The efficiency of multiple crewmen in destroyer type fighters

[pbehn]

The RAF seemed to feel that way. The rear gunner in the Defiant had almost no chance of bailing out.

Why would he have to bail out? His job was to hose down a fleet of defenceless enemy bombers flying in formation, to be shot down.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The RAF seemed to feel that way. The rear gunner in the Defiant had almost no chance of bailing out.

All the more motivation to assure that bailout never becomes a necessity!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Which fighter had the greater number of crew?

Three men in the Northrop P-61, for example.

 

[GrauGeist]

The average seems to be two crewmen.

The Bf110 for example, could have two or three.
The Whirlwind (which was classified as a heavy fighter) had one.
The Ju88C heavy fighter had three.
The KI-45 had two.
The Fokker G.1 had one.
And so on.

To be honest, I can't think of any that had more than three.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

YB-40 had 10

 

[GrauGeist]

The YB-40 and XB-41 were defensive gunships.

 

[pinehilljoe]

My favorite destroyer type fighter. it would fit right in Sky Captain, and the World of Tomorrow

ow

 

[fastmongrel]

Fun for the occupants of the engine pod fuselage sections when it's time to jump

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Fun for the occupants of the engine pod fuselage sections when it's time to jump

Just think, it could've had the world's first downward firing ejection seats! Missed opportunity.

 

[tyrodtom]

Later they fit the prop shaft with some kind of explosive bolt that sheared the prop off.
I do wonder how well that would have worked.
A spinning prop, suddenly freed, isn't going to just go straight to the rear.

I can see one of the loose props buzzsawing through the tail section.

 

[Admiral Beez]

My favorite destroyer type fighter. it would fit right in Sky Captain, and the World of TomorrowView attachment 578950ow

And with a crew of five, the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda has to be the most personnel-heavy fighter. But why were the guys needed in the gun nacelles? Can't they just be fixed forward?

Interestingly, they made both taildragger and tricycle versions.

 

[tyrodtom]

They were there to load the guns.

 

[Admiral Beez]

They were there to load the guns.

Ah, so no moveable mounts for the nacelle crew to aim? Then why give them all that glass?

 

[tyrodtom]

How would you like being in that nacelle with no view ? That isn't glass, it's plexiglas.
They had the ability aim and fire them too. It doesn't appear they had much traversing ability though.

 

[nuuumannn]

He's enlisted, he's expendable.

A bit like the RAF and its post war bomber Command non flying aircrew; in the V-Bombers, only the two pilots had ejection seats. In the Vulcan the top popped off, which enabled aircrew on the lower floor in the back to get out, but normal procedure was to descend onto the lower level and bail out ther entry door. In the Victor and Valiant the crew were all on the same level at least. In this picture you can see why getting out of the exit door of the Vulcan in an emergency on the ground was a bad idea.

http://warbirdswalkaround.wixsite.com/warbirds/avro-vulcan?lightbox=dataItem-io5f34cz

The rear gunner in the Defiant had almost no chance of bailing out.

The small door under the turret is terribly small, but the gunner could get out through rotating ther turret to the side and exiting through the clamshell glazing. The gunner had what was known as the 'Rhinosuit', which was a special flight suit within which was a parachute. It certainly didn't help egress.

http://warbirdswalkaround.wixsite.com/warbirds/boulton-paul-defiant?lightbox=dataItem-jne89jpc