# Hardest plane to take down in WW2?



## Hunter368 (Jan 27, 2006)

Simply what is the hardest plane to take down (that can absorb the most damage) in each category:

Fighter ?
Ground Attack a/c?
Bomber?
Carrier Plane?

Don't get me wrong I do not want best fighter or fastest fighter etc I want the toughest one in each category.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2006)

Fighter: P-47 Thunderbolt
Bomber: B-17 Flying Fortress
Carrier plane: Fighter or bomber/torpedo bomber?
For Carrier Fighter, I would go with the Corsair.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2006)

P-47 - Fighter
Il-2 Ground Attack
B-17 Bomber
F4F Carrier


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 27, 2006)

Ground attack- IL-2
Fighter - P47
Bomber - B17
Carrier - mmmm not really sure here, Hellcat or Corsair, I have heard good things about both as being tough.

3 out of 4 for USA lol  They did have tough planes. When in doubt add alittle armor plating. lol


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 27, 2006)

lol Nice list there FB lol I will just responding to Evan then I see yours there. lol


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 27, 2006)

Fighter - P-47
Ground Attack - IL-2
Bomber - B-17
Carrier - F4U


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 27, 2006)

Fighter - P-47 
Ground Attack - IL-2 
Bomber - B-29 
Carrier - F4U


----------



## v2 (Jan 27, 2006)

Fighter- Tempest,
Ground Attack - Henschel 129
Bomber- Wellington
Carrier- F4U


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2006)

Fighter - P47
Rugged was its middle name.
Ground Attack - Henschel 129
Sometimes overlooked but tough and well armed. I like having two engines as a GA plane is almost certain to take hits.
Bomber B29
Higher, Faster and better armed than the B17.
Carrier - F4U
Simply the best carrier aricraft


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 27, 2006)

I read somewhere that the Japanese considered P-47 and the P-40 the toughest fighters to kill and the B-17 gave them fits. I think it was in Gene Gurney's Five Down and Glory.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2006)

I'd also say the B-29. I don't know if it could take a beating like a B-17, but it would be way harder to bring down by virtue of speed and firepower.



CurzonDax said:


> I read somewhere that the Japanese considered P-47 and the P-40 the toughest fighters to kill and the B-17 gave them fits. I think it was in Gene Gurney's Five Down and Glory.
> 
> :{)



Saburo Saki also staed the same.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 27, 2006)

I want toughest not fastest planes. What is the toughest planes.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2006)

Fighter - P-47 
Ground Attack - IL-2 
Bomber - B-17 
Carrier - F4U


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 27, 2006)

Nice pics guys. Just a question how rugged was the Hellcat? Could it take alot of damage or average only.


----------



## Hellbird (Jan 27, 2006)

P-47


----------



## Erich (Jan 27, 2006)

depends on the year totally


----------



## Magister (Jan 27, 2006)

Fighters

1941 - P-47
1942 - P-47
1943 - P-47
1944 - P-47
1945 - P-47


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Nice pics guys. Just a question how rugged was the Hellcat? Could it take alot of damage or average only.



It was pretty durable. You really have to see one to appreciate it's armor, armament and sheer size. I have had the pleasure of seeing the Zero and the Hellcat side by side. There is a big difference in size. The specs will show the difference of being not that great, but until you see them side by side, it's another story.

From what I have read, the Hellcat was responsible for 4,947 enemy aircraft destroyed in air to air combat. I have spoken with a few Hellcat veterans and they stand by their Grumman Iron Works bird. They said it was surprisingly manueverable for such a large fighter.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 27, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > Nice pics guys. Just a question how rugged was the Hellcat? Could it take alot of damage or average only.
> ...



Thanks Evan thats sort of what I have read also.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 27, 2006)

I would like to know how the main carrier planes for USA, Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair would of done vs German fighters of the same time period. mmmm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2006)

Fighter- Proberly P-47, although the P-38 and mossie in the NF role deserve honerable mentions

Ground pounder- i'd proberly go with IL-2 also

Bomber- proberly B-17, get enough hits on the b-29 and it'll start to de-pressurise, not good, Stirling gets an honerable mention also.......

Carrier plane- i'd say it's between corsair and, as he didn't specify it had to be a fighter, the Avenger..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

Fighter - P-47 (the Fw-190A could take some good punishment also)
Bomber - B-17
Ground Attack - Il-2
Carrier Aircraft - F4F


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2006)

Fighters - P-38 and Fw-190A-8
Bomber - B-17
GA - IL2
Carrier - Corsair


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 28, 2006)

Hardest plane to take down? IL2 Handsdown!

Or the B-17


----------



## Lunatic (Jan 28, 2006)

Fighter - F4U Corsair

It was as tough structrally as the P-47, the fuel tank and pilot were better protected, and its superchargers were well protected. The P-47 would probably be about equal except the turbo-supercharger (and related plumbing) was somewhat exposed.

The FW-190F series also has to be considered a serious contender, and the Tempest was no slouch.

For Bombers it is probably the B-29 which was fast, tough, and more than anything else BIG. Size does help to withstand damage.

For attack planes it's probably about a draw between the IL10 Sturmovich and the TBF Avenger.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

I forgot about the Il-10 actually.


----------



## Lunatic (Jan 29, 2006)

Everyone keeps saying "The P-47".

Yet, in post war testing (1946-47 I believe) even the USAAF concluded that the Corsair was the more rugged plane. It has a much stronger wing (too support carrier landings), shorter tougher landing gear, better pilot protection (at the expense of some pilot vision to the rear), better actual armor. The P-47 has only the rear panel behind the pilot and the armor glass, the F4U has this plus a panel on top of the cowl, a panel on the bottom of the cowl, and a thicker firewall (again mostly required for carrier landing). The F4U also has fabric covered wings rear of the main spar outside the fold, and this also makes the plane more rugged against enemy fire (this fabric will not burn, will not shred though it can be holed or cut, and will not set off or fuse HE rounds).

The F4U supercharger is entirely behind the engine which makes it much less succeptable to combat damage than the P-47 turbo-supercharger which is strung all over the place accross the bottom of the plane to well behind the canopy.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)

i think everyone is saying P-47 for the fighter because the Corsair goes in the carrier plane catagory, i know it was a fighter but i for one, i don't know about the others, would exclude all carrier aircraft from the other catagories as they have their own catagory.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

Yeah but you like French Bombers Lanc....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)

can you blame me, they're hot!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> can you blame me, they're hot!


 You have a warped sense of what is hot Lanc...


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 29, 2006)

Alder: I agree, I forgot about the Stormavik. That gets my vote with the 'Bolt. I have heard stories from Luftwaffe AA and flak gunners shooting at these planes, hitting them several times, with chunks flying off and smoke, and the plane simply turns around and waxes the position. Though I hate to be the pilot when his crew chief sees what he brought home.

Lanc: Get new glasses!!!! Or just get some!!!

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

Although I choose the Wildcat, I have to agree with Lunatic as well. The corsair was built was like a rock. I posted a thread several moths ago comparing skin thickness and structure of several WW2 combat aircraft and you could really see the difference. For the most part, I think the consensus is...

1. Il-10
2. Thunderbolt
3. Corsair

Note: When I saw a Wildcat (Marlet) much of its skin thickness was about the same as the Zero. The major difference was the rigidity of its structure - there were many more ribs, bulkheads and longerons built into the structure, it resembled an old steam locomotive's boiler.


----------



## Magister (Jan 29, 2006)

Lunatic said - _Yet, in post war testing (1946-47 I believe) even the USAAF concluded that the Corsair was the more rugged plane._

I have looked for this "admission" and have never found it. I have heard from a number of people that is was chronicled in the Report of Joint Fighter Conference in 1944 which was a gathering of brass, industry, test and fighter pilots and a number of planes including Corsairs and P-47's for the purpose of determining which planes had good characteristics and performance vis a vis others so that the evolution of future fighters could be shaped accordingly.

I have read this report and there is no mention of any comparison between the Corsair and Thunderbolt and no mention or battle damage survivability with respect to either.

Does anyone know where this alleged admission can be found?

I would readily admit that any aircraft designed to crash land into a carrier deck has to have a robust structure but I think there may be a difference between being able to absorb the energy of the impact of a landing through the landing gear, into the wings and into the wing to body juncture and being able to fly after taking ten or twelve 20mm hits.

I have seen the skin thickness of a Corsair and Thunderbolt only on the fuselage and the Thunderbolt is visibly thicker. (I can't speak for the wings)

Incidentally, according to a manual from Republic Aviation, the P-47M had the potential to handle a 4,200lb bomb load (1,600lbs under each wing and 1,000lbs under the belly).

The P-47N had the potential to handle a 3,700lb bomb load (1,600lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the belly).

In sum, the wings and wing to body juncture had to be robust in the Thunderbolt as well.

On a final note, yes a 20mm explosive round may very well pass through fabric without detonation but unless the round is striking at a perpendicular angle to the surface, it will likely strike a structural piece just under the surface and upon detonation, will prove more damaging to the fabric overhead than if it had just struck an aluminum surface and detonated. Have you have ever seen what happens to fabric covered control surfaces after 20mm hits that detonated upon impact with structural pieces underneath? Thanks but I'll take aluminum skin on my control surfaces.


----------



## Erich (Jan 29, 2006)

many fighters/fighter bombers could withstand 2cm until the new Minegeschoss was developed and used, then it was all over. reason why I noted ...... what year ? ...........


----------



## NR61 (Jan 30, 2006)

I know it's not on the list of aircraft types but can I sneak a honorable mention in for the FW 189.

They had a reputation of being very difficult to bring down - I'm at work so not near any of my books but if memory serves me well they were even known to have got back with a boom missing after suffering ramming attacks from frustrated fighter pilots.

Well that's my 2 pence worth.

NR61


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 30, 2006)

Still, I think, after '42 it was had to shoot down any US fighter even the 'Stang. If you look at the inventory, Hellcat, Wildcat, Corsair, 'Bolt, 'Stang, Lightning, Warhawk/Kittyhawk, and so on, thier adveraries always had things to say about how tough these birds were and how hard it was to kill them. Also the all the literature bears this out. It seems to me too that in comparison the rest of the world's planes with the Stormavik being a notable exeption, were not as durable but I think that also stems from the fact that the doctorine and tactics of US allies and enemies was different than that of the US.

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ......get enough hits on the b-29 and it'll start to de-pressurise, not good, ......



B29's airframe was strong enough to withstand rapid depressurization. It would have made the crews life miserable untill they got down to lower altitudes but it wouldnt have brought down the plane.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 30, 2006)

Read Rain of Ruin. It talks about a depressuruzation. espisode. Also the designers at Boeing, knowing that the Superfort was going into combat would have not made so fragile (a Italian word!) that it would crumple like a piece of aluminium if it depressurized.

:{)


----------



## Lunatic (Jan 30, 2006)

Magister said:


> Lunatic said - _Yet, in post war testing (1946-47 I believe) even the USAAF concluded that the Corsair was the more rugged plane._
> 
> I have looked for this "admission" and have never found it. I have heard from a number of people that is was chronicled in the Report of Joint Fighter Conference in 1944 which was a gathering of brass, industry, test and fighter pilots and a number of planes including Corsairs and P-47's for the purpose of determining which planes had good characteristics and performance vis a vis others so that the evolution of future fighters could be shaped accordingly.
> 
> ...



I simply don't have the time to look it up, but it was a joint test done post-war, not during the war. It should be somewhere in my archives which should be available to you soon.

Basically, the two planes are about equally tough except for the wing spar on the Corsair is much stronger, it has the fabric sections which are less vulnerable, it has more redundancy in the wing structure (it has 3 spars, none of which are needed except for carrier landings), the fuel tank is better protected, the pilot is better protected, the landing gear is shorter and therefore tougher, the pilot is less exposed (than the P-47D with bubble top) from the rear, and less exposed from the sides, and the supercharger is much less vulnerable than the turbo unit on the Bolt.

Skin thickness should be similar, both were quite thick.

While the P-47 could theoretically carry just over a 3000 lbs bomb load, the F4U actually did carry and drop a 4000 lbs payload during WWII (C. Lindberg), and had the "potential" to carry up to 6000 lbs!

The most dangerous 20mm (or other caliber) cannon rounds were delayed action HE rounds. These were designed to (ideally) detonate after about 6-8 inches after the fuse made contact with the skin. Such a round hitting the fabric section of the Corsair wing would likely already be out the far side before it detonated even if it hit a minor structral element (such as ribbing). If it hit a major structural element, it would have a good chance of shattering and not detonating at all. Also, at angles from 90 degrees to something less than 30 degrees the odds are less than 50/50 that a such a round would pass through and through w/o hitting metal at all. At shallower angles the chances the round might strike the forward section where the metal begins increases substantially, but that part of the wing is exceptionally tough. There is nothing but ribbing under the fabric sections of the wings, and the space between the ribbing far exceeds the space of the ribbing.

The fabric used on the F4U was a tyvex like stuff soaked in an flame retardant (later shown to be hazerdous to handlers). It was very tough material. And F4U control surfaces (i.e. ailerons on the wings) were wood, which was found to hold up to damage (and remain at least partially functional) better than aluminum.

All that being said, the biggest difference between the toughness of the two planes by far lies in the exposure of the P-47's Turbo-supercharger vs. the very well protected dual supercharger of the F4U. I suspect the evaluation was mostly w.r.t. ground fire, where the placement of the turbo unit plumbing would be particularly detrimental.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 30, 2006)

Wow very interesting stuff, thanks.


----------



## Lunatic (Jan 30, 2006)

Erich said:


> many fighters/fighter bombers could withstand 2cm until the new Minegeschoss was developed and used, then it was all over. reason why I noted ...... what year ? ...........



Personally, I think that all things considered the Hispano 20mm HEI rounds, once the fusing issues were resolved by mid 1943 or so, were more effective. They carried 2/3rds the HE, had much more significant shrapnel effect, much better pentration, and tremendously better ballistics.

The mine rounds could not support a time delay fuse like the Hispano rounds. The mine rounds shell casing is so thin that it will often be split and shed even on passing through the skin of the target, especially if it hits at a relatively low angle. To delay it would create a huge chance the fuse would be seperated from the HE resulting in a dud. Without a delay, the rounds tended to do there damage very close to the surface of the target rather than deeper where the critical items are to be found. Half of the approximately 1.8 liter core of the explosion (the volume of the gasses after expansion) was wasted. With the Hispano round, almost all of the approximately 1.1 liter core of the explosion was placed for effect.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Magister (Jan 30, 2006)

Lunatic, I have seen literally dozens of pictures of fabric covered control surfaces (I believe you have as well) after hits by 20mm HE rounds. All I can say is that perhaps the delayed fusing doesn't operate as you have indicated. Otherwise, how do you explain the observed phenomenon?

The P-47's ability to carry heavier bombloads is not theoretical and not limited to 3,000lbs either. Dimensional/Capacity data published by Republic Aviation specifies that the P-47M's maximum bomb loading is 1,600lbs under each wing and 1,000lbs under the fuselage. The P-47N has the same wing loadings but only 500lbs under the fuselage. That's 4,200lbs for the M and 3,700lbs for ther N.

I do not have any data for the D model but as you know, there is no structural variance in the wings of the M and D.

I will readily admit that I am aware of no instance where the P-47 carried those maximum loading into combat but the fact that a capacity is unused does not render it impossible or even theoretical. More likely, it was the fact that 1,600lb bombs weren't an ordinace that was used. 

Lastly, as I have indicated, the skin thickness of the fuselage (aft of the pilot) is significantly thicker in the P-47. That plane is a tank. Sounds like the Corsair is tank like too. 
Again, I cannot speak for the wings as I had no opportunity to compare these areas.

I am interested in learning of where the admission of the AAF came from as I can't find it anywhere and frankly suspect that it doesn't exist.


----------



## Lunatic (Jan 31, 2006)

Magister said:


> Lunatic, I have seen literally dozens of pictures of fabric covered control surfaces (I believe you have as well) after hits by 20mm HE rounds. All I can say is that perhaps the delayed fusing doesn't operate as you have indicated. Otherwise, how do you explain the observed phenomenon?



1) The round hit something else immeadiately under the fabric and detonated. Otherwise canvas will not set off the fuse.

2) The fabric was of ordinary canvas rather than the thin Dupont synthetic used on the Corsair wings.



Magister said:


> The P-47's ability to carry heavier bombloads is not theoretical and not limited to 3,000lbs either. Dimensional/Capacity data published by Republic Aviation specifies that the P-47M's maximum bomb loading is 1,600lbs under each wing and 1,000lbs under the fuselage. The P-47N has the same wing loadings but only 500lbs under the fuselage. That's 4,200lbs for the M and 3,700lbs for ther N.
> 
> I do not have any data for the D model but as you know, there is no structural variance in the wings of the M and D.
> 
> I will readily admit that I am aware of no instance where the P-47 carried those maximum loading into combat but the fact that a capacity is unused does not render it impossible or even theoretical. More likely, it was the fact that 1,600lb bombs weren't an ordinace that was used.



This does not change the fact that the F4U actually did carry 3 x 1000, and 2 x 2000 lbs bombs into combat, and that it could carry up to 3 x 2000 lbs bombs (never done in combat).



Magister said:


> Lastly, as I have indicated, the skin thickness of the fuselage (aft of the pilot) is significantly thicker in the P-47. That plane is a tank. Sounds like the Corsair is tank like too.
> Again, I cannot speak for the wings as I had no opportunity to compare these areas.



I'm just not sure this is true. The photos I have showing the skin thickness on both planes look almost identical.



Magister said:


> I am interested in learning of where the admission of the AAF came from as I can't find it anywhere and frankly suspect that it doesn't exist.



A couple of days ago I uploaded about 700 mb (zipped) of archived data to this site. Hopefully in the near future Horse will make it available to you. I'm on vacation right now, and have a flight in about 3 hours to go back into the sticks. Somewhere in that archive the report is mentioned. I think it is also available on one of the F4U websites. I'm sure someone will run across it while investigating the info.

Why would you think this not to be the case though? The two planes are very similar in most respects, but the P-47 turbo unit makes it more vulnerable - pure and simple. You cannot run pressurized fuel in pipes and turbines along the belly of the plane w/o making it more suceptable to battle damage right? Aside from this one difference, and the cockpit layount (superior vision for the P-47 bubble top, superior protection for the F4U non-bubble top), the planes are increadibly similar from a combat damage perspective. Both are very large, heavy aircraft with the same engine.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Magister (Jan 31, 2006)

_"1) The round hit something else immeadiately under the fabric and detonated. Otherwise canvas will not set off the fuse."_

That's what I said earlier when I said, "On a final note, yes a 20mm explosive round may very well pass through fabric without detonation but unless the round is striking at a perpendicular angle to the surface, it will likely strike a structural piece just under the surface and upon detonation, will prove more damaging to the fabric overhead than if it had just struck an aluminum surface and detonated."

_"2) The fabric was of ordinary canvas rather than the thin Dupont synthetic used on the Corsair wings."_

Doesn't make a hill of beans difference because we're talking about duraluminum vs. fabric and not canvas vs. the material you referenced. Duraluminum is better and thus servesd as one point why the P-47 could take more damage to the control surfaces that on the Corsair are fabric.

I was never arguing that the Corsair didn't carry those heavy bomb loads. It was you who asserted that heavy bomb loads of just 3,000lbs for the Thunderbolt were theoretical. I was just informing you that the Thunderbolt had a similar capacity that wasn't "theoretical" but in fact a designed spec.

_"The photos I have showing the skin thickness on both planes look almost identical."_

I would like to see those pictures (of the fuselage). As I indicated, I recall differently with respect to the fuselage. As I already pointed out, I have no knowledge concerning the wings. 

_"I think it is also available on one of the F4U websites."_

I have seen the same claim on a website advocating that the F4U-4 was the best fighter bomber. Perhaps it is the same one. If so, it is just a conclusory statement with no source referenced. 

Indeed both planes are very similar and there probably isn't much difference between their ruggedness. Until I see some evidence that the AAF admited that the F4U was more rugged or could take more damage, I will stick to the view you asserted concerning both aircraft being very similar.


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2006)

debate on this all you want the Luftw ammo was incredibly effective and could bring down any Allied a/c just as Hispano 2cm could from Allied fighters. the films of P-47's being hit by HEI 2cm are ugly and 3cm HEI even worse. .50's making mince meat out of 109's and fw 190's the same treatment dished out just more ammo to do so

The B-17 issue is plain bogus without a rear-tail gunner effectively defending from rear attacks the Fortress, Liberator, Halibag. Lanc were all doomed


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Agreed, Erich. There are a lot of Lutwaffe guncam films that will confirm that. Once the tailgunner was taken out, the carnage was terrible.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> 2) The fabric was of ordinary canvas rather than the thin Dupont synthetic used on the Corsair wings.



Canvas was not used to cover most fabric aircraft or control surfaces in WW2. Irish Linen (British 7F1) and Cotton (Mercerized cotton, grade A) fabric was used in most aircraft. These were treated with nitrate cellulose dopes. 

Dupont synthetic might of been a brand name for polyester which was the exception to the rule....


----------



## Magister (Jan 31, 2006)

Irish linen and cotton?

Sounds like my wife's dress.


----------



## Udet (Jan 31, 2006)

The P-47s and the Fw190 A and F have to be the fundamental contenders.

The Corsair in fact appears a very tough toy, but I am not too familiar with the type (a PTO craft).

