History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:29 pm
Posts: 5285
FE-2 23.45
FE-8 25.87
FB-5 25.94
Bullet 30.46
Scout 29.93
DH-2 30.41
11/2 strutter 29.73
Pup 31.15
Triplane 34.97
Camel/130 36.06
Camel/140 35.11
Camel/150 39.58
SE.5A 35.37
DH-5 30.23
F2B Brisfit 31.21
Dolphin 33.89
Snipe 35.21
Grebe 38.97
Siskin 35.92
Woodcock NF 37.36
Gamecock 39.97
Bulldog 37.16
Demon 36.18
Fury 46.40
Gauntlet 50.83
Gladiator 57.14
Hurricane I (38) 61.63
Hurricane I (40) 70.13
Hurricane IIA 87.76
Hurricane IIB 91.99
Hurricane IIC 114.22
Spitfire I (38) 71.46
Spitfire I (40) 81.46
Spitfire II 82.18
Spitfire VC 109.57
Spitfire VII 116.64
Spitfire VIII 118.29
Spitfire IX 125.61
Spitfire XII 118.83
Spitfire XIV 126.37
Spitfire XXI 134.08
Spitfire XXIV 138.18
Defiant I 50.84
Defiant NF.II 63.87
Blenheim IF 59.71
Whirlwind 107.94
Beaufighter I 123.81
Beaufighter II 121.61
Beaufighter VI 134.99
Beaufighter X 143.14
Typhoon 123.67
Mosquito NF.II 131.61
Mosquito NF.XII 134.60
Mosquito NF.XXX 145.13
Mosquito FB.VI 129.77
Tempest V 139.65
Tempest II 147.91
Fury 159.78
Welkin 108.29
Hornet 154.78
Spiteful 151.04
Meteor F.1 131.35
Meteor F.3 147.60
Meteor F.4 190.75
Meteor F.8 192.86
Meteor NF.11 189.38
Meteor NF.12 201.44
Vampire F.1 156.48
Vampire FB.5 166.84
Vampire NF.10 172.43
Venom FB.1 195.64
Venom NF.3 213.55
Hunter F.1 357.88
Hunter F.2 365.07
Hunter F.6 386.10
Swift 347.00
Javelin FAW.2 389.91
Javelin FAW.9 394.20
Lightning F.1 548.40
Lightning F.2 523.24
Lightning F.3 554.41
Lightning F.6 630.81
Phantom FGR.2 552.94
Tornado F.3 712.88
Typhoon 1077.34
Hawk 200 437.81
Gnat F.1 272.69

_________________
There are 550 million firearms in the world, enough for one person in twelve of the world's population. The moral dilemma that faces us is how to arm the other eleven.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.1
PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
Why did the Bullet score higher than the pusher DH-2? I thought the wing-warping was a problem for maneuverability?

Also, can the DH-5 and the Lewis gun armed Nieuports make the list as separate entries, or is there no real difference between the Lewis and Vickers armed Nieuports?

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.1
PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
Why did the Bullet score higher than the pusher DH-2? I thought the wing-warping was a problem for maneuverability?


The Bullet is a lot faster and flies higher, That offsets its lack of maneuverability.

Quote:
Also, can the DH-5 and the Lewis gun armed Nieuports make the list as separate entries, or is there no real difference between the Lewis and Vickers armed Nieuports?


The Nieuport is the Lewis gun version. The Vickers gun (Hotchkiss for the French) was inferior and there were very few of them. The Nieuports are in the French table. I put the DH-5 in

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5155
Location: EGUD
That Camel/150 has an astonishingly good rating - the fact that it took a Fury to clearly exceed it suggest that the handling must have been awful to see it out of service so soon!

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
pdf27 wrote:
That Camel/150 has an astonishingly good rating - the fact that it took a Fury to clearly exceed it suggest that the handling must have been awful to see it out of service so soon!


The Grebe and the Gamecock are the interesting ones in this respect; they're very close to the 150hp Camel and were also notorious for killing their pilots. Of the 90 Gamecocks operated by the RAF, 22 were lost in landing or spin accidents in four years. They came into service in the 1923 to 1926 era. Those two paralleled the Siskin and the Bulldog in service, both of which were built in much larger numbers than the Grebe/Gamecock, and both of which represented a drop in rating. It's tempting to suggest that the Siskin/Bulldog represented the ranking level that matched technology relatively safely while the Grebe/Gamecock represented the effort to top out performance at the expense of safety.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
Weren't most Camel losses in training new pilots, not actual combat?

Does anybody have any information on how many older, experienced pilots were lost converting to it?

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
Weren't most Camel losses in training new pilots, not actual combat?


My understanding was the Camel was consciously trying to kill its pilot all the time. The combination of being tail-heavy and all its weight concentrated in a small part of the aircraft along with the vicious torque from the rotary engine was . . . . unhealthy.

Quote:
Does anybody have any information on how many older, experienced pilots were lost converting to it?


I haven't got that data but I'd love to know it.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
Weren't most Camel losses in training new pilots, not actual combat?


My understanding was the Camel was consciously trying to kill its pilot all the time. The combination of being tail-heavy and all its weight concentrated in a small part of the aircraft along with the vicious torque from the rotary engine was . . . . unhealthy.


