# Which fighters did pilots feel safest in for crash landing?



## Sal Monella (May 16, 2005)

I think I read that the scoop under the P-51 could make for a nasty crash-landing. Is that true?

Which fighters were safest for a pilot in a crash-landing sitiuation and which ones were the most dangerous and why?


----------



## mosquitoman (May 16, 2005)

Apparently the armoured cockpit of the Henschel Hs129 was good for crash landing


----------



## Sal Monella (May 16, 2005)

I don't think the Hs-129 was a fighter.


----------



## evangilder (May 16, 2005)

The P-47 had a "bonus" feature for crash landing. The duct work for the turbosupercharger ran along the underside of the fuselage and created a crumple zone that helped to protect the pilot's legs in the event of a wheels up landing. I had not heard about the scoop causing problems, but I could see where it might.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 16, 2005)




----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

The Hurricane because it had a low landing speed and was easily handled in almost any situation.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2005)

and had a very strong structure......


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

Sal Monella said:


> I don't think the Hs-129 was a fighter.



No it wasnt, but damn that cockpit was armoured!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Hurricane because it had a low landing speed and was easily handled in almost any situation.



I would also add that any aircraft with a "turtleback" provided that extra protection. Welded steel tube fuselage structure would also act as a "Roll Cage." Although a robust plane like a P-47 is desirable, the Hurricane would probably be my choice based on the these facts.

Photo from "The Hurricane Site."


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

Here's a picture of a remarkable crash landing done in a Hurricane :


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2005)

and it wouldn't suprise me one bit if she was restored to flying condition.....


----------



## evangilder (May 16, 2005)

Remarkably intact.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

I think a lot of that strength can be attributed to the welded steel tube construction. there was a special on the history channel last night that showed the recovery of a Hurricane that sheared off the tail of a DO 17 that was heading toward Buckingham Palace during the height of the Battle of Britain. The pilot that knocked down the DO 17 also stated how strong the Hurricane was.

Just a side note: A Mooney (General Aviation aircraft for you folks who don't know bug smashers) has a welded cage around the cockpit. This aircraft is known as the most "crash survivable" GA aircraft, providing you don't fly straight into a mountain which many GA pilots tend to do!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2005)

yes that event is very famous and remarkably it was caught on camera!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

Yep. Coincedence? I dont think so...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2005)

actually it was........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> actually it was........



There was no way that could of been staged!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

I know.

Surely twin engined planes would be effective in crash landings?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I know.
> 
> Surely twin engined planes would be effective in crash landings?



Not all the time. When engines fail on multi engine aircraft, its a real pain to get the thing to fly straight and to get the aircraft trimmed. This could really be a bummer when you're trying to crash


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2005)

no more effective than single engine types for example, as the engines are wither side of you and in most cases the same height as you, they will offer no protection from the ground, you in your cockpit will still hit the ground, had, atleast in a single engine you've got your wing and sometimes undercarriage under the cockpit and so you get more protection in your cockpit...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

Hehe, trying to crash, that sounds weird


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Hehe, trying to crash, that sounds weird



I know people who attempt this daily, unknowingly mind you, but if you saw them fly you would agree!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2005)

well there'll come a point when you realise you can't make it, and so you try your hardest to make a decent crash..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

Or just bail out and leave the plane to crash itself


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well there'll come a point when you realise you can't make it, and so you try your hardest to make a decent crash..................



Unfortunately Lanc, most pilots don't realize this until the earth's surface is about a foot away from their face!


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

If you're in a position where your aircraft isn't going to make it home but you still have control, the best option is to crash land [not nowadays though]. You have more say on where you will land and will probably be more intact after you hit the ground. 

Jumping out, especially over home terrority, may send your plane crashing on to someones house. Also, at low level you have no chance of jumping out unless you are going fast and pull the stick back, exchanging speed for height, then flip it on it's back and fall out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2005)

the height at which you eject is no longer a problem in modern aircraft however..........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 16, 2005)

From the Pilot Training Manual for the P-47N Thunderbolt:

_The plane has a built-in skid for belly landings. You are safer with your wheels up and nine times out of ten the damage is less.

When making a forced landing, keep your speed up even though the terrain is rough or wooded. An N, which is built like a bulldozer, will plough right through. If your safety belt and shoulder harness are secure you'll be all right._


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

I could tell you that when I flew in F-4s and T-33s with hot seats, it was always understood that in the event of an emergency, we were staying with the plane for as long as we can and attempt a forced landing if possible (we were flying these things in the middle of a dessert, somewhat comforting). The L-29s I get to fly in on occasion has deactivated ejection seats. We do use parachutes when performing aerobatics but again, unless I see a wing departing from the airframe, jumping from the aircraft is the last thing I want to do, especially with a "T" tail aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> From the Pilot Training Manual for the P-47N Thunderbolt:
> 
> An N, which is built like a bulldozer, will plough right through. If your safety belt and shoulder harness are secure you'll be all right.[/i]



I'd say that was an understatement!


