HOW DID THEY FLY WARBIRDS??

[Vettepilot13]

Hi all,

Not sure if this is the best place to post this but...

I have wondered this for years:

In modern times, they generally would not let you even wash a Mustang or other warbird until you had over 500 hours. If you had over 500 hours and a bunch of tailwheel time, they might let you sit in it, but you're still not going to be considered good enough to fly it.

So how is it that literally thousands of low time pilots straight out of training were not only able to fly them, but take them into battle back in the 1940's???

The outrageous value and financial risk of flying them now notwithstanding, what's the difference in pilots? Oh I know, all they even had were tailwheel planes back then, but there's far more to it than that...

???

Vettepilot

 

[RussR]

Simply put, it was necessary. There was a war on.

And they had a LOT of crashes/injuries/fatalities in training.

 

[Tools]

Well, the money required to operate them these days simply makes it exclusive.

That’s it. It’s kinda like being on “the board” of about anything. If you are perceived as being able to donate enough, you’re qualified.

So, if you’re gonna do it on some one else’s dime, you gotta play by their rules, which kinda makes sense.

That being said, they are very high performance machines requiring skill, so you also gotta have the goods and the confidence.

 

[asicer]

They were also pumping new planes out of the factory daily, no?

 

[Craig]

They progressed from a Stearman to a BT then a T-6 and on to the Mustang or other fighter. By the time they go to the fighters, they had 250-300 hours of military flight training, no matter how much civilian time they had.
One uncle went from cubs to L-5's, while his brother went from Steamans to C-45's then on to PBM's.

 

[Pinecone]

My Dad earned his wings of Gold in 1950. He learned in an SNJ (Navy T-6) then transitioned to the AD (A-1) Skyraider. His first flight in the AD was solo. Read the manual, get a cockpit checkout, go fly. His next aircraft the TBM Avenger, also single pilot, but with crew. Then to the AF Guardian, also single pilot.

I need to dig out his logbooks and see how many hours he had when he first flew the AD.

Did the have mishaps? Yes.

Heck, I flew the A-10. It was single pilot only. And I had about 200 hours jet time when I flew if for the first time.

 

[iamtheari]

And they had a LOT of crashes/injuries/fatalities in training.

For American servicemen, I think training for WW2 was more deadly than fighting all subsequent wars combined. An article I found just now says 15,000 airmen were killed in training during the war. Another says about 40% of USAAC pilots died in training accidents. Meanwhile, more soldiers died in a single dress rehearsal for invading Utah Beach than in the actual invasion of that beach. "War is hell" was quite the understatement.

I don't think anyone, even those who fought the thing, can fit the whole scale of America's participation in WW2 in his mind. Pick any one statistic from the war and try to picture it. Then keep that in mind while picturing other numbers. You'll quickly get dizzy. The best someone today can hope to accomplish is to pick up some bits and pieces from great books like Toll's Pacific War series, Symonds' Neptune, and the like. But there were still probably more pages printed of war plans and rations orders during the war than there have been for history books about the war.

 

[jsstevens]

The pilots had intensive training for 250-350 ish hours in a relatively short time. I do find that recency really helps. And the risk to reward ratio was very different.

 

[Lowflynjack]

They progressed from a Stearman to a BT then a T-6 and on to the Mustang or other fighter. By the time they go to the fighters, they had 250-300 hours of military flight training, no matter how much civilian time they had.
One uncle went from cubs to L-5's, while his brother went from Steamans to C-45's then on to PBM's.

I thought I was doing okay in the T6 this weekend, then I was told the next step is to do 10 full-stop, 3-point landings from the back seat. Once you do that, you can pretty much fly anything.

 

[geezer]

My wife's uncle died in that famous rehearsal. Operation Tiger.

A member of my American Legion post drove one of the infamous tanks, modified to self propelled drive to the beach. 75% sank, with the loss of the entire crew. His made it to the beach, and the Germans did not kill him. He had lied about his age, 2 years too young to enter the service. I have not seen him since Covid, he may be gone. About 96 years old now.

