Survivability in Combat

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Rasimus wrote:

It's impossible to make such a comparison on the Air Force side of
Korea, as the only
piston fighter they used for ground attack was the Mustang, and
there's absolutely no
doubt that a jet is superior to a water-cooled engine in damage
tolerance. I've got
the USAF fighter statistical data for the Korean war, and the
Mustang's loss rate is
far higher than either of the two USAF jet fighters that were
largely dedicated to
ground attack. Here's the Korean War total combat sorties / losses
credited to
ground fire / % loss rate (credited) to ground fire per sortie for
the F-51, F-80
(centrifugal) and F-84 (axial). I've left out the losses credited
to aircraft and
unknown causes:

F-51: 62,607 / 172 / 0.27%

F-80: 98,515 / 113 / 0.11%

F-84: 86,408 / 122 / 0.14%


It should be possible to compare the loss rate of the A36 (ground
attack version of the P51 in WW2) with the loss rate of the P47 in WW2
to extrapolate the possible loss rate of a hypothetical F47 of the
Korean war. In this way we could compare this hypothetical F47
radial with the above Jets.

"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
...

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Rasimus wrote:

It's impossible to make such a comparison on the Air Force side of
Korea, as the only
piston fighter they used for ground attack was the Mustang, and
there's absolutely no
doubt that a jet is superior to a water-cooled engine in damage
tolerance. I've got
the USAF fighter statistical data for the Korean war, and the
Mustang's loss rate is
far higher than either of the two USAF jet fighters that were
largely dedicated to
ground attack. Here's the Korean War total combat sorties / losses
credited to
ground fire / % loss rate (credited) to ground fire per sortie for
the F-51, F-80
(centrifugal) and F-84 (axial). I've left out the losses credited
to aircraft and
unknown causes:

F-51: 62,607 / 172 / 0.27%

F-80: 98,515 / 113 / 0.11%

F-84: 86,408 / 122 / 0.14%

Guy, these numbers do not necessarily support your contention that,
"...there's absolutely no
doubt that a jet is superior to a water-cooled engine in damage tolerance."
You are entering the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" arena with that claim
supported by these numbers. How can you be assured that the numbers purely
reflect a result of "damage tolerance"? Could they not also be influenced by
other factors, such as the increased attack speed (especially in the case of
the F-84) versus the P-51? Being a more difficult target to hit may have
been as much a factor in the jets' better survivability rateas the issue of
"damage tolerance" was. I doubt that your claim is errant in terms of the
water-cooled engine being likely more susceptable to damage from ground
fire, but the numbers you present are not solely dependent upon the factor
of "damage tolerance".

Brooks



It should be possible to compare the loss rate of the A36 (ground
attack version of the P51 in WW2) with the loss rate of the P47 in WW2
to extrapolate the possible loss rate of a hypothetical F47 of the
Korean war. In this way we could compare this hypothetical F47
radial with the above Jets.

Subject: Survivability in Combat
From: "The Enlightenment"
Date: 12/8/03 3:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: ggZAb.44513$aT.5240@news-ser

It should be possible to compare the loss rate of the A36 (ground
attack version of the P51 in WW2) with the loss rate of the P47 in WW2
to extrapolate the possible loss rate of a hypothetical F47 of the
Korean war. In this way we could compare this hypothetical F47
radial with the above Jets.



Now that would be interesting. But leave out the P-51. It didn't have
radials.

Regards,

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

Subject: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/7/03 10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
"B2431" wrote in message
...

Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I
also
see nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a
response.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Just for general information;

It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.
These
things can be offered in an atmosphere of friendship by someone
voluntarily,
but not asked for. When this is done, it's almost always done in an
atmosphere of hostility. You really need go no further than Mr. Ford's
remark, "Dudley, there is something fishy about you" to ascertain this.
The
inference is that if the person being "asked" to state these things
doesn't
respond to the poster's demand, that there is something to hide. The
reality
however, is that only idiots post these "requests", and only idiots
allow
themselves to be drawn into this scenario. These "requests" as you can
see,
attract the usual posters who either like or dislike either the poster
or
the person being "nailed". It's a losing proposition for everyone, and I
have no intention of getting involved too deeply with it, as aside from
a
few people who have become good internet friends on the group through
the
years, I don't really give a rat's ass who on Usenet believes what about
what .
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may or
may
not have flown, or for whom, or with whom. The fact that you use that tag
line
infers that you've done something to feel entitled to call yourself one.
The
initial request seemed rather innocent to me, and I didn't detect any
hostility
in it. Unfortunately, you managed to overreact in your obviously defensive
response to it and stirred up the **** storm that ensued.

But that's another argument for another time. (^-^)))

George Z.
C-45, C-46, C-47, C-53, C-54, EC-121, UC-78, T-6, B-25 and enjoyed every
minute
in every one of them, and apologize for none because that's what I was
ordered
to do and I did the best I could and am here to tell you about it.

PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the
military,
then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....so, please tell me it
isn't
so, and let's move on to something else.

