And of those used in training in USA a total of 865 P-39 airframes were lost in 1,934 accidents.
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Especially if you throw in nearly 3000 Seafires.
buffnut453
Captain
Always loved the THUM Spitfires. My first flight in a RAF aircraft was in a 10 AEF Chipmunk at Woodvale. Many fond memories of that place!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Many of which were fatal.
Some time back, I went through Joe Baugher's P-39 listings and was appalled at how many pilots were killed in it.
If memory serves right, of the first production block, 5 pilots were killed in accidents.
There were 395 fatalities in USA in the P-39, the real shocker is the A-36, training for dive bombing is a dangerous activity.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The sound of the Chipmunks Gipsy engine puttering overhead was the sound of summer to me and my friends.Always loved the THUM Spitfires. My first flight in a RAF aircraft was in a 10 AEF Chipmunk at Woodvale. Many fond memories of that place!
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I have always loved listening to the sound of propeller driven airplanes. I know where you're coming from.
They eventually retired the A-36 due to wing damage (including sometimes catastrophic) during pullout from dives. I used to assume this was partly due to metal fatigue (dive bombing can wear out wings pretty quickly) but I wonder if they lost some earlier due to this kind of thing.
I found this below. It think it is quite easy to overstress a fighters wings doing repeated dive bombing attacks, it happened to Spitfires.
On the A-36 flying today, I can think of no reason for the Dive Brakes to ever be functional. During WWII Training Command issued a directive to wire them shut after as few fatal accidents. The primary single issue was failure to deploy the brakes BEFORE initiating the dive.
P51 Empty weight increase from B/C to D model
Hoping for some clarification regarding P51 empty weights. Depending on the source, I typically find the razor back B/C models listed at about 7000 lbs. empty, and the D bubble top listed at around 7,600 lbs. Does the empty weight include the guns? If so I'm guessing the modified wing...
ww2aircraft.net
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The A-36, even though strengthened for dive-bombing, simply didn't have the strength of purpose designed dive-bombers like the SBD and Ju87.
..
..
Thumpalumpacus
Major
The Brits clearly decided to go all-in on continued upgrading of the Spit, even as they were working on better propeller fighters and jets. If it was a stopgap, it was one with huge wings.
I get that factory changes are costly and hard to execute, and that follow-ons aren't always successful. I don't think that explains the Spitfire's large numbers sufficiently, or its construction and retention in service after the war.
I'm sure the AM wish they insisted on a gas-heater to get out of such a big contract!
Last edited:
You're right, it doesn't. The Spitfire was sought after. It was the RAF's primary fighter interceptor in the war and as a result, it was built in large numbers. If anything, the numbers speak volumes as to the adaptability of the airframe to modification and its use in service.
Hate to break it to ya, numbers mean the difference between victory and defeat. It's one reason why the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain; it couldn't sustain the continuing losses. It's why the Battle of the Atlantic was won; the Allies were building more merchant ships than were being sunk by U boats. It's why the USA contributed so much to victory in WW2, its manufacturing capacity meant the Allies were supplied with everything they needed. It was the only country that could fight a war on two fronts and win because of the numbers of equipment its manufacturing and manpower capacity could produce.
"Numbers don't mean much..." pfft...
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,856
- Feb 27, 2020
Highly interesting. Specially regarding the B-26. The accident rate was very small for a "widow maker", much lower than the A-20 for example.
I'm not an expert on it but the stats are for USA training. I think the problem with the B-26 was the landing speed. Experienced pilots werent used to the high landing speed and accidents happened just because they came in too slow. So accidents were more likely abroad with operational units making a transition. There never was a problem with the plane itself, and its landing speed was the new normal in aviation anyway.
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,856
- Feb 27, 2020
I could be very interesting to compare with those operational loses.
Initial operations just add to the legend, one of the first operations was an unescorted low level attack on a power station in the Netherlands where all planes were lost to ground fire or the LW. Make the same type of attack with any twin engined bomber and they would probably suffer the same losses, something else that was nothing to do with the plane itself but the way it was used.
Last edited:
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,856
- Feb 27, 2020
Sure, plenty of examples about that: Operation Oyster, low level attack on Aalborg airfield by Blenheims, the Augsburg Raid and some more.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Are we looking at the same A-36 numbers? I see two (2) fatalities in 1942, twenty (20) in 1943 and two (2) again in 1944 for a total of 24.
Or...
A). I'm reading the chart wrong
B). You're be facetious
There were only about 500 made, look at the accident rate. and compare to the P-51(and others). per 100,000hrs flying 274 for the A-36 and 105 for the P-51.
