LUFTWAFEE 1946 (Would Have Happened if ...)

The facts show that you are mistaken. Some data on serious mishaps:

In 1957 the accident rate for the F-8 Crusader was 243.9 per 100,000 hours. When the U.S. Navy retired the Crusader in 1987, the lifetime safety record had improved to 46.7 accidents per 100,000 hours. At that time the F-14 Tomcat averaged less than 10 accidents per 100,000 hours.

In 1983 the navy’s overall accident rate was 3.34 per 100,000 hours. Today that figure is about one accident per 100,000 hours. The Super Hornet and Hawkeye are not exactly light as a feather.

The mainsprings for these big safety improvements were better TRAINING, standardization of PROCEDURES, and greater emphasis on VIGILANCE. The creation of NATOPS and the RAG (Replacement AIr Group) system were vital.


A good primer on this subject is Robert Dunn. Gear Up, Mishaps down: The Evolution of Naval Aviation Safety, 1950-2000. Naval Institute Press.

 

Not to mention Jimmy Flatley and the establishment of the Naval Safety Center, which sticks its nose into every accident and makes sure all commands are fully aware of investigation results and implementation of improvements.

Like that Sundowner F4 tail paint job in your avatar

 

Yeah...Yeah it is.

No duh it's hand built...by Grumman employees.

Even has a BuNo...122629.

Again...Rare Bear is an F8F-2, BuNo 122629. The engine is immaterial.

It's only claim to fame is crashing and killing it's owner/pilot...Same goes for Miss Ashley II.

What part of "Basically" do you fail to grasp...They are all "basically" experimental aircraft...

 

Or one could read "Six Amazing Years: RAGs, NATOPS, and More." also written by the same Vice Admiral Dunn for a synopsis of the subject :
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=733533

 

German losses on the Western Front by year (1942/1943/1944/total) and type:

1E Fighter - 536 / 2,359 / 6,818 / 9,713
2E Fighter - 61 / 182 / 275 / 518
NF - 83 / 274 / 1,063 / 1,420
GA - 169 / 518 / 345 / 1,032
Bomber - 690 / 1,164 / 1,217 / 3,071
Total - 1,539 / 4,497 / 9,718 / 15,754

USAAF losses:

Fighter - 216 / 1,979 / 6,908 = 9,103
LB & MB - 37 / 644 / 1,182 = 1,863
H Bomber - 87 / 1,535 / 6,166 = 7,788

 

It depends on how you measure AS5Kicking?

 

Maybe by winter of '44, but not mid-44.

 

By my calculations, the Spitfire was much easier to see than the Me-109. Scores; 608-1410 (50% chance to spot by an average pilot.) How did you calculate those numbers?

 

The correct way to measure spotting is the "Critical Dimension" criteria. But determining that in a pen and pencil board game is impossible. If the game is computerized, then the spotting would be easy to do, but short of that, some other method is required.
The trouble is that while many planes are of a similar size, some are very much easier to spot than others! The single largest factor seems to be the wing cord. It determines the depth of the wing and the critical dimension in both frontal and planform aspects.

 

It would also seem to show that the higher the sink rate, the more likely to crash? F-8 Vs F-14 Vs Super Hornet Vs Hawkeye?

 

When was BuNo 122629 built? What type of engine do F8s use? As soon as they changed the engine, it was no longer an F8F, in addition, they made so many other changes to the basic plane that it required a new inspection under the home built category, IIRC.
As to both of those planes killing their pilots being their only claim to fame, how about being faster at low altitude than any WW-II prop plane?

 

They are not experimental, they are home built. There is a difference.

 

How many planes did the RAF loose? I ask because this would seem to show that The Germans did in fact kick our collective butts?

 

The data over time shows a massive change in accident rates for the F-8 Crusader, which points to pilot error as the difference. It also proves that there is not some imaginary and fixed “sink rate” for a machine, but there is a pilot who controls it.

If you refer to a statement in the Wikipedia article, the author doesn’t claim that some uncontrollable rate of descent caused a specific number of accidents. The author also fails to notify the reader that rate of descent is variable … according to pilot, condition of machine, wind, weather, payload, etc. Even if you knew the average rate of descent for F-8 carrier landings, that still doesn’t tell us anything useful without side by side data with other aircraft.

I forgot to mention that the Aeronavale improved the safety record of their Crusaders to 27 major accidents per 100,000 hours. That is amazing because the French Navy Crusaders were more than 35 years old when retired in 1999. The accident rate should have gone in the other direction given the age of the airframes. That they kept the mishaps so low on these old crates is a reminder that looking for solutions was a better plan than blaming a machine for problems.

Given more time and the option to buy new or reconditioned Crusaders had they been available, the French would have bested their own safety record easily.

 

Not to the FAA which licenses home-builts in the Experimental category

 

The difference is that you don't know what you are talking about...

Their airworthiness certificates classify them as...You got it...Experimental.

 

I don't have annual totals for the RAF, but it is likely they are somewhat higher than those for the USAAF in 1942, comparable on 1943, and fewer in 1944.

Oh yes, you're right, the Luftwaffe's Flak did kick our butts.

USAAF losses to Flak by year (1942/1943/1944/total)

Fighter - 8 / 116 / 2,104 = 2,228
LB & MB - 5 / 194 / 466 = 995
H Bomber - 4 / 283 / 2,520 = 2,807
Total - 17 / 593 / 5,090 = 6,030

USAAF losses to Enemy Aircraft:

Fighter - 47 / 977 / 1,734 = 2,758
LB & MB - 11 / 255 / 194 = 460
H Bomber - 49 / 909 / 2,135 = 3,093
Total - 107 / 2,141 / 4,063 = 6,311

USAAF losses to other causes:

Fighter - 0 / 173 / 1,498 = 1,671
LB & MB - 2 / 74 / 151 = 227
H Bomber - 6 / 138 / 816 = 960
Total - 8 / 385 / 2,465 = 2,858

Now, since claims are so important to you...

USAAF claims in the air versus Germany by year:

1942 - 169
1943 - 3,865
1944 - 8,050
Total - 12,084

Of those, 5,941 were credited to heavy bombers and 6,060 to multiple types of fighters, so by your logic, the B-17 or B-24 was probably the best air-to-air platform in the USAAF.

 

That is not a "claim to fame," it is their reason-de-etre...they were racing aircraft built for speed. Why build them if they would not be faster than most other prop planes?

 

Rule Number 1 - Do not create and use an inane formula that is is intentionally biased towards your favorite aircraft.
Rule Number 2 - Get your head outta your arse...You see much better that way.
Rule Number 3 - Use empirical evidence.
Example #1:


Example #2




Use these three simple rules so as not to appear to be a complete idiot by telling people that the Spitfire is much easier to see than the Me-109...

 

A few more...