The 51 and AT-6 are the only two I ever flew and the litany of don'ts from my instructor father focused around low speed/high rpm screw ups. Add the off-camber angle of the 109 and you have a real handful. I will add that the narrow track of the landing gear on the spitfire and the 109 make landings quite an experience, and ground loops are much easier to get into with the Spitfire and the 109. That is why you often see the crew chief on the wings for taxiing in the old war movies. The wide track of the P-47 makes it even trickier on narrower taxiways. One of my P-38 veteran friends stated that if he had had an engine out in his first 20-30 hours of flying the type, it probably would have killed him.Īny tail dragger is a pain to taxi. I have heard that a Lightning with an engine out on takeoff or landing can be a real handful. Mustangs are beautiful warbirds, but like any older airplane, can be tricky. Too much power on a Mustang will torque-roll the aircraft, even at cruise. I don't know how it would be CG-wise with the engine behind you, but I have spoken with vets that flew P-38s and P-39s and they liked the way the P-39 flew. That alone makes take-offs and landings safer because of visibility. I would say the P-39 would be the "easiest" of the list because of the tricycle landing gear and single engine. While I haven't flown any of them, I have been around them long enough to see how they take-off, land and handle approached in crosswinds, etc. Even experienced warbird operators have been killed in everything on the list. Thanks!Īny one of the airplanes can kill a novice, and fast. coming from T-6 Texan training, let's say, how would you rank the above aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness" or "ease of operation" overall?Īnd for comparison's sake, I don't object to throwing in a Spitfire, Zero, and/or Bf-109 or FW-190. and the nerves to calmly ignore the oil slowly coating the windscreenīeing a "tricycle" configuration, the P-38 probably has the best site lines for take-offs and landings, but then you have the whole twin-engine thing to worry about (though certainly a welcomed worry for many fighter pilots).īut for the average, relatively new pilot.
And the Corsair (my favorite warbird) flies like a dream, I hear, but requires some serious skill for take-offs and landings. For example, how would you rank the following aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness?"Ĭurtis P-40E Warhawk (or Kittyhawk if you prefer)Īs I understand it, the Mustang is a sports car with a relatively high stall speed (100mph?) and, as such, requires some skill and respect to fly. What would you kids say was the easiest warbird to fly? Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft.
0 kommentar(er)
