What was the most difficult to handle post-WW2 RAF aircraft?

[Trim Stab]

As a follow-up to the very interesting Meteor and Canberra threads, both of which were clearly a handful, what would be the consensus here of the most difficult to handle RAF/RN fixed-wing aircraft since the war?

[Pontius Navigator]

Basically any overpowered twin. Hornet, Brigand, even the Valetta and that before you go on to the jets. These were handfuls in single engine flight. The Vulcan had its asymetric moments too with one crash and one recovered from a crash and landed safely (ish).

[Farfrompuken]

I think they lost a few in the jet powered swift due to handling inadequacies.

[ACW599]

Wasn't the Javelin supposed to be fairly demanding, particularly at low speed?

[Geehovah]

Adverse yaw, wing rock at 23 units, the F4 had its moments

[L J R]

The Reaper....(MQ-9)

If you haven't tried to land one, don't - it will only end in tears.

[Herod]

Anything I was flying at the time :ok:

[BEagle]

Buccaneer below 300KIAS was very demanding - more than I could cope with, that's for sure.

F-4 was a lot more forgiving.

For being simply unpleasant, that bastard thing called the Jetstream T1 takes the biscuit. Shame - it could have been a nice aeroplane had someone sorted out the control forces and stability characteristics before it was forced on the RAF.

Incidentally, L J R, drones don't count.....

[wiggy]

It's probably each to their own, although the over powered twins must be up there in difficulty. Must admit a Phase III VID on the F4 concentrated the hands/eyes/feet wonderfully.....and that was with a good nav...

[BEagle]

Low level phase III VIDs probably exacted the most demanding crew co-ordination requirements in the F-4. Long before people-tube drivers 'invented' Crew Resource Management, we were using it in the F-4 and other RAF 2-seat jets.

I agree that with a good fightergator (such as Impiger :ok:), PhIII VIDs were much less sphincter-puckering. Keep the dot on the (4th?) range marker and heed the patter!

For those who wonder what a Ph 3 VID was, it was a stern visual identification of a target aircraft. At night. With all the target aircraft's lights out. Often at low level over a dark North Sea. You crept in to about 1000 yards, then slowly, slowly into 300 yards or thereabouts (I think - it was over 25 years ago) and stabilised. All done using radar until right at the end when you would identify your buddy visually.....

Then wazz the Bremerhaven ferry on the way home if you could spot it.....:E

Sorry if I dismissed your drone-operating a bit tersely, L J R. In about 1966 I also found landing my Veron Robot quite difficult although it didn't have an on-board camera to help. Just 'up/down/left/right' 4-ch non-proportional Graupner radio and not even a throttle control, so every landing was 'deadstick'. It survived about 15 missions before coming to grief in one of Merryfield's drains - the itinerant scrap dealers had stolen the cover....:uhoh:

[Fareastdriver]

The Bristol Sycamore. Wooden blades, an Alvis radial engine that was running at max boost and rpm to stay airborne. Manual controls with trim wheels controlling force springs that enabled you to use the limited control range if you were precisely in trim. Twenty nine pints of water/glycol that was pumped between the boom and cabin floor to maintain controllable CofG. Think engine failure/ground resonance etc and it did it, instantly.
In its SAR role the pilot would look out of where the door had been removed to winch his crewman down to the survivor, winch the survivor up, take him to base and then fly back to pick up the winchman.
A photo-finish second was the Dragonfly, the early ones with manual controls. A lead block slid up and down the floor was CofG contol. You could always tell the pilots, they were the ones with their left hand knuckles scraping along the floor.

[Barksdale Boy]

Interesting to see that Pontius mentioned Brigands. The only person I ever knew who flew them was the excellent Arthur Breeze. Is he still around? Pontius may know.

[BEagle]

The late Mike Merrett, who I knew as a JP QFI at Leeming in the days when the PCL was the Stn Cdr, flew the Brigand. His vivid description of the noise, vibration and chaos when flying anti-bandit 60 deg dive bombing attacks (complete with sound effects) was hilarious.

2 x Centaurus, it must have been quite a beast on one engine.

There was also an ex-Hornet pilot instructing on the VC10 sim when I was first at Brize - he said it was a superb aircraft with plenty of range and had fewer vices than the Mosquito.