----------



## BombTaxi (May 16, 2005)

I have read that the 109 was not a plane you wanted to crash land, as the cramped cockpit often led to a meeting of the pilots head with the gunsight.Ouch!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2005)

not exactly the stongest of birds either.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

A normal landing in a 109 was hard enough!


----------



## wmaxt (May 16, 2005)

If you crash landed a P-38 especialy straight ahead the Gondola was very forgiving.

It was not recomended that a P-38 ditch. If you do it's noted that the airplane will sink quickly.

The P-51 with its cooling system below was supposed to be very good in a wheels up landing.

If ditching a P-51 a hard turn just as the low wing hits the water to prevent diving. The P-51 will sink in ~2 seconds.

wmaxt


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 16, 2005)

I have read the opposite with regards to the P-51 as a result of the scoop.

Excerpt from Lieutenant Rip Collins who flew both P-47's and P-51's in the 35th Fighter Group in the Pacific" 

" _You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if your wheels would not come down (due to damage or mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen_."


----------



## Glider (May 16, 2005)

A Beaufighter was considered a good plane to crash land in (if you had to). The 4 x 20 acted as a skid under you, the two engines helped plow through anything that got in the way and it was a solid machine.

I have flown in FRADU Hunters acting as targets for Navy vessels when working up and ejecting was the only real option. I remember reading the Pilots notes on ditching as we were flying over the sea. There was so little and it was so negative, they might as well have saved the paper and written DON'T DO IT.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2005)

the bit about the beau does make sence she was an amazingly strong bird..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

In regards to the 109 even if you succesfully got the aircraft on the ground the landing gear would most likely collapse and then the aircraft would break apart on you and ultimatly killing you, and that is if the aircraft did not tip over on its nose and then you met the instrument panel. Either way I would bail out and not take any chances.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

It's almost always safer to do a gear up belly landing if you're going to crash land in a field. Don't bother putting the gear down because it could trip you, without any gear it's hard to trip.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The L-29s I get to fly in on occasion has deactivated ejection seats.


Why's that? Some kind of weight saver for the aerobatics, I'm guessing.


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2005)

I don't know about the USA but in the UK ex military planes have to have deactivated seats. The excuse being that they can be dangerous if not maintained properly. 
This always puzzled me, as ejector seats are there for a reason and I believe from a Martin Baker ad, that one in ten built are used. So how does deactivating them, make it safer for the pilot?


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 17, 2005)

Well that was my thought. Why remove what's supposed to be a safety feature?


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

I remember someone mentioning the Hurricane being quite robust for crash landings, and I must agree it very much seems that way.

One of Marseille's kills, a Hurricane, and in remarkably good shape considdering it was shot down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > The L-29s I get to fly in on occasion has deactivated ejection seats.
> ...



Actually its a real pain in the butt (no pun there) to keep them maintained and to find explosive cartridges that have not gone out of date. On older jet warbirds (T-33) the "carts" are almost impossible to get. Some were being imported from the CAF, but it's sticky importing what is basically an explosive device.



Glider said:


> I don't know about the USA but in the UK ex military planes have to have deactivated seats. The excuse being that they can be dangerous if not maintained properly.
> This always puzzled me, as ejector seats are there for a reason and I believe from a Martin Baker ad, that one in ten built are used. So how does deactivating them, make it safer for the pilot?



You're right Glider. Also the FAA is real leary about live ejection seats. They have a fear that someone will eject over a populated area and the seat will come down and kill someone.

If I could fly in a jet where I know the carts are good for 5 or 10 years, that's fine, but in my mind ejection is a last option, especially in the environment we operate out of.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 17, 2005)

Ok, that all makes sense I guess.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

WE may do aerobatics and fly mock combat, but for the most part, these aircraft are babied, especially the L-29s. When I worked for Flight Systems in Mojave CA we had 2 T-33s with live seats. As these were used on government contracts, money was no object in maintaining the seats. I've also worked with a guy who owned one privately. He had cartridges to last him 10 years. After that he said he was deactivating the seats.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2005)

If we're sharing crash landing pictures, here's a P-47. He doesn't look like he's had a bad time in the air, so it was probably just a mistake on landing or take off.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2005)

Nice pics 8)


----------



## evangilder (May 18, 2005)

Damn! He bellied in with his drop tanks still on the plane! I would think you'd want to ditch those things before doing a wheels up landing!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)

Unless they were the empty "cardboard" tanks.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 18, 2005)

that's a beauty of a pic.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

Ill be you since he did not jettison the tanks, he was doing a normal landing and the wheels collapsed. That was not all that uncommon back then.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2005)

Well, that is what I said above the picture.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

No one said I was the quickest at realizing things!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2005)

and i get the feeling no one's about to start...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

Ahaha you are funny!