I have guncamera footage of Butcher Birds getting pounded by the .50 cals of the USAAF and they simply do not go down.

The Il-2, well, knowing there were not too many planes designed specifically for ground atttack, yes, it was to some extent hard to bring down; still it should not be forgotten the IL-2 can also contend for the Gold Medal of the "most shot down plane of the war". Both the jäger and the Flak brought down just too many thousands of them.

The IL-10 hardly saw any service, most of its performance data and record comes from the post-war years and the improvements of the design over its predecessor were not that juicy.

I am impressed to see there are people appointing the Typhoon as a plane tough to bring down; does not seem that much.


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2006)

as I said none of them are hard to bring down come late 44 till wars end with newer more volatile ammo and I stand by this reasoning.

dein Alt ~


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

Magister said:


> Irish linen and cotton?
> 
> Sounds like my wife's dress.



Yep! That was the material used for many years to cover fabric aircraft!

Later polyester was used, today "Stitts" is the new craze, you iron it on!!!


----------



## Magister (Jan 31, 2006)

_"Dupont synthetic might of been a brand name for polyester which was the exception to the rule...."_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

Magister said:


> _"Dupont synthetic might of been a brand name for polyester which was the exception to the rule...."_



That's what it was called!!


----------



## Magister (Feb 1, 2006)

Flyboy, you seem to know more about this stuff than anyone here so what is your take on treated Irish linen, cotton and polyester vs. aluminum?


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 1, 2006)

Dupont developed a very wide range of synthetic materials immeadiately before and during WWII. Nylon, Rayon, and Teflon are just 3 examples. The fabric for the Corsair wings was probably a mix of sythentic and possibly natural materials.

One thing is for certain, Vought did not choose to cover the wings with fabric because they thought it would make the plane more vulnerable to enemy fire! Duraluminum was readily available and could easily have been used instead. It was secifically done to make the plane more resistant to damage despite the fact that it was harder to maintain than dural sheeting.

Magister, forgetting about the wings, how do you argue against the much increased vulnerability of the P-47's Turbo-supercharger and its plumbing? Even if the two planes are considered equally damage resistant in every other catagory, this one feature makes the Corsair the more damage resistant of the two.

Also, the wing join to the fuselage on the F4U is optimized for strength, being at a perpendicular angle. All other angles of connection are weaker, which is why it was done the way it was.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: this connection makes uploading of images extremely time consuming. In previous post's ( I think in the Corsair vs. Spitfire thread) I've posted many pictures of the F4U's sheet metal, which was generally (the same thickness) uniform across the whole plane.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 1, 2006)

Still what always gets me that these hi-tech (for the '40s) aircraft still used fabric. I know why the materials were used but I still think that it's still archiec. Also if you read Tommy Blackburn auto-bio he has a very hir raising accoint of what happens to fabric covered surfaces when it recieves cannon fire. I think it saved his life to to have fabric covering his ammo because the force of the explosion went to the weakest section of the wing thus giving the force of the explosion a way out and saving the rest of the wing.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Magister said:


> Flyboy, you seem to know more about this stuff than anyone here so what is your take on treated Irish linen, cotton and polyester vs. aluminum?



Fabric control surfaces were used to "lighten" control surfaces. As WW2 aircraft were further developed very clever balancing and counter balancing systems were developed that ended the need for fabric control surfaces, besides on some high performance aircraft, the surfaces tended to "balloon" at high speeds. Irish linen was the basic fabric used for covering aircraft. It was a tightly woven flax fiber that offered a tensile strength of 80 psi in its raw form. Offering the same properties as Grade A mercerized cotton (Grade A) it was to be used on aircraft with a wing loading greater than 9 pounds per square foot and speeds over 160 mph. In the US cotton was the choice material and anything under grade A was to be used for aircraft that flew under 160 mph and had a wing loading of under 9 psf. Of course Irish linen and Grade A were more expensive than other materials.

During WW2 polyester and synthetic fabrics were developed that offered higher strengths and were a bit easier to treat. Apply dope to aircraft fabric is a messy and stinky job, the use of polyesters required less coats of dope. In more recent years with the advent of home building "stitts" is an iron-on cloth that requires even less work and has made the application process even easier. I have worked on fabric aircraft and to me its a real pain, as a maintainer I'll take sheet metal any day.

If you want detailed information on how this process is done, here is a link for a VERY LARGE PDF file. Chapter 2 has everything you want to know about basic aircraft fabric. This document AC 43.13 is the "bible" for standard aircraft repairs and alterations outside the manufacturer's maintenance manuals....
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...CCFE0D58D41D2C8086256A55006C6B67?OpenDocument


----------



## Magister (Feb 1, 2006)

_"how do you argue against the much increased vulnerability of the P-47's Turbo-supercharger and its plumbing?"_

This thread is about which plane can absorb more damage and keep flying. Yes, the P-47 has a vulnerable system that the Corsair doesn't even have. Damage to all that ducting will not cause the plane to suffer mechanical failure and so it just keeps flying. 

What I've been saying is that I have been looking for the admission of the AAF for quite some time now and have never found it. I don't think the Corsair can absorb more damage than the P-47 and keep flying.

Also, I don't believe that fabric was chosen because, "_It was secifically done to make the plane more resistant to damage despite the fact that it was harder to maintain than dural sheeting._" You know better than that Lunatic.


----------



## Magister (Feb 1, 2006)

FLYBOY,

What is your opinion on fabric vs. aluminum on control surfaces with respect to holding up to heavy machine gun and cannon fire?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Magister said:


> FLYBOY,
> 
> What is your opinion on fabric vs. aluminum on control surfaces with respect to holding up to heavy machine gun and cannon fire?



When you punch holes in fabric, it will tear, especially at very high speeds (above 250 mph) and especially on a surface where there could be negative aerodynamic pressures (like a control surface). Even if a machine gun or cannon round goes right through fabric covered structure, you'll get the same reults. When the control surface looses enough fabric, it no longer works, you loose control at the axis that control surface "controls."

Metal surfaces, although thin are a lot more resilient. Back in the day metalized control surfaces were made from "24T" aluminum which was really 2024 T3 or T6 depending on the manufacturer. Again, I would believe metalized surfaces would be a hell of a lot more resilient than fabric surfaces unless you had cannon rounds "exploding" on them upon impact, but then again, a well place cannon shell could do the same thing on a fabric covered control surface if the round impacts a more rigid portion of the structure...


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 1, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Magister said:
> 
> 
> > FLYBOY,
> ...



Flyboy, this was one of the speific characteristics of the fabric used on the Corsair wing. It would not tear or shred, similar to todays Tyvex, which will not tear or shred until tremendous force is applied. Try it, go buy a Tyvex envelope and punch or cut two holes in it and stick your fingers in and try to tear it. Even though it is paper thin I would bet you cannot tear it.

And again, the ailerons were wood. The rudder was fabric covered, and I'm not positive what the elevators were made of.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> Flyboy, this was one of the speific characteristics of the fabric used on the Corsair wing. It would not tear or shred, similar to todays Tyvex, which will not tear or shred until tremendous force is applied. Try it, go buy a Tyvex envelope and punch or cut two holes in it and stick your fingers in and try to tear it. Even though it is paper thin I would bet you cannot tear it.
> 
> And again, the ailerons were wood. The rudder was fabric covered, and I'm not positive what the elevators were made of.



My information was about fabric contol surfaces in general. The material used on the Corsair I believe was a polyester or eve dacron, although more resilliant than other fabrics, were still subjected to tearing and ballooning despite claims to the otherwise. It was replaced in later models.

"Until the dash 5, the outer top wing panels and the control surfaces of the Corsair had been fabric covered. *At speed, the fabric tended to deform and slow the aircraft by a few miles per hour*. The F4U-5 had all fabric surfaces replaced with sheet duralumin to minimize this problem. Armament was the same as the F4U-4."

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

here's a list of synthetic fabics used on aircraft....

Dacron® Registered trade name for polyester fibres made by E.I. DuPont de Nemours Company. Poly-Fiber® (and all it's other pseudonyms) is Dacron material. 
Ceconite® Registered trade name for a fabric woven from polyester fibres and covering process. Application is with nitrate and butyrate dopes. 
Stits Fabric Generic name for a fabric covering process developed by Mr. Ray Stits. Purchased by Poly-Fiber Inc in 1993 and renamed Stits Poly-Fiber. 
Poly-Fiber®ii Registered trade name for a fabric woven from polyester fibre. A Poly-Fiber Inc material and process. Application is with Poly-Fiber® products.
Razorback® Registered trade name for a glass fibre fabric and covering process. 
Superflite® Registered trade name for a fabric woven from polyester fibres and covering process. 
Madapolam A bleached cotton fabric with a soft finish used in covering wooden surfaces. Complies with British Standard (BS) F114.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 1, 2006)

Magister said:


> What I've been saying is that I have been looking for the admission of the AAF for quite some time now and have never found it. I don't think the Corsair can absorb more damage than the P-47 and keep flying.
> 
> Also, I don't believe that fabric was chosen because, "_It was secifically done to make the plane more resistant to damage despite the fact that it was harder to maintain than dural sheeting._" You know better than that Lunatic.



Eventually I'll run across the source for the USAAF/USN evaluations and post it.

Why else would Vought have chosen to cover the wings with fabric. Please note, you keep refering to the covering of _control surfaces _with fabric. This is NOT what I'm refering to. _The entire wing ouside the fold behind the mainspar (about the rear 75%) was covered in fabric_.

What other reason could there be? The weight difference is not signficant. The fabric is harder to maintain because it stretches and must be tightened requently and replaced regularly. It is harder to repair and usually must be replaced when damaged. It also has some problems with ballooning at high speeds if not sufficiently tight. The clear reason for its use is to prevent the detonation of cannon rounds, mostly AA cannon rounds, when passing through the wing in this area that has relatively little ribbing or structure.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Magister (Feb 1, 2006)

_It would not tear or shred, similar to todays Tyvex, which will not tear or shred until tremendous force is applied._

I assume we can stipuilate that exploding 2cm shells qualify.  When a round penetrates the skin and explodes beneath at a structural piece, the energy tries to escape where it is easiest to do so (like the entry hole) and tears the living s-h-i-t out of it with the help of shrapnel tears throughout the area which explains the many photos I discussed earlier.

_One thing is for certain, Vought did not choose to cover the wings with fabric because they thought it would make the plane more vulnerable to enemy fire! Duraluminum was readily available and could easily have been used instead. It was secifically done to make the plane more resistant to damage despite the fact that it was harder to maintain than dural sheeting._

I guess that next you'll argue that since Republic engineers had the same choices in materials, they decided on aluminum because they wanted a plane that would be less resistant to damage.

And I forgot about the wood ailerons. Ever see a piece of wood hit by bullet? Those who have seen bullet impacts through wood will understand. Bullets make much bigger holes in wood than in aluminum. 

The rifling in the barrels of all these planes was more often than not badly eroded so that the rounds would start to tumble at longer ranges like beyond 200 yards. (I said start to tumble. It might take another 300 or 400 yards or more to get completely sideways.) They weren't concerned with pinpoint accuracy so this wasn't a problem. Wood performs horribly compared to aluminum especially if a round strikes off center and, of course, I would argue, fabric does as well. 

Back to fabric, once you have a big hole and shrapnell tears in the immediate ares and place very high stress on the fabric from hard manuevering at high speeds it just tears more. We have all seen this phenomenon where planes return with flaps of skin hanging open. 

--------------------------------------------------

Flyboy, it sounds like when the F4U-5 had all fabric surfaces replaced with sheet duralumin to minimize those problems, it may have been done to specifically make the plane less resistant to damage (assuming the choice of fabric over aluminum was done to make the surface more resistant to damage) per Lunatic's assessment. 

_Metal surfaces, although thin are a lot more resilient._

I concur whole heartedly.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 1, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> here's a list of synthetic fabics used on aircraft....
> 
> Dacron® Registered trade name for polyester fibres made by E.I. DuPont de Nemours Company. Poly-Fiber® (and all it's other pseudonyms) is Dacron material.
> Ceconite® Registered trade name for a fabric woven from polyester fibres and covering process. Application is with nitrate and butyrate dopes.
> ...



That's very nice but none of those fabrics are for a WWII Corsair. They are all for civilian aircraft and damage from gunfire is not a serious consideration.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> The clear reason for its use is to prevent the detonation of cannon rounds, mostly AA cannon rounds, when passing through the wing in this area that has relatively little ribbing or structure.Lunatic



If the evaluator was a pilot with little or no aircraft maintenance or engineering background, I could see him making that statement.

I believe the reason why the center wing section was fabric on early F4Us were because during high G maneuvers that center section would buckle and wrinkle, an easy solution would be to go with fabric covering. Although aluminum structures were coming into their own in the later 1930s, heat treating technology on aluminum was still coming into its own. A skin stressed aluminum skin that wasn't stress relieved would work harden if placed in an area where there will be various loads, this would result in the skin cracking. By the time the decision was made to replace the fabric with aluminum skin, I would guess that engineers worked out the problem, either by modifying the heat treating process of the skin, or by opening up the tolerance of the fastener holes to accommodate the movement of the skin and structure under stress, something I've seen done on several different aircraft. Here is a cut away of a Corsair - there is plenty of structure in the area where the fabric would be - I'd say it would be pretty lucky for any round to go straight through without hitting anything...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > here's a list of synthetic fabics used on aircraft....
> ...



The point is similar (earlier) materials were used during WW2....

Canvas? Never!


----------



## Magister (Feb 1, 2006)

IMHO, the P-47 appears more structurally sound.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 1, 2006)

In this discussion I am on the Corsair camp. But the argument I have on this, and I might have missed it is that the Corsair never flew against the Luftwaffe where as the 'Bolt flew both against the Luftwaffe and the IJAF and IJN. I guess I don't really have an argument just an observation unless all are saying that a cannon shell is a cannon shell and that, and I am WAY ignorant on this, that Luftwaffe cannons had more hitting power, more muzzle velocity, and more explosive power than those of the Japanese. So if this be true, and again I am just trying to learn here, wouldn't this be a apples and oranges argument since the Corsair was never under Luftwaffe guns.

So therefore again if this is true, its not whether parts of the wings are fabric or not its what and whose cannon and for that matter machine gun, can do the most damage.

I hope I made sense.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Both were very very robust, but at the same time if you're in either one and you're taking fire, especially air-to-air chances are you're already screwed!!!


----------



## Magister (Feb 1, 2006)

The poser of the question knows best but I take it simply as a discussion as to wgich plane could absorbe more damage either by Japanese or German guns.

T-Bolt and Corsair both flew against the Japanese and only the T-Bolt flew against the Germans.

That doesn't mean we can't speculate! Hell, this board is all about speculation and that's the fun of it! 

I'm sure the two aircraft are similar in being able to take damage but I come down on the T-Bolt side. (Maybe I'm biased) 

All this talk of fabric and wood makes me want to build a tent.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Magister said:


> All this talk of fabric and wood makes me want to build a tent.


Or buy a new dress and a new wooden leg!


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 1, 2006)

Magister said:


> IMHO, the P-47 appears more structurally sound.



How so? (note: vega-aviation-art is long gone from the web)


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 1, 2006)

Magister said:


> The poser of the question knows best but I take it simply as a discussion as to wgich plane could absorbe more damage either by Japanese or German guns.
> 
> T-Bolt and Corsair both flew against the Japanese and only the T-Bolt flew against the Germans.
> 
> ...



Oh I am not trying to kill people's fun, I just thought it was a legitamite question. I am in the Corsair camp and I am biased. So if I killed the discussion I am sorry.  But all of this stuff about fabric and wood makes me also want to make a big beduin tent.

I give you two camels for that Camel.

:{)


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 1, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> In this discussion I am on the Corsair camp. But the argument I have on this, and I might have missed it is that the Corsair never flew against the Luftwaffe where as the 'Bolt flew both against the Luftwaffe and the IJAF and IJN. I guess I don't really have an argument just an observation unless all are saying that a cannon shell is a cannon shell and that, and I am WAY ignorant on this, that Luftwaffe cannons had more hitting power, more muzzle velocity, and more explosive power than those of the Japanese. So if this be true, and again I am just trying to learn here, wouldn't this be a apples and oranges argument since the Corsair was never under Luftwaffe guns.
> 
> So therefore again if this is true, its not whether parts of the wings are fabric or not its what and whose cannon and for that matter machine gun, can do the most damage.
> 
> ...



The Japanese Type-II Mod 3 and beyond (used by the IJN) were comperable to the Hispano except the muzzle velocity was a bit lower at around 750 m/s. Its ~130 gram round certainly hit harder than the German 20mm, though of course it packed less HE. It had better ballistics than the Hispano round because them Japanese were crazy - they used unfused PETN rounds, which are so unstable they don't need a fuse. No fuse allowed the front of the round to be pointed. One has to wonder how many planes were lost when the gun blew up upon being fired?

They also used White Phosophorus incendiaries - everyone else considred WP too difficult and dangerous to handle to put it in small caliber aircraft cannon rounds. More than one US bomber thought it was going to make it home only to start decending and have the WP light up as the oxygen supply increased.

The Ho-5 (used by the IJA) was similar in hitting power to the Soviet ShVAK, but fired at 850+ rpm.

Japanese 20mm, after the Type II-mod 1 of the early Zero, were decently powerful cannon.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 1, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > FLYBOYJ said:
> ...



The point is you cannot compare civilian materials, optimized for weight cost effectiveness, and ease of use, with military materials optimized for combat useage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Lunatic said:
> ...



They're the same thing!!!! Grade A cotton is Grade A cotton - Ceconite is Ceconite - all the same spec....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 1, 2006)

Magister said:


> IMHO, the P-47 appears more structurally sound.



How can you base this on an observation? You dont know the thickness of each structural componant nor how they interact with adjacent components.

"more" does not necessarily = "increasing strength"


----------



## Magister (Feb 1, 2006)

IMHO is just that ... an opinion. I have personally seen the fuselage skin thickness of both the Corsair and T-Bolt though and the T-Bolt is thicker. Lastly and as I indicated, I am biased.

Oh, and I am against fabric and wood too which is why I don't wera a skirt and a wooden leg. There wasn't just some fabric covering control surfaces either. _"The entire wing ouside the fold behind the mainspar (about the rear 75%) was covered in fabric."_ (Lunatic) Also there were the areas made of wood. Don't even get me started on that. Bullets /cannon rounds striking wood does far more damage than strikes on aluminum.

In the end though, they were both pretty tough birds and I am left with my nagging bias.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 1, 2006)

Actually properly laminated wood holds up better against machine gun fire than aluminum. The down side is it is also heavier than metal.

Look to the La5-FN, La7, and Yak3 vs. Yak9 for info on this. The wood usually held up better than aluminum. Delayed action cannon rounds often did not detonate upon hitting wood. The only problem with the Soviet wood planes was the glue they used was flamable.

Now a solid piece of wood will shatter, that is true. But a laminated piece of wood can hold up quite well, retaining functionality even if a large hole is punched in it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Magister said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, the P-47 appears more structurally sound.
> ...



Great point! Look at the way both aircraft are built, you could almost see areas where engineers put emphasis on certain loads. The P-47 actually had a box structure within its wing, a technique still in use...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> Actually properly laminated wood holds up better against machine gun fire than aluminum. The down side is it is also heavier than metal.



That depends on the type of aluminum structure. If you're talking skins, maybe, if you're talking main structures, wing attach points which are usually 7075 aluminum or even steel, no way....


----------



## Magister (Feb 1, 2006)

That's crap Lunatic. Plywood, hardwood, "properly laminated wood", etc. does not fare better when hit by bullets and cannon rounds and you know better. Go out to a gun range and do a little experimentation. We'll have to chalk this one up to your inexperience.

The same projectile going through a "properly laminated wood" (as opposed to improperly laminated wood ???) structure vs. an aluminum one will do far more damage to the wooden one. And an explosive device will do far more damage to wood than aluminum. 

While the cotton panty fabric on the Corsair's wings (there's my bias again) will not initiate the fuse on a HE round, a wooden structural piece definitely will. Wood is harder than you think. If a half inch piece of "properly laminated wood" will deform a bullet, it will damn sure set the fuse on an HE round.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 2, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Magister said:
> ...



So does the Corsair. In fact, the Corsair design is refered to as a "box within box" structure. This why, except for carrier landings, the Corsair was completely flight worthy even if the wing spars were removed. I believe the techinque originated with the DC3 (or DC2).


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 2, 2006)

Magister said:


> That's crap Lunatic. Plywood, hardwood, "properly laminated wood", etc. does not fare better when hit by bullets and cannon rounds and you know better. Go out to a gun range and do a little experimentation. We'll have to chalk this one up to your inexperience.
> 
> The same projectile going through a "properly laminated wood" (as opposed to improperly laminated wood ???) structure vs. an aluminum one will do far more damage to the wooden one. And an explosive device will do far more damage to wood than aluminum.
> 
> While the cotton panty fabric on the Corsair's wings (there's my bias again) will not initiate the fuse on a HE round, a wooden structural piece definitely will. Wood is harder than you think. If a half inch piece of "properly laminated wood" will deform a bullet, it will damn sure set the fuse on an HE round.



Look into the Soviet experiance with their "greywood" and birch aircraft. A bullet puches a nice round hole in it, where metal often deforms. Soviet wooden aircraft were quite durable given their weight class. Look at the Mosquito, which also was a relatively durable aircraft.

The thing is, the best wood for such construction is not "hard".

