 | Which fighters did pilots feel safest in for crash landing?| Aviation Discuss Which fighters did pilots feel safest in for crash landing? in the World War II - Aviation forums; I have read that the 109 was not a plane you wanted to crash land, as the cramped cockpit often ... |
|
05-16-2005, 01:44 PM
|
#31 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 284
Country:  | I have read that the 109 was not a plane you wanted to crash land, as the cramped cockpit often led to a meeting of the pilots head with the gunsight.Ouch! 
__________________
Never back a man into a corner unless you want to see just how hard he can fight | 
|  | |
05-16-2005, 01:50 PM
|
#32 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | not exactly the stongest of birds either.....
__________________ 
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
05-16-2005, 02:54 PM
|
#33 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country:  | A normal landing in a 109 was hard enough! 
__________________  with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
05-16-2005, 05:33 PM
|
#34 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,178
| If you crash landed a P-38 especialy straight ahead the Gondola was very forgiving.
It was not recomended that a P-38 ditch. If you do it's noted that the airplane will sink quickly.
The P-51 with its cooling system below was supposed to be very good in a wheels up landing.
If ditching a P-51 a hard turn just as the low wing hits the water to prevent diving. The P-51 will sink in ~2 seconds.
wmaxt | |
| | |
05-16-2005, 05:43 PM
|
#35 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 715
| I have read the opposite with regards to the P-51 as a result of the scoop.
Excerpt from Lieutenant Rip Collins who flew both P-47's and P-51's in the 35th Fighter Group in the Pacific"
" You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if your wheels would not come down (due to damage or mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen."
__________________ . -=DAVIDICUS MAXIMUS=-
.  | |
| | |
05-16-2005, 05:46 PM
|
#36 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,856
| A Beaufighter was considered a good plane to crash land in (if you had to). The 4 x 20 acted as a skid under you, the two engines helped plow through anything that got in the way and it was a solid machine.
I have flown in FRADU Hunters acting as targets for Navy vessels when working up and ejecting was the only real option. I remember reading the Pilots notes on ditching as we were flying over the sea. There was so little and it was so negative, they might as well have saved the paper and written DON'T DO IT. | 
| | |
05-17-2005, 11:15 AM
|
#37 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | the bit about the beau does make sence she was an amazingly strong bird..........
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
05-17-2005, 02:39 PM
|
#38 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,198
Country:  | In regards to the 109 even if you succesfully got the aircraft on the ground the landing gear would most likely collapse and then the aircraft would break apart on you and ultimatly killing you, and that is if the aircraft did not tip over on its nose and then you met the instrument panel. Either way I would bail out and not take any chances.
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
05-17-2005, 03:18 PM
|
#39 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,061
Country: | It's almost always safer to do a gear up belly landing if you're going to crash land in a field. Don't bother putting the gear down because it could trip you, without any gear it's hard to trip.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004  To those in that club. | |
| | |
05-17-2005, 05:53 PM
|
#40 | | He who does not skim
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,957
Country:  | Quote: |
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ The L-29s I get to fly in on occasion has deactivated ejection seats. | Why's that? Some kind of weight saver for the aerobatics, I'm guessing. | |
| | |
05-17-2005, 07:06 PM
|
#41 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,856
| I don't know about the USA but in the UK ex military planes have to have deactivated seats. The excuse being that they can be dangerous if not maintained properly.
This always puzzled me, as ejector seats are there for a reason and I believe from a Martin Baker ad, that one in ten built are used. So how does deactivating them, make it safer for the pilot? | |
| | |
05-17-2005, 07:13 PM
|
#42 | | He who does not skim
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,957
Country: | Well that was my thought. Why remove what's supposed to be a safety feature? | |
| | |
05-17-2005, 07:42 PM
|
#43 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,954
| I remember someone mentioning the Hurricane being quite robust for crash landings, and I must agree it very much seems that way.
One of Marseille's kills, a Hurricane, and in remarkably good shape considdering it was shot down. 
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
05-17-2005, 09:38 PM
|
#44 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,524
Country:  | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Nonskimmer Quote: |
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ The L-29s I get to fly in on occasion has deactivated ejection seats. | Why's that? Some kind of weight saver for the aerobatics, I'm guessing. | Actually its a real pain in the butt (no pun there) to keep them maintained and to find explosive cartridges that have not gone out of date. On older jet warbirds (T-33) the "carts" are almost impossible to get. Some were being imported from the CAF, but it's sticky importing what is basically an explosive device. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Glider I don't know about the USA but in the UK ex military planes have to have deactivated seats. The excuse being that they can be dangerous if not maintained properly.
This always puzzled me, as ejector seats are there for a reason and I believe from a Martin Baker ad, that one in ten built are used. So how does deactivating them, make it safer for the pilot? | You're right Glider. Also the FAA is real leary about live ejection seats. They have a fear that someone will eject over a populated area and the seat will come down and kill someone.
If I could fly in a jet where I know the carts are good for 5 or 10 years, that's fine, but in my mind ejection is a last option, especially in the environment we operate out of.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | |
| | |
05-17-2005, 09:44 PM
|
#45 | | He who does not skim
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,957
Country: | Ok, that all makes sense I guess. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 PM. | | |