I thought all WWI aircraft up to the D.VII were doing their best to kill their pilots. The D.VII really seemed to like them, what with the very nice handling characteristics and good stall recovery.

Francis Urquhart wrote:
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
Does anybody have any information on how many older, experienced pilots were lost converting to it?


I haven't got that data but I'd love to know it.


I can make a guess, thanks to the amazing folk at http://www.airhistory.org.uk/rfc/aircraft.html, who have done OUTSTANDING work combing through the records of WWI.

From the compliation of struck off charges of (mostly) the RFC/RAF in France (http://www.airhistory.org.uk/rfc/aircraft.html), we can guess at operational losses in France, and have an estimate of the number of pilots killed.

2365 Camels are listed on the struck-off lists (IE, aircraft that could not be returned to service) for the RFC/RAF in France. Of those, 545 pilots went missing, 4 were identified as PoWs, 136 were killed, 207 injured, 1041 were ok, 223 do not have a fate listed for the crew, and 210 do not have a crew listed. So, a good WAG for all Camel pilots killed in France is 793 (all killed, all missing, and half of no reported fate). That may be pretty high, since I counted all the missing as killed. Other sources put total killed in Camels at 413 in combat, 385 in "accidents," 307 POWs and 189 wounded. If I cut the missing in half, I get a WAG of 520 killed in France.

Of the causes for loss, 235 of 2365 report being on a practice or a test (18%). I figure that's a good indication of experiences pilots having issues in practice. Of those, 5 pilots went missing, 42 were injured, 238 survived landing, 59 were killed and 39 didn't report the fate of the pilot.

So, a good floor WAG for pilots killed by the Camel after training in France, on non-combat missions is 84 (all killed, all missing, and half of no reported fate).

Official practice losses correspond to about 10% of all operational losses, the pilot was killed in 22% of all practice losses, and deaths from practice correspond to 16% of total estimated deaths in a Camel in France. If we accept that all 385 accidents were training kills, then 22% of all accidental deaths in a Camel were in training in France, after being posted to a squadron.

When I get more time, I can crank the numbers for other British aircraft and see what I get.

The Business wouldn't happen to need a statistician, would it?

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
The Business wouldn't happen to need a statistician, would it?

Actually, yes. We've got a vacancy coming up in the next few months. Be warned though, last vacancy we had, brought in over 300 applicants most of whom were hopelessly overqualified and ready to accept a BIG step down in salaries.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
The Business wouldn't happen to need a statistician, would it?

Actually, yes. We've got a vacancy coming up in the next few months. Be warned though, last vacancy we had, brought in over 300 applicants most of whom were hopelessly overqualified and ready to accept a BIG step down in salaries.


Doesn't surprise me. Sounds like anybody applying for anything these days.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
Ok, took a whole lot less work than I thought.

For this exercise, killed refers to anyone with a +, DoI, or DoW next to their name. Basically, the plane and the body of the pilot was recovered by the Allies. To account for bodies not recovered, we WAG total killed as Killed+(Missing/2)+(Unknown Fate/2). Injured was defined as any pilot noted as 'inj', 'wounded' (any kind), 'slight' (ie, any slight injury), 'cut' (any kind) or 'bruised' (any kind). OK was any pilot noted as 'ok', 'shaken' (any kind) or 'rescued'. Training was defined as any loss noted to occur during 'practice' or a 'test'.

The following data only applies to the British and the Commonwealth, and generally only applies to aircraft in France assigned to the BEF. We don't have data on Italy, Salonika or Palestine, nor do we have numbers for the Americans, the Belgians or the French.

Here's the breakdown on pilot fate, for all aircraft reported struck off:
Aircraft Type No Crew OK Injured PoW Missing Reported
Killed
Fate
Unknown
WAG for killed Total
Aircraft Lost
- 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 8
AW 56 470 41 0 35 52 62 101 716
AW (Experimental) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Avro 1 5 21 0 0 44 11 50 82
Avro (mod to 5str) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Avro 504K 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
BAT Basilisk 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
BE12 9 54 20 0 25 7 20 30 135
BE12a 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4
BE2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
BE2b 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
BE2c 42 168 36 0 77 28 98 116 449
BE2c (new wing sect) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
BE2c/e 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
BE2d 15 59 10 0 23 18 25 42 150
BE2e 25 164 48 0 24 56 24 80 341
BE2e (2c fus) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
BE2f 0 8 0 0 3 1 1 3 13
BE2g 0 29 5 0 9 8 5 15 56
Beatty Pusher 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 5
Bristol 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Bristol F2B 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Bristol Fighter 72 517 71 1 207 76 72 216 1016
Bristol Scout 1 21 8 0 3 0 9 6 42
Bristol mono 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
Caquet Balloon 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4
Caudron 0 1 9 0 0 1 1 2 12
Curtiss 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 4
Curtiss JN-3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
DH 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
DH Fighter 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
DH Scout 4 105 30 0 40 19 20 49 218
DH1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
DH10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
DH10a 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
DH2 2 7 2 0 1 3 5 6 20
DH4 60 501 33 0 168 81 45 188 888
DH5 2 166 44 0 30 24 18 48 284
DH6 3 1 1 0 0 13 0 13 18
DH9 48 408 48 0 206 43 79 186 832
DH9a 11 91 3 0 3 2 3 5 113
FE 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 5
FE2a 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 5
FE2b 75 473 81 1 140 68 63 170 901
FE2b (Pom Pom) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
FE2b (pom-pom) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
FE2b pom-pom 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
FE2c 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6
FE2d 5 79 21 0 44 10 20 42 179
FE8 3 67 28 0 13 10 8 21 129
Fokker DVII 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Grahame-White 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Handley Page 8 27 4 0 4 2 8 8 53
Handley Page O/100 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 5
Handley Page O/400 5 29 3 0 2 5 13 13 57
Handley Page V/1500 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Henri Farman 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Henry Farman 0 6 1 0 0 0 2 1 9
LVG 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
MF Longhorn 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
MF SH 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
MF Shorthorn 0 0 22 0 0 29 0 29 51
Martinsyde 4 21 15 0 40 7 46 50 133
Maurice Farman 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Maurice Farman SH 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Morane 0 1 2 0 5 2 1 5 11
Morane Biplane 1 22 3 0 4 2 12 10 44
Morane Bullet 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 4
Morane L Parasol 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Morane N 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2
Morane Parasol 12 57 9 0 7 8 19 21 112
Morane Scout 0 10 2 0 3 2 5 6 22
Nieuport 0 7 4 0 3 3 4 7 21
Nieuport 16 1 9 4 0 2 0 1 2 17
Nieuport 17 8 45 12 0 36 5 2 24 108
Nieuport 17a 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Nieuport 17bis 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Nieuport 23 4 51 10 0 38 6 3 27 112
Nieuport 24 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 2 6
Nieuport 27 3 31 8 0 20 6 3 18 71
Nieuport 2str 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 3 7
Nieuport Biplane 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 1 8
Nieuport Scout 10 94 32 0 49 9 29 48 223
RE5 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 3
RE7 4 14 1 0 3 0 7 5 29
RE8 248 1218 166 3 143 242 103 365 2123
SE5 16 112 23 0 37 6 26 38 220
SE5a 110 943 157 0 304 52 69 239 1635
SPAD 21 102 34 0 72 18 20 64 267
Short 184 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 4 10
Short 2str 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Sopwith 3 7 1 0 1 0 6 4 18
Sopwith 1str 3 27 9 0 18 2 5 14 64
Sopwith 2str 8 256 11 0 75 24 16 70 390
Sopwith 9400S 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Sopwith Baby 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2
Sopwith Camel 210 1041 206 4 545 136 223 520 2365
Sopwith Dolphin 26 167 51 0 48 22 8 50 322
Sopwith F1 13 84 15 0 68 16 37 69 233
Sopwith Pup 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 8 16
Sopwith Salamander 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Sopwith Scout 33 48 32 0 47 14 70 73 244
Sopwith Snipe 6 59 9 0 8 6 4 12 92
Sopwith Strutter 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 2 8
Sopwith Torpedo 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sopwith Triplane 1 14 3 0 1 2 50 28 71
Sopwith bomber 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3
Tarrant Tabor 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Vickers 2 0 3 0 4 1 4 5 14
Vickers FB 2 12 1 0 2 1 1 3 19
Vickers FB (1916) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Vickers Fighter 0 8 2 0 0 0 1 1 11
Vickers Scout 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Vickers Vimy 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Voisin 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
Total 1213 7953 1440 10 2649 1221 1436 3264 15922


And here are the numbers for aircraft losses on training missions in France - note these do not include losses during flight school back in the UK or elsewhere:
Aircraft Type No Crew OK Injured Missing Reported
Killed
Fate
Unknown
WAG for killed Total Aircraft Lost
On "Practice" Missions
- 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
AW 2 55 12 0 7 9 12 85
Avro 0 0 2 0 6 4 8 12
Avro 504K 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
BAT Basilisk 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
BE12 0 16 6 0 2 2 3 26
BE2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
BE2c 0 43 8 0 4 20 14 75
BE2c/e 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
BE2d 0 12 1 3 1 4 5 21
BE2e 0 27 11 1 12 5 15 56
BE2e (2c fus) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
BE2f 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
BE2g 0 6 2 1 0 2 2 11
Bristol Fighter 0 93 17 1 24 18 34 153
Bristol Scout 0 3 5 0 0 4 2 12
Bristol mono 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
DH Scout 0 20 3 0 4 4 6 31
DH2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
DH4 0 125 8 2 13 6 17 154
DH5 0 33 8 1 9 3 11 54
DH6 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 3
DH9 0 71 6 0 8 10 13 95
DH9a 0 18 0 0 1 0 1 19
FE2b 0 55 8 0 16 12 22 91
FE2b (Pom Pom) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
FE2d 0 11 4 0 0 2 1 17
FE8 0 7 4 0 1 0 1 12
Fokker DVII 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Handley Page 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 7
Handley Page O/400 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 4
Handley Page V/1500 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
LVG 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
MF Shorthorn 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 6
Martinsyde 0 8 2 0 3 13 10 26
Morane Biplane 0 2 1 0 1 2 2 6
Morane Bullet 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Morane Parasol 0 11 1 2 2 4 5 20
Morane Scout 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3
Nieuport 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 5
Nieuport 16 0 6 2 0 0 1 1 9
Nieuport 17 0 11 4 0 3 0 3 18
Nieuport 23 0 11 1 0 2 1 3 15
Nieuport 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Nieuport 27 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 4
Nieuport 2str 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 3
Nieuport Biplane 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Nieuport Scout 0 27 8 0 6 5 9 46
RE7 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 3
RE8 0 156 24 1 37 16 46 234
SE5 0 28 6 0 2 4 4 40
SE5a 0 190 31 0 17 11 23 249
SPAD 0 20 4 1 8 5 11 38
Sopwith 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 3
Sopwith 1str 0 5 2 0 1 3 3 11
Sopwith 2str 0 67 4 0 7 5 10 83
Sopwith Camel 1 238 41 5 59 39 81 383
Sopwith Dolphin 0 32 11 1 11 1 12 56
Sopwith F1 0 20 3 1 7 7 11 38
Sopwith Pup 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 3
Sopwith Salamander 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Sopwith Scout 0 9 11 0 5 4 7 29
Sopwith Snipe 0 30 5 0 4 3 6 42
Sopwith Triplane 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 4
Tarrant Tabor 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Vickers FB 0 7 0 0 1 1 2 9
Total 4 1502 278 20 299 240 429 2343


Here's the kicker - the big table of % losses and % losses in training:
Type Total Aircraft Struck Off Estimated Pilots Killed Aircraft Struck Off in Training Accidents Estimated Pilots Killed in Training % Pilots Killed per Total Aircraft Struck Off % Pilots Killed per Total Aircraft Struck Off in Training % Of Aircraft Struck Off In Training % Of all Pilots Killed In Training
- 8 3 2 1 38% 50% 25% 33%
AW 716 101 85 12 14% 14% 12% 12%
AW (Experimental) 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Avro 82 50 12 8 61% 67% 15% 16%
Avro (mod to 5str) 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Avro 504K 1 1 1 1 100% 100% 100% 100%
BAT Basilisk 1 1 1 1 100% 100% 100% 100%
BE12 135 30 26 3 22% 12% 19% 10%
BE12a 4 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
BE2 2 0 1 0 0% 0% 50% 0%
BE2b 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
BE2c 449 116 75 14 26% 19% 17% 12%
BE2c (new wing sect) 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
BE2c/e 1 0 1 0 0% 0% 100% 0%
BE2d 150 42 21 5 28% 24% 14% 12%
BE2e 341 80 56 15 23% 27% 16% 19%
BE2e (2c fus) 1 0 1 0 0% 0% 100% 0%
BE2f 13 3 1 0 23% 0% 8% 0%
BE2g 56 15 11 2 27% 18% 20% 13%
Beatty Pusher 5 2 0 0 40% 0% 0% 0%
Bristol 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Bristol F2B 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Bristol Fighter 1016 216 153 34 21% 22% 15% 16%
Bristol Scout 42 6 12 2 14% 17% 29% 33%
Bristol mono 3 1 1 1 33% 100% 33% 100%
Caquet Balloon 4 4 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Caudron 12 2 0 0 17% 0% 0% 0%
Curtiss 4 2 0 0 50% 0% 0% 0%
Curtiss JN-3 2 2 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
DH 2 1 0 0 50% 0% 0% 0%
DH Fighter 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
DH Scout 218 49 31 6 22% 19% 14% 12%
DH1 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
DH10 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
DH10a 2 1 0 0 50% 0% 0% 0%
DH2 20 6 1 1 30% 100% 5% 17%
DH4 888 188 154 17 21% 11% 17% 9%
DH5 284 48 54 11 17% 20% 19% 23%
DH6 18 13 3 1 72% 33% 17% 8%
DH9 832 186 95 13 22% 14% 11% 7%
DH9a 113 5 19 1 4% 5% 17% 20%
FE 5 2 0 0 40% 0% 0% 0%
FE2a 5 1 0 0 20% 0% 0% 0%
FE2b 901 170 91 22 19% 24% 10% 13%
FE2b (Pom Pom) 1 0 1 0 0% 0% 100% 0%
FE2b (pom-pom) 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
FE2b pom-pom 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
FE2c 6 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
FE2d 179 42 17 1 23% 6% 9% 2%
FE8 129 21 12 1 16% 8% 9% 5%
Fokker DVII 2 0 1 0 0% 0% 50% 0%
Grahame-White 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Handley Page 53 8 7 1 15% 14% 13% 13%
Handley Page O/100 5 1 0 0 20% 0% 0% 0%
Handley Page O/400 57 13 4 3 23% 75% 7% 23%
Handley Page V/1500 1 1 1 1 100% 100% 100% 100%
Henri Farman 2 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Henry Farman 9 1 0 0 11% 0% 0% 0%
LVG 1 0 1 0 0% 0% 100% 0%
MF Longhorn 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
MF SH 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
MF Shorthorn 51 29 6 1 57% 17% 12% 3%
Martinsyde 133 50 26 10 38% 38% 20% 20%
Maurice Farman 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Maurice Farman SH 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Morane 11 5 0 0 45% 0% 0% 0%
Morane Biplane 44 10 6 2 23% 33% 14% 20%
Morane Bullet 4 1 1 1 25% 100% 25% 100%
Morane L Parasol 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Morane N 2 1 0 0 50% 0% 0% 0%
Morane Parasol 112 21 20 5 19% 25% 18% 24%
Morane Scout 22 6 3 1 27% 33% 14% 17%
Nieuport 21 7 5 1 33% 20% 24% 14%
Nieuport 16 17 2 9 1 12% 11% 53% 50%
Nieuport 17 108 24 18 3 22% 17% 17% 13%
Nieuport 17a 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Nieuport 17bis 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Nieuport 23 112 27 15 3 24% 20% 13% 11%
Nieuport 24 6 2 1 0 33% 0% 17% 0%
Nieuport 27 71 18 4 2 25% 50% 6% 11%
Nieuport 2str 7 3 3 1 43% 33% 43% 33%
Nieuport Biplane 8 1 1 0 13% 0% 13% 0%
Nieuport Scout 223 48 46 9 22% 20% 21% 19%
RE5 3 2 0 0 67% 0% 0% 0%
RE7 29 5 3 1 17% 33% 10% 20%
RE8 2123 365 234 46 17% 20% 11% 13%
SE5 220 38 40 4 17% 10% 18% 11%
SE5a 1635 239 249 23 15% 9% 15% 10%
SPAD 267 64 38 11 24% 29% 14% 17%
Short 184 10 4 0 0 40% 0% 0% 0%
Short 2str 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Sopwith 18 4 3 1 22% 33% 17% 25%
Sopwith 1str 64 14 11 3 22% 27% 17% 21%
Sopwith 2str 390 70 83 10 18% 12% 21% 14%
Sopwith 9400S 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Sopwith Baby 2 1 0 0 50% 0% 0% 0%
Sopwith Camel 2365 520 383 81 22% 21% 16% 16%
Sopwith Dolphin 322 50 56 12 16% 21% 17% 24%
Sopwith F1 233 69 38 11 30% 29% 16% 16%
Sopwith Pup 16 8 3 1 50% 33% 19% 13%
Sopwith Salamander 1 1 1 1 100% 100% 100% 100%
Sopwith Scout 244 73 29 7 30% 24% 12% 10%
Sopwith Snipe 92 12 42 6 13% 14% 46% 50%
Sopwith Strutter 8 2 0 0 25% 0% 0% 0%
Sopwith Torpedo 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Sopwith Triplane 71 28 4 1 39% 25% 6% 4%
Sopwith bomber 3 3 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Tarrant Tabor 1 1 1 1 100% 100% 100% 100%
Vickers 14 5 0 0 36% 0% 0% 0%
Vickers FB 19 3 9 2 16% 22% 47% 67%
Vickers FB (1916) 1 1 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Vickers Fighter 11 1 0 0 9% 0% 0% 0%
Vickers Scout 1 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Vickers Vimy 2 1 0 0 50% 0% 0% 0%
Voisin 2 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
All Aircraft 15922 3285 2343 440 21% 19% 15% 13%


