Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Because I like you so much Rob here ya go:Post something else Gunn. I need to add a.
Stop me if you've heard this one, A fella walks into a bar...
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
Stop me if you've heard this one, A fella walks into a bar...
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Thanks!
Shortround6
Major General
Well, let's take a student out of an AT-6 with 600hp, let him fly an AT-9 with under 600hp (for both engines) and/or an AT-10 (two 295hp) or AT-17 (two 245hp engines?)
for a couple of dozen hours, then plunk him in the seat of an A-20 with two 1600hp engines. Instructor sits outside the cockpit, quizzes the student on location of switches and then says "off you go! good luck and what's the name of your next of kin?"
No way to give check rides or duel instruction in an A-20.
Not really an uncommon problem. Not every single-seat fighter had a dual instruction version. There was a huge performance gap between a Spitfire Mk. I and a Miles Master, or a Bf 109E and an Ar 96. Even transitioning between the venerable AT-6 Texan and say a P-51 or a P-47 was a huge step up in performance, and most notably pilot reaction time.
Of course that's why they shifted to using the P-39 and later P-40 in between the AT-6 and the P-47/P-51. They were no longer top of the line but still far closer to the P-51 than to the AT-6.
I'd wonder if, as IIRC, the A-20 was one of the earliest tricycle gear aircraft, if that handling difference didn't contribute to the problems as much as the fact that it had only one seat. Training for engine out shouldn't have been as bad as some aircraft (the manual states on page 36 that adequate climb is possible on one engine at 36" ).
I'd be interested to find out what the problems were and if it was greater early on when the aircraft was coming into service or later when large numbers of neophyte pilots were being shoved into a high power multi-engine aircraft.
I'd wonder if, as IIRC, the A-20 was one of the earliest tricycle gear aircraft, if that handling difference didn't contribute to the problems as much as the fact that it had only one seat. Training for engine out shouldn't have been as bad as some aircraft (the manual states on page 36 that adequate climb is possible on one engine at 36" ).
I'd be interested to find out what the problems were and if it was greater early on when the aircraft was coming into service or later when large numbers of neophyte pilots were being shoved into a high power multi-engine aircraft.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
1942 was the A-20's worst year for accidents, '43 and '44 saw steadily declining rates, but there was an uptick in '45
The accident rate was higher than for P-47s and P-51s, but, as you mention, P-39s and P-40s were being used to transition fighter trainees before putting them in the seats of the top late war fighters.
The accident rate was higher than for P-47s and P-51s, but, as you mention, P-39s and P-40s were being used to transition fighter trainees before putting them in the seats of the top late war fighters.
Shortround6
Major General
Accident rates weren't too god with some fighters in training.
Single engine control speed on the A-20G was from 128mph (minimum power) to 135mph (Military power) under optimum conditions.
If conditions are less than Optimum?
Single engine control speed on the A-20G was from 128mph (minimum power) to 135mph (Military power) under optimum conditions.
If conditions are less than Optimum?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I was under the impression that the B-26 had a fairly high accident rate.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
55 per 100,000 flying hours in the continental US. In 1942 it was 162 per 100,000 hours. The B-26 accident rate was 50-60% higher than the B-25 throughout the war.
This was less than the A-26 at 57 per 100,000 hours, but as the A-26 was introduced later in the war, this probably reflects the A-26's immature learning curve. I bet if the accident rate were extended for the A-26 we would see a decline.
This was less than the A-26 at 57 per 100,000 hours, but as the A-26 was introduced later in the war, this probably reflects the A-26's immature learning curve. I bet if the accident rate were extended for the A-26 we would see a decline.
drgondog
Major
The primary reason for transition from AT-6 to P-40 (or P-39) was simply because the demand on Mustangs was so high in 1944 and the available P-39s and P-40s in CONUS increased as P-47s and P-38s and P-51s replaced them in combat zones. There is zero material difference in handling qualities or horsepower between the Allison driven P-39/40/51 and the Merlin P-51.
My father had zero twin engine trainer time before flying the B-26, then only five hours in a 51B before first combat after Advanced Fighter Training in P-40N. That said, flying right seat was easy transition to flying the B-26. The issues with B-26 were related primarily to high wing loading and required significantly more airspeed in the pattern and over the fence - in contrast to the B-25.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
I'm sure we've probably all seen this one, but always a good view.
A couple of things:
That landing at 42:30 YIKES!!
And in the right hand seat, 14 years before he became my namesake I give you Craig Stevens
Also Craig Stevens checking out the '40's hot chick at the end, what's not to like?
A couple of things:
That landing at 42:30 YIKES!!
And in the right hand seat, 14 years before he became my namesake I give you Craig Stevens
Also Craig Stevens checking out the '40's hot chick at the end, what's not to like?
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
No problem, that's why I'm here...
"It's not a runaway prop, it's an overspeeding engine due to a 'fixed pitch' prop."
The Curtiss curse!
1943 Officer Training Program text:
"The enlisted man is sly and calculating, and can be counted on to contrive ways to thwart and embarrass the officers appointed over him. Your duty is eternal vigilance and the strict enforcement of discipline."
No smoking on the flight line or in the vicinity of aircraft.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Guess they had you in mind.
special ed
1st Sergeant
- 5,214
- May 13, 2018
As long as we are off topic, I'll relate an account that has had me curious since the mid 1970s. I stopped at gas station near my office that I had not used before as it was on the opposite side of the interstate from our office. When I went in, the station office had many aircraft pictures and of course a conversation began. The man who managed the station loved airplanes but was not a flyer. He could request company calendars which were for airport services. This led to him telling of working at Harlingen Army Air Field in the early war years. He told me his job was cleaning P-40s to get them ready for repairs as trainers. I asked which models, and he said P-40 no letter. I mentioned how hot that work would be and he commented the only thing that bothered him was cleaning blood from the seats. As the memory of this bothered him, I didn't discuss it further. What I have always wondered is how many P-40s (no letter) could have been in combat. The records of Baugher and Fahey show 200 made with most to Panama and Puerto Rico and some staying in the U.S. The 15th and 18th Pursuit at Wheeler field were the only place I can see where P-40s could have come from with bloody seats. Not many took off and most of those on the ground burned. By the way, I still have the calendars because he gave me many he saved from other years, great photos and artwork.
drgondog
Major
P-40s also towed sleeves for gunnery practice.-without benefit of armor.
But with drop tanks, also needed by the P-51, the P-47 could and did have the range necessary to escort the bombers to their targets. So not "underapprecited", but incorrectly assessed. A typical fan boy response.
Later versions of the Zero and Oscar too got armor and self sealing tanks, but lost performnce, which had already become sub standard.
At altitude the P-47 was every bit the equal of the P-51, or even better. And that's where they flew to protect the bombers. Huge wing for fabulous handling at high altitude, and plenty of horsepower at altitude to overcome the drag from the wing when maneuvering at altitude..
