Maneuverability vs Speed

[pbehn]

Careful while playing with ratios over Guadalcanal - while Foss had high % A6M in his kill portfolio, most of the aircraft downed by F4F there - were bombers.

According to wiki this is the Typhoon prototype before its first flight in Feb 1940. Pilots complained from the start about the view to the rear.

Wiki says this.
The Typhoon was first produced with forward-opening "car door" style[nb 13] cockpit doors (complete with wind-down windows), with a transparent "roof" hinged to open to the left. The first 162 Typhoons featured a built-up metal-skinned dorsal fairing behind the pilot's armoured headrest; the mast for the radio aerial protruded through the fairing.[59] From mid- to late 1941 the solid metal aft dorsal fairing was replaced with a transparent structure (later nicknamed "The Coffin Hood"),[58] the pilot's head armour plate was modified to a triangular shape and the side cut-outs were fitted with armoured glass; the first production Typhoon to be fitted with this new structure was R7803. All earlier aircraft were quickly withdrawn and modified. From early 1942 a rear-view mirror was mounted in a perspex blister moulded into the later "car-door" canopy roofs. This modification was not very successful, because the mirror was subject to vibration.[60] Despite the new canopy structure, the pilot's visibility was still restricted by the heavy frames and the clutter of equipment under the rear canopy; from August 1943, as an interim measure, pending the introduction of the new "bubble" canopy and cut-down dorsal fairing, the aerial mast and its associated bracing was removed and replaced with a whip aerial further back on the rear fuselage.[61]

Starting in January 1943, R8809 was used to test a new, clear, one piece sliding "bubble" canopy and its associated new windscreen structure which had slimmer frames which, together with the "cut-down" rear dorsal fairing, provided a far superior all-around field of view to the car-door type. From November 1943 all production aircraft, starting with JR333, were to be so fitted.[60][62]/

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Never said they didn't have those failures. I said they were not frequent.

Go watch a film of a B-17 wing taking off. 25 - 35 B-17s with 4 engines each and ALL of them usually get airborne without incident ... all 100 - 140 radials. Did they have failures?

Of course. But they weren't "frequent," by any means.

The B-29 was the exception that proved the rule

 

[SplitRz]

According to wiki this is the Typhoon prototype before its first flight in Feb 1940. Pilots complained from the start about the view to the rear.
View attachment 724147
Wiki says this.
The Typhoon was first produced with forward-opening "car door" style[nb 13] cockpit doors (complete with wind-down windows), with a transparent "roof" hinged to open to the left. The first 162 Typhoons featured a built-up metal-skinned dorsal fairing behind the pilot's armoured headrest; the mast for the radio aerial protruded through the fairing.[59] From mid- to late 1941 the solid metal aft dorsal fairing was replaced with a transparent structure (later nicknamed "The Coffin Hood"),[58] the pilot's head armour plate was modified to a triangular shape and the side cut-outs were fitted with armoured glass; the first production Typhoon to be fitted with this new structure was R7803. All earlier aircraft were quickly withdrawn and modified. From early 1942 a rear-view mirror was mounted in a perspex blister moulded into the later "car-door" canopy roofs. This modification was not very successful, because the mirror was subject to vibration.[60] Despite the new canopy structure, the pilot's visibility was still restricted by the heavy frames and the clutter of equipment under the rear canopy; from August 1943, as an interim measure, pending the introduction of the new "bubble" canopy and cut-down dorsal fairing, the aerial mast and its associated bracing was removed and replaced with a whip aerial further back on the rear fuselage.[61]

Starting in January 1943, R8809 was used to test a new, clear, one piece sliding "bubble" canopy and its associated new windscreen structure which had slimmer frames which, together with the "cut-down" rear dorsal fairing, provided a far superior all-around field of view to the car-door type. From November 1943 all production aircraft, starting with JR333, were to be so fitted.[60][62]/

I remember reading somewhere that a test pilot complained to Sydney Camm about the lack of rear visibility and claimed he was dismissed with a 'this plane is so fast, you won't need to see behind you'.

