# Death Trap Aircraft



## daishi12 (Aug 6, 2006)

I have looked through some of the previous threads and seen that there have been the best/worst aircraft of WW2 which got me thinking a little bit.

I seem to recall reading that the Bristol Beaufighter was considered to be a death trap of an aircraft, as it was very difficult to bail out of.

Also the P39 Airacobra with the side door exit in stead of the canopy would be difficult to get out of when in flight due to the fact that there would be considerable slipstream acting on the doors. The pilots would need muscles like Popeye!

Were any other WW2 aircraft considered to be death traps by the poor sods who had to fly them?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2006)

The Ventura was considered a death-trap by the RAF. And was quickly removed from service.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 6, 2006)

RAF: Battle, Blenhiem (over Europe anyway)

LuftWaffe: Me-210, He-117

USA: F2A, SBD

VVS: I-16, I-153, LaGG-3 ("wooden, varnished coffin")


----------



## V-1710 (Aug 6, 2006)

The SBD Dauntless had the lowest loss ratio of any U.S. Navy carrier based combat aircraft. Never heard it was hard to bail out of. As for the P-39, as long as it wasn't in a spin.......


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 6, 2006)

Mosquito FB was not considered very much fun for crew when it came to leaving home.

1 hatch for both of them to dive out head first with the propellers a couple of inches from your head.

Apparently it was rather disconcerting and collected more than 1 or 2 aircrew.

Also the Lancaster. One belly hatch way the heck up in the nose, not great for the Mid Upper and Tail Gunners in an aircraft spiraling earthward. climb around turret, get over wing spar, crawl past cockpit, drop into nose section, get out of hole.

The Tail gunner, MIGHT be able to open his turret door reach back, grab his chute, clip it on, rotate the turret and then bail out. But he would be doing the rotating by hand if the port outer engine was gone, as that supplied his turret hydraulics.

The top top hatches, and the pilots hatch could not be used in real terms due to smacking into the Mid Upper Turret.

The crew door meant smacking into the tailplane.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Aug 7, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The Ventura was considered a death-trap by the RAF. And was quickly removed from service.



Interesting. The airplane flew for some time in US Navy service after the war and then was adopted as one of the best corporate/business airplanes of all time. The Howard Super Ventura and pressurized Howard 500 was operated for years and years and there are two H500's still active as executive transports.

Can you mention as to what it was that made the Lockheed a death trap?

Chris...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Mosquito FB was not considered very much fun for crew when it came to leaving home.
> 
> 1 hatch for both of them to dive out head first with the propellers a couple of inches from your head.
> 
> ...



i thought someone would mention the lanc when i saw the thread's title, it wasn't all that bad, no crew members had to pass over the biggest obsticle, the main wing spar, the 5 formost crew members all exited through the hatch in the nose, the primary means of escape, the two gunners in the rear section of the plance had a choice, they could, if the pilot was trying to hold the plane level so others could bail out as they invariably did, they might well decide to climb over the wing spar and exit through the more favourable nose hatch, if not then their designated parachute exit was the main entry door, although as you say there was a slight chance of hitting the tail plane, however i've never heard of this happening and stories of it happening cirtainly weren't widespread, it seems there was enough room to get clear of the tail plane, and the top hatches were _never_ to be used as parachutes, they were strictly for use in the event of ditching in the sea or a crash landing............


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2006)

Air-Vice Marshall Embry commenting on the Lockheed Ventura : _"...thoroughly bad, being slow, heavy, unmanoeuvrable and lacking in good defensive armament."_ Known as the 'Flying Pig'.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2006)

The P39 wins hands down. Its weird habit of tumbling raised the possibility of the pilot being unable to get out.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 7, 2006)

It depends on the situation. Apart from the P 39, single seat fighters were among the best aircraft to bail out from if you enough height to roll the aircraft upside down and drop out of the cockpit. The FW 190 had an excellent roll rate at some speeds and explosive bolts for the canopy. Ejection seats were appearing on some aircraft in the last months of the war (Heinkel He 162, Dornier Do 335)

Here is a Heinkel He 162 ejection seat from this site

Heinkel 162 Ejection Seat: The Ejection Site


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2006)

P38's were also hard to bail out of.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Aug 7, 2006)

Bailing out of a P-38...be careful of the horizontal tail boom.