You should also maybe look at how the fuses worked. Many fuses had to hit something sufficiently hard to trigger them. If the were deformed slowly (comparatively) they often did not trigger.

Besides, the thing I think you miss is that the metal aileron is typically like a small wing, composed of framing and ribbing covered with very thin sheet metal. The wooden ailerons of the Corsair were solid wood, much much thicker than the material of the metal aileron. What do you think is stronger, 3/4-2 inches of birch plywood or two thin sheets of dural stretched over dural framing approximately 1/32" thick?


----------



## Magister (Feb 2, 2006)

_What do you think is stronger, 3/4-2 inches of birch plywood or two thin sheets of dural stretched over dural framing approximately 1/32" thick?_

The wood will experience *much* bigger holes from AP or ball ammo and likewise will suffer greater damage from explosive 2cm and 3cm shells.

Lunatic, where do you get 1/32" (.03125) thick sheets? The P-47's control surfaces utilized 24-ST that was thicker than that. At present, I can only find the thickness of the skin on the dive recovery flaps which was 24-ST that was .188 thick. (No, that is not a typo.)


P-47 hit by an *88mm* round. 






Marine Major Norman O'Bryan looks through the four-foot hole torn in the wing of his Corsair by flak on his 99th mission.






Some structural images 

Lower half of fuselage





Upper half of fuselage





Tail cone





Assemply of upper and lower halfs





Wing section





Ailerons


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> . Look at the Mosquito, which also was a relatively durable aircraft.
> 
> The thing is, the best wood for such construction is not "hard".


The initial construction isn't that difficult, repairs are hard and if done slightly wrong can be devastating.



Lunatic said:


> What do you think is stronger, 3/4-2 inches of birch plywood or two thin sheets of dural stretched over dural framing approximately 1/32" thick?


Depending on how it's constructed - the Aluminum structure!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2006)

Magister said:


> Lunatic, where do you get 1/32" (.03125) thick sheets? The P-47's control surfaces utilized 24-ST that was thicker than that. At present, I can only find the thickness of the skin on the dive recovery flaps which was 24-ST that was .188 thick. (No, that is not a typo.)



24T (2024 T3 or T6) sheet comes in the following standard thicknesses....

.025
.032
.040
.050
.063
.080
.090
.100
.125
.190

As far as I know this was the norm since WW2. Several skins I've seen on WW2 fighters may stack up several sheets...

Nice photos Magister


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2006)

We've had this dicussion before about WW2 fighter skin thickness. Here's the link that has photos I took at the Gullespi Air Show last April...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1357&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=100


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 2, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> CurzonDax said:
> 
> 
> > In this discussion I am on the Corsair camp. But the argument I have on this, and I might have missed it is that the Corsair never flew against the Luftwaffe where as the 'Bolt flew both against the Luftwaffe and the IJAF and IJN. I guess I don't really have an argument just an observation unless all are saying that a cannon shell is a cannon shell and that, and I am WAY ignorant on this, that Luftwaffe cannons had more hitting power, more muzzle velocity, and more explosive power than those of the Japanese. So if this be true, and again I am just trying to learn here, wouldn't this be a apples and oranges argument since the Corsair was never under Luftwaffe guns.
> ...



Okay with all this in mind while metal is harder than wood, and I am talking the harness level of substances according to thier chemical composition. But also metal has more elastic characterisitcs than wood because of its maleibility. So when one adds the factors or muzzle velocity, hitting power, and the expoding power of shells, whether they come form cannons or MGs, wouldn't a metal plane be harder to bring down. I am talking shattering vs twisitng and flamability. I say this last thing because in the my experience, and many of my family members are either chemists/engineers and/or carpenters, there is really no such thing as a "fire proof" laminate just "fire resistant". 

I am not trying to kill the discussion, but in this subject of structural analysis I am WAY ignorant and am trying to learn. So I hope I made sense.

:{)


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 2, 2006)

When I started this thread I had no idea it was going to go on this long or this detailed. wow interesting stuff


----------



## Magister (Feb 2, 2006)

Here's where I got that .188 thickness:

Design Analysis of the P-47 Thunderbolt

by Nicholas Mastrangelo
Chief Technical Publications, Republic Aviation Corporation

Reprinted from the January 1945 issue of Industrial Aviation
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Compressible Recovery Flaps

Late P-47 models have incorporated flaps for the purpose of aiding in recovery from dives of compressibility speeds. These surfaces are operated by two electric, reversible, intermittent motors synchronized by flexible shafting. Magnetic brake and clutch assemblies are incorporated to prevent overtravel and switches limit the flap extension to 22½° so as to hold "gs" to a safe value during "pull-outs."

*The compressible recovery flaps are .188" flat sheets of 24-ST and are hinged at the landing gear auxiliary spar, located just forward of the landing flaps.* In the retracted position, they are flush with the lower wing surface contour.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 2, 2006)

There are many factors involeved in the structural analysis of any aircraft.

The interactions between every component (Bulkhead, skin, rivets, stringers, etc) is a complex event and sometimes nearly defies logical expectations. 

A decade ago, I talked about this with a buddy of mine who was a materials engineer for Northrup. He told me sometimes the structural engineers would find that making a componant weaker actually added to the strength by allowing a slight deformation at a certein point and keeping the "stress" energy from transferring to other components.

Another way to look at it: If the Corsair didnt have as many structural components in the outer wings, it may be designed that way to allow a deformation to occur under a high "G" landing on a carrier. A solidly built wing might suffer a catastophic shock and fail. A weaker wing would flex and return to normal shape.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> There are many factors involeved in the structural analysis of any aircraft.
> 
> The interactions between every component (Bulkhead, skin, rivets, stringers, etc) is a complex event and sometimes nearly defies logical expectations.
> 
> ...



YEP!!!


----------



## Hun in the Sun (Feb 2, 2006)

Fighter-P-47
Bomber-B-17
Ground Attack-Il-2
Carrier fighter-Corsair
Carrier torp. bomber-TBF avenger

How tough were the Tempest and Typhoon? I have never heard much about them.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 2, 2006)

Thanks Hun, and welcome to the site.


----------



## Jank (Feb 2, 2006)

Good discussion. Here's a Kittyhawk.

http://www.il2center.com/Reference/Damage/10.jpg


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2006)

WOW!!!


----------



## Hun in the Sun (Feb 2, 2006)

You're welcome Hunter.

Whats the story on the kittyhawk?


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 2, 2006)

Jank said:


> Good discussion. Here's a Kittyhawk.
> 
> http://www.il2center.com/Reference/Damage/10.jpg



Was that in North Africa?


----------



## Jank (Feb 2, 2006)

Looks like AA. I assume its N. Africa


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 2, 2006)

Jank said:


> Looks like AA. I assume its N. Africa



I think so and it looks like sand on the ground.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 3, 2006)

Wow, look at the rips in the Vertical stablizer.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Hey good stuff everyone on the fabric. Learned some stuff there that I did not know. Thanks.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 5, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hey good stuff everyone on the fabric. Learned some stuff there that I did not know. Thanks.



Same same!

:{)


----------



## Smokey (Feb 5, 2006)

What about this:







Mitsubishi J2M Raiden

http://www.beuliland.com/graficos/aviones/profiles/japon/j2m raiden.jpg






http://ipmslondon.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/pof3.jpg.w560h318.jpg


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2006)

Nice shots, but the Raiden was built just a little better than the Zero...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

Thats the Chino Raiden!!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

For those that are interested, I posted some veterans comments about depressuization of the B29. 

Its in my thread "All things B29"


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 6, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Nice shots, but the Raiden was built just a little better than the Zero...



The Jack was built quite a bit tougher than the Zero. It was exactly the opposite design philosphy. It did not have the range or low speed manuverability, but it was fairly well armored, fast, and packed a good punch.

The biggest problem with the Jack was produciton quality. For instance, the steel in the landing gear was so crappy that it'd break off if the landing gear were not retracted by about 100 mph. Balace on the propeller shaft extension was also poor causing vibration problems. This caused the designer (who also designed the Zero, can't spell his name w/o looking it up) to make negative comments about the Japanese war industry which resulted in his "institutional retirementt" (i.e. he was retired into a nut house).

Another problem was the pilots, who thought armor was for cowards and typically ripped it out of their planes in the field.

The design was innovative - the implentation was poor.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 6, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Actually properly laminated wood holds up better against machine gun fire than aluminum. The down side is it is also heavier than metal.
> ...



I'm talking about control surfaces such as ailerons, where aluminum skinning is streched over alluminum brackets of mimimal thickness.

But, even for the wings themselves, the Soviet's found that, barring fire, the wood usually was less succeptable to combat damage than the metal equivalent (example: Yak3 vs. Yak9).


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> There are many factors involeved in the structural analysis of any aircraft.
> 
> The interactions between every component (Bulkhead, skin, rivets, stringers, etc) is a complex event and sometimes nearly defies logical expectations.
> 
> ...



Except the Corsair clearly didn't have "less" structure in the outer wing panels than other fighters - in fact it appears to have more.

Besides, in the inter-war years the Corsair wings were converted to all metal, the fabric have been deemed to hazardous and labor intensive to maintain, and continued to operate off carriers.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 6, 2006)

Hun in the Sun said:


> Fighter-P-47
> Bomber-B-17
> Ground Attack-Il-2
> Carrier fighter-Corsair
> ...



They were quite tough. The only thing taking them out of the running for "toughest" is that they were liquid cooled. Any damage to the coolant system (including the engine's water jacket) was fatal.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 6, 2006)

Tempest MKII had a radial engine (Bristol Centaurus of 2,596 hp)


----------



## Twitch (Feb 6, 2006)

P-47
B-17
IL-2
Avenger or Helldiver


----------



## Smokey (Feb 6, 2006)

What about the Nakajima Ki-84 and Kawanishi N1K1 and N1K2?

Heres a nice site with cutaways for sale and small versions to view online:

http://www.aviationshoppe.com/catalog/nakajima-ki84-hayate-p-98.html

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/n1k-j.htm






http://avions.legendaires.free.fr/n1k1.php


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 6, 2006)

> Except the Corsair clearly didn't have "less" structure in the outer wing panels than other fighters - in fact it appears to have more.



I was generally speaking that to look at a cutaway drawing to determine structural strength is an excersize in futility.

You have to look at the actual blueprints to determine strength. There are so many facets to this, a couple of books could be written.

Cutaway drawings do not show the actuall as built shapes, the types of metal(s) used nor the thickness's. Once you know all this, then you can start to look at how they all interact. Dont forget that just the placement of the fuel tanks and the guns and ammo box's can have a huge bearing on structural strenth.


----------



## Jank (Feb 6, 2006)

And of course, stresed aluminum skin over a skeletal structure also provides aditional structural strength that fabric does not.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Lunatic said:
> ...


Wood structures are easy to produce but hell to repair, especially in the field. to do a proper repair the surface has to be in a clean environment and sometimes during the curing of glues, you don't want moisture or dirt.

Aluminum will always offer a very flexible repair. You could patch aluminum holes almost anywhere and the training of personnel to accomplish sheet metal repairs are minimal. The thing to look at with wood, being organic is susceptible to many other defects not readily apparent until it too late, where aluminum is forgiving and actually "tells you" when its failing. 

As you say "skinning stretched" over brackets (ribs) could range in thickness up to .040 depending on the aircraft. Its quite easy to repair them, especially if a round goes right through. Each manufacturer comes up with a "Structural Repair Manual" that provides guidance for most repairs and takes the guess work out for the mechanic repairing the aircraft.

I'd take aluminum any day, you don't have to worry about shrinkage, temperature related problems and dry rot which will eventually creep up on wood structures, especially in a harsh environment...

I've worked with both and all I have to say id wood sucks! I'd work with aluminum anyday and would believe it is the superior material to work with in a WW2 combat enviornment,unless you're stuck with nothing else!!!


----------



## Twitch (Feb 6, 2006)

Smokey I agree the Frank and George were excellent aircraft and difficult to over come in a fight but NOTHING can take punnishment like a P-47


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

P-47 battle damage










Robert Johnson's P-47


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 8, 2006)

B-17 Battle Damage














More here: http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 8, 2006)

The top picture's story is that this B-17 collided with a 109. The only thing holding the fuselage in one piece was the aft door. When the 17 got back to its base and the door was opened the fuselage collapsed. Now y'all know why I fly Boeings, NOT Airbus. 

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 8, 2006)

What I think adds to the legendary toughness of US aircraft is in all of these nice Octopus or similar publication books and coffee table books that we ALL own (fess up folks for I own at least a dozen and they do have lots of pretty pictures) is that they always show US planes with the crew or whats left of them smiling around the damage. So it begs the question, for example, unless they were prublished in Signal which I have never seen an issue, where are the similar pics for Axis aircraft. I know that Willy made tough producats but we never see pics of this stuff at least here in the US.

:{)


----------



## Dogwalker (Feb 8, 2006)

When an italian pilot came back with a so damaged aircraft, there was nothing to smile at.  

AA fire on a SM-79 wooden wing.






DogW


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2006)

Ive heard of P38's and A20's that ran into the masts on Japanese ships they were attacking, and flew back to base.


----------



## Magister (Feb 8, 2006)

Jank said: _"And of course, stresed aluminum skin over a skeletal structure also provides aditional structural strength that fabric does not."_

That's right. Take two wing frames that are exactly the same. Cover one with fabric and the other with aluminum. The aluminum covered structure will be stronger.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

Magister said:


> Jank said: _"And of course, stresed aluminum skin over a skeletal structure also provides aditional structural strength that fabric does not."_
> 
> That's right. Take two wing frames that are exactly the same. Cover one with fabric and the other with aluminum. The aluminum covered structure will be stronger.



For the most part yes - it depends on how the interior structure is designed and how the stress is transmitted through the structure.


----------



## Magister (Feb 8, 2006)

Take a wing structure and cover it with the fabric of a Corsair's wings. Take that same wing structure and cover it with the aluminum of a P-47's wings. I think the aluminum wing will be stronger in every respect.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

Magister said:


> Take a wing structure and cover it with the fabric of a Corsair's wings. Take that same wing structure and cover it with the aluminum of a P-47's wings. I think the aluminum wing will be stronger in every respect.



More than likely, but you're missing the point. Most of a semi-monocoque fuselage's strength or a conventional constructed wing (Ribs and spars) is dependent on the internal structure, not the outer skin, if I remember right it's like 30 - 70 on the average. Compare these two for example....


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 8, 2006)

I've heard of a Mossie taking the top of a ship's mast back in the bomb bay, this happened right at the end of the war


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> I've heard of a Mossie taking the top of a ship's mast back in the bomb bay, this happened right at the end of the war



Would not surprise me.

It all in the way the designers figured out the way to transfer the loads and stresses through out the structure...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2006)

Well I think the toughest airplanes were the B29 and B17.

Strongest fighter was the P47. The Corsair, while probably just as strong, didnt go through the ringer like the P47's in the ETO/MTO did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Well I think the toughest airplanes were the B29 and B17.
> 
> Strongest fighter was the P47. The Corsair, while probably just as strong, didnt go through the ringer like the P47's in the ETO/MTO did.



Agree....


----------



## Magister (Feb 8, 2006)

http://www.p47pilots.com/cfm_Biographies.cfm?pageMode=VIEW&storyid=434

CHARLES D. MOHRLE, born April 12, 1921 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, grew up in Galveston, Texas and attended the University of Texas. Following Pearl Harbor he enlisted as an Aviation Cadet and was commissioned with the class of 43.E at Moore Field, Mission, Texas.

First assigned to the fighter base at Sarasota, Florida flying P-40's and later transferred to the 405th Fighter Group, 510th Squadron at Walterboro, South Carolina. Initially equipped with P-39's, the unit got its P-47's two months before assignment to the 9th Air Force in England.

Based at Christchurch, he flew bomber escort, interdiction and dive bomb missions until Normandy D-Day. After the invasion, the 405th crossed the Channel to a strip near St. Mer Eglise on the Cherbourg Peninsula. Flying close support to the 3rd Army, the unit moved across France. In the course of his 97 missions, Charles destroyed numerous tanks and other motorized weaponry along with rail equipment, bridges, artillery, ammunition dumps and personnel.

Near Manheim, Germany, his P-47 took 88mm direct hits in the left wing and engine. As might be expected of a Jug, the "Touch of Texas" kept flying despite the loss of three cylinders, a huge portion of wing and a hydraulic fluid fire. Without injury to its pilot, the Jug was landed on one wheel in a dirt field behind Allied lines. And on twelve other missions his P-47 absorbed direct hits from ground fire, plus a collection of small arms ammunition that was removed from the ship.

Returning to the States, he was assigned to the air-to-air gunnery school at Yuma, Arizona where he flew target fighters and checked out in several bombers. Flying an RP-63, he was shot down by 30 caliber fire from a B-17, landing dead-stick without injury or aircraft damage.

The 405th received a Presidential Unit Citation. Charles was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal with 15 clusters.

Released from duty in 1945, as a captain, he entered the graphic arts field, eventually owning an advertising agency in Dallas, Tex- as. He married Dorothy Onley in 1948 and has one son, Charles Michael.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 9, 2006)

My four would be the B-17, which reported gave Saburo Sakai "fits", the crowd favs Corsair and 'Bolt, and the Il-2 which many of us seem to have forgotten about. 

:{)


----------



## Jank (Feb 9, 2006)

great story magister


----------



## plan_D (Feb 9, 2006)

I think all the "veteran" members on this remember the story posted by Eric (I think) about the "Jugs" flying through trees to discover a German supply dump in the Ardennes.


----------



## helmitsmit (Feb 10, 2006)

What about the Hawker Hurricane that could take a lot of damage.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 10, 2006)

The structure of the Hurricane certainly could take a lot of damage, but not it's engine. And the structure of the Hurricane, while strong, was not near the strength of the P-47 and F4U.


----------



## helmitsmit (Feb 10, 2006)

Yeah I know just thought I would mention it. Thinking about it the Hawker family was all pretty rugged.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

pretty strong for 1935 though...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

Very Strong!










From IL-2 center, they have a lot more neat stuff there as well!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

the fabric was very easy to replace also, all you needed was a roll of Irish Linen and some dope.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

Damage over a certain size had to be sewn or patched (I would guess 6") but small holes are easily repaired.

You also need some acetone!


----------



## Dogwalker (Feb 10, 2006)

The C 202/205 was probably the sturdier of the italians.





















www.museoscienza.org

DogW


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Damage over a certain size had to be sewn or patched (I would guess 6") but small holes are easily repaired.
> 
> You also need some acetone!



and of course paint, we're british, to do anything whilst at war without everything being in prestine condition is seen to be treason of the highest order..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and of course paint, we're british, to do anything whilst at war without everything being in prestine condition is seen to be treason of the highest order..........


Yea, like leaving a Pristine Live Blockbuster as a gate guardian!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)

Good one, Joe!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

yup, in perfect, original condition, a real collector's piece, would've been worth quite a bit........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yup, in perfect, original condition, a real collector's piece, would've been worth quite a bit........


And it would of been a real blast at an auction!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

would've caused a real hole in their pockets though


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

yep, talk about a budget exploding!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

i bet it would set the room on fire


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

I don't think it will bomb....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

it could just go up in smoke.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

Or maybe even dud!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

how dare you suggest british equiptment might not work 

but continuing the puns.........

i wouldn't want to be there when the hammer dropped.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2006)

This pun exchange has been blown way out of proportion


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

You're right, its time to pull the pin on this one....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

you know it's posts like that which shake the very foundations of our beliefs..........


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 9, 2006)

Geez that why I joined this list for all the explosive comentary.

:{)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2006)

a little late but let's see what's left in the tank .........

ummm, wow, you just exploded onto the scene from nowhere


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2006)

God, is this subject blowing up again?!?


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 9, 2006)

My God, my bowels feel like they are blowing up again...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2006)

two blowing up puns in a row, that's quite a shocking development


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2006)

Agree, this could have explsoive, earth-shattering results!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 10, 2006)

As long as it doesn't get blown out of proportion it should be alright...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2006)

if it did blow up i'd imagine it'd cause quite an impact.......


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 10, 2006)

I'm sure it would, it might just blow us away...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2006)

or we'd jsut crumble into tiny bits as a result.........


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 10, 2006)

Or we could be vapourised...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2006)

Boom! 

Hehe, im funny. 8)


----------



## Hunter368 (May 8, 2007)

Which was able to absorb more battle damage? Spitfire or 109? Name your model of each, please keep to roughly same year as each other.


----------



## b17sam (May 15, 2007)

This forum seems to agree that the B17 was the toughest bomber to shoot down. Perhaps it would be wise to remember that the 8th Air Force alone lost over 3500 B17s.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 15, 2007)

b17sam said:


> Perhaps it would be wise to remember that the 8th Air Force alone lost over 3500 B17s.



So they lost 3500 B17's whats your point?


----------



## Haztoys (May 16, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> B-17 Battle Damage
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This would of been done with..?.Or by..??

...88 shell... Eric's...Post of "Up your ass and your dead manuver"...??


----------



## comiso90 (May 16, 2007)

b17sam said:


> This forum seems to agree that the B17 was the toughest bomber to shoot down. Perhaps it would be wise to remember that the 8th Air Force alone lost over 3500 B17s.



That sir, is very flawed logic...

The Germans lost almost 6 million in military deaths so they were poor soldiers?


----------



## WorkinStiff (May 18, 2007)

I think that what B17Sam is pointing out is that as incredibly tough as the B-17 was, the defences over Germany, probably the toughest in the history of airial combat, were still enough to knock 3500 B-17s down.....And remember guy's, he was THERE!.....We wern't...


----------



## HoHun (Nov 25, 2007)

Hi B17sam,

>This forum seems to agree that the B17 was the toughest bomber to shoot down. Perhaps it would be wise to remember that the 8th Air Force alone lost over 3500 B17s.

Comparing the B-24 to the B-17, it really looks like the numbers show the B-24 to be the more survivable aircraft (by a narrow margin).

I have got "B-17 Flying Fortress" by HP Willmott here with a breakdown of the 8th Air Force bomber units by type, sorties, tonnage on target and losses. 

Counting only the combat losses, I can compare the combat survivability of the B-17 and B-24. (I'm leaving out a few bomber groups operating both types as their successes and losses can't be identified by type.) 

The total 8th Air Force B-17/B-24 losses were 1.50% per sortie. 

The B-17 losses were 1.64% per sortie. 

The B-24 losses were 1.21% per sortie. 

Surprise: The B-24 was the more survivable bomber! 

I initially assumed that the B-17's poorer performance could be attributed to its earlier arrival - many B-17s were lost when they tried to fly into the fangs of the Luftwaffe without fighter escort, after all. 

However, even when only taking into account bomb groups that arrived December 1943 (along with the Mustangs) or later, the B-17 still has the higher losses with B-17: 1.42% vs. B-24%: 1.11%. The percentages mean that you're losing 4 B-17s where you'd have lost only 3 B-24s.

(Since both aircraft carried virtually the same load per sortie, this doesn't change the picture either.) 

Highly interesting  

I just notice that the 492nd BG probably shouldn't be counted towards the totals as they had extremely heavy losses during "Carpetbagger" (agent dropping) night missions.

The 801st / 492nd Bomb Group

As they were a B-24 group, excluding them from the analysis (as they fly a completely different type of mission) would change the balance a bit further in favour of the B-24.


Regards, 

Henning (HoHun) 

---cut---------------- 

100th BG (B-17): 8630 sorties, 177 lost in combat 
301st BG (B-17): 104 sorties, 1 lost in combat 
303rd BG (B-17): 10721 sorties, 165 lost in combat 
305th BG (B-17): 9231 sorties, 154 lost in combat 
306th BG (B-17): 9614 sorties, 171 lost in combat 
351st BG (B-17): 8600 sorties, 124 lost in combat 
379th BG (B-17): 10492 sorties, 141 lost in combat 
381st BG (B-17): 9035 sorties, 131 lost in combat 
384th BG (B-17): 9248 sorties, 159 lost in combat 
385th BG (B-17): 8264 sorties, 129 lost in combat 
390th BG (B-17): 8725 sorties, 144 lost in combat 
398th BG (B-17): 6419 sorties, 58 lost in combat 
401st BG (B-17): 7430 sorties, 95 lost in combat 
447th BG (B-17): 7605 sorties, 153 lost in combat 
452nd BG (B-17): 7279 sorties, 110 lost in combat 
457th BG (B-17): 7086 sorties, 83 lost in combat 
91st BG (B-17): 9591 sorties, 197 lost in combat 
92nd BG (B-17): 8633 sorties, 154 lost in combat 
94th BG (B-17): 8884 sorties, 153 lost in combat 
95th BG (B-17): 8903 sorties, 157 lost in combat 
96th BG (B-17): 8924 sorties, 189 lost in combat 
97th BG (B-17): 247 sorties, 4 lost in combat 
389th BG (B-24): 7579 sorties, 116 lost in combat 
392nd BG (B-24): 7060 sorties, 127 lost in combat 
445th BG (B-24): 7145 sorties, 108 lost in combat 
446th BG (B-24): 7259 sorties, 58 lost in combat 
448th BG (B-24): 9774 sorties, 101 lost in combat 
44th BG (B-24): 8009 sorties, 153 lost in combat 
453rd BG (B-24): 6655 sorties, 58 lost in combat 
458th BG (B-24): 5759 sorties, 47 lost in combat 
466th BG (B-24): 5762 sorties, 47 lost in combat 
467th BG (B-24): 5538 sorties, 29 lost in combat 
489th BG (B-24): 2998 sorties, 29 lost in combat 
491st BG (B-24): 5005 sorties, 47 lost in combat 
492nd BG (B-24): 1513 sorties, 51 lost in combat 
93rd BG (B-24): 8169 sorties, 100 lost in combat


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 25, 2007)

Great info, but German pilots loved coming in on -24 pulks as opposed to the -17s... They were alot easier to knock down, as numerous pilot testimonies agree....


----------



## drgondog (Nov 25, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Fighter - P-47
> Ground Attack - IL-2
> Bomber - B-17
> Carrier - F4U



I gotta go with these also - as to B-29 maybe harder to hit but I have never seen so many B-17s brought home with direct hits in Fuselage with 88's, mid air collisions with 109s, all the nose gone, most of vertical stabilizer, etc.

I just haven't seen as many examples of B-29s that were hit as hard and often and still got back (of course that had to fly a lot farther to get back!)


----------



## drgondog (Nov 25, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi B17sam,
> 
> >This forum seems to agree that the B17 was the toughest bomber to shoot down. Perhaps it would be wise to remember that the 8th Air Force alone lost over 3500 B17s.
> 
> ...



Interesting - how does the fact that B-17s were twice as numerous in the 8th and had a different operational profile (flying 4-6,000 feet higher) affect your thinking, if at all... this is not a loaded question, as I have many of my own.

With this analysis it would be hard not to rank the B-26 Marauder above both the B-24 and B-17 and remember that the Marauder flew much lower, in accurate range of a lot more flak?


----------



## HoHun (Nov 25, 2007)

Hi Lesofprimus,

>Great info, but German pilots loved coming in on -24 pulks as opposed to the -17s... They were alot easier to knock down, as numerous pilot testimonies agree....

Roger on Luftwaffe pilot opinion. However, in the end the numbers work out in favour of the B-24, for whatever reason.

Maybe the B-24 blew up quickly while the B-17 died slowly - possibly after the attacking Luftwaffe pilot had left the formation so he would not recognize that his attack had been successful after all.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## JoeB (Nov 25, 2007)

B-24 v B-17 figures for 8th are interesting. For all of ETO/MTO the two types had almost exactly the same loss rate 1.6% per sortie, I'd seen, but not those specific numbers. Anyway I agree the superior survivability of the B-17 was believed in by 8th AF leadership, not only German pilot testimonies, but seems hard to demonstrate with loss stats.

On carrier plane, hope not beating a dead horse of old post, the F6F had a markedly lower loss rate to AA fire than the F4U comparing carrier based missions of both in 1945 (before that the great bulk of F4U were landbased, and it's easier for a landbased plane to make it back to a field than a carrier plane to a carrier, and not get pushed overboard). About 41% of carrier based F4U's hit by AA fire became losses v 26% of carrier based F6F's in 1945. (source "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics"). 

The F4U was also somewhat notorious for relative vulnerability to ground fire in Korea (in that case mainly compared to the AD among props, a much tougher comparison admittedly). This is generally attributed to a larger target area presented by its oil cooler arrangement, and survivability enhancemens were features of the AU-1 ground attack version introduced during the KW.

Joe


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 25, 2007)

> Maybe the B-24 blew up quickly while the B-17 died slowly



This was due to the large number of wing tanks the B24 carried. The fuel manifold is right behind the cockpit IIRC. The fuel lines are oval and not round. Ever tried to seal an oval line? The manifold was notorious for leaking and Forrest Clark of "The Flying Eightballs" told me he never rode on a B24 that did not reek of AvGas fumes.

History 44th Bomb Group

One of those engineering quirks like the aileron adjusting blocks on the FW-190 that you just look at wonder what the thinking was behind it.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Jank (Nov 25, 2007)

JoeB said, "_About 41% of carrier based F4U's hit by AA fire became losses v 26% of carrier based F6F's in 1945. (source "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics")_."

Joe, do you attribute the disparity to the more vulnerable oil cooling structure?

On a related note, the Pilots Flight Operating Instructions for the F4U-4 (October 1944 T.O. No. AN-01-45HB1) warns that there is only enough oil for a maximum of ten seconds of inverted flight. Also, where there was damage to an oil cooler with resulting loss of oil, neither the oil pressure gauge nor the oil temperature gauge would register the change in pressure or temperature until all of the oil was out of the system. (See Pilots Manual at page 10) Pilots were warned during combat to check the oil coolers and trailing edges of the wings often for damage that could prove catastrophic.


----------



## Jank (Nov 26, 2007)

I have located the NAVAL AVIATION COMBAT STATISTICS—WORLD WAR II

Indeed the oil cooler configuration and structure was an Achilles heel that was attributed to the higher losses of the Corsair over the Hellcat. Concerning Tables 19 and 20 which tabulates aerial combat data for type of aircraft, type of mission and time period - Page 58:

*Thus comparisons are valid between the carrier F6F and F4U totals because they generally operated from the same ships during the same periods.
...
Certain tentative conclusions may be reached from these two tables:

(a) The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage.*

I have also come across some references on other websites that discuss the vulnerability of the Corsair due to the oil cooler vis a vis the Hellcat and Thunderbolt which had different oil cooler setups.


----------



## Jank (Nov 26, 2007)

Joe, I think I just came across your post in another forum where you mentioned that the design of the dedicated ground attack F4U-6 (AU-1) attempted to remedy some of this vulnerability.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Nov 26, 2007)

For survivability, twin engine has to beat out single engine. The P-47 was tough but the Beaufighter with two radial engines was very tough too, often coming home with pretty spectacular damage (bit missing or bits, like tree limbs, added on). 

Ground attack: Hs-129 - two radial engines vs one liquid cooled in-line in the IL-2.

Tough choice between the B-17 and the B-29. The B-29 didn't have to face masses of fighters with Mk 108 3cm cannons but a number did manage to get home after serious damage sustained in ramming attacks.

Carrier: the TBF / TBM also had a reputation for being able to absorb damage and keep flying


----------



## HoHun (Nov 26, 2007)

Hi Joe,

>Anyway I agree the superior survivability of the B-17 was believed in by 8th AF leadership, not only German pilot testimonies, but seems hard to demonstrate with loss stats.

I'd even say it's not clear whether it this superiority actually existed 

>About 41% of carrier based F4U's hit by AA fire became losses v 26% of carrier based F6F's in 1945. (source "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics"). 

Here are the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics online: http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

I'm not sure about the difference between the F4U and the F6F as the figures seem to vary considerably depending on which data set one chooses to look at, but have a look at page 88 of the PDF: The SBD seems to be far more survivable than any other single-engined aircraft dive. I found this quite surprising.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Nov 26, 2007)

Hi Crumpp,

>The manifold was notorious for leaking and Forrest Clark of "The Flying Eightballs" told me he never rode on a B24 that did not reek of AvGas fumes.

Roger, I have heard that it was customary to fly with the the bomb bay doors cracked open just a bit to create a draft in order to suck the fumes out of the aircraft.

However, if the B-24 was more vulnerable to fire than the B-17, the B-17 must have had some other vulnerabilities to reduce its survability to or below that that of the B-24. I have no clue what these might be, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Nov 26, 2007)

Hi Fer-de-lance,

>For survivability, twin engine has to beat out single engine. 

The statistics on page 88 of the Naval Air Combat Statistics seem to prove you right. However, they also highlight that larger, slower aircraft take more hits - in the case of the Navy aircraft to a degree that increased their losses to a higher percentage than those of the single-engined aircraft.

However, PB4Y, PV and PBY are hardly in the Beaufighter class, so it's not a fair comparison :-/ 

(The PBJ data on that page is very good, but according to the report results from level bombing of poorly defended targets, so it's not comparable.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## JoeB (Nov 26, 2007)

HoHun said:


> I'm not sure about the difference between the F4U and the F6F as the figures seem to vary considerably depending on which data set one chooses to look at, but have a look at page 88 of the PDF: The SBD seems to be far more survivable than any other single-engined aircraft dive. I found this quite surprising.


But note the explanation above, and also the notation in the table Jank mentioned (where the Navy concluded the F6F was less vulnerable). The previous (1943-44) stats don't compare the same operations; F6F were overwhelmingly flying from carriers, F4U's from land, which were simply different missions and opposition besides the different characteristics of landing back on. In 1945 we're comparing just carrier missions of both, and it's a pretty big sample. Add to this the common anecdotal complaints about the F4U's vulnerability in Korea, and I don't see much doubt about it: the F4U was not an outstandingly rugged plane compared to its naval stablemates, if that means resistance to combat damage.

On SBD's or TBF/M's that's a different mission, different flight profile typically, so really apples v oranges. On twin engine *fighters* again back to Korea the Marines concluded the F7F-3N was a basically more suitable plane for the main night interdiction in which it mainly served (in VMF(N)-513 mainly) than the F4U (F4U-5N in that case). It wasn't entirely on account of combat damage resistance per se but the whole advantage of a spare engine over enemy territory, and a second crewmember for a high workload mission. However, the tradeoff with twin engine fighters is they were bigger and easier to hit typically. The F7F was not viewed at being at any advantage in daylight close support, in which role it was used early on in Korea. 

Somebody brought up also B-25 etc.: big twins were usually challenged in survivability when they flew fighter-bomber like missions at low altitude, too easy to hit. In their own element of medium altitude bombing against field targets protected by only light flak they were far less vulnerable than fighter-bombers, or divebombers, which flew into the envelopes of those weapons. For example B-26's in ETO had a quite low combat loss rate because they often flew in such situations, though sometimes against heavy flak, and pretty rarely encountered enemy fighters. But again apples and oranges to a fighter-bomber mission profile. Likewise mediums could be effective against high value targets like ships or airfields full of planes at low altitudes (B-25 skip and parafrag bombing) where they could accomplish a lot in one mission, but not flying around low against battlefield targets where you have to come back day after day. An example there is attempts to use B-26's (WWII A-26's) in daylight glide bombing/strafing close support in Korea: judged too easy to hit.

Joe


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 26, 2007)

fer-de-lance said:


> For survivability, twin engine has to beat out single engine.



For pilot survivability.. yes. For being knocked out of action, I don't believe it. If a fully loaded twin lost an engine, the mission would be over and in a tactical sense, as good as a kill.

True the IL-2 was water cooled but its durability is well is well known.


----------



## Jank (Nov 26, 2007)

JoeB said, "_But note the explanation above, and also the notation in the table Jank mentioned (where the Navy concluded the F6F was less vulnerable). The previous (1943-44) stats don't compare the same operations; F6F were overwhelmingly flying from carriers, F4U's from land, which were simply different missions and opposition besides the different characteristics of landing back on. In 1945 we're comparing just carrier missions of both, and it's a pretty big sample. Add to this the common anecdotal complaints about the F4U's vulnerability in Korea, and I don't see much doubt about it: the F4U was not an outstandingly rugged plane compared to its naval stablemates, if that means resistance to combat damage."_

As you pointed out, the 1945 data is hard to quibble with. Frankly, I am surprised by this revelation. It never occurred to me that the oil coolers were a source of vulnerability not shared by other R-2800 powered fighters.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 26, 2007)

Hi Joe,

>But note the explanation above, and also the notation in the table Jank mentioned (where the Navy concluded the F6F was less vulnerable). 

Roger that. Maybe it's sensible to limit the conclusion as done by the report. I was not convinced of that the last time I looked at the data, but you might have a point.

>Add to this the common anecdotal complaints about the F4U's vulnerability in Korea, and I don't see much doubt about it: the F4U was not an outstandingly rugged plane compared to its naval stablemates, if that means resistance to combat damage.

I hadn't been aware that there were actual complaints, but admit I know little about the Korean War. Do you have any details? As a general observation, I'd suggest that durability complaints from the pilots who actually fly a certain type are rare and should be taken serious.

>On SBD's or TBF/M's that's a different mission, different flight profile typically, so really apples v oranges. 

Hm, I'm not so sure about that, at least not for the SBDs which I understand would fly similar missions as fighter bombers did. Maybe the land-based FM-2 figure can be considered directly comparable to the land-based SBD figure?

>However, the tradeoff with twin engine fighters is they were bigger and easier to hit typically. The F7F was not viewed at being at any advantage in daylight close support, in which role it was used early on in Korea. 

Interesting information, thanks!

>Somebody brought up also B-25 etc.: big twins were usually challenged in survivability when they flew fighter-bomber like missions at low altitude, too easy to hit. 

The various schemes to use twins for strafing that both the Germans and the Soviets considered and abandoned seems to confirm your opinion. The Henschel Hs 129 tank buster might have been an exception, but it was designed for small size specifically. (The Junkers Ju 88 was considered for tank busting, but the idea was abandoned, so it looks like size really mattered.)

>An example there is attempts to use B-26's (WWII A-26's) in daylight glide bombing/strafing close support in Korea: judged too easy to hit.

That's more evidence for the effect of size  

By the way, a guy working in terminal ballistics once explained to me that survivability is considered the result of two diffferent factors (which we also find in the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics in some places), "susceptibility"- the chance of being hit - and "vulnerabilty" - the chance of going down from a hit. I think for twins, it's pretty clear that increased susceptibility in the fighter bomber mission outweighs the decreased vulnerability, but I have not read much about the impact it makes when you are comparing two single-engined aircraft of different size.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 26, 2007)

Definitely P-47 for fighters; even when the induction system was shot up, it could still fly normally aspirated.

Il-2 was overrated; Hartmann scored most of his kills on Il-2's. He'd approach the Sturmovik from below behind and take out the oil cooler; worked every time. I would go with the Henschel He 129, also.


B-17 for bomber; tough old bird. Would make it back to it's base in England with whole pieces of airplane missing.

Carrier-based: Probably F4F or F6; they didn't call Grumman the "Iron Works" for nothing.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 26, 2007)

I wouldnt use Hartman as a benchmark for a typical pilot...
Just cause we was able to sneak in there and surgically remove the oil cooler does not mean most pilots could.

Two engines = more to break, more critical points ... and with one engine the mission is over anyway. The pilot may have a greater chance of surviving but the thread is about "taking down."

,


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2007)

> Il-2 was overrated; Hartmann scored most of his kills on Il-2's.



No by far the majority of his kills were fighters, and we're talking 85-90% here.

Hartmann shot down 15 IL-2's in total.


----------



## JimM (Nov 26, 2007)

Another subjective question, entirely dependent on what theater we're talking about, and during what period in the war.

The Wildcat was amazingly tough for the period in which it served...every bit as resilient to a Zero as a P47 was to 109. An Oscar would be hard pressed to take down a Hellcat barring a lucky shot to the cockpit or control surfaces.

Probably the last thing you wanted to be in WWII was a Zeke trying to take down a B17.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> No by far the majority of his kills were fighters, and we're talking 85-90% here.
> 
> Hartmann shot down 15 IL-2's in total.



Sorry, didn't check my figures; it's been a long time since I read _The Blond Knight Of Germany_.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 27, 2007)

Did someone mention the Short Sunderland yet? 

He 177B would have been excellent: so rigid it could dive bomb, well armored, 4 engines, plus excellent armament.

Kris


----------



## JoeB (Nov 27, 2007)

JimM said:


> Another subjective question, entirely dependent on what theater we're talking about, and during what period in the war.
> 
> Probably the last thing you wanted to be in WWII was a Zeke trying to take down a B17.


It's an example of subjective. The Japanese Navy was impressed with the B-17, but Zeroes inflicted heavy losses on B-17's early in 1941-42 on many occasions. These weren't battles on the scale of ETO, smaller formations on both sides. And B-17's did often resist immediate destruction, so that Zero claims against them were more conservative than their other claims, sometimes even underclaims, they didn't see the crashes. But a lot of those planes didn't make it back or were not repairable under the prevailing conditions. On the other side of the coin B-17 claims against attacking Japanese fighters in 1941-42 were grossly overstated, apparently worse than ETO, which was pretty overstated but more understandable given the larger formations (in which more duplication of claims was natural).

The particular B-17's involved were, early on in the Philippines, mainly B-17D's (or C's converted to D's) which were somewhat easier to attack (for example approaching from directly behind) and up to mid 1942 mostly early B-17E's with the fairly useless remote controlled belly turret. Still, Zeroes were very far from helpless against B-17's.

Joe


----------



## Hakenkreuz (Nov 27, 2007)

What about the flying porcupine(Short S.25 Sunderland Mk2.) Ask a Lufftwaffer pilot to shot one down !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 27, 2007)

Hakenkreuz said:


> What about the flying porcupine(Short S.25 Sunderland Mk2.) Ask a Lufftwaffer pilot to shot one down !


They did!


----------



## Marcel (Nov 27, 2007)

Civettone said:


> He 177B would have been excellent: so rigid it could dive bomb, well armored, 4 engines, plus excellent armament.
> 
> Kris


Yep, it would be hard to shoot one down as it likely went up in smoke before you could get close by


----------



## Freebird (Nov 27, 2007)

What about the twin engine medium bombers? (B-25, Ju88, IL-4, Betty, Nell etc) Which was the toughest to shoot down?


----------



## renrich (Nov 27, 2007)

On the subject of vulnerability of F6F versus F4U. F6F delivered 6503 tons of bombs in WW2 and lost 553 AC to triple A. The F4U delivered 15,621 tons of bombs in WW2 and lost 349 AC to triple A. So the F4U delivered almost 3 times as many bombs and had a little more than half as many losses. Which one would you rather fly on an air to ground mission?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 27, 2007)

freebird said:


> What about the twin engine medium bombers? (B-25, Ju88, IL-4, Betty, Nell etc) Which was the toughest to shoot down?



