My favorite part so far.
EDIT: Adding another interesting bit:
"Was the Cargomaster dangerous? Ten had crashed, and 61 men had been killed. In 1964, the C-133’s accident rate per 100,000 flying hours stood at 2.7, while the C-130’s was 1.9. The overall Air Force rate was 7.7."
7.7 is higher than I would have expected. I wonder what planes are pulling up the numbers? The article makes this plane sound like a mysterious and dangerous machine, but 2.7 is well below 7.7...
F-16 Flight Mishap History (1975-2018). Lifetime Class A rate is 3.39. ("Class A Mishap. A mishap resulting in one or more of the following: 1. Direct mishap cost totaling $2,000,000 or more ($1,000,000 for mishaps occurring before FY10). 2. A fatality or permanent total disability. 3. Destruction of a DoD aircraft. NOTE: A destroyed UAV/RPA is not a Class A mishap unless the preceding criteria in “1” or “2” are met.")
See https://www.safety.af.mil/Divisions/Aviation-Safety-Division... for the whole shebang.
I personally like the U-2 (https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Airc...). '63-'69: 4 totally destroyed, 1 pilot death, 0 flying hours. Lifetime Class A: 4.84/100,000hrs.
I see this done for software, and some forms of hardware. But for a plane, back then, wow. Seems totally crazy. Or maybe they didn't have prototypes but lots and lots of scale models and wind tunnel testing.
I'm not convinced by the idea, but its plausible they could have been.
Immediately reminded me of the current problems and workarounds in the 737 Max 10. The changes and kludges were in part to compensate for its larger engine's effects on the 737's flight characteristics, warped by Boeing's need to not require crew retraining.