----------



## red admiral (Aug 7, 2006)

> Apart from the P 39, single seat fighters were among the best aircraft to bail out from if you enough height to roll the aircraft upside down and drop out of the cockpit.



The other single seat fighters don't crush the pilot to death when he crash lands and the engine moves forwards.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 7, 2006)

Bailing out of anything is probably a pretty hairy experience. While a single engined fighter might be the least dangerous, you're still looking at broken arms, legs, backs, ect. when they bounce of the horizontal or vertical stabelizers or getting some part of your chute snagged on a part of the bird on the way out. 

Turning it upside down and falling out is the easiest (and avoids any problems with the prop as the drag will slow you down right away- people being very draggy against the wind, in general) you could still bounce of the tail. I think that is what happened to that German ace in the desert during WW2. Took him right out.

Once read that the best way to get out of a P39 was to open both doors and let the slipstream suck you right out.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 7, 2006)

About 20 years ago I got talking to a gentleman who had been invited to NZ after WW2 by an RNZAF pilot to set up one of the first top dressing businesses flying tiger moths.

He flew 109's over england, france and germany, including being shot down 4 or 5 times. Had just over 20 victories if memory serves me, and I can not remember his name.

He said the worst part about bailing out was not knowing if your parachute had been shot to ribbons, and that the relief of it opening in one piece was intense.

So getting out was only part of the trick apparently.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 7, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> He said the worst part about bailing out was not knowing if your parachute had been shot to ribbons, and that the relief of it opening in one piece was intense.



Oh man, that would totally suck. Bird on fire, maybe a jammed cockpit, finally fight your way out, scrape along the fuselage, bounce off the rudder and THEN THE PARACHUTE IS FULL OF HOLES!

Talk about it not being your day...


----------



## V-1710 (Aug 8, 2006)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Bailing out of a P-38...be careful of the horizontal tail boom.



I have heard it said by P-38 pilots that it was almost impossible to get hit by the horizontal stabilizer when bailing out of a P-38. At low speeds, you crawled out of the cockpit and slid off the center wing, and would miss the tail by better than 10 feet. At high speeds, you would open the canopy and get sucked right out of the cockpit, going over the tail by several feet.


----------



## V-1710 (Aug 8, 2006)

red admiral said:


> The other single seat fighters don't crush the pilot to death when he crash lands and the engine moves forwards.



I have heard that one, too. But, it seems that it was something of a myth. The P-39's fuselage was immensely strong and ridged. It had to be to keep the driveshaft in proper alignment so it would not vibrate, a problem many of the P-39 prototypes had. If you crashed a P-39 hard enough to send the Allison through the front of the aircraft, your day would be done no matter what you were flying.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 8, 2006)

wasn't the "official" way to bail out of a P-38 to get out, crawl along the wing then down part of a boom then jump clear because they were so worried about people hitting the tail?


----------



## Twitch (Aug 8, 2006)

I once interviewed Walter Krupkinski and I found this comment on the P-39 amusing-

"I encountered many of your (American) aircraft. My experience with the Airacobra- they were easy to shoot down with the engine behind it. I had easily gotten behind one and fired. It was burning like hell. The aircraft was in heavy smoke and the pilot tried to bail out. This was my first experience with the Airacobra remember, and he opened a door! I had never seen that before; that the pilot could just open a door and step out of the aircraft cockpit!"


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> P38's were also hard to bail out of.



Actually they wern't, the tail if you look at profiles was further bach from the cockpit and even or a tad higher than most fighters. A set of scale drawings illistrates this at this site P-38 Profile

There is a vidio on Zeno's page of a pilot bailing out of a P-38 and he clears the tail by several feet (it looks to me to be about 5 feet).