Another acquaintance flew the Mosquito trainer shortly after the war - and wondered how the RAF didn't lose more students. Evidently it was a real handful on take-off and if you lost an engine below about 170KIAS, your only prospect of survival was probably to throttle back the other and force land straight ahead....:eek:

[ORAC]

The guys I had the utmost respect for were the Lightning pilots.

Try Phase 3 VIDs in a single seater, low level at night, using the AI23 and maintaining the instrument scan between getting head down in the rubber goggles over the B scope and trying to spot the target visually. :ooh:

And all in a jet that declared a fuel priority as it lined up for take-off and whose nav kit was a map and a chinagraph. (slight exaggeration, but not much ;) )

[lsh]

The guys I had the utmost respect for were the Lightning pilots.

Try Phase 3 VIDs in a single seater, low level at night, using the AI23 and maintaining the instrument scan between getting head down in the rubber goggles over the B scope and trying to spot the target visually.

And all in a jet that declared a fuel priority as it lined up for take-off and whose nav kit was a map and a chinagraph. (slight exaggeration, but not much )

And no radalt, I believe?!!!
lsh
:E

[lightningmate]

The Lightning was gifted a Rad-Alt late in its service life - along with, belatedly, many other weapon system mods promised for years but that had always failed to materialise.

lm

[ORAC]

I went on a LL Opex trip out of Binbrook. Controller at SW doing a broadcast based on Flamborough Head. Pilot was Chris Stevens.

It was fishbowl conditions and the ships on the surface looked like they were above us. I looked at the altimeter and it was reading 300ft underground.

Chris was plotting his position on a map, the tgt position on the map and searching on the radar. Map, panel, radar, map, panel, radar. Left hand working the radar controller and throttles (no HOTAS in those days).

I asked Chris how he knew what height we were at, he said he was flying using the size of the aircraft shadow on the water as a reference. :ooh:

[soddim]

Perhaps we should not confuse handling difficulties with difficulty in performing the role in any particular aircraft. I am still amazed that our heroes in WW2 managed not only to fly their aircraft well but also to shoot others down in aircraft that needed so much concentration to simply fly well.

We have to pay tribute to designers and procurers that aircraft have become so much easier to fly leaving spare capacity to perform the role.

Although the F4 in multirole use was not that easy to operate, at least it had predictable handling difficulties. Looking at the large number of Meteor accidents, that must have been a handfull.

[Impiger]

Thanks for the kind words BEags - most out of character:E

Not that I ever flew it but the Meatbox must have been something else. As a trainee directional consultant I was given one of those general service training tasks of interviewing the station barber for the station rag. He was retiring after about 30 years of shaving heads at what is now Doncaster Robin Hood. Only thing I recall from the chat was his line that when the unit was the Meteor night fighter OCU they had a 'Standing Burial Party' warned off in SROs a bit like an Amber Guard force today!

How that must have pleased and encouraged the studes of the day:sad:

[Fareastdriver]

when the unit was the Meteor night fighter OCU

That about covers it. The Meteor had a lousy reputation brought on by the number of people that were killed. A high proportion were when PRACTISING single engined failiure with one shut down and going below the aircraft's and your own personal critical airspeed. Real engine failures on Meteors were extremely rare and if you flew one within the parameters that it was designed for and followed the checklist then there was never a problem with the aircraft. The other reasons were the usual-----cloud will break soon/see the runway any second now/no hills around here/old Fred's miles away.

[Pontius Navigator]

Interesting to see that Pontius mentioned Brigands. The only person I ever knew who flew them was the excellent Arthur Breeze. Is he still around? Pontius may know.

Not seen nor heard of Arthur in 40 years. I do recall vividly a story he told as a mere lad. He had bailed out in the North Sea and been picked up by a North Sea ferry and taken to Holland. He was then placed in a 'home for distressed seamen' until bailed by the British Consulate and put on a ferry home. Landing in UK he got a warrant from the police, as one was able to do, and took the train back to base, as one did.

He then walked from the station back to camp. As Pilot Officer Breeze walked in through the main gate wearing a salt-stained flying suit and carrying a similarly salt-stained Mae West, the Stn Cdr opened his window and shout out "Breeze, where the hell have you been, we thought you were dead."

[LOMCEVAK]

This is one of those questions that is not straightforward to answer because all aeroplanes have good and bad handling qualities in different parts of the flight envelpope and in different external stores configurations.