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2005)

Here's a 109 crash landing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 20, 2005)

testiment to how weak the undercarriage was.........


----------



## The Jug Rules! (May 20, 2005)

Hey Davidicus, where did you get that information on the P-47's supercharger system?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> testiment to how weak the undercarriage was.........



Not really, it may have been shot up. It was just the way the undercarriage of 109's was set up with its narrow track that was the problem.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2005)

yes but even if the undercarriage had taken a few hits, the undercarriage of the -109 was weak, you cannt claim it wasn't.......


----------



## trackend (May 21, 2005)

This 109E (1190) was downed on 30th sept 1940 and the damage is original and not doctored
_Image from my own personal collection and may be used in the public domain_


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 21, 2005)

I like the way they've displayed it.


----------



## trackend (May 21, 2005)

Apparently it crashed in East Dean Sussex. The pilot was Host Parez recieved several wounds. The plane was toured all over the world raising funds for the war effort then it ended up in a farmers barn until 1960.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2005)

Wow looks neat


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

I've heard the canopy is wrong. I think it's something like an E-5 canopy on an E-4 plane. I know that the RAF mixed and matched bits and pieces from 109s that ditched in Britain.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2005)

If the canopy is wrong, I dont think too many people will notice.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

There is actually a picture of that exact same aircraft when it first crash landed. I'm in the process of finding it.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

> Now compare this photo taken right after it was shot down to the one I took of it in July of 2004. If you look carefully at the a/c canopy you will see that they are DIFFERENT. The one in the original photograph had CURVED and rounded frame while this one is VERY MUCH straight. Thus, though they restored it, they used a different model canopy than what was originally on the aircraft!
> 
> Someone did not pay attention to what they were doing and instead of manufacturing a correct canopy grabbed one off a different model.
> 
> Also note that other items are different: the nose spinner is now missing off of the a/c as displayed at Duxford's Imperial War Museum; there is a missing badge right behind the spinner on the cowl, and there is a black streak above the wing root in color (though some may argue it was oil exhaust but the pattern is not one of oil streaks and it blends in perfectly with the rest of the aircraft).



http://www.taphilo.com/jg26/index.shtml

That plane is Bf-109E-3 from JG26, shot down over Sussex during the Battle of Britain.


----------



## trackend (May 21, 2005)

I agree D just goes to show even the IWM has its moments defiantly a different canopy front.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

Great pics but what did they do with the propellor spinner?


----------



## trackend (May 22, 2005)

Don't know Adler souvenir hunt do you reckon? or perhaps its been used for and airworth 109E


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

Could be, but I am not sure of any that are airworthy. I know of some that are being restored right now but the only actual WW2 era original Me-109 I knew about was a Me-109G, which crashed and is being repaired right now.


----------



## trackend (May 22, 2005)

I think one is being rebuilt but not in the UK.


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2005)

Marseille flew a E model while staioned briefly on the Ost Front. The particualr model has been revamped and is still flwon today. What a fantastic sound too it has as it flew several thousand feet oer our ehads back in the month of October 2002 at the Chino,CA airport. What was special about this is it was the frst time they brought out the good looking Me 262 Schwalbe recon version for show and tell. Friend and pilot Hans Busch was there to tell of his expereicnes flying the jet on jabo and anti-bomber missions

e


----------



## wmaxt (May 22, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Could be, but I am not sure of any that are airworthy. I know of some that are being restored right now but the only actual WW2 era original Me-109 I knew about was a Me-109G, which crashed and is being repaired right now.



I recently saw a bf-109 in Oregon that had the correct engine with the note that it was airworthy. I'm not sure but I think it was a G. I'l try to get some more information on it.

wmaxt


----------



## trackend (May 22, 2005)

cheers for the info lads sounds like there,s more than a couple about


----------



## wmaxt (May 22, 2005)

trackend said:


> cheers for the info lads sounds like there,s more than a couple about



It's in the Evergreen Aviation Museum in Medford, Oregon. This is a great little museum that I recomend to anyone who likes planes esp. WWII era.

The bf-109 G-10 and is flyable.
There are also have a Spitfire Mk. XVI and a DH-100 Mk 52 Vampire as well as the usual US fighters. Most of these aircraft are airworthy.

The site is http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_artifacts/planes_fighters.html

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

There are quite a few of them but I thought they were all G's. I know of some E's and F's that are being restored to flyign condition though.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

Ever thought that the RAF took the spinner and canopy off it back in World War 2 to put on a flight worthy one so they could test it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

Good point, you coudl be right.


----------



## Chocks away! (May 30, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> A normal landing in a 109 was hard enough!


 Actually, during 44-45 ,pilots crashlanded 109s all the time, and I think most times they got out ok. So maybe it WAS an ok aircraft to crashland after all. Remember that the difficult landing was mostly due to the landing gear, which makes no difference in a wheels up landing. On the other hand, the fw 190 must have been a handfull in such situations! High stall speed.


