Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:28 am
Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:42 am
Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:50 am
TAdan wrote:Very nice pictures. Nice color scheme on the plane. Too bad it was lost in the fire.
My first thought when I saw the second picture was "they have grass at Pima?"![]()
Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:04 pm
Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:55 pm
Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:26 pm
Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:29 pm
Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:29 am
n5151ts wrote:it could have been destroyed in a crash!-----oh wait-----it was destroyed in a fire in a museum...well I guess that is better...
Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:05 pm
mustangdriver wrote:n5151ts wrote:it could have been destroyed in a crash!-----oh wait-----it was destroyed in a fire in a museum...well I guess that is better...
Yeah I am sure that is the case in why the P-38 is so rare.
Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:08 pm
Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:47 pm
bilwor wrote:The way I understood it was, the Air Force Museum (the owner) made a trade with the museum in France for an aircraft they wanted. I assume that aircraft is now at Wright Pat on display. I do not know what the id of the aircraft is.
bill word
Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:14 pm
Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:50 pm
Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:58 pm
k5083 wrote:Well, let's see. Based on data from the Warbird Registry, the loss of this airplane still leaves the score at 6 P-38s destroyed in crashes since 1970 (I don't count Lefty's as destroyed) versus 1 destroyed on the ground.
Does this mean flying a P-38 is 6 times riskier than grounding it? Of course not. It's much more risky than that. Since 1970, a total of 19 P-38s have been flying at one time or another, out of 26 that have existed in more or less intact and presentable condition. So the odds of a flying P-38 being wrecked in a crash during that time were 6 out of 19 (32%), whereas the odds of a P-38 being lost on the ground were 1 in 26 (4%).
So does that mean flying a P-38 is 8 times riskier than grounding it? Oh, no. Because most of those flying P-38s were not flying for most of the time. A more accurate assessment is to divide the number of crashes by the number of years that each P-38 was flying, and the number of ground losses by the number of years that each P-38 has spent some time on the ground. It turns out that we have had a total of 643 P-38/years since 1970 and a total of 198 flying-P-38/years (the latter being an estimate based on WR data and my knowledge of when each was truly flying, which the WR tends to overstate). So the actual risk is 6 crashes in 198 years flying, or 3% (one P-38 destroyed for every 30 years of active flying) versus 1 destroyed on the ground out of 643 P-38/years (0.15%).
Bottom line, the data are that flying a P-38 increases its risk of destruction by a factor of approximately 20x.
Analysis of most other WWII fighter types would probably lead to about the same conclusion.
August
Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:14 pm