What was the personnel ratio between people who flew the
airplanes and people who serviced the airplanes?

flying personnel : technicians


(Is that ratio changed since then?)


--
oiram

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Mario" <[email protected]d> wrote in message news:o2n9q9$1h1v$[email protected]...

What was the personnel ratio between people who flew the
airplanes and people who serviced the airplanes?

This varies with time and type of aircaft, and samples can be
found in administrative histories of air forces.

E.g. in the Battle of Britain each fighter required (nominally)
one pilot and two ground crew (a "rigger" for the airframe and
a "fitter" = mechanic:) but this pair omits other technical
specialists e.g. armourer (mechanic for guns and bombs)
and instrument technician. By contrast, bombers needed
no more ground staff but carried several aircrew (two in
Mosquitos, 10 in a Flying Fortress.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Mario" <[email protected]d> wrote in message news:o2n9q9$1h1v$[email protected]...

What was the personnel ratio between people who flew the
airplanes and people who serviced the airplanes?

It is a function of the aircraft, things like number of engines,
amount of electronics, crew size and mission.

flying personnel : technicians

The USAAF official history has a table of group strengths in 1945.

B-29, 45 aircraft, 60 times 11 man crews, 2,078 officers and men.
B-17/24, 72 aircraft, 96 times 9 to 11 man crews, 2,261 officers and men. B-25/26, 96 aircraft, 96 times 5 to 6 man crews, 1,759 officers and men. A-20/26, 96 aircraft, 96 times 3 to 4 man crews, 1,304 officers and men. P-40/47/51, 111 to 126 aircraft, 108 to 126 pilots, 994 officers and men.
P-38, 111 to 126 aircraft, 108 to 126 pilots, 1,081 officers and men.

C-47 (troop carrier), 80 to 110 aircraft, 128 times 4 to 5 man crews,
1,837 officers and men.

C-46/47 (combat cargo) 125 aircraft, 128 times 4 man crews,
883 officers and men

The rest are squadron strengths,

P-61/70 night fighter, 18 aircraft, 16 times 2 to 3 man crews,
288 officers and men.

P-39/40/F-6/L-4/5 tactical reconnaissance, 27 aircraft, 23 pilots,
233 officers and men.

F-5 (P-38) photographic reconnaissance, 24 aircraft, 21 pilots,
347 officers and men.

F-9(B-17)/F-7(B-24) combat mapping, 18 aircraft, 16 times 9 man
crews, 474 officers and men.

So if you like about 32% of the B-29 unit were aircrew, 38 to 47%
of the B-17/24, 27 to 33% of the B-25/26, 22 to 29.5% of the
A-20/26, 11 to 12.7% of the single engine fighter, 10 to 11.7%
of the twin engined fighter, 28 to 35% of the troop carrier, 68%
of the combat cargo, 11 to 16.7% of the night fighter, 10% of the
tactical reconnaissance, 6% of the photographic reconnaissance
and 30% of the combat mapping.

Ignoring the combat cargo the general rule is the bigger the
crew the higher the percentage of aircrew in the unit.

The difference between the combat cargo and the troop carrier
shows how manpower can be a function of mission as well as
the aircraft in use. The change from single engined fighters to
the twin engined P-38 gives an idea of the manpower needed
per engine.

(Is that ratio changed since then?)

Yes, think of more electronics but generally simpler engine work.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <[email protected]> wrote:

So if you like about 32% of the B-29 unit were aircrew, 38 to 47%
of the B-17/24, 27 to 33% of the B-25/26, 22 to 29.5% of the
A-20/26, 11 to 12.7% of the single engine fighter, 10 to 11.7%
of the twin engined fighter, 28 to 35% of the troop carrier, 68%
of the combat cargo, 11 to 16.7% of the night fighter, 10% of the
tactical reconnaissance, 6% of the photographic reconnaissance
and 30% of the combat mapping.

That's the proportion of air crew in the various
units (thanks for the data), but it doesn't give
the proportion of ground crew. The non-flying
personnel in these units would include riggers,
fitters, mechanics, and armorers, but also the
"housekeeping" functions. I.e., clerks, cooks,
drivers, orderlies, medics, signalmen, the
commander and his staff, meteorologists.

These latter men were all needed in operations,
but they didn't "service the airplanes".
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rich Rostrom" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <[email protected]> wrote:

So if you like about 32% of the B-29 unit were aircrew, 38 to 47%
of the B-17/24, 27 to 33% of the B-25/26, 22 to 29.5% of the
A-20/26, 11 to 12.7% of the single engine fighter, 10 to 11.7%
of the twin engined fighter, 28 to 35% of the troop carrier, 68%
of the combat cargo, 11 to 16.7% of the night fighter, 10% of the
tactical reconnaissance, 6% of the photographic reconnaissance
and 30% of the combat mapping.