----------



## Chocks away! (May 30, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If we're sharing crash landing pictures, here's a P-47. He doesn't look like he's had a bad time in the air, so it was probably just a mistake on landing or take off.


 He's lucky those fuel tanks didn't burst!


----------



## Chocks away! (May 30, 2005)

Look at this Dora guys! The pilot was actually killed. I'm amazed the aircraft is still in one piece! Must have glided on it's own if that's possible... (Operation Bodenplatte btw)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2005)

Nice pic! 8)


----------



## Chocks away! (May 30, 2005)

It was shot down by a tempest if i remember correctly... That Dora must be a tough bird in any case.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 30, 2005)

It's interesting that there doesn't appear to be any skid path on the ground behind the plane.

From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic7.html





_This Thunderbolt suffered disabling engine damage from ground fire in April of 1945. The pilot elected to execute a wheels up landing in a soft field. Damage to the fighter is minimal and it would be repaired and back in service in very short order. Certainly, such a spectacular landing will draw a crowd of onlookers. In this case American GIs swarm around the Thunderbolt to get a close look at what they had seen pounding the Germans all across western Europe._


----------



## evangilder (May 31, 2005)

Good stuff!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2005)

my god if there's no skid path he must have just thumped into the ground and not skidded at all!!


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

I know this is a FIGHTERS crash landing thread but I have to say that the B-17 was probably one of the best aircraft ever for crash landing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2005)

unless you're in the ball turret and can't get out..........

you don't get that problem with the lanc you see........


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

The Lancaster probably couldn't take a hard of a hit as the B-17 though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

How about a P.108 crash landing


----------



## mosquitoman (May 31, 2005)

Crash landing in a Lib was bad, because it was so heavy the underside used to crumple


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

The P.108 would probably have been effective in its crash landing because the fuselage was so flat.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

You wouldn't want a perfectly flat under-side. You'd end up belly flopping it instead of belly landing.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Well there we go.

In the picture I posted it looks as though the crew escaped, or at least some of them did.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 31, 2005)

That view makes it look like a B-17 with a deformed nose


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Yeah its a shame the nose is deformed.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

That'd be fine. It's not perfectly flat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2005)

Actually that nose probably gave great visibility for the pilot during taxi!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

I think youre right! Ive never thought of that before but its a good point! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2005)

and you think the lanc's nose looks ugly!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

It is. The P.108's is a little better, but not much!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I think youre right! Ive never thought of that before but its a good point! 8)



Thanks CC - Think about the Concord's nose!  I could tell you through experience the biggest pain when taxi-ing a tail dragger is looking over the nose. Could you Imagine a huge 4 engine bomber tail dragger with a long nose? I think that was done on the P.108 just for that purpose. 8)


----------



## Chocks away! (May 31, 2005)

The Piaggio is quite a unique looking plane isn't it? As are all Italian ones in fact ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

Chocks away! said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > A normal landing in a 109 was hard enough!
> ...



I am sure the crash landed them quite a bit from 1939-1944 too


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Chocks away! said:


> The Piaggio is quite a unique looking plane isn't it? As are all Italian ones in fact ...



Yep. I really like the Italian planes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

Most unique eneogh in the ugly way!


----------



## mosquitoman (May 31, 2005)

Sorry but that Piaggio monstrosity is about as beautiful as the Fairey Gannet


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

They did have some nice aircraft but most of them did not look very nice let alone seem very stable or sturdy.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2005)

god the gannet's ugly!!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 1, 2005)

At least the Gannet has character


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2005)

Ugly character  

lanc are you ok? The Gannet is British...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2005)

i know  but it really does look like it doesn't wanna fly, it's huge!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2005)

It reminds me of that fat chick you would see wearing a tube top with all her fat hanging out!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2005)

Bad mental image. Damn now I wont sleep tonight.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 1, 2005)

Dude, didn't need THAT visual! BLECK!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2005)

Like This....


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

EW! Nor that visual!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

*shudder*


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 2, 2005)

What is with everybody's sudden obsession with fat girls! I haven't had a peaceful nights sleep in a week!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Does anyone know any good products for cleaning vomit off of keyboards?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

i dropped some skin off my lip into my keyboard yesterday.......


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

The new banner of this website should be "Aircraft of World War II: No Fat Chicks"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The new banner of this website should be "Aircraft of World War II: No Fat Chicks"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Or simply "No dogs allowed"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)




----------



## dinos7 (Jun 7, 2005)

i believe the p51 was the sfest crash lander. but im not so shure


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

What are your reasons for this? I would think it was quite hard to land it on that big radiator cooler under the fuselage.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 9, 2005)

Dinos 7 and Adler, 

Below is my post from earlier in the thread. Yes, I too believe that the P-51's air scoop presented serious problems for belly landings.



