# Strongest aircraft?



## BAGTIC (Mar 30, 2007)

Which WW2 aircraft were the strongest in terms of how many G's they were designed for?


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 30, 2007)

Just my guess, but wouldn't it have been one of the dive bombers, given the force they have to withstand pulling out of a dive?

hmmmm. I really don't know......but I'm sure one of the smarty guys here do.


----------



## R-2800 (Mar 30, 2007)

P-47? or a dive bomber


----------



## VALENGO (Mar 31, 2007)

Well, germans use to call Sturmovik "the concrete airplane"; that is something!!


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2007)

Heard the Dauntless SBD was designed for 12g. But I got the info from the History Channel "Dogfights" so take the info with a grain of salt.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 31, 2007)

He 177 comes to mind...

Kris


----------



## renrich (Mar 31, 2007)

The only a/c the AAF admitted that was stronger than the P47 was the Corsair. One could shed some fabric off the control surfaces but I never heard of a structural failure infligh


----------



## Civettone (Mar 31, 2007)

Was the Corsair stronger than the Hellcat??

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Was the Corsair stronger than the Hellcat??
> 
> Kris


Both were built like a brick sh*thouse...

In a very old thread I took photos of an F6F, Corsair, Wildcat and Zero tho show the differences of their skins. The Corsair in my opinion was just as robust as the F6F.


----------



## trackend (Apr 1, 2007)

I know that the Stringbag tended to loose its wings if the air speed went much over 220knts when used as a dive bomber so although I love the old buckets
I don't think they where terrible robust.
I'd go for something like the Ju 87, having to pull out of an 80degree dive using auto dive recovery in case of G blackout it must have been a fairly strong plane.


----------



## ridato (Apr 2, 2007)

Well, You need to know max g and airspeed, the so called V-n diagram. 
Dive bombers has high max G but them use dive airbrakes to control airspeed. Every aircraft has a Vne (airspeed not exceed), for the F4U was 787 km/h, for the last model Zero A6M5c was 740 km/h. The thickness of wing skin is a primary factor for max G and Vne and the F4U has fabric outer wing skins. More thickness means heavier aircraft (lower performance). Japanese did not have so powerfull engines like the PWR2800 until the end of the war, so they should control the weight, Zero and other japanese aircraft did not have high Vne.
Il-2 Sturmovik was a very strong aircraft, but it was because armor plate, outer wings were wooden made, and it should limit his max G.
In modern aircraft, F-16 has a maximum G of 9, F-18: 9.6, Mirage M.III/V: 7, A-4:6.
WW2 aircraft sometimes has higher max G, but it is interesting because pilot did not have G-suit, and trained pilots could not resist 5g for more than some seconds without G-suit.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 3, 2007)

Has anyone mentioned the Hs 129 yet? Together with the Il-2 the most armoured aircraft of WW2.


Kris


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 3, 2007)

In WWII aviation video games, I don't always like the blackout option on realistic mode. I can't do as much stuff in the plane because of the weakness of the sim pilot! Everything just goes red or black.

But I guess that was the way it was, so ya have to get used to it.


----------



## renrich (Apr 3, 2007)

According to my reference, the following limiting envelope in a dive for the F4U1D was: at 30000 ft-restricted to 299 mph IAS which was 489mph TAS Mach .72: at 20000 ft the restriction was 368 mph IAS, 504 TAS, Mach .72: at 10000 ft, 433mph IAS, 516 TAS mach .70 at 3.5g pullout and 403 mph IAS/469 mph TAS, Mach .63 at a 6.5 g pullout. At normal weight the max. design flight limit loads were 7.5 positive and 3.5 negative.


