parsifal
Colonel
The photos tell a lot of words in my opinion
Could the Luftwaffe have done a better job supplying the 6th army at Stallingrad
- Thread starter rank amateur
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I have always been impressed by how small these planes actually are. I have not been on a B-24, but I have crawled around a B-17 at March field and I am frankly amazed that anyone got out of those planes. They were very cluttered and narrow with small ramps. Just getting into and out of a seat seemed difficult. Now throw into the mix a buffeting, twisting aircraft, and I just shake my head.
Ease of escape is a function of design, and I do not think it was given any serious thought for these aircraft, nose wheel or not.
Ease of escape is a function of design, and I do not think it was given any serious thought for these aircraft, nose wheel or not.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... Ease of escape is a function of design, and I do not think it was given any serious thought for these aircraft, nose wheel or not."
Truth.
MM
Truth.
MM
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
100% correct.
parsifal
Colonel
For procedural fairness, do we have any information on the escape arrangements for tail dragger aircraft say the ju88 and the He 111. Were they better or worse, and does the presence or absence of a tricycle configuration make any difference to that ease of escape. I would think not.
Tricycle aircraft have two disadvantages.
1 The crew sits ahead of the propellers. They can get mangled on exit and may need to spend precious time feathering.
2 The nose wheel can block an exit port, the Liberators use of the area for both undercarriage and escape hatch aside.
The Luftwaffe provided ejection seats for this reason on the He 219. Dornier Do 335 had ejection seats as well as explosive bolts to detatch the vertical fins (speratatly controls for upper and lower) and rear airscrew blades to enhance safety in ejection and belly landing
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That could be inherent in ANY multi engine aircraft.
Designers considered egress during the design of these aircraft. There were many combat aircraft designed before and after these aircraft where air crew egress wasn't a consideration and egress procedures were usually developed by the operator in conjunction with recommendations from the manufacturer.
Last edited:
Hello Siegfried
You have seen the picture of exit routes from B-24 but I repeat, B-24 was a high wing plane and the exits for front fuselage crew members were underside of the plane, so it is difficult to see how the propellers could be a danger in emergency.
Secondly, have you ever see pictures on Do 17 and Do 217 or He 177? Clearly part of the crew could have sit ahead of propellers also in taildraggers.
JUha
You have seen the picture of exit routes from B-24 but I repeat, B-24 was a high wing plane and the exits for front fuselage crew members were underside of the plane, so it is difficult to see how the propellers could be a danger in emergency.
Secondly, have you ever see pictures on Do 17 and Do 217 or He 177? Clearly part of the crew could have sit ahead of propellers also in taildraggers.
JUha
On Do 17/217 the crew may sit before the propellor, but they definite exit behind propellor line (I believe through rear open of ventral gondola, behind propellor). I am not sure any other exit, but it seems pretty quick and easy to do. Certain much more easy that to crawl back in fuselage of downing plane..
Ju 88 was similar: exit through top-rear window of rear gunner after blow it off, and also ventral gondola door of lower gunner. Both behind propellor.
I am not sure the He 177. Here crew and exit is both ahead of propeller line, exit is about 1 meter from it, so I think very unlikely someone hits propellor (ie. fall backwards 1 meter while sideways 2 meter at same time.. also exiting person drops out of plane about same height of propellor lower tip, as wing/engine was mounted high on 177.. was there other exit for crew from front?
You've got the whole crew exiting thru one hatch on the Do 17/217, and Ju88, i'm not so sure that's superior to the B-24's multiple exit's.
I can imagine the scene in a falling Luftwaffe bomber being like a old Henkel and Jenkel cartoon, "You first. No I insist, you first" then they both try to go thru at the same time.
Let's face it, neither side of the airwar gave a lot of critical thought to crew survival by bailout, when it came to bombers.
I can imagine the scene in a falling Luftwaffe bomber being like a old Henkel and Jenkel cartoon, "You first. No I insist, you first" then they both try to go thru at the same time.
Let's face it, neither side of the airwar gave a lot of critical thought to crew survival by bailout, when it came to bombers.
Last edited:
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
Interesting discussion, I must wonder if the B-29 by being a late war bomber resolved any of the crew bail out issues found on earlier multi-engined bombers.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
When an aircraft is designed, anytime you install a door, opening, or removable panel you are creating a potential stress point. In many cases engineers will limit the size of doors and access holes just because of this. In many cases some doors and panels may actually carry a structural load and it could dangerous to fly without them. With that said, designing an aircraft with a spacious egress door would have been a luxury or an event dictated by luck. Great - you can fit out the door with your parachute - look at some of the space inside WW2 aircraft. It would have been a challenge to either put your chute on during an emergency or function within the cabin while wearing a parachute. AND THIS COULD HOLD TRUE FOR BOTH AXIS AND ALLIED AIRCRAFT. Even in the post war years, many larger combat aircraft were workspace challenged, especially those NOT built from an airliner.
A B29, if it was at high altitude, would have to release it's internal pressure before bailouts. But if it's damaged enough to require bailout, it's probably already lost it's pressure. On several pressureized aircraft i've seen the hatches open inward, against the pressure. I doubt they're all that way though. Either way, I wouldn't want to be the first one to open a hatch, if there was still pressure, you wouldn't have a orderly exit.
The B29 flew a lot of the late war mission low enough that it wouldn't have been pressureized. As long as men had to walk, climb, crawl, or claw, their way to exit a aircraft that's falling out of the sky, at who knows what attitude, there's just no fail-safe way out.
The B29 flew a lot of the late war mission low enough that it wouldn't have been pressureized. As long as men had to walk, climb, crawl, or claw, their way to exit a aircraft that's falling out of the sky, at who knows what attitude, there's just no fail-safe way out.
Shortround6
Major General
Even some post war aircraft had less than stellar escape setups. Some American aircraft having downward firing ejector seats. Fine for bailing out at high altitude but since most non-combat aircraft losses are during take-off and landing being shot out the bottom of the aircraft at high speed into the concrete runway was less than ideal for crew survival.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The Canberra is a perfect example of this...
Shortround6
Major General
I believe so, also one of the three crew in the B-47 and 2 of the crew in the B-52?
I know, but Siegfried claimed that the crew sitting ahead of propellers was something specular to nosewheel planes, I just wanted to show that even in some LW taildraggers most of the crew sat before the propellers. There was of course also other exit in Do 17Z, think on ditching, opened by jetisoning part of the canopy. In a hurry at least the W/O/air gunner used it. With badly wounded ventral gunner the Do 17/Ju 88/He 111 ventral door wasn't so easy way out. And if you look the B-24 exits you will notice that front fuselage crew didn't have to crawl back in fuselage, they had 2 exits, one through nose wheel well, front of the propellers but underside the fuselage just as in He 177 and probably as safe and the other out from front bombbay behind the propellers.
Juha
Last edited:
In the He 177 there is rather a lot of clearance even ahead of those engines, furthermore egress is not so far ahead of the props nor are the nose crew confined. Some He 177 had ejection seats for some crew members. Ju 88's blew of the entire top back of the canopy as in a fighter aircraft. Ju 288 were to have complete escape module with the whole pressurised nose section detached and lowered by parachute F-111 style. The Luftwaffe actually did seem to think a fair bit about escape.
If the aircraft is in a spin exiting from the bottom may not help you clear the propellers at all.