DAVIDICUS said:


> I have read the opposite with regards to the P-51 as a result of the scoop.
> 
> Excerpt from Lieutenant Rip Collins who flew both P-47's and P-51's in the 35th Fighter Group in the Pacific"
> 
> " _You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if your wheels would not come down (due to damage or mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen_."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

I think it would have been quite dangerous. A big chance of nosing the bird over or flipping it.


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 10, 2005)

thats just my belief.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 10, 2005)

Do you still harbor that belief?

Excerpt from Lieutenant Rip Collins who flew both P-47's and P-51's in the 35th Fighter Group in the Pacific" 

"_You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if your wheels would not come down (due to damage or mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen_."


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 10, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Do you still harbor that belief?
> 
> Excerpt from Lieutenant Rip Collins who flew both P-47's and P-51's in the 35th Fighter Group in the Pacific"
> 
> "_You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if your wheels would not come down (due to damage or mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen_."



It depends on the surface your trying to land on.
For pavement it would offer a "crumple zone"
In soft earth it would "catch"
In the water it's recomended to "kick the plane at the last second to land sideways" I presume thats to prevent flipping/diving the plane in the water.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> It depends on the surface your trying to land on.
> For pavement it would offer a "crumple zone"
> 
> wmaxt



Ya know, I got to agree with this. I've seen a P-51 air intake scoop up close with the skin removed from the area. Inside the scoop from what I could remember is either an oil cooler or a coolant radiator. In either case, these things aren't the strongest pieces of hardware on the airplane, and the surrounding structure isn't that beefy. I think the scoop will crush or rip away first before it causes a real problem, of course the only way to know for sure is to ask a P-51 vet who bellied one in or go find a P-51 and crash it!   

This reminds me of a story my brother told me. A guy walks into a Ford dealership parts department (where my brother works) and asks "how do I test my Mustang's airbags?" My brother told him "drive it into a wall."


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 10, 2005)

"... _kick the plane at the last second to land sideways" I presume thats to prevent flipping/diving the plane in the water_." 

That could enhance the chance of flipping. (the end portion of the wing catching)

You can't always pick and choose where you'll do a gear up belly landing. That being the case, you'd be safest in the aircraft with the fewest undesireable characteristics across the spectrum of surfaces be it soft dirt, pavement or water, etc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> "... _kick the plane at the last second to land sideways" I presume thats to prevent flipping/diving the plane in the water_."
> 
> That could enhance the chance of flipping. (the end portion of the wing catching)
> 
> You can't always pick and choose where you'll do a gear up belly landing. That being the case, you'd be safest in the aircraft with the fewest undesireable characteristics across the spectrum of surfaces be it soft dirt, pavement or water, etc.



Its true you can't pick and choose where you're going to crash but i could tell you one of the first things you lean when getting checked out in an aircraft is emergency procedures IE, engine out/ off field landings. I would guess if a low-time P-51 jock during the war got a limited 10 hour training and check out in a -51, probably 5 of those hours were emergency procedures.

There was (and still is) an actual AF TO for aircraft ditching procedures which was normally viewed as a supplement to the -1. Whether this was in it or not, I don't know, but i think the best way to know for sure is to talk to someone who actually crashed.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ya know, I got to agree with this. I've seen a P-51 air intake scoop up close with the skin removed from the area. Inside the scoop from what I could remember is either an oil cooler or a coolant radiator. In either case, these things aren't the strongest pieces of hardware on the airplane, and the surrounding structure isn't that beefy. I think the scoop will crush or rip away first before it causes a real problem, of course the only way to know for sure is to ask a P-51 vet who bellied one in or go find a P-51 and crash it!



I've seen a few pics of P-51s bellied in on runways it didn't seem to be a big deal. There is both a radiator and in front of it is an oilcooler.

I've seen a number of P-38s (pictures) bellied in on a multitude of surfaces, as long as they had a straight shot they seem to do well. Most of those pics mention the pilot was fine - I've never seen a caption state a serious injury or fatality.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

In my general aircraft experiences - scoops and other things protruding from the airframe don't do well in a crash, and I would think that unless the P-51 scoop could support the whole aircraft (which I know it can't) its going to rip away or crunch, reguardless of what you're landing on. At 110-100 knts (I believe the speed of a P-51 over the numbers) hitting water or earth are going to produce the same results.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 10, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> "... _kick the plane at the last second to land sideways" I presume thats to prevent flipping/diving the plane in the water_."
> 
> That could enhance the chance of flipping. (the end portion of the wing catching)
> 
> You can't always pick and choose where you'll do a gear up belly landing. That being the case, you'd be safest in the aircraft with the fewest undesireable characteristics across the spectrum of surfaces be it soft dirt, pavement or water, etc.