 

[kyleb]

First, they selected the top applicants for flight school. Second, they ran them through three levels of training before flying combat types. Third, they washed out the candidates who didn’t successfully complete each step of training. And fourth, they accepted high casualty rates in training.

 

[jsstevens]

First, they selected the top applicants for flight school. Second, they ran them through three levels of training before flying combat types. Third, they washed out the candidates who didn’t successfully complete each step of training. And fourth, they accepted high casualty rates in training.

Casualties of both people and airplanes.

 

[ateamer]

Hi all,

Not sure if this is the best place to post this but...

I have wondered this for years:

In modern times, they generally would not let you even wash a Mustang or other warbird until you had over 500 hours. If you had over 500 hours and a bunch of tailwheel time, they might let you sit in it, but you're still not going to be considered good enough to fly it.

So how is it that literally thousands of low time pilots straight out of training were not only able to fly them, but take them into battle back in the 1940's???

The outrageous value and financial risk of flying them now notwithstanding, what's the difference in pilots? Oh I know, all they even had were tailwheel planes back then, but there's far more to it than that...

???

Vettepilot

Not only was all of their time in tailwheels - more challenging planes than Champs and Cubs, their lives had revolved solely around flight training, they had been through multiple layers of vetting before being accepted for flight school (unlike civilian pilots, who only have to have a credit card), and more pilots died in training than in combat. We pretty much only read about the ones who survived flight training.

 

[ateamer]

First, they selected the top applicants for flight school. Second, they ran them through three levels of training before flying combat types. Third, they washed out the candidates who didn’t successfully complete each step of training. And fourth, they accepted high casualty rates in training.

Washing out unsat students is a big one. The military instructor pilots weren’t wringing their hands and doing whatever the equivalent of social media of the day asking other IPs “what can I do to pass this student who has been a failure at every level?” They got rid of students who couldn’t hack it. There were none of them with 60 or 80 hours who hadn’t soloed.

 

[gearFX]

For American servicemen, I think training for WW2 was more deadly than fighting all subsequent wars combined. An article I found just now says 15,000 airmen were killed in training during the war. Another says about 40% of USAAC pilots died in training accidents.

Not disputing the grave cost of training but it seems the 40% losses were not just due to deaths:

"From January 1941 to August 1945, 191,654 cadets who were awarded pilot wings. However, there were also 132,993 who "washed out" or were killed during training, a loss rate of approximately 40 percent due to accidents, academic or physical problems, and other causes."

 

[X3 Skier]

The losses due to accidents, crahes, midair’s, mechanical failures and loss of control after arriving in theater were also high compared to combat dogfighting and ground fire.

It was war and whatever it took to get a qualified pilot in a P-51 into the fight was accepted. If today’s P-51 fleet operated the same way as WWII, they’d be extinct PDQ.

 

[Vettepilot13]

Yeah I guess. Really great answers guys, and thanks!

One thing I did not see mentioned. The absolute and total obsession with safety in place now.

In the 1940's, if someone got hurt it was "Whoopsie, he effed up."

Nowadays, it's "OH NO!!" "HOW COULD THIS BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN???" "WHO AND WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE??" "THIS MUST BE STOPPED!!" Then Congessional hearings, new laws, and something gets regulated, cancelled, or both.

(You all know I exaggerate only slightly...)

Anyway, yeah, I knew a pilot that "Flew everything with a "P" in front of it." He said the Stearman taught you a lot. They had many very high time students ground looping them.

I think the flying of something like a Mustang would be fairly basic. The hard part for some would be managing the high power and killing the natural instinct to cob the power in an emergency, and then the ability to think far enough ahead of the airplane due to it's speed. Both skills of course, are vital for any hipo airplane.

One fellow told of watching Corsairs practice carrier landings at the Great Lakes. He said he watched FOUR torque over and into the lake after wave offs in one day!!

