Pilot reports

R Pope · 7 October 2005, 07:02 AM

Looking through modern flying mags, you see lots of Pireps stating that the WW1 planes were barely flyable, and the impression is that they only looked so good because there was nothing better. How much of this is a result of learning to fly in our modern, idiot-proof cookie cutter "safe" lightplanes, and how much the result of natural caution, driving somebody else's priceless machine without the motivation of the bad guys trying to kill you?

Breguet · 8 October 2005, 10:47 PM

Don't like to run modern pilots down but I will

if they are saying that. Anyone who has flown shall we say, a pup, will tell you it is the sweetest most delightful thing in the air. I think it best to talk to the guys in our forum who fly these things and ask them. Come out come out wherever you are!

baldeagle · 9 October 2005, 08:30 AM

It's all relative. Guys who said that about Pups were coming off of BE-2s and such, I'm sure that anybody who's flown a Bucker or Stampe would say that a Pup is a dog compared to them. I haven't flown a Pup, but my uncle had one for many years at ORA, and he said that the Nieuport 28 was a much better flying airplane. I have flown a '28, and it's no Bucker, though a pretty capable airplane for its day. I wouldn't characterise any of them as barely flyable, although a Jenny on a hot gusty day wouldn't be much fun. Two really good airplanes are the Fokker D.VII, and the SE-5a, both easy to fly and good performers. The Fokker D.VIII isn't bad either.