That's the proportion of air crew in the various
units (thanks for the data), but it doesn't give
the proportion of ground crew. The non-flying
personnel in these units would include riggers,
fitters, mechanics, and armorers, but also the
"housekeeping" functions. I.e., clerks, cooks,
drivers, orderlies, medics, signalmen, the
commander and his staff, meteorologists.

These latter men were all needed in operations,
but they didn't "service the airplanes".

Quite right. Note the original question was the ratio of aircrew to
service people, which I read as basically mechanics, armourers,
fuel and the electronics technicians etc., not the weather people
or flying control or guards etc.

Now add the repair and maintenance units that were in addition to
the combat units, to do major overhauls or repairs etc.

As for the housekeeping functions that would need the relevant
tables of organisation, whether they were part of the combat
units or not. Hence why I only mentioned the flying personnel.

For example on 31 December 1943 the 44th Bomb Group, with
24 B-24 had 452 officers and 2,433 men including auxiliary units at
Shipham, Suffolk. That is 2,885 personnel versus the 1945 idea of
a bomb group of 72 B-24 aircraft and 2,261 personnel.

Roger Freeman reports for the station basing the 305th bomb group
on 10 May 1943 the personnel roster looked like this,

54 in Group HQ, 1,487 in 4 bomb squadrons, 102 in HQ and HQ
squadron of service group, 211 in service squadron, 36 in part
quartermaster company, 41 in part chemical company, 40 in
ordnance maintenance company, 52 MPs, 9 weather people, 4 in
gas defence unit, 8 in finance, total 282 officers and 1,762 men.

Freeman reports the personnel on an 8th Air Force bomber station
rose to around 2,600 in 1945, for fighters 1,600.

As of 31 December 1943 the HQ 8th Air Force had 294 officers and
1,169 men. VIII Bomber Command 262 officers and 1,362 men.

Unassigned/in transit were 71 officers and 1,786 men.

1st CCRC had 282 officers and 1,434 men, 2nd 131 officers and
1,273 men, all up there were 6 CCRC (Combat Crew Replacement
Center)

The 1st Base Air Depot and auxiliary units at Burtonwood had 457
officers and 11,340 men. It did a lot of maintenance amongst
other work. All up 3 BAD, with the 3rd small as of early 1944.

Most airfields had an attached sub depot to handle more involved
maintenance and salvage, at around 200 personnel each.

If you like in the strength listing each bomb group has 7 lines, each
fighter 6 lines, most other units require 2 lines, and all up 8 pages of foolscap to list all units of the 8th Air Force as of the start of 1944.

Plenty of the units did at least some maintenance. So if you are
serious you need to have the full listings then the break downs
where units had maintenance and non maintenance personnel.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2016-12-14 9:25 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

"Rich Rostrom" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Quite right. Note the original question was the ratio of aircrew to
service people, which I read as basically mechanics, armourers,
fuel and the electronics technicians etc., not the weather people
or flying control or guards etc.

Now add the repair and maintenance units that were in addition to
the combat units, to do major overhauls or repairs etc.

Out of curiosity, I Googled "Spitfire ground crew" and at the top of the
list of hits was a Youtube video that shows at least ten people push a
Spitfire and prepping it for operations. There is a narration and the
pilot talks about some of the repairs that needed to be done, like to
the engine hood that would not open. Then he talks about the
instructions from the controller who is telling them to take off ASAP
and patrol the base. These guys were going up, getting into combat and returning to be refueled, rearmed, repaired if needed, and often going
right back up again, so it is not as if they had a surplus of men
working on only one plane at a time.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icsvCwF0Kr4

Looking at pictures of ground crews for other types of fighters yielded
similar results. A photo of a Mustang ground crew showed 6 men just for
the belts of ammunition.


This page has shows the number of planes, crews and total compliment of
an AAF Group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_group

For Very Heavy Bombardment Group (B 29) there are 45 aircraft, 60
crews, 11 men in a crew, then 2,078 total personnel. Knock of the 660
men in air crew and that is what it seems to have taken to run the group.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:R6k4A.103826$[email protected]...

Out of curiosity, I Googled "Spitfire ground crew" and at the top of the
list of hits was a Youtube video that shows at least ten people push a Spitfire and prepping it for operations. There is a narration and the
pilot talks about some of the repairs that needed to be done, like to the engine hood that would not open. Then he talks about the instructions from the controller who is telling them to take off ASAP and patrol the base. These guys were going up, getting into combat and returning to be
refueled, rearmed, repaired if needed, and often going right back up
again, so it is not as if they had a surplus of men working on only one
plane at a time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icsvCwF0Kr4

Yes but be aware that it is staged vision.