Any airplane had conditions that were dangerous to try to get out, a spin for example, and did include the P-38 but in normal situations it wasn't any worse than, say, a Mustang.

wmaxt


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 8, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> wasn't the "official" way to bail out of a P-38 to get out, crawl along the wing then down part of a boom then jump clear because they were so worried about people hitting the tail?


 iwas given to understand you just slid off the wing and the airflow would suck you down


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 8, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> iwas given to understand you just slid off the wing and the airflow would suck you down



Thats right you were supposed to just slide off the wing. With nothing to hold onto and a red hot turbos going out to the boom is not realistic or even possible in most cases.

wmaxt


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 8, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Thats right you were supposed to just slide off the wing. With nothing to hold onto and a red hot turbos going out to the boom is not realistic or even possible in most cases.
> 
> wmaxt


 I seen that on zenos


----------



## V-1710 (Aug 8, 2006)

Twitch said:


> I once interviewed Walter Krupkinski and I found this comment on the P-39 amusing-
> 
> "I encountered many of your (American) aircraft. My experience with the Airacobra- they were easy to shoot down with the engine behind it. I had easily gotten behind one and fired. It was burning like hell. The aircraft was in heavy smoke and the pilot tried to bail out. This was my first experience with the Airacobra remember, and he opened a door! I had never seen that before; that the pilot could just open a door and step out of the aircraft cockpit!"



That very strong fuselage allowed for two big car door sized holes in the sides!


----------



## Twitch (Aug 9, 2006)

99% of the time if the aircraft could still roll over they just went inverted and hit the quick release and let gravity do the job.


----------



## R988 (Aug 11, 2006)

What about those early Typhoons with the 'car' door, they probably wouldn't be that easy to get out either, especially if it was going fast and you were trying to open the door against the wind resistence.

I imagine most bombers would have been something of a deathtrap, at least for the pilots who would have to hold it steady if possible for the crew to get out then try and get out via some escape hatch further back by himself with the plane going down out of control.

Hurricanes also got a bit of a reputation for burning pilots, though they usually got out alive. I guess Japanese aircraft probably burnt quite a few as well.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 11, 2006)

"Hurricanes also got a bit of a reputation for burning pilots, though they usually got out alive. I guess Japanese aircraft probably burnt quite a few as well."

I have read that when Douglas Badder was shot down it was a good thing he had tin legs as his feet got caught in the pedals. The straps holding his legs on broke during a spin and he was able to make a timely exit.

(I can't remeber whether he was in a Hurricane or Spit at the time though)


----------



## timshatz (Aug 12, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> "Hurricanes also got a bit of a reputation for burning pilots, though they usually got out alive. I guess Japanese aircraft probably burnt quite a few as well."
> 
> I have read that when Douglas Badder was shot down it was a good thing he had tin legs as his feet got caught in the pedals. The straps holding his legs on broke during a spin and he was able to make a timely exit.
> 
> (I can't remeber whether he was in a Hurricane or Spit at the time though)



Spit.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 13, 2006)

Cheers Tim


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

Yeh the death trap debate is a funny one...

I believe the stats say that if you had to bail out of a Halifax or Lancaster you'd choose a Halifax.. The stat also say that you're more likely to bail out of a Halifax than a Lancaster...

My vote for Deathtrap goes to the Avro Manchester, all the negative features of the Lanc and so underpowered it's a wonder it got in the air...

Simon


----------



## redcoat (Aug 16, 2006)

R988 said:


> Hurricanes also got a bit of a reputation for burning pilots, though they usually got out alive. I guess Japanese aircraft probably burnt quite a few as well.


This was during the Battle Of Britain, and it was due to the fact that when the British modified the fuel tanks on their fighters to be self-sealing they didn't modify the fuel tank between the engine and the pilot on the Hurricane, as it was difficult to get at, and it was considered protected by its position.
However it was soon realised that this was a mistake, and the RAF started modifying the fuel tanks during the battle itself, so by the end of the battle all the Hurricanes had been modified in this way, solving the problem.


ps Shame on you all,  
Up to page 3 on death trap aircraft, and no-one has yet mentioned the Me 163 Komet.
It was such a death trap, it was even a danger to the ground crews.
Even re-fuelling it was dangerous.


----------



## JeffK (Aug 17, 2006)

Boulton Paul Defiant.

Did a Gunner EVER bail out of a Defiant, I looked at a lot of cases and didnt see 1 succesful escape.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 17, 2006)

The Defiant had two ways out, through the front of the turret, and via the hatch in the lower rear fuselage.

