Safe fighter

[Mark J]

We all talk about fighters in the sense that they are actually fighting. OK, thats logical but what about flying those fighters? I mean, how easy or difficult was it to keep a WWII fighter in the air.

That leads to my question,
...what would you consider to be the safest fighter of the war to actually fly...?

I mean, to get in, start up, mag check, warm up, taxi out, take off, climb, cruise, re-join the circuit, land, taxi in and shut down. Sounds simple but these were aircraft designed to fight and to push the safety envelope.

Anybody have any info on fighter plane flight safety records?

cheers

[Tony Williams]

They were equivalent to F1 racing cars today - difficult to pilot, let alone to do so well. There were particularly tricky on take-off and landings, when visibility was poor and stability was marginal - especially for the ones with a narrow undercarriage track. Accidents were common during training, and many trainee pilots were killed in them.

Some were safer than others, of course. The Hurricane was easier to fly than the Spitfire, for instance. The easiest were probably the early Japanese fighters with their light weight and low wing loading. The worst would have been the late-war versions of planes which had grown considerably in weight and power - like the Bf 109.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[i16stealth]

One of the safest were the biplanes, I suppose. They are usually safer, than monoplanes.

[CAPILATUS]

Interesting topic!

Handling in climb, cruise, re-join the circuit the most of the planes seem to be be equal.

About start up, mag check, warm up - one engine planes look much better in here due less operations compare to multi ones.

But. I would add one more position for the competitors - missed approach or going around-really difficult stage for one-engine planes
1. Torque Reaction from Engine and Propeller
2. Corkscrewing Effect of the Slipstream
3. Gyroscopic Action of the Propeller
4. Asymmetric Loading of the Propeller (P Factor)

as you have to give full power to your engine with high angle of attack at the same time, that could couse real problems with handling. See this:
...My father flew the P-51H model during the Korean war. Many of the pilots in his unit were transitioning to the Mustang from B-25s and B-26s that they flew in WWII. He watched 5 of them in less than a year kill themselves by slamming the throttle forward while going missed approach. The combination of torque, P-Factor, and spiral slipstream effects were too strong to counteract at low speed and high Angle of Attack -- the airplanes yawed wildly, stalled the downwind wing, flipped over on their backs and crashed...

The same effect appeares on take-off as well.


So two-engine planes like P-38 with opposite prop movement are excluded from the problems like that.


The hardest stage is no doubt take-off, landing and taxiing in considered conditions. For that preferably better look aircraft with nose mounted weel, like P-39 and P-38. No one can forget there is special constructed arc in P-39 helped while nose-over to safe pilot's life.

You can say - what's about a spin than? But the spin is not in the list [:p]

"Get in" - the best, no doubts! No one alse's got autodoors;)


Well, my choice P-39 and P-38. But excepting harder engines operation in P-38 plane I would accept P-38 as much more safe plane while Take-off and missed approach. No antinose-over arc in P-38? - No problem! I don't think P-38 could ever make nose-over! :D

[CAPILATUS]

One more thing to add plus to P-38 safety.

P-38 eqipped with flaps that could be used in relatively high speed in maneuver position. So while approach with flaps down in maneuver P-38 looks much safer it's competitors as having flaps more wing span comes to P-38 due special flaps design and better handling in small speeds as well.

[Lightning]

Hi CAPILATUS,

I generally agree with your comments regarding P-38 safety. One point I'd like to add, however, is that if an engine failed on "go around" or, even worse, on take off, the P-38 was quite a handful. If it wasn't handled correctly, the result was an uncontrollable roll into the dead engine which usually resulted in a crash in an inverted attitude. The proper recovery technique, as taught to the new AAF pilots by Lockheed test pilot Tony Levier, led to far fewer losses to this type of accident.

Regards,
Lightning

[pmjwright]

This is a great thread, and a good question Mark J! It goes beyond the usual question of the "best" or "favourite" fighter to fly. On top of Tony's point about the challenges of flying performance aircraft, design features or quirks can make the takeoff, circuit and landing environment even more challenging.


Forward visibility--P-38 or -39 with tricycle gear has a big edge, while a huge engine makes the Corsair particularly poor; Bf-109's narrow track is a well known drawback; low speed handling, including near stall speeds, is major factor; instrument layout--with Spitfires you had to switch hands on the stick to raise the gear; Capitalus has good points on torque and other effects (and is torque effect right or left eg Merlin vs Griffon Spitfires). These are just some of the safety factors involved.