That is the procedure out of the F/P-51 TO-1 Flight Manual. Aparently they felt the risk was greater if you landed straight ahead. My manual is a reprint of the '47 edition it's safe to assume they have researched the possibilities. It also noted that a P-51 sank in ~2 seconds.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

It mostly depends on the pilot and situation, as you can see this Mustang of the 339th came down pretty well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> DAVIDICUS said:
> 
> 
> > "... _kick the plane at the last second to land sideways" I presume thats to prevent flipping/diving the plane in the water_."
> ...



Kicking the aircraft "sideways" puts it in a skid, which also slows it up. I am also guessing that there WAS concern about the air intake scoop, but again from what I remember seeing from it "up close" I think the thing would just turn into a "big crushed aluminum can."


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 10, 2005)

yes that is still my belief. the better one would be the zero. hte japs always crash landed in those things. and most of them lived.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

Good point, dinos. The low stall speed of the A6M would make it easy to crash land. Always though, in my opinion, the Hurricane would be the best. Low stall speed and strong structure.


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 10, 2005)

thank you


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2005)

It really isn't the stall speed, its the engine out glide speed that makes the difference. The engine out glide speed for the Zero is very low. This gives a lot of time for a pilot to make decisions in where he needs to land. This is a big is factor during emergency procedures.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 11, 2005)

If he's stalling at high speeds, it's not exactly ideal. It's going to smash him into the ground.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

If you were to turn any aircraft sideways (not just a P-51) you really stand the chance of flipping the aircraft. It all depends on the speed. At low speeds I think it would work but at high speeds the wings will dip under the water and the bird will flip

I agree it depends on the terrain you are landing. On pavement such as a run way I agree with FlyboyJ that it would just crush the scoop and the bird would land just fine but in dirt or water I think it would be more of a hinderness. 

Not that I want to crash land an aircraft but If I had to I would pick a P-38, P-47, or a Fw-190.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 11, 2005)

If I was crashing anything, it would be an IL2 or HS 129...the runway would probably come off worse!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Nice thinking atleast in theory.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

How about crash landing a Storch - is that even possible?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> How about crash landing a Storch - is that even possible?



You just die slower


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

In slow motion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Technically you could also die in rewind with as slow as that thing goes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

crash landing going backwards in slow motion


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Pretty much!


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 11, 2005)

probably the japanese ohka


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Well one thing for sure is, they didn't walk away from it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2005)

Imagine if someone successfuklly crash landed an Ohka and it didnt explode...just sitting there starving to death.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2005)

or crashing it into the deck of an american carrier and you not exploding, you gotta see the funny side of that.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2005)

Well no because youd bounce into the sea, it was bound to explode anyway. I mean if someone intentionally crash landed the thing, hoping to escape


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2005)

oh i see.............


----------



## trackend (Jun 12, 2005)

The Stringbag was'nt to bad at crash landings (mainly because they seemed to do it a lot) nice 55knts stall speed and the ability to do the splits if it came down a bit heavy this one should have got rid of the depth charges under its wings first though and as a fighter aircraft it was total pants


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2005)

However ditching must have been very dangerous. Wheels hit first and then the plane would presumably flip upside down. Not good for a carrier plane.


----------



## my point of interest (Jun 12, 2005)

Hello to everyone!  I 've been reading your forum for a while now and find it very very very interesting. I' have a few things to say about this subject.

You all know Pierre Closterman for sure so I'm not going to write about him. Lets just say I read his book »The big show« and in it I found his testimony about the danger of crash-landing a Tempest V. The plane had a landing speed of 300km/h and cought fire very fast on crash landing, especially on bricked surfaces. He tells the story of a pilot named Alex and one named Golding who both perished in the flames. Alex's wheel leg was shattered due to 37mm and it just wouldn't fully retract back inside before the landing. 

And now about this photo below. This web site: http://www.flyandrive.com/story.htm and the book both state that the picture of the crashed Dora is showing one of the 2 FW's he shot down on 20th April 1945 after he was transferred to No 3 Squadron as "A" Flight commander. There is a 20mm hole in the engine cowling. The color plate of the book says that the German pilot was seriously injured and died later in the hospital, but the author himself states (see below) that the German pilot limped away?!?