How about the Blenhiem from a Gunners perspective



> Here you did your first flying in Blenheims, a most uncomfortable aircraft, not one which you could get out of easily if you were in trouble, and thankfully no-one on our course experienced it. You had to climb over a main spar to get to the turret, and could not wear a parachute harness, which was disconcerting to say the least; quite honestly the Blenheim was a death trap.



from BBC Peoples War


----------



## Glider (Aug 18, 2006)

Wasn't it the Ki84 that didn't have an emergency release for the canopy


----------



## quayhog (Aug 19, 2006)

I don't think the PV-1 Ventura was a death trap. It didn't provide the Brits with any operational advantage over any other aircraft they had to choose from so they gave it back to the US. The lend lease returned aircraft flew as the PV-3, mostly with training command and US inshore patrols. The USAAF had a similar quandry and abandoned its use. The USN found the Ventura's niche as a medium range patrol bomber. The crews who flew the aircraft loved it after they figured out its quirks. It could absorb significant battle damage and return its crew safely. The Ventura did have a very high wing loading and if you didn't treat it with respect it could kill you quickly.

My dad flew the PV (as a command pilot) several hundreds of hours during 1943-44 with VB-144 out of Tarawa. He had nothing but good things to say about the PV.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 19, 2006)

The g4M Betty, or flying cigar. The poor guys in those had little chance


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2006)

quayhog said:


> I don't think the PV-1 Ventura was a death trap. It didn't provide the Brits with any operational advantage over any other aircraft they had to choose from so they gave it back to the US. The lend lease returned aircraft flew as the PV-3, mostly with training command and US inshore patrols. The USAAF had a similar quandry and abandoned its use. The USN found the Ventura's niche as a medium range patrol bomber. The crews who flew the aircraft loved it after they figured out its quirks. It could absorb significant battle damage and return its crew safely. The Ventura did have a very high wing loading and if you didn't treat it with respect it could kill you quickly.
> 
> My dad flew the PV (as a command pilot) several hundreds of hours during 1943-44 with VB-144 out of Tarawa. He had nothing but good things to say about the PV.


Very cool! I'm a former Lockheed employee (Burbank) and heard a lot of the old timers talk well about the Ventura. Some even shot down Zeros! I guess the Ventura also had some structural wing problems that were corrected when the PV-2 Harpoon was built...

The Marines also used them as a night fighter and I know they had a few kills as well.


----------



## quayhog (Aug 19, 2006)

VPNAVY - VP-144 Crew Summary Page - VP Patrol Squadron
VPNAVY - VP-144 History Summary Page - VP Patrol Squadron

Links are for a picture of my dad and crew (with PV-1) and also some squadron history that was released by the Navy Department in 1944. I found all this stuff in my dad's personal records. With his permission I provided the documents to the VPNavy web site for public view.

There is a restored ex USN Ventura in a museum in New Zealand. There is also an RCAF one being recovered somewhere from a northern Canadian crash site.

Jonathan Horne


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2006)

Very very cool!!! I'm on that site! I was in VP-65.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 19, 2006)

_"It didn't provide the Brits with any operational advantage over any other aircraft they had to choose from so they gave it back to the US."_

No, the 2nd TAF removed the Ventura from front-line service because not only did it offer no advantage over other types in service, but it was worse than other types in service. And was shot down in droves. They found it to be terrible, and I've provided the quote from AVM Embry that says as much.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2006)

_"The Ventura had the same overall configuration as the Hudson which preceded it, but it was somewhat larger, heavier, and more powerful. As compared to the Hudson, the dorsal turret was moved forward to improve the field of fire. Early production aircraft had two 0.303-inch machine guns installed in this turret, but later production aircraft increased this to four. Twin flexible 0.303-inch machine guns were mounted in the extreme nose. A pair of flexible 0.303-inch machine guns were mounted in a ventral position behind the wing trailing edge. This gun position gave a distinct kink to the aft fuselage. Two fixed forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns were installed in the upper decking of the nose. A bomb load of 2500 pounds could be carried in the internal bay. Internal fuel capacity was reduced from 644 US gallons in the Lodestar to 565 US gallons for the Ventura. As on the Lodestar, a set of Fowler flaps were installed on the wing trailing edge, extending all the way from the ailerons inward to the fuselage. When fully extended, these flaps increased the wing area from 551 to 619 square feet. 

The first Ventura (AE658 ) took off on its maiden flight at the Lockheed Air Terminal on July 31, 1941. Although the dorsal turret was mounted, no armament was actually fitted. The Ventura I (Model 37-21-01) was powered by a pair of 1850 hp Pratt Whitney S1A4-G Double Wasps. 188 were delivered under the original British contract, with serials being AE658/AE845. One (AE662) was fitted with a pair of 2200 hp Wright R-3350 engines as a testbed for the engine installation in the Constellation transport. It had a shortened nose to permit propeller clearance. 

Deliveries of Venturas to Britain began in September of 1941. 21 of the early production run of Ventura Is (AE658, AE659, AE661, AE663/AE674, AE676/AE678, AE696, AE703 and AE728 ) were retained in Canada for the RCAF. At least six (AE690, AE694, AE727, AE752, AE754, AE765) were transferred to the South African Air Force. 

The Ventura II (Model 37-27-01) was generally similar to the Ventura I, but was powered by 2000 hp Pratt Whitney R-2800-31s instead of the Double Wasp S1A4-Gs of the Mark I version. It had a redesigned bomb bay capable of carrying 3000 pounds of bombs or 780-gallon ferry tanks. Production totaled 487 aircraft (the 112 aircraft of AE846/AE957 which filled out the remainder of the original British contract, plus the 375 aircraft in the second contract AJ163/AJ537). Only 196 Ventura IIs actually reached Commonwealth forces, with 264 (among these AJ235/AJ442) being retained by the USAAF as Model 37s. For some reason, they never got USAAF designations or serial numbers. 

The Ventura I was first delivered to the RAF in September of 1941, and went into service with No 21 Squadron at Bodney, Norfolk, in May of 1942. It also served with Nos 464 (RAAF) and 487 (RNZAF) Squadrons. It flew its first combat mission on November 3, 1942, an attack by three aircraft of No. 21 Squadron against a factory at Hengelo which had to be diverted into a raid against railway lines instead. 

47 Venturas from Nos 21, 464, and 487 Squadrons took part along with Mosquitos and Bostons in a daylight low-level attack on December 6, 1942 against the Philips radio and vacuum tube factory at Eindhoven in the Netherlands. The raid did not go well--nine of the Venturas were shot down and 37 were damaged. 

After this disaster, the Venturas switched to medium-altitude missions and attacked numerous targets in occupied Europe. On April 4, a formation of 24 Venturs were sent to bomb the Caen/Carpiquet airfield whereas another 24 Venturas were sent to attack the shipyards at Rotterdam. Two Venturas attacking Rotterdam were shot down by German fighters and three more were shot down by fighters on the Brest raid. On April 21, when Venturas of No 21 Squadron hit the marshaling yards at Abbeville, three more shot down by fighters. On May 3, 1943, eleven Venturas from No 487 Squadron attacked a power station in Amsterdam, but only one Ventura survived determined attacks from German fighters. The formation leader, Sqdn Ldr Leonard H. Trent, managed to shoot down a Bf 109 with his forward-firing guns before being shot down himself. Sqdn Ldr Trent was captured and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp. He managed to survive the war, and was later awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery. 

On May 24, No. 487 Squadron resumed operations. An attack on a power station and coking plant at Zeebrugge came off without losses. On May 29, No. 21 Squadron attacked Zeebrugge again. Two Venturas got involved in a midair collision. One made it back safely, but the other was lost. 

On June 22, 1942, Wing Commander R. H. S. King, commander of No. 21 Squadron and his crew were killed when their Ventura was hit by flak in an attack on an enemy gun position near the Abbeville-Drucat airfield. 

*The Ventura was never very popular with its RAF crews. It was 50 mph faster than the Hudson which preceded it and had a bombload of 2500 pounds instead of the former's 1000 pounds, but it was over 7500 pounds heavier. Losses were high, and the aircraft was not really suitable as a bomber. The RAF Ventura I and II bombers were replaced by deHavilland Mosquitos by the summer of 1943. The last Ventura sortie took place with No. 21 Squadron on September 9, 1943. *

After being phased out of the bombardment role, a number of Ventura Is were modified as Ventura G.R.Is for the Coastal Command beginning in the fall of 1943. These Ventura G.R.ls served with Nos. 519 and 521 Squadrons of RAF Coastal Command and with Nos 13 and 500 Squadrons in the Mediterranean. 

