Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

New York plane crash: WW2 aircraft in Hudson River

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by kneedragon, May 29, 2016.

  1. Right, that was bit harder to find again than I expected...

    Let's get the link up first and then talk about it.

    New York plane crash: WW2 aircraft in Hudson River - BBC News

    I have a bit of a soapbox about when the reputation and folklore are misleading or just plain wrong... I usually bring it up about motorbikes and the bad information you get, especially as a newer rider. But it's a very general theme, it happens. So, a P-47 Thunderbolt went down in the river in America, in New York I think, where the Airbus ditched a few years ago.

    The P-47 is an interesting case. It has a huge reputation as a solid and dependable old bird, a bit heavy, and incredibly capable of bringing home a pilot, after sustaining some battle damage. That is to some extent true and well earned. The P&W 2800, you have to do some real damage to before it just stops. There have been not one but several cases of people who've managed to break one of the cylinders off, and had the rod and piston flailing around through the hole, and still managed to fly back to the airport and land. Well and good. So look up the statistics of flying safety during WW2. This includes losses in combat, but also accidents and mishaps and mistakes... You then find the P-47 killed more young pilots than any other aircraft in the war, more than any other two combined, mostly. It was heavy, fast, powerful, quite strong, but it was very different to most other planes of the era, and it sucked young pilots into doing stuff that worked fine in a wood and canvass biplane, but would kill you in a Thunderbolt. Here we are 65 ~ 70 years later, and the damn thing is still doing it...
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Rip to the pilot.

    Beautiful looking plane.
  3. Here you go Kneedragon
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Thanks Banzai. That's a rather ... positive interpretation.

    Jugs destroyed a lot of enemy aircraft, partly because there were a lot of Jugs. And because they were quite a good gun platform and they had 8 .50 cals, which worked. And they could take a lot of hits and keep on flying. But they killed more of their own pilots than any other Allied type. In fact, if you add the casualty figures of both the next two, they're only slightly larger than the jug.

    There's no good simple analogy from bikes, of what it means to stall an aircraft. You can explain it simply and quickly, but unless someone has a little flying experience, the real significance of it doesn't come home. Jugs were easy to stall and hard to recover. And they stalled at a rather higher speed than most contemporary planes. Even a quite skilled pilot from other aircraft, could get himself in a lot of trouble in a jug, because you just didn't think it was that bad... Compared to most other aircraft of the era, they were a very tough and unforgiving thing to fly. Some of the early combat jets were bad in the same way, people were just used to (and trained for) machines that were quite different.

    They had a sh1tload of traps for new players, let's put it that way.

    Poor analogy, but... Say you ride all sorts of bikes, both road and trail and dirt, up to about 350cc and a few of the big 500s. And then one day somebody throws you an a Hyabusa... That's not a real good analogy, but ...