If you were a pilot in ww2 which plane would you want to fly (1 Viewer)

[Thumpalumpacus]

On land, as a cyclist, I know that quite well. Motorcyclists also know well. For both our groups, the sleepy/distracted/ignorant driver without the right-of-way may lose a few dollars and may even get a twinge of guilt when they hit us. Both bicyclists and motorcyclists get, if lucky, massive medical bills and months of rehab.

I've been hit three times on a bike by cars; fortunately no major injuries in the events. We're so much smaller and harder to see that it's drilled into me when driving a car to be especially attentive.

 

[swampyankee]

I've been hit three times on a bike by cars; fortunately no major injuries in the events. We're so much smaller and harder to see that it's drilled into me when driving a car to be especially attentive.

I've never been hit, but I've been deliberately run off the road a few times. Disregarding deliberate aggression, I've become convinced few people see anything smaller than what they're driving. Combine that with many vehicles seemingly designed to prevent seeing the road closer than the other end of a football field (pitch), and it's not surprising US pedestrian death rates are increasing.

 

[special ed]

Back when I drove daily to make service calls, the most visible cyclists were the ones wearing Chrome finish helmets. They stood out in traffic over the various colors, as they reflect the sun and catch driver's attention while they move through traffic.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

On land, as a cyclist, I know that quite well. Motorcyclists also know well. For both our groups, the sleepy/distracted/ignorant driver without the right-of-way may lose a few dollars and may even get a twinge of guilt when they hit us. Both bicyclists and motorcyclists get, if lucky, massive medical bills and months of rehab.

Well it kind of goes both ways, at least for the overconfident/ignorant motorcyclist. You know the ones riding their crotch rocket at 110 mph in a 60 mph zone, zipping in between cars, cutting in between them, and acting like a fool. I see it all the time, every day. Half the time you don't even know they are coming behind you until they vrooom right past you. If I was trying to change lanes, I'd never see them until his head is flying through my rear view window.

Yet we are supposed to"watch out for bikers." No, how about bikers take some responsibility too. And for those that don't, I have no sympathy…

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'll admit, though, usually the bad motorcyclists are the rice burning crotch rocket riders around here. The Harley and Cruiser riders are usually slower, you know cruising, and not acting like a fool.

I'll also admit, that your average Missouri car driver lacks basic driving skills and should be taking a bus.

 

[Think Tanker]

I must admit I am surprised by some of these results, or lack thereof. I do think the original post skews selection towards what folks think the "most effective and/or survivable combat aircraft in WW2" is, however I am far more intrigued by the question of what folks think the "most influential while simultaneously survivable aircraft" are.

For example, sure the F8F is a phenomenal flying airplane and can go toe-to-toe with pretty much any other aircraft in WW2, but if you were flying such an aircraft into war, would you actually be doing much of anything at all? No, would be my answer, considering the historical record of the Bearcat in WW2, by the simple matter of timing.

One aircraft I see no votes for but had a tremendously outsized, yet humble, service record is the PBY Catalina. Serving valiantly in ASW patrols, convoy interdiction, reconnaissance and reconnoitering from all manner of forward operating positions. It provided sterling service in both the Pacific and Atlantic, while proving a remarkably stable, reliable, and 'polite' aircraft to fly. A fact which matters substantially more when you consider Catalinas were flying through and into adverse weather, and operating out of forward operating bases with very little infrastructure for repair or maintenance. Yet despite all of these factors, not to mention the threats from enemy airpower and flak, Catalinas suffered fairly light losses through the War.

I'd be curious to hear folks thoughts on that idea though, since I know there's little glamor and few speed records you'll be collecting from the ol' Catalina, but nonetheless I think it probably deserves a greater showing in this thread.

As an aside, I don't wish to intrude on the prior folk's motorcycle discussion, so don't mind me...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well it kind of goes both ways, at least for the overconfident/ignorant motorcyclist. You know the ones riding their crotch rocket at 110 mph in a 60 mph zone, zipping in between cars, cutting in between them, and acting like a fool. I see it all the time, every day. Half the time you don't even know they are coming behind you until they vrooom right past you. If I was trying to change lanes, I'd never see them until his head is flying through my rear view window.

Yet we are supposed to"watch out for bikers." No, how about bikers take some responsibility too. And for those that don't, I have no sympathy…

Yeah, scooters like that piss me off.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As an aside, I don't wish to intrude on the prior folk's motorcycle discussion, so don't mind me...

Decades old threads, especially ones like this, always end up getting sidetracked a bit. Then someone reels it back in…

 

[SaparotRob]

I must admit I am surprised by some of these results, or lack thereof. I do think the original post skews selection towards what folks think the "most effective and/or survivable combat aircraft in WW2" is, however I am far more intrigued by the question of what folks think the "most influential while simultaneously survivable aircraft" are.