 

[Greyman]

I remember reading somewhere that a test pilot complained to Sydney Camm about the lack of rear visibility and claimed he was dismissed with a 'this plane is so fast, you won't need to see behind you'.

Interestingly, this is the exact same thing Messerschmitt said when test pilots complained about the view in the 109.

 

[GregP]

The B-29 was the exception that proved the rule

Sure was.

The R-3350 was a lousy engine until after the war, when flight engineers figured out how to run them so they were happy. After that, they became relaible, but a LOT of B-29s came back with fewer than 4 engines running.

The R-3350 was the exception and even it became reliable later. Basically, the R-1820, R-1830, R-2000, R-2600, and R-2800 were pretty bulletproof, mechanically, if cared for decently. So were the V-1710 and the V-1650. The R-4360 didn't begin to make the hoped-for power in WWII, but it was pretty reliable if the driver could only keep from fouling the spark plugs. They still run that way today.

 

[PAT303]

Look at how many planes were in the air per week in WW2, even if only 1% of engines failed that's still a lot of engines.

 

[Shortround6]

There is also a lot of difference between aborting a mission due to bad spark plugs, bad magneto, general rough running, low oil pressure. etc and the rod coming through the block.
there was a fine line the mechanics were sometimes straddling between getting planes into the air and doing maintenance on suspected problems vs confirmed problems.
I may be phrasing that badly. They weren't going to send known problems up but how many planes were sent up with the engine running a bit rough vs somewhat rough?
define rough and is it enough to scrub a mission.

 

[PAT303]

This is going to sound bad but how many pilots aborted missions because of engine problems simply because they didn't want to go?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

There is also a lot of difference between aborting a mission due to bad spark plugs, bad magneto, general rough running, low oil pressure. etc and the rod coming through the block.
there was a fine line the mechanics were sometimes straddling between getting planes into the air and doing maintenance on suspected problems vs confirmed problems.
I may be phrasing that badly. They weren't going to send known problems up but how many planes were sent up with the engine running a bit rough vs somewhat rough?
define rough and is it enough to scrub a mission.

Especially when you have 7 fighters flying out of what are supposed to be 12 or 16 in the squadron

 

[GrauGeist]

This is going to sound bad but how many pilots aborted missions because of engine problems simply because they didn't want to go?

If they aborted a mission, there would be a report filed.

If they claimed "engine issues" and the crew chief (who also had to file an inspection report) didn't find anything wrong, they would be called up to the CO's office to answer some uncomfortable questions...

 

[Greg Boeser]

If they aborted a mission, there would be a report filed.

If they claimed "engine issues" and the crew chief (who also had to file an inspection report) didn't find anything wrong, they would be called up to the CO's office to answer some uncomfortable questions...

Coulda been icing.

 

[Gary Cain]

Coulda been icing.

CO's that were good, like Zemke, and Blakslee were very good at figuring out who the dead weight were, and getting rid of them.

Good fighter pilots are first, and foremost, aggressive as hell. If the CO didn't see that aggressive streak, they were gone.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

But it was normal as hell for aircraft to have to return to base for engine trouble, as in usually at least one in a given flight of 12 or 16, and not very rare for them to have quite serious engine problems which may require a crash landing, ditch or bail out, or sometimes a dead stick landing back at base. Read almost any squadron history.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yeah, but the yellow-stripe that brought his perfectly fine machine back under the auspices of "mechanical problems" was going to get a fast-track out of the unit with a black mark on his docket.

All the guys were putting their lives on the line and this bed-wetter would be disgracing their contribution.

The CO's didn't tolerate that sh*t.

 

[GregP]

But it was normal as hell for aircraft to have to return to base for engine trouble, as in usually at least one in a given flight of 12 or 16, and not very rare for them to have quite serious engine problems which may require a crash landing, ditch or bail out, or sometimes a dead stick landing back at base. Read almost any squadron history.

I don't think so, Wild Bill. Nowhere NEAR that many. That's more than many loss rates and was not seen in those numbers.

The P-51 in the ETO had a loss rate of 1.18% for the entire war. That's 84.9 sorties per loss.