----------



## ciupir (Apr 4, 2007)

Hy. Il2-strong agains bulets not G.. Is to havy and underpowered to sustain himself in a high G configuration. P47-Coesair-Hellcat great fighters but they olso don't have power to stay in an high G manover for a long time (only if they got there from a dive). I personaly think that Yak9 , La7 was the only aircraft capable of mor then 5G in a manover starting from cruise speed .They are light aircraft and with very powerful engines (La7). The wing even if she was made from wood-don't forget that they are on a small-light aircraft so don't comparit with tha P47 (big-heavy).


----------



## Seawitch (Apr 14, 2007)

How about a Boom Fuselage Aircraft like the Lightning? There has to be a reason for the design I actually came on here to discuss today.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

I have never heard of twin tail booms providing more strength than conventional fuselages though they were used since WW1. In fact one could even say they were more vulnerable. How difficult is it to shoot off one of those booms? With that boom gone, I think the plane would probably crash.

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I have never heard of twin tail booms providing more strength than conventional fuselages though they were used since WW1. In fact one could even say they were more vulnerable. How difficult is it to shoot off one of those booms? With that boom gone, I think the plane would probably crash.
> 
> Kris



Its been documented that P-38s have flown (not well) with one boom missing.

On July 26, 1943, planes from the 49th and 348th Fighter Groups flew up to the Salamaua area to intercept the Japanese. They caught 10 Oscars and 10 Tonys over Markham Valley. As they maneuvered into position, one of Johnson's flight couldn't drop tanks, another blew a supercharger, and other planes escorted these two back home. Johnson was alone. In the ensuing dogfight, Johnson chased a Ki-43 Oscar off Capt. Watkins' tail and shot it down. Suddenly an inline-type fighter came at him. Both pilots opened up instantly. The heavy, concentrated fire of the Lightning tore off the Kawasaki's wing, and as the stricken fighter tumbled over and at him, *it smashed into his port tail assembly, tearing it away.* Johnson regained control of the crippled P-38, and three pilots of the 39FS escorted him back to Horanda strip. Johnson was credited with two victories, but his plane, #83 Sooner, was scrapped. 

P-38 Lightning PTO Aces of World War Two WWII


----------



## red admiral (Apr 20, 2007)

Judging by the previous comments on this thread the strongest aircraft of WWII were the Italian monoplane fighters. They were built to withstand 8g normal load with 12g failure load. The same spec for German aircraft was 6g - 8.33g. For the late war P51s it was 5.33g

The Italian fighters also had to be rated for 1.5x Vmax. One of the prototype C.200s shed its tail whilst attempting this dive speed. The resulting aircraft were strengthened and IIRC made over 900km/h in a dive. The Re. 2005 got up to 980km/h in a dive _with no loss of control_.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 21, 2007)

Not only the P-38 but also the Fw 189 is known to have survived a boom torn off. But because these stories are so well known I interpret them as exceptions (like Johnson's P-47 being shot to pieces by that Fw 190) to the more likely scenario that this would lead to a crash. 

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Apr 21, 2007)

And yet the Re.2005 was considered structurally too weak for the DB 603...

And doesn't those G-forces especially apply to the wings and not so much to the fuselage?

Kris


----------



## red admiral (Apr 22, 2007)

The g-forces mainly act on the wings during the turn or pulling out of a dive. Humans can only stand a few seconds at 9g so there was plenty of redundancy.

I have my doubts about the reports of the Re.2005 being structurally weak. The Germans don't mention it in their comparative report. I've only seen it mentioned in English secondary sources. The Re-2000 and Re-2001 were able to be catapult launched, there weren't any occasions(that I've found) of a Re.2005 shedding its tail section.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Apr 23, 2007)

armor doesn't really determine how many G's an aircraft can pull - the Spitfire VIII can pull about 9 and dive to about 570 mph before ripping apart while the F4U will only dive to about 560 mph and pull a similar load. 

not sure myself, but i remember reading that spitfires actually could pull a LOT of G's.


----------



## Seawitch (Apr 24, 2007)

Hi all
How about the Boomerang? It seems so short and stubby a monoplane that nothing could bend anymore except the person flying it!
BB
Seawitch


----------



## johnbr (Apr 24, 2007)

Me I like the B17 and P47 they both should that they could take it.


