1,567
edits
(→References: Reformat References Section) |
(Add Footnotes & References) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
=== How do the wings on the TBM fold? === | === How do the wings on the TBM fold? === | ||
The wings on the TBM are hydraulically folding and controlled by the pilot from the cockpit. However, manpower is necessary to move them the final few inches to allow the tie back cables to be attached. | The wings on the TBM are hydraulically folding and controlled by the pilot from the cockpit.<ref>{{cite book |title=Pilot’s Handbook of Flight Operating Instructions: Navy Model TBM-3 Airplane |date=1945 |page=19}}</ref> However, manpower is necessary to move them the final few inches to allow the tie back cables to be attached. | ||
When the outer wings unfold they swing out and around until they are in line with the inner stub wing. The hinge is mounted on a diagonal, so that as they move forwards they also “rotate” to be parallel with the ground. A tab on the outer wing fits into a slot on the inner stub wing. A pin then slides through a hole in the tab, locking the wing into place. Simultaneously, red “flags” sticking out of the top of the wing are retracted to let the pilot know the wings are locked in position and he is free to takeoff without fear of them folding up in flight. | When the outer wings unfold they swing out and around until they are in line with the inner stub wing. The hinge is mounted on a diagonal, so that as they move forwards they also “rotate” to be parallel with the ground. A tab on the outer wing fits into a slot on the inner stub wing. A pin then slides through a hole in the tab, locking the wing into place. Simultaneously, red “flags” sticking out of the top of the wing are retracted to let the pilot know the wings are locked in position and he is free to takeoff without fear of them folding up in flight. | ||
Roy Grumman, the TBM’s designer, came up with the idea by sticking two paperclips in a soap eraser.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Thruelsen |first1=Richard |title=The Grumman Story |date=1976 |publisher=Praeger |location=New York |pages=124–126}}</ref> Known as the Sto-Wing, it was used on other Grumman designs such as the F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, as well as the postwar E-1 Tracer, C-2 Greyhound, and E-2 Hawkeye. | Roy Grumman, the TBM’s designer, came up with the idea by sticking two paperclips in a soap eraser.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Thruelsen |first1=Richard |title=The Grumman Story |date=1976 |publisher=Praeger |location=New York |pages=124–126}}</ref> Known as the Sto-Wing, it was used on other Grumman designs such as the F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, as well as the postwar E-1 Tracer, C-2 Greyhound, and E-2 Hawkeye.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Michelhaugh |first1=Thomas A. |last2=Painter |first2=William |title=Wing-Folding Mechanism of the Grumman Wildcat |url=http://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/ResourceFiles/AboutASME/Who%20We%20Are/Engineering%20History/Landmarks/238-Grumman-Wildcat-Sto-Wing-Wing-folding-Mechanism.pdf |website=American Society of Mechanical Engineers |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=2006}}</ref>{{efn|Despite being the basis for the E-1 Tracer, the C-1 Trader and the earlier S-2 Tracker had the more traditional vertical wing folding mechanism. The switch to the Sto-Wing on the E-1 Tracer was due to the presence of the radome on top of the fuselage, which took up the space that the wings would have otherwise folded into.}} | ||
=== Why are the wings on the Corsair “bent”? === | === Why are the wings on the Corsair “bent”? === | ||
The Corsair has what is known as an inverted gull wing. It was so called because it was an upside down version of the gull wing – which is itself named after the shape of the wings on a seagull. | The Corsair has what is known as an inverted gull wing. It was so called because it was an upside down version of the gull wing – which is itself named after the shape of the wings on a seagull. | ||
The airplane needed long propeller blades to absorb the power of the large Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine. These blades were so long that they would not be able to clear the ground when the plane took off. One solution was that the main landing gear could be lengthened. However, the Corsair was designed to operate off of aircraft carriers – a situation that involves very hard landings. Longer landing gear were less sturdy. Another option was to use a wing mounted low on the fuselage instead of in the middle. This was also unacceptable, as engineers had figured out that there was a distinct aerodynamic benefit to the wing meeting the fuselage at a 90-degree angle, and a traditional low wing would not allow this. So, to keep the landing gear short, the wing at a 90-degree angle to the fuselage, and still have enough clearance for the propeller, the wings were “bent” downward. | The airplane needed long propeller blades to absorb the power of the large Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine. These blades were so long that they would not be able to clear the ground when the plane took off. One solution was that the main landing gear could be lengthened. However, the Corsair was designed to operate off of aircraft carriers – a situation that involves very hard landings. Longer landing gear were less sturdy. Another option was to use a wing mounted low on the fuselage instead of in the middle. This was also unacceptable, as engineers had figured out that there was a distinct aerodynamic benefit to the wing meeting the fuselage at a 90-degree angle, and a traditional low wing would not allow this. So, to keep the landing gear short, the wing at a 90-degree angle to the fuselage, and still have enough clearance for the propeller, the wings were “bent” downward.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Sibila |first=Alfred I. |date=February 1995 |title=Designing the Bent-Wing Bird |url=http://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1995/february/designing-bent-wing-bird |magazine=Naval History |access-date=13 March 2022}}</ref> | ||