I would strongly suspect the B-26 Marauder


----------



## Freebird (Nov 27, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I would strongly suspect the B-26 Marauder



Was it not less manouverable than the B-25 or Ju88?


----------



## Jank (Nov 27, 2007)

Renrich, let's stick to the statistics at hand as they are far more of an apples to apples comparison of the singular and limited issue of survivability between the Hellcat and Corsair under controlled circumstances. We have a huge data pool, same period, both from same carriers, both having suffered AA hits. (Prior to 1945 F4U's hardly operated from carriers so their losses are not comparable to those suffered solely in carrier operations. Also, as Joe B pointed out on another forum, there was more scope to nurse a damaged landbased plane back to base considering the greater risks of a carrier landing in a damaged plane. Further, as JoeB pointed out, the Hellcat did not fly along with the Corsair in Korea but the Skyraider did and the oil cooler vulnerability of the Corsair showed up prominently there too. 

41% of carrier based F4U's actually hit by AA fire became losses versus 26% of carrier based F6F's that were actually hit by AA fire in 1945. (source "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics"). That's more than a 50% greater chance of becoming a loss under circumstances of actual AA fire hits. Moreover, you could argue that the Hellcat had a greater chance of getting shot to Hell to begin with because it was slower and thus an easier target.

The US Navy apparently thought it worthwhile to comment on the data and the proper conclusions to be drawn as they related to the Corsair and Hellcat with respect to survivability. From the report itself at page 58: 

*Thus comparisons are valid between the carrier F6F and F4U totals because they generally operated from the same ships during the same periods.
...
Certain tentative conclusions may be reached from these two tables:

(a) The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage.*

You will note that it was the United States Navy, as opposed to several individuals on the web regurgitating the same thing they heard someone else and each other say, that said that the Hellcat had a greater ability to survive damage. That assessment was not based on anecdotal accounts but from a huge amount of data collected according to objective criteria. 

(I remember when you were more than willing to argue an unsubstantiated assertion that the USAAF had admitted that the Corsair could take more punishment than the Thunderbolt.  Surely you aren't going to now argue with the US Navy's verifiable declaration concerning the Hellcat and Corsair.)

Moreover, the Navy declared that the Hellcat was superior in combat to the Corsair in the valid apples to apples comparison (see the data limited to carrier operations in 1945). Now the Corsair could _*smoke*_ the Hellcat in just about every combat maneuver, climb, speed and roll. And yet still, the Hellcat was adjudged superior in combat. How can that be? 

Apparently, chiefly because the Corsair had more than a 50% greater chance of becoming a catastrophic loss under circumstances where actual AA fire was suffered. 

Again, the culprit appears to be the oil cooler. The other R-2800 powered fighters do not have these interesting tidbits inserted into the pilots manuals.

The Pilots Flight Operating Instructions for the F4U-4 (October 1944 T.O. No. AN-01-45HB1) warned that there was only enough oil for a maximum of ten seconds of inverted flight. Also, where there was damage to an oil cooler with resulting loss of oil, neither the oil pressure gauge nor the oil temperature gauge would register the change in pressure or temperature until all of the oil was out of the system. (See Manual at page 10) Pilots were warned during combat to check the oil coolers and trailing edges of the wings often for damage that could prove catastrophic.

I have checked the pilots manuals for the P-47 and Hellcat and no such caveats or warnings are present. Nor have I ever heard of any noteworthy vulnerability of the oil cooling systems for either.

As JoeB has pointed out, the oil cooler vulnerability issue is further supported by reports from those who fought in Korea. I have been reading various references to the vulnerability of the oil coolers in Corsairs elsewhere on the web (as I am sure you have) as well.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 27, 2007)

Besides general difference in carrier and land ops, another specific operational historical reason the overall bomb tonnage v loss comparison for F4U and F6F is invalid is this: Marine F4U units spent most of 1944 and part of 1945 as mainly ground attack planes pounding bypassed Japanese garrisons in Solomons and Central Pacific where the defenders couldn't even afford to fire a lot of AA; defending fighters were long gone with exception of an occasional few re-built from wreck(s). They largely just hunkered down.

Marine F4U sdns began to be deployed on carriers starting in January 1945 for two main reasons: to quickly boost fighter CV complements against the Kamikaze threat, and realization that the bombing of now very far bypassed garrisons was being overdone to the point of wasting resources. Then of course some USN F4U sdns also flew from carriers as 1945 went on. Only in that year could the two types could really be compared in the same missions v same opposition, especially v AA. There'd been a bit of side by side against serious fighter opposition earlier in the Solomons (land based F6F's and F4U's).

Joe


----------



## Jank (Nov 27, 2007)

Brassey's Air Combat Reader

The author, Walter Boyne, mentions that with respect to operations in Korea, the oil cooler in the Corsair was vulnerable to even small arms fire.

_"The airplanes would be hit by nothing more serious than a singe rifle bullet, and then their engines would seize when all the engine oil leaked from the oil cooler. They would then be forced to land behind enemy lines minutes after being hit. ... We were losing many F4U pilots and hoped they were being captured, not killed out of hand" _ (Page 174)

BTW - those "rifle bullets" that were bringing down Corsairs were 7.62 x 39 and not the 8 x 57 rifle rounds that the Germans used in WWII (for reference sake). The 7.62 x 39 has about 65% of the energy of the German rifle round used in WWII. In other words, Corsairs appear to have been brought down with little more than rocks thrown by third world savages. (OK ... that was an exaggeration but I thought it sounded funny)

To bring the point home though, the rifle rounds used by the Japanese in WWII, 7.7 x 58, were significantly more powerful than the 7.62 x 39 as well.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 28, 2007)

Jank said:


> Brassey's Air Combat Reader
> 
> The author, Walter Boyne, mentions that with respect to operations in Korea, the oil cooler in the Corsair was vulnerable to even small arms fire.
> 
> ...




Okay, Jank, I like you; you have a sense of humour (number one in my book; a sense of humour loosely corelates to your intelligence level; i.e.: Robin Williams is a genius).

Anyway, not to nit-pick, but the German round was actually 7.92mm, not 8mm. In any case, your argument is valid.


----------



## Jank (Nov 28, 2007)

Well not to nitpick back but the cartridge is in fact called the 8 x 57. 

The disparity between what cartridges are called and what they actually measure is a very common phenomenon. For instance, a .270 Winchester is actually .277, a .303 British is actually .311, the .380 Auto is actually .355, the .44 Magnum is actually .429, the .38 Special is actually .357 etc.


----------



## wilbur1 (Nov 28, 2007)

i think the cessna with 20mm guns was the best but they dont count that as a plane do they?


----------



## HoHun (Nov 28, 2007)

Hi Jank,

>We have a huge data pool, same period, both from same carriers, both having suffered AA hits. (Prior to 1945 F4U's hardly operated from carriers so their losses are not comparable to those suffered solely in carrier operations. 

Hm, I'm getting confused here - could you please point me to the relevant table in the NASC? I have just found "Table 17 - Navy Fighters", and it lists just 121 combat sorties for 1945 with just 2 losses to A/A, which would be too small a sample to allow reliable conclusions ... ah, I see - you're probably using "Table 29. Anti-aircraft loss and damage"?

>Moreover, you could argue that the Hellcat had a greater chance of getting shot to Hell to begin with because it was slower and thus an easier target.

Surprisingly, there is hardly any difference. If you compare the 1945 data, you can see that 17.9% of the Hellcats attacking A/A-defending targets were hit, and 17.7% of the attacking F4Us. (I'd have expected the F4U to be better, too.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## JoeB (Nov 28, 2007)

Jank said:


> BTW - those "rifle bullets" that were bringing down Corsairs were 7.62 x 39 and not the 8 x 57 rifle rounds that the Germans used in WWII (for reference sake).
> ...the rifle rounds used by the Japanese in WWII, 7.7 x 58, were significantly more powerful than the 7.62 x 39 as well.


How about another nitpick  , the 7.62x39 round, (fired by SKS, AK-47 etc. for those interested strictly in planes not rifles) was hardly if at all used by the Communists in Korea. The predominant rifles in mid-late war were Moisin-Nagant bolt action types, rifle or carbine various models, which fired the relatively powerful 7.62x54 round. Moreover that's what was fired by rifle caliber MG's at planes. 

Various secondary sources have vaguely claimed, without footnote, that SKS's were used in Korea but I've never seen any mention of this in primary US sources on intel about the enemy, or more detailed Soviet accounts of their aid to the NK's and Chinese, nor any photo. If so, it was only in small trial quantities.

Actually when the Chinese first entered the Korean War in October 1950, most of their troops had non-Soviet weapons, often Japanese Type 99's (7.7mm), or Type 38's (6.5mm); or various Chinese Mausers in the German caliber. Some NK units also had Japanese rifles, but they were more uniformly equipped with Soviet weapons from the beginning than the Chinese were.

Not that it really makes all that much difference what particular rifle round hits a plane, if it hits in exactly the right place.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Nov 28, 2007)

I see your point Jank. I was not aware of the reports and statistics you pointed out. I wonder why the Navy sometime in 1944 decided that the Corsair was superior to the Hellcat as a ship board fighter and replaced the Hellcats with Corsairs as expeditously as possible. Do you know if the AU version of the Corsair addressed the issue of the oil cooler in Korea?


----------



## Jank (Nov 28, 2007)

JoeBsaid, _How about another nitpick , the 7.62x39 round, (fired by SKS, AK-47 etc. for those interested strictly in planes not rifles) was hardly if at all used by the Communists in Korea. The predominant rifles in mid-late war were Moisin-Nagant bolt action types, rifle or carbine various models, which fired the relatively powerful 7.62x54 round. Moreover that's what was fired by rifle caliber MG's at planes._

I didn't know that. 

Renrich said, "_Do you know if the AU version of the Corsair addressed the issue of the oil cooler in Korea?"_ 

I think JoeB might know more about that. I think I read his post about that on another forum. There was another mention on another website about designing a different oil cooler set up as well.

Renrich said, _I wonder why the Navy sometime in 1944 decided that the Corsair was superior to the Hellcat as a ship board fighter and replaced the Hellcats with Corsairs as expeditously as possible._

Well, the Corsair was far superior in probably every performance category (maybe not turn radius - I don't know) and the ability to carry ordinance. Kamikaze attacks began in 1944. I would rather be protected by Corsairs than Hellcats if only because of the Corsair's ability to intercept further out due to its higher speed. I think that ultimately, the focus ends up being on which aircraft can deliver the best punch. (No one seemed to be that concerned about the Mustang's vulnerability over the radial.) I think the Hellcat didn't have any evolutionary potential either. Also, there may have been economic / production considerations.

Why are such decisions made? Who knows. You yourself have argued a number of times that the Corsair ought to have been introduced into the European Theatre. Why wasn't that done?


----------



## renrich (Nov 28, 2007)

I know at least one reason the Corsair was not considered for use in the European theatre by the AAF and that was that no ship board AC in those days was considered capable of equalling the performance of purpose designed AC particularly as a fighter or pursuit as they were known then. If I recall correctly the Phantom II, what became the F4, was designed originally as a ship board AC and the Air Force was reluctant to admit that it could outperform it's pet fighters but finally gave in and adopted it. Another example might be the F14 and F15. The F14 with it's Phoenix system was considered for the job of an interceptor that the F15 was designed for and probably could have done all the missions the F15 ultimately performed at a great savings in cost but the AF wanted it's own AC. Rivalry between the services can be a good thing but it has probably cost our country a great deal of money. Another example of rivalry costing money was that the RAF was tasked after WW1 with control of the Fleet Air Arm. As I recall the RN during WW1 had some pretty potent fighters, one being the Sopwith Tripe, but with the RAF being in control and possibly not wanting the RN to rival them in any way and also believing that no ship board AC could equal a ground based one, the RN had to fight WW2 with a bunch of duds except for what they were able to procure from the US. Thanks be that the USN has always had control of the procurement of it's AC.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2007)

Jank said:


> Why are such decisions made? Who knows. You yourself have argued a number of times that the Corsair ought to have been introduced into the European Theatre. Why wasn't that done?



Jank - I suspect two reasons, maybe three.

first, political. USAAF then USAF did not 'buy' a USN airframe until the F4 pre Viet Nam, then the A7D. The USN has never bought a USAAF or USAF fighter even when mandated by Congress (i.e killed the F111B, refused the VFAX (F-16) after it won the flyoff with F-18). 

During WWII, the USAAF or USN project manager that recommended the other's a/c in a competing line would be next studying clap incidence of Penguins in Antartica! 

The USN didn't have a choice with B-25 or B-24 - they just didn't have that capability in the fleet or in USMC and they needed them 

second, the F4U never made it to Wright Pat for a serious eval - therefore had no chance to display great performance which could have led to orders.

third, Vought didn't have the capacity to build more even if the orders came because of time to build factories and duplicate production lines. 

Vought was small when the Corsair came into life as was Lockheed when the Xp-38 won its competition - neither were equipped in context of facilty, manufacturing engineers or design engineers to move either airframe from prototype to production version in short period of time. 

Republic was well established as was NAA and Grumman and had financing, early orders to start production (either USA or Lend Lease), Bell and Curtis and Martin and Douglas also.

The above are opinions only..

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2007)

freebird said:


> Was it not less manouverable than the B-25 or Ju88?



I would say yes, the Marauder was less manueverable. I suspect that would have zero effect on relative survivabilty between the three ships. The B-26 had the lowest per 1000 sortie loss rate of any USAAF bomber


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 28, 2007)

Mosquito bomber losses for the time period shown 







That works out to 1 Mossie lost for every 249 missions flown.


----------



## magnocain (Nov 28, 2007)

fighter-f4u
ground attack-Il2/10
bomber-b17
carrier plane-f4u

the USAAF said that the f4u was tougher than the p47


----------



## JoeB (Nov 28, 2007)

Re: AU-1, the oil coolers were moved inboard from the wings to fuselage behind the engine, and fuselage underside forward had armor protection. A first hand account book of somebody who flew both F4U-4B and AU-1 is "Short Straw" by Bernard W. Peterson. His unit, VMF-212, liked the AU-1's they recieved in 1952 for the improvements in payload and survivability, as well as just having brand new planes, not beaten to hell F4U-4B's.

Re: Navy and Army using same fighter, the Boeing F4B and P-12 were basically the same plane, back in the '30's.

Joe


----------



## Civettone (Nov 29, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Yep, it would be hard to shoot one down as it likely went up in smoke before you could get close by


Dag Marcel

that would have been true for the earlier He 177s but by 1944 the engine problems were mainly solved and the He 177 turned out to be more reliable than all other German bombers! 
The aircraft took a long time to mature and when it was fully operational, the fuel shortages grounded them. At that point about five hundred had been delivered to operational units. The same amount was not used operationally and many stayed without engines. The story on them is quite unclear though.

Kris


----------



## Jank (Nov 29, 2007)

I just happened across Page 79, Note (e) to Table 29 of Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, WWII:

*(e) The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.*


----------



## renrich (Nov 29, 2007)

Joe B, did the F4U7 have the same armor additions as the AU?


----------



## ghensgen (Nov 29, 2007)

Has anyone modeled the YB-17 or Boeing Model 299 in 1/48 scale? This aircraft was the progenitor of the B-17 most people speak of, but many features do not seem modelled in this scale at all. 

Any help you all can provide is greatly appreciated


----------



## JoeB (Nov 29, 2007)

renrich said:


> did the F4U7 have the same armor additions as the AU?


Yes, the F4U-7 was essentially the AU-1 with the engine of the F4U-4, R2800-18W. The French used both, 69 ex-USMC AU-1's and 94 F4U-7's they ordered new. Per "Ailes de Gloire No.12 Vought Corsair F4U-7 and AU-1".

Another interesting statistic in that book is quoted max speed for the AU-1, 705km/hr at 2900m (~437mph at ~9500ft), much higher than the 238mph speed quoted in other sources. But Peterson in his book also says the AU-1 outperformed the F4U-4B below 15,000 ft. The low speed number always srtuck me as strange, since the AU was only several 100 lbs heavier clean, had a few 100 more hp down low, and no big drag addition, again assuming clean.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks Joe B for your info on AU and F4U7. I always had a question about performance data of the AU. Interesting statistics in the data on Navy and Marine AC combat. The official statistics show no action sorties for land based Corsairs until April, 1943, when it is common knowledge that the first combat for the Corsair took place on a landbased mission on Feb. 14(valentines day) 1943 and the Corsairs were in action steadily from that date. In the notes it is stated that action sorties are highly understated for F4Fs and to a lesser degree the F4U in early 1943 because of disorganisation. Wonder how many Wildcat and Corsair kills and losses went unreported. Oh well, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 30, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Dag Marcel
> 
> that would have been true for the earlier He 177s but by 1944 the engine problems were mainly solved and the He 177 turned out to be more reliable than all other German bombers!
> The aircraft took a long time to mature and when it was fully operational, the fuel shortages grounded them. At that point about five hundred had been delivered to operational units. The same amount was not used operationally and many stayed without engines. The story on them is quite unclear though.
> ...


Thanks, Kris, I always thought the engine trouble was only solved with the He 277. Guess I have to read up some more on this bomber


----------



## Jank (Nov 30, 2007)

"_Oh well, there are lies, damn lies and statistics_."

And conclusions that some would prefer not to accept.

The saying, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" is commonly used to imply that the statistical data underpinning conclusions drawn therefrom is caca and/or that the conclusions drawn from the statistical data are caca.

With respect to the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, which camp are you in? Alternatively, did you intend an uncommon meaning when you declared, "_Oh well, there are lies, damn lies and statistics_".?

More to the point, tell me Renrich, do you personally believe that the Corsair was a more survivable plane than the Hellcat?


----------



## renrich (Nov 30, 2007)

Jank, don't misunderstand me. The information you posted seems to me to be clear. The oil cooler vulnerability would give the edge in suvivability to the Hellcat. I seem to remember that the Wildcat had it's oil cooler in the wing also and that was possibly the reason the "Iron Works" relocated it on the Hellcat. Also as Joe B stated that oil cooler was relocated in the AU but that was well into the Korean War. My only reason for quoting the statistics "saying" was that raw statistics often don't tell the whole story but it is no wonder that statistics during the early part of the war might be lacking because the campaign in the Solomons was so chaotic. Speaking of how statistcs can be misleading, I drew the conclusion that the Corsair was more survivable in air to ground because it dropped a lot more bombs than the Hellcat and had less losses to AA. Obviously my conclusion was in error because of the factors you have pointed out. However the Corsair had a great reputation for air to ground both in WW2 and Korea. Perhaps that reputation came about because of the close cooperation btween Marine Air and Marine ground forces and the majority of the Corsair action sorties at least in WW2 were flown by Marines.


----------



## magnocain (Nov 30, 2007)

I think the Corsair was hit less often, so more survived
Still i vote for the corsair.


----------



## Jank (Nov 30, 2007)

The Corsair was a great air superiority and ground attack aircraft. Of that there can be no disagreement.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 30, 2007)

magnocain said:


> I think the Corsair was hit less often, so more survived


It's already been mentioned, per the same stats, the F4U was hit slightly *more* often than the F6F in apples v apples comparison, but not statistically signficantly. Both were hit about as often, but F6F's survived significantly more often when hit.

I think one key issue just mentioned by Renrich was the reputation for effective *doctrine of close air support* by the Marines particularly early in the Korean War compared to the cooperation of the USAF and Army initially in that war. That became a general news sort of topic at the time. Of course we often see events in WWII through the lens of later events and this is one example I think. Marine a/c provided close support to Marine ground forces also in WWII, but it was more of an emerging mission, not the key mission for Marine air it's been viewed as post WWII, and not with the same favorable to the Marines/unfavorable to other services connotation as in early Korean War.

But, even books like "Victory at High Tide", about the Inchon campaign, by Robert Heinel, basically official Marine historian, whose books were dual purpose history and recruiting/tradition building tools, not full warts-and-all histories of Marine operations, mentioned the vulnerability of F4U oil coolers to ground fire.

Joe


----------



## Jank (Nov 30, 2007)

In furtherance of JoeB's point, the report stated:

*(e) The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.*


----------



## magnocain (Nov 30, 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by magnocain View Post
> I think the Corsair was hit less often, so more survived
> It's already been mentioned, per the same stats, the F4U was hit slightly *more* often than the F6F in apples v apples comparison, but not statistically signficantly. Both were hit about as often, but F6F's survived significantly more often when hit.



ok,ok,ok, sorry. The averages that are being used, are they from a total or plane per plane? ( ask this thinking that there were more f6f's than f4u's)


----------



## renrich (Dec 1, 2007)

I seem to remember a phrase used where the Corsair was called the "Angel of Okinawa" by the Marines because of it's close support efforts during that invasion.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 1, 2007)

magnocain said:


> ok,ok,ok, sorry. The averages that are being used, are they from a total or plane per plane? ( ask this thinking that there were more f6f's than f4u's)


If it was totals and there were more F6F airplanes but more F4U AA losses that would be even more in favor of the F6F... but of course the stats being quoted are rates, planes hit by AA *per* sortie was about the same for the two types but *%* of planes hit which were lost was substantially higher for F4U than F6F. Which to reiterate one more time, compares the two only when both were flying from carriers in 1945.

On what basis would we assume the F6F was the more vulnerable? relatively similar planes built around the same basic engine. But it turns out the F4U was more vulnerable statistically. I don't see anything tricky or complicated about those stats, and since they are generally corroborated by the F4U's widely reported reputation for oil system vulnerability, I don't understand the resistance to accepting the stats and the apparent fact that the F6F was more resistant to combat damage than the F4U.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Dec 1, 2007)

JoeB, did not the tradition or reputation for good close air support by Marine air with respect to Marine ground forces begin to come about during the action in Venezuela in the 30s?


----------



## JoeB (Dec 1, 2007)

renrich said:


> JoeB, did not the tradition or reputation for good close air support by Marine air with respect to Marine ground forces begin to come about during the action in Venezuela in the 30s?


Marine a/c in Nicaragua in the 1920's I think you mean, was a pioneering US use of air support of ground forces, true. But, that whole mission on the ground, COIN, was viewed as somewhat of a sideshow to the main Marine 'big war' mission as conceived of pre WWII, which was seize and defend forward (naval, it was implied) bases. 

And Marine air was largely focused on that sort of mission for a lot of WWII. For example defending Guadalcanal then the northern Solomon bases, with the extension of suppressing Japanese fwd bases (ie. Rabaul) with Marine air power (as well as Army and some landbased Navy), then pounding those bypassed Japanese bases to keep them down through 1945. The pure CAS mission came to the fore at times, but I'd still maintain that if we view WWII Marine air as largely CAS, it's because we view it in terms of a later concept of Marine air, which in turn did have some roots as far back as the 20's, but wasn't really the main Marine air mission in WWII.

Here's a great site with original documents about Marine air operations in Nicaragua:
The Sandino Rebellion: Air-Docs Home

Joe


----------



## renrich (Dec 1, 2007)

Great insight on your part, Joe B. Thank you. I get those central and south american countries mixed up as you can tell.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 14, 2007)

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet but, the turocharger ducting on the P-47 was not all that volnerable. It may get a few holes punched in it but that'll take alot due to the T-Bolt's thick skin, plus small leaks in the turbo ducting doesn't hurt performance horribly bad, especially at low altitude. The ducting would mostly be volnerable to ground fire too, somthing the F4U's oil cooler was far more susceptable to, and loosing the oil cooler is far worse than some turbo ducting.

In fact, the belly ducting on the P-47 increased survivabillity since it acted as a buffer on emergency belly landing and obsorbed much shock, (acting like crumple-zones) to the benefit of both pilot and aircraft. Such a landing wouldn't necessarily total the a/c either as it would often be reparable.(though the turbo systems and belly-skin would probably need to be stripped and replaced)


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 15, 2007)

> In fact, the belly ducting on the P-47 increased survivabillity since it acted as a buffer on emergency belly landing



Holing the ducting on the P47 simply means the engine looses the boost from the turbocharger.

The P47 is still going to fly. It will just use the carburetor and fly on a normally aspirated engine. 

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 15, 2007)

I know, sorry if I implied otherwise. And the oil cooler on the Corsair would certainly disable the engine, far worse than loss of boost pressure (obviously). The P-51 had a similar problem with grounf fire due to the volnerable plumbing in the belly, mostly for the cooling systems, the radiator in the belly scoop was also probably volnerable, though this didn't seem as much of a problem on the Hurricane iirc... Noth that neither of these last two planes are anywhere near the toughest. (though the Hurricane was easy to repair in the field)

But the buffer effect on belly landings is an interesting feature of the P-47.

The P-39, P-63, and P-40 were probably some of the toughest inline engined fighters of the war. Though the wing-tanks of the cobras were more likely to take hits, at least if one caught fire it wouldn't burn the pilot and might have a chance to seal and extinguish before the pilot has to bail. (the P-38 was very surviable too, though alot of this was due to the twin engines, particularly in early models where technical problems were significant)

Maby liquid-cooled engined craft should be considdered separately, though nearly all of Britain's best A/C used merlins, so this would skew the fighues a bit... Then again some of their best, like the Tempest II used radials.


Should we considder which WWII Jet was the toughest? (probably the Meteor, as far as absorbing damage, due to the twin centrifugal engines; tougher than axial and 2 for security of limping home)


----------



## Elvis (Dec 15, 2007)

Didn't read through the whole thread, so forgive me if this has already been debated _ad naseum_, but to me, it seems to be a toss-up between the B-17 and the P-47.
We've all seen the pics of 17's shot up so bad, only thing left is the pilot, his seat and his steering wheel, with everyone else hanging off his scarf.
I've heard stories of P-47's loosing major portions of a wing and making it back, as well as very shot up engines.


Elvis


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2007)

Elvis said:


> Didn't read through the whole thread, so forgive me if this has already been debated _ad naseum_, but to me, it seems to be a toss-up between the B-17 and the P-47.
> We've all seen the pics of 17's shot up so bad, only thing left is the pilot, his seat and his steering wheel, with everyone else hanging off his scarf.
> I've heard stories of P-47's loosing major portions of a wing and making it back, as well as very shot up engines.
> 
> ...



The B-26 with its loss/sortie ratio is high on the list. The challenge with ALL discussions about toughness is lack of relevant data to make statistical judgements..

Do we know how many low level missions encountered light to medium flak?, Do we evaluate a Marauder's loss rate to a Fortress or Liberator based on threats en route to target and LW reactions to them? If one mission profile was 12-15,000 feet wouldn't we suspect that it was subjected to heavier and more effective flak fire than one at 26,000 feet? Same question for strafing airfields versus horizontal bombing at medium altitudes?

Do we know the relative flak losses for P-47s versus F-6F and how did the number of flak losses to flak damage to number of sorties in which flak was encountered? Ditto any other a/c in consideration?

Ditto air to air losses - in context of number of missions in which a bomber or fighter encountered enemy fighters and incurred battle damage in the fight?

These questions, unless answered, render a tough environment in which to make a judgement.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 15, 2007)

But for ground attack a/c it has to be the Il-2, or maby the Il-10 (basicly the same in most ways, but with much higher performance) it truely was a concrete aircraft.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2007)

One round into the oil cooler of an IL2 and it was dead.... Heinz Baer shot down many many Sturmoviks in this very manner....

I would not rank the IL2 in this catagory...


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> But for ground attack a/c it has to be the Il-2, or maby the Il-10 (basicly the same in most ways, but with much higher performance) it truely was a concrete aircraft.



But how do we (or anybody) truly have a basis to either judge or compare against equally legendary airframes?

The primary reason I try to stay out of deep debate on this type subject is that I simply don't know how one could make a comparison unless perhaps you were able to fly equal numbers of aircraft to be compared - say four each IL-2, Fw 190, P-47 and F6F on the same mission against heavily defended targets for perhaps 100 missions - and keep the data as accurately as possible regarding severity of battle damage on the survivors, for example,..


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2007)

The only way I can determine, roughly, which was the toughest is to look at pilot comments/recollections.... As Bill said, without any concrete data, the rest is all hearsay and bullsh!t....

That being said, just about every German fighter pilot who engaged Allied Bomber streams thought the -17 was the toughest to pop....


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 15, 2007)

> The primary reason I try to stay out of deep debate on this type subject is that I simply don't know how one could make a comparison unless perhaps you were able to fly equal numbers of aircraft to be compared - say four each IL-2, Fw 190, P-47 and F6F on the same mission against heavily defended targets for perhaps 100 missions - and keep the data as accurately as possible regarding severity of battle damage on the survivors, for example,..



Exactly. Pictures can be found and incidences recalled of all of these aircraft returning to base after catastrophic damage.

What does it mean? The pilot got very lucky.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> The only way I can determine, roughly, which was the toughest is to look at pilot comments/recollections.... As Bill said, without any concrete data, the rest is all hearsay and bullsh!t....
> 
> That being said, just about every German fighter pilot who engaged Allied Bomber streams thought the -17 was the toughest to pop....



Every one I talked to expressed the same opinion about the B-17. I can't remeber the author of the famous quote "To attack a formation of B-17s is to watch one's life pass before your eyes - holding your breath as you go."

Was it Eder who was shot down 9 times attacking them?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2007)

Yea it was Eder, and Im sure everytime he attacked one, that thought went through his head....


----------



## ThunderThud (Dec 15, 2007)

I think even Luftwaffe Pilots would Respectfully say it was the P-47


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 15, 2007)

Compared to the P-47, the Il-2 was alot easier to hit too, slow and low agility (even by jug standards)

Another thing is that even without a turbo it still had an integral single-stage supercharger for low-alt use, so atleast it would have some boost preassure. So it wouldn't be normaly aspirated, though altitude performance would be as bad as the P-40 or P-39... 
And the prototypes used fabric control surfaces, but balloning problems made them switch to dural. The tips of the alerons were made progressively blunter as the speed of the 'bolt increased, to deal with compressibillity problems.

Despite some of the volnerabillities of the P-38 it was able to get home with a surprisig amount of damage, albeit it couldn't obsorb as much damage and usualy ended up with loss of an engine and chunks of the airframe, usualy irreparable. In one instance in the PTO I remember reading about a pilot who had gotten in a dogfight (Zeros IIRC) and sored at least one kill and then (iirc) debris from a kill impacted on the tail of the a/c, completely tearing off a boom! He lost the turbo for the engine and lost control, but astonishingly he managed to regain control (before he'd even realized fully what had happened) and landed the plane safely at base, though the P-38 was totaled and was scrapped.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 16, 2007)

Remember the Egon Mayer vs Robert Johnson story??? The P-47 is a rugged bitch...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zitQJr36si0_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omO5VXOBZ80_


----------



## Elvis (Dec 16, 2007)

Drgndog,

I see what you're saying and it is HIGHLY valid, but maybe you're looking at this too closely?
Why couldn't one simply count the total number of sortie losses against total production numbers for any airplane and use the percentage to answer the question?
...and by "sortie losses" I mean a plane is no longer usable, other than as a source for parts.




Elvis


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 16, 2007)

Because there are too many variables when u look at it that way Elvis.... Total sortie losses could be from anything, mishap/malfunction/internment....


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 16, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Remember the Egon Mayer vs Robert Johnson story??? The P-47 is a rugged bitch...


Doubtful it was Johnson's P-47 that was attacked by Egon Meyer. The LW pilot was either Lt. Waldemar Radener or Fw. Wilhelm Mayer. 

Not that rugged, for no mention of the 5 P-47s lost during this combat.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 16, 2007)

Doubtful??? Evidence to back that up Al???


----------



## drgondog (Dec 16, 2007)

Elvis said:


> Drgndog,
> 
> I see what you're saying and it is HIGHLY valid, but maybe you're looking at this too closely?
> Why couldn't one simply count the total number of sortie losses against total production numbers for any airplane and use the percentage to answer the question?
> ...



Elvis - here are the factors that we might want to consider..

Would you look at the total number of sorties flown by B-17's in ETO versus the number of sorties of a C-47 and ratio out the losses... and maybe conclude that the C-47 was tougher than the B-17? So, the mission is an important factor.

Would you look at the number of tactical ground support missions flown by 9th AF and compare the number of missions by 8th AF P-51s against enemy airfields and conclude that one was tougher than the other based on loss to sortie ratios? 

You might, but one factor here is not just the simple fact that ALL airfields were heavily defended but you then ask how many passes were made in which to give the gunners another shot - contrasted with shoot as you go but don't come back for a typical low level sortie by P-47s. So, threat environment and tactics applied are added to mission.

You might ask yourself if the airfields and island defenses in the PTO was as formidable as ETO if you wish to compare F6F to say, Jug or P-38.

Operational losses such as engine failures and crashes on take off - might be higher in PTO than ETO because of hot days and full loads, rather than standard or better days for lift as would be encountered during cool or very cold days. Icing in Europe, T-Storms in Pacific

Instrument flying conditions over ETO versus Africa? or Alaska? 

These are environmental factors that could skew the results but lesser impotance I think..

Even in my somewhat whimsical example of building every attack unit mission with four each F4U, F6F and P-47 - you should rotate lead and trail on every mission - the first guy across a heavily defended target usually survived better than the trail flight.


----------



## marshall (Dec 16, 2007)

Read thru almost whole topic and I have question about a "fact" that was metioned here few times, does anyone have any proof that USAAF stated that F4U was thougher than P-47 after some kind of post-war test?


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 16, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Doubtful??? Evidence to back that up Al???


Mayer was based in Brittany with III./JG2. Any claims that day were made by JG,2 by I and II Gruppes and from JG26.

The German records indicate that the following pilots made claims for P-47s over Western Europe on this date:

26.06.43 Hptm. Wilhelm-F. Galland Stab II./JG 26 P-47 N. Neufchâtel:
8.000 m. 18.52

26.06.43 Ofw. Adolf Glunz 4./JG 26 P-47 N. Neufchâtel: 7.000 m. 18.54

26.06.43 Ltn. Heinz Hoppe 4./JG 26 P-47 Neufchâtel: 7.000 m. 18.55

26.06.43 Fw. Günther Scholz 5./JG 26 P-47 20 km. N. Neufchâtel: 2.500
m. 19.00

26.06.43 Ofw. Kurt Goltzsch 5./JG 2 P-47 QC 2: 5.550 m. [15 km. N.W.
Cayeux] 19.03

26.06.43 Hptm. Wilhelm-F. Galland Stab II./JG 26 P-47 10 km. N.W.
Dieppe: 7-8.000 m. 19.04

26.06.43 Ltn. Waldemar Radener 4./JG 26 P-47 10-12 km. N.N.W. Le
Tréport: 400 m. 19.04

26.06.43 Fw. Peter Crump 5./JG 26 P-47 15-20 km. N.W. Somme Estuary:
300 m. 19.10

26.06.43 Ltn. Heinz Hoppe 4./JG 26 P-47 10 km. N.W. Somme Estuary:
100-0 m. 19.10.

According to the description of the area where the battle was fought, the LW pilot could be Lt. Waldemar Radener of II./JG26. Note also the altitude the battle was fought.

Fw. Wilhelm Mayer had a combat with a P-47 that day but made no claim.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 16, 2007)

marshall said:


> Read thru almost whole topic and I have question about a "fact" that was metioned here few times, does anyone have any proof that USAAF stated that F4U was thougher than P-47 after some kind of post-war test?



None that I am aware of.. for that matter no 'proof' that any single aircraft was tougher than another, although much anecdotal evidence is available in form of photos of damaged returned aircraft.

The closest I have seen to a serious attempt of 'proving' that one aircraft was tougher than another was the USN report that Jank and Crumpp and others cited for the Okinawa (?) campaign, discussing F6F and F4U battle damage. It concluded that the F6F was more survivable based on the study data.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 16, 2007)

And the P-47 was probably at least as tough as the F6F but with the performance of the F4U and even better at altitude due to the turbo. And as said, the Jug wouldn't be running on carborator induction alone if a turbo was lost, it would be using the integeral single-stage supercharger.

Plus, if you want to add ability to escape/evade an enemy, the Jug had one of the fastest diving speeds, and accelerations, of any WWII prop a/c. So it could out-dive almost any attacker if things went sour in combat. Just hit the deck and run!


----------



## ThunderThud (Dec 16, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Remember the Egon Mayer vs Robert Johnson story??? The P-47 is a rugged bitch...
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zitQJr36si0_
> ...




Now Thats what I'm Talkin Bout !8)


----------



## drgondog (Dec 16, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Doubtful it was Johnson's P-47 that was attacked by Egon Meyer. The LW pilot was either Lt. Waldemar Radener or Fw. Wilhelm Mayer.
> 
> Not that rugged, for no mention of the 5 P-47s lost during this combat.



VIII Bomber Command # 68: 1st Bomb-Wing
11 Group Ramrod 108/I
Airfield VILLACOUBLAY Matford POISSY (o)
18.29 T: 124/12 B-17s: 5 lost
Heavy-Bomber Support:
US VIII FC	4th FG	48 P-47 Thunderbolt	18.25-19.55	Ramrod 108	2 - 0 - 1	Me 109G	No casualty	H-BS: Poissy

Claim 26.06.43 Lt. D.W. Beeson	4th FG	334th Sqn.	1 - 0 - 0	Me 109G	19.10 ca: Dieppe
Claim 26.06.43 Lt. R.C. Care	4th FG	334th Sqn.	1 - 0 - 0	Me 109G	19.10 ca: Dieppe
Claim 26.06.43 Lt. D.B. Leaf	4th FG	334th Sqn.	0 - 0 - 1	Me 109G	19.10 ca: Dieppe

US VIII FC	56th FG	48 P-47 Thunderbolt	18.12-19.38	Ramrod 108	2 - 1 - 1	FW 190	5 Cat.Em Fighters	H-BS: Poissy

Cat.Em 26.06.43 Capt. Robert H. Wetherbee: KIA	56th FG	HQ Flt.	P-47 C-2 HV-	FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 Capt. Merle C. Eby: KIA	56th FG	61st Sqn.	P-47 C-2	HV-	FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 2/Lt. Louis T. Barron: KIA	56th FG	61st Sqn.	P-47 C-2	HV-	FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 Capt. Roger B. Dyar: KIA	56th FG	61st Sqn.	P-47 C-2	41-6534 UN-D	FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 1/Lt. Ralph A. Johnson: ASR	56th FG	62nd Sqn.	P-47 C-2 LM-	FW 190s: Forges

Cat.E 26.06.43 1/Lt. Justus D. Foster: OK	56th FG	61st Sqn.	P-47 C-2	HV-	Battle-damage: C-L Hawkinge

These are the 56FG looses, including Cat E - interesting that Johnson's badly shot up Bolt survived the scrap yard

One of the 47 claims was from JG2 but four from Stab II./JG26 and II./JG 26. 

Based on the markings (if accurate) of the Staffeln leader I suspect Wilhem Mayer, but Crump and Radener and Hoppe were all awarded P-47 scores.

I can't find any solid proof that Egon Mayer's Stab/JG2 was in this fight

Above info extracted from Les Butler/Tony Woods website 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 20, 2007)

> Originally Posted by lesofprimus
> Remember the Egon Mayer vs Robert Johnson story??? The P-47 is a rugged bitch...
> 
> YouTube - Dogfights: " Thunderbolt " 1/5
> YouTube - Dogfights: " Thunderbolt " 2/5



Did Egon Meyer's Fw-190 have a yellow nose? I've never seen that paint scheme on a 190 before... Except for the "yellow-nosed Fw 190s" that were actually missidentified Romainian IAR 80's. 

Also Mayer must have been out of 20mm rounds, 'cause the P-47 is tough, but still won't take a barrage of 20mm be it HE or AP. The 'Bolt can, however, withstand hundreds of .30 cal rounds with out detriment, inless control linkedges are damaged or the engine is hit head-on. (though head-on would not be a good plan of attack aganst a jug, like a Zero charging a Wildcat head-on...)

I've got to wonder though, why Johnson didn't try to clean the oil off the wind-screen, it wouldn't have been too hard from his position, and coult have helped alot, maby even getting some accurate shots off on Mayer...


I wonder where the Dogfights historians got their info on this and how they came to the conclusion it was Mayer, maby the description of markings?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 20, 2007)

How about the Tempest II (centaurus Radial engine). How tough was it?


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 20, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I can't find any solid proof that Egon Mayer's Stab/JG2 was in this fight


It would be Stab III./JG 2.

III./JG 2 Gruppenkommandeure
Hptm Egon Mayer, 1.11.42 - 1.7.43

JG 2 Geschwaderkommodoren
Maj Egon Mayer, 1.7.43 - 2.3.44

III./JG 2 was based at Vannes-Meucon.


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 20, 2007)

drgondog said:


> But how do we (or anybody) truly have a basis to either judge or compare against equally legendary airframes?



one can't, but as long as it's kept in good spirit and form, such debates can be amusing if nothing else.  

Myself, i'd have to go conservative and base my list on reputation with a smattering of ancedotal accounts backing it up. As such I don't see anything "controversial" about nominating the P-47 as having the greatest "potential" for absorbing punishment in the fighter/fighter bomber catagory with the FW-190F being my alternate choice. I was impressed by the latter's armor placement for the ground attack role. 

The Stormavik usually gets the nod for ground attack aircraft.

Medium bombers: I've read that the B-26 was very tough, more so than the Mitchell which also usually gets kudoes for being durable. It did help though facing weaker armed Japanese aircraft. The Wellington's basic structure was reputed to be very tough but faced cannon armed 110's and 109's early on and suffered for it as did other British 2E types.

Heavy is usually fairly easy. The B-17's shadow looms large here and even though ancedotal, the numerous pictures of flak/cannon damaged Fortresses returning from the ETO are impressive to say the least. The B-29 is supposed to have been tougher but i'm not sure if RL bore that out.


----------



## 'Lil'tyger (Dec 20, 2007)

fighter-47..ground attack:IL-2..bomber:B-24..carrier:GRUMMAN HELLCAT...8)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 21, 2007)

Several, if not all, models of the IL-2 had very vulnerable oil coolers, so it would probably be the P-47 for this too...

The B-24, structurally speaking, could probably obsorb more damage than the B-17 (and more weight for weight than the B-29) but it had worse forward defences, and more importantly had leak-prone fuel lines and there were few B-24's that didn't reek of gas fumes...


----------



## 'Lil'tyger (Dec 21, 2007)

fighter-47..ground attack:IL-2..bomber:B-24..carrier:F6F..8)


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 21, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Several, if not all, models of the IL-2 had very vulnerable oil coolers, so it would probably be the P-47 for this too...
> 
> The B-24, structurally speaking, could probably obsorb more damage than the B-17 (and more weight for weight than the B-29) but it had worse forward defences, and more importantly had leak-prone fuel lines and there were few B-24's that didn't reek of gas fumes...



Interesting. I've read the opposite. The B-24 could carry a bigger load thanx to it's Davis Wing, but was less durable than the Fortress and the Luftwaffe pilots soon discovered this and tended to focus on Liberators when in company with the higher flying Fortresses.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 21, 2007)

That was said earlier on the thread, but from what the % losses of each craft were posted it seem to be much less than the B-17, but still noticeable. I think it might have been that the B-24s went down more conspicuously and more were claimed as kills by the LW, just speculation. The same number of wounded B-17s may have lated sucumbed to damage after being attacked while the B-24s might have just burst into flames or exploded with all those gas fumes around. If this is true, the B-17 would still be better since it would give the crew more time to escape alive...

The B-24 was faster than the B-17 though...


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 21, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> That was said earlier on the thread, but from what the % losses of each craft were posted it seem to be much less than the B-17, but still noticeable. I think it might have been that the B-24s went down more conspicuously and more were claimed as kills by the LW, just speculation. The same number of wounded B-17s may have lated sucumbed to damage after being attacked while the B-24s might have just burst into flames or exploded with all those gas fumes around. If this is true, the B-17 would still be better since it would give the crew more time to escape alive...
> 
> The B-24 was faster than the B-17 though...



I think too the estimate might be influenced by the fact that the Fortress was there from the start and outnumbered the Liberators most of the time. From what i've read of the design specs, the Fortress was of a more conventional low wing design that contributed to tremendous structural strength. This quality is mentioned time and again.

The Liberator on the other hand (from multiple sources including Bergerud, Neillands and Miller) state the plane was less durable due to production techniques that saved time + the Davis wing was less durable though it allowed the B-24 sport it's greater range and canaverous bomb bay.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 21, 2007)

Nikademus said:


> I think too the estimate might be influenced by the fact that the Fortress was there from the start and outnumbered the Liberators most of the time.



http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hardest-plane-take-down-ww2-3114-5.html#post293977


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2007)

'Lil'tyger said:


> fighter-47..ground attack:IL-2..bomber:B-24..carrier:F6F..8)



How was the B-24 more tougher to take down a B-17?


----------



## Elvis (Dec 22, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Because there are too many variables when u look at it that way Elvis.... Total sortie losses could be from anything, mishap/malfunction/internment....


True, but look at the question - "_Hardest plane to take down in WW2_"
I suppose we could figure out "Malfunction not caused by enemy interaction" and remove that quotient, but otherwise, once you're down...well, you're DOWN, regardless of how the plane was taken down.

The question didn't ask _how_, only which one.

Looking at it that way, I still think total production vs. total sorties, minus "malfunction not caused by enemy interaction", is going to give you your answer.



Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Dec 22, 2007)

Nikademus said:


> I think too the estimate might be influenced by the fact that the Fortress was there from the start and outnumbered the Liberators most of the time. From what i've read of the design specs, the Fortress was of a more conventional low wing design that contributed to tremendous structural strength. This quality is mentioned time and again.
> 
> The Liberator on the other hand (from multiple sources including Bergerud, Neillands and Miller) state the plane was less durable due to production techniques that saved time + the Davis wing was less durable though it allowed the B-24 sport it's greater range and canaverous bomb bay.


I agree with everything written here.
There are loads more accounts of B-17's being "beaten to death" and still returning their crews home unscathed (well, for the most part).
The 24 was larger and was meant to be a high altitude bomber, period.
I think most of its loses occurred when it was pressed into a lower level bombing role, such as what happened at Ploesti.
I still say that should've been 26's that went in there, not 24's.

BTW, Consolidated's specialty was building flying boats, such as the PBY (another "tough bird", btw). 
This is why the B-24 looks the way it does, with the high mounted wing and the rounded bottom side.

Around here, we have a B-17 and a B-24 fly around and give rides every summer.

Right after they started doing that, I saw them flying together, over my parents house, and you see how the 24 "hung" from its wing, while the 17 "sat" on its wing.



Elvis


----------



## drgondog (Dec 23, 2007)

Elvis said:


> I agree with everything written here.
> There are loads more accounts of B-17's being "beaten to death" and still returning their crews home unscathed (well, for the most part).
> The 24 was larger and was meant to be a high altitude bomber, period.
> 
> ...



Elvis - I suspect the primary reason was the longer bomb bay (than B-17) with roller bay doors to decrease drag (and enable ground loading of bombs) - combined with reducing complexity of main spar carry through design - combined with desire for tri-cycle landing gear - were more influential than the PBY design. Airframe structure over rides a lot of other factors because of weight considerations

PBY, after all, needed high wing to keep engines dry - whereas the 24 had no such requirement...


----------



## Elvis (Dec 23, 2007)

drgondog said:


> PBY, after all, needed high wing to keep engines dry - whereas the 24 had no such requirement...


Yes, but that's what they built.
They had all the tooling setup for building an airplane with a high mounted wing.
Placing the wing in a different spot, may require a change in tooling or (possibly) acquisition of different tooling.
Why go to all that trouble when _where_ the wing is placed (i.e. high or low) would not seem to make that much of a difference.

...but hey, I got that info from The History Channel.
Go yell at them if you have a problem it.




Elvis


----------



## drgondog (Dec 25, 2007)

Elvis said:


> Yes, but that's what they built.
> They had all the tooling setup for building an airplane with a high mounted wing.
> Placing the wing in a different spot, may require a change in tooling or (possibly) acquisition of different tooling.
> Why go to all that trouble when _where_ the wing is placed (i.e. high or low) would not seem to make that much of a difference.
> ...



Elvis - by that logic the B-36 would have used the same tooling and high wing because Consolidated had 'residual' tooling left over from B-24 line? Or perhaps the B-36 used some PBY tooling?

Every airframe with significant design differences was planned with unique and specific tooling design - particularly when the lines changed, as well as using a separate line or even factory.

Would you speculate that the P-51H used the same tooling as the P-51D because they were both Mustangs, or maybe the F-84 used same tooling as P-47 because they were low wing and built at Republic?

There was far more commonality between the P-51H and P-82 than between the P-51H and P-51D. IIRC there were about six parts that were common between the D and H... yet they kinda look the same.

Can you name one part, assy or installation that was common between PBY and B-24?.. and given that dilemma think of one common process, stamping tool, machine set up or jig/fixture that might remotely be the same?

I love watching the History Channel but probably catch a significant error at about one per 2 or three minutes of broadcast on airplane subjects. It is fun to watch but be careful of what you take away as gospel.


----------



## renrich (Dec 25, 2007)

My rule of thumb when watching any TV is that if you see it on TV it is either inaccurate or a damned lie. I would be very surprised if the looks of the B24 had much if anything to do with earlier flying boat design by Consolidated. One interesting fact(I use the word advisedly) about the B24 was related to me by a fellow who flew them. He said that an advantage they had over the B17 was that they could lose altitude very quickly(because of the Davis wing) after bombs away to throw off the flak.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 27, 2007)

renrich said:


> My rule of thumb when watching any TV is that if you see it on TV it is either inaccurate or a damned lie. I would be very surprised if the looks of the B24 had much if anything to do with earlier flying boat design by Consolidated. One interesting fact(I use the word advisedly) about the B24 was related to me by a fellow who flew them. He said that an advantage they had over the B17 was that they could lose altitude very quickly(because of the Davis wing) after bombs away to throw off the flak.



LOL - on the other hand the 17 drivers loved flying with B-24's because they always flew 4,000 feet lower and were more frequently picked on by fighters... and the 24 was faster coming in but slower going out after both ships dropped their loads.


----------



## therritn (Dec 28, 2007)

For land based fighters: P-47 Thunderbolt
Attack: IL-2 Sturmovik
Bombers: B-17 Flying Fortress
Carrier Aircraft: F-4U Corsair


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 28, 2007)

I don't know if this airplane was already mentioned in this tread ,but the Fw-189 was one of the most hardest air targets for soviet fighters - very agile and rugged. It was a reconnaissance plane, so it doesn't fit in any category of this pool (altough AFAIK it was also a ground- attack version as well)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 28, 2007)

The Fw-189 didn't have much crew armour though, did it? Though alot of recon and patrol a/c had somewhat poor crew protection, even many PBY's had mediocre crew protection iirc. Though most had good defensive armaments...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 29, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Fw-189 didn't have much crew armour though, did it? Though alot of recon and patrol a/c had somewhat poor crew protection, even many PBY's had mediocre crew protection iirc.



no , it didn't - but that was not its main defensive measure, but rather its incredible agility and the overall ruggedness. It could take 3 or 4 fighters attacking simultaneously to shoot it down.


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 29, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Fw-189 didn't have much crew armour though, did it? Though alot of recon and patrol a/c had somewhat poor crew protection, even many PBY's had mediocre crew protection iirc. Though most had good defensive armaments...



Wiki:


Survivors

One Fw 189 survives today. Its story starts when on May 4 1943 Fw 189 V7+1H (werke Nr. 2100) based at Pontsalenjoki took off on a mission to photograph the Loukhi-3 airbase from an altitude of 6,000 m (20,000 ft), then to continue north along the Murmansk-Leningrad railway. Approximately 31 minutes after taking off V7+1H was attacked by Soviet Hawker Hurricane fighters. The aircraft nose dived to escape the fighters but owing to damage already suffered could not pull out in time and struck the treetops. The tail was torn off, and the crew nacelle left hanging upside down within the trees. The pilot, Lothar Mothes, survived but one crewman had been killed in the crash and the second died from loss of blood as a result of a severed leg. Incredibly, the pilot was able to survive two weeks in sub-zero temperatures, evading Russian patrols while eating bark and grubs as he walked back to his base. Lothar Mothes spent the next nine months in a hospital recovering from severe frostbite before returning to the front lines to eventually fly another 100 missions.

In 1991, the wreckage of V7+1H was found in the Russian forest where it had remained for 48 years. The aircraft was purchased by a group of British aircraft enthusiasts and was shipped to the UK, arriving in the town of Worthing, West Sussex in March 1992. The "Focke Wulf 189 Restoration Society" was formed to restore the aircraft to flying condition. Her pilot met up again with his aircraft in 1996 at Biggin Hill airshow.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 29, 2007)

renrich drgndog,

Re: TV.

Agreed....and might I add, _Wikipedia_ can also fall into that catagory, in the sense that the info is can be constantly altered by whoever views whatever subject they're looking at.




Elvis


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 29, 2007)

Elvis said:


> renrich drgndog,
> 
> Re: TV.
> 
> ...



Like it or not, Wiki is not a bad resource... it is a easy target for pseudo experts but at worst it is a catalyst for conversation..

Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts


.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi Elvis,

>and might I add, _Wikipedia_ can also fall into that catagory, in the sense that the info is can be constantly altered by whoever views whatever subject they're looking at.

Wikipedia is actually a bit more complex - authors there tend to be very territorial about their articles. First you have to fight to stake your claim, then a sort of compromise with the other fighters is reached, and finally the fighting parties form a clique who defend their article against changes that don't fit their "party line".

The articles end up as subjective, opinionated and error-fraught as anything you might find on a personal website, but unlike the personal website, it's nearly impossible to find out exactly who is responsible for a certain statement in the article.

Statements of fact (and often, of opinion) have been regularly padded with foot notes for a while, but as it's possible to find any misconception you could dream up in print, that hardly improves matters. Due to the continuing edit process, there is not even a way to check that the currently displayed statement actually matches the statement that was in the article when the foot note was introduced.

Still, I use the Wikipedia, too - but only "to get a wrong impression quickly", and (when it comes to aircraft types) for a look at the pictures. At least, if you find a Wikipedia article, you have a clearly defined subject and the certainty that they won't try to sell you something, as many of the other Google hits will.

Wales' suggestion to build a search engine based on user-contributions seems actually to be designed to employ the effect that works best in the Wikipedia, and I'm looking forward to see the results of that project ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Dec 29, 2007)

Elvis said:


> renrich drgndog,
> 
> Re: TV.
> 
> ...



They are both useful - but frequently subject to perspectives and beliefs based on 'common knowledge' as contrasted with serious research to gather enough facts to offer substantiation to a Point of View - which we are all guilty of.

I like wikipedia for quick reference then decide what else I have to dig up


----------



## renrich (Dec 29, 2007)

I agree with youall about wikipedia and the net in general as far as accuracy. I tend to have more trust in books that have extensive references and are footnoted but even there one has to be armed with a bit of skepticism. I recently finished a book from the library entitled "The War" based on Ken Burns' tv documentary and I found numerous mistakes in the text. Obviously that book was whipped out to take advantage of the TV show and was not meant as a serious reference. My favorite references are Lundstrom's two books about the early days of the USN's air war in the Pacific. Wish there were books as well documented about the whole of WW2 in the air. Perhaps Bill will oblige.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 30, 2007)

my point was simply that the content of any "reference source" that can be edited by anyone who comes along, has to be taken with at least a little "salt".
Like the rest of you, I too use Wikipedia, if only out of convenience, but only as a basis for further research.
Sort of an "internet directional indicator", if you will.
Am I on the right track? Seems so, let's keep going in this direction...that kind of thing.



Elvis


----------



## drgondog (Dec 30, 2007)

renrich said:


> I agree with youall about wikipedia and the net in general as far as accuracy. I tend to have more trust in books that have extensive references and are footnoted but even there one has to be armed with a bit of skepticism. I recently finished a book from the library entitled "The War" based on Ken Burns' tv documentary and I found numerous mistakes in the text. Obviously that book was whipped out to take advantage of the TV show and was not meant as a serious reference. My favorite references are Lundstrom's two books about the early days of the USN's air war in the Pacific. Wish there were books as well documented about the whole of WW2 in the air. Perhaps Bill will oblige.



I have never seen a well documented, detailed, and comprehensive book about WWII airpower or war chronology. It is difficult enough to find one well researched, accurate book about something as well chronicled as say, the 8th AF. 

My Roger Freemans, Kent Millers, (and my own stuff) etc are well and truly marked up as I find and correct errors


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 31, 2007)

They were obviously less volnerable, but where is the oil ciiler on the P-47 and F6F?


----------



## renrich (Dec 31, 2007)

The oil coolers(2) were located beneath the engine in the nose of the P47. The oil cooler in the Hellcat was behind the engine in the lower part of the fuselage. I do not believe there was any armor protecting the oil cooler in either AC.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 1, 2008)

Ok, I thought they were with the engine, that is one of the least volnerable places, even without armor...


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

FIghter: P-47
Ground attack: IL-2
Bomber: B-26
Carrier take-off: SBD

My picks i choose is a P-47 we all know its tough, The Il-2 because it was fast and durable, the B-26 that thing could take a pounding, and the SBD very tough.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 1, 2008)

The Fw 190F and G were much more durable at low level than the IL2 ever was....


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2008)

It is hard to say just looking at a small sketch but a round entering the bottom of the engine cowl either directly from the front or below on the P47 might injure the oil coolers and a round coming from below just aft of the engine cowl might get the cooler on the F6F. I believe that most damage to AC happened to the rear half of the airplane because of not enough lead so that would make the coolers pretty safe perhaps a little safer on the F6F but one would have to see the installation in situ to be sure.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 1, 2008)

The nose mounted oil-cooler(s) would be somewhat volnerable to head-on attack then, or defensive fire reom a rear gunner, but still there's not a much safer place to put them...

The IL-10 solved the oil-cooler problem of the IL-2 didn't it? It was also quite fast for a ground attack a/c, though not so much as the Fw-190G or P-47...

And the 190G was not as tough as the P-47, though certainly more so than the IL-2 in terms of volnerabillity, the high performance of the 190 and P-47 were also a big plus.




B-17engineer said:


> FIghter: P-47
> Ground attack: IL-2
> Bomber: B-26
> Carrier take-off: SBD
> ...



How was the IL-2 ever fast???


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2008)

When you think about it an oil cooler had to have a source of outside air to cool the oil in the cooler. If you recall the shape of the P47 and F6F the fuselages were not cylindrical like the Corsair so that allowed air scoops to be incorporated below the engine in or around the leading edge of the engine cowling which would not be blocked by that big round engine. Those air scoops were in the leading edge of the stub wing on the Corsair which was why the oil cooler was in the wing.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 1, 2008)

Saying the IL2 was fast is like saying that Hillary is attractive...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 1, 2008)

I know about the corsair's cooler, but the F6F and P-47's placements are gennerally less volnerable, especially to ground fire.

And that statement about the IL-2's "speed" baffles me, inless he meant the IL-10, and still then not nearly as fast as the P-47 or 190G...


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 1, 2008)

> The Fw 190F and G were much more durable at low level than the IL2 ever was....



The G was far less durable than the F series. The F series I wouldn't put in the same league as the IL2. Close but not quite there IMHO. 

My reasoning is the oil system on the Focke Wulf. While the oil cooler was well armored, the oil lines were exposed. A projectile entering the engine compartment had a chance of of ricocheting off the armor and the engine until it pierced a hose.

It's kind of a bullet trap if one enters in the first set of baffling.

Several of the cylinders recovered from wrecks show definitive strikes, tumbling, and ricochet’s. In fact I gave my mechanic a BMW801 cylinder with a perfect .50 cal furrow in the fins. I put a .50 cal slug in it for him.

But it is all an opinion as we have no data to back it up. You could argue that a liquid cooled engine will no longer work without a radiator. An aircooled radial's have been known to continue to function with entire Jugs missing.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 2, 2008)

What were the Major volnerabullity differences between the 190F and G?

Jugs? Is that cylinders?

And though radials are certainly tougher in general and the P-47 could continue to fly with several dead cylinders, the V-1710 was probably as tough an inline as seen in WWII. In some cases managing to continue to function on lost cylinders and even with direct hits to the block, crank-case, and oil pan. (at least untill most of the oil was lost, or the coolant linkage was severed).

Here's a good example: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB0y5FGbqPA_

And though far from the F6F or P-47's damage resisistance, compared to most Japanese a/c the P-40 was extremely rugged and well armmed. Like comparing a Spitfire or Bf-109 to a P-47. And it was still probably about as tough as a Wildcat, despite the liquid cooled engine (which was armored as well), pluss it would be a much harder target to hit than the less agile and bulkier Wildcat. And the Nose oil cooler and radiator was much less volnerable than the P-51's belly mounting.

The P-36 could have been considdered even tougher with its radial engine, but it lacked the added armour of the P-40.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 2, 2008)

Jugs is the nickname for the P-47s while jugs are the cylinders of a radial engine.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Jan 2, 2008)

the sunderland gets my vote it was extremely durable.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 2, 2008)

> And though radials are certainly tougher in general and the P-47 could continue to fly with several dead cylinders, the V-1710 was probably as tough an inline as seen in WWII. In some cases managing to continue to function on lost cylinders and even with direct hits to the block, crank-case, and oil pan. (at least untill most of the oil was lost, or the coolant linkage was severed).



Hi KoolKitty,

Your argument has merit. 

There are just too many variables in combat and if we examine usable maintenance data, there is little difference in any aircraft engine. This is a function of the physics and stresses of the very fact they are airplane engines.



> What were the Major volnerabullity differences between the 190F and G?



The amount of armor dictates the main vulnerability differences. The FW190G series was a bomber designed for long range attack mission. It carried no the same amount of armor as a fighter variant and was plumbed to carry additional fuel. The engine was set up differently from the Antons.

The F series was a Front Line Tactical Support Aircraft. Its role was similar to the IL2 Sturmoviks. The F series was highly armored to protect its crew and was fitted with the grossebombenelectrik weapon management system. This was the key to its strike capabilities. The engine was set up differently from the Antons.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## drgondog (Jan 2, 2008)

AL Schlageter said:


> Jugs is the nickname for the P-47s while jugs are the cylinders of a radial engine.



LOL.. and JUG's are the dual mammary glands on a well endowed female


----------



## renrich (Jan 2, 2008)

The P40 is an interesting airplane, perhaps deserving the honor(dubious) of being the most underappreciated AC in WW2. It was there in the beginning and at the end and served all over the world. It was rugged, well armed,was maneuverable and had good performance below 15000 or 20000 ft. Perhaps the biggest knock was it's performance above 20000 ft. It was a good looking bird too.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 2, 2008)

> LOL.. and JUG's are the dual mammary glands on a well endowed female



Well they say the average male thinks about sex every 7 seconds.

