# Which fighters were "thick skinned?"



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 7, 2005)

A colleague at work told me that the P-51 had a thick aluminum skin and that 
this thick skin allowed the engineers to use less structural reinforcing members in the frame. He said that the P-51's skin, for instance, was thicker than the P-47's and that as a result, the P-47 required more structural bracing. 

On a somewhat related note, I understand that the P-51, aka, the "Spam Can" was rather flimsy and read that one pilot that flew both the P-47 and P-51 said that the P-47 was built like a machined tool while the P-51 had a cheaper, stamped construction.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 8, 2005)

The P-51, like almost all American fighters, had comparatively thick duraluminum sheeting. However, it also had comparatively more structure than its foriegn counterparts.

Your comparison is incorrect. The P-47 had thick sheeting even for an American plane - it was commonly refered to as "double thick". Flight crews could walk freely upon the P-47 wing anywhere but out at the very tip of the wing (and I mean the last inch or so) or on the control surfaces with their boots w/o concern about denting it. By contrast, the Spitfire, the FW190, and the Bf109 - all had marked locations where a person could step, everywhere else was off-limits.

Here are some cutaways to compare structure:

*P-51D*






*P-47C*





*P-40 (early)*





*F4U-1d*





*Spitfire Mk.1*





*Bf109G*





*FW190A-8*





*A6M "Zero"*





=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

great drawings there RG........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2005)

Yeah some beautiful pics there. Im saving the 190 for myself hehe


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 8, 2005)

RG_Lunatic:

If I undertand you correctly, the P-47 had a thicker skin than the P-51 right?

Does anyone know how thick the aluminum skin on any fighter arcraft was?


----------



## Erich (Apr 8, 2005)

David have you seen a P-51 and a Jug sitting next to one another ? the Jug almost dwarfs the Mustang by size. that engine alone to operate the powerful Thunderbolt is a monster in itself compare to the slender Merlin.....


----------



## evangilder (Apr 8, 2005)

That's very true. Erich. The Jug pretty much dwarfed all the other single engine fighters!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 8, 2005)

I have never seen the two aircraft side by side but am aware of the dimensions / weights and agree that the Thunderbolt was a big boy.

I assume you are of the opinion that the Thunderbolt had a thicker skin as well.

I have seen and physically explored a TBF Avenger, another quite large plane, and was quite struck at how really thin its aluminum skin was. 

At any rate, does anyone have any information on the thickness of the aluminum skin on any WWII aircraft?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

there's a joke about lancasters, you never use your hand to lean against the aircraft, you'll put your hand straight through


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 8, 2005)

I heard that a crew member of a B-17 once say in similar fashion that you could practically poke your finger through the side of the plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

was he saying that about the lanc or B-17??


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 8, 2005)

B-17


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 8, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> RG_Lunatic:
> 
> If I undertand you correctly, the P-47 had a thicker skin than the P-51 right?



I think it did, but I really cannot say so "for sure". What I've read is that the P-47 had the thickest sheetmetal of any WWII fighter. So the P-51 sheetmetal might be equal?



DAVIDICUS said:


> Does anyone know how thick the aluminum skin on any fighter arcraft was?



I believe the P-47 used mostly 16 gauge (0.051") duraluminum where most planes used about 20 gauge (0.032") to 24 gauge (0.020") sheeting. Most planes used thicker sheeting in some places (leading edges of the wings for instance) than other places (side of the fusalage for instance). _Note: the gauges I'm giving are based upon my observance of aircraft at airshows and museums and my limited experiance with sheetmetal (one job I had made its own cases for electronics and had sheetmetal cutting and bending equipment, and auto repair experiance). So these figures are only my estimates and should not be quoted as "fact"._

*Design Analysis of the P-47 Thunderbolt* gives a lot of detail about the P-47 construction, but unfortunately does not give the skin thickness. Also of note on that site is Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (A6M3).

Here's a very nice cutaway of the P-47D from the site listed above.





_Drawing by Reynold Brown._

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

annother great pic there.........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 8, 2005)

Wow. Thanks for the web link. One thing's for sure, structurally, it was built to be pretty tough.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

and it bloody well was


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DAVIDICUS said:
> 
> 
> > RG_Lunatic:
> ...



HEY, GREAT STUFF, LOVE THE CUTAWAYS!

Some info on sheet metal 

Sheet metal thickness alone doesn't always mean the robustness of the structure. You could have .020 sheet metal made from 2024 material with what you call a T-3 temper and it will be harder to puncture than a 6061 sheet .032 thick in a T-3 condition. It also depends on what was behind the structure (corrugations, clips supports etc.) I would guess that both the P-47 and P-51 were both pretty similar in structure as sheet metal (even back in WWII) came in standard sizes and tempers. (.016 .020, .032, .040, .050, .063, etc.). You had to facilitate repairs on the entire fleet of Bombers and Fighters and the one thing you don't want is is non standardization of raw material. Aircraft sheet metal is always spoken in size, not Gage (that's for the air conditioning installers). For the most part, unless the structure had armor behind it, it was easily punctured. What mattered is how well that puncture held up with respect to the surrounding structure. The links that RG displayed clearly shows how much more robust the P-47 was built when compared with the Zero, but neither skin structure is going to stop a 50 cal round. Where the difference lies is the internal layout of the structure. For example, in the P-47 wing designers came up with an interior "box" which takes up much of the structural load. Compare that to the Zero that had conventional ribs and longerons and you could see the difference.

Today wing skins are made up of "planks" 7075 Aluminum with risers milled into them to support the structure. These planks are placed over wing ribs and held in place with rivet and hi-locs.

PS - Most Amercian aircraft constructed during WWII were made from 24T (2024 T3) aluminum


----------



## Soren (Apr 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> By contrast, the Spitfire, the FW190, and the Bf109 - all had marked locations where a person could step, everywhere else was off-limits.



