Problematic aircraft

[Maxrobot1]

The Curtiss biplane Hawk types were very successful until the BF2C-1 with all-metal wing structure and retractable landing gear. Harmonic vibration caused them all to be withdrawn from service and destroyed! All within a few months of their acceptance into service.
They were such nice looking planes too!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Curtiss biplane Hawk types were very successful until the BF2C-1 with all-metal wing structure and retractable landing gear. Harmonic vibration caused them all to be withdrawn from service and destroyed! All within a few months of their acceptance into service.
They were such nice looking planes too!

It wasn't the harmonic vibration problem that did them in, it was the landing gear. The Chinese operated over 100 of them.

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the B-26 Marauders problem was the fact that the pilots were not use to a aircraft with such a high stall speed and the craft suffered unrecoverable stalls at low altitude due to this. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[davebender]

Allied evaluations of captured Me-109s and Fw-190s typically state that these aircraft were simple to fly. And that's exactly what you want as most WWII era military aircraft were flown by green pilots. They didn't get a million dollars worth of flight training like a modern day American military pilot before their first combat mission.

If the B-26 was too difficult to fly for typical pilots of that era then it's a problem.

 

[pbfoot]

Allied evaluations of captured Me-109s and Fw-190s typically state that these aircraft were simple to fly. And that's exactly what you want as most WWII era military aircraft were flown by green pilots. They didn't get a million dollars worth of flight training like a modern day American military pilot before their first combat mission.

If the B-26 was too difficult to fly for typical pilots of that era then it's a problem.

Correct and also remember it was a time when a small air force was exponentially expanding and introducing so many new platforms all at the same time .Three years earlier they are flying B10's and P26's big changes .

 

[Jabberwocky]

I think EVERY aircraft of the 1930s and 1940s had many problems, major and minor, that needed to be fixed. Some were more solvable than others. Hell, if you look at the B787 and A380, two of most expensive and extensive aircraft design programmes in history, BOTH aircraft initially failed their ultimate wing load tests, costing BILLIONS for Airbus and Boeing.

Of the top of my head:

P-51: elevator and gun bay covers, solved in P-51D

Typhoon/Tempest: Napier Sabre engine, progressively solved over the course of the war

Typhoon: Rear fuselage buckling and tail loss, related to elevator flutter. Solved, but never fully understood during the war.

Handley Page Hereford: Napier dagger engine (specifically related to the cooling system)

de Haviland Mosquito: Wing shedding (about 35-40 known wartime incidents), related to incorrect bonding of the wing skin to the aircraft in some production batches.

Bf-109: Wing breakage, partially fixed from 109G onwards by reinforcing wing structure

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the B-26 Marauders problem was the fact that the pilots were not use to a aircraft with such a high stall speed and the craft suffered unrecoverable stalls at low altitude due to this. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

It wasn't the stalls, it was the single engine operations during emergencies. The plane also landed fast for its day.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If the B-26 was too difficult to fly for typical pilots of that era then it's a problem.

100% False...

What was not developed was adequate multi engine training that involved engine out operations during take off and landings. Once proper multi engine training came into play, the aircraft had an excellent safety record.

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

I thought the problem with the Buffalo was that Brewster did a poor job of upgrading? I think by the F2A-3, they slapped on four .50 cals and extra armor with the same powerplant as the F2A-1, killing the speed and rate of climb?

 

[Snautzer01]

Thoughts on the Marauder (text taken from Warbirdtech Martin B26 Marauder)

It was the first of several aircraft for which contracts were issued based on drawing board plans instead of flying prototypes
The evident folly of "off-the-shelf" procurement showed itself again and again; a Materiel Command case study of the Martin B-26 program noted:
"No sooner was the B-26 accepted than studies were conducted for the purpose of recommending revisions in the airplane

evaluations at Wright Field indicated, according to an AAF B-26 historical summary, "landing and takeoff
characteristics of [the] B-26 were disappointing although it was a fairly good plane in the air. The
plane could be landed satisfactorily by experienced pilots when the proper amount of weight was
carried in the tail. However, due to its rate of deceleration, an experienced pilot, who understood its peculiar characteristics, was needed to fly the plane to make a satisfactory landing."
This pre-war evaluation possibly contributed to the Marauder's early reputation as being too hot for new crews.
The Curtiss propeller was described in an AAF history of the B-26 as being more complex propeller than a hydraulic type and required a large number of electrical connections, mechanical parts, joints, etc., which could cause operational failure (note snautzer: this is were the out of control prop story's come from.)

Costs:
1939 - 1941 $261,062
1942 $239,655
1943 $212,932
1944 $192,427
This compared with B-25 prices that were consistently lower, while the Douglas A-26, viewed as an eventual replacement for both the B-25 and B-26, hovered at a unit price comparable to that of the Marauder
By comparison,a four-engine heavy Consolidated B-24 Liberator was pegged at $215,516 in 1944

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"landing and takeoff
characteristics of [the] B-26 were disappointing although it was a fairly good plane in the air. The
plane could be landed satisfactorily by experienced pilots when the proper amount of weight was
carried in the tail. However, due to its rate of deceleration, an experienced pilot, who understood its peculiar characteristics, was needed to fly the plane to make a satisfactory landing."

Says it right there...

 

[ppopsie]

In my opinion the B-26 Marauder was good eough airplane and if we got equivalent twin engine bomber types and lot of high octane avgas I am certain we could have fought in (a little) better ways.

Anyway I would like discuss the case of the Avro Manchester. The type was ordered as per an RAF spec which require the type to enter service in very short time for the days. As far as I read the books the development of Manchester was parralelled with setting up large scale production facilities, or factories, with huge amount of investments made by the government and the industry group, according to an air power expansion program hastily done in Britain before ww2.

The type's total failure rooted on the power plant and initial aerodynamic design has been widely known. If however the Manchester ended up as a total failure and became totally useless, and had no quick re-designing of the original into anything useful taken, this could have been not just a failure of a single prototype but a huge loss to the national resources itself. Loss of time was deadly in that period too. I suppose a similar situation existed around the He177 project.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Great numbers, Snautzer01

MM

 

[buffnut453]

I thought the problem with the Buffalo was that Brewster did a poor job of upgrading? I think by the F2A-3, they slapped on four .50 cals and extra armor with the same powerplant as the F2A-1, killing the speed and rate of climb?

Vassili,

The F2A-3 was built because the USN asked to increase the range of the F2A-2. The only way to do that was adding more fuel and oil. The range of the -2 was still very good - at least comparable with the F4F. Why the USN asked for the -3 remains one of those mysteries (to me, at least!).

Regards,
Mark

 

[buffnut453]

Do you have specifics? What's your definition of "craftsmanship and quality control?"

I could tell you that the Corsairs that were built at Brewster did have workmanship problems with regards to assembly, but the Buffalo for the most part was "built to print." There were inherent "design" problems that hampered performance an operation, but the airplane was "built as designed.

Flyboy,

Buffalos delivered to the Far East had a number of problems. As listed in a couple of reports on Buffalo deliveries to Singapore:

Loose nuts in a trim tab actuator component (a bevel drive in a sealed box)
Engine issues - numerous (although this was the fault of Wright Bros not Brewster)
Oil pipes stopped up with paper
Gun attachment brackets would fracture
Two aircraft arrived with failed engine mount welds
Various loose cotter keys, washers, nuts and bolts were found in several engine and airframe components

Air HQ Far East actually went so far as to ask whether there were deliberate acts of sabotage being undertaken by Brewster staff. In addition to the above, there were several problems with "Government Furnished Equipment" - installing radios, guns and gun sights, and with UK-specified components like the Sutton harness.

Hope this helps...

Cheers,
Mark

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboy,
Loose nuts in a trim tab actuator component (a bevel drive in a sealed box)
Engine issues - numerous (although this was the fault of Wright Bros not Brewster)
Oil pipes stopped up with paper
Gun attachment brackets would fracture
Two aircraft arrived with failed engine mount welds
Various loose cotter keys, washers, nuts and bolts were found in several engine and airframe components
Mark

Those are actually "quality issues" although sometimes aircraft are shipped with loose hardware on purpose if they are to be assembled, but that needs to be specifically communicated. The weld failure needs more detail (was it cracked, a bad penetrating weld or did it fail NDI). The gun attach brackets seem like more as a design issue rather than a quality problem.

I've seen no real indication that the Buffalo was assembled poorly but it is a known fact that when Brewster tried to build Corsairs, they turned out trash and there were specifics given on that.

 

[Shortround6]

Vassili,

The F2A-3 was built because the USN asked to increase the range of the F2A-2. The only way to do that was adding more fuel and oil. The range of the -2 was still very good - at least comparable with the F4F. Why the USN asked for the -3 remains one of those mysteries (to me, at least!).

Regards,
Mark

I am not sure if the Navy really asked for increased range or if the easiest way to change to self sealing tanks was simple to add new fuel tanks while leaving old integral tanks in place. Supposedly the old tanks were placarded as not to be used except under orders of squadron commander. The exception to this was that one of the old tanks was the "reserve tank" which needed to be kept unless a total revision of the fuel system was done.

 

[buffnut453]

I am not sure if the Navy really asked for increased range or if the easiest way to change to self sealing tanks was simple to add new fuel tanks while leaving old integral tanks in place. Supposedly the old tanks were placarded as not to be used except under orders of squadron commander. The exception to this was that one of the old tanks was the "reserve tank" which needed to be kept unless a total revision of the fuel system was done.

Makes no sense to leave stuff in place that isn't to be used - and a redesign to change to self-sealing is has less impact (even given integral wing fuel tanks on the F2A) than simply retaining the old ones and adding extra ones. 'Fraid that just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps the placards were more to do with CofG issues.

For the record, the range of F2A-2 was approx 1000 miles, range of F2A-3 was 1600 miles. I think they asked for more range...

 

[Shortround6]

Makes no sense to leave stuff in place that isn't to be used - and a redesign to change to self-sealing is has less impact (even given integral wing fuel tanks on the F2A) than simply retaining the old ones and adding extra ones. 'Fraid that just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps the placards were more to do with CofG issues.

For the record, the range of F2A-2 was approx 1000 miles, range of F2A-3 was 1600 miles. I think they asked for more range...

The buffalo's integral tanks were actually the hollow main spar of the wing. A little tough to leave out even if you aren't going to use it as a fuel tank. Given it's riveted box style construction it both difficult to construct to be self sealing to begin with and even more difficult to try to repair in case of combat damage. Shifting to fuel tanks that could be replaced without changing the wing when damaged did make a certain amount of sense.
I believe fuel capacity went from 160 gallons ( 80 gallons on each side with 40 gallons of one tank acting as a reserve) unprotected to a 20 gallon protected tank in each wing with a 40 gallon protected tank in the fuselage while still using the 80 gallon tank with the reserve setting for a capacity of 160 gallons. For ferry missions or other long range work the extra 80 gal tank would be filled for a 240 gal total capacity.

 

[Vincenzo]

for the buffalo I so it's write on pilots notes
"The fuel tanks are provided with armour plate along the wing front spar from the centerline of the aeroplane
outboard to the end of the tanks. Both the fuel and oil tanks are self- sealing as they are covered with a combination
of Linatex and horsehide leather"
and "Effective fuel capacity:
Port tank 66.5 Imperial Gals. Starboard tank 66.5 Imperial Gals."