Obviously, there's a lot of data to wade through, and several aircraft have multiple entries or confusing nomenclature. I'll have a cut down table shortly, with conclusions.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
Ok, here's the short version of the table, just covering the main fighters and the B.E.2. I know, it should probably belong in a bomber table done later, but it not being able to handle the Fokker made the Fokker Scourge.

Anyway, here we are.
Fighter Type Total Aircraft
Struck Off
Estimated
Pilots Killed
Aircraft Struck Off
in Training Accidents
Estimated Pilots Killed
in Training Accidents
% Pilots Killed per
Total Aircraft Struck Off
% Pilots Killed
per Total Aircraft
Struck Off in Training
% Of Aircraft
Struck Off In Training
% Of all Pilots
Killed In Training
Airco DH.2 239 56 32 7 23.4% 21.9% 13.4% 12.5%
Airco DH.5 284 48 54 11 16.9% 20.4% 19.0% 22.9%
Bristol F2B 1017 216 153 34 21.2% 22.2% 15.0% 15.7%
Bristol Scout 43 6 12 2 14.0% 16.7% 27.9% 33.3%
Morane-Saulnier Type L 113 22 20 5 19.5% 25.0% 17.7% 22.7%
Morane-Saulnier Type N Bullet 28 8 4 2 28.6% 50.0% 14.3% 25.0%
Nieuport 11/16 240 50 55 9 20.8% 16.4% 22.9% 18.0%
Nieuport 17 2 0 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Nieuport 17/23 222 52 33 6 23.4% 18.2% 14.9% 11.5%
Nieuport 24 6 2 1 0 33.3% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0%
Nieuport 27 71 18 4 2 25.4% 50.0% 5.6% 11.1%
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.12 139 30 26 3 21.6% 11.5% 18.7% 10.0%
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2 1015 256 167 35 25.2% 21.0% 16.5% 13.7%
Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2 1094 212 109 23 19.4% 21.1% 10.0% 10.8%
Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.8 134 22 12 1 16.4% 8.3% 9.0% 4.5%
Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5 1855 276 289 27 14.9% 9.3% 15.6% 9.8%
SPAD S.VII 221 54 32 9 24.4% 28.1% 14.5% 16.7%
SPAD S.XIII 44 10 5 3 22.7% 60.0% 11.4% 30.0%
Sopwith 11/2 strutter 413 75 86 10 18.2% 11.6% 20.8% 13.3%
Sopwith Camel 2598 589 421 92 22.7% 21.9% 16.2% 15.6%
Sopwith Dolphin 322 50 56 12 15.5% 21.4% 17.4% 24.0%
Sopwith Pup 324 94 43 11 29.0% 25.6% 13.3% 11.7%
Sopwith Snipe 92 12 42 6 13.0% 14.3% 45.7% 50.0%
Sopwith Triplane 71 28 4 1 39.4% 25.0% 5.6% 3.6%
Vickers F.B.5 45 9 9 2 20.0% 22.2% 20.0% 22.2%
Total for fighters 10632 2195 1670 313 20.6% 18.7% 15.7% 14.3%


