Warbird Information Exchange

Being a photographer whose closest experience to flying is shooting a picture of the cockpit, I read on this forum all about the engines, the wrecks, the recoveries, the projects, etc etc. All great stuff indeed. Once I did an interview with a WWII P-38 pilot. He had not flown since 1945. I asked him if he would like to fly one more time in a P-38. 50 years on and he smiled and said with no hesitation, "absolutely". Gave me the impression he loved to fly that plane. Leads me to my question, what were these planes like to fly? Cast aside the tech stuff. What was(and is)it like to fly a Mustang, a Spitfire, a Thunderbolt, a Hellcat? What about the pure joy(or pain) of flying the great WWII machines. I heard a CAF pilot talk about 'wrestling' a B-17 around once. We all know about the great history of these planes, but what about just holding the controls and driving them around the sky?

To fly any of those aircraft, you need to fly the AT-6 first, after a couple of hundred hours there, your ready for the rest.

_________________
GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.

That's funny I heard it the other way, after a couple of hundred hours come back and you will be ready to fly the six!

Steve

_________________
"Any excuse is good enough if you're willing to use it!"

My experience isn't vast...T-6 is the benchmark that most will measure each against another....I had a noted Naval aviator from WW II tell me that "most all the airplanes are like most all the ladies: they're all about the same in the equipment category, some are high maintenance, some respond better to the touch, and some definitely look better, but they all fly about alike."

For what it is worth.

Old Shep

If I understood the question correctly, McKConnor0307 wasn't asking what you have to do to be qualified to fly a P-38, P-51, etc. He was asking those of you who have flown these fighters or bombers, what the actual experience is like.

McK...I sincerely wish I could tell you.

Mudge the grounded

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

Check out this thread for a little info about some characteristics.

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... 21&start=0

Here is a little of what I wrote then about flying the Spad.
The Skyraider is a very docile, very well behaved beast. Landing it at an airfield with 4000' allows one to use a very comfortable 98kts on approach at the very light weights that I generally operate at @ 16,500lbs., max gross is a little over 25,000lbs. Brakes are very good and don't really fade, but I make every effort not to use them at all if possible, just a light touch after touch down, to make sure they are there and then a very slight amount at the end of the roll to turn off. The pucks that the system uses are in very short supply, and therefore expensive. Tires are a whole different issue, the Skyraider is very tough on tires. 50 landings on a set is about all you get. They are readily available at $1600 a set plus $600 for a set of tubes, new, but I have them retreaded much cheaper, and the retreads seem to hold up a little better. On 4000ft I hold 20'" and a stabilized approach and put it on the #s and pull off all power at full touch down and let the aircraft coast to almost a full stop.

The Skyraider will teach you alot about three things, Torque, P Factor and Inertia.

The Skyraider doesn't fly like it looks. It has boosted controls, so it is very light on the controls. Rolls as well as anything I have flown and does nice loops. Trim however is crucial.

For take off I hold the brakes and run it up to 30" before I release and the prop air flow gives you full rudder authority as you begin the roll, especially in the AD5, which has 40% more rudder than the "little" Skyraider. I use 48"/2800 for take off, 36"/2600 (2000-3000 fpm and 330GPH) for climb and 28"/1900 for cruise (@180kts and 100GPH) At 16,500lbs you get some very impressive climb rates.

Probably more than you asked for, but, 3000ft is safe if conditions are optimal and you use excellent technique. Anything less than that is emergency use only. The 3000' approach is more like a shortfield/carrier approach, with 91kts, very little flair and complete power reduction just as the mains touch. The Skyraider is rugged. Very firm, and the slight "vertical" drop in, kills a lot of the rolling inertia, brakes as a last resort.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

planeoldsteve
Your right, Bob Love told me many years ago that first you fly the P-47, then the P-51, then the P-40, then you can handle the "Terrable Texan". But he also said that the USAAF did it the other way around.

_________________
GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.

Great Question...

Have you heard the new Flight Journal radio stuff? Budd Davisson give a good impression of what these machines are like to fly...

Give them a listen.

http://www.flightjournal.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=9453C1928AC24B3D9505B8F3E1625B4F&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=8889597305B0472BA9ACB3953D8999ED

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

http://www.warbirds-online.org/?p=403

I highly recommend the books "Flying the World's Greatest Aircraft" and "Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII", both of which contain tons of fascinating first-person pilot accounts of what it is like to be at the stick of classic warplanes.