I know a 300 horse engine requires judicious application of power and a boot full of right rudder. It's hard to imagine a couple thousand horses,---> but I'd sure love to do it!!!

Vettepilot

 

[wanttaja]

As others have stated, the high washout rate contributed to weeding out the chaff so just decent pilots remained.

There's a video of a movie published in WWII..."How to Fly the P-51 Mustang." Really sounds pretty simple.

Even so, you had pilots like Robert Standford Tuck that almost washed out. Had trouble landing the Tiger Moth. His instructor had faith in him, and gave him the opportunity to finally solo. Most of the time, the student would have just been rejected.

Another factor is that accidents were accepted as part of the risks. Students would mess up Stearmans, and the ground crews could fix practically anything.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[midwestpa24]

Even in today's military, new pilots can find themselves solo in a single seat fighter with just a few hundred hours. There is no one in the civilian world going to turn lose a freshly minted commercial pilot to fly anything turbine powered. A lot of it goes into the structure of the military training, and their ability to washout anyone that isn't cutting it. Imagine being a civilian working on your private pilot and your instructor says "Nope, you're not going to be a pilot, goodbye!"

 

[brien23]

As many died in WWII training WWI pilot training killed more percent wise. At the start of WWII Italian, German and Japan had good pilot training at the end not much information on how many died in training, or any other death other than combat, they also flew high performance aircraft.

 

[Dana]

Another thing, they were just kids, around twenty years old. At that age you learn fast, have good reflexes, and no fear.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

This is like all those posts I see on Facebook that read "When I was a kid, our parents kicked us out the door after breakfast and we came home when the street lights turned on. We played with lawn darts, drank from the hose, rode our bikes down the freeway, and we all turned out fine! Kids today are weak!"

No, that's called survivor bias. Lots of those kids didn't make it, in life or in pilot training.

There were over 15,000 P-51s built. And tons of other warbirds. They were a dime a dozen. There were people volunteering to fly them, and anyone who was good enough to not kill themselves or look like they were gonna during training would get an opportunity. It's not like there were insurance companies worried about whether they were going to be paying out a huge settlement if someone wrecked one.

FWIW, it's perfectly legal for a PP-ASEL with high performance, complex, and tailwheel endorsements to hop into a P-51 and fly it with no additional training. It's insurance that really drives the requirements these days.

And, of course, as has been pointed out, the military generally has the best training because as many planes and people as they had, they'd certainly prefer any losses be in combat, and to minimize those losses. But I'm sure there's a calculus there - Double the training hours, and losses go down by 10%, what is the cost to the country in both cases?

Finally - I know of at least one guy who was put in the right seat of a brand-new B-17 at a total time of 64 hours to fly across the pond and go fight. Crazy!

 

[Tools]

It isn’t that military training is so amazing. What is amazing is their ability to determine who is gonna make through their training. This is achieved through the use of wildly vetted metrics, empirically gathered.

I was perfectly capable of landing a jet on a carrier solo with less than 150 hrs total time, but had no business in a Cessna 150.

That being said, flying warbirds isn’t magic. These days it’s just exclusive and expensive. Back then it was neither.

 

[StraightnLevel]

FWIW, it's perfectly legal for a PP-ASEL with high performance, complex, and tailwheel endorsements to hop into a P-51 and fly it with no additional training.

???

It's both vintage and over 800 hp. I would have thought that it required a type rating, or at least a letter of authorization.

https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/vintage_experimental

 

[flyingcheesehead]

???

It's both vintage and over 800 hp. I would have thought that it required a type rating, or at least a letter of authorization.

https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/vintage_experimental

Hmmm. If it's experimental, which it appears that most (?) may be now, that is true. There is a P-51 designation in the Experimental document. Not the Vintage one, though, oddly enough - There's only three singles they put in that category (Avenger, Guardian, and Skyraider), and they're all over 12,500.