If thats the case then explain these pictures:


















AFAIK only some modern 'conserved' WW2 a/c's have these marked areas, as the owners really like them to stay that way.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

Just because the surface is marked "Don't Step" doesn't necessarily mean you'll damage the structure if you step on it, its an area identified by the manufacturer where the possibility of damage or harm to personnel COULD happen if you step there. 

I would guess at the front, as aircraft were being repaired, the NO STEP placard was the last thing the ground crews were worried about getting on the aircraft


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > By contrast, the Spitfire, the FW190, and the Bf109 - all had marked locations where a person could step, everywhere else was off-limits.
> ...



You can see the footstep area on the FW wings Soren! Its the area just behind and inside the cannon bulge.

On that Spitfire, it's probably a plane going out of service, and besides that the fronts of the wings are strong enough for guys to sit on if they got up their without standing on the mid part of the wing shows nothing. Crawling or scooting up off a cart is not standing. The guys standing on the wing are standing on the wingroot area where it's okay.

What's the 109 pic supposed to show?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

It doesn't seem to have any "No Step" placards


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

They were usually painted over. Most existing units have them repainted to prevent mishaps.

Both the Spitfire and the FW have an area near the wing root where its okay to step.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

Some of the ones on a C-130 are there so you won't fall off the bloody thing!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

one of the men painting the wing of "just jane" (the lanc than can taxi under it's own power) had just finished painting something on the wing before stepping back to admire his work and walking off the back of the wing


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

Obviously he was British, because a Canuck would never do that.  :-"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

no you just wreak you're lanc by bolting seats into the bact and then don't put in windows..............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

Huh?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

your flying lanc, FM213, has 4 passenger seats bolted into the back, with no windows to look out of whilst in the seats............

the bomb bay floor could take 14,000lbs of weight yet they still had to do a servey of it to see if it could take the weight of four seats plus passengers............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

It's a flying antique, lanc. They want to be kinda sure it ain't gonna thunder in, or something. 
And carving out extra windows would pretty much ruin it, don't you think?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

so does having an un-original interior and unrealistic paint sceme........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

Four seats in a bomb bay that'll never carry bombs again, I can live with. Plus, they can be removed.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> unrealistic paint sceme........


_Now_ what are you on about?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

that gloss would never have been used...........

and few of the fittings in your lanc are originals...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

As opposed to the BBMF Lanc, right? 

And we Canucks have always liked our gloss. Believe it or not, it's an old RCAF tradition. So there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

but it wouldn't have been used in WWII..........

and yes, most of out fittings are original, our's is a military aircraft and so doesn't go through the same checks as civilian aircraft..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but it wouldn't have been used in WWII..........


Wanna bet? Better check it out.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ....and yes, most of out fittings are original, our's is a military aircraft and so doesn't go through the same checks as civilian aircraft..........


What exactly are you referring to by "fittings"?


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> You can see the footstep area on the FW wings Soren! Its the area just behind and inside the cannon bulge.
> 
> On that Spitfire, it's probably a plane going out of service, and besides that the fronts of the wings are strong enough for guys to sit on if they got up their without standing on the mid part of the wing shows nothing. Crawling or scooting up off a cart is not standing. The guys standing on the wing are standing on the wingroot area where it's okay.
> 
> What's the 109 pic supposed to show?



RG there are NO painted areas on any of the a/c's wings in the pictures I presented ! (Thats includes the 190)







There are no marked areas.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

I can see no markings on those planes. But the area where a person could step is very clear. On the Sptifire its the inner wing root panel, and its even deliniated by a sheetmetal line. On the FW, its less apparant but its behind and inside of the MG151 bulge.


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Some of the ones on a C-130 are there so you won't fall off the bloody thing!



Yes those sand-paper like areas are also on alot of "Modern" Spits.


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I can see no markings on those planes. But the area where a person could step is very clear. On the Sptifire its the inner wing root panel, and its even deliniated by a sheetmetal line. On the FW, its less apparant but its behind and inside of the MG151 bulge.



RG that simply just isnt true.

Both the Spit and 109's wings could be walked on without sustaining ANY damage AT ALL ! And I have no clue who gave you your current idea about the Spit and 109's wings.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > I can see no markings on those planes. But the area where a person could step is very clear. On the Sptifire its the inner wing root panel, and its even deliniated by a sheetmetal line. On the FW, its less apparant but its behind and inside of the MG151 bulge.
> ...



I was told this by a live Spitfire pilot just before I climbed up and got into the cockpit at an airshow.

And look at the pic you've posted... NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE STANDING ON THE WING! All of them are being careful to distribute their weight so as not to damage it. And what do you see them wearing on their feet?


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I was told this by a live Spitfire pilot just before I climbed up and got into the cockpit at an airshow.



RG I was told the same by some aircraft mechanics working on one, but this was only on old conserved Spit's, as the owners would like them to stay this way ! There was no risk for damage as long as you didnt start jumping on the wing (Wich most probably wont do  ) 



> And look at the pic you've posted... NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE STANDING ON THE WING! All of them are being careful to distribute their weight so as not to damage it.



 

RG offcourse their not standing on the wing, why would they ? The wing is slanted and theres nothing to hold onto out there, so standing up would be very difficult and the risk of falling great. Also why strain yourself by standing up when you can lie down and do the work ?  



> And what do you see them wearing on their feet?



Three of them clearly wear shoes.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

There is film of P-47 crews walking on the wing in boots. You could not do this on a P-51, Spitfire, or FW.