And even such things as poor engine cooling during idling and taxiing (eg Merlins) contribute to safety--just another worry or distraction for the pilot prior to takeoff. Add to that the aircraft's main mission--eg carrier aircraft or night fighters regularly faced more challenging takeoff and landing conditions.

Just having a second engine increases the safety margin in case of engine failure. Lightning describes well the challenges of the P-38 if an engine fails on go around or takeoff, but at least the pilot has options that he wouldn't if flying a single engine a/c!

I can't verify with records or statistics, but I would think the Hellcat must rate as one of the safer aircraft, and would concur with Tony about Japanese a/c.

[Trexx]

It's been said that a second engine "just takes you to the scene of the accident".

[DoBravery]

Although a subtle factor, the ease to which a pilot is able to exit/escape a plane might break a tie.

[R Leonard]

Personal Opinion . . . the F6F.

Rich

[GregP]

I, too, think the safest fighter was the F6F Hellcat. Grumman had a penchant for designing easy-to-fly aircraft that assumed a low-time student was flying.

I has been discussed in earler threads, but all twin-engined planes, with the exception of centerline thrust examples, have a critical engine and a critical engine-out speed. If an engine fails below the critical engine-out speed, the pilot has two choices: 1) pull power off on the running engine and land straight ahead, or 2) die.

Sometimes there is a third option: 3) reduce power on the operating engine so the available aerodynamic controls are sufficient to handle the asymetric power. This is an option only if the amount of power reduction required leaves enough power to fly the aircraft around the pattern to a safe landing.

The Bf 109 was tricky at takeoff and landing. The Spitfire was tricky only because of the narrow gear ... the gear didn't have wrong geometry like the Bf 109 did. The P-51 was relatively easy compared with contemporaries.

Let's keep in mind that the pilots flying them were trained in them. A green Cessna pilot would simply be dead if he tried to transition alone. Going from 160 hp and 12 pounds per square foot to 1500+ hp and 45 pounds per square foot of wing loading without training is a recipe for a funeral.

Ditto going froma WWII fighter to a modern jet. The avergae modern jet fighter has a wing loading of 70 - 120 pound sper square foot. By way of example, consider the F-14 Tomcat. Depending on sweep, the wing loading is 108 to 131 pounds per square foot.

Trying to fly that coming from a Spitfire would be equally as stupid ad trying the Spitfire from the seat of a Cessna 150.

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Originally posted by GregP
I has been discussed in earler threads, but all twin-engined planes, with the exception of centerline thrust examples, have a critical engine and a critical engine-out speed. If an engine fails below the critical engine-out speed, the pilot has two choices: 1) pull power off on the running engine and land straight ahead, or 2) die.

Sometimes there is a third option: 3) reduce power on the operating engine so the available aerodynamic controls are sufficient to handle the asymetric power. This is an option only if the amount of power reduction required leaves enough power to fly the aircraft around the pattern to a safe landing.
Hi, Greg!
I'm afraid, I disagree with you completely.

True, pilot of twin-engine craft has two choises:
1) pull power off on the running engine and land straight ahead
but
2) continue take-off with one cut-off engine, if speed more than 130mph

and also note, the slot time between these two is only 5 sec with full power (54" 3000rpm). Data is taken from "Pilot training manual for P-38" dated August 1945. So, the chance on engine can fail is only so small as it can be put within 5 sec.

Few words from "Single engine practice" ... you will find that the P-38 flies very well on one engine...

Well. To apply same things to one engine aircraft a pilot has next choises:
1) land straight ahead with failed engine
2) die, if the length of the RW is too shot not to overfly it having quite high speed and alt.

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

I, too, think the safest fighter was the F6F Hellcat. Grumman had a penchant for designing easy-to-fly aircraft that assumed a low-time student was flying.
If I'd like to climb the easiest plane to fly I would climb one of the Yak's. But I don't.

The thing is all Yak's were classic scheme weeled and once I was reading recalls of one veteran, serving in Yak's regiment. He said non combat losses in their regiment were up to 50% due hard taxiing and easy making nose-over. While taxiing not rarely one Yak was ramming another as there was very bad view from the cockpit.

