TIGHAR
Historic Aircraft Recovery and Preservation => General discussion => Topic started by: C.W. Herndon on September 13, 2014, 07:28:41 AM
-
Here is the link to a video showing a planned ditching of a B-24 during WW2. Very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjadMxpXprk
-
Very interesting to watch. Gotta love some of the captioning, especially the one about, " large dent in the STEEL bottom". Didn't know the B-24 had a steel fuselage!
-
I too found that rather interesting!
The video does have some fairly good still pictures of some of the damage to the aircraft. I found those to be particularly revealing since this was an aircraft built for combat.
-
I found those to be particularly revealing since this was an aircraft built for combat.
Remember, there's a big difference between "built for combat" and "built to last."
Built for combat doesn't necessarily mean built to last, or with the best specifications of the materials used, etc. The Army Air Corps, for example, stopped ordering primer on the interiors of B-17s going to Europe because losses were so appallingly bad, corrosion would be the least of the aircraft's worries. They built thousands of Liberty ships that were not outstanding in their own right, but they didn't have to be - if they made it back and forth across the Atlantic just once, that was considered enough. "Jeep" carriers were constructed on merchant ship hulls because it was good enough to work, and in wartime, good enough may be the best you can get if you also want a lot of something.
So while combat aircraft of that era, and combat ships and tanks and everything else, were well engineered (something American has always been very good at), no one can make the case that they were over-engineered.
LTM, who sometimes yearns for yesteryear,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP.
-
Remember, there's a big difference between "built for combat" and "built to last."
Monty, as one who has flown US built aircraft in combat, built for combat means to me that the ship was built to absorb "much" damage from enemy weapons and still be able to return to "friendly territory" with whatever might remain of the crew. IMHO, most of "our aircraft" built during that time period, 1944, were built to that standard.
-
Reminds me of the "single-gear" landing of a B-17 (44-85829) during the filming of Tora Tora Tora. I was a high-school-age Navy dependent and watched the landing with a bunch of Navy pilots. All of them broke out in applause after the beautifully executed touch down that was later incorporated into the movie.
Tha magic of the internet now allows me to view it on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XvGpmoSuoA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XvGpmoSuoA)
-
Mr. Herndon, first, Thank you for your service.
I think we're both right, in our way, using different interpretations of the same words. And I will readily admit that flying machines built in that era are much, much more robust than the fragile monsters that we churn out in today's high tech world.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
Mr. Herndon, first, Thank you for your service.
I think we're both right, in our way, using different interpretations of the same words. And I will readily admit that flying machines built in that era are much, much more robust than the fragile monsters that we churn out in today's high tech world.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Thanks Monty, and I agree with your evaluation of the older aircraft.
I don't have a problem with your interpretation of the "same words" either. You are absolutely correct about how they cut some corners later in the war. I think they even stopped painting the outside of most of the aircraft. Some of the reason may have been to save on weight. All of that paint was pretty heavy.