On that picture of the Spitfire armorer's, clearly the two on the left are barefoot, the next one over we cannot tell, the next one appears to be wearing tennis shoes or something similar but this might be a trick of the light, and the one on the far right is barefoot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> There is film of P-47 crews walking on the wing in boots. You could not do this on a P-51, Spitfire, or FW.
> 
> I've seen P-51s at Mojave and their wings are quite robust - now in todays terms I wouldn't recommend doing that to an airplane worth almost a million bucks!
> 
> For the most part, you could probably get away walking on the wing of any metal WWII aircraft as long as you walk along the spar area and don't jump on the bloody thing! :grab:


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> There is film of P-47 crews walking on the wing in boots. *You could not do this on a P-51, Spitfire, or FW*.



Who in gods name told you this rubbish ? 



> On that picture of the Spitfire armorer's, clearly the two on the left are barefoot, the next one over we cannot tell, the next one appears to be wearing tennis shoes or something similar but this might be a trick of the light, and the one on the far right is barefoot.



The two on the right "look like" they are barefoot, and the one next to them is sitting on his knees and we can't see his feet. The two on the right are clearly wearing shoes ! 

Btw whats with the "Tennis shoes in WW2" ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

_


RG_Lunatic said:





Soren said:





RG_Lunatic said:



I can see no markings on those planes. But the area where a person could step is very clear. On the Sptifire its the inner wing root panel, and its even deliniated by a sheetmetal line. On the FW, its less apparant but its behind and inside of the MG151 bulge.

Click to expand...


RG that simply just isnt true.

Both the Spit and 109's wings could be walked on without sustaining ANY damage AT ALL ! And I have no clue who gave you your current idea about the Spit and 109's wings. 






Click to expand...


I was told this by a live Spitfire pilot just before I climbed up and got into the cockpit at an airshow.

And look at the pic you've posted... NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE STANDING ON THE WING! All of them are being careful to distribute their weight so as not to damage it. And what do you see them wearing on their feet?

Click to expand...

_
Folks I think I could tell you that during the war years the ground crews (especially the armourers) were careful not to step on weak areas of a fighters wings which were usually the upper surfaces of the flap bays and the ailerons, especially if they were fabric. The one thing those guys wanted to do was to get the aircraft armed and fueled ASAP and move on the the next aircraft, if they caused some scraped paint or a little dent, so be it! 

If you walked or jumped on one of those "weak" areas are you going to hurt the airplane? - probably not, at least not right away.

I worked around a lot of post WWII jets (F-86, T-33, L-29 39) and although these aircraft are a little more robust than most of your typical WWII aircraft, as a maintainer you develop a "plan" on how to get up on the surfaces of the plane without hurting it. You'll see guys jump up on a wing"Butt first" on the leading edge and slide themselves on to the stronger portion of the wings so the aircraft could be fueled or fixed. If the aircraft was totally restored, I would wear "footies" (canvas socks), or no shoes, but this is more the exception than the rule.

Over all, two or 3 guys standing on the wing of a spitfire or 190 shouldn't hurt it if the ground crew was careful. During the war years, unless the ground crew put their foot though the wing, they weren't going to care about small dents and scratches, after all depending on the theater and timeframe during the war, chances are the aircraft they were working on wasn't coming back! I think once in flight during a combat situation, that aircraft was going to see a lot more abuse!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

The P-51's wings were very fragile when it comes to thier aerodynamic properties. They were only expected to exhibit laminar flow properties through about the first 50 hours of flight time. Great care not to distort the surface was recommended.

Flyboy, my point is that the P-47 required no special care. They would have a man out on the wing, way out about 6 feet from the tip, to direct the plane into position to takeoff. When it was time for him to jump down, he'd stand up and trot over to the back of the wing root and slide off. And they were in combat boots. The P-47 is said to have had "double thick" skinning, though I've not been able to specifically confirm that it was indeed twice as thick as other US fighters. I suspect it was noticably thicker, but not twice as thick.

I think if you can nab the full version of the P-47 "in color" film you will see the flight crews doing what I've noted above.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The P-51's wings were very fragile when it comes to thier aerodynamic properties. They were only expected to exhibit laminar flow properties through about the first 50 hours of flight time. Great care not to distort the surface was recommended.
> 
> Flyboy, my point is that the P-47 required no special care. They would have a man out on the wing, way out about 6 feet from the tip, to direct the plane into position to takeoff. When it was time for him to jump down, he'd stand up and trot over to the back of the wing root and slide off. And they were in combat boots. The P-47 is said to have had "double thick" skinning, though I've not been able to specifically confirm that it was indeed twice as thick as other US fighters. I suspect it was noticably thicker, but not twice as thick.
> 
> ...



Yes - I totally understand what you're saying. With the Mustang as you said with its laminar wing, I'm sure when it first entered service this was closely watched, but say by Korea, the ground pounders were probably stomping all over those wings! Sometimes maitainers are their own worse enemys!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

By Korea none of the P-51's had any laminar flow at all. Under perfect condtions the characteristic could last as much as 200 flight hours, but 50 was the reasonable expectation, and many did not hold it even that long. Since the life expectancy of a fighter in combat was 20-30 hours, it was not considered an issue.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

Yep - I'm with you, I got my boots on right now!


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2005)

And I repeat: *Both the Spit, 109 and 190's wings could be walked on (Boots or not) without sustaining ANY damage AT ALL !*


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 18, 2005)

Now this is a tough wing.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 18, 2005)

It was quite a thick wing- that's why the Tiffie was no good at altitude


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2005)

but brilliant at lower altitudes.........

but that pic with all the guys on the wing is amazing!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2005)

If you seen how wing spars are made (machined and heat treated) you'll realize that airplanes are a lot tougher than you think!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 18, 2005)

Soren said:


> And I repeat: *Both the Spit, 109 and 190's wings could be walked on (Boots or not) without sustaining ANY damage AT ALL !*



One picture of a guy on a spit wing, carefully posed with his weight upon the spar, is not "proof". All the FW photos are totally irrelevant, the person standing is right at the wing root, or is quite near the root and we cannot see his feet, or in the last pic he's either sitting or kneeling on the wing or he's actually on a ladder or something on the far side of the wing.