> Four Focke-Wulfs were flitting around like big moths, occasionally spitting a stream of bullet in the inferno. I daren't attack them - I could feel the other prowling round in the shadows. Aha ! I spotted a lone plane skimming over the tree tops in the direction of Bremen, whose tall chimneys stacks look positively medieval outlined against the dying sky. Engine temperature 125°, oil pressure down to the fifty five. Regretfully I opened the radiator and closed the throttle to 3500 revs. Even then I went on gaining on the Focke-Wulf, who was probably making for home, his magazines empty. We were now over Bremen, and he was still a thousand yards ahead. This businness might take me rather far; I closed the radiator again and opened the throttle flet out. My "Grand Charles" responded at once. We were now over the first docks of the Weser. We roared between the shattered remains of the big transporter bridge. On either side rose the charred hulks of the ware-houses; the few cranes and derricks still erect rose uo like black skelettons. Suddenly a salvo of Flak shelles blossomed beetween theFocke-Wulf and me - brief white flashes, mingled with brown balls which passed by either side of me. More kept appearing miracously out of the void. The automatic flak now chimed in and the orange glow of the tracers was reflected in the black oily water, from wich overturned hulk emerged, like enormous stranded whales. I concentrated on not losing sight of my Focke-Wulf - lukely he was silhouetted against the dying glow of the sky. For a moment the Flak redoubled in intensity. There was a sudden Clang behind my back - then suddenly the tracers were snuffed out and diseappeared... A bit suspicious ! A glance behind me explained this curious phenomenon : on my tail six Focke-Wulfs in perfect close echelon formation - exhaust white hot -pursuing me at full throttle. With one movement I broke the metal thread to enable me to go to "emergency" and shoved the throttle lever right forward. It was the first time I had occasion to use it on Tempest. The effect was extraordinaire and immediate. The aircraft litteraly bounded forward with a roar like a furnace under pressure. Within a few seconds I was doing 490 m.p.h by the air speed indicator and I simultaneously caught up my quarry and left my pursuers standing. I had soon reduced the distance to less than 200 yards. Although in this darkness my gun sight rather dazzled me, I had him plumb in the middle and I fired two long, deliberate bursts. The Focke-Wulf oscillated and crashed on its belly in a marshy field, thowing up a shower of mud. He miracously did not overturn. Whithout losing anytime I climbed vertically toward the clouds and righted myself to face the others. They had vanished in the shadows. They must have turned about and left their comrade to this fate. I flew back over the Focke-Wulf I shot down. *The pilot was limpimg off, dragging his parachutte an dquite dazed by the shock.* I besparred the remains of his machine with shells and they caught fire at once.
> That made two !








That's all!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2005)

Welcome, and apprecite your post. The only thing I have to disagree with is your comment on the Tempest landing speed of 300km/h (189 mph) This doesn't sound right. A Mustang is on final at about 120 mph (200 km/h).


----------



## my point of interest (Jun 12, 2005)

Thank you sir!

Yeah I know, that's the numbers Pierre wrote down, but I read somewhere he had the tendency to exaggerate.  

About that picture above, now I find it funny, because Pierre says that Dora caught fire but the plane on the picture does't look like burned remains to mee.  Maybe it really is from the Bodenplatte op...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2005)

my point of interest said:


> Thank you sir!
> 
> Yeah I know, that's the numbers Pierre wrote down, but I read somewhere he had the tendency to exaggerate.
> 
> About that picture above, now I find it funny, because Pierre says that Dora caught fire but the plane on the picture does't look like burned remains to mee.  Maybe it really is from the Bodenplatte op...



You know there is a possibility that as he was shooting at it, the rupturing fluid lines gave the appearance of smoke or fire.


----------



## Erich (Jun 12, 2005)

6 Focke-wulfs in Echelon formation............yeah right. if so Pierre would of been vaporized. More fantasy from the Frenchman in both of his books. Note the story behind JG 301 pilot Rudi Wurff as Pierre claims he zoomed into the clouds to take out I believe 4 Tempests of his squadron. 
Reality : Rudi scored all of two kills in the war including Pierre's wingman.

another story during the last weeks of 1945 when Pierre says he was hit by 2cm Fla, his wingman was literally disintegrated and Pierre's Grand Charles piece of crap turned to a sieve when he crashed landed it......

surprise but that is not what brought him down as well as killed his wingman and that my friends will possibly amaze you when you read it in our book........

zum Wohl ! another Bier bitte

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

From everythign I have ever read about Pierre, I find it very hard to believe anything he says.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> From everythign I have ever read about Pierre, I find it very hard to believe anything he says.



Very true, but he sure is entertaining! Would of loved to be able to sit at a pub an listen to his BS, oh, I mean stories


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

Might even ensue into a bar fight after too many Guiness.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2005)

It'll be fun though!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

Yes that it would be. Sometimes it is good to get roughed up a bit, so you dont forget that you are not invincible!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2005)

Having never been in a fight before, I still have every reason to believe that I am invincible!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

Your time will come my friend, Remember Rome did not fall in one night!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 14, 2005)

No it didnt, because the Italians but up a brave and determined fight for their homeland. 


(Oh come on, it was wide open for that comment  )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

Yeah but what do you mean wide open. That I do not get.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2005)

it's like a way of saying you we're inviting the comment, like it was the obvious thing to say........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2005)

my point of interest said:


> You all know Pierre Closterman for sure so I'm not going to write about him. Lets just say I read his book »The big show« and in it I found his testimony about the danger of crash-landing a Tempest V. The plane had a landing speed of 300km/h and cought fire very fast on crash landing, especially on bricked surfaces.