BEagle has raised the issue of the Buccaneer when flown below 300 KIAS. The Buccaneer has some of the worse handling qualities that I have ever experienced in the landing pattern. With the ailerons drooped it has excessive adverse yaw,with the airbrakes extended into the jet efflux it will inevitable yaw with the slip ball centred, if you throttle back too much on finals (and thus reduce the BLC blow pressure) you develop a very high rate of descent, and you approach at the maximum permitted angle of attack! I used to say that it did have the worst handling qualities in the landing pattern of anything that I had flown but I have flown a couple of USN types in the last couple of years that may be worse (E-2C and C-2A). In all configurations below 300 KIAS the AOA limit was indicated by an audio tone and a gauge - no buffet at all. If you pulled back on the stick too rapidly there was a significant lag in the pitch response that then resulted in a high nose up pitch rate that you could not always stop even with full forward stick, leading to a departure and loss of the aircraft. BUT, at 400 - 540 KIAS at low level (50 ft or less) it had probably the best handling qualities of anything that I have flown! Therefore, in my mind a great aircraft to fly but with some 'interesting' characteristics at low speed.

With respect to the Meteor, it depends on which mark you are discussing. The T7 1/2 (S) that Martin-Baker operates (T7 with a modified canopy and an F8 tail) is an absolutely delightful aircraft to fly and at high speed (Vne 475 KIAS) has outstanding handling qualities for an aircraft with non-powered flying controls. With one engine inoperative the rudder force is very high but there is ample rudder authority and little aileron is required, and with the exception of the high rudder force is easier to control when asymmetric than some large twin turbo-props such as the Andover. I suspect that a standard T7 is considerably worse asymmetric as it will have reduced directional stability and it also suffers from the 'phantom dives' (directional instability with airbrakes out and undercarriage down) which the T7 1/2 appears not to.

One aircraft that has not been mentioned yet is the Westland Wyvern. It was one aircraft that made the late great Dizzy Addicott scowl and grimace when he talked about it. Anyone out there flown it?

[ShyTorque]

I was told by a squadron navigator about his last flight as a trainee pilot. He was flying a Balliol. He got too low and slow during a night approach. On fully opening the throttle (at a very low height) the aircraft completed a 720 degree torque induced roll, against his will.

He re-roled as a navigator after that.

[Old-Duffer]

......... the Javelin.

This was the only aircraft (fixed wing) which it was expressly forbidden to stall 'cause it would always spin and the spin was unpredictable and usually irrecoverable.

Old Duffer

[larssnowpharter]

Brigands

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting to see that Pontius mentioned Brigands. The only person I ever knew who flew them was the excellent Arthur Breeze. Is he still around? Pontius may know.

I once asked this question of my father (still going strong at 87). His reply was the Brigand. He has some 70 types in his logbook including most of the Meteors. He didn't hesitate a second when he came up with 'Brigand'. Says it was a miracle he survived some 7 years flying it. Hated flying the then mandatory asymetric landings in it.

[4Greens]

Try landing anything on a carrier at night.

[NutherA2]

This was the only aircraft (fixed wing) which it was expressly forbidden to stall 'cause it would always spin and the spin was unpredictable and usually irrecoverable.The guidance given in the Javelin pilot’s notes was that looping plane aerobatics and intentional stalling were prohibited (there was a Minimum IAS limit of 150 knots, except on final approach) and that recovery from the stall was not possible (due to tailplane blanking). In event of an inadvertent stall the recommended procedure was to induce a spin and then attempt to achieve a recovery by use of ailerons, the rudder also being blanked. Recovery from the spin was not guaranteed. IIRC the data was the result of trials on the prototype and Mark 1 aircraft and the tests leading to it were curtailed after some aircraft losses. As the clean Mark 1 MAUW was about 31500 lbs, but by the time the aircraft had been developed to Mk 9R standard this had increased by about 20000lbs and the wing had been modified substantially, the guidance given in pilot’s notes was thought to be a bit suspect.
An excess of artificial feel and lack of an autopilot made flying the Javelin a bit strenuous, particularly during flight-refuelled extended sorties, but it was not unduly difficult to handle, within its limitations, although some of the operational procedures were very demanding. In FEAF the major task was low level night visidents with an unlit evading target at 500 (sometimes 250) feet; we had no radar display in the front cockpit and the interceptor had to be below the target to maintain radar contact, so this called for a very high degree of crew cooperation. Aircraft handling during these exercises was complicated a little by engine considerations. The protracted low level operations led to compressor fatigue problems which in turn resulted in a ban on use of engine RPM between 82 & 93%, so that for normal operating speeds we flew asymmetric with one throttled back.
All in all, I remember the Javelin as the aircraft I least enjoyed flying. Pity the RAF didn't opt for the Vixen.