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

Thanks all for the info. The Skyraider stuff is exactly what I was looking for. I guess my earth-bound analogy would be comparing driving cars, not what they look like, not the engine size but how they drive. I would love to hear a Corsair pilot argue with a Mustang pilot over their respective planes, that kind of thing.

Mck: My impression of my first T-6 flight, 1st thing is larger than a 172 or similar and most different it is a lot of big metal parts, no flimsy plastic. It looks like it was made by John Deere and made to last. It is real noisy, flies pretty good, not too heavy on the controls, climbs pretty well, fairly smooth in cruise, not real fast. P51 first ride: kind of tight getting in the back seat, even more noisy, you feel like you are encased in noise when using climb power. Great visibility to the sides and up, fast so that cars on the ground look almost stationary by comparison. Spitfire: wonderful engine sound, climbs effortlessly, seems a little quieter than a 51, and much cooler in the cockpit. Very positive and effective controls, especially the elevator. Turns like a ballerina on tiptoe.. Great in hard turns and at low speeds. Good handling on the runway if landed correctly. Comparison of flying P-51 to a Merlin Spitfire: the 51 feels like a bigger plane, a little more cockpit room, a little heavier controls, a little less climb, a little faster in cruise. Noisy and very hot in the summer down low. The 51 fells nice and stable on approach with very effective flaps. Ailerons become sluggish below 120, Spit feels better here. 51 is nice and stable when touching down. Even with almost the same engine, Spit has the lighter wood prop so revs easy, up or down. Which is best? Depends on the lenght of the trip. If you need a long range escort, the Mustang has much more range, or for civilian use can carry more luggage. I think for a low time pilot like I was, the Spit might be a little safer. In a dogfight they are closely enough matched that the pilot might make the difference, but with equal pilots a Merlin Spit is more manuevrable than a 51. A Griffon Spit like a XIV, keeps most of the turn ability, climbs even better and is even a little faster than a 51,and in my opinion 20mm are superior to .50 cals, others disagree on this point. Best choice is to get at least one of each. As for a B-17, I only got a few moments of pilot time, but I remember it as handling pretty nicely. You should get one of those too!

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

McK, to try to put flying a vintage fighter in terms common to many pilots. Re a C172: Other than the difference in noise and power, performance is not just a little better, but many times better. Just easy cruise in a Mustang is about 275 mph, twice as fast as a 172 top speed. Max climb in my Spitfire MKIX is about 8 or 10 times that of the Cessna. A competent pilot can fly these planes, they aren't hard to handle, but you do have to be more prepared than a trainer, things happen faster. A 51 on downwind at about 150 is going faster than a 172 top speed. The penalty of course is when you have the pay the fuel or overhaul bill. Fun is expensive, but there is always a feeling of being fortunate enough to fly one of these historic planes.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Flying the Mustang is like driving the top of the world sports cars and motorcycles.
I would compare it to a Lamborghini Countach, (six carb version) which is a real sports car, the V-12 keeps making power till you think it has to be way past red line, very smooth and linear power. No compromises for performance, tight cockpit, not very good visibility and very precise handling.
Other sports cars give up something for ride or comfort I sold a Testarossa because it seemed to give up performance so the car magazine writers would like it and say good things about it in their articles. Truth is it gave up performance for comfort. Even the Diablo gives up performance and driver "feel" for comfort.The Mustang is very much like the Countach in my opinion.
The Corsair is big and shakes more then the Mustang. The engine is hard mounted with no rubber to dampen the 2000 plus hp and you notice it in the stick. It is easier to fly, meaning it seems to be better behaved when slow or at the edge of it's envelope. It doesn't seem to dart like the Mustang I would guess either due to it's mass or the type of wing. The controls are lighter but it is more like the Ferrari Testarossa, a good sports car but not the no compromise of the Lamborghini.

The Mustang seems to go into roll faster then the Corsair. This may just seem that way due to the difference in size but the Mustang seems to move faster in every way except climb performance.

IF you are in to motorcycles the Mustang is like my Ninja ZX-12 and the Corsair is like my Harley

The Mustang at 36 inches and 2400 rpm indicates 260 mph at 60 gph.
The Corsiar at 30 inches and 2000 rpm indicates 210 kts at 80 gph

High speed passes entered at cruise power from 1500 feet the Corsair will get up to 260 knots indicated while the Mustang will hit 340 to 360 mph.

I don't have any Corsair stick time. I rode in the back once with Howard, and I do remember some vibration. He said it is common to some models. I guess I could learn to fly one, but when I sit up front it feels foreign compared to what I am used to.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK