Aviation myths that will not die

[fastmongrel]

How often do you come across something in print or online that makes you want to bang your head on the keyboard in frustration and cry "Oh for the love of (Insert your religous deity of choice) cant these people just read a book or even look at wikipedia".

My current No 1 aviation myth that has reared its ugly head on a facebook page I share is

The Allison V1710 didnt have a supercharger when fitted in the P39 and P40 and if only the US govenmint[sic] had let the manufacturers fit a Turbinecharger[sic] then they would have been the greatest aircraft of WWII. When I tried to point out the error in the post I got told I didnt know what I was talking about and anyway the original writer is a well known aviation expert. If he cant even use spellcheck then hes not much of an expert

So what myths are grinding your propellor at the moment and what would you like to do to them.

 

[tomo pauk]

...

My current No 1 aviation myth that has reared its ugly head on a facebook page I share is

The Allison V1710 didnt have a supercharger when fitted in the P39 and P40 and if only the US govenmint[sic] had let the manufacturers fit a Turbinecharger[sic] then they would have been the greatest aircraft of WWII. When I tried to point out the error in the post I got told I didnt know what I was talking about and anyway the original writer is a well known aviation expert. If he cant even use spellcheck then hes not much of an expert
...

Care to post a link?

 

[krieghund]

I know what you mean....However when famous WWII Authors promote the same "facts" its hard to get the truth out. This is an excerpt from Dr. Alfred Price's book 'Fighter Aircraft' I wonder what his sources were?

 

[msxyz]

On the topic, I often realize, how many 'modern' aviation myths and false statements encountered over the Internet are generated by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is surely an interesting tool but a big source of errors and inaccuracies, the most obvious and frequent being the incredible amount of wrong conversions between metric and imperial units (a simple multiplication by a coefficient ffs!). What I really find amazing is that the same page, but in different languages, may report different informations, sometimes even contraddicting. Sometimes the error start in the English written, 'international' page and then propagates to the various translations; sometimes the opposite is true: the page in a certain language reports better information on a subject.

Many a time, I read some odd or inaccurate aircraft description on a site, only to find the exact same piece of text on Wikipedia. Guess which is the source? Too many people don't take their time anymore to verify and compare the sources and they simply opt to report what is written on certain sources, like Wikipedia, which are wrongly supposed to always contain accurate informations.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

1. The Tuskagee Airmen never lost a bomber they were escorting.

2. The Stuka was more vulnerable than other Dive Bomber.

3. The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.

 

[krieghund]

Oh yeah, the Zero was a copy of a western type aircraft. (I still haven't found it yet, let's see...carrier based, long range on internal fuel, good climb, out turn anything except the Hayabusa, excellent flight characterisitics, etc..)

 

[Shortround6]

The NACA ruined the P-39.

The P-40 was designed for ground attack/strafing.

The USAAF was not interested in high altitude fighters.

 

[jimh]

Ha...after being on the road for 10 years with Collings I've heard alot...
1. Ball turret gunners getting squished if the hydraulics are shot out....its an electric airplane
2. Mustangs are hard to fly
3. Tuskeegee airmen didn't lose any bombers
4. B-24 pilots have massive left arms
5. the B-17 was better than the B-24
6. the Mustang takes massive amounts of right rudder on takeoff

 

[drgondog]

Ha...after being on the road for 10 years with Collings I've heard alot...
1. Ball turret gunners getting squished if the hydraulics are shot out....its an electric airplane Also, that it was 100% certain he was gonna die if they couldn't retract (B-24) or get out (B-17) for a wheels up landing.
2. Mustangs are hard to fly
3. Tuskeegee airmen didn't lose any bombers
4. B-24 pilots have massive left arms I have noted good sized forearms on the several B-24 drivers I have known - and all will tell you it wasn't easy to maintain tight formations above 22-23000 feet.
5. the B-17 was better than the B-24
6. the Mustang takes massive amounts of right rudder on takeoff Ain't rudder trim marvelous?

7. That it was an Air Force conspiracy that no 332FG pilot made air ace.
8. That Robin Olds didn't get number five in Vietnam

 

[Njaco]

We have several threads like this and they always end up with a heated, insulting discussion between members on the fragile undercarriage of the Bf 109.

 

[meatloaf109]

1. The Tuskagee Airmen never lost a bomber they were escorting.

2. The Stuka was more vulnerable than other Dive Bomber.

3. The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.

1. They didn't?
2. It was?
3. Would have been cool, though.

 

[krieghund]

I too after much study have concluded that the Bf109 did not process adverse landing gear problems over other types (these failures are more often than not are due to the pilot misjudging his sink rate) One area of experience in the Bf109 history that I don't think anyone has used for its defense is the experimental carrier landing Bf019Es and the production Bf109T aircraft. After reading the development testing excerpts it is amazing that the Bf109 would have to be arrested within 22 meters to a full stop. During all that testing never a gear failure. then on to produce the Bf109T which had much better handling characteristics the 'E'. Also as a matter of interest it was discovered that the Bf109F type wing was unsuitable for carrier landing as its stall was too sharp. IMHO

I don't think the Seafire can touch this. (Now I've done it!!) Cry Havoc and Loose the Dogs of War!!!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

1. They didn't?
2. It was?
3. Would have been cool, though.

Are those serious? Questions.

If they are that is cool, and we can discuss them. I just can't tell if you are making fun of the myth or not...

 

[Matt308]

It's Loaf's typical sarcasm.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It's Loaf's typical sarcasm.

That is what I thought, but I had to be sure...

 

[gumbyk]

QANTAS has never had a hull loss...

 

[fastmongrel]

Care to post a link?

I had a look Tomo but the post has strangely disappered. Maybe the aviation expert has decided to slither away and hide till he has been forgotten

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

I'm still laughing at Meatloaf109's post. And Fastmongrel, he probably went back and did something he's never done before and checked and found out how far in the wrong he was.

 

[N4521U]

I once knew a guy who would never fly because if the engine quits, you crash and die.....
Took him up, after much convincing, to 5000' in a 150, had him look at his watch, engine to idle, he got tired of looking at his watch and we were only lost 500'!

 

[Edgar Brooks]

The Japanese called the Beaufighter "Whispering Death." No they didn't, it was named by RAF aircrew.