WHAT "DUD" WOULD YOU FLY?

[FLYBOYJ]

Between P-39 and P-40, the P-39 had a much higher fatal accident rate in USAAF service. 47 per 100k flying hours v 17. See this page from USAAF stats digest, though you have to do a little arithmetic to get those numbers:
Army Air Forces in World War II

The P-39 had a lateral and vertical center of gravity that were inches of each other making the aircraft inherently unstable if any of those envelopes were slightly exceeded. I would gather the majority of those P-39 losses occurred while performing combat or aerobatic maneuvers.

 

[lesofprimus]

That and runway accidents...

 

[Elvis]

I would think the worst "Dud" (if I'm interpreting this correctly) would be any unarmed transport.
Give me a C-46.
Oversized, Overweight, Overly complicated (hey, its a Curtiss), and worst of all, over here!

...although I guess the troops in Burma would have a different impression of it.



Elvis

 

[JoeB]

The P-39 had a lateral and vertical center of gravity that were inches of each other making the aircraft inherently unstable if any of those envelopes were slightly exceeded.

And longitudinal cg with 37mm magazine empty was trickily far aft. Also it had a stall departure with little warning. A good first hand book on the P-39 is "Nanette" by Edwards Park. It's kind of semi-novel, he calls it an 'exaggeration', but it actually corresponds pretty well with general facts about his unit in other sources. Extremely entertaining either way.

Joe

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would think the worst "Dud" (if I'm interpreting this correctly) would be any unarmed transport.
Give me a C-46.
Oversized, Overweight, Overly complicated (hey, its a Curtiss), and worst of all, over here!

...although I guess the troops in Burma would have a different impression of it.



Elvis

How can you consider teh C-46 or hell the C-47 as a "Dud". Just because they are transports? I mean in my opinion and I think most here will agree with me they were the best aircraft of the war. There is more to fighting a war than shooting and dropping bombs.

 

[Elvis]

DerAdler,


Here's how FlyBoyJ, who created this thread, asked his question...

"We always talk about how good a fighter or bomber is, but what if you're stuck flying a "Dud?" For example, if I was a relatively new pilot I wouldn't be too happy flying the following in WW2...."

So, the way I understand his question, you're flying into a "combat situation". What is the aircraft you're least likely to WANT to be in.

Even though he mentions fighters and bombers, wouldn't any unarmed aircraft be the one you'd want to be in, the least?
I know I, for one, wouldn't mind a few guns and a little armour plating on my machine, if I'm to fly into a combat situation.
I would think anyone would want that.

...then there's the fact that the planes you and I mentioned are two engined transports and nowhere nearly as agile as any fighter plane we'd come up against, so that blows the whole "Your'e faster but I'm quicker" scenario straight out the window.


This is how I enterpreted "Dud", as it pertains to this thread.

Am I wrong?




Elvis

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No No I got you now.

I still look at it differently but I got you now.

 

[parsifal]

I don't think the C-46 or the C-47 were a "dud" in any sense. During D-day, the loss rate among more than a 1000 transports delivering more than 24000 airborne troops to the battle area were just 30 a/c to combat losses. During Market Garden, carried out in the depths of winter and continuing over an extended time frame, a mere 8 aircraft out of more than 600 committed were lost to weather. compare that to the non-combat losses suffered by LW transport units operating in similar conditions.

C-47s and C-46s were rugged, and for their role were good performers. no other aircraft contributed more to the Allied victory than these aircraft. that's not the words to apply to a dud, its the language of a winner.

 

[Elmas]

Breda 88

And, between the aircraft the Italian Co-bellligerent force P-39…

Not only because airframes and engines were worn out and had worst ( and dangerous..) flight characteristics than those of the Macchi 205 to which the Italians pilots were used, but for the crap their pilots were given for the doors in truck style of their airplanes, wich earned them the nickname of the "lorry drivers"…