21 Ventura Mk. Is and 108 Mk. II/IIAs were diverted to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) from British contracts. The first Ventura I was received in June of 1942. The Ventura I and II aircraft retained in Canada were used exclusively in training roles and never saw combat. They retained their RAF serial numbers, and were assigned to No 340 Operational Training Unit at Pennfield Ridge, New Brunswick and No 1 Central Flying School at Trenton, Ontario. 

The South African Air Force received 135 Ventura Mk I and II aircraft (SAAF serials 6001 to 6135). They equipped three Squadrons (Nos 17, 22, and 27) which initially operated at home to protect shipping routes around the Cape. They also served in the Mediterranean. Venturas of No. 17 Squadron carried out anti-shipping strikes off the coast of Italy, and No 452 flew a few night intruder missions. No 27 Squadron took over 500 Squadron's surviving Venturas and later operated from Malta. Venturas were operated by No. 27 Squadron until January of 1945, while other wartime Venturas, particularly in No. 299 Squadron of the RAF, were used as transports. 

Although 264 British-ordered Ventura IIs were taken over by the USAAF and operated under the unorthodox designation of Model 37, the USAAF actually made only limited use of this aircraft in combat. Early in the war, several Model 37s were used for antisubmarine patrols, but most USAAF Venturas were used mainly for training at such stateside units as the Bomber Training Group at Randolph Field, the AAF Gunnery School at Laredo, Texas, and the AAF Navigation School at San Marcos, Texas. 

The last 27 Ventura IIs on the British order were delivered to the US Navy under the designation PV-3. Their RAF serials were AJ511/AJ537), and they were assigned the Navy BuNos 33925/33951. They were assigned in October 1942 to VP-82 which operated from Newfoundland on anti-submarine patrols over the Atlantic." _

From J. Baugher..

It seems D is correct about this. It was probably training and the way the aircraft were being deployed. It goes back to the old saying, "Never fly an "A" or "MK I" model of any aircraft....


----------



## plan_D (Aug 20, 2006)

Thank you. And good post. 

No. 21, 464, and 487 Squadrons were all in the 2nd Tactical Air Force. I got the information on the Ventura from it's 1943 missions with the 2nd TAF, and 2 Group from June to the Ventura being withdrawn. A mildly interesting note, before the Ventura's were replaced by Mosquitoes, the bomber arm of the 2nd TAF was completely equipped with American-made planes (Mitchells, Bostons and Venturas.)


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 20, 2006)

487 formed at RAF Feltwell 15 August 1942. Equipped with Venturas.

*Transferred to 2nd TAF 1 June 1943*

Re-equipped with Mosquito Bombers August 1943

Re-equipped Mosquito FB February 1944.

Squadron motto "Ki te mutunga" basically "To the End" in Maori.

So they operated Venturas for under 2 months in 2nd TAF, that is long enough to come up with your supposition. Good Grief.  

PS. I thought they were useless because of not enough bombs or not good as fighters, or...... Oh never mind.


Sqn Ldr Trent. Trent Way at the old RNZAF Base Hobsonvile is named after him.


----------



## jakal (Aug 20, 2006)

Hey, anything with a tail or belly gun position was a *****!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 20, 2006)

_"So they operated Venturas for under 2 months in 2nd TAF, that is long enough to come up with your supposition. Good Grief."_

Aren't you the little jackass? I came to my conclusion from the Ventura's time in 2nd TAF - when the RAF got rid of it because it was useless. I also had AVM Embry's opinion, and RAF crew opinions, to support my idea. 2 months in war is a long time. 

And that lip wasn't required dipshit, I don't know who you think you are, but you're not anything on here.


----------



## jakal (Aug 20, 2006)

262 mistle 6.jpg (1.9 KB)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 20, 2006)

i fail to see how it could've been a death trap if it never even materialised, would've looked cool though, and no more dangerous than a normal -262..........


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 20, 2006)

1. It was called "The Pig" by its crews.

2. The last Ventura bomber operation was September 1943 in the ETO.

3. The RAF (not 2nd TAF) decided to replace them in this theatre, they were still used in other areas, Costal Command, Far East, Pacific theatres etc.