[harrym]

For the larger class of aircraft I would nominate that arch-pig the Hastings Mk1, not only for excessively heavy elevator forces but mainly for the basic flaw of having the third wheel at the wrong end; crosswind handling was a nightgmare, with taxying virtually impossible in winds of over 25k due to weathercocking - not helped by those feeble air-operated brakes.

The Mk2 was a better job elevator-wise, but otherwise suffered from the same basic flaws; one recalls the comment of a passing airman at a USAF base " say bud, why is your goddam ship dragging its ass (sic) on the deck?"

[pasir]

Apologies for extending the thread to WW2 'difficult' aircraft to fly -
I cannot recall whether it was the introduction to RAF service of the Beaufighter or maybe the Typhoon but whichever - stories were ciculating amongst fighter pilots of far too numerous fatalaties due to
difficult handling of the new aircraft in question.
One of the squadrons due to be equiped with he type were nervously awaiting its first arrival one day when suddenly the new aircraft made a low level pass over their airfield - performed a couple of aerobatic manouvres then made a perfect three point landing.

As the airmen went over to greet the new arrival the pilot
stepped down from the wing wearing the flying overalls of the ATA
(Civil air ferry service) removed helmet and proceeded to shake out
a female head of golden shoulder length hair.

Brian (ex G- BCVI)

[dakkg651]

Pasir.

The story you quote is from the book 'Night Fighter' by Cecil Rawnsley and Robert Wright. It concerns the Beaufighter II which was fitted with RR Merlins which exacerbated the already tricky single engine characteristics of the Hercules powered MkI. What didn't help the accident rate was that the MkII was mainly used as the conversion trainer for budding Beau pilots.

As for the worst handling aircraft, try asking Winkle Brown. His description of flying the GAL56 flying wing glider makes ones hair stand on end!

[Legalapproach]

Having read this thread I am amazed I ever got here. My father was a Nav on Brigand, Meteor and Javelin as well as being on the Night fighter OCU! Survived one Brigand and one NF11 crash:ok:

[Dengue_Dude]

Evidently it was a real handful on take-off and if you lost an engine below about 170KIAS, your only prospect of survival was probably to throttle back the other and force land straight ahead....

Oddly enough in the Varsity Pilots' Notes (not Aircrew Manual), it used to say at weights above 38,000 lb (if memory serves), in the event of engine failure on take off, throttle back the live engine and crash land line ahead.

THAT was sobering for a stude too. At Monte Real (possibly Porto) going 'direct' Finningley we filled the tanks (literally). It took nearly 20 minutes to get to 10,000 feet - had to close the gills so we could accelerate.

Wouldn't want to do that too often.

[Milt]

Out of around 100 choices the Comet 2c comes to miind.

But then what would one expect with an aircraft having a fin too small and all control though hydraulic actuators and fitted with spring feel. The actuators had enormous break-out forces - 5 pnds on elevators, 11 pnds on ailerons and a massive 35 pnds on rudder. Imagine trying to drive a car having power steering needing a force of 5 or 11 pnds before the wheel will move and then all you are doing is winding up a spring. Absolutely no feel of IAS. It was a challenge.

The yoke was something to hang a hand on as one controlled pitch with a big handy trim wheel. The rudder, repeat rudder, shaker got one's attention near the stall.

Then there was that flying admiral's ship's bridge called a Seamew. Only aircraft I've flown whilst almost standing to attention. But then it was Navy - not RAF.

[Lightning Mate]

The guys I had the utmost respect for were the Lightning pilots.

Nice of you to say so, but the Lightning did not present many handling problems at all. In fact it was a delight throughout its' envelope.

Now, the Jaguar on one could be a real handful unless one adhered rigidly to the rules.

.....and didn't we lose more Canberras practicing single engine approaches than real ones?

Just my two-penneth.