You're saying 1 in 12 or 16 aborted for "engine problems?" Let's look at 1 in 12. That's an abort rate of 8.33%, or 7 times the loss rate! I don't know of a CO or an upper command who'd put up with an abort rate 7 times the loss rate.They'd get to the bottom of that in a hurry or someone's head would roll.

 

[PAT303]

Winkle Brown test flew Spitfires every day and it took until 1943 before he had an engine failure, it's in one of his books.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The more difficult the mission the more you want the aircraft to be performing well, so the higher the expected opposition, the further to fly, etc. the more aborts. Also of course the longer the mission the less accurate the target weather forecast.

15th Air Force heavy bomber sorties by country, Effective, Non Effective, Non Sorties, the latter did not cross enemy lines, unknown are mission cancellations, no details at the moment on what the targets were. The by country figures also include some aborted/recalled raids.

Cn	Eff	Neff	Non	Total	% Eff	% Neff	% Non
Al	141​	1​	10​	152​	92.76​	0.66​	6.58​
Au	31598​	5336​	3347​	40281​	78.44​	13.25​	8.31​
Bu	1072​	296​	65​	1433​	74.81​	20.66​	4.54​
Cz	4531​	275​	370​	5176​	87.54​	5.31​	7.15​
Fr	8071​	819​	687​	9577​	84.27​	8.55​	7.17​
Ge	16542​	2351​	2498​	21391​	77.33​	10.99​	11.68​
Gr	1468​	184​	67​	1719​	85.40​	10.70​	3.90​
Hu	8966​	871​	598​	10435​	85.92​	8.35​	5.73​
It	36197​	7376​	3232​	46805​	77.34​	15.76​	6.91​
Po	483​	33​	41​	557​	86.71​	5.92​	7.36​
Ru	10880​	1230​	1334​	13444​	80.93​	9.15​	9.92​
Yu	8596​	2589​	460​	11645​	73.82​	22.23​	3.95​
Unk	9​	397​	2425​	2831​	0.32​	14.02​	85.66​
Total	128554​	21758​	15134​	165446​	77.70​	13.15​	9.15​

Slightly different official figures and aborts by cause, Acc = Accessories, Airborne = total sorties.

Type	Eff	Neff	Non	Airborne	Weather	Mechanical	A/C & Acc	Lead Ship	Misc	Total	Rate
B-17	41751​	5505​	4880​	52136​	6064​	1947​	728​	195​	1451​	10385​	19.9​
B-24	86838​	16184​	10196​	113218​	15225​	5511​	2481​	831​	2302​	26350​	23.3​
Total	128589​	21689​	15076​	165354​	21289​	7458​	3209​	1026​	3753​	36735​	22.2​
P-51	37761​	2242​	3841​	43844​	1395​	2174​	711​	0​	1803​	6083​	13.9​

 

[drgondog]

CO's that were good, like Zemke, and Blakslee were very good at figuring out who the dead weight were, and getting rid of them.

Good fighter pilots are first, and foremost, aggressive as hell. If the CO didn't see that aggressive streak, they were gone.

maybe a little harsh. More likely placed in 'wingman' vs element/flight leader

 

[special ed]

One WW2 pilot I met wangled instructor for the duration. After knowing him briefly, I felt he did not want the danger of being killed in combat. I first met him just after a flight with my friend in his L-19. We had been advised to go around because of a slow takeoff ahead of us. As we slowly climbed to right of runway, the slow poke was coming up and to the right. I can't now remember his plane except it was low wing with a generous side by side clear canopy. His attention was concentrated on the SYT in the right seat and was unaware of us. I gave notice to my buddy of the danger and as he spotted the problem, notified the tower with a bit of criticism for their not cautioning us. After landing, the offending pilot approached my friend and very loudly began accusing him of deliberately embarrassing him. At that point, I raised up from tieing down the tail wheel, and the offender's tone completely changed when he saw there was two of us. On later get togethers, I began to see why he wanted to stay stateside.

 

[Greg Boeser]

maybe a little harsh. More likely placed in 'wingman' vs element/flight leader

A pattern of early returns would eventually result in a discreet transfer to a maintanence unit, or co-pilot on a C-47.