Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Undoubtedly, it is just a staggering number considering the number of vehicles actually on the road, my wifes great uncle was killed by a bus in London while on leave in the blackout. My main point was how routine accidental death was treated, although I think questions were asked in USA at a high level about aircraft training accidents (Congress?).Those high traffic deaths in WW2 Britain was possible them adapting to the new blackout rules imposed for night driving ?
The rates went down pretty quick as the war went on.
13 out of 81 is 16% of those who were killed. But the OP was saying that 10% of ALL pilots were killed in accidents (not just in training). That is presumably much higher.
Thanks for the mention of Bud Anderson - I will take a look, since I'm trying to get a better handle on accident rates in different air forces and different years.
Life and death was viewed differently. Laws had to be brought in to make people drive with seatbelts and stop them driving with bald tyres. In motor sports and air displays pilots and spectators being killed was just accepted. The highest level of road deaths in UK was during WW2 despite hardly anyone having a car or fuel compared to present day.
View attachment 536564
200 hours is what army pilots had upon graduation. I guess they were ready to go.As I listened to a video of [Bob] Peterson he mentioned that flying a WW2 aircraft was flying a high performance machine and they would bite you if you weren't attentive. My father who was a Navy Pilot Instructor said the worst time for a low time pilot was around 200-250 hours of flight time. That's the time that young pilot's thought they had complete control/understanding of their aircraft and they would let their heads get big.
How I checked out in a P-47, My first test was that I had to fly the T-6 from the back seat, not a problem for me. Then spent more than a few days sitting in the P-47 cockpit and studying the P-47 Manual. Nest came a blindfolded test where items were called out and I had to touch them or locate them, Mag switch, gear handle, flap handle, throttle, etc. Then the actual first time flight with the Group Commander as my wing man. A beautiful take off and some air work followed. Then the fun part ??? the 360 deg approach to landing. As I lined up with the runway and off to my left was a fast approaching rain squall driftng across the runway. My reaction was that this did not look like good conditions for the first landing, there was no hesitation as I poured on the coal, cleaned up the airplane and came around for a second 360 overhead. Meanwhile my instructor wingman was on me for going around like I did. In retrospect, he probably nodded in approval. (Gusty x-winds, poor visibility, wet runway, poor braking etc ) My take away was that I absolutely loved the P-47 (JUG) and in many subsequent flights, as all good fighter pilots do, I went to the edge of the envelope and beyond, Testing my and the airplanes limits. Let me know if you want to hear more ???We have touched on this before, to fly or not. I think it was GregP who said if you own the plane, it's up to you. I have to agree with that.
Cheers,
Biff
I for one would love to hear any stories anybody has about flying old warbirds.How I checked out in a P-47, My first test was that I had to fly the T-6 from the back seat, not a problem for me. Then spent more than a few days sitting in the P-47 cockpit and studying the P-47 Manual. Nest came a blindfolded test where items were called out and I had to touch them or locate them, Mag switch, gear handle, flap handle, throttle, etc. Then the actual first time flight with the Group Commander as my wing man. A beautiful take off and some air work followed. Then the fun part ??? the 360 deg approach to landing. As I lined up with the runway and off to my left was a fast approaching rain squall driftng across the runway. My reaction was that this did not look like good conditions for the first landing, there was no hesitation as I poured on the coal, cleaned up the airplane and came around for a second 360 overhead. Meanwhile my instructor wingman was on me for going around like I did. In retrospect, he probably nodded in approval. (Gusty x-winds, poor visibility, wet runway, poor braking etc ) My take away was that I absolutely loved the P-47 (JUG) and in many subsequent flights, as all good fighter pilots do, I went to the edge of the envelope and beyond, Testing my and the airplanes limits. Let me know if you want to hear more ???
By saying "A-36", I'm assuming you mean the P-36, and it was a very responsive, pilot friendly aircraft.Hey guys,
I used to hang out with some older gentlemen, several of whom flew in WWII. A couple of them mentioned that they had trained in the P-40 just before they were assigned to their initial operational types (if I am using the term correctly). I have always assumed from this and other things they said that the use of th P-40 as a high performance training aircraft was probably the cause of the unusually high accident rate (if I am reading the statistical digest data correctly the P-40 had the 2nd highest accident rate and the highest number of accidents. The A-36 possibly being an aberration due to the relatively low numbers of service aircraft). Does anyone know for sure if this is correct?