Least resource intensive/easy to maintain aircraft of WW2?

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

I missed a previous series.
I'm basing my statement on Quill's book, the Autoweek article, Hooker's bio, other published accounts, plus conversations with engineers from the RR Derby and Glasgow factories, who found their way into auto racing in the '60s and '70s.
My attitude has always been that while I may explain and defend my research and opinions, I'm never set in them, and am always open to change given better information.
Basically, there should NEVER be any set and irrefutable fact. We should always be open to new ideas and civil discussion.

Most of all, take my comments as quick examples meant to solidify a wandering thread. Also, FlyboyJ's focus on Vietnam is not what I intended ... note that I said "wars like Vietnam". Note that the USAF spent the 1950s specifying dozens of fighters and bombers for wars and missions that didn't develop, while the much re-specified Phantom wound up fitting the need.
 
Last edited:
And since the 60s and 70s there's been much research and discovery to contradict what many of us were led to believe for many years.
Agree 100%. One of the great things about this forum is the data some posters bring forward to support their positions. Civil discussion is always a plus and mentioned in the forum rules.

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.
ww2aircraft.net

Glad to have you onboard!
 
fannum said:
Most of all, take my comments as quick examples meant to solidify a wandering thread. Also, FlyboyJ's focus on Vietnam is not what I intended ... note that I said "wars like Vietnam".
Click to expand...
Well my take on this was you were implying "because of Vietnam" the USAF ordered the F-4 rather than having that plan well before Vietnam got hot, my apologies for that. And far as a "wandering thread," that will happen lot here and the moderators will allow some wondering (you can see that on other threads) but will push the train back on the tack after a while.
fannum said:
Note that the USAF spent the 1950s specifying dozens of fighters and bombers for wars and missions that didn't develop, while the much re-specified Phantom wound up fitting the need.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%
 
Define combat aircraft.

Not actually used but it was planned for and tested in 1940/41

Operation Banquet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And some Tiger Moths of the Malayan Volunteers Air Force performed reconnaissance and communications (incl message dropping to forward units) work in Malaya for the army after the Japanese invasion in Dec 1941.

Tiger Tales

In 1940 Britain was ill-prepared for the threat of imminent invasion. The Home Guard platoons impatiently waiting for their rifles to be issued armed themselves with knives tied to broom handles....
www.a-e-g.org.uk

Malayan Volunteers Air Force | Malayan Volunteers Group

The MVAF operate mainly civilian aircraft such as the de Havilland Tiger Moth, Leopard Moth and Rapides. Personnel were recruited from members of the Royal Singapore, the Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Perak flying clubs, in addition the private airline, Wearn
www.malayanvolunteersgroup.org.uk
 
Shortround6 said:
Although periodical recovering might be worse than the maintenance on an all metal airplane.
Click to expand...
If the whole aircraft had to be re-covered, very labor intensive and time consuming, and as mentioned, part of the process (applying the dope) had to be done at certain temperatures and humidity conditions. On the other side of the coin, simple fabric repairs are easy.
 
On ''the hardest day'' 18th August 1940 Kenley's 'Hardest Day' - An Introduction and list of Casualties. lets replace some Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons with Tiger Moths and see how it goes. Dropping some messages from a plane because it's the only plane you have doesn't make it a combat aircraft, as performance increases complexity increases with it taking higher maintenance requirements along for the ride. The initial question was which aircraft had the lowest maintenance requirements, pre war did, then the speeds went up and that caused all sorts of issue's, not just engine related but airframe as well.
 
Last edited:
Well, they had rigged up and tested the Tiger Moth with a pair of racks each holding four 20lb bombs. Which was twice the load that most WW British fighters could carry.
tests were done with the racks under the rear cockpit and with the bombs under the lower wing.

The big problem is the lack of training. No practice bombs available and apparently the idea of using bricks didn't work. (Moth could out dive a tumbling brick ?)

While experienced pilots might have gotten away with it asking student pilots to spot targets on the ground, perform the desired attack profile ( climb to 800ft and then dive to 500ft while maintaining sight line to target and do this while trying to avoid ground fire AND keep an eye out (and they were flown as single seaters) for hostile fighters seems to asking a bit much.


With that said, the Gladiator

Isn't quite as simple as it appears.
The rigging/flying wires need attention.
It does have flaps on the both wings (manual?)
You have ailerons on both wings.
I believe it has wheel brakes.
There is a spring suspension in the wheel hubs.
The prop is fixed pitch so that is good. And the Metal one you could fix with a hammer
Not sure sure changing the plugs on the radial 9 is easier than the V-12 or not.
The V-12 doesn't use grease fittings on the valve gear.
It carries the same radios as an early Hurricane/Spit.
only 4 guns but two need synchronizers.
 