Also the same problems while take-off, I wrote about upthere...

By the time he said (he served from 1943) there were no combat losses in their regiment :)

[Ricky]

Which was the German plane with an ejection seat?

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Which was the German plane with an ejection seat?


He162 and Do 335

[Kutscha]

Not just fighters Mark.

The Texan is said to be not easy to fly. The RAF trainer, the Tiger Moth, had some peculiarites as well. Both could enter a spin very easily, at least from what I have read.

[Ricky]

Hmmm, Do335 had wide-track, tricycle undercarriage, and an ejection seat.
Any known vices?

I assume that landing speed might be quite high?

[Double T]

Ricky:
I believe it was the FIRST aircraft to be fitted with an ejection seat. Did it not also separate the lower-part of the tail for a belly-landing with explosive-bolts?
I'm not aware of any of the planes' vices.

Tim

[GregP]

It's funny you would disagree Capilatus. I'm not trying to start a fight, but high-powered twin engine planes that are not centerline thrust are NOT easy to fly on one engine unless the aircraft is in cruise configuration and at cruise speed.

A P-38, low and slow, at gross weight, on one engine was and is a death trap for the unwary. Even GOOD pilots were killed in that scenario.

Please don't believe pilot's maunals. I once read a B-24 manualand my ex-wife's father used to fly B-24s. So, I bought him a B-24 training tape (VHS) and we watched it together. The announcer saied, "If your B-24 loses an engine on takeoff, don't worry! Your B-24 has plenty of power to continue the takeoff."

Well, her father, a former B-24 pilot, laughed and said, "I don't know what airplane he's talking about, but it sure isn't a B-24!"

His point was that the B-24 had plenty of power onm three engines during early training. Later in training, they actually started adding bombs and other payload, and the power surplus just evaporated.

A P-38 was the same. Empty, it would be easy. But wartime operational P-38s almost always took off with a heavy load of fuel, armament, and bombs. There wasn't much "spare power" left.

So, sorry, but most WWII twin-engine fighters were simply NOT very good on one engine carrying a war load. If tghey were lucky enough to be returning froma long flight when the engine failed, then maybe yes. But if that were the real case, the engine was probably damaged by enemy action and there was damage to contend with and the flight characteristics were probably again in the toilet due to damage.

Sorry, I disagree with you big time, as will most pilots of real twin-engine aircraft.

This is not a flame war, just an observation.

[Trexx]

Great thread, fun read.

The Do-335 suffered a 'porposing' phenomenon at high speeds. This was noted in German flight reports but I'm not sure if it was fixed before the Germans capitulated.
(imo) It is a magnificent fighter plane, fitted with an ejection seat to undoubtedly fling the pilot's pa-toot over the rear propeller arc.
...and yes, the ventral portion of it's cruciform fin was attached with explosive bolts so it wouldn't interfere in the event of landing without the wheels down.
Those smart peckers thought of everything!

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

It's funny you would disagree Capilatus. I'm not trying to start a fight, but high-powered twin engine planes that are not centerline thrust are NOT easy to fly on one engine unless the aircraft is in cruise configuration and at cruise speed.

A P-38, low and slow, at gross weight, on one engine was and is a death trap for the unwary. Even GOOD pilots were killed in that scenario.
Well, dear Greg. I didn't say it's easy to fly twin engine P-38 with one of them off. It's not, but possible compare to SINGLE engine plane. That's the point. And that makes P-38 more safe than any another one, with just one engine. I'm quite sure you do agree with me, Greg.

Yes, in the manual it's said 130mph having full load with gear up. Of course it might be higher speed as few factors should be taken into estimate: weather conditions/temperature, pilot's reaction/skill (both engines operating, correcting yaw, drop tanks releasing, dead eng. prop feathering) , engine operating time run out and so on...

And also your own feeling. You said, Greg, somehow you were lucky to fly difft types, I did also An-12, it's damn big one but anyway you can feel it how it'lifting up with different payload, never flew P-38, but I wish! I'm more than sure P-38 is much more sensible than B-24 in that way. I talked with guys who operated An-24 with one failed engine, the answer was almost same - too hard but possible, main rule - never turn to dead engine's side that's it...

Ask yourself - why over the sea among civil aircraft having passengers aboard, can operate only MULTI engined ones? The answer is simple -they're more reliable...