And I guess this is one of those things that falls under 61.31(a)(3).

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Softening of society. Air conditioning, clean water, clean air. I’m not saying any of that is bad, I’m just explaining why now is different than then.

But on the other hand, smoking is now bad, no tolerance of drink & drive, pot is ok, and sports gambling is legal. Long live Pete Rose.

 

[jsstevens]

I read an article some years ago about the hot rodding culture that grew up in Southern California in the years immediately following the Second World War. They talked about the lack of concern (by modern standards) for safety. Their conclusion was most of those involved had just recently returned from being actively shot at and by comparison the racing risks were slight.

 

[Pinecone]

Washing out unsat students is a big one. The military instructor pilots weren’t wringing their hands and doing whatever the equivalent of social media of the day asking other IPs “what can I do to pass this student who has been a failure at every level?” They got rid of students who couldn’t hack it. There were none of them with 60 or 80 hours who hadn’t soloed.

This even in later years. Makes a HUGE difference.

In the late 70s to early 80s (around my time in UPT), IIRC, the USAF got about 25,000 applications to fly. They selected about 2,500.

About half of those selected, did not accept the slot. So about 1,400 actually showed up.

About 400 - 500 (about 33%) washed out. Failed academically, or flying, or decided it was not for them.

So only about 1 out of 25 people who applied ended up getting their wings. And only a fraction of them got fighter/attack/recce aircraft. The rest were in multi pilot aircraft.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Softening of society. Air conditioning, clean water, clean air. I’m not saying any of that is bad, I’m just explaining why now is different than then.

Um, no. They weren't able to fly the airplanes because they were sweaty, diseased, or because of the results of that.

THE ENTIRE WORLD WAS AT WAR. That caused a lot of things to happen that don't normally happen.

But on the other hand, smoking is now bad, no tolerance of drink & drive, pot is ok, and sports gambling is legal. Long live Pete Rose.

Smoking was always bad, we just didn't always know it. We have a lower tolerance for people going out and killing others in the name of fun. And, we realize that pot is tamer than alcohol.

 

[TCABM]

…The outrageous value and financial risk of flying them now notwithstanding, what's the difference in pilots?…

We do the same thing with F-35 drivers today. ~250hrs of UPT then go to F-35 Initial. Some non-US airlines do a similar thing with ab initio candidates and prior to Colgan 3407, all one required to right-seat a 747 was a fresh CMEL and the type rating.

Structured training programs allow that.

 

[ateamer]

This even in later years. Makes a HUGE difference.

In the late 70s to early 80s (around my time in UPT), IIRC, the USAF got about 25,000 applications to fly. They selected about 2,500.

About half of those selected, did not accept the slot. So about 1,400 actually showed up.

About 400 - 500 (about 33%) washed out. Failed academically, or flying, or decided it was not for them.

So only about 1 out of 25 people who applied ended up getting their wings. And only a fraction of them got fighter/attack/recce aircraft. The rest were in multi pilot aircraft.

The civilian flight world needs to adopt a similar approach. People really should be self-deselecting, or at least accepting their limitations and flying within their personal envelope. Not every pilot is suited for high-performance aircraft, or IFR, or acro. We’d have fewer pilots and planes, but more good people alive.

 

[ateamer]

We do the same thing with F-35 drivers today. ~250hrs of UPT then go to F-35 Initial. Some non-US airlines do a similar thing with ab initio candidates and prior to Colgan 3407, all one required to right-seat a 747 was a fresh CMEL and the type rating.

Structured training programs allow that.

And not graduating people who aren’t cutting it. We need to quite giving eighth and tenth chances to students who can’t safely land a plane after dozens of hours. CFIs and flight school owners need to learn to say no.

 

[Half Fast]

And, we realize that pot is tamer than alcohol.

Well, at least it’s different. When people get drunk they start a fight, but when they get stoned they start a band.