----------



## hairyspin (May 3, 2007)

Not sure I'm talking about the same thing, but a Spitfire XI dived at Mach 0.92 from 40000ft with a Farnborough pilot at the controls. This took him seriously into compression effects and he could not pull it out of the dive. The only reason he lived to land the plane and tell the tale was the prop and the reduction gearing flew off and the now tail-heavy Spit zoom climbed straight back up.
Having blacked out from the g forces, the pilot came round back at 40000ft! He was able to glide the plane back to a safe landing with the first slightly swept-back wings seen on a Spitfire.... This is still a record for a propellor driven aircraft.
(source: _Wings on my sleeve_ by Eric 'Winkle' Brown)


----------



## bigZ (May 3, 2007)

red admiral said:


> The g-forces mainly act on the wings during the turn or pulling out of a dive. Humans can only stand a few seconds at 9g so there was plenty of redundancy.
> 
> I have my doubts about the reports of the Re.2005 being structurally weak. The Germans don't mention it in their comparative report. I've only seen it mentioned in English secondary sources. The Re-2000 and Re-2001 were able to be catapult launched, there weren't any occasions(that I've found) of a Re.2005 shedding its tail section.




If I remmember correctly the fusalge by the tail was distorted during high speed violent maneuvers. Seen a few upturned wings on the Re2005 because of ground loops but haven't read of any weakness in the design of the wing.


----------



## bigZ (May 3, 2007)

red admiral said:


> The g-forces mainly act on the wings during the turn or pulling out of a dive. Humans can only stand a few seconds at 9g so there was plenty of redundancy.
> 
> I have my doubts about the reports of the Re.2005 being structurally weak. The Germans don't mention it in their comparative report. I've only seen it mentioned in English secondary sources. The Re-2000 and Re-2001 were able to be catapult launched, there weren't any occasions(that I've found) of a Re.2005 shedding its tail section.




If I remmember correctly the fusalge by the tail was distorted during high speed violent maneuvers. Seen a few upturned wings on the Re2005 because of ground loops but haven't read of any weakness in the design of the wing.

How do you define the strongest aircraft? Ability to take battle damage, G's it can pull, Load capability etc?


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 3, 2007)

The Il2 Sturmovik was a pretty strong aircraft


----------



## Jank (May 3, 2007)

Renrich said, "_The only a/c the AAF admitted that was stronger than the P47 was the Corsair. One could shed some fabric off the control surfaces but I never heard of a structural failure in flight_."

I just discovered this thread so apologize for being a Johnny come lately.

Renrich, I have heard about this admission a number of times and have been looking for a source literally for years now to no avail. (I frankly wonder if it is a myth that is feeding on itself through repetition.) One person finally told me that its source was the 1944 "Report of Joint Fighter Conference" which I proceeded to read from beginning to end only to discovery that there is no such statement nor is there any other statement from which that could be inferred.

Do you know where this admission is documented or who the statement can be attributed to? Just to clarify, I am not arguing that the alleged admission is not true but I have repeatedly searched and questioned for it and have never been able to determine a source.

Related to the issue of shedding fabric, I know that in flight stress tests, the fabric would "bulge" tremendously. There were films made of the phenomenon and the brass swept them under the rug for fear that it would scare Corsair pilots from engaging in stressful manuevers. (Apparently, after viewing the film, one was left with the impression that the fabric was stretched well beyond the must tear point.)


----------



## renrich (May 3, 2007)

Per your request, Jank, I have put on my spectacles, gotten out my books and am looking for that quote that I quoted. So far, I have not found it but will keep looking. I have found that at normal weight the designed limit load was 7.5 g positive and 3.5 g negative for the Corsair. I do have the source of the anecdote in Korea where a Navy pilot broke his left hip and strained back and shoulder muscles pulling out of a dive into compressibility in a Corsair while the airplane was unimpaired. I would have a hard time believing that a P47 could have a stronger airframe than a Corsair since the Corsair was designed from the beginning for carrier landings.