No doubts in that scenario were killed more pilots operating single engine planes...
quote:Originally posted by GregP
...but high-powered twin engine planes that are not centerline thrust are NOT easy to fly on one engine unless the aircraft is in cruise configuration and at cruise speed
The first important thing to P-38 pilot is that step: reduce power on live engine to gain directional control.

Look at thrust-to-weight ratio of heavy bomber and fighter. No wonder P-38 could take-off on one engine only even with not full power on.

I don't fight, I'm discussing :)

[Mark J]

Hey guys, keep it going, this is great.
Just as a matter of interest, I consider the

Hurricane, Zero and Hellcat to be the "Safest flyers" of the fighters.

cheers

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Hurricane, Zero and Hellcat to be the "Safest flyers" of the fighters.
Cheers, Mark!
But... it's already the third voice to Hellcat's piggy bank!

Why it was safe? Easy to fly? Accident records?
What's about other things as landing gear tread for example? It seems the Hellcat had as narrow as Bf-109 had...

PS. I wish I knew more about Me-110... [8)]

[R Leonard]

quote:It seems the Hellcat had as narrow as Bf-109 had...

Huh? You're joking right?

Rich

[CAPILATUS]

No, I don't, may be little bit :D

OK, good idea if we start operating with facts... I'd love to hear argumental talks :)

[Ricky]

Ok, my money is going on the Do335.

Any objections?:)

[R Leonard]

Bf 109 landing gear spans: E had 1.97 meters (6 feet, 5.5 inches), G was 2.06 meters (6 feet, 9.1 inches), and K 2.1 meters (6 feet, 10.7 inches). F6F landing gear span: 3.48 meters (11 feet 5 inches). Further, F6F landing gear came out of the wing and folded fore and aft as opposed to the 109 where the landing gear pivoted laterally out of the wing root. You were, perhaps, of thinking the F4F?

[Ricky]

It is interesting - you often hear about the dismal record of accidents of the 109 attributed to the narrow-track landing gear. But the Spitfire (amoung others, like the F4F) had just as narrow-track an undercart, and had nothing like the same level of accidents.

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

It is interesting - you often hear about the dismal record of accidents of the 109 attributed to the narrow-track landing gear. But the Spitfire (amoung others, like the F4F) had just as narrow-track an undercart, and had nothing like the same level of accidents.


The track of the Spit was less than that of the 109. I have seen a number of 1500 being directly attributed to accidents because of the l/g for the 109. Out of some 35,000 that is not bad.

[R Leonard]

quote:like the F4F

F4F landing gear span wasn't all that bad if you kept your wits about you. The biggest problem was low time pilots feeling an incipient ground loop and making the big mistake of applying the brakes and thus actually inducing a ground loop. The problem was eliminated once you learned to make a tail-high landing and simply letting the speed bleed off until the tail came down by itself. That way you maintained control through the speed envelope where a ground loop might occur. Obviously, this was a land based problem only. One F4F pilot, from one of the first operating F4F squadrons, VF-42, told me it happened to just about everyone and if you heeded the warnings not to touch the brakes you did just fine. He also said they lost very few planes as write offs for this problem. There were other problems that cause more accident losses.

Regards,

Rich

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Originally posted by R Leonard
You were, perhaps, of thinking the F4F?
Yeah, Rich, I was. Missed a thing a bit

[Corsarius]

My money on the Dornier Pfeil, please.

[Mark J]

The Hurricane, Zero and Hellcat
They all had wide track undercarrige
The Hurricane had a thick high lift wing, the Zero had a thick wing and was light and the Hellcat had a very big wing.
They all had good visability for take-off and landing.
At modest cruise speeds, all 3 planes were stable platforms.

The Do335 had an ejector seat but also a canopy that required manual removal. Unfortunatly a few of these canopy's were found still with the pilots hands attached, after the plane had crashed. Not sure if I like that scenario....

I understand the Me 109 had 'breakaway' sections in their undercarriage legs to stop the aircraft flipping over in a ground loop. Eliminating those and reavaluating the landing/take-off technique may have saved a lot of lives and hundreds of aircraft but Willy Messerschmitt was a little too stubborn when it came to making changes in his plane...

cheers

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

The Do335 had an ejector seat but also a canopy that required manual removal. Unfortunatly a few of these canopy's were found still with the pilots hands attached, after the plane had crashed. Not sure if I like that scenario....
But then, the Hurricane canopy had a habit of jamming shut...

