Comments on: Flying Rams

By: tolstoy

tolstoy — Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:15:53 +0000

The Northrop XP-79 was never actually intended to be used to ram into enemy aircraft, according to Norton (2008) and Chong (2016).

Chong, T., 2016. Flying Wings & Radical Things: Northrop’s Secret Aerospace Projects & Concepts 1939-1994. Forest Lake, MN: Specialty Press.

Norton, B., 2008. U.S. Experimental & Prototype Aircraft Projects: Fighters 1939–1945. North Branch, MN: Specialty Press.

By: Anthony Maw

Anthony Maw — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 04:59:08 +0000

That’s just nuts or is this an April Fool’s joke? Given the g-forces involved as well as the impact forces it is pretty near impossible to reinforce an airplane sufficiently to get into the ramming business not the least of which is that it’s also being shot at by defensive gun fire. For the ramming plane any hit other than head-on where the pilot gets killed would cause the plane to yaw possibly going into an uncontrollable spin or stall. But the article was a great read if for nothing else than entertainment.

By: Museful

Museful — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:24:42 +0000

Surely this plane was not designed for ramming. Placing the pilot in the prone position would allow him to endure greater g-forces during maneuver (e.g. when pulling out of a dive or going into a dive), but *not* in the direction required to survive ramming. In fact, it drastically reduces his chances of surviving a ram/crash, because the impact will send blood into his head causing (“red-out”).

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!!!