Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
AH HA!!! I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying.
So in the end, the answer was "A", I was reading the chart wrong.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
AH HA!!! I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying.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.
I'm guessing that since you read the chart wrong OR don't know how to read a chart, you must be an experienced pilot.AH HA!!! I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying.
So in the end, the answer was "A", I was reading the chart wrong.
Nice shootin', Tex.Wait, which thread is this?
Its that thing with statistics, lies and damned lies. It is a valid point to say that the actual numbers were low. You cannot extrapolate to what the numbers would have been if they made 10,000 A-36 aircraft. Some accidents were due to incorrect use of dive brakes (deploying after the dive started). So it would be fair to assume the rate would drop as frequency increased. Similarly, primary, basic and advanced trainers look "safe" but a pilot has to fly all three so in part the accident rate is cumulative. What cant be argued is the total, 13,621 fatalities in training is a huge number of deaths and 12,506 aircraft lost is around the production numbers of many popular individual types of WW2 aircraft.AH HA!!! I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying.
So in the end, the answer was "A", I was reading the chart wrong.
This was the story of both the Spitfire and the Typhoon.Once you have a factory (or two) tooled up and cranking out several hundred planes a month it is hard to turn off the system. Often things like landing gear and air frame forgings are ordered months in advance.
It can take months or nearly a year from first production to the 500th example.
Switching production from a not so great plane to the latest and greatest can mean hundreds of planes not built in a given year.
Only one operational unit transitioned to B-26s during the war. That was the 73rd Bomb Squadron in Alaska that traded in their old B-18s in early 1942. All others 22nd BG, 38th BG, 42nd BG trained on them prior to the war or were stood up as B-26 units from the get go. Exception being the 17th BG that was converted from B-25s to become one of the two B-26 training units in 1942, before handing that job off and going to North Africa later that year. 1942 was the worst year for B-26 accidents as thousands of newly graduated pilots were thrust into an unforgiving high performance twin with zero prior twin engine experience. The early short wing birds, B-26 and B-26A and early B-26Bs that formed the core of training units had the early R-2800-5 engines that were only rated to 1850 BHP at takeoff. They also had a lot of issues with prop failures and weak landing gear. In Alaska, based on the accident reports that I have seen (Tip to aviationarcheology.com for making these available at a reasonable price) most accidents were weather related, with landing accidents being the next biggest offender. Of the landing accidents, material failure was a major cause - burst tires, hydraulic failure or failure of landing gear to properly extend or lock. A couple crashes were due to too much speed, not enough runway. Only a couple were due to running out of altitude before reaching the runway.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.
When 14 Squadron RAF converted to B26's in 1942 from Blenheim's the only accident was one of the American instructors and that wasn't his fault.Only one operational unit transitioned to B-26s during the war. That was the 73rd Bomb Squadron in Alaska that traded in their old B-18s in early 1942. All others 22nd BG, 38th BG, 42nd BG trained on them prior to the war or were stood up as B-26 units from the get go. Exception being the 17th BG that was converted from B-25s to become one of the two B-26 training units in 1942, before handing that job off and going to North Africa later that year. 1942 was the worst year for B-26 accidents as thousands of newly graduated pilots were thrust into an unforgiving high performance twin with zero prior twin engine experience. The early short wing birds, B-26 and B-26A and early B-26Bs that formed the core of training units had the early R-2800-5 engines that were only rated to 1850 BHP at takeoff. They also had a lot of issues with prop failures and weak landing gear. In Alaska, based on the accident reports that I have seen (Tip to aviationarcheology.com for making these available at a reasonable price) most accidents were weather related, with landing accidents being the next biggest offender. Of the landing accidents, material failure was a major cause - burst tires, hydraulic failure or failure of landing gear to properly extend or lock. A couple crashes were due to too much speed, not enough runway. Only a couple were due to running out of altitude before reaching the runway.
252 Kokutai launched 23 Zeros to intercept the raid, claiming 14, but losing 16 pilots, a further six Zeros escorting seven G4M to reinforce the atoll were bounced by F6Fs. losing three, but the bombers turned back and escaped.
Source: Japanese Naval Fighter Aces, Hata, Izawa, Shores
It was used in the Pacific and in the MTO, 15 AF, do your homeworkThe most over rated aircraft has to be the B-17.
Only place it was really used was in England, every other theatre it was surpassed by the B-24.
Not trueThe B-17 was designed as a 4-engine medium bomber (they used 4-engines to get the speed required for the AAC competition).
If the Queen had balls she'd be the King!If WWII was started one year earlier, the B-17C/D was the front line variation and would have been dropped faster then the TBD-1.
Again, If the Queen had balls she'd be the King!If WWII was started 1-year later, the B-17 would have been out of production (as obsolete) and Douglas and Vega would have been already building B-24's and Boeing gearing-up for the B-29.
Can I have a hit of what ever you're smoking?The only place the B-17 is the hero is in the movies because England during WWII was the vacation spot for war correspondents and Bassingbourne was the country club of WWII airfields.
Delirium has now set in!The next most over rated design has to be the Bf 109 - again, a cheap design, poor armament, poor handling, pretty much obsolete in 1943
Are you a professional - or amateur - Troll? If professional, please register for limited access via Joe or Chris? If amateur, bless your heart.The most over rated aircraft has to be the B-17.
Only place it was really used was in England, every other theatre it was surpassed by the B-24.
The B-17 was designed as a 4-engine medium bomber (they used 4-engines to get the speed required for the AAC competition).
If WWII was started one year earlier, the B-17C/D was the front line variation and would have been dropped faster then the TBD-1.
If WWII was started 1-year later, the B-17 would have been out of production (as obsolete) and Douglas and Vega would have been already building B-24's and Boeing gearing-up for the B-29.
The only place the B-17 is the hero is in the movies because England during WWII was the vacation spot for war correspondents and Bassingbourne was the country club of WWII airfields.
The next most over rated design has to be the Bf 109 - again, a cheap design, poor armament, poor handling, pretty much obsolete in 1943
My favorite bit, is this:I was going to choose either the Lancaster or Me-262 because I'm bored. This is better.
Only place it was really used was in England,