[Kutscha]

Mark, that is a bit of a myth.The 335 had a handle on each side of the fuselage that released the canopy. You can see them in photos in several books such as the one by Monogram.

Supposidly the geometry of the 109's l/g was changed. The longer tail wheel strut was also there to help stop landing accidents.

Have to agree Willey and company was slow to include new 'stuff' to help the 109.

[Lightning]

Hi All,

I don't know whether I would say that the P-38 was the safest fighter of the war, but it certainly was not the most unsafe. Besides, when you start designing a high-performance fighter with safety in mind, you start to trade-off performance.

A fighter with very good stability and docile handling characteristics at all speeds may avoid pilot-error accidents at the expense of being out-maneuvered, out-performed, and shot down by a not-so-safe enemy fighter.

As to the twin- vs single-engine debate, I agree with Capilatus. A twin-engined airplane, if handled correctly during an engine failure, has the capability to continue flying. A single-engined plane is going down, period.

On takeoff, the twin has a chance to make it back to the field; a single better land straight ahead, regardless of obstacles, or else!

On approach to landing, the twin can make a go-around and get another chance; the single must land--even if he can't make the field.

Over open water, 200 miles from land or a ship, you have an engine failure. Would you rather be flying a P-38 or a P-51?

Trexx: The second engine may take you to the scene of the crash, but at least you have a better chance of choosing the spot (not to mention the extra time to figure out your next move).

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

Noted.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

As to the twin- vs single-engine debate, I agree with Capilatus. A twin-engined airplane, if handled correctly during an engine failure, has the capability to continue flying. A single-engined plane is going down, period.
And on the Do335, both are on the centreline, removing the whole problem of assymetric thrust if one goes...:)

[Mark J]

Kutscha
Hi, Yes I agree. The big Dornier had release handles on the inside but still needed the canopy to be manually released or pushed off it's mounts, hence the occasional loss of life during an ejection.
I am unsure if this problem was addressed sooner or later during the aircraft's development.
Can somebody enlighten me on this subject, as yet again, I am away from my resourse material.
cheers

[Ricky]

But then, every WW2 plane had manually released cockpit canopies.
Why penalise the Do335 for this? Especially when it allows a greater chance of escape once the canopy is off.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

But then, every WW2 plane had manually released cockpit canopies.
Why penalise the Do335 for this? Especially when it allows a greater chance of escape once the canopy is off.

I am not sure but didn't Martin Baker devise a safe release device with a rubber ball or ballon that was used on later Spitfires etc.?
Any body help with details please?

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Kutscha
Hi, Yes I agree. The big Dornier had release handles on the inside but still needed the canopy to be manually released or pushed off it's mounts, hence the occasional loss of life during an ejection.
I am unsure if this problem was addressed sooner or later during the aircraft's development.
Can somebody enlighten me on this subject, as yet again, I am away from my resourse material.
cheers


Mark,

the myth started because some said (most likely Green) the handles were attached to the canopy. Hence, when the pilot pulled on the handles his hands were still attached to the canopy when it flew off. This seems to indicate that the canopy flew off easily.

The left handle was for normal operation (ie. to open the canopy). The right handle, as on the 109, released the canopy completely. The 109 canopy would fly off into the airstream. I see no reason why the 335's canopy should not do the same, even if it needed a gentile nudge to lift the leading edge into the airstream.

I have not come across any fatalities of 335 pilots due to the use of the ejection seat. In fact, I have never seen any info of a 335 pilot bailing out. Now the He162 is another story.

To eject, the pilot pushed 3 buttons on the starboard side of the cockpit (1 each for: blow off the prop, blow off the upper fin/rudder and arm the seat). The pilot then pulled the release handles and then pulled the ejection trigger.

[Trexx]

I guarantee that the curved upper surface of the Do-335's canopy will cause it to launch off naturally as result from the bernolli effect. Those forces will negate the need for any special mechanism.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

I guarantee that the curved upper surface of the Do-335's canopy will cause it to launch off naturally as result from the bernolli effect. Those forces will negate the need for any special mechanism.




Yes,correct the release handles at the sides were 45 degrees forward, pulled back 90 degrees aft. at the vertical position, one time the canopy left with the arms.
The airscrew could reverse thrust and reduce landing run by 25%
the German WW2 brakes were very poor.

