"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...

"Gregg Germain" wrote in message
...
:: There are lots of P51s out there, so they are not rare enough.
:: Further, they are said to be even harder to fly than normal for
:: vintage and type.
:
: Where does it say P-51's are hard to fly? Or harder to fly than
: "normal"?

I'm curious as to how the conclusion was reached - it's certainly
harder to fly than a Cessna 152, but not nearly as hard to fly as the
space shuttle.

I'm assuming he compared them to aircraft contemporary with the P-51
since he used the word "vintage".

Was it harder to fly than the P-39? the 39 has some tough spin
characteristics.

Other than the 51 being somewhat less stable when the aft gas tank
was full, I don't know of any other difficult characteristics.

Just curious what he meant by "harder".

I've read three things. The p51 is unstable in pitch with full tanks
and the
resulting aft CG, and that a p51 has a high speed stall that's tougher
than
most other WWII fighters. And finally the p51 has a higher stall speed
than other contemporary fighters.

I myself have no idea, and will defer to people with actual knowledge.
But
this is the scuttle-butt around this household.


The P-51 is a little more unforgiving than some other WWII fighters because
of it's high speed laminar-flow wing - this gives it speed and range, at the
cost of a more 'sudden' wing stall and a higher stall speed.

The Spitfire is more forgiving to fly because, due to a design quirk, it's
airframe actually gives a little shudder to warn you you're near a wing
stall state.

Matt