For example, sure the F8F is a phenomenal flying airplane and can go toe-to-toe with pretty much any other aircraft in WW2, but if you were flying such an aircraft into war, would you actually be doing much of anything at all? No, would be my answer, considering the historical record of the Bearcat in WW2, by the simple matter of timing.

One aircraft I see no votes for but had a tremendously outsized, yet humble, service record is the PBY Catalina. Serving valiantly in ASW patrols, convoy interdiction, reconnaissance and reconnoitering from all manner of forward operating positions. It provided sterling service in both the Pacific and Atlantic, while proving a remarkably stable, reliable, and 'polite' aircraft to fly. A fact which matters substantially more when you consider Catalinas were flying through and into adverse weather, and operating out of forward operating bases with very little infrastructure for repair or maintenance. Yet despite all of these factors, not to mention the threats from enemy airpower and flak, Catalinas suffered fairly light losses through the War.

I'd be curious to hear folks thoughts on that idea though, since I know there's little glamor and few speed records you'll be collecting from the ol' Catalina, but nonetheless I think it probably deserves a greater showing in this thread.

As an aside, I don't wish to intrude on the prior folk's motorcycle discussion, so don't mind me...

I think the PBY would score higher had the poll been worded differently. There's gotta' be a poll for underrated plane of WW II or similar topic. The question was which plane would you like to fly in WW II. I chose the Mosquito since, statistically speaking, I should be able to run away from anything.
My actual choice, not listed, is a nice, big, comfy C-54 or C-69. Nowhere near anybody shooting at me.

 

[Think Tanker]

I think the PBY would score higher had the poll been worded differently. There's gotta' be a poll for underrated plane of WW II or similar topic. The question was which plane would you like to fly in WW II. I chose the Mosquito since, statistically speaking, I should be able to run away from anything.
My actual choice, not listed, is a nice, big, comfy C-54 or C-69. Nowhere near anybody shooting at me.

I think the Mosquito is an entirely fair choice. Indeed it would've probably been my No.2 or No.3, though I admit I would kill to fly a C-46. Still, I was more highlighting the PBY because I was surprised no one would chose to fly one of those, I think it's probably one of the better aircraft you could fly if your goal was to get out the other end alive, but actually do something as well.

As for the C-54, be careful! I hear friendly fire had a nasty track record with a couple of those, all those P-38 dive kits were lost to the Atlantic because one was mistaken for a Luftwaffe aircraft. Though statistically a better chance of surviving, for certain.

 

[Marcel]

I must admit I am surprised by some of these results, or lack thereof. I do think the original post skews selection towards what folks think the "most effective and/or survivable combat aircraft in WW2" is, however I am far more intrigued by the question of what folks think the "most influential while simultaneously survivable aircraft" are.

For example, sure the F8F is a phenomenal flying airplane and can go toe-to-toe with pretty much any other aircraft in WW2, but if you were flying such an aircraft into war, would you actually be doing much of anything at all? No, would be my answer, considering the historical record of the Bearcat in WW2, by the simple matter of timing.

One aircraft I see no votes for but had a tremendously outsized, yet humble, service record is the PBY Catalina. Serving valiantly in ASW patrols, convoy interdiction, reconnaissance and reconnoitering from all manner of forward operating positions. It provided sterling service in both the Pacific and Atlantic, while proving a remarkably stable, reliable, and 'polite' aircraft to fly. A fact which matters substantially more when you consider Catalinas were flying through and into adverse weather, and operating out of forward operating bases with very little infrastructure for repair or maintenance. Yet despite all of these factors, not to mention the threats from enemy airpower and flak, Catalinas suffered fairly light losses through the War.

I'd be curious to hear folks thoughts on that idea though, since I know there's little glamor and few speed records you'll be collecting from the ol' Catalina, but nonetheless I think it probably deserves a greater showing in this thread.

As an aside, I don't wish to intrude on the prior folk's motorcycle discussion, so don't mind me...

an even more interesting question is why the P51 has two entries in the list.

Reason why I would not fly a catalina is that my back already starts to hurt even at the thought of having to fly hours and hours through all kinds of weather, seeing nothing but water all the time. Doesn't sound ergonomic to me.

If I had to choose I would choose a J-3 playing taxi driver for some general or so, safely far behind the fighting. Short hops in a wonderful basic aircraft. But of course the hot-heads here only put up fighting aircraft to choose from.

 

[special ed]

The PBY had a galley & relief tube & blister windows for anything heavy.

