As I read more, the more I see amazing realism in AH

[mbailey]

Great post and great read Brooke, TY sir 

[Krupinski]

The book lists it as flak damage, but it sure does *look* like collision damage to me, and that's what I thought it was looking at it.

I remember reading that it was a collision in the book "Flyboys"

The aircraft was flown by Lt. King

"On February 18,1945 his squadron was to attack shipping and waterfront installations at Chi Chi Jima.

As they were approaching the waterfront installations they came under heavy anti-aircraft fire. The pilot in the flight behind Robert's, Jesse Naul, saw Robert's plane get hit by the anti-aircraft fire and his right wing was blown off. He said Robert's plane went into a spin and crashed into Lt. King's plane. The propeller on Robert's plane took off about four feet of the left wing and damaged the fuselage on Lt. King's plane. Jesse said he saw no parachutes from Robert's plane as it went down and crashed into the sea. He said Robert's crew John Louis Gerig and Gilbert Reynolds were presumed lost and later listed as Killed in Action.

Starting to lose control of his plane, Lt . King ordered his crew to bail out. As he started to lose altitude he was able to regain some control of his plane and was able to make it back to the task force and made a water landing and was rescued. His crew Grady Alvah and James Wesley were captured by the Japanese and never heard from again. The Japanese on Chi Chi Jima executed any airmen they captured. After the war the commanding officer and members of his staff paid for their crimes.

There is a memorial at the Punch Bowl National Cemetery in Hawaii to honor all those lost at sea during World War Two. On it you can find Robert's name. May he rest in peace with all the others."

[Brooke]

Wow -- thanks for posting that.  I did read the book Flyboys (a great book -- actually, I listened to it as an audiobook, so no pics) but didn't associate that story with the pic I posted.  It is great to know the full story of that pic.

[maus92]

 As he started to lose altitude he was able to regain some control of his plane ......

Denser air?

[oakranger]

Brook, look at the hunderts' of bombers photo that got torn apart.  Some you be like,  , and "how the hell did they make it".   

[Brooke]

Denser air?

Probably gaining more airspeed and/or just getting a handle on what control inputs were needed in the instant after collision.

[Brooke]

Brook, look at the hunderts' of bombers photo that got torn apart.  Some you be like,  , and "how the hell did they make it".   

Indeed!

[Buzzard7]

JB42 needs to read this. Someone needs to explain the use of flaps in combat. Full flaps and gear should be a last resort but it may help a pile-it win the fight.

[Chalenge]

To be clear, I don't think it's the cutting off of some of the end of the wing that would cause slowing down (unless it's very messy and draggy, with a lot of panels hanging out at odd angles, say).  For example, there are clipped wing versions of some planes (like clippped-wing Spitfires) that can be faster.  I think it's the extra control input creating drag.

No and they go faster actually. The force of drag is calculated by taking 1/2 of the density times the frontal area times velocity squared times a function of the reynolds number. If you look at that closely you will see that the only thing that changes with an airplane that loses part of its wing is the total frontal area... so it speeds up due to less drag. If you want to argue trim drag then consider that the AOA could be less due to less of the motive thrust going to generate lift (less weight).

[Tupac]

The B-17 "All American" (414th Squadron, 97BG) flown by Lieutenant Kenneth R. Bragg, its tail section almost severed by a collision with an enemy fighter, flew 90 minutes back to its home base, landed safely and broke in two after landing.


1st Lt. Lawrence DeLancey managed to get his B-17 back to England after a direct hit by flak killed two of his crew over Cologne, Germany.


Hang the Expense Again III" was seen heavily damaged, going down over France. The pilot, however, was able to bring  it out of a dive and struggled back to his home field.  The blast damage blew the tail gunner out of the aircraft but he survived the incident.


All i could find on this picture was that a spitfire was involved.

[SHawk]

I think it's just the contrast (or lack of it) that's making it look like it's not there.  When I look close, it appears to be intact. I looked close with Photoshop and adjusted the contrast a bit:
(Image removed from quote.)

You sound like my wife, "when I look real close it's there."

[Brooke]

No and they go faster actually. The force of drag is calculated by taking 1/2 of the density times the frontal area times velocity squared times a function of the reynolds number. If you look at that closely you will see that the only thing that changes with an airplane that loses part of its wing is the total frontal area... so it speeds up due to less drag. If you want to argue trim drag then consider that the AOA could be less due to less of the motive thrust going to generate lift (less weight).

There are two factors at work:  (1) less drag from the portion of the wing that is gone and (2) more induced drag from the remainder of the wing that is generating more lift than it would need to otherwise, more drag from any less-aerodynamicly efficient shape to the end of the wing, more drag from the deflected aileron, and more drag from the deflected rudder.  Whether the combined effect results in a faster or slower airplane depends on whether (1) or (2) is the greater effect.  For clean clipping of wingtips at lower alts, where the extra lift of the wingtips is not needed, the plane will be faster.  For most planes, clipping a good portion of one wing would, I suspect, result in reduced speed with the combined reductions from (2) being greater than the benefit from (1).

From flying planes in AH with a portion of one wing missing, my recollection is that they have all been slower.  Perhaps I am misremembering, as I don't do it all that often, but that's what I recall.

[Brooke]

The bomber story about the tailgunner who survived reminds me of a story I heard from a bomber pilot who gave a talk at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.

He was in a B-17 that took an 88 mm flak hit in the radio compartment (right behind the cockpit).  The explosion filled the cockpit with condensation (like when you see bomb explosions and the concensation vapor ring expanding).  He couldn't see for a while.  In addition, the explosion knocked the bomber up into a hammerhead-like stall, after which it entered a spin.  Once the pilot got his senses back and could see again, he got the bomber out of the spin and flying again.  This was all with a full bomb load still!  He looked and saw that all the engines were still running and that the bomber seemed still willing to stay in the air, so he pressed on to the target and dropped bombs.

After that, he went back to check damage.  The radio comparment was completely blown open -- had no walls left.  How the plane stayed together, he didn't know.  There was blood and meat all over the place -- the remains of the radioman and of the engineer/top gunner who had been in that compartment.  Aft from there, the other crew was OK.

They continued toward home, now well out of formation and alone.  On the way, they got attacked by three 109's.  The 109's shot them up and pressed their attacks, probably until they were out of ammo.  The bomber, despite lots more damage and now more wounded crew, stayed in the air.  They made it back to England.

After a month, they got a letter from Germany.  The radioman was in a prison camp.  Amazingly, this is what happened to him.  At the moment the flak shell blew up in the radio compartment, the radioman had just grabbed his parachute to put on.  The explosion knocked him unconscious and blew him out of the aircraft.  He woke up on his way down, still clutching the parachute strap.  While falling, he put on the chute, pulled the rip cord, then floated down into a farmer's field, and got stuck in a tree.  The farmer came out and stabbed him in the rear with a pitchfork, but he was otherwise OK.

The Museum of Flight has these amazing panel discussions by such pilots periodically.  Some of the stories I've heard there are amazing.

[guncrasher]

From flying planes in AH with a portion of one wing missing, my recollection is that they have all been slower.  Perhaps I am misremembering, as I don't do it all that often, but that's what I recall.

but it isnt.  airplanes in ah will fly at full speed.  when a portion of the wing is missing it created more drag on one side (the one with the longer wing) which will cause the plane to turn in the direction of the Longer wing, to compensate you must use rudders, which by itself will create more drag, slowing the airplane down. airplanes with 1/2 a wing have been known to fly for extended periods of time, but not at full speed.

semp

[Brooke]

Yes, that's what I just have been saying:  planes with half a wing are slower than planes with no such damage.