Think of it this way, the number of maintenance personnel depends on
three factors, the amount and type of regular work you want the unit to do
to keep its aircraft flying, regular engine checks, airframe inspections, repairs
and so on. Next is the aircraft being used. Then comes how quickly you
want to turn the aircraft around after a mission. The quicker the turn
around
required the more people and equipment like refueling trucks per aircraft.

Do you want the unit to repair or simply replace faulty radios? Radars?
and so on.

What rules apply to decide when damaged or defective aircraft should be
handed over to specialist maintenance units? Aircraft carriers often jettisoned aircraft rather than try to repair them for example given the
limits on space and crew size.

Looking at pictures of ground crews for other types of fighters yielded similar results. A photo of a Mustang ground crew showed 6 men just for
the belts of ammunition.

Essentially the armament section would visit each aircraft in turn to
rearm it, rather than each aircraft having its own armament team.
Similar for the fuel people. Then it becomes how many aircraft
you want to refuel and rearm at a time and ensuring these
personnel have enough work to fill in a "proper" working week.
If there are enough refuelers around to refuel all the aircraft in
an hour what do they do for the rest of the day?

In the Battle of Britain the RAF certainly liked rapid turn arounds
for fighter units and was willing to pay the "cost", the 8th Air Force
usually did not need that sort of fast service

Generally an individual aircraft would have a team dedicated to
the mechanics, the airframe, controls and the engine for example.
They would then ask for unit assistance for items outside their
expertise and to rearm and refuel. Unit engineering officers had
as part of their duties making decisions about whether an
aircraft could be repaired by the unit or not.

But of course the above is a generalisation with plenty of
specific exceptions. The air forces spent plenty of time trying
to figure out ideal unit sizes and organisations.

In the Battle of Britain James Lacey was rather proud of the
fact one day he glided back to base a very shot up Hurricane,
until the engineer officer pointed out they would now have to
repair it instead of obtaining a new one.

The RAF ended up with maintenance units which were assigned
to squadrons or to airfields, thereby enabling quick transfer of
what was essentially the flying element only. It moved and picked
up new maintenance personnel at the new base. In theory it was
elegant, in practice it cost in terms of the pride maintenance
people took in linking with a specific aircraft and/or crew.

This page has shows the number of planes, crews and total compliment of an AAF Group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_group

For Very Heavy Bombardment Group (B 29) there are 45 aircraft, 60 crews,
11 men in a crew, then 2,078 total personnel. Knock of the 660 men in air crew and that is what it seems to have taken to run the group.

Yes, that essentially is taking the figures from the US official history.

The actual organisation charts for the units is required to break down
the personnel into specific jobs. Then comes any other units present on
the airfield like military police, runway and building maintenance people
for example. Then comes all the other units, like the those doing major maintenance and overhauls, handling training etc.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:R6k4A.103826$[email protected]...

Out of curiosity, I Googled "Spitfire ground crew" and at the top of the
list of hits was a Youtube video that shows at least ten people push a Spitfire and prepping it for operations. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icsvCwF0Kr4

There was nevertheless a general doctrine, developed prewar and
continued in wartime, based on two signatures accepting responsibility.
Each aircraft had its own maintenance log book. Every day in use,
an aircraft had to be documented as serviceable (fit for use) by the
signature of a competent maintenance man (most probably the
Flight Sergeant in charge of all mechanics on a squadron;) and
(in principle) the pilot signed for each sortie or each day of use
that he accepted the aircraft as fit to fly. That was the theory
anyway . . . (I used to know the RAF Form number of the
aircraft maintenance log book, but cannot now remember it.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <[email protected]> wrote:

Aircraft carriers often jettisoned aircraft rather
than try to repair them for example given the limits
on space and crew size.

In _Clear The Decks_, RAdm Dan Gallery tells of a
damaged TBF Avenger which was handed off to his
flight crew for practice in getting airplanes out of
the often unusual places pilots sometimes parked them.

After a few weeks of this, that Avenger was definitely
not worth repairing, so he told them to run it over the
side. But the plane's wheels dropped into the portside
catwalk and it hung up. They tried several times, but
couldn't get enough speed to clear the catwalk. So
finally they shoved it off the stern.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Don Phillipson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:o2uboq$4h6$[email protected]...

There was nevertheless a general doctrine, developed prewar and
continued in wartime, based on two signatures accepting responsibility.
Each aircraft had its own maintenance log book. Every day in use,
an aircraft had to be documented as serviceable (fit for use) by the signature of a competent maintenance man (most probably the
Flight Sergeant in charge of all mechanics on a squadron;) and
(in principle) the pilot signed for each sortie or each day of use
that he accepted the aircraft as fit to fly. That was the theory
anyway . . .

This was RAF Form 700, described as Aircraft Log at http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/default/archive-collection/aircraft-records.aspx
which adds:
"There is no other source of such records - RAF practice is to destroy such records
shortly after the aircraft is struck off charge" i.e. certified as sold or destroyed.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)