Royal Flying Corps training losses
Discussion
Indicative of the problems associated with early aircraft and also the fact that for the first few years of the war there was not a proper pilot training scheme and syllabus.
Don't forget that the RFC was only one branch of military aviation in the UK at that time. There was also the Royal Naval Air Service. I wonder what their losses were.
Don't forget that the RFC was only one branch of military aviation in the UK at that time. There was also the Royal Naval Air Service. I wonder what their losses were.
The Camel did well, and accounted for more aerial victories than any other Allied aircraft during World War I but it was a bit of a meatbox.. the Meteor of its day. Until sufficient speed had developed during takeoff, pilots maintained full right rudder to counteract rotary engine torque, unless they fancied the idea of a ground loop.
Camel alone, 413 pilots died in combat and 385 pilots died from non-combat related flying incident, presumably many of which were training and into which, you only stepped when you had developed basic competency, experience and skill. This makes for salutory reading in our modern, risk averse culture.
"A great number of trainee pilots had been killed learning to fly this machine, as its tricks took some learning, although they were really simple to overcome. Its main trouble was that owing to its very small wingspan, and its purposely unstable characteristics, coupled with the gyroscopic effect of a rotating engine and propeller, it flipped into a spin very easily at low speeds. Consequently, in landing and taking off, a tremendous number of fatal accidents occurred, and a general felling of dislike for the machine was prevalent. It really had people frightened.
Arthur Cobby"
Edit: interesting that it was designed to be unstable. Like today, but without the computers to restore sanity.
Camel alone, 413 pilots died in combat and 385 pilots died from non-combat related flying incident, presumably many of which were training and into which, you only stepped when you had developed basic competency, experience and skill. This makes for salutory reading in our modern, risk averse culture.
"A great number of trainee pilots had been killed learning to fly this machine, as its tricks took some learning, although they were really simple to overcome. Its main trouble was that owing to its very small wingspan, and its purposely unstable characteristics, coupled with the gyroscopic effect of a rotating engine and propeller, it flipped into a spin very easily at low speeds. Consequently, in landing and taking off, a tremendous number of fatal accidents occurred, and a general felling of dislike for the machine was prevalent. It really had people frightened.
Arthur Cobby"
Edit: interesting that it was designed to be unstable. Like today, but without the computers to restore sanity.
Edited by Ginge R on Tuesday 5th August 08:32
As a percentage the RNAS training losses were probably similar I would guess.
TThere just really was not the knowledge and understanding of aerodynamics, effects of controls, meterology, aviation medecine and plain airmanship at that time. Hence the appalling loss rate.
As an example, The Prince of Wales crashed a Maurce Farman Shorthorn on Salisbury Plain near Upavon (in 1916 IIRC). The Board of Inquiry concluded that: 'The crash came about owing to a lack of lift in the air that day.'!
TThere just really was not the knowledge and understanding of aerodynamics, effects of controls, meterology, aviation medecine and plain airmanship at that time. Hence the appalling loss rate.
As an example, The Prince of Wales crashed a Maurce Farman Shorthorn on Salisbury Plain near Upavon (in 1916 IIRC). The Board of Inquiry concluded that: 'The crash came about owing to a lack of lift in the air that day.'!
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
As an example, The Prince of Wales crashed a Maurce Farman Shorthorn on Salisbury Plain near Upavon (in 1916 IIRC). The Board of Inquiry concluded that: 'The crash came about owing to a lack of lift in the air that day.'!
That's odd considering the present Prince of Wales crashed a plane and it wasn't his fault either. Respect to all those airmen killed in the wars.
Eric Mc said:
There was also the Royal Naval Air Service. I wonder what their losses were.
It calls to mind their famous and very effective 'Black Flight' of Sopwith Triplanes. I think but am not certain that this design may have inspired the Fokker Triplane.RNAS history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Naval_Air_Servi...
Didn't realise that it merged with the RFC to become the RAF, so the later FAA must have been another development.
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 5th August 10:38
Crossflow Kid said:
Eric Mc said:
Don't forget that the RFC was only one branch of military aviation in the UK at that time. There was also the Royal Naval Air Service.
Eh?
The Navy fought for some semblance of control over its own aviation assets and strategy and was eventually allowed to operate in conjunction with the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force. Originally, pilots in the Fleet Air Arm were RAF pilots. The Navy eventually obtained full control of the Fleet Air Arm, just before World War 2. It was because of this muddled arrangement that had existed for almost 20 years that the Fleet Air Arm found itself with inadequate and obsolete aircraft in 1939.
There has always been a conflict over who should control air assets. The aviation enthusiasts felt that aviation was its own unique "thing" and that those who flew were best suited to deciding how aeroplanes should be used. The army and the navy, of course, disagreed.
The debate still rages today - and with Britain's defence forces continually shrinking the notion of an independent air force might be considered a luxury.
The debate still rages today - and with Britain's defence forces continually shrinking the notion of an independent air force might be considered a luxury.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff