Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
The B-29 was the exception that proved the ruleNever 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.
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'.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 All earlier aircraft were quickly withdrawn and modified.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'.
The B-29 was the exception that proved the rule
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.
If they aborted a mission, there would be a report filed.This is going to sound bad but how many pilots aborted missions because of engine problems simply because they didn't want to go?
Coulda been icing.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...
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.Coulda been icing.
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.
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 |
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 |
maybe a little harsh. More likely placed in 'wingman' vs element/flight leaderCO'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.
A pattern of early returns would eventually result in a discreet transfer to a maintanence unit, or co-pilot on a C-47.maybe a little harsh. More likely placed in 'wingman' vs element/flight leader