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> One picture of a guy on a spit wing, carefully posed with his weight upon the spar, is not "proof".



 



RG_Lunatic said:


> All the FW photos are totally irrelevant, the person standing is right at the wing root, or is quite near the root and we cannot see his feet, or in the last pic he's either sitting or kneeling on the wing or he's actually on a ladder or something on the far side of the wing.



Ladder ??!!! You must be blind !!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 18, 2005)

Oh really? Well, I am pretty sure it is you who is "blind". Take a good look Soren:






On first glance, it appears the man is sitting on the wing facing away from the camera. But on closer inspection, it appears he is facing the camera, and leaning on the wing while standing or maybe even sitting on some kind of support that is located on the far side of the wing blocked from our view.

But the point is he is clearly not standing on the wing, so it does not really matter.


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2005)

RG it is clearly you who is the blind one, and especially because you don't even see it when enlarged !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2005)

OK guys - next week I'm going to be in California, at Mojave airport and at Gillespie Airfield for an airshow (Apr. 28-May 1). Both places are a warbird environment rich. There will definitely be a Mustang at at least one these places, maybe a Spit, possibly a P-47. Because I'll be an airshow participant, I should be able to get a real close look at these aircraft, providing they are all there. I'll take pictures and let you know what I find out.  

=FBJ=


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG it is clearly you who is the blind one, and especially because you don't even see it when enlarged !



Soren, do you notice that there is a head right in the middle of the red circle you've drawn and marked "leg" ???


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> OK guys - next week I'm going to be in California, at Mojave airport and at Gillespie Airfield for an airshow (Apr. 28-May 1). Both places are a warbird environment rich. There will definitely be a Mustang at at least one these places, maybe a Spit, possibly a P-47. Because I'll be an airshow participant, I should be able to get a real close look at these aircraft, providing they are all there. I'll take pictures and let you know what I find out.
> 
> =FBJ=



Take a micrometer and see if you can find somewhere you can take some measurements


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 19, 2005)

Please get some P-47 pictures.   8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2005)

I'll try if one shows up to the airshow.


----------



## Soren (Apr 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > RG it is clearly you who is the blind one, and especially because you don't even see it when enlarged !
> ...



In the Middle !! Look here's where the head is:


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

Grrrr...






Where is the guy in blue's right leg?

And again, it really does not matter as he is clearly NOT STANDING ON THE WING!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2005)

*I WANT TO TAKE YOU GUYS TO THE GRASSY KNOLL*


----------



## Soren (Apr 19, 2005)

*Sigh*


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

There is no "leg" in the left of your two red boxes. It's on the other side of the wing which you have boxed. The right side is less clear, but appears to be the same - it is obscured by the guys head and the guys arm too much to make a solid determination.


----------



## Soren (Apr 19, 2005)

*Sigh*

Believe what you want to RG, but they are there, and he is crouching. He is probably sitting on one of his feet, making it less apparent on the pic.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 19, 2005)

Guys, is this WWII aviation or photo analysis? You mean to tell me that this is the only photo that you have to make your point? Are you forgetting what you were debating about in the first place? Geez, you have been debating this for at least a full page of posts. Are you debating to debate, or is there a point to this?


----------



## Soren (Apr 19, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Guys, is this WWII aviation or photo analysis? You mean to tell me that this is the only photo that you have to make your point? Are you forgetting what you were debating about in the first place? Geez, you have been debating this for at least a full page of posts. Are you debating to debate, or is there a point to this?



Yes your quite right, this is stupid, and Im done debating that pic. 

Point is the Spit, 109 and 190's wings could be walked on without sustaining any damage. (As long as you don't start jumping on them)

Even on todays conserved WW2 fighters, wich are being handled with extreem caution, it is allowed to sit on the wing-tip ! (Also while taxiing)


----------



## evangilder (Apr 20, 2005)

I wouldn't do that for mainly safety reasons. That's a dangerous exercise that I hope young impressionable aviation buffs don't get the idea of doing. Safety should be the number 1 concern, especially with old warbirds. 

We don't have any German planes in our museum, but we do have a zero and a spitfire. There are zones very clearly marked on the zero where you are not to step, else your foot may go through. There are not zones like that on the spitfire, but everyone knows that you don't step on flaps or control surfaces. Most guys will walk where the supports are so as to preserve the aircraft as long as possible. Could any part of the wing be walked on? Most likely, but doing that in our hangar is likely to get you a serious ass-whooping. But these are 60+ year old airplanes that have few cheap spare parts. These airplanes are treated better than some peoples kids!


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

I'm sure you're right Evan it would seem a tad daft to use any surface on an aircraft for anything other than the purpose to which it was designed for, even more so with such rare craft as these as for war time i'm sure that short cuts or the need for speed mean't that tasks (including clambering incorrectly on wings ect), would have been tollerated to a degree exactly as aircraft componants where pushed well beyond there designed service limits or pilots taking there planes beyond sensible stress levels during combat


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 20, 2005)

Soren said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> Believe what you want to RG, but they are there, and he is crouching. He is probably sitting on one of his feet, making it less apparent on the pic.



That is possible, but tell me... how is that "standing" on the wing? Point made! LOL.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > *Sigh*
> ...



even if he's crouching he's putting all of his weight on a very small area, which has the same effect as standing, either way there's allot of weight on a small area.........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Soren said:
> ...