=== How many planes did an aircraft carrier have? === | === How many planes did an aircraft carrier have? === | ||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
No, but whether they did or didn’t isn’t really all that relevant to their story. | No, but whether they did or didn’t isn’t really all that relevant to their story. | ||
The short version is that there were at least 27 B-17s and B-24s lost from bomb groups escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen. At the same time, white fighter groups in the Fifteenth Air Force lost an average of 46 bombers. However, there are many factors that can affect this number, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions, and the end result is that it unclear whether they were any “better” than any of the other fighter groups. | The short version is that there were at least 27 B-17s and B-24s lost from bomb groups escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen. At the same time, white fighter groups in the Fifteenth Air Force lost an average of 46 bombers. However, there are many factors that can affect this number, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions, and the end result is that it unclear whether they were any “better” than any of the other fighter groups.<ref>{{cite report |last1=Haulman |first1=Daniel L. |title=Fifty-Two Misconceptions About the Tuskegee Airmen |url=http://www.redtail.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Fifty-Two-Misconceptions-About-the-Tuskegee-Airmen.pdf |publisher=Air Force Historical Research Agency |access-date=13 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181005204604/https://www.redtail.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Fifty-Two-Misconceptions-About-the-Tuskegee-Airmen.pdf |archive-date=5 October 2018 |pages=10–14, 32–33 |date=13 April 2018}}</ref> | ||
However, in many ways this doesn’t really matter. The truth does not need to be embellished. What the Tuskegee Airmen did was already amazing enough. Simply by performing their duty they were already doing twice as much as any other American airman. To succeed they had to fight not only Nazi forces in Europe, but also racial prejudices at home. Defeating them both would lead to the hoped for “Double V Victory”. | However, in many ways this doesn’t really matter. The truth does not need to be embellished. What the Tuskegee Airmen did was already amazing enough. Simply by performing their duty they were already doing twice as much as any other American airman. To succeed they had to fight not only Nazi forces in Europe, but also racial prejudices at home. Defeating them both would lead to the hoped for “Double V Victory”. | ||
=== What was the average height and weight of an American airman in World War II? How does it compare to today? (a.k.a. Were people really smaller back then?) === | === What was the average height and weight of an American airman in World War II? How does it compare to today? (a.k.a. Were people really smaller back then?) === | ||
First, it is useful to remember that the military accepted a range of heights and weights. For example, fighter pilots were permitted to be from 5' 4" to 6' tall and weigh 120 to 180 pounds. When it came to bombers, commissioned officers could be between 5' and 6' 4" and 120 to 200 pounds. However, the average airman was 5’ 9” tall and weighed 154 pounds unclothed. | First, it is useful to remember that the military accepted a range of heights and weights. For example, fighter pilots were permitted to be from 5' 4" to 6' tall and weigh 120 to 180 pounds.<ref>{{cite report |last1=Randall |first1=Francis E. |last2=Damon |first2=Albert |last3=Benton |first3=Robert S. |last4=Patt |first4=Donald I. |title=Human Body Size in Military Aircraft and Personal Equipment |url=http://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/101708835/PDF/101708835.pdf |publisher=War Department, Army Air Forces, Air Materiel Command |id=5501 |access-date=13 March 2022 |location=Dayton, Ohio |page=6 |date=10 June 1946}}</ref> When it came to bombers, commissioned officers could be between 5' and 6' 4" and 120 to 200 pounds. However, the average airman was 5’ 9” tall and weighed 154 pounds unclothed. | ||