----------



## renrich (May 3, 2007)

In reviewing the P47 handling and flight characteristics it was stated that at very high dive recovery speeds the elevator trim tab had to be used but caution would need to be observed as a combination of trim tab and heavy pilot pull in the warmer denser air at lower altitudes could result in a g overload and a tail structural failure. I don't know what that g figure would be but it was stated that the recovery at around 16000 or 17000 feet would be a 6 g recovery.


----------



## Jank (May 3, 2007)

Again, I am not definitively saying that the asserted admission is false. I am just trying to source it.

I do not know of any reported tail section structural failure in a P-47 ever. Admittedly, I have not searched for one. 

The tail structure failure warning is not restricted to the Thunderbolt. The Corsair's flight manual warns of structural failure in high g dive pull outs as well. (It does not specify tail section) I suspect that all WWII fighters are succeptable to structural damage from engaging in high g dive pull outs. 

From Robert Johnson's book "Thunderbolt" (one man's opinion):

_He soon learned that "unless we plunged nose first into the ground, we couldn't hurt the Thunderbolt". It could take the stress of any aerobatic maneuver. The pilots of the 56th Fighter Group grew to trust the fighter, knowing they could subject it to any demands of aerial combat. _

That being said, I will say that it certainly stands to reason that all naval fighters, being designed for repeated crash landings and cable captures, must have very strong wings and tails.

Please let me know when you find the asserted claim.


----------



## renrich (May 4, 2007)

Will do. I have Johnson's book also, have read it several times and regard it as one of the best books ever about military aviation in time of war. Since we appear to be advocates for a certain WW2 A/c perhaps I need to change my name to U-bird or Hog(or something) and you could change to Jug or Tbolt(or something)


----------



## renrich (May 5, 2007)

Finally found the source for my statement that USAAF admitted that Corsair airframe stronger than P47. I am a PC novice so don't know how to post it here but it is a site called "Planes and Pilots of World War II" and then go to F4U. In this article the author is supporting a claim that the F4U4 was the premier all-around fighter of WW2. He also claims that Corsairs were able to carry bomb loads of 6000 lbs operating off of land bases. Also found the full report of the Corsair that brought down the Nick from 38000 ft by chewing the Nick up with his prop. The pilots name was Bob Klingman in VMF 312(knew he had to be a Marine) and he, because his guns were frozen, went after the Nick 3 times, each time chewing up a little more of the after part of the plane with the last time breaking into the rear canopy and killing the gunner. With that both planes spun out with the Nick losing a wing and the Corsair recovering after 1000 ft. Klingman then flew back to Okinawa with the Corsair vibrating like the dickens(wonder why?) Ran out of fuel but made a dead stick landing where his wheels touched down just short of the runway and then bounced up on the paved area. All 3 prop blades were bent outward with 6 inches missing off each tip. Holes in prop blades, cowling and leading edge of wings. Plane was inspected, holes patched, new prop fitted and a/c was put back in service. Semper Fi


----------



## Jank (May 5, 2007)

Yes, it is that website that initially caused my search for the alleged admission. It is an interesting site but highly biased and full of loose claims and conclusions.

_Survivability: There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the Corsair and still get home. *Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. *That is a remarkable admission._

No source. No reference. Just a republication of the alleged admission, apparently from another source. I have read about the "admission" on a number of forum posts on this and other sites. Just because a person commits a claim to a web page does not make it any more accurate or reliable than passing it on verbally as a thing overheard.

Again, I understand that naval fighters were tough. One thing is for certain though. The P-47 has numerous, actual real world examples of bringing pilots back with horrific damage that far exceed those of any other U.S. fighter. 

There's "could've, would've, should've," and then there's "been there, done that."

I for one am still skeptical and will continue my search for the source for the alleged admission.


