Fantasy pilot

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by nightfighter, Apr 9, 2010.

  1. nightfighter

    nightfighter New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    "What WW-II plane wouldn't you want to fly?"

    The B-26 Widow-maker!

    I watched a documentary on that subject and how Doolittle made his demonstration flight doing maneuvers that the complaining pilots insisted would result in a crash.
    Nevertheless, the documentary showed a demonstration on how creepy it was to land. The B-26 would stall if flown in a normal, gradual attempt at landing inasmuch as it needed a relative high air speed. The ship was shown almost in a dive until the last second, and then leveled out to land. When seeing it on TV, I thought J....C.....that had to require split second and almost perfect timing, begging the question: What would happen if the pilot was wounded or even fatigued? It is not a airplane that I would ever like to have to land.
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2010
  2. nightfighter

    nightfighter New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    Also in a short list of WWII aircraft that I would not like to have flown is the Liberator. According to taped interviews I have watched with WWII pilots, the Liberator could not be flown in as tight box formations as B17's because they bounced all over the place compared to B17's. And when they flew with the B17's, the pilots stated that because the B24 Liberators could not fly as tight, the German fighters would by-pass the B17's in favor of shooting at the B24's.

    Also, I have heard B24 crews say that they got back to base faster than the B17's. And the B17 crews would counter with: "Yes, but the B17's get back to base more often".
  3. Millwright

    Millwright Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,867
    NF,

    I wouldn't place too much faith in the info in "Dogfights", myself ....

    The early P-40 B's sent to China, (diverted from a lot destined for Britian) were armed with 2 .30 cal cowl mounted MGs and 4 .50 wing guns. The "E" models were armed with six wing-mounted .50's.

    The AVG and later the USAAF encountered a variety of Jap aircraft. in China. Perhaps the most "modern" being the Oscar and the Hyabusa, few were "inferior" in flight performance, but all lacked sufficient armour, self-sealing tanks and heavy armament. That changed as 20mm cannon and 12/7 MGs were fitted to a lot of models.

    Can't think why you wouldn't want to sit in the seat of a very good airplane - the Martin built - B-26 ! Good load, great speed and nice handling according to the old drivers I used to hang around with. Its only "fault", according to them, was in the USAAF's multi-engine training, or, rather, lack thereof.

    USAAF M/E training was given in the UC-78, aka "Bamboo Bomber" or the Beech -17. Both were slow and placid "tail draggers" with low-powered engines where VMC was nearly below stall speed. Transition to the high-powered "tri-cycle" B-26 with its "zero" wing incidence angle where attitude, and airspeed ruled takekoffs and landings was a shock to most. But flown "by the numbers" it was a safe and efficient medium bomber !

    Its "close cousin" the Douglas built A-26 was even better, having the best loss/mission rate of any bomber in the ETO. It was so good it persisted in the USAF inventory thru Vietnam ! A post-war designation change also has it listed as the "B-26", leading to a lot of "confusion". >MW
  4. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,857
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    I have flown Goonie Birds, C-54s, C-118s, C-69s and C-121s.

    Would love to have the privilege of flying the Mustang and the Lightning. I have always been a big fan of both.
  5. Millwright

    Millwright Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,867
    Marlin,

    You would have a lot more "relevant" multi-engine experience than most of the pilots flying the -38 in WW2 !! That said, the many models/mods of the -38 held traps for the unwary persisting even today ! At least one modern and somewhat "experienced" war bird flyer killed himself in a -38 because he apparently wasn't familiar with the fuel system of the variant he was in.....

    You probably would like the -51, IMO. Cosy cockpit and good visibility in the air. OTOH, taxiing, (unless you have a lot of tail-dragger time) would be an experience !! OTT, just about everything you know is applicable ! Just 'wheel it on' like most WW2 pilots we're taught... >MW
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum F-22 Pilots Dizzy at the controls Jun 14, 2012
General Military Arms & History Forum Interview with Pilot of Enola Gay May 8, 2012
General Military Arms & History Forum Any pilots or aviation buffs here? Question about an old C-47. Jun 22, 2011

Share This Page