Often, this question arises in reference to the ability of airmen to fit inside confined spaces – especially ball turrets. The Army Air Force was not unaware of this issue during the war and research in the field of anthropometrics, or the study of measurements of the human body, was carried out. The subject of anthropometrics in relation to gun turrets was already being discussed as early as the summer of 1940 and by December 1941 planning for a survey was underway. Based on this research, in January 1943 an upper limit of 70 inches and 170 pounds was set for gunners. | Often, this question arises in reference to the ability of airmen to fit inside confined spaces – especially ball turrets. The Army Air Force was not unaware of this issue during the war and research in the field of anthropometrics, or the study of measurements of the human body, was carried out. The subject of anthropometrics in relation to gun turrets was already being discussed as early as the summer of 1940 and by December 1941 planning for a survey was underway. Based on this research, in January 1943 an upper limit of 70 inches and 170 pounds was set for gunners. | ||
Interestingly, one of the bigger problems that was encountered was not just the size of the individual person, but also the bulk of the flying clothing and equipment they were wearing. Early enclosed gun turrets were designed at a time when airplanes operated at lower altitudes. This meant that relatively little protection was needed from the elements as the temperature there was warm enough and the air was breathable. However, as technological advanced pushed aerial combat higher and higher, the temperature dropped and the air thinned, making heavy clothing and oxygen masks a necessity. Yet turrets were still being designed without consideration for the amount of space that these new provisions were taking up. As an example of bulk of this equipment, the standard uniform, electrically heated suit, and oxygen system alone added just under 30 pounds. | Interestingly, one of the bigger problems that was encountered was not just the size of the individual person, but also the bulk of the flying clothing and equipment they were wearing.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Link |first1=Mae Mills |last2=Coleman |first2=Hubert A. |title=Medical Support of the Army Air Forces in World War II |date=1955 |publisher=Office of the Surgeon General, USAF |location=Washington, D.C. |pages=238–239 |url=http://media.defense.gov/2010/Dec/03/2001329908/-1/-1/0/AFD-101203-018.pdf |access-date=13 March 2022}}</ref> Early enclosed gun turrets were designed at a time when airplanes operated at lower altitudes. This meant that relatively little protection was needed from the elements as the temperature there was warm enough and the air was breathable.{{efn|Aircrew flying in exposed gun positions (e.g. a dive bomber dorsal gunner) would have needed heavier clothing. However, this discussion focuses on the type of enclosed gun positions that had been common in medium and heavy bombers by World War II. Enclosed turrets offered protection from the wind blast – the primary factor necessitating covering up at low altitude.}} However, as technological advanced pushed aerial combat higher and higher, the temperature dropped and the air thinned, making heavy clothing and oxygen masks a necessity. Yet turrets were still being designed without consideration for the amount of space that these new provisions were taking up. As an example of bulk of this equipment, the standard uniform, electrically heated suit, and oxygen system alone added just under 30 pounds. | ||
An interesting demonstration of the importance of anthropometrics comes from the experience of Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs). When they joined there were no women’s uniforms available and as a result they had to make due with oversized men’s mechanics coveralls they nicknamed “zoot suits” after the popular fashion trend of the time. | An interesting demonstration of the importance of anthropometrics comes from the experience of Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs). When they joined there were no women’s uniforms available and as a result they had to make due with oversized men’s mechanics coveralls they nicknamed “zoot suits” after the popular fashion trend of the time.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Parrish |first1=Nancy |title=WASP Uniforms |url=http://www.wingsacrossamerica.us/wasp/gallery/wasp_uniforms.htm |website=WASP on the Web |access-date=13 March 2022}}</ref> | ||
=== How dangerous was the ball and/or tail gun position? === | === How dangerous was the ball and/or tail gun position? === | ||
According to an analysis of casualties suffered by the Eighth Air Force from June to August 1944, the crew position with the greatest chance of being injured or killed was the bombardier followed by the navigator. The tail gunner was third most dangerous and the ball turret gunner was actually the safest position. | According to an analysis of casualties suffered by the Eighth Air Force from June to August 1944, the crew position with the greatest chance of being injured or killed was the bombardier followed by the navigator. The tail gunner was third most dangerous and the ball turret gunner was actually the safest position.<ref>{{cite book |title=Wound Ballistics in World War II |date=1962 |publisher=Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army |location=Washington, D.C. |page=571 |chapter=Survey of Battle Casualties, Eighth Air Force, June, July, and August 1944 |url=http://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA291697 |access-date=13 March 2022}}</ref> | ||
=== Did the Doolittle Raiders replace the tail guns in their B-25s with broomsticks? === | === Did the Doolittle Raiders replace the tail guns in their B-25s with broomsticks? === |