Tiger Moth wasn't really a combat plane in the 1940 sense of the phrase, but many non-combat aircraft got caught up in combat, so to me this branch of the discussion looks more like semantics than informational conversation.

I think we all know the conventional meaning of "combat aircraft", which is clearly an aircraft designed to engage in combat.

I've got no idea which one was the easiest to maintain, even after all this chatter.
 
Shortround6 said:
The big problem is the lack of training.
Click to expand...
And slow top speed, nil protection, nil climb rate, total inability to intercept incoming enemy aircraft, nil firepower and a total lack of any performance required to fulfill it's role as a combat aircraft, other than that it was ridgy didge lol.
 
After going through some of the comments and considering what the OP put out for discussion requirements, I'd go with the Curtiss Hawk model 75H or 75O as a fighter.



Fixed gear, all metal, over 1000 model variants built, production by a major airframe supplier, part interchangeability between variants, reliable -1830 engine, I don't think you can go wrong if you're looking for something simple. Now with that said, it's obvious it was obsolete even in the earliest stages of the war,
 
PAT303 said:
And slow top speed, nil protection, nil climb rate, total inability to intercept incoming enemy aircraft, nil firepower and a total lack of any performance required to fulfill it's role as a combat aircraft, other than that it was ridgy didge lol.
Click to expand...
Well. the Tiger Moth was faster and climbed better than the Po-2

And the Blackburn Roc had total inability to intercept incoming enemy aircraft, unless the incoming enemy aircraft co-operated.
 
PAT303 said:
None of them because we are dealing with moving goal posts, planes evolved as the war evolved, there's no right answer.
Click to expand...

Again, I think that in context, we all understand that combat aircraft are more finicky, for obvious reasons. A Curtiss Jenny with an original Liberty engine that is 25 years old may actually require as much maintenance as a new-build 1942 fighter, but is it relevant?

I think you're making a good point, that considering largely-irrelevant aircraft like the Tiger Moth demeans the question the thread is asking. We may as well consider the maintenance requirements of a MK I Spitfire against a BAC Lightning for what that's worth.
 
Some countries or aircraft traded maintenance for performance, perhaps not intentionally. Or they were trying to take into account climate conditions.
Russian fighters favored pneumatic landing gear and perhaps for other systems? Or at least in the beginning of the war.
Hydraulics at low temperatures may be a little sluggish? or worse.
However the Russians couldn't keep the system/s air tight and the planes were prone to landing gear collapse overnight. Drooping flaps may be a bit embarrassing but not otherwise damaging.
An air system doesn't have leaking hydraulic fluid to help find the leak, assuming it is an external leak and not a leak in a valve body or double acting piston seal.
Russian Klimov engines didn't use anti freeze, at least early in the war and it would take some modifications to get it to work if you tried it later. You could use a different radiator using anti-freeze as the mixture (or even pure ethylene glycol) both froze at a much lower temperature and boiled at a higher one. But the actual heat transfer was different so it was a bit of a balancing act.

At least one account has the crews pouring hot water into the cooling system of the Lagg-3 in the morning before take-off (at any time the engine was going to sit very long the water had to be drained).

A lot of American planes, like the Soviets, used oil dilution (mixing gasoline into the lubricating oil) when shutting down. Some other countries may have done so too.
One of the main US fighter fields between the wars was in Selfridge Field outside of Detroit Michigan. Not Russian cold but enough to get people thinking about it.
 
MikeMeech said:
Hi
The way maintenance was done changed during WW2, the Air Ministry's book 'Operational Research in the RAF' has some info on this reference Coastal and Transport Commands:
Click to expand...

That's interesting information and outlines that during the war that efficiencies could be improved on if procedures were tightened, and sufficient supply of parts was available. It's interesting to note the bit where it says to keep maintenance in step with the flying schedule and to minimise the servicing done away from base. In a military context that could be done, but with airliners it's not possible because of the schedules they keep, even at the time there were gonna be times when the aircraft needed servicing outside of its maintenance bases, particularly with regards to unscheduled maintenance, or defect rectification as it's called. Organisations have away teams that can travel to do work on aircraft and no doubt they had similar things back then, the "gangs" as they called them in that book. Interesting how the book mentions "the formation of a highly skilled rectification gang to work at nights to deal with repair work that would cause undue delay if left to the normal inspection gang". That's exactly what Light and Line Maintenance is in the airline world. Scheduled inspections and defect rectification at a time when the aircraft isn't working, nominally at night. This is opposed to Heavy Maintenance, which focusses on major structural inspections, or the "inspection gangs" as mentioned in the book. In military parlance these are Group Servicing, with Line Maintenance being Phase Servicing, but the roles are exactly the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
471
Dimlee
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
500
CHen10
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register