Standing on a boot can put all the weight on the edge of a heel generating many many times the lbs/sq-inch of kneeling. It's not the same thing at all. Neither is being barefoot or in tennis or other soft-soled shoes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2005)

ok you're standing on the wing, your body weight is mostly on the heels of your feet however there's still a considderable ammount of weight being distributed by the rest of your feet, so that's your body weight being distributed over the area of your feet, if you're kneeling only the tips of your toes and a small area of your knees are having to distribute your body weight, that's a small area still, not much bigger than the area of your feet if it is at all...............


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

What if you're wearing flippers or snow shoes or you have a bunion that concetrates the weight in a smaller area or you only have one leg or one leg and a peg leg or ballet shoes on point or high heel shoes ( the last two only apply to transvestite ground crew) or clogs or mochasins or SS boots and you tend to goose step or ice skates or jumping jacks or moon boot or oooooooooooooo thats it im now officially bonkers


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ok you're standing on the wing, your body weight is mostly on the heels of your feet however there's still a considderable ammount of weight being distributed by the rest of your feet, so that's your body weight being distributed over the area of your feet, if you're kneeling only the tips of your toes and a small area of your knees are having to distribute your body weight, that's a small area still, not much bigger than the area of your feet if it is at all...............



Combat boots had hard soles. Walking rolls the weight from the back to the front of each foot as you step. With a boot, it would be very easy to put a crescent shaped dent into thin duraluminum sheeting, especially if the internal structure is sparse.


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I wouldn't do that for mainly safety reasons. That's a dangerous exercise that I hope young impressionable aviation buffs don't get the idea of doing. Safety should be the number 1 concern, especially with old warbirds.
> 
> We don't have any German planes in our museum, but we do have a zero and a spitfire. There are zones very clearly marked on the zero where you are not to step, else your foot may go through. There are not zones like that on the spitfire, but everyone knows that you don't step on flaps or control surfaces. Most guys will walk where the supports are so as to preserve the aircraft as long as possible. Could any part of the wing be walked on? Most likely, but doing that in our hangar is likely to get you a serious ass-whooping. But these are 60+ year old airplanes that have few cheap spare parts. These airplanes are treated better than some peoples kids!



I fully agree. Stepping on any of the control surfaces is not allowed on any WW2 era aircraft, but generally the other areas can easely be walked on.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 20, 2005)

Come back! I'm not done fighting!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

OK guys - I'll be at the GILLESPIE airshow April 28 through May 1. The following WWII fighter aircraft are scheduled to be there;

FM-2, P-51, F4U, F6F, P-51, F8F, A6M3

If I get my hands on a micrometer I'm going to measure the skin on these things and report back!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 21, 2005)

Excellent! Also measure the distance between the rivit lines.

You live in the San Diego area Flyboy? I grew up there and lived there most of my life (except when jobs took me elsewhere for up to 3 years at a time). We just moved from San Diego (Bonita actually) about a year ago.

Try to get there early, once the main guys leave the planes the idiots on patrol won't let you near enough to take measurements.

BTW: you can get an inside/outside calipers (get the metal one) for a few bucks at Harbor frieght tools (one in Chula Vista on L street just East of I5, another in El Cajon) - great place to buy cheap tools (which I only recommend if you only expect to use them infrequently) and a number of other items. Inside/outside calipers should give a good enough measurement if you cannot do a micrometer.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Apr 21, 2005)

If you can get to Camarillo, I can talk to the crew chiefs of the F6F, F8F and the Zero to see if they would let you take a measurment. We also have a Spitfire, but I haven't seen it lately. It may have been moved to storage as the Griffon is out for an overhaul.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Excellent! Also measure the distance between the rivit lines.
> 
> You live in the San Diego area Flyboy? I grew up there and lived there most of my life (except when jobs took me elsewhere for up to 3 years at a time). We just moved from San Diego about a year ago.
> 
> ...



Actually I live in Colorado - I did live in California on and off for about 22 years. I travel there a lot to work on aircraft, fly an L-29 and see old Friends. I always liked San Diego, I worked for Rohr and Ryan!

I'm actually going to be an airshow participant, so I'll avoid the airshow Gestapo!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 21, 2005)

evangilder said:


> If you can get to Camarillo, I can talk to the crew chiefs of the F6F, F8F and the Zero to see if they would let you take a measurment. We also have a Spitfire, but I haven't seen it lately. It may have been moved to storage as the Griffon is out for an overhaul.



Where is Camarillo ?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 21, 2005)

Off the 101, between Ventura and Thousand Oaks. Near Oxnard.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Off the 101, between Ventura and Thousand Oaks. Near Oxnard.



Great place to fly into - hope to meet you there somday Evan!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 21, 2005)

Let me know if you fly in there. I can meet you there and give you the tour.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

Would love to - thanks


----------



## evangilder (Apr 21, 2005)

No prob! We have quite a collection of airplanes and artifacts. You can't miss us. From the airfield, we are near the tower. Look for a C-46, C-131 and/or a Martin 404 and you will find us. There is usually a couple of SNJs and a Broussard on the ramp as well. Right now we have a Nanchang CJ out there that came in on an IFE. He had a total engine failure and had to make a deadstick landing.  He was right in from of our C-46 that was also coming in with an IFE. It was an exciting day! Fortunately, everyone got down okay. The C-46 sheared off one of it's main bolts for the tailwheel. Very scary.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

WOW- Sounds like an exciting day, hopefully no one will make the news!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 21, 2005)

Yes, all ended well, fortunately. We have very resourceful folks down at the CAF that were able to jury-rig a solution to keep the tail-wheel down and locked for them to get in okay. They have been working on it and it will be good as new in a short time.