 

[Half Fast]

And not graduating people who aren’t cutting it. We need to quite giving eighth and tenth chances to students who can’t safely land a plane after dozens of hours. CFIs and flight school owners need to learn to say no.

Why? Is there a correlation between pilots who took a long time to solo and pilots who cause accidents? Maybe the data exists but I’ve never seen it.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Well, at least it’s different. When people get drunk they start a fight, but when they get stoned they start a band.

Which one can do more damage over the long run?

 

[ateamer]

Which one can do more damage over the long run?

In 29 years of law enforcement, not once did I ever have to fight with someone who was stoned, respond to an assault following someone smoking weed, or handle a coroner case where marijuana use was attributed to the death.

On the other hand, if alcohol didn’t exist, law enforcement and court staffing would easily be half what is now.

 

[JOhnH]

During WWII they were shiny new toys designed to be flown into battle.

Today, they are basically museum pieces. Have you ever been to a museum? Do you remember all those "Do Not Touch" signs?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Why? Is there a correlation between pilots who took a long time to solo and pilots who cause accidents? Maybe the data exists but I’ve never seen it.

I doubt it. There's a lot of people who still believe in the WWII-era "10 hours to solo rule". I got my private at 42 hours, but I didn't solo until 16 or 17.

The old Cirrus Access program that was designed to teach you how to fly while allowing you to make use of the airplane for real world missions right away prohibited soloing prior to 50 hours.

Plenty of people take 50+ hours to solo because either their instructors keep going off to the airlines, or they just take a while to find an instructor they click with. Others may not be the best pilots, but they also seem to realize that and fly conservatively once they do have their certificates.

IMO, it's the poor judgement, and overrated self-opinions, that get most people killed. Unfortunately, it seems like those are also the people least likely to self-select themselves out of aviation - More often, they seem to go buy a shiny new airplane and crash it into something.

 

[Vettepilot13]

Regarding "The Right Stuff", or what it takes to fly a fighter...

We used to call it "Touch". As in "He has the "touch", or "Nice "touch". Some have it, some don't. And it's hard to tell who has it and who doesn't. Some people seem to innately have an intuitive ability with machines. They just naturally have a "feel" for them. It was one of the more interesting aspects of instructing. You never knew how someone would perform, or learn, until strapped in with them. Then it became evident. And it was certainly not guaranteed to be the best book learners nor most informed that had "touch".

You're right; nowadays it is expected that you teach them to fly, whether they had the "Touch" or not. Then there's the flip side. Sometimes, the ones who did not have the "Touch" made great pilots. They had to work hard for their skills, and appreciated them more and worked harder to maintain and/or improve them, while the ones who picked it up quickly and easily either became cocky or complacent.

Interesting stuff actually...

Vettepilot

 

[Vettepilot13]

I doubt it. There's a lot of people who still believe in the WWII-era "10 hours to solo rule". I got my private at 42 hours, but I didn't solo until 16 or 17.

The old Cirrus Access program that was designed to teach you how to fly while allowing you to make use of the airplane for real world missions right away prohibited soloing prior to 50 hours.

Plenty of people take 50+ hours to solo because either their instructors keep going off to the airlines, or they just take a while to find an instructor they click with. Others may not be the best pilots, but they also seem to realize that and fly conservatively once they do have their certificates.

IMO, it's the poor judgement, and overrated self-opinions, that get most people killed. Unfortunately, it seems like those are also the people least likely to self-select themselves out of aviation - More often, they seem to go buy a shiny new airplane and crash it into something.

Well, I was a (Shudder) Ultralight Aircraft Instructor for a while too. There, the old "8 hour solo" was much more of a possibility because it was simple and basic flight. Much less of what a pilot must now deal with in general aviation with modern radios, procedures, rules, navigation, and other technicalities. It is easy for a newbie to get overwhelmed and "buried", thus delaying the solo process.

Another factor is how busy we all seem to be now. If a person can afford, both financially and from a time commitment, to fly several times a week, things go faster...

Vettepilot