Looking at the table, the proportion of pilots killed in training accidents, compared to all pilots killed, the Camel is above the average (15.6% vs 14.3%), but not terribly so. Same with the loss of aircraft in training to total aircraft. The Camel's training deaths to overall deaths are lower than the early single seat puller fighters, but higher than the aircraft it replaced (D.H.2, Nieuport 17, Sopwith Pup, Sopwith Triplane). Conversely, the immediate predicessors to the Camel have higher aircraft losses due to training. The Camel has higher training losses than the SE5a, but is comparable to the Dolphin. The Snipe is probably safer than the Camel, but there's not enough data to bear that out.

Granted, we need numbers in theater to calculate loss rates and accident rates, but I think I have a good enough answer to your question: in the hands of somebody who already knew how to fly fighters, the Camel wasn't much more dangerous to it's pilot than anything else.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5748
To really complete this, we need to have some kind of idea what % of flying hours training and the other phases of pilotage use. If, for example, training is about 10% of a typical pilot's experience, then 18% loss is bad. If it's 24%, then it's not so dire.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
Looking at the table, the proportion of pilots killed in training accidents, compared to all pilots killed, the Camel is above the average (15.6% vs 14.3%), but not terribly so. Same with the loss of aircraft in training to total aircraft. The Camel's training deaths to overall deaths are lower than the early single seat puller fighters, but higher than the aircraft it replaced (D.H.2, Nieuport 17, Sopwith Pup, Sopwith Triplane). Conversely, the immediate predicessors to the Camel have higher aircraft losses due to training. The Camel has higher training losses than the SE5a, but is comparable to the Dolphin. The Snipe is probably safer than the Camel, but there's not enough data to bear that out. Granted, we need numbers in theater to calculate loss rates and accident rates, but I think I have a good enough answer to your question: in the hands of somebody who already knew how to fly fighters, the Camel wasn't much more dangerous to it's pilot than anything else.


Wow, I owe you a bottle of single malt. That's fantastic. There's a wealth of data there that we could use for all sorts of things. That's am excellent job, one that will keep me thinking for weeks.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
Looking at the table, the proportion of pilots killed in training accidents, compared to all pilots killed, the Camel is above the average (15.6% vs 14.3%), but not terribly so. Same with the loss of aircraft in training to total aircraft. The Camel's training deaths to overall deaths are lower than the early single seat puller fighters, but higher than the aircraft it replaced (D.H.2, Nieuport 17, Sopwith Pup, Sopwith Triplane). Conversely, the immediate predicessors to the Camel have higher aircraft losses due to training. The Camel has higher training losses than the SE5a, but is comparable to the Dolphin. The Snipe is probably safer than the Camel, but there's not enough data to bear that out. Granted, we need numbers in theater to calculate loss rates and accident rates, but I think I have a good enough answer to your question: in the hands of somebody who already knew how to fly fighters, the Camel wasn't much more dangerous to it's pilot than anything else.


Wow, I owe you a bottle of single malt. That's fantastic. There's a wealth of data there that we could use for all sorts of things. That's am excellent job, one that will keep me thinking for weeks.


Thanks. I just crunched the data. The real lion's share of the work was done by www.airhistory.org.uk finding it all.

They have tracked down almost all of the serials of aircraft for the British for WWI, so it's possible to get what proportion of aircraft were write-offs, and why, just with a lot of work tying serials together.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
KDahm wrote:
To really complete this, we need to have some kind of idea what % of flying hours training and the other phases of pilotage use. If, for example, training is about 10% of a typical pilot's experience, then 18% loss is bad. If it's 24%, then it's not so dire.


Sorta.

The oft cited figure is 90:8:2 - 90% of casualties are from pilot deficiencies (which roughly looks to be 60% physical and 30% skill), 8% aircraft deficiencies, and 2% enemy action. That is apparently based on an analysis of British 1914-1915 losses - where it came from is unknown. Using the stats from Hobson (Airmen died in the Great War, 1914 - 1918) on total RFC and RNAS killed, it's 59% KIA and 41% DWF (died while flying, which covers pretty much anything that killed you other than the Germans killing you while you were in the cockpit). Hobson reports 2266 KIA and 1554 killed while flying not from enemy action, and based on the RFC struck off lists, my WAG is 2195 killed in France, of which 313 were due to training ops. We can probably cross-reference the two lists and identify which of the not noted as killed really died, and which noted as a WAG kill survived (need more money and time for that). But, the error should not differ by aircraft type, assuming we have enough of an N.