When the bolt sheared, there was a loud bang and the whole airplane shuddered. The pilot said that when it happened he thought "OH SHIT!". He reads alot of accident reports in his regular job and he said that is one of the common things, normal takeoff and departure followed by a loud bang. That was the first thing that crossed his mind. Pucker factor of 9 on that one!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

I could imagine! Hey do you have a fellow there that works with the C-46 who talks about a friend or relative who has a T-33?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 21, 2005)

Hmmm... I know most of the guys that work on the C-46 and have heard mention of a T-33, but I don't remember who mentioned the T-33. We had one out at Camarillo a few months back giving rides. Do you know the name of the C-46 crewmember?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

You know I don't. I was hooked up with a guy named Charlie Wallisch who had a T-33 based out of Mojave Airport. Charlie's dad and this "friend" would come out and help us during annual inspection time. He always talked about you guys and the C-46. Can't remember his name.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 21, 2005)

I don't suppose any of you guys could help me to aquire an appropriate wing or fuselage section for some real damage tests?

It does not need to be from real WWII aircraft, just have appropriate internal structure and be covered in duraluminum sheet. Obviously to keep the price down I'm looking for something off a wreck.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

RG - How close are to to Ceaderville? There's an aircraft salvage yard there


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 21, 2005)

Right now I'm in Oklahoma. May be re-locating to the Bakersfield area or to the Casper Wyoming area or to the Colorado area soon.

But, if I can locate something that sounds appropriate, I can arrainge a road trip. I would need to transport the section to Ohio in any case - that's where the guy with the .50's and 20mm's who can shoot it up is.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

Try: C C Alloys Corporation 209 East Jefferson Street, Purcell OK. I have no Idea where they are at. If you get to bakersfield there are numerous salvage companies in southern CA. If you get to Colorado, I 'll defiently hook you up!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 21, 2005)

Chino also has a salvage yard.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

Chino, and don't forget the one at long Beach Airport. You also got Aviaiotn Warehouse out at El Mirage dry lake.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

OK folks here we go again! I got up close to an F4F, F6F, F8F, F4U, SBD and a P-51. I kept the photos large so bear with me. As far as wing skins are concerned, this is what I found...

The Zero, F4F and SBD carried the same thickness, although you could see the Zero had much less internal structure. lots of rivets on the SBD and F4F. The P-51, F4U and F8F were really thick skinned, the F4U had the thickest at the wing hinge (obviously) and it seemed the whole bottom wing structure was very thick. The best way to view this was at the trailing edge at the aileron.

If you walked on any of these, you're not going to damage anything unless you walk on the fabric control surfaces. The skin on the outside engine bay of the mustang was a bit thinner than the wings which would make be uncomfortable considering all the coolant and oil lines seen in the engine bay. Out of all of these if I had to be shot at in an airplane, I'd take the F4U. For the most part, you're not damaging the surfaces of these wings if you jump on them (with the exception on the Zero) although I'd think if you did that to these particular aircraft the owners would remove genitalia parts through your nose!


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

Wow those photos are huge.

Also, it's very hard to judge thickness on folded or mudded over plate joinings.

And, I'm skeptical about the Zero, it is too likely it was rebuilt post-war using thicker than original sheeting.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

I could tell you on the Corsair you're looking at up to .125. The Zero looked about .032 - .040. The Mustang about .075.

If rebuilt, I could tell you that the Zero would have to use close to the original thickness of sheet metal. After the restoration the FAA has to do their thing and before an airworthiness certificate is issued. The restorer will have to prove to an FAA inspector that what was used on the retoration was close if not the same material on the original structure.


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I could tell you on the Corsair you're looking at up to .125.
> The Zero looked about .032 - .040. The Mustang about .075.
> 
> If rebuilt, I could tell you that the Zero would have to use close to the
> ...



Well, that is not always true. On the Corsair for instance, virtually all 
flying planes have the wing fabric replaced with aluminum sheeting, and 
usually tail surface fabric too for that matter. The historic fabric is 
impossible to get - it was very expenensive and was soaked in a 
fireproofing liquid that it turned out was a significant health hazard for the 
crews working with it. Aluminum is much cheaper and much easier to 
maintain. The main purpose of the fabric covering was to reduce 
vulnerablity to enemy fire - civilian Corsairs don't expect to be taking any 
hits so.... 

On the Zero, they'd be wanting assurances it was safe to fly - thicker 
sheetmetal would not necessarily make it unsafe to fly as long as it was 
balanced properly, it might even make the plane safer. The main reason 
to do it would be to reduce maintance requirements.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)

All of the aircraft in the CAF that had fabric control surfaces, still do. Alot of the Zero restoration (about 60%) ofr the Zero that is in the photos was done in russia. Thicker sheetmetal will make the airplane heavier and could have an effect on the flight characteristics.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > I could tell you on the Corsair you're looking at up to .125. The Zero looked about .032 - .040. The Mustang about .075.
> ...



No - I disagree. I was involved with several restorations with the FAA and they it the same, *period*. If the control surface was fabric, you replaced it with fabric. If the Skin was .040 you replace it with .040. There's a thing called "approved data" and that's the data the manufacturer puts out in their maintenance manual. The FAA accepts this as gospel and without following these guidelines you're not getting an airworthiness certificate. When restoring a warbird, the Feds are very strict about this. To change it you need what you call a DER (Designated Engineering Representative) who will actually do the re-design. Restorers try to avoid these guys because they cost big bucks to hire.

Oh and the fabric on the Corsair - Irish Linen, doped on and held in place with sheet metal screws and lacetie, easily replaced by "Stits" an approved substitute that is ironed on then processed with dope replacement. Look at my jumbo photos (sorry) all those planes have fabric covered control surfaces.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2005)

Very nice pictures FLYBOYJ ! It is pretty obvious thw wings will sustain no damage from walking on them, wich i presume the instructor's at the place told you aswell.


