn't looking for one definitive opinion either, just the usual range of thoughts and experiences this group is good with delivering. And it appears that's what I got...so thanks to all for responding (especially to those of you who did it without the attitude).

You also make it seem obvious that single engine fighters are more work to fly than multi-engine bombers, yet I have now seen enough contrary opinions to indicate that the answer isn't quiet as "black and white" as *YOU* have portrayed it.

Mark

P.S. - FWIW, I don't mind being told I'm asking dumb questions...I have a thick enough skin. It just doesn't help educate us slightly newer warbird enthusiasts if a negative atmosphere prevents us from asking questions. I want to see discussion from all people, not just the self-appointed experts. If this is an exclusive discussion group where only experienced warbird pilots may participate, show me to the unsubscribe option. The last person I tend to trust is a know-it-all.

Back to the original question "What are the most difficult/worst WW II aircraft to fly" that are on todays warbird scene.
1) Hispano HA-1112 Buchon (Me-109) (spanish)
2) Polikarpov's I-15 and I-16bis (russian)
3) Lockheed P-38 Lightning
4) Grumman J2f Duck (U.S.)
5) COnsolidated PBY-5A Catalina
6) Lockheed L-18 Hudson/ Howard 250
7) Stearman PT-17
Curtiss O-52 Owl

Why is the Duck considered hard to fly? Is it just because of the float, or are there other reasons its hard to fly? Just curious...

I don't know much about the Duck, but from my observations it looks like it lacks horsepower, and it takes it a while to lift off.

Great discussion! Everyone has some good points - I have nothing really to add except that when I had the chance to interview Gen. Tibbetts regarding his experiences he did not have a lot to say about fighter pilots. I also saw an interview on the history channel where he again expressed "his opinion" that it took much more talent to be in command on a B-29 than to fly escort.

I have to agree with Randy and others - from my perspective it seems there is a lot more margin with a co-pilot.

Tom P.

I've also wondered if the B-26 was really as hard to handle as its early reputation made it out to be...or was it simply the case of someone (like Doolittle) needing to point out how to treat her right? I wonder how much the wing modifications had to do with lessening the accidents versus people figuring out how the lady needed to be handled.

I'd especially like to meet someone who's flown the B-25 and the B-26 and get a comparison of the two.

Awww, Steve...your posts were the best. Don't take your ball and go home.

Did Tibbets have any background flying fighters?