4.11 realism

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Maybe they can simulate the failure rates experienced by the United States aircraft Industry?

If we look at the US Aviation industry, 1 in every 182 airframes built from January to October 1943 was a total write off and destroyed in crashes during Ferrying.

We can use today's aviation accident statistics to get a ballpark idea of the number of emergency landings. According to the FAA accident data base, you have ~98% of a making a daylight emergency landing without injury or major damage.

That puts the ballpark figure for emergency landings in the US Aviation industry at 14100 incidents or about 17% of the aircraft produced had an issue which forced termination of the flight in the first few hours of operation.

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t206.htm

As a base, the average accident rate is about 14% on the initial flight for a new aircraft and 5% on the second flight.

Given the frantic pace of wartime production I would expect that rate to be somewhat higher.

Of course that is just raw data before the newly manufactured aircraft is delivered. Airplanes are complicated machines and it is perfectly normal to have issues in the first few hours of operation.

All Air Forces flew acceptance flights to test new aircraft before accepting them.



Just some facts for you guys to digest! Have fun!

Did anyone take their planes directly from factory to combat?

BTW Crumpp, do you check PM's?

[Crumpp]

Did anyone take their planes directly from factory to combat?

Not as a matter of policy...

BTW Crumpp, do you check PM's?

Not for a while, did I miss one?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Did anyone take their planes directly from factory to combat?

Not as a matter of policy, but I believe that the Germans and Japanese sometimes flew their planes directly off the assembly lines into combat late in the war (i.e., late 1944 on). I read someplace that the average life expectancy of a late war Bf-109 airframe was something less than 10 hours due to poor manufacturing standards, rookie pilots, pilot fatigue and enemy action. For the Japanese, some planes were basically designed to be used once, as kamikazes, which precluded acceptance testing.

On the allied side, during the darkest days of the Nazi invasion from summer of 1941 to early 1942, I believe that the Soviets sometimes flew their planes directly off the assembly lines. I know that during the defense of Leningrad tanks were sometimes driven unpainted from the assembly line to the front lines, and I think that some aircraft produced in Leningrad factories were also pressed into service directly from the factory.

[MaxGunz]

In Russia between factory and front was not a short trip. Those tanks might have gotten painted while refueling, maintenance and whatever rest stops the crew had. Making the trip to the front becomes the break-in. Same for planes, the factories were not at the front so no direct to combat phase. Shuttle pilot flies the plane from factory, not fighter pilot.

Some people make websites and others make posts to push agendas. Late war Germany didn't have fuel to get all their planes flying, new or old.

What -data- to base reliability figures on? Sometimes it is there for some countries and mostly it is not. Loss figures alone, combat or non-combat don't cover it as they factor in weather, training and fatigue with mechanical reliability.
Yet crash site examinations were on occasion enough to determine design flaws which is why there was so much flap over crash site souvenir collectors.

I would think that pilot-wise, having to fly your mission in some other plane than you expected because your regular planes are grounded due to investigation or repairs/upgrade would be more common that to be the 1 in many-many whose wings fell off. That would even provide some variation to the game.