Certainly, if our outcome of interest is "risk of death due to training" as an absolute measure, yes, we need a flight hour estimate. But if our interest is whether the Camel was deadlier to experienced pilots than other fighters, no, not really.

If the aircraft was more likely to kill an experienced pilot than others, the key value is the % of pilots/crewman killed per training accident that wrote off the aircraft. There, the Camel is solidly in the middle of the pack - the D.H.2 was equal, the Bristol F2B, the SPAD S.VII, and the Pup all had hgher relative fatality rates in training ops than the Camel among experienced personnel, while the Nieuport 11/16, D.H.5, Nieuport 17/23, B.E.2/B.E.12, F.E.2., Strutter, S.E.5/S.E.5a, Dolphin and Snipe were safer. We can't really conclude about the Triplane, the SPAD S.XIII, the F.B.5, F.E.8, the Morane-Saulniers, Nieuport 24 or 27, or the Bristol Scout because of insufficient numbers of crashes (probably due to lack of earlier records).

Of those, the only really important diferences (ie, greater than 5%) with the Camel are the Nieuport 11/16, Strutter, Snipe and S.E.5a.

Of the fighter planes with sufficient N, it looks like the SE5/SE5a was the safest - ie, the plane least likely to kill you. So it's pretty sound to conclude that the Camel's fearsome reputation as a man killer is really due to pilots who were still learning to fly, and possibly because it's contemporary (the S.E.5a) was a whole lot safer. Certainly the Camel wasn't that much more dangerous to an experienced pilot than the B.E.2, which was what most learned how to fly on.

So, we must amend our conclusion a little - the Camel was no more dangerous to an experienced pilot than most of it's predicessors (the exception being the Nieuport), or most Spowith products (except the Snipe and Strutter), but was more dangerous than it's contemporary, the S.E.5a.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
A musing: do the fatality rates on the F2B (and others of similar compliment) account for the fact that it had a two-man crew, and thus, in a 'total crack-up' would automatically have a 100% higher fatality rate per accident?

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
The Bushranger wrote:
A musing: do the fatality rates on the F2B (and others of similar compliment) account for the fact that it had a two-man crew, and thus, in a 'total crack-up' would automatically have a 100% higher fatality rate per accident?


Nope. I just counted the two crew as a single person. It lowers the total KIA count, but normalized the findings to a single seat fighter.

Basically, I used the find command in SAS to identify fate, based on the marginal notes. The algorithm identified missing, then injured, then killed, then OK, then PoWs, so, if anything, it is biased toward reducing the fatality rate for a two-seater, since ok came after killed.

I did a quick check on the two seat fighters.
For the Bristol F2B, 3 crew had missing/killed results, 23 crew had injured/killed and 6 were ok/killed (KIA underascertained by 6).
For the B.E.2, 1 crew had missing/killed results, 37 crew had injured/killed and 7 were ok/killed (KIA underascertained by 7).
For the F.E.2, 0 crew had missing/killed results, 34 crew had injured/killed and 22 were ok/killed (KIA underascertained by 22).
For the F.E.8, 0 crew had missing/killed results, 0 crew had injured/killed and 1 were ok/killed (KIA underascertained by 1).
For the Sopwith Strutter, 1 crew had missing/killed results, 9 crew had injured/killed and 9 were ok/killed (KIA underascertained by 9).
For the F.B.5, 0 crew had missing/killed results, 1 crew had injured/killed and 0 were ok/killed (KIA underascertained by 0).

So, the model underascertained 45 fatalities in two seaters. That probably explains why the kill percentages were lower for the two seaters.

It wasn't perfect, but it was the best I could do in two hours. I'll correct the algorithm so that any crew killed predominates (normalizing it to a single seat fighter), and recompute.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5748
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
KDahm wrote:
To really complete this, we need to have some kind of idea what % of flying hours training and the other phases of pilotage use. If, for example, training is about 10% of a typical pilot's experience, then 18% loss is bad. If it's 24%, then it's not so dire.


Sorta.

The oft cited figure is 90:8:2 - 90% of casualties are from pilot deficiencies (which roughly looks to be 60% physical and 30% skill), 8% aircraft deficiencies, and 2% enemy action. That is apparently based on an analysis of British 1914-1915 losses - where it came from is unknown. Using the stats from Hobson (Airmen died in the Great War, 1914 - 1918) on total RFC and RNAS killed, it's 59% KIA and 41% DWF (died while flying, which covers pretty much anything that killed you other than the Germans killing you while you were in the cockpit). Hobson reports 2266 KIA and 1554 killed while flying not from enemy action, and based on the RFC struck off lists, my WAG is 2195 killed in France, of which 313 were due to training ops. We can probably cross-reference the two lists and identify which of the not noted as killed really died, and which noted as a WAG kill survived (need more money and time for that). But, the error should not differ by aircraft type, assuming we have enough of an N.

Certainly, if our outcome of interest is "risk of death due to training" as an absolute measure, yes, we need a flight hour estimate. But if our interest is whether the Camel was deadlier to experienced pilots than other fighters, no, not really.