 

[Alan Stevens]

I must admit I am surprised by some of these results, or lack thereof. I do think the original post skews selection towards what folks think the "most effective and/or survivable combat aircraft in WW2" is, however I am far more intrigued by the question of what folks think the "most influential while simultaneously survivable aircraft" are.

For example, sure the F8F is a phenomenal flying airplane and can go toe-to-toe with pretty much any other aircraft in WW2, but if you were flying such an aircraft into war, would you actually be doing much of anything at all? No, would be my answer, considering the historical record of the Bearcat in WW2, by the simple matter of timing.

One aircraft I see no votes for but had a tremendously outsized, yet humble, service record is the PBY Catalina. Serving valiantly in ASW patrols, convoy interdiction, reconnaissance and reconnoitering from all manner of forward operating positions. It provided sterling service in both the Pacific and Atlantic, while proving a remarkably stable, reliable, and 'polite' aircraft to fly. A fact which matters substantially more when you consider Catalinas were flying through and into adverse weather, and operating out of forward operating bases with very little infrastructure for repair or maintenance. Yet despite all of these factors, not to mention the threats from enemy airpower and flak, Catalinas suffered fairly light losses through the War.

I'd be curious to hear folks thoughts on that idea though, since I know there's little glamor and few speed records you'll be collecting from the ol' Catalina, but nonetheless I think it probably deserves a greater showing in this thread.

As an aside, I don't wish to intrude on the prior folk's motorcycle discussion, so don't mind me...

Nearly all fighters or light attack planes.

I was one of the few that choose a heavy bomber.

 

[GrauGeist]

There were quite a few choices posted that weren't in the poll, like the Lancaster, Ta152, Piper Cub, He280, SBD, He219, Yak (any), LaGG and so on.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the PBY would score higher had the poll been worded differently. There's gotta' be a poll for underrated plane of WW II or similar topic. The question was which plane would you like to fly in WW II. I chose the Mosquito since, statistically speaking, I should be able to run away from anything.
My actual choice, not listed, is a nice, big, comfy C-54 or C-69. Nowhere near anybody shooting at me.

... and if you were an F4F pilot who'd been shot down, a PBY would be your plane of choice.

 

[GrauGeist]

... and if you were an F4F pilot who'd been shot down, a PBY would be your plane of choice.

The Kingfisher was also a hero for downed aviators.

A spectacular example was the OS2U that had so many men aboard at Truk, it had to taxi across the water to a waiting sub to transfer the survivors.

 

[Marcel]

Nearly all fighters or light attack planes.

I was one of the few that choose a heavy bomber.

The question is, why would you want to sit on a load of high explosives, flying straight and level so you'd be a sitting duck to the benefit of all flak and fighters having only 10% change to survive your first tour of missions?

 

[Alan Stevens]

The question is, why would you want to sit on a load of high explosives, flying straight and level so you'd be a sitting duck to the benefit of all flak and fighters having only 10% change to survive your first tour of missions?

The B-29 crewman survival probability of around 77% for completing 25 missions.

That was the one I chose.

I'm sure it was a piece of cake to attack a formation of B-29s with dozens of 50 cal MG spitting thousands of slugs toward the enemy fighters.

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-29 crewman survival probability of around 77% for completing 25 missions.

That was the one I chose.

I'm sure it was a piece of cake to attack a formation of B-29s with dozens of 50 cal MG spitting thousands of slugs toward the enemy fighters.

There were quite a few B-29s downed in home island bombing missions.

Flak, interceptors and mechanical failures were such, that the USN stationed subs, like my Uncle Fred's USS Cavalla (SS-244), in position for lifeguard duties.

And they rescued quite a few crews.

 

[Alan Stevens]

There were quite a few B-29s downed in home island bombing missions.

Flak, interceptors and mechanical failures were such, that the USN stationed subs, like my Uncle Fred's USS Cavalla (SS-244), in position for lifeguard duties.

And they rescued quite a few crews.

Indeed, any combat aircraft has its dangers when it goes into combat. Warships as well.

Richard B. Frank in his book Downfall - The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire says this, Appendix B, p. 363:

" The material price to the United States in the strategic bombing of Japan was remarkably modest. "
Cited:
414 B-29s for all operations lost
Air crew casualties 2,897 of which 2,148 dead
Air crew captured 334 of which 262 survived
. . . .
Britain's Bomber Command, 8,953 a/c lost and 55,500 air crew killed 1939-45
USAAF in Europe at least 25,000 air crew killed, heavy bomber losses 10,152
. . . .
Granted there were many carrier based sorties against Japan as well, and tactical bombers from Okinawa.