Which fighters did pilots feel safest in for crash landing?

• Jun 10, 2005

• #141

wmaxt

Staff Sergeant

1,200

11

Dec 5, 2004

Boise, Idaho

DAVIDICUS said:

"... kick the plane at the last second to land sideways" I presume thats to prevent flipping/diving the plane in the water."

That could enhance the chance of flipping. (the end portion of the wing catching)

You can't always pick and choose where you'll do a gear up belly landing. That being the case, you'd be safest in the aircraft with the fewest undesireable characteristics across the spectrum of surfaces be it soft dirt, pavement or water, etc.

Click to expand...

That is the procedure out of the F/P-51 TO-1 Flight Manual. Aparently they felt the risk was greater if you landed straight ahead. My manual is a reprint of the '47 edition it's safe to assume they have researched the possibilities. It also noted that a P-51 sank in ~2 seconds.

wmaxt

 

• Jun 10, 2005

• #142

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,639

23

Apr 1, 2004

It mostly depends on the pilot and situation, as you can see this Mustang of the 339th came down pretty well.

 

Attachments

• d7-y2-339th_724.jpg

  72 KB · Views: 433

• Jun 10, 2005

• #143

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,075

8,761

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

wmaxt said:

DAVIDICUS said:

"... kick the plane at the last second to land sideways" I presume thats to prevent flipping/diving the plane in the water."

That could enhance the chance of flipping. (the end portion of the wing catching)

You can't always pick and choose where you'll do a gear up belly landing. That being the case, you'd be safest in the aircraft with the fewest undesireable characteristics across the spectrum of surfaces be it soft dirt, pavement or water, etc.

Click to expand...

That is the procedure out of the F/P-51 TO-1 Flight Manual. Aparently they felt the risk was greater if you landed straight ahead. My manual is a reprint of the '47 edition it's safe to assume they have researched the possibilities. It also noted that a P-51 sank in ~2 seconds.

wmaxt

Click to expand...

Kicking the aircraft "sideways" puts it in a skid, which also slows it up. I am also guessing that there WAS concern about the air intake scoop, but again from what I remember seeing from it "up close" I think the thing would just turn into a "big crushed aluminum can."

 

• Jun 10, 2005

• #144

dinos7

Airman

86

0

Jun 5, 2005

george-mitchell-jr.memory-of.com

yes that is still my belief. the better one would be the zero. hte japs always crash landed in those things. and most of them lived.

 

• Jun 10, 2005

• #145

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,639

23

Apr 1, 2004

Good point, dinos. The low stall speed of the A6M would make it easy to crash land. Always though, in my opinion, the Hurricane would be the best. Low stall speed and strong structure.

 

• Jun 10, 2005

• #146

dinos7

Airman

86

0

Jun 5, 2005

george-mitchell-jr.memory-of.com

thank you

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #147

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,075

8,761

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

It really isn't the stall speed, its the engine out glide speed that makes the difference. The engine out glide speed for the Zero is very low. This gives a lot of time for a pilot to make decisions in where he needs to land. This is a big is factor during emergency procedures.

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #148

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,639

23

Apr 1, 2004

If he's stalling at high speeds, it's not exactly ideal. It's going to smash him into the ground.

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #149

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,634

16,851

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

If you were to turn any aircraft sideways (not just a P-51) you really stand the chance of flipping the aircraft. It all depends on the speed. At low speeds I think it would work but at high speeds the wings will dip under the water and the bird will flip

I agree it depends on the terrain you are landing. On pavement such as a run way I agree with FlyboyJ that it would just crush the scoop and the bird would land just fine but in dirt or water I think it would be more of a hinderness.

Not that I want to crash land an aircraft but If I had to I would pick a P-38, P-47, or a Fw-190.

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #150

B

BombTaxi

Tech Sergeant

1,802

11

Nov 27, 2004

Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK

If I was crashing anything, it would be an IL2 or HS 129...the runway would probably come off worse!

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #151

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,634

16,851

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Nice thinking atleast in theory.

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #152

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

How about crash landing a Storch - is that even possible?

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #153

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,075

8,761

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

cheddar cheese said:

How about crash landing a Storch - is that even possible?

Click to expand...

You just die slower

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #154

Nonskimmer

Captain

8,611

9

Nov 11, 2004

Halifax, Nova Scotia

In slow motion.

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #155

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,634

16,851

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Technically you could also die in rewind with as slow as that thing goes.

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #156

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

crash landing going backwards in slow motion

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #157

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,634

16,851

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Pretty much!

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #158

dinos7

Airman

86

0

Jun 5, 2005

george-mitchell-jr.memory-of.com

probably the japanese ohka

 

• Jun 11, 2005

• #159

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,634

16,851

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Well one thing for sure is, they didn't walk away from it.

 

• Jun 12, 2005

• #160

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Imagine if someone successfuklly crash landed an Ohka and it didnt explode...just sitting there starving to death.