Comments on: Flying Rams

By: Madoc62

Madoc62 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:13:16 +0000

Greg,

Hate to break it to you but the XP-79 was never intended to ram anything – let alone ram enemy aircraft. The plane was made out magnesium, in part, but that was a weight saving measure on Northrop’s part since the magnesium they used was stronger than the aluminum of the day but also lighter than steel.

Had that tiny aircraft tried ramming another airplane then it’s most likely the P-79 which would’ve been destroyed. And there was nothing in front of the pilot as he lay there prone but a bit of plexiglass. That would make it even less likely a move to try and play tag with other planes.

That tiller bar was not the “reverse of normal flight controls” but rather a clever bit of engineering to compensate for the tight quarters in the cockpit. And lastly, the XP-79 wasn’t around long enough to have earned any name like the “Flying Ram.” That came about long after the plane had crashed and the program been shut down. Repeating it here is but part of the myths that have grown up around the aircraft.

And lastly, Harry Crosby did bail out of the XP-79. He just didn’t successfully clear the aircraft as he bailed. He got clipped by either the vertical stabilizers or the wing itself and that knocked him unconscious and thus unable to open his parachute before he hit the ground.

For all this talk about aerial ramming, I’m surprised you didn’t make mention of the one German unit specifically formed to ram enemy planes. This was the Sturmstaffel 1. They didn’t use any purpose built aircraft for the task, just regular issue Luftwaffe planes with some extra armor thrown in. Their success was very, very limited and the program didn’t last long.

A bit more fact checking here Greg would be greatly appreciated.

Madoc

By: verrryinteresting

verrryinteresting — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 04:56:07 +0000

You know. They have made unmaned bombers.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:11:00 +0000

Of course, those B-17s would take a LOT of punishment and keep on flying. For example, there’s the case of the B-17 “All American” that sustained a mid-air collision and flew back to the base. The photo has to be seen to be believed:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/FrankDrebin/AllAmericanTailFD.jpg

from:

http://www.armyairforces.com/forum/m_52240/mpage_1/tm.htm

Dave

By: Maj.Problem

Maj.Problem — Sun, 28 May 2006 18:50:23 +0000

Odwalla, if you're going to call the author ignorant, look at yourself. You say there are only 4 types of aircraft. What about liason, ground attack, reconnaissance, maritime patrol, anti-submarine, experimental, towing aircraft, etc? In addition, I would treat the reference to "Flying Fortresses" in the article as a reference more to the concept of American designed aircraft being heavily armed and armored, particularly bombers. If you look at their durability standards and defensive armaments, Americans were among the best.

Although ramming is not new, the point of this article is that it passed from the realm of heroic sacrifices of the moment and even field modifications to do so, to a plane being designed from the ground up to collide with another aircraft.

By: USNSPARKS

USNSPARKS — Thu, 25 May 2006 01:09:18 +0000

No one mentioned a very important point. The target bombers aren’t simply flying along to their targets.
They have many guns to shoot at incoming fighters, the regular kind or the rammers. I admit the high
speed of the rammer makes them harder to hit but they are still going to be shot at. It’s probably much
easier to knock a bomber down by ramming into the tail than it is to actually shoot one down. You should
see some of the photos of our (U.S./allies) bombers that have made it back looking like Swiss cheese. You still need to get past those pesky gunners doing their best to blow you out of the sky.

By: shytus

shytus — Thu, 25 May 2006 00:10:39 +0000

You should all check out http://www.gameden.net It’s totally free and they even have nintendo games on there. It’s probably a bit off topic but I don’t know any other good place to tell you guys about this.

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Wed, 24 May 2006 19:30:03 +0000

Odwalla: that's a bit harsh. Maybe you can enlighten us next time with your thorough WW2 articles.

Kwiksand: "Imagine flying through the air in a WWII bomber and have the equivalent of a machete chop part of your wing off.. Scary thought." LMAO!!!

By: JustAnotherName

JustAnotherName — Wed, 24 May 2006 13:16:53 +0000

Cass said: "I've read about those soviet rammings. Apparently they also would attempt to use their propeller to chop up the tail of an enemy aircraft. "

Reminds me of Ben Hur and the Chariot race.

By: another viewpoint

another viewpoint — Wed, 24 May 2006 12:11:05 +0000

Xoebe said: "I just have to put that idea in the "bad idea" file. Ramming is a tactic of last resort, regardless of how the aircraft is designed. "

...maybe so, but using the "ramming technique" might go a long way on our highways and byways. It might also get those that believe their concentration and focus are not diminished by; readying newspapers, drinking coffee, talking on their cell phones or worse yet...putting make up on. As D-Day said in the movie Animal House...RAMMING SPEED! (ps...you gotta luv this stuff!)

By: Kafka

Kafka — Wed, 24 May 2006 10:31:58 +0000

Ah, trust the military, any military, to think of strange things. Could have probably worked in theory, provided that the rammer was of sufficient weight and strength. Of course, going at such high speeds, travelling in more or less a straight line, would be pretty dumb. I think that they would be rather easy to avoid (if you could see it coming) and that there is a high chance the rammer will fail, or hit a friendly aircraft or hit the ground... or how about a bomb on a plane?

If the rammer hit a plane carrying some bombs, wouldn't the bombs and the rammer and the plane be blown up? The possibilities for it going wrong are endless. I guess it shows the military is willing to at least consider anything, no matter how dumb the idea.