Well, I'll tell you this much. Yes I've flown fighters; not that it matters
a hill of beans. The Fellowship was a very real organization , not that that
matters much either, since it's not me who is making such a fuss about it ;
so unless the tag line is saying something to you through mental telepathy
that I wouldn't be saying myself......yes, let's indeed move on to something
more intelligent shall we?
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired


Dudley,

Never suffer fools gladly.

Regards,


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

Dan, he's said that he's flown fighters, and that the Fellowship is a real
organization......the only thing notable by its absence is his identification
with any of the military branches, foreign or domestic. But, since he doesn't
want to talk about it any more, my personal guess is that he was a test pilot
for Chance-Vought or Republic or some such and is a little embarrassed by his
failure to wear the uniform. Google has found a lot of stuff with his name on
it, but absent in every one of them is any reference to military service.

My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly trying
to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us become aware of
what he'd rather we not know about him.

In any case, he's quite obviously quite knowledgable about flying fighter
aircraft and, phony or not, has much to offer his fellow members of RAM on those
subjects, and it would undoubtedly not be in our best interests to run him off
for that minor lack. After all, we can't all be heroes like us Troop Carrier
pilots, can we? (^-^)))

That said, shall we move on?

George Z.

Cub Driver wrote:
It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.

Sorry, I'd never heard of this rule!

Must be an outgrowth of The New Yorker cartoon: "On the internet,
nobody knows you're a dog."

I was just curious, Dudley. Honest to God! I wanted to know about the
Fighter Pilot Fellowship.

Is Ed Rasimus a member?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Sorry Art, but I have to go with jets, and fast ones at that. The
record is pretty solid during Korea and Vietnam, jets were a LOT more
survivable than piston - powered aircraft. In Vietnam, the good old
A-1 had the highest loss rate of any USAF combat aircraft.

As far as speed, the A-10 had a much higher loss rate than the F-16
during Desert Storm. Of course, so did the Av-8, due to the
vulnerability of the Harriers engine to handheld SAMS!

Of course, a LOT of this has to do with the mission being flown, etc.
The only reason for going slow is to find and hit a target better - if
the weapon system allows you to do that at highter speeds and
altitudes - then faster is better. It is also a lot more expensive,
and not always necessary, and there will always be a need for
something like the A-10 to get down and dirty - I sure wish they would
make a C model with more grunt and some decent avionics!

R-2800s are wonderful - and so are J-79s - and so is no engine at all,
sometimes!

Kirk

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.

Sorry, I'd never heard of this rule!

It's not a rule. It's accepted protocol.


Must be an outgrowth of The New Yorker cartoon: "On the internet,
nobody knows you're a dog."

I was just curious, Dudley. Honest to God! I wanted to know about the
Fighter Pilot Fellowship.

Is Ed Rasimus a member?

Thank you Dan. I appreciate the honest, and I believe straight forward and
friendly request for information. If I misread your intent before I
apologize. I will say however that it might be better in the future if you
ask for this type of information privately instead of in the public forum
and possibly consider not asking for it in the middle of a thread discussing
a totally different issue.
Now if I can just get past your "Dudley, there's something fishy about you"
remark in connection with your initial request , I might begin to believe
you have a genuine interest in the Fellowship.

I will mention my signature tag line if I may, since it seems to be
bothering several people on the group including yourself, as you have
expressed this sentiment in your prior post. I believe you used the exact
phrasing
"We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot Fellowship".
Since I really don't want people to be "awestruck" by my use of the term
"fighter pilot", and since I am a civilian, I will allow myself a friendly
response to this since it does show some ambiguity and could possibly be
confusing to those not familiar with me and my "history".
The tag is in no way meant to impress or imply anything other than it's
single purpose; that's why I don't put "President 1971- 1985 IFPF" on the
line any longer. The tag is there because from time to time people who
actually DO remember the Fellowship will happen on a post of mine and
inquire about the health or whereabouts of an ex member of the association.
I receive letters from time to time that address this purpose.
As for the Fellowship itself; It was formed in 1971. It lasted until 1985
when we disbanded for the usual reasons organizations like ours disband. It
took a great deal of time and effort to keep it going, and none of us really
had enough of either to spend on it.
Our charter membership in 71 consisted of people from both the military and
civilian high performance aircraft communities. Many of us were from the
demonstration community. Many of the major military aerobatic teams in the
free world signed on.
The Thunderbirds were members, as were the Blues, The Red Arrows, and The
Snowbirds. Many professional organizations were members. The Naval Test
Pilot School is representative of our service professional charter
membership.
Individual members were either military, or if civilian pilots like myself,
mostly from the research, science, engineering, and test communities. ALL
of us shared the one common requirement of having flown high performance
airplanes professionally. Having flown combat in a fighter was NOT a
requirement. Naturally, many of our members had flown fighters, (hence our
name :-) but we had members from the "heavier" aircraft communities as well.
Membership was by invitation only, and that invitation had to come from the
entire group.
Our letterhead carried the following statement;
"It is the purpose of the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship to
identify with pride the pilots who fly the world's greatest high performance
aircraft; and through the establishment of a world-wide non political
fraternity of these pilots, to help promote and achieve better understanding
as the direct result of improved professional and personal communication"

I hope this information has been helpful in clearing up any misconceptions.

As for Ed Rasimus. I'm fairly certain that had we known Ed at the time, we
would have offered him an invitation. I'd like to think he would have
accepted. We were a good group of people. Many of us remaining still are.

All the best,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/7/03 10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
"B2431" wrote in message
...

Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request.
I
also
see nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a
response.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Just for general information;

It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on
Usenet.
These
things can be offered in an atmosphere of friendship by someone
voluntarily,
but not asked for. When this is done, it's almost always done in an
atmosphere of hostility. You really need go no further than Mr.
Ford's
remark, "Dudley, there is something fishy about you" to ascertain
this.
The
inference is that if the person being "asked" to state these things
doesn't
respond to the poster's demand, that there is something to hide. The
reality
however, is that only idiots post these "requests", and only idiots
allow
themselves to be drawn into this scenario. These "requests" as you
can
see,
attract the usual posters who either like or dislike either the
poster
or
the person being "nailed". It's a losing proposition for everyone,
and I
have no intention of getting involved too deeply with it, as aside
from
a
few people who have become good internet friends on the group through
the
years, I don't really give a rat's ass who on Usenet believes what
about
what .
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may
or
may
not have flown, or for whom, or with whom. The fact that you use that
tag
line
infers that you've done something to feel entitled to call yourself
one.
The
initial request seemed rather innocent to me, and I didn't detect any
hostility
in it. Unfortunately, you managed to overreact in your obviously
defensive
response to it and stirred up the **** storm that ensued.

But that's another argument for another time. (^-^)))

George Z.
C-45, C-46, C-47, C-53, C-54, EC-121, UC-78, T-6, B-25 and enjoyed
every
minute
in every one of them, and apologize for none because that's what I was
ordered
to do and I did the best I could and am here to tell you about it.

PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the
military,
then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....so, please tell me
it
isn't
so, and let's move on to something else.

Well, I'll tell you this much. Yes I've flown fighters; not that it
matters
a hill of beans. The Fellowship was a very real organization , not that
that
matters much either, since it's not me who is making such a fuss about it
;
so unless the tag line is saying something to you through mental
telepathy
that I wouldn't be saying myself......yes, let's indeed move on to
something
more intelligent shall we?
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired


Dudley,

Never suffer fools gladly.

Regards,

When I get a post like this one I'll usually give the poster a shot or two
of neutral response to give them a chance to back off. If they back off and
reconsider, I'm not a vindictive person. Misunderstandings occur on Usenet.
But if it's fairly certain that they are actually as stupid as their initial
post would indicate, I just write them off as Usenet idiots or just let them
post their constant crap under me without bothering with them unless it
suits my fancy to do so for some reason of my own.
Such, unfortunately, is the very essence of Usenet.

Thanks for the kind thought :-)

Dudley

On 8 Dec 2003 07:07:26 -0800, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

Sorry Art, but I have to go with jets, and fast ones at that. The
record is pretty solid during Korea and Vietnam, jets were a LOT more
survivable than piston - powered aircraft. In Vietnam, the good old
A-1 had the highest loss rate of any USAF combat aircraft.

Kirk

That would be a surprise to me. Hobson indicates 201 USAF losses of
A-1s and 65 USN losses. He indicates 397 losses of F-105s and 573
losses of F-4s (both USAF and USN).

If we're talking "rate" as losses per sorties flown, my candidate for
the highest rate would be the F-111 with 11 losses for a very brief
pair of combat deployments.

We might also have to bracket a bit to get meaningful stats, since
there were considerably different loss rates for various types at
different periods and in different areas.

Regardless, I'll agree that fast is better than slow in virtually all
circumstances. Fast gets you through gun sectors more quickly, fast
lets you move out of prediction for aimed fire more quickly, fast lets
you maneuver to counter missiles more quickly and fast lets you
counter enemy aircraft attacks more effectively. Not much can be said
for going slow and even in a slow aircraft the tacit assumption is
that you are going as fast as you can.

Subject: Survivability in Combat
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 12/8/03 7:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1769tvofbookb27uvk9fr10b00nvah

Regardless, I'll agree that fast is better than slow in virtually all
circumstances. Fast gets you through gun sectors more quickly, fast
lets you move out of prediction for aimed fire more quickly, fast lets
you maneuver to counter missiles more quickly and fast lets you
counter enemy aircraft attacks more effectively. Not much can be said
for going slow and even in a slow aircraft the tacit assumption is
that you are going as fast as you can.



ED,

That begs the question. The question was not which is better in combat, fast or
slow. Nor was it do fast planes suffer fewer losses than slow planes. The
question was do radials have a higher survivability rate once hit than jet
engines? That was the question.

Regards,

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