From the other day.....

I found out tonight the Tempest V had a landing speed with power between 110-115 mph with power. It's glide speed landing configuration was just under 100...

Clostermann....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

That also sounds more realistic also.


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Here's a picture of a remarkable crash landing done in a Hurricane :



That one actually crashed on the beaches at dunkirk - if it was flooded with seawater when the tide came in. 8)


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 16, 2005)

trackend said:


> This 109E (1190) was downed on 30th sept 1940 and the damage is original and not doctored
> _Image from my own personal collection and may be used in the public domain_



someones been to Duxford!! 8)


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 16, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It reminds me of that fat chick you would see wearing a tube top with all her fat hanging out!



do you mind - i think ive been out with her!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 16, 2005)

Concorde247 said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > It reminds me of that fat chick you would see wearing a tube top with all her fat hanging out!
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

I would not admit to that.


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would not admit to that.




Blame it on the beer!! - i did!! 


and the scotch, vodka etc. etc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 16, 2005)

Concorde247 said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I would not admit to that.
> ...




*BEER - MAKING UGLY PEOPLE LOOK BEAUTIFUL FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS*


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 16, 2005)

as people seem to be sharing their crashed Aircraft pics, i thought i'd post a few that i have in various books


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 16, 2005)

Check out that ordinance load on the Thunderbolt.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2005)

We were trying to show ones that had a good time in crash landing but okay; great pictures.


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In regards to the 109 even if you succesfully got the aircraft on the ground the landing gear would most likely collapse and then the aircraft would break apart on you and ultimatly killing you, and that is if the aircraft did not tip over on its nose and then you met the instrument panel. Either way I would bail out and not take any chances.



I wouldnt fancy a crash-landing in a 109 either - especially as the fuel tank is right behind your seat


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 17, 2005)

Heres some more Pics of Oblt Bartels 109, interestingly, its a repaired aircraft due to the F suffix on its serial number - W.Nr.6296F meaning Flugklar, or "flight ready" denoting a repaired or rebuilt a/c. The Germans actually fitted the heavier framed canopy as used on the E-3 E-4 variants on this E-1 machine.

As you can see, it did the fund raising morale raising rounds seemed to get more bent and battered as it went on its travels!


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 17, 2005)

this time in France, after the pilot recovered from his wounds, he went back to visit his wrecked aircraft which was still in the field where it came down.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

Great pics Concorde! 8) Not much left of that 190A-7 that hit the trees, and _how did that Hurricane make it back?!_ Especially with that Bull Terrier on the tail, must have upset the aerodynamics a bit  Like the Komet too.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Great pics Concorde! 8)


I agree!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

Here are some all taken from:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/wrecks.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

i'd have thought the -87 would be quite good for crashes if it wasn't for the fixed undercarriage........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

that gull wing would cirtianly help.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

Nice pics Adler 8)


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Great pics Concorde! 8) Not much left of that 190A-7 that hit the trees, and _how did that Hurricane make it back?!_ Especially with that Bull Terrier on the tail, must have upset the aerodynamics a bit  Like the Komet too.




Thanks guys - i think the Bull terrier got hungry sitting up there had a little nibble!!


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Nice pics Adler 8)



Agreed 8)


----------



## Concorde247 (Jun 17, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i'd have thought the -87 would be quite good for crashes if it wasn't for the fixed undercarriage........



I seem to remember reading somewhere, that the undercarriage on a Ju87 had some sort of small explosive charge that could enable the fixed undercarriage to be jettisoned....

wouldnt want to hit that switch by mistake!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

that was on the -87C, the carrier based version i believe, as far as i know not the land based versions.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

Yes only the Carrier version the Ju-87C had jettisonable landing gear incase it had to ditch in the sea.


----------



## Bian (Feb 21, 2017)

I took these pictures in 1971 of a P-47 that did a dead stick belly landing at an airshow in Port Hueneme, California. Didn't see it crash, they were loading it on a flatbed trailer. I'm not a pilot but I would think that thing would fly like a brick without power. The plane is in really good shape considering. Anybody know anything about this plane and if it survives?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## mexchiwa (Feb 22, 2017)

Is it Planes of Fame's P-47G?

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt Registry - A Warbirds Resource Group Site


----------



## Bian (Feb 22, 2017)

Might be the same plane, there can't be that many of them around. I was only 14 and had hair when I took the pictures.


----------



## Bian (Feb 22, 2017)

Didn't see the note that it crashed at Point Mugu in 1971. Has to be the same plane.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 6, 2017)

you do know this was a 12 year old thread? but again I guess it might be new to a lot of members...


----------



## Ascent (Mar 6, 2017)

As long as this thread has been reawoken, didn't the Whirlwind have a good reputation for keeping the pilot safe in crash landings? Something to do with the engines out on the wings and a decent structure around the pilot?


----------