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)

Still it kind of depends on the aircraft. We do have places clearly marked on the Zero where you are not supposed to put your feet. It might be okay if you are really light, but the Japanese writing on it says (in kanji) No Step. That could also be in an area that has little structure beneath and could cause it to dent. I don't think you would actually go through.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

Soren said:


> Very nice pictures FLYBOYJ ! It is pretty obvious thw wings will sustain no damage from walking on them, wich i presume the instructor's at the place told you aswell.



Thanks!

OH YEA


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Still it kind of depends on the aircraft. We do have places clearly marked on the Zero where you are not supposed to put your feet. It might be okay if you are really light, but the Japanese writing on it says (in kanji) No Step. That could also be in an area that has little structure beneath and could cause it to dent. I don't think you would actually go through.



Yep, and considering that your Museum's Zero is "priceless" to me any dent is about $25K!!!!


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)

Yep, it would be at least that much in dental work. If you dent the plane, the crew chief (or the pilot) would likely kick your teeth in!


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

FlyBoyJ,

Somewhere on the Dupont website is (or there was) a section concerning the fabric covering for the wings of the Corsair, which was a synthetic fabric which would not rip or tear (a for-runner of Tyvex). It was soaked in another Dupont chemical which it turned out was very harsh on the skin and lungs of the flight crews, in order to make it virtually fireproof. It had to be replaced frequently because it did have a tendancy to stretch.

This fabric was used on the wings to make them less susceptable to damage. I don't know if it was used on the other surfaces or not.

As I said before, the wings of all flying corsairs today use duraluminum, not fabric of any kind - so obviously the FAA is not quite so strict as you claim. Modifications can get approval.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Yep, it would be at least that much in dental work. If you dent the plane, the crew chief (or the pilot) would likely kick your teeth in!



Oh yea - when someone uninvited goes near my jets I spool up like a top!

By the way, forgot to tell you, you guys did a great job on your birds! The Zero, Hellcat and Bearcat stole the show as far as restored WW2 aircraft. Seeing Semential Journey was cool, but seeing those 3 aircraft fly in formation was someting else!!


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

They'll be happy to hear that. 8) We do have a great group of guys down there.


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

All Corsairs have duraluminum elevators? Care to make a wager on that one?


----------



## Anonymous (May 6, 2005)

evangilder said:


> All Corsairs have duraluminum elevators? Care to make a wager on that one?



I didn't say that. I said all flying Corsairs have duraluminum in place of the fabric on the wings. I'm unsure about the elevators and rudder, they could well be canvas - the areas are much smaller and thus less subject to stretching issues.


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

Okay, I misunderstood. I wasn't aware that late model Corsairs had any fabric in the wings, aside from the elevators and the rudder. I always consider the elevators part of the wing.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic,

When did production Corsairs finally do away with fabric covered control surfaces?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> FlyBoyJ,
> 
> Somewhere on the Dupont website is (or there was) a section concerning the fabric covering for the wings of the Corsair, which was a synthetic fabric which would not rip or tear (a for-runner of Tyvex). It was soaked in another Dupont chemical which it turned out was very harsh on the skin and lungs of the flight crews, in order to make it virtually fireproof. It had to be replaced frequently because it did have a tendancy to stretch.
> 
> ...



That's what you think RG - the Feds are VERY strict. As Evan stated earlier, if you start changing wing skin sizes the airplane will fly VERY different, something a little hair raising when you're flying a 60 year old restored war bird! Yes, you can do engineering changes, but it can be very difficult, and even though a DER can come up with very rational engineering, an airworthy inspector can shoot it down for any reason he or she seem fit. Their power is immense! I've seen Corsairs with their center wing fabric section replaced with sheet metal, I believe some of that might of been done when the aircraft were still operational, probably after the war. Something like that isn't a great deal, its when you start messing with control surfaces when things could get sticky.

The synthetic fabric you are talking about is probably ceconite, and the chemicals used were harsh, but that was and still is common in dealing with rag wing aircraft. The people who came up with Stits process did so to get rid of the dopes and acetones needed during the "old" process and yes, many of the dopes used on ceconite and Irish Linen are fireproof. The fabric and dope process is the same, whether you're covering the center section of a restored F4U or a piper cub, I state this through experience. I helped rebuild a number of war birds and/ or their sub assemblies (P-51, F4U, MiG-15, PBY, S-2, F-86, C-123, L-29, and numerous older UH-1H to name a few) and did the licensing process with the FAA on probably 20 or 30 of them. As a matter of fact, I do high performance aircraft FAA certification consulting as a side business (do you know anyone with a P-51 that needs to be licensed?)  

I could tell you (and I think Evan can back me up on this) when you restore a war bird, you want to make it as original as possible. Things like nav lights, landing lights and certain nav equipment may have to be added per the FAA. The owner may go through the cockpit and make it more "use friendly" By modifying the seat, adding modern radios and GPS.

I worked with a guy who had a saying "Unless its going to kill, get you thrown in jail or you or give you hemriods, keep it original."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> RG_Lunatic,
> 
> When did production Corsairs finally do away with fabric covered control surfaces?



I think the later F4Us eventually went to metal control surfaces after WW2. I know that after WWII there was a great push to do away with fabric control surfaces in the military due to the hazardness of the materials and the specialty skill required to do fabric work. On an aircraft carrier its bad enough you have bilges filled with fuel and bombs on board, if you could avoid one less flammable item, the better! Dope and fabric work today is just about a lost art. Personally I hate to do it because of the time process, the smell and the hassle to correct a mistake. It's much easier to bang away on sheet metal!


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

There are a few people still around that can do the fabric. I have a couple of cousins that are very good at it. Their father taught them (he had an aircraft maintenance hangar in Yuma Arizona for years, Burch Aviation) and as far as I know, they still can do it well. Sadly, it is becoming a lost art.


