"Which Aircraft were difficult to maintain? and why?".

[Ron Saueracker]

Hi guys. This is for all you aircraft experts. I've been reading Lundstrom (The First Team and Guadalcanal) again as all my other books are in storage prepped for my impending move and it got me thinking. The F2A-3 Buffalo had such weak landing struts that VF-2 had basically a 50% servicability record during its deployment prior to graduating to the F4F-4. Are there any other specific aircraft in WITP which were notorious or just plain difficult to maintain in the field during the Pacific War and what exactly were the problems associated with it?

Thanks

Ron.

[wild_Willie2]

hurricanes, their fabrick covered wings tended to rot away due to high humidity in burma..... 

[Terminus]

Those were only the Mk I's, though...

[Onime No Kyo]

The Seafire comes to mind. Their undercarriages routinely collapsed upon hard landing during rough seas.

[The Duke]

I believe the Japanese had quite a few problems w/ the Ki-61 Tony engine, as it was Japan's only liquid-cooled engine, and poor production and maintenance techniques rendered the powerplant unreliable.
 
The Ki-84 (Frank), while an outstanding aircraft in normal circumstances, had problems across the board including landing gears snapping (poor heat treatment of high-strength steel in late war Japan), manufacturing quality control problems, and substandard fuel.
 

[Dixie]

I think there were a few problems with the first mossies sent out to the Far East.  IIRC the glue tended to melt from the high temperatures. 

[YankeeAirRat]

I have heard that the SB2C's where a bear to maintain as well. Everything from making sure that the cannons worked right to the way that the bomb bay and dive brakes were either slow to open or were assymetrical when opened or closed. This I have heard was due to the complex way that Curtiss had rigged the hydralic system.
 
 

[TimoN]

ORIGINAL: The Duke

I believe the Japanese had quite a few problems w/ the Ki-61 Tony engine, as it was Japan's only liquid-cooled engine, and poor production and maintenance techniques rendered the powerplant unreliable.

The Ki-84 (Frank), while an outstanding aircraft in normal circumstances, had problems across the board including landing gears snapping (poor heat treatment of high-strength steel in late war Japan), manufacturing quality control problems, and substandard fuel.

You are correct with the Tony.

N1K-J George had also lot of problems with the undercarriage. It was developed from the float fighter and the wings were attached quite high in the fuselage. Thus the undercarriage had to be longer and had more tendency to snap.

[panda124c]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I think there were a few problems with the first mossies sent out to the Far East.  IIRC the glue tended to melt from the high temperatures. 

Heat and humitity did them in, usually the engines fell off. Changing the type of glue did the trick.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hi guys. This is for all you aircraft experts. I've been reading Lundstrom (The First Team and Guadalcanal) again as all my other books are in storage prepped for my impending move and it got me thinking. The F2A-3 Buffalo had such weak landing struts that VF-2 had basically a 50% servicability record during its deployment prior to graduating to the F4F-4. Are there any other specific aircraft in WITP which were notorious or just plain difficult to maintain in the field during the Pacific War and what exactly were the problems associated with it?

Thanks

Ron.

Are they sure it was the struts or were those marines just bouncing the planes? [;)]

[panda124c]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hi guys. This is for all you aircraft experts. I've been reading Lundstrom (The First Team and Guadalcanal) again as all my other books are in storage prepped for my impending move and it got me thinking. The F2A-3 Buffalo had such weak landing struts that VF-2 had basically a 50% servicability record during its deployment prior to graduating to the F4F-4. Are there any other specific aircraft in WITP which were notorious or just plain difficult to maintain in the field during the Pacific War and what exactly were the problems associated with it?

Thanks

Ron.

Do you mean "Hard to Maintain" or "Having signifcant design problems".

The weak gear was a design problem.
Whereas the P-400 on the Canal suffered from no one having maintance manuals for them. And their British design changes, radios, electrical systems, for which parts were hard to come by. Read Rugged Ragged Warriors for some insight.

[niceguy2005]

Weren't there some pretty serious maintenace issues with the P-39s?

[Baron von Beer]

Sure were, really only good for one flight. It was hard to put the pieces back together when it came back down, after the Zeroes had their way with it. [:'(]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pbear

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hi guys. This is for all you aircraft experts. I've been reading Lundstrom (The First Team and Guadalcanal) again as all my other books are in storage prepped for my impending move and it got me thinking. The F2A-3 Buffalo had such weak landing struts that VF-2 had basically a 50% servicability record during its deployment prior to graduating to the F4F-4. Are there any other specific aircraft in WITP which were notorious or just plain difficult to maintain in the field during the Pacific War and what exactly were the problems associated with it?

Thanks

Ron.

Do you mean "Hard to Maintain" or "Having signifcant design problems".
The weak gear was a design problem.
Whereas the P-400 on the Canal suffered from no one having maintance manuals for them. And their British design changes, radios, electrical systems, for which parts were hard to come by. Read Rugged Ragged Warriors for some insight.

Both I guess. Just reread the part about the F4F-3s having fuel flow problems due to ill designed self sealing bladders, again causing major servicability issues during the early war deployments.

[Speedysteve]

Looks like every plane had issues[;)][:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Looks like every plane had issues[;)][:D]

Freaking piece of s--t planes! You would think they'd have tested them properly before releasing them to the poor pilots!!![:D]

I'm actually just thinking about facturing these problems into "durability" for the mod I'm tinkering with because of the fact that aircraft are so easily maintained. Not sure if it will work but the information is interesting reading regardless.

[wdolson]

The B-29 had very touchy engines. Care had to be taken on take off to prevent overheating. Probably more B-29s were lost to engine fires than enemy action. It was amazingly reliable for it's complexity, but because of its complexity, it did require a lot of maintenance.

The P-39 had a gearing system to transfer power from the engine to the prop that had problems with gear failure. The shaft ran between the pilot's legs too.

The P-38's turbos were very touchy in cold, wet climates. One reason for it's failure with the 8th AF. It could handle wet OK, and cold OK, but both together led to the oil in the turbos turning to a jelly-like substance at inconvenient times. It affected their operations in the Aleutians I'm sure. But then the weather affected everything in the Aleutians.

The Corsair, of course, tended to be a bear to land on a carrier. Some of the problems were worked out by the late war when they returned to US Navy decks, but they still had a tendency to blow tires on landing.

Bill

[Redd]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Freaking piece of s--t planes! You would think they'd have tested them properly before releasing them to the poor pilots!!![:D]






LMAO [:D][:D][:D][8D]

[AmiralLaurent]

As for the Hurricane, some RAF commander refused Spitfires because they were more difficult to operate from the earth fields avaiable in N Burma/E India, and Hurricanes were better.

And in October 1944 after two Mosquitoes crashed in some days maybe for having lost a wing in flight all Mosquitoes were grounded to check the glue holding them. IIRC it was found that the glue was not the problem but the damp climate was altering the shape of the wooden components of the aircraft.

[niceguy2005]

Makes since. Wooden planes in a monsoon climate seem suspect.