Fly Boy ?????

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

To second guess circumstances sixty years later, particularly based on
an author's creative account is to demean the whole warrior ethic.

Hell, Ed, it's worst than that: the second guessing by our
"resident 'if you ain't been, you ain't ****...' curmudgeon"
is mainly on account of Bush senior being a Republican.

"****ing contest" has been the best description for RAM
for some months now. At least it has SOME connection
to military aviation, though I suspect that is purely circumstantial.

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: Mike Marron
Date: 10/23/03 8:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Art Kramer wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps Teddy Roosevelt
summed it up best:

"It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
arena......"

There were 11 million of us in that arena.

No, there were only *three* in that arena -- the pilot who survived,
and the turrent gunner and the belly gunner/radioman whom are
both deceased and have been for many decades now. If you're
having a tough time believing what the sole survivor says, I guess
you're just **** outta' luck!

I'm not outa luck at all. I made it through the war just fine, It is those two
airmen who are just **** outa luck as you so graciously expressed it,. Glad I
wasn't on that crew. and what a sole survivor says isn't always taken at face
value. especially by backseaters and other aircrew. And the fact that a man is
an officer, went to flight school and flew missions doesn't mean his actions
are above question. Especially by aircrew thinking of their brothers who never
made it back..



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article ,
(OXMORON1) writes:
Steven asked:
Well, who ditched more Avengers, the Navy or Grumman/Eastern?

Of course the Navy did, but they used the information and design work of
Grumman.

Actually, there wasn't a whole lot of information and design work wrt
ditching airplanes until well after the war. The first really
systematic effort that I've been able to turn up is NACA Tech Note
3946, "Ditching Investigations of Dynamic Models and Effects of Design
Parameters on Ditching Characteristics". This used dynamically
equivalent models (gliders, really) that had been built to emulate not
only the aerodynamics, but the stuctural characteristics of the
subject aircraft. Weak areas, such as B-24 bomb bay doors, were
simulated using breakaway materials. Thae aircraft modelled were a
large cross section of 1940s and 1950s aircraft, ranging from the A-20
through the heavies from the B-17 through the B-36 (Even including teh
YB-49!), the whole range of Air Force Mediums, and the Navy's entire
inventory of single-engine carrier aircraft. (There are about 50
different airplanes listed.)

In the case of the TBF/TBM, ditching characteristics were not good.
If everythig stayed together, it was tolerable, but escape for the
Radio-Gunner in the aft tunnel was problematic at best, and the Turret
Gunner had to worm his way out through the side of the turret.
However, the Avenger had a weak spot - If the bomb bay doors were
open, or if, as was very likely, they collapsed during ditching, the
airplane would pitch down and dive violently under the surface. In
that case, the only luck you'd have would best be described as "bad".

Ditching characteristecs were very much an afterthought, unless you
were designing a Flying Boat.

Note to Art: The Martin B-26 also wasn't a good candidate for
ditching, either.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

All I've heard so far
is that you've been known to putter around in a 65-hp Aeronca Champ
from time to time.

That might be me as well. For people who don't mind bird strikes from behind,
the Champ can be a lot of fun. Rather be in a Grumman Tiger though..

Gordon

(ArtKramr) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

No, there were only *three* in that arena -- the pilot who survived,
and the turrent gunner and the belly gunner/radioman whom are
both deceased and have been for many decades now. If you're
having a tough time believing what the sole survivor says, I guess
you're just **** outta' luck!

I'm not outa luck at all. I made it through the war just fine, It is those two
airmen who are just **** outa luck as you so graciously expressed it,. Glad I
wasn't on that crew. and what a sole survivor says isn't always taken at face
value. especially by backseaters and other aircrew.

You can continue to engage in all this superfluous handwringing and
entertain these "lingering doubts" and "questions" if you wish, Art.
It's entirely up to you. But the only two guys who apparently are able
to de-mystify the issue in your mind are long gone and have been for
many DECADES now. That's why I said you're SOL (not because you
made it thru the war just fine...but because *they* didn't).

And the fact that a man is an officer, went to flight school and flew missions
doesn't mean his actions are above question. Especially by aircrew thinking
of their brothers who never made it back.

And one of your brothers and highly respected posters on this
NG who actually fought in another war has succinctly explained to you
that playing Monday Morning Quarterback after all these years
is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
YOU is duly noted, BTW.

In article ,
nt (Gordon) writes:
More to the point, what did the manufacturer have to say on that subject?


I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
behavior than would the manufacturer.

Unlike some other Naval aircraft, the TBF/TBM were known as "floaters" and it
was not uncommon for them to remain at or near the surface for some time after
they were dumped overboard or ditched. My first instructor in A-school had
started his career a thousand years earlier as a little pup turret gunner in
Avengers and would occasionally share stories with us from either his time in
them, or things he had heard from the "old hands" when he was first starting
out. (OT That dude was crusty old, to the point you couldn't even guess - I
noted that he didn't carry an ID card, just a disk with a Roman emperor's
profile on it. His first ship was some sort of trireme, "I **** you not".)

According the the NACA report I referenced in a post to this thread
just previous to this, the Avenger was fairly well behave when
dithced, unless the bomb bay doors were open or caved in, which wasn't
all that uncommon an experience, especially with a battle-damaged
airplane. (The doors were held shut by hydraulic pressure - no
pressure, the doors open.) In that case, it would dive under teh
surface quite rapidly. These results were, of course, determined
under controlled conditions, in an instrumented test tank. They don't
address the environmental stuff that rules anything involving sailing
on/flying over Blue Water, mainly...


Without knowing sea state, winds and surf conditions at the time, or taking
into account the controlability issues, its very difficult to second guess
Bush's choice of silk or ditch. I would rather ditch than bale, primarily
because I was a SAR swimmer and I believed that I would find a way to not
drown. Knowing that Bishop, a former NCAA swimming ace, had died in an H-46 in
the best shape of his life didn't tarnish my unshakeable faith that if I
survived impact, I would make it out of the water alive. (Or be found in the
wreck with my hands around the pilot's neck.)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: Mike Marron
Date: 10/23/03 9:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


terback after all these years
is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
YOU is duly noted, BTW.


Anyone is free to note whatever they like.And I am free to reject their
position as they are free to reject mine.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

in article , Gordon at
nt wrote on 2003/10/23 16:54:

My Uncle ditched an Avenger after running out of gas due to a
battled-damaged carrier and bad DF steer preventing a timely recovery.

His crew survived. He did not.


Sorry to hear that, Jack. Would you mind stating his name here? I am one of
the people who believe that as long as a person's name is remembered, a piece
of them stays with us. Sounds to me like he deserves to be remembered 'out
loud'.

Donald Conaway, Lt., USN



Jack

(ArtKramr) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

terback after all these years
is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
YOU is duly noted, BTW.

Anyone is free to note whatever they like.And I am free to reject their
position as they are free to reject mine.

Very well, then. It's unfortunate indeed that instead of wisely
joining Ed and the rest of us whom have seized the high road,
you've chosen to wallow around down in the mud.

When a pilot survives and loses
his crew there will always be questions.

harsh glare of reality there, but its true. In this case however, one of the
backseaters did get out - so Bush, in my view, stayed with the a/c long enough;
from the pilots seat, he could not have known the status of his crew but stayed
in well past the other unsuccessful bailout.

Art, I get what you are saying - that its a fact that 'sole survivors' get a
stink eye when they are supposedly the last guy to go down with the ship. When
a hazardous job specialty requires a person to give 100% of their faith to
someone else while they take often mortal chances with their hide, a certain
amount of trust must exist - you have to know that the driver isn't going to
simply bail out and leave you hanging!

Those who flew aircrew, backseaters,
gunners etc seem to understand that and raise questions of their own. But
those who flew alone without aircrew (fighter pilots) or those who never flew
at all may never understand the concerns of aircrew.

I think there is a note of truth there. Similar to the partnership between
firecrews or police patrols, the 'non driver' would always at least wonder if
two go out, one come back. I know its not a popular view - but what Art said
about that is true. As for judging GHW Bush's actions over Chichi Jima? I
think every time you read an accident report you make a sort of judgement - at
least I do. Usually, at some point in the first page, I am thinking, "What a
moron." So Monday morning QB practice is nothing new when its a famous person,
like when JFK Jr. crashed, to look at the reported facts and comment. Its
human nature.

To restate: in this case, I'm ok with Bush's actions and I say that as one of
those backseaters that would at least wonder what happened. He was shot down
in combat, with two fatalities due to enemy action. Bush kept an aircraft in
the air after being hit over the target, guiding it further out from the island
than any of the other a/c that were lost on those strikes. Those g.i.b. knew
they were in a bird that was a mother to bail out of - they knew their chances,
just like all those poor saps in TBDs, and B-26s and all the rest. Sucks that
they didn't make it, but they carried the fight forward.

v/r
Gordon

====(A+C====
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."