----------



## renrich (May 6, 2007)

How did I know that I would hear from you on that? I agree with you though because the statement doesn't have any backup whatsoever and may just be a hearsay remark. Must of my knowledge(?) about war planes is based on reading books and it is always nice to have footnotes with sources quoted. That same site has some good stories about the P47 also.


----------



## pasoleati (Aug 5, 2007)

Since the original question obviously referred to pulling g´s, I´d definitely go for the Italian fighters. As per factory data, the FIAT G.50 had an ultimate factor of 14 g. According to Dottore Eng. Gianni Cattaneo´s Profile booklet on the Macchi C.202, it had an ultimate factor of no less than 15.8 g! That would make it virtually indestructible. Also the Hawker Tempest was strong with its 14+ G strength.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2007)

Yeap but no pilot was going to pull that many G's...

So it does not really matter.


----------



## pasoleati (Aug 5, 2007)

Perhaps not intentionally. But in an emergency you might have to pull for your life and based on many sources blacking out was not uncommon. E.g. Spitfires were designed to well over 10 g factors (ultimate), yet numerous of them suffered fatal overstressing failures in which the pilots pulled over 10 g.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2007)

No Pilot could withstand that many Gs.


----------



## pasoleati (Aug 6, 2007)

Yes they can. One of the most documented Spitfire dives led to severe damage to the aircraft but the pilot survived unharmed and he could bring the plane back. The damage was assessed and it was deduced that the plane was subjected to over 11 g. And the pilot suffered no harm.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 6, 2007)

Was he using a US G suit?


----------



## pasoleati (Aug 8, 2007)

Nope. I´ll check the details but such suits were definitely not used by Brits at that time.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 12, 2007)

Being exposed to sustained G-loads (5-6G max w/o G-suit) and a brief, momentrary exposure is a different thing for human resistance... humans can survive far more than just 15 Gs, I think the record is in fact well over 150 Gs for a short period, trick is they don't survive it if it lasts too long..


----------



## delcyros (Jan 5, 2008)

ridato said:


> Well, You need to know max g and airspeed, the so called V-n diagram.
> Dive bombers has high max G but them use dive airbrakes to control airspeed. Every aircraft has a Vne (airspeed not exceed), for the F4U was 787 km/h, for the last model Zero A6M5c was 740 km/h. The thickness of wing skin is a primary factor for max G and Vne and the F4U has fabric outer wing skins. More thickness means heavier aircraft (lower performance). Japanese did not have so powerfull engines like the PWR2800 until the end of the war, so they should control the weight, Zero and other japanese aircraft did not have high Vne.
> Il-2 Sturmovik was a very strong aircraft, but it was because armor plate, outer wings were wooden made, and it should limit his max G.
> In modern aircraft, F-16 has a maximum G of 9, F-18: 9.6, Mirage M.III/V: 7, A-4:6.
> WW2 aircraft sometimes has higher max G, but it is interesting because pilot did not have G-suit, and trained pilots could not resist 5g for more than some seconds without G-suit.



More wing thickness doesn´t necessarely mean a heavier aircraft. It may as the wingspace is increased (which often was loaded up with fuel), but not necessarely.
Quite contrary, one might say that a wing with thin airfoil must be build heavier to achieve the same structural strength than a wing with thick airfoil when building in wood, with frames or light alloys stressed skin.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 5, 2008)

I am just gonna say SBD...........In a turning fight with the zero a zero couldn't pull a 9 G turn without its wings ripping off.....

B-17engineer

actually the SBD pilot could only withstand a 9G turn for a few seconds......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2008)

B-17 Engineer I have told you to use your Edit Button on many occasions instead of posting 3 posts after another.

Start using it or your posts will be deleted.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 6, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> B-17 Engineer I have told you to use your Edit Button on many occasions instead of posting 3 posts after another.
> 
> Start using it or your posts will be deleted.



$2000 and I will too!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2008)




----------

