Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Don't be too illusioned about controls "locking up," a low time pilot can be taught to stay out of Vne and maintain control of his aircraft, this is not that hard and can easily be demonstrated during initial training.
This is pure conjecture but would an inexperienced,relatively untrained,kamikaze pilot ever have flown in a situation in which the "normal" controls became ineffective?
Wrong - it is easily taught the relationship between the controls and using trim to keep loads off the stick during flight. At 15 or 20 hours I could see a Kamikaze student perfectly capable of understanding this and I think the end results history has shown us speaks for itself!If the first time he ever found that he could not manoeuvre using,for example,his ailerons was his last dive onto a US warship I very much doubt that he would be able to make adjustments in other ways. This would explain the warning in the "Kamikaze manual" about diving too fast.
Cheers
Steve
It also points out some of the information will vary with aircraft. In the end the aircraft flight manual should be the document followed to complete the mission.I think more need to read that Hyperwar article, it quotes the Kamakaze training manual, which several times points out the need to ensure high momentum on impact.
Do know what Vne is? If you exceed Vne you can and will start bending the aircraft and eventually it will come apart!!! The Zero, like many other aircraft can have it's Vne speed exceeded in a terminal dive. As stated, the Zero's AILERONS become stiff and unresponsive at high speed but one can still control flight with elevator trim and rudder. Again if the aircraft is allowed to come apart BEFORE reaching the target, the whole mission is a failure - that simple!
Don't be too illusioned about controls "locking up," a low time pilot can be taught to stay out of Vne and maintain control of his aircraft, this is not that hard and can easily be demonstrated during initial training.
An aggressive flight training syllabus with the right student can have one soloing in about 7 hours. If you blow off the normal pattern work and concentrate on take offs and landings, the transition to a higher performing aircraft is very doable, especially if the initial training is done in a higher performing training aircraft to begin with.
I am a flight instructor and although it's no longer required in the private pilot's practical test standards I spin my students. I do this so they understand the spin/ stall relationship at slow speeds, but so they also can feel what the controls feel like when the aircraft loads up and starts taking on g forces. This is also shown during "upset maneuver recovery," again at a primary stage of flying before solo.
Wrong - it is easily taught the relationship between the controls and using trim to keep loads off the stick during flight. At 15 or 20 hours I could see a Kamikaze student perfectly capable of understanding this and I think the end results history has shown us speaks for itself!
It also points out some of the information will vary with aircraft. In the end the aircraft flight manual should be the document followed to complete the mission.
Going full circle here - getting a 15 hour pilot trained to fly a Zero into a ship at close to Vne is and was very do-able.
Yes. I think we took this one as far as we can go.When you watch the movies made of the attacks, you'll see several aircraft coming down in pieces, and some that impact the water far away from any possible target.
But there's no way we'll ever know what brought on the structual failure, flight stress alone, or AA damage, or both?
And the ones that miss, dead or badly wounded pilots, or just out of control ?
Taking these last two together, I can say those pilots had the basic skills. This is what would occur to me, though. When the moment of truth is still at a distance, that's one thing. When it arrives, that's another thing. And this is the ultimate moment of truth. And, they're flying into the sights and sounds of enemy guns.
Call it speculation, but do some of those young boys freeze-up, lost their heads? This isn't a video game. They know they're not going to walk away from this one. Do they all of the sudden "snap" and forget all that good training? It happens to even the best-trained of pilots, and they're not even flying suicide missions.
I'm saying, skill-set conceded, now let's factor in the psychological/emotional factor. That makes me still think those reports I've heard over the years of some of those aircraft cracking up or those young pilots otherwise simply blowing their targets is plausible.
I'll give the critics this much, for sure. We'll never know for sure. Maybe that's just where we have to leave it.
Just as mentioned above - we don't know if those aircraft broke apart by flack, a dying pilot's death grip causing structural damage or a combination of both. I think the point here is history shows us that Japan did manage to take minimally trained pilots and have them fly into heavily defended military targets. Amazingly we saw another aspect of this occur during 911 against civilian targets (not to go off subject).When you watch the movies made of the attacks, you'll see several aircraft coming down in pieces, and some that impact the water far away from any possible target.
But there's no way we'll ever know what brought on the structual failure, flight stress alone, or AA damage, or both?
And the ones that miss, dead or badly wounded pilots, or just out of control ?
Do know what Vne is? If you exceed Vne you can and will start bending the aircraft and eventually it will come apart!!! The Zero, like many other aircraft can have it's Vne speed exceeded in a terminal dive. As stated, the Zero's AILERONS become stiff and unresponsive at high speed but one can still control flight with elevator trim and rudder. Again if the aircraft is allowed to come apart BEFORE reaching the target, the whole mission is a failure - that simple!
Again, I'll refer back to the Kamikaze training manual: "Beware of over-speeding and a too-steep angle of dive that will MAKE THE CONTROLS HARDER TO RESPOND TO YOUR TOUCH". (my capitals, sorry to shout!)
My point here is that the manual explicitly identifies loss lack of responsiveness from the control surfaces as the primary limiting factor on airspeed while conducting the attack. It does not say "Beware of over-speeding and a too-steep angle of dive that will cause the aircraft to come apart in the air". Nor does it say "Any speed up to the aircraft's Vne is fine; you'll lose some Aileron response but the elevators and rudder will givbe you enough control to do the job"
Of course any aircraft can come apart if the speed is too great. So would a brick. My point is that the manual clearly identifies deteriorating effectiveness of the control surfaces as the limiting factor, not Vne.
It was just a generic manual, with general guidelines only.
One expression I can remember from a instructor is " you're behind the airplane", in other words you're putting in a correction too late, it a common problem with new flyers, and the faster the aircraft, the greater the problem can be.
FlyboyJ, I'm sure you're right that in the heat of battle many pilots would have forgotten this advice, and the advice of the previously quoted manual, and just nailed the throttle. Some few of them may have even hit the target.
The manual was probably meant for the newbies, they probably got that manual out after the experienced flyers were gone so it was geared to the inexperienced pilot.