If the aircraft was more likely to kill an experienced pilot than others, the key value is the % of pilots/crewman killed per training accident that wrote off the aircraft. There, the Camel is solidly in the middle of the pack - the D.H.2 was equal, the Bristol F2B, the SPAD S.VII, and the Pup all had hgher relative fatality rates in training ops than the Camel among experienced personnel, while the Nieuport 11/16, D.H.5, Nieuport 17/23, B.E.2/B.E.12, F.E.2., Strutter, S.E.5/S.E.5a, Dolphin and Snipe were safer. We can't really conclude about the Triplane, the SPAD S.XIII, the F.B.5, F.E.8, the Morane-Saulniers, Nieuport 24 or 27, or the Bristol Scout because of insufficient numbers of crashes (probably due to lack of earlier records).

Of those, the only really important diferences (ie, greater than 5%) with the Camel are the Nieuport 11/16, Strutter, Snipe and S.E.5a.

Of the fighter planes with sufficient N, it looks like the SE5/SE5a was the safest - ie, the plane least likely to kill you. So it's pretty sound to conclude that the Camel's fearsome reputation as a man killer is really due to pilots who were still learning to fly, and possibly because it's contemporary (the S.E.5a) was a whole lot safer. Certainly the Camel wasn't that much more dangerous to an experienced pilot than the B.E.2, which was what most learned how to fly on.

So, we must amend our conclusion a little - the Camel was no more dangerous to an experienced pilot than most of it's predicessors (the exception being the Nieuport), or most Spowith products (except the Snipe and Strutter), but was more dangerous than it's contemporary, the S.E.5a.

Except that pilots killed per training accident results in the assumption that a training accident occurred. To really see how likely the plane is to contribute to the pilot death, the numbers have to include some measure for how much flying occurred for the plane type, ideally split between training and non-training.

A plane which has a low accident rate, but has a high number of pilot deaths per accident, may be a very safe plane to fly but faster and more fragile than others. A plane that has a high accident rate, but rarely kills it's pilot may have some nasty flight characteristics but is heavy enough to protect the pilot. Flight hours training/non-training would be one way of getting an idea, whether tracked by plane type or by pilot. Numbers of plane produced/shot down/crashed for other reasons would be another way. There may be insufficient data for any of those.

This is not to say anything bad about the work you've done on this, nor the wonderful work at www.airhistory.org.uk in collecting the data. I'm just trying to get a more complete picture. You know engineers - when one says that more data would be worthless, it's time to check his pulse.

BTW - Will you be sending this to www.airhistory.org.uk?

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
Ok, here is the edited table:

Fighter Type Total Aircraft
Struck Off
Estimated
Pilots Killed
Aircraft Struck Off
in Training Accidents
Estimated Pilots Killed
in Training Accidents
% Pilots Killed per
Total Aircraft Struck Off
% Pilots Killed
per Total Aircraft
Struck Off in Training
% Of Aircraft
Struck Off In Training
% Of all Pilots
Killed In Training
Airco DH.2 239 56 32 7 23.4% 21.9% 13.4% 12.5%
Airco DH.5 284 48 54 11 16.9% 20.4% 19.0% 22.9%
Bristol F2B 1017 222 153 35 21.8% 22.9% 15.0% 15.8%
Bristol Scout 43 6 12 2 14.0% 16.7% 27.9% 33.3%
Morane-Saulnier Type L 113 22 20 5 19.5% 25.0% 17.7% 22.7%
Morane-Saulnier Type N Bullet 28 8 4 2 28.6% 50.0% 14.3% 25.0%
Nieuport 11/16 240 50 55 9 20.8% 16.4% 22.9% 18.0%
Nieuport 17/23 224 52 34 6 23.2% 17.6% 15.2% 11.5%
Nieuport 24 6 2 1 0 33.3% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0%
Nieuport 27 71 18 4 2 25.4% 50.0% 5.6% 11.1%
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.12 139 30 26 3 21.6% 11.5% 18.7% 10.0%
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2 1015 263 167 36 25.9% 21.6% 16.5% 13.7%
Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2 1094 234 109 23 21.4% 21.1% 10.0% 9.8%
Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.8 134 23 12 1 17.2% 8.3% 9.0% 4.3%
Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5 1855 276 289 27 14.9% 9.3% 15.6% 9.8%
SPAD S.VII 221 54 32 9 24.4% 28.1% 14.5% 16.7%
SPAD S.XIII 44 10 5 3 22.7% 60.0% 11.4% 30.0%
Sopwith 11/2 strutter 413 84 86 10 20.3% 11.6% 20.8% 11.9%
Sopwith Camel 2598 589 421 92 22.7% 21.9% 16.2% 15.6%
Sopwith Dolphin 322 50 56 12 15.5% 21.4% 17.4% 24.0%
Sopwith Pup 324 94 43 11 29.0% 25.6% 13.3% 11.7%
Sopwith Snipe 92 12 42 6 13.0% 14.3% 45.7% 50.0%
Sopwith Triplane 71 28 4 1 39.4% 25.0% 5.6% 3.6%
Vickers F.B.5 45 9 9 2 20.0% 22.2% 20.0% 22.2%
Total 10632 2240 1670 315 21.1% 18.9% 15.7% 14.1%


The stats for the two seat fighters changed slightly, reflecting more "killed," but it didn't change the % killed in a training op writeoff much, and actually decreased the % killed in training to killed overall, since the denominator of total killed went up, while the number killed in training ops didn't.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Last edited by Johnnie Lyle on Wed Sep 23, 2015 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group