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

I guarantee that the curved upper surface of the Do-335's canopy will cause it to launch off naturally as result from the bernolli effect. Those forces will negate the need for any special mechanism.


Not all the time Trexx. The 190 had a 20mm blank that pushed the canopy back so the airstream could get in and 'lift' the canopy free. The NASM when restoring their 190 found a live shell.[:0]

Groggy, tell me more about this pilot who lost his arms. I am curious on how this could happen since the handles were attached to the fuselage, not the canopy.

The Monogram-Monarch Do335 book by Smith/Creek/Hitchcock (ISBN 0-914144-52-9) has several photos and diagrams of the cockpit which show the hands on the handles would be well clear of the canopy.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

I guarantee that the curved upper surface of the Do-335's canopy will cause it to launch off naturally as result from the bernolli effect. Those forces will negate the need for any special mechanism.


Not all the time Trexx. The 190 had a 20mm blank that pushed the canopy back so the airstream could get in and 'lift' the canopy free. The NASM when restoring their 190 found a live shell.[:0]

Groggy, tell me more about this pilot who lost his arms. I am curious on how this could happen since the handles were attached to the fuselage, not the canopy.

The Monogram-Monarch Do335 book by Smith/Creek/Hitchcock (ISBN 0-914144-52-9) has several photos and diagrams of the cockpit which show the hands on the handles would be well clear of the canopy.


Simple, I may have misinterpreted but last night I was lead to believe that apart from the “scare stories” that during development there was in fact one serious incident. This involved the chap’s arms when the canopy left the aircraft as described. Maybe I should have asked for clarification but this was incidental to the main tenure of the conversation which was about the Do335 and comparing it with the Hornet and the Twin Mustang. The other party having flown all three aircraft said that Do335 was out standing but also considered the Hornet to be a safe aircraft. He remarked that the three all had very similar maximum speeds. When talking to a man of that calibre one listens. The incident was the least important part of the conversation but when the occasion arises I will broach the subject again. He did also explain what the problem was with the contra prop Seafire in 42 and why the contra prop aircraft was such a good innovation for the FAA.
Your knowledge and postings are excellent, so I guess you and several others will know the gentleman’s name without us naming him. If I am able I will update and give more details. I feel sure we can carry on the thread with out giving his name.

[Kutscha]

Groggy,

afaik only 3 Brits flew the 335. (this place needs a PM feature)

One a/c crashed during testing because of a rear engine fire, with the pilot being killed. This was the V6, WNr 230 006, CP+UF or the V2, WNr 230 002, CP+UB (text says V6, chart says V2). Photos of the V3's cockpit show the handles attached to the fuselage.

[WarBirdMan]

The safest plane of the war that i can think of is the Thunderbolt!I mean it weight nearly 7t,had a 2000hp engine,four 50cals in the wings,armour plating everywhere and whith a cockpit like a living-room!lol
There are 21 gapping holes and jagged hole in the metal from 20mm canons.I'm still standing in one place when my count of bullet holes reaches past 100...Robert S. Johnson,56th Fighter Group,after a mision in june 43'.:)
Though this plane never flew again it did a job few planes could...took all the beatin' and kept the pilot alive!

[Mark J]

Groggy, I don't remember his name but didn't he write a certain book or two........that's where I got this info in the first place, a libarary book which I can't relocate! Tried today :(

cheers

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Groggy, I don't remember his name but didn't he write a certain book or two........that's where I got this info in the first place, a libarary book which I can't relocate! Tried today :(

cheers



You have it, his memory is razor sharp so I may have put two and two together and got five. I want to respect his privacy and do not wish to pester him so restrict questions to a bare minimum and those that I can find the answers for any other way.

[Mark J]

So Groggy, did I remember correctly, someone did in fact loose their hands in a failed ejection from the 335?

Please pass on my best wishes, I shall read your future posts with enthusiasm.

cheers

[Kutscha]

Groggy,

looks like the German source was putting some fear into the Brit pilot.

from a British book:
Particularly fascinating was the story that when two protoypes came to grief the bodies of their pilots were found to be devoid of arms. The story, recounted to me by a German pilot, alleged that the loss of the upper limbs had resulted when the unfortunate victims had gripped two inclined levers at cockpit sill level and pulled them aft to activate the hood jettison system. This action released the hood effectively, but since the levers were attached to the hood, a firm grip meant, so the story went, that the hands and arms were wrenched off with the rapidly departing canopy. This story made something of an impression on me, and I clambered into the cockpit filled with curiosity. Sure enough, the notorious hood jettison levers were there.

