How dangerous was it to fly ww2 era aircraft even without ever seeing combat.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


This experience range is also considered the "danger zone" for non-military pilots: with fewer hours, they're still uncertain enough of their skills to be very careful and with [enough] more, they're sufficiently knowledgeable to keep out of trouble. In that experience danger zone, their confidence exceeds their skills and judgement.

-----------

To address the original topic, of course high performance military aircraft were more dangerous to fly than contemporary civil aircraft, for both cultural reasons -- one expects a certain number of combat pilots to die as a consequence of their job, but not pleasure or commercial pilots -- and engineering reasons -- combat aircraft tend to be on the bleading edge. Also, of course, combat aircraft were pushed even farther during wartime, not infrequently being overloaded, flown into and out of marginal fields, and operated in weather conditions that would ground the very same aircraft and pilots in peacetime.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention operating aircraft with faults that would ground them in peacetime. A number of bomber crews returning from the Alaska theater with their planes had them immediately grounded upon arrival in the States. These aircraft had been flying combat missions a week before in some of the most inhospitable conditions but needed complete overhauls before they were considered safe for training.
 
To me this is one of the most tragic kinds of death of all. A young man, 19, volunteers
and is killed before being able to at least make a contribution to the effort. I think it's pretty universal that if people are going to die young they at least want it to count for something.
 
I know that the use of the P-40 as a trainer is correct, at least it was done here in New Zealand before transitioning to the Corsair. That was where a lot of fatalities were - not necessarily unable to handle the aircraft, but pushing beyond the aircraft limits. e.g. instructor says don't go over 400 in a dive, so student pilot decides to find out why you can't...
 
Last edited:


Jug Pilot,

Very cool and I'm envious! Please share! I'm curious what you had flown prior and your path to the Jug!

Cheers,
Biff

PS: Pictures if you can would be much appreciated!
 
Slightly off topic and even more ironic, in Hickey's Warpath across the Pacific, in the appendices there is a death documented of a gunner who died after his last mission when he fell out of a truck and hit his head. (The mind boggles.)
 
One issue is no 2 seaters.
So the first time you flew a Spitfire was solo. Throw in bad weather and mechanical failure and short range and poor visibility and poor navigation aids and the question could be how did anyone survive!
 
One issue is no 2 seaters.
So the first time you flew a Spitfire was solo. Throw in bad weather and mechanical failure and short range and poor visibility and poor navigation aids and the question could be how did anyone survive!

A second issue is that, even if there were a two-seater, a small aircraft like the Spitfire would probably have its handling significantly changed in a two-seat variant, which could make it ineffective as a trainer
 
Slightly off topic and even more ironic, in Hickey's Warpath across the Pacific, in the appendices there is a death documented of a gunner who died after his last mission when he fell out of a truck and hit his head. (The mind boggles.)


Still happens, A friend of mine's son-in-law was retired out of the Army (he was a Captain) when there was an accident unloading bleachers from a truck. Both back and brain injuries.
This was in the very late 1980s but I expect, with the size of the US forces, that there are several deaths per year of an 'industrial nature" (falls from vehicles/structures or other routine operations.)
 

My condolences, I hope he's had a decent quality of life and no one tried to deny him any benefits.
As far as the "industrial nature"? If we had less than 10 killed during workups through the end of the deployment, I considered it to be a safe cruise. (Counting aircrew deaths as well. Please remember, we're also talking about 5,000 people over a 12 month period.)

As far as the gunner, I could only imagine the folks packing up his PE and the CO writing that letter:
"Dear Mr. and Mrs. X, your son survived 25 harrowing missions against the Japanese at Lae and Salamaua."
 
I would say a two seater Spitfire even it did have handling difference would still have been very worthwhile. Less of the jump in the deep end.

Also no escape mechanisms when it goes bad. Lose an engine on take off and I'm sure life can turn sour.

In the UK the weather is usually poor. And the aircraft like the Gnat have ranges which can best be described as empty and getting emptier. So bad weather and limited range and poor navigation is just asking to be a lawn dart.

Sometimes the question is not why so many died but how did so many survive!
 
mu uncle james was a very experienced civilian pilot; he then joing CRAF and flew as an instructor, then joined the air corps in 1942 he was in the ferry command and was killed flying a b-26 in florida trying to transport it to the west coast jusdt thought his experience was relevant he was by all accounts an extremely accomplished and experienced pilot all on board also were killed
 
Same thing happened flying Kittyhawks up from New South Wales to New Guinea in 1942.
 
A lot of the danger wasn't necessarily inherent to the aircraft or training.
Don't forget, you had 18-20 year old guys strapping on 2000 Hp aircraft and taking them to (and sometimes beyond) their limits. That's a recipe for disaster.
I remember watching this RT program about training civil aviation pilots in Russia, they had been losing commercial planes at a high rate due to pilot error, and it was like anyone in Swindon can get a taxi licence after 3 years driving. The only problem is that no one will insure them. These kids in Russia were flying commercial airliners in their early twenties. I thought to myself, no, no, no.
 
I saw a figure that is probably in error, that 20,000 were killed in stateside aviation training accidents. Of course a lot of bombers ran into mountains, go lost and whatnot, so crew included. My dad said that about 5% got killed in Navy training.

20,000 is probably way high, that would be 5% of total US war dead!
 
The Sierra Nevada mountains on the border between California and Nevada has considerable WWII-era wreck sites that are still being discovered.
There's wreckage of B-17s, B-24s B-25s and much more. Just a couple years ago, some hikers discovered the wreckage of a long lost P-40 near Kenny Meadows on the south fork of the Kern River. The P-40 was part of a flight of nineteen that flew into a storm, five of which were lost.
 
And for a Canadian RCAF perspective, here are numbers covering losses between 10 September, 1939 and 31 December 1946:

Killed or presumed dead due to flying operations: 13,036
Killed or presumed dead due to training accidents: 3,076
Injured (not fatal) in training accidents: 356

So, training accident fatalities were almost a quarter of operational RCAF deaths and interestingly, only 10% of those involved in training accidents survived.

Figures are from "The RCAF Overseas: The Sixth Year" by the Toronto Oxford University Press, 1949.
 

Users who are viewing this thread