Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?

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

P-39 Expert said:
I understand. So, there is no way that one third of all 109s crashed in ground related accidents. That fraud Corky Meyer (along with others) is a lying SOB. I understand.
Click to expand...

Well there's a leap...and then some!

Some people make genuine mistakes. Some people hear something, believe it and restate it. Some people "round up" numbers. Some people misremember an event. A correct memory of an event gets influenced by later experiences. None of these groups of people are lying.

The claim about 109 losses may be true...but it would be nice to have that tallied from something closer to a primary source than a glib anecdote in a less-than-stellar aviation "history" magazine. Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram, why not do some work to find out if the claim is accurate by consulting German archive records or other sources that are more substantial than a soundbite. There are some really weird people on this forum who actually do that kind of deep, primary source research. Maybe you could swell their ranks and help us all understand more about real history?
 
P-39 Expert said:
Here we go again. My sources are wrong. Published authors who have done research. Okay, got it.
Click to expand...
Seriously, now.

There have many times an author has used another's works to source from, right or wrong - this honestly should come as no surprise to you.

There has been MANY occasions where incorrect facts have been published, either by way of a lack of cross-checking, a typo or simply postulating.

An old gem that keeps surfacing, is Green's assertion that the Ju390 flew to the U.S. coastline. There has been constant debate over this, but the mention first appeared in 1955 (in an article by Green) without any verification and has pretty much been discounted based on available sources - yet it keeps popping up.
 
fubar57 said:
He was also an author in "Flight Journal" magazine. See article posted above
Click to expand...

I know nothing about Flight Journal magazine but unless it was a peer reviewed publication like The Lancet or Nature it has about as much weight as the opinions of the man at the bar.

I am also a published Magazine author having several articles in magazines with circulations in the tens of tens. Does this mean my opinion is gospel even though of the 5 articles 3 were about bicycles and 2 were about model railways.
 
There was an interesting thread here a few years ago. It used the actual Bundesarchiv data. According to the German archives, approx 9,000 Bf 109's were lost to non enemy action. This could be anything from a fire, mechanical failure, pilot error, landing or take-off accident, training error, etc.

So if the Germans count for all non combat related losses is less than the 11,000 claim how is that possible?

The approx number of 1,500 lost in take-off/landing accidents is much more believable.
 
Last edited:
P39 Expert,

You probably don't mean to but you are coming across in a not good way. The guys that are interacting with you on this are trying to help so look at it from another point of view.

I have read Corkys articles and think they are great info, but it doesn't mean he was 100% accurate. I have heard the 1/3 comment before but have never seen a source. And by source I mean data not just stated "facts". I also read an article by a ranked acrobatics pilot who checked out in a Bf109. He spoke at length with a former WW2 109 pilot, as well as guys currently flying it. Remember the first sortie is solo. His take was its a handful on takeoff and landing, and you had to fly it from engine start to shutdown and it demanded your attention.

My take away from that is it's a freaking handful in the pattern and below. It's the only WW2 fighter I would be hesitant to get a check out in. Also think about this, if the Luftwaffe was actually losing 1/3rd of their 109s to takeoff and landing accidents don't you think they would have done something about it, like reengineer the gear geometry? They understood what limited resources they had at their disposal, and that would not have been logical stewardship of it.

Just food for thought.

Cheers,
Biff
 
Good points, Biff - and as an aside, the He162 used the Bf109's main gear without issue. As has been mentioned before, there were several factors in the Bf109's design that all came together to create the situation.

In regards to an author being infallible, I would suggest reading "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. In his book, he goes on to state that the M4 Sherman was no match for German armor and that the M4 and their crews were essentially sacrificed (a large share of his book dwells on this being a conspiracy by the U.S. Government). None of it's true and his basis for facts was that he was a mechanic working on the M4 and other AFVs, and yet his unit NEVER encountered a Tiger or Panther.

So just because someone publishes a book, doesn't make it an authority on the subject - otherwise everything on the internet is true...
 

And here again we have a change in terminology or category of accident.
While a low time pilot may stall a plane on landing and pancake it in from an altitude that breaks/damages the landing gear the landing gear's failure did not contribute to the accident.

on the other hand any failure of either or both landing gear legs to lower or to lock in place would result in an accident. If the oil in the shock absorber (oleo strut) had solidified due to cold or leaked out that could result in an accident. If a landing leg broke off (poor metal/heat treatment/ fatigue/ poor maintenance) that will result in an accident. Then we can argue if brakes and/or tires are part of the landing gear or counted separately.

None of this has anything to do with width of track or toe in/toe out.

And the 1500 being blamed on landing gear failures tells us nothing about pilot errors, landing too fast, landing too hard, landing too far down the runway and running out of room.
 

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X-pHe879l60
 

Quit with that common sense nonsense...
 
swampyankee said:
I'll hazard a guess those planes are being flown by more experienced, careful pilots and have more meticulous maintenance than they did in wartime, and are going nowhere if the conditions aren't perfect.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt about that, but it means it is not intrinsically dangerous, if it were I doubt they would be allowed to fly. The F-104 got a similar reputation, very little to do with the plane itself more with how and where it was used.
 
Absolutely, I consider you the most knowledgeable poster on this board.
 
P-39 Expert said:
Sorry, bad debate skills. Hope I haven't offended any members. I enjoy WWII airplanes. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Propaganda or just understanding the mind of a bureaucrat?
Germany. The pilot bails out of the plane unharmed and the plane lands vertically into the ground. Take off and landing accident, so not an allied victory.
Russia. The pilot bails out unharmed after the plane breaks up in mid-air for unspecified reasons. Problem must have been caused by weather erosion of the wood? Plane worn out so not a German victory.
England. The Spitfire won the aerial war. Simple solution here folks. Make people trawl through all the squadron records and don't provide summary data which would have shown that over half the aerial victories were scored on Hurricanes and only a third on Spitfires. Don't forget that almost twice as many Spitfires than Hurricanes were operated by the RAF.
Something must have happened to all those damned planes that got built. If they were that unsafe they would either not have been built or the problem would have been fixed.
 
Think you made a transposition Kevin, more Hurricanes were used in the BoB. Another thing to do with the BoB was war time fund raising, Spitfires were used to raise funds, it was a more glamourous airplane people who raised funds for aircraft usually did it for Spitfires. Even as the battle was going on it was the Spitfire that was winning in the public psyche.
 
Correct, more Hurricanes were operated in the BoB, but I'm writing about the entire war not just the BoB. Of almost 15000 Hurricanes built, over 3000 were sent to the USSR but less than 3000 delivered, about 1400 to the FAA and some retained by Canada; so 10000 operated by the RAF. 22000 Spitfires were built, over 1000 went to the USSR, less than a 1000 to the USA, several hundred to Australia; so 20000 operated by the RAF. In the ETO, 55% of all aerial victories were credited to the Hurricane and 33% to the Spitfire. Remember that once the Spitfire has fully taken over from the Hurricane that the USAAF has started operations and it is they who take the war to the Luftwaffe and score most of the victories.
 
Ah statistics, one of the curious things about statistics is that, for example the RAF rarely had much more than 1000 in service and only had 250 at the start of the BoB, the rate of losses and obsolescence is staggering.
 
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
2K
ThomasP
T
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
388
Dimlee
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
418
CHen10
S
Request help identifying type of Bomber aircraft
Replies
3
Views
509
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register