4. The Ventura Squadrons were transferred to 2nd TAF because the RAF already knew they were going to re-equipped with better airframes as they became available and could transition the crews, a process that does not happen overnight.

With this re-equipping the squadrons would then be better suited to the requirements of 2nd TAF, and had time to assimilate to their new command structure.

One example of this system failing, was a P/O RNZAF who was transferred to 487 during transition to Mosquitos from the NZ Beaufighter Squadron. Someone forgot to realise he had not done the requried conversion course and he killed himself on his second training flight. 

5. I have never assumed (nor wanted) to be "anything" on here, I have slightly higher aims in life.

6. Little Jackass? dipshit? Get a F***ing life. The only times I have been in the Sh!t, is when I had to obey orders from Occifers that didn't know their arse from their elbow.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 20, 2006)

I already stated the Ventura was known as "the Pig" - you're telling me things I already know to try and make yourself look somewhat intelligent. At least it seems that way. 

That last post of yours, and the one before was pointless. I never said the 2nd TAF ordered the Ventura to be replaced. I said I got the idea of the RAF hatred toward it from the 2nd TAF history. I seem to notice you do this a lot on here, go around the threads and jump in all high and mighty with information everyone has already produced.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 20, 2006)

Note to self.

In future, don't have an opinion on a forum.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 20, 2006)

Opinion? I don't consider you thinking it pathetic that I based my conclusion on 2nd TAF history of the Ventura (and the relevent pilot accounts) a valid, and worthwhile, opinion.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 20, 2006)

Anyway.

Regarding the Defiant. Finally found the schematic I was looking for.

Whenever possible the gunner should abandon the aeroplane through the opening made by sliding aside the the cupola doors; this action also retracts the adjacent fairing. If the cupola cannot be used, the gunner should escape through the service hatch in the floor of the fuselage aft of the gun turret, but first the turret must be rotated to the "guns forward" position, and the undercarriage lowered to retract the rear aerial mast.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Aug 21, 2006)

interesting


----------



## pejayte (Aug 25, 2006)

The Mosquito was loved by the crew her flew them. But it was notoriously difficult to leave in a hurry. Also, incendiary shells often quickly turned it into a ball of fire. If the crew made it home in a damaged aircraft, a wheels up landing often took the legs off the crew due to the wooden belly disintergrating


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Aug 25, 2006)

ouch


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 26, 2006)

What about the SB2C Helldiver? Apparently was named 'Son of a Bitxh 2nd Class' by the crew: was that an appropriate nickname?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 26, 2006)

Parmigiano said:


> What about the SB2C Helldiver? Apparently was named 'Son of a Bitxh 2nd Class' by the crew: was that an appropriate nickname?


I once met a guy who flew the Helldiver, I asked him the same thing. It was difficult to fly and maintain and had a lot of teething problems when it first entered service.


----------



## Gaudet (Jan 28, 2007)

I'm a researcher of the former air station at Pennfield Ridge (RAF No.34 OTU -42-44)... which used the Ventura as it's principal aircraft. Tons of accidents, over 65 casualities so far confirmed... in my non-aviator opinion, the Ventura was over powered and there were never enough dual control a/c for proper training. The boys that flew them on regular training and got to know how the a/c behaved, love them. But put a fella that is used to a slower machine ussually spelled disaster.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 28, 2007)

k9kiwi said:


> Anyway.
> 
> Regarding the Defiant. Finally found the schematic I was looking for.
> 
> Whenever possible the gunner should abandon the aeroplane through the opening made by sliding aside the the cupola doors; this action also retracts the adjacent fairing. If the cupola cannot be used, the gunner should escape through the service hatch in the floor of the fuselage aft of the gun turret, but first the turret must be rotated to the "guns forward" position, and the undercarriage lowered to retract the rear aerial mast.



Deathtrap. Gotta be brave to fly in one of those things in combat.


----------



## Smokey (Jan 28, 2007)

I read the navigator of a b25 had great difficulty bailing out


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 2, 2007)

Early He-177 Grief was a death trap due to the engines being coupled with no efficient cooling or fire extinguisher system. It was nicknamed the flying coffin. There was one USN flying boat, the Marineer I think it was that was nicknamed the flying fuel can. These two are hardly complimentary nicknames for these types I should think...


----------