I know of only one fatal crash of a 'prototype' Do335 (see previous post). One of the pre-production a/c also crashed (Dec 24 1944 at Donefeld). This being Do335A-0, WNr 240108, VG+PO. This a/c being produced after the V3 would have had the handles attached to the fuselage.

The Brits only flew one Do335 a number of times. This was Do335A-12, WNr 240112 (AM223), a 2 seat trainer version. This a/c crashed in Jan 1946 killing GrpCapt F. Hands. The other Do335, Do335A-1, WNr 240167 (AM225) was left in France after the nose landing gear collapsed

[Lightning]

Hi All,

It seems to me that the muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. of the upper and lower arm are much stronger than the grip of the hand. If this is so, then the hands would be pulled off of the levers before the arms could be pulled from their sockets.

Regards,
Lightning

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

Groggy,

looks like the German source was putting some fear into the Brit pilot.

from a British book:
Particularly fascinating was the story that when two protoypes came to grief the bodies of their pilots were found to be devoid of arms. The story, recounted to me by a German pilot, alleged that the loss of the upper limbs had resulted when the unfortunate victims had gripped two inclined levers at cockpit sill level and pulled them aft to activate the hood jettison system. This action released the hood effectively, but since the levers were attached to the hood, a firm grip meant, so the story went, that the hands and arms were wrenched off with the rapidly departing canopy. This story made something of an impression on me, and I clambered into the cockpit filled with curiosity. Sure enough, the notorious hood jettison levers were there.

I know of only one fatal crash of a 'prototype' Do335 (see previous post). One of the pre-production a/c also crashed (Dec 24 1944 at Donefeld). This being Do335A-0, WNr 240108, VG+PO. This a/c being produced after the V3 would have had the handles attached to the fuselage.

The Brits only flew one Do335 a number of times. This was Do335A-12, WNr 240112 (AM223), a 2 seat trainer version. This a/c crashed in Jan 1946 killing GrpCapt F. Hands. The other Do335, Do335A-1, WNr 240167 (AM225) was left in France after the nose landing gear collapsed


Kutscha,

German source seems to have made a lasting impression, Thanks for the effort, you seem to have covered all the bases! Please could I have the ISBN No. for the book, I will try and get it from the Library.

Lightning,

I just imagined from the conversation it was bad double dislocation.
I understand your reasoning.

Mark J

The Topic is great, the chaps recall of the aircraft etc. was still remarkable.


Based on the comments so far one could put forward a number of different aircraft depending on if it was the Start, the Middle or the End of the war, by nationality I would put forward the following,
Starting in 1939 and ending in 1945.
Dutch,
Italian,
American,
British,
Swedish,
German,
American.
These all flew but not all in combat. With possible the Swede being on top.

[Kutscha]

Groggy,

I posted it a few posts back but here it is, ISBN 0-914144-52-9

Another you might want to look at is (not seen yet, so can't comment):

Book Details
ISBN: 0764318721
Size: 8 1/2" x 11"
Illustrations: over 240 black and white and color photographs, drawings, and charts
Pages: 216

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764318721

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

I guarantee that the curved upper surface of the Do-335's canopy will cause it to launch off naturally as result from the bernolli effect. Those forces will negate the need for any special mechanism.


Not all the time Trexx. The 190 had a 20mm blank that pushed the canopy back so the airstream could get in and 'lift' the canopy free. The NASM when restoring their 190 found a live shell.[:0]...

Of course you realize the shape of the '190s' canopy is not like the Do-335.
Just drive my '97 Firebird with the T-tops unlatched. I have. At exactly sixty miles per hour they leave the vehicle. Sailing abrubtly and violently high into the air. The curve of their shape is simular to the 335's canopy, in that there's a leading edge seam that is lower than a gentle bulge over the head of the occupant. It's a damn airfoil.

[Kutscha]

I agree the 335 canopy should fly free, and easily. Was just pointing out that on the 190 this was not so. A front view of the 190 shows canopy glass over the windshield/canopy framing.