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

And yes, at least in the CAF, they try and make it as original as possible. I recently found out that the B-25 we are restoring is actually the only surviving PBJ. There are other PBJ-like airplanes that are really B-25s painted and modified to look like a PBJ, but our started it's life as a PBJ and it looks like it will be restored as such. They are using original blueprints to fabricate some of the metal structure that has corroded and/or been removed. The aircraft had the bomb-bay removed in it's previous existence as a post-war transport. They have rebuilt the bomb-bay from parts fabricated in-house using original drawings and the same guage of metals.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

evangilder said:


> They have rebuilt the bomb-bay from parts fabricated in-house using original drawings and the same guage of metals.



And those drawings are considered "approved data" by the FAA.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

Random fact of the day, my Great-Grandfather was a rigger in World War 1. He did the fabric covering and rigging of the aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Random fact of the day, my Great-Grandfather was a rigger in World War 1. He did the fabric covering and rigging of the aircraft.



Do you know what aircraft he worked on?


----------



## Anonymous (May 6, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Okay, I misunderstood. I wasn't aware that late model Corsairs had any fabric in the wings, aside from the elevators and the rudder. I always consider the elevators part of the wing.



The F4U-5 was the first Corsair that had fully metal wings, and I believe all tail surfaces were metal as well. I'm not sure about the ailerons.

The F4U-4 had a special fabric covering for the wings aft of the spar outside of the fold, and the ailerons were made of wood. Control surfaces on the tail were fabric covered, but I don't know if it was the same fabric or normal canvas - the comment about the fabric from Dupont only referred to the wings.

As far as I know, all flying (and perhaps static) F4U's, even the -1's, have been redone in aluminum - the fabric is just impossible to get and a royal pain to service.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 6, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > FlyBoyJ,
> ...



I think I've seen every US based flying Corsair. I always check the wings, so far I've never seen one with fabric covering.

You keep saying "center section", the part of the wing that was covered in fabric was that aft of the spar outside the fold (bend). The ailerons were wood (metal was also tested but wood was found superior).

I would imagine that since the F4U-5 and beyond had "all metal" wings (ailerons???) and there was no other significant change to the wing design that the conversion of F4U-1's through F4U-4's to metal would be somewhat simplified. Factory specs for all metal wings already exist.

Service F4U-4's had fabric wings through at least Korea, I'm not aware of the USN ever refitting them.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > RG_Lunatic said:
> ...



The Museum in Chino Ca. had several older F4Us with fabric wing center sections. I seen them back in 1978 when I had to do an A&P apprenticeship project. There were 2 or 3 from what I remember, but they were not restored and were missing the outboard wing sections. The fabric was all rotted through. What happened to them, I'll never know.  

You're probably right on the -5s being all metal, but are you sure of the control surfaces being wood? I believe they were an aluminum frame covered with fabric. Repairing wood is even more difficult than fabric and even when varnished, wood shrinks. I think the changing climate and salt air on a carrier would play havoc on a wood control surface.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

The control surfaces on the F4U I seen during the Gillespie airshow were definitely fabric, I took a photo and you could see the stitching and finishing tape in the rudder and elevators (C&P and zoom in on it). The sun his hitting the aileron, but I think it too was fabric covered. I'm keeping this photo a lot smaller than the previous ones


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

You know RG - I stand corrected, the ailerons were wood!  I found a picture of one undergoing restoration. See attached!

Go to this site, they got some nice F4U and other warbird restoration photos - I dealt with these guys a few times, nice people!

http://www.americanaeroservices.com/f4u-5_home.htm


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

Sorry, Flyboy, I don't know. I have a picture of him stood next to a plane but I don't have a scanner. And the picture is in bad condition.


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 6, 2005)

factory F4U drawings, http://www.f4ucorsair.com/tdata/blueprints.html


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2005)

The Restoration guys down here seem to have all these skills still, the WWI aircraft here are really awesome, and the work done on WWII craft are real impressive....just don't have the volume of restoration work like in the US.......


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

What I have seen of the work they are doing down there has been impressive. Glad to see that the warbird community is doing well there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Sorry, Flyboy, I don't know. I have a picture of him stood next to a plane but I don't have a scanner. And the picture is in bad condition.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2005)

What? The reason I know he was a rigger was not because of the picture.  It's just that there IS a picture of him stood next to a plane...same as I've got one of my Great Uncle in the cockpit of a Spitfire in Malta, where he was an aircraft engineer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> What? The reason I know he was a rigger was not because of the picture.  It's just that there IS a picture of him stood next to a plane...same as I've got one of my Great Uncle in the cockpit of a Spitfire in Malta, where he was an aircraft engineer.



hey, sorry for the laughs, Believe it or not I just spilled a sh#t load of milk on my keyboard, really, the keyboard took a mind of its own  . I would love to see these photos if you could get a scanner!


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2005)

Well, when I do I'll be sure to post them. I need to get in touch with my brother anyway, he's getting the RAF personel listing of the people on Malta! Get to find out more about my Great Uncle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Well, when I do I'll be sure to post them. I need to get in touch with my brother anyway, he's getting the RAF personel listing of the people on Malta! Get to find out more about my Great Uncle.



The WW1 stuff, you got to send to the "aerodrome." Great WW1 website!


----------



## f111_mac (Feb 10, 2007)

Hi there, 

I am a new user to this forum, could you please explain where I can see the cutaways that were included in this there but since have expired?


Thanks in advance.

Cumps,
F111_mac.


----------



## Jank (Feb 17, 2007)

Hell0 f111_mac. See the following website:

Design Analysis of the P-47 Thunderbolt


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 14, 2007)

Pity those photos on the front-page are no longer there. Could you post the websites that you got them from please? Thank-you in advance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2007)

Those were Lunatics pics, dont think you will get them again.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 18, 2007)

Okay, sad that because they were really nice pictures.


----------