Just reached that 7th second before the end of the sentence. Sorry.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 2, 2008)

The Merlin (single-stage 2-speed supercharger) engined P-40's were good to ~20,000 ft, the Allisons to ~13,000-15,000 ft, though I think the P-40M's V-1710 was rated for 1125 hp at 17,300 feet. The Allison engined P-40s were somewhat lighter though, and faster at critical altitude with the P-40E being about as fast at 15,000 ft as a Merlin P-40 was at 20,000 ft, with the Allison P-40s performing better at low level than the Merlins did at altitude and low level. (except for the stripped-down short-range P-40L)

It was good looking in the sleek B/C/Tomahawk, but the larger radiator and less streamlined/less shark-like nose on P-40D and later models made it somewhat ugly, though somewhat more menacing. (akin to the Bf-109's Ugly beauty) Though performance, firepower, and cockpit visibility were decidedly better. We've discessed this already here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/most-beautiful-planes-3322-42.html and more http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/most-beautiful-planes-3322-43.html

I'd say that the P-39 and F2A would rank along with the P-40 as underappreciated, though with the Finns and the Russians the planes were well liked, though for some reason the Russians disliked the P-40, though not so much as the Hurricane. Though the P-39 had a speed and high speed maneuverabillity advantage, the P-40 was tougher (by most accounts, and particularly the wings) and had better low speed and stall characteristics, debatably better firepower, and much better range. (in fact enough to make a decent escort, particularly for low-level duty)

And I'm sure the Flying Tigers apreciated their P-40s. It was possibly the toughest liquid-cooled inline-engined fighter of the war. And interesting to compare to the Hurricane as both airframes are from around the same time in the P-36 and Hurricane Mk.I, though the P-40 certainly out developed the Hurricane. (though by the time it entered service the Spitfire was certainly outperforming it)

I rember reading in The Amazing George Welch: Part One how it wasn't the poor high-alt performance of the P-39D that gave Welch his bad feelings tward his "Iron Dog," but the small combat radius (the P-39D wasn't equiped for drop-tanks, though the P-39D-1/2 were iirc, though still shorter ranged than the P-40) which was why he was so eager to get a P-38, and with ~1,400 mi combat range with a 140 gal tank (nearly 2,000 mi ferry) I bet it would have been much preferred.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2008)

Kitty - the F2A and the Brewster Model 239 had some notable differances and the Finns did some work on the aircraft as well.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 2, 2008)

I know, and as said before, some USN aviators preferred the F2A to the F4F, under normal load conditions. (at half fuel load the F2A-3 had better speed, climb, agility and about the same range as the F4F-3, while the F2A-2 was even better, though with less armor and no self-sealing tanks)

Still the Finns a/c were fairly slow at just under 300 mph top-speed and relied mostly on agility and firepower (more than most other Finnish fighters, and most earl-war Soviet fighters) Still the B-239 was virtually the same as the F2A-1, though less powerful (950 hp, compared to 1050 hp iirc), slower, slightly lighter with naval equipment removed and armor added. Though engine reliabillity was improved with some modifications on the Finnish machines. I just wonder what the Finns would have done with B-339s had he gotten some, nothe the heavier E modelof the Buffalo I, but the lighter model received by other users in the Pacific. It would have still been somewhat heavier than the B-239, but with 1,100 hp and better speed and range along with similar Finish improvements and the same excelent tactics used to play to the a/c's strengths, it would probably have been sucessful as well.

Still, I wonder why the Soviets disliked the P-40E/M compared he P-39N/Q, maby due to the lower speed and high-speed agility, or maby they liked cannon armament more aganst the German a/c. It may have been better matched aganst the Bf-109 than the P-40 was as well. Iremember reading that the Soviets also found the P-39 to be more durrable than the P-40, maby the P-39 stood up better to the coold climate... Plus the P-39D-2, G, K, and Q had more powerful engines than the P-40. Though the light weight early P-40N was as fast as most P-39s.

And the internal oil cooler and wing root radiators may have been less volnerable to ground fire than the P-40's ones. (though probably more volnerable to enemy a/c, especially the rear-mounted engine.)

And here's one interesting statistic: (from: Wartime Service of P-39 with USAAF)


> With the formation of the US Twelfth Air Force in the Middle East in the Autumn of 1942, Airacobras saw service in the Mediterranean area with the 81st and 350th Fighter Groups and two squadrons of the 68th Observation Group. These aircraft were diverted from a Soviet consignment, being a mixture of P-400s and P-39D-1s. In the Middle East, the Airacobras were used primarily for very low-altitude strafing missions, escorted by Warhawks or Spitfires. They took part in the Allied landings in Tunisia, at Anzio, in Sicily, and operated throughout the entire Italian campaign. In spite of the Airacobra's obvious deficiencies, units using the P-39 achieved the lowest loss rate per sortie of any USAAF fighter used in the European theatre.


----------



## renrich (Jan 3, 2008)

A big part of the problem with the P39 was that it was just too small. Both to carry much fuel and to carry much pilot. It was designed for a pilot no more than 5'8" tall. Pilots taller than that had a problem. Being so small it was difficult to "stretch" the design to meet the US mission requirements such as long range or additional ordnance capacity. One of the main problems with the F2A as far as the USN was concerned was that it's landing gear was not robust enough for carrier landings.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 3, 2008)

> And here's one interesting statistic:



There are just too many factors for that to be a viable statistic on the vulnerability or maintenance of the P39.

All action is not equal in combat and the logic of using this as evidence the P39 was less vulnerable in combat breaks down.

For example, I went to Desert Storm. That makes me a combat veteran no matter where else I served.

In comparing soldiers in Desert Storm to US Army soldiers on D-Day, we can now logically conclude that the human body was much more vulnerable in 1944 than the human body of today.

We are just tougher than they were 60 years ago.



Doesn't work too well, huh?

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## renrich (Jan 3, 2008)

I have posted on occasion statements I have read where certain AC engines(mainly radials) have come home with "jugs" cylinders missing. Others on this forum have also done so. I have been thinking about this and although I am not an engineer, I don't see how this is possible. If a cylinder on a radial engine is badly damaged wouldn't it mean that the cylinder would be deformed so that the piston would be jammed and then tear loose the connecting rod? If the cylinder is damaged enough to deform would not the oil leak out? Can someone explain this to me?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2008)

renrich said:


> I have posted on occasion statements I have read where certain AC engines(mainly radials) have come home with "jugs" cylinders missing. Others on this forum have also done so. I have been thinking about this and although I am not an engineer, I don't see how this is possible. If a cylinder on a radial engine is badly damaged wouldn't it mean that the cylinder would be deformed so that the piston would be jammed and then tear loose the connecting rod? If the cylinder is damaged enough to deform would not the oil leak out? Can someone explain this to me?



On a radial there is a lot of mass at the crankshaft and any potential "jamming" of a piston would be quickly overpowered, but what you described has happened. If the engine is lucky enough to have just a small tear in the head there might be enough engine oil to keep the engine operating - remember radials used a dry sump system and the oil capacities of these tanks were huge. Also keep in mind that even if a radial was running with a limited oil supply, cooler temps at altitude as well as running the engine rich will help as well.

Here's a pic of a recovered P-47 engine - this will give you an idea of the size of the jugs, pistons and crankcase.


----------



## renrich (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Flyboy, so I gather it would be unlikely that any AC engine would continue to run with a cylinder head completely blown off? Another question, did the RR Merlin engine have overhead camshafts and how about the Allison V1710?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 3, 2008)

I didn't mean to say the P-39 was definitively tougher, or a better a/c than the P-40, I was just showing some points of view. Personally I think the P-40 was a better (more useful) all around a/c, and by most accounts (except Soviets) a tougher plane. (better ordinance capacity and range especially, and better armament for most purposes in the 6x .50 cals of most models) I forgot about the size issue of the P-39, that would be another reason for Welch's dislike as he was taller than 5'8" iirc. 

Also I wasn't trying to use that loss-rate statistic to show better maintenence or servicabillity, I just though it was an interesting point. Plus a low loss rate doesn't necessarily mean greater effectiveness as there is no mention of how much damage was done to the targets.


----------



## renrich (Jan 3, 2008)

Interesting comparison between the Model 239 Finnish version of the F2A and the F2A-3 which was the USN model at the beginning of the war. The 239 in the 4 gun fighter role with 110 gal of fuel had a gross weight of 5276 lbs. The F2A-3 4 gun fighter had a gross weight of 6321 lbs. That additional 1000 lbs or so made a nice handling little fighter into a dog!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 3, 2008)

But you also have to take into account the 1,200 hp engine of the F2A-3 compared to the 950 hp one the finns had, and the 20-30mph greater speed, better armour, and range (over 1,600 mi with max fuel load at ~7,000 lbs total weight) of the F2A-3, though climb and maneuverabillity were down. Plus, at normal combat weight the F2A-3 still better performing (inclimb, speed, and maneuverability) than the F4F-3 and especiall F4F-4 and it had nearly twice the maximum range, and was certainly better than the Buffalo Mk.1. Though the quality and quantity produced by Brewster was a major problem and as talked about in the "worst planes" thread, this was largely due to internal problems in the company and management. At one point Brewster factory employees went on strike (durring the war!), and eventually the US government seized control of the company.

Plus the F2A-2 was a bit of a compromise between the F2A-1 and F2A-3, though it lacked self-sealing tanks and had less armour than the F2A-3, it had much more armor than the F2A-1 (which had next to none), range similar to the F2A-3, with the same 1,200 hp engine but with ~500 lbs less weight and the best speed of any F2A variant of ~344 mph and climb only slightly less than the B-239.

But who knows how development would have gone if management had been better and internal problems resolved. Maby Brewster designers would be able to solve the structural problems and maby enlarge the craft a bit (most importantly increase wing area to decrease wing loading) to compensate for the extra weight by the time the F2A-3 came around and add an uprated 1,300 hp Wright R-1820 engine nedded for the added weight. (which should have been available by then iirc) Maby a 1,350 or 1,450 hp version in later models which could have been compeditive with the FM-2, or maby even the Hellcat. (if enlarged like the Hellcat was over the wildcat) But still this is only a what-if speculation and Grumman had been an established manufacturer while Brewster was rater new and had grown too fast for the current management to maintain it properly... (as management had,'t developed and expanded accordingly)

Still the F2A-1 was possibly the best carrier based fighter in the world at its time of introduction in 1939, though it lacked significant armour and self-sealing tanks. (so did nearly every other combat a/c at the time)


If development of the F2A had paralleled te F4F in improvemnt they may have made good complements to each other, with (in a deffensive position) the F2A's engaging escorting enemy fighters using their better speed, climb, agility, and smaller size, while the Wildcats could focus on enemy bombers and attak a/c using the better firepower (particularly in the F4F-4, and still in the F4F-3's greater ammo and higher rof compared to the nose-guns) and greater armor and damage resistance to take them down while resisting defensive fire.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 3, 2008)

> I didn't mean to say the P-39 was definitively tougher, or a better a/c than the P-40, I was just showing some points of view. Personally I think the P-40 was a better (more useful) all around a/c, and by most accounts (except Soviets) a tougher plane. (better ordinance capacity and range especially, and better armament for most purposes in the 6x .50 cals of most models) I forgot about the size issue of the P-39, that would be another reason for Welch's dislike as he was taller than 5'8" iirc.
> 
> Also I wasn't trying to use that loss-rate statistic to show better maintenence or servicabillity, I just though it was an interesting point. Plus a low loss rate doesn't necessarily mean greater effectiveness as there is no mention of how much damage was done to the targets.



OK! I misunderstood you and point withdrawn.  



> I gather it would be unlikely that any AC engine would continue to run with a cylinder head completely blown off?



Yes, A pilot was extremely lucky if this happenend to him. It was a rare event indeed.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2008)

renrich said:


> Thanks Flyboy, so I gather it would be unlikely that any AC engine would continue to run with a cylinder head completely blown off?


Possible but not probable



renrich said:


> Another question, did the RR Merlin engine have overhead camshafts and how about the Allison V1710?


I believe both engines had overhead cams...


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 3, 2008)

Allison V1710 Engine





Rolls-Royce Merlin/V1650 Engine

scale Merlin
Merlin XX


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 3, 2008)

One thing I read about the P-43 Lancers passing through the AVG (Flying Tigers) in China wanted to keep some of the P-43s they were ferrying for the Chinese AF due to the tougher engine and far better altitude performance, unfortunately early machines lacked armor or self-sealing tanks and were juged as unusable for the AVG. However later P-43s had added armor and "self-sealing" tanks (as well as the 2x .30 cal guns per wing were replaced with a single .50 cal gun each), but these tanks prooved to be nearly worthless in this reguard and the wet wings prooved to leak constantly with little or no provokation. (the turbochargers were also somewhat unreliable, but this was not a major concern compared to the other problems) Too bad, as this a/c could have prooved valuable to the AVG for high-altitude escort and, though it couldn't out-turn the P-40, the P-43 could out-climb the Tomahawk (as could the lighter P-40B) and had a slightly better roll-rate. The Lancer did see service with the Chinese, but never saw any significant sucesses, partially since tactics optimising the P-43's strengths (as the AVG did with the P-40) weren't used and likewise attempts were made to dogfight Japanese fighters, with predictable results...

I wonder why the Chinese P-43s were of such poor quality... Could Republic have deliberately produced it poorly since they knew it wouldn't be seein combat with US forces, or was development of improvements of the obsolete plane simply not deemed necessary? 

Once armor had been added, the unreliable fuel tanks were the only major flaw with the craft and this really shouldn't have been unduely difficult for Republic to correct, especially with the delay of engine availability for producing the P-47B. (which was the main reason for producing the P-43 in any significant numbers in the first place)

I'm also curious as to why there was no thought to use of the craft for carrier opperations as it certainly out-performed the Wildcat and couldn't have been that hard to improve to a fully combat ready quality. (and to add carrier equipment, and strengthened landing gear if necessary)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 4, 2008)

Did the V-1710 engines use ingected carborators? As the early Merlins had serious problems with negative G-loads on the engine and I've never heard of this problem on Allison engines.

One thing I also hadn't realized was that the early Merlin Marks (prior to the Merlin XX) with single-stage single-speed superchargers were actually lighter than later V-1710's at 1,350 lbs, though, according to AL Schlageter's link, the original prototype V-1710 weighed only 1,010 lbs, and I'm not sure how much the V-1710's of the same period of the Merlin I-X weighed... Though for the same power the Allison engine tends to weigh ~100 lbs lighter than the Merlin (comparing only single-stage supercharged models), though it also tend to be longer with the tranmission section projectiong farther out, though hight and width are about the same.

Does anyone have any better numbers for the size, weight, and power ratings for Merlins and V-1710s? (particularly the Merlin XX and earlier and the V-1710s w/out excessories: only integral supercharger)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Did the V-1710 engines use ingected carborators?


They used "Pressure Carburetors."


----------



## JoeB (Jan 4, 2008)

delete double, see below


----------



## JoeB (Jan 4, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I didn't mean to say the P-39 was definitively tougher, or a better a/c than the P-40, I was just showing some points of view.
> 
> Also I wasn't trying to use that loss-rate statistic to show better maintenence or servicabillity, I just though it was an interesting point.


That statistic, P-39 lowest per sortie loss rate of any USAAF fighter in ETO/MTO, is interesting. But it has a pretty straightforward explanation, which is that the few P-39 equipped groups in 12th AF were used for a pretty prolonged period, from early 1943 to well into the Italian mainland campaign, for defensive patrols to cover Allied convoys along the North African coast against German bomber attacks which fairly seldom materialized. And one reason for that deployment was one disastrous combat between the 81st FG and JG 77 Bf109's over Tunisia March 13, '43 where 7 P-39's were lost (the Germans awarded between 12 and 20 credits for P-39's in this combat). That one incident comprised a fair degree of the P-39's general reputation in the USAAF as 'not competitive with German fighters'. Eventually the 350th FG, which kept its P-39's well into 1944 when USAAF P-40's were long gone from MTO (though Brit/Commonwealth still operated Kittyhawks into '44 there), did a fair amount of ground support in Italy against serious AA fire, and claimed a few German fighters too; before converting to P-47's. But I don't know of any real apples-apples combat loss rate stats between P-40 and P-39 in US service. That's so often the issue, really comparable loss stats or lack of them, as illustrated in several of the other debates on this thread.

One fairly clear stat I mentioned earlier from the USAAF Statistics Digest is the P-39 had a markedly higher fatal accident rate than the P-40, or any other USAAF fighter, though the overall accident rates wasn't as much higher than the P-40's. The P-40 had a lot of ground loop accidents; but the P-39 had a lot of stall/spin accidents, more often fatal.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jan 4, 2008)

I think that trying to turn a Brewster Buffalo into a silk purse might be a hopeless task. To begin with it was built by Brewster. Even the Corsairs made by Brewster were unsat. By the way, the Hellcat was not an enlarged Wildcat. Any more than a B29 was an enlarged B17. I don't believe that it could be said that the F2A was the best carrier borne fighter in service in 1939. There were just too many structural problems, not the least of which was the collapsing landing gear. Aside from the design deficiencies of the F2A, it was just too small with too small a wing to ever be able to handle the jobs the F4F was called on to handle. The empty weight of the Finnish 239 was 3744 lbs with no armor and no self sealing tanks. The F4F-3 weighed 5426 lbs but had a considerably larger wing area, 260 sf versus 208 sf. Comparing performance the F4F3 could touch 335 mph at 22000 ft, the F2A3 321 mph at 14500. The F4F3 had a SL climb rate of 3300 fpm, the F2A3 could do 2600 fpm up to 10000 ft, the F4F4 had a climb rate of 2500 fpm at sea level. Not much worse than the Buffalo but with an aircraft with folding wings, 6 guns,armor and self sealing tanks. The F2A never had satisfactory SS tanks. At anywhere near the same weight, the Wildcat could outturn the Buffalo because of it's lower wing loading. The only reason I can think of that the Finns had success with the 239 was that it was stripped down, light and they were fighting at low altitudes with the enemy trying to dogfight with them instead of using energy tactics. The F2A against the Japanese was pretty much a failure.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 4, 2008)

Down low (below 15,000 ft) the Russians found the P-39 quite effective aganst the Bf-109, though they used many P-39N and Q models which had more powerful engines and improved aerodynamics compaered to the P-400s and P-39D-1s used in this instance with the USAAF (the P-39D had even worse performance, though the D-2 was a rather better a/c with an uprated engine rated for 1,325 hp, with over 1,400 hp for take-off and millitary power iirc)


----------



## renrich (Jan 4, 2008)

Aside from the fact that the visibility over the nose of the P43 was insufficent for carrier landings I would bet that it's slow speed handling characteristics were too poor, its landing speed too high, it's takeoff distance too great and by the time you did the structural work to make it robust enough for carrier duty, it would be so heavy it would not outperform a Wildcat. The P43 had good performance up high because of turbocharging but the USN wanted good performance at low and medium altitudes where most ACM took place during sea battles.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 4, 2008)

What I was saying about the F2A, was that it may have developed into a powerful and reliable a/c if it hadn't been for the internal problems with Brewster, as their designers seemed to have some good ideas, it was just hard to implement them in such an atmosphere, case in point with the Brewster Corsairs. And certainly putting a max weight of anything more than 7,000 lbs in the F2A was downright worthless, with ~6,000 lbs probably being the maximum useful gross combat weight (ie not for long range patrols), it probably would have been better to limit the internal fuel tank size on the F2A-3 to 1/2-2/3 of what was done, and focused on improoving self-sealing and structural problems, or just limiting weight, as the F2A-3's frame and gear were considderably stronger than earlier models, but the large weight increase made this still insuficient. 

And with the F6F comparison, I meant that perhaps a larger, more powerful a/c based on the F2A's general design may have developed in better conditions...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 4, 2008)

The P-43's visibility was improved (along with the primary problem of ground looping) with the addition of a larger tail-wheel, though the other problems and disadvantages over the F4F would still hold up... Though I'm noth sure about the stall speed, the stall characteristics of an eliptical wing are not verry freindly o carrier opperations, though the Seafire had them, but with low wing loading and good flaps...

I still wonder why the tanks of the P-43 weren't improved though, it shouldn't have been too dificult, and the AVG, as well as USAAF operators with nothing only P-40s and P-39s, would have really apreciated a craft with such high altitude performance. (though the Merlin P-40's had decent performance at altitude it still dropped off above 20,000 ft, and these weren't available until later anyway, by which time many of these US units were receiving P-38s or P-47s)


----------



## renrich (Jan 4, 2008)

I think that part of the problem with a lot of the AC that were designed in the early 30s was that there was beginning to be a huge leap forward in technology with increases in performance brought on by more powerful engines and better aerodynamics. Couple all the performance advances with the new manufacturing processes necesary to support this new performance and there were a lot of things which could go wrong and reliability was compromised. AC design was approaching a new frontier. Just think, in the early 30s we could not design a fighter that would go 300 mph. By the mid 40s we were reaching the pinnacle of prop driven performance.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 4, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>Though I'm noth sure about the stall speed, the stall characteristics of an eliptical wing are not verry freindly o carrier opperations, though the Seafire had them, but with low wing loading and good flaps...

The US Navy probably would't have accepted the Seafire for carrier service either. Mike Crosley's "They gave me a Seafire" and "Up in Harm's Way" give excellent accounts of the Seafire's problems, the latter going into considerable detail on the aerodynamics responsible for them. (Crosley was a Seafire pilot in WW2 and an ETPS-trained test pilot after the war, so he's well qualified for an analysis.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 4, 2008)

Plus the P-47 had time for redesign durring development in addition to the high priority. The P-43 may have been more difficult to modify effectively with its steel tanks. The "self sealing" tanks of the P-43A may have been steel tanks coated with soft expanding sealing material, a configuration which was prooven to be unsatisfactory in practice.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 4, 2008)

On the Seafire, the US navy also disliked liquid cooled engined a/c due to the need to store the highly flamible Ethylene Glycol coolant on board (as well as the added reliabillity of radials, somthing very important when flying over water). Though this was less of a concern with the 70/30 water/glycol mixes later used (more efficient and cheaper too) and the Navy did considder the P-51 for long-range carrier based service, though this never panned out. (though the P-51H was found to have adequate handeling and better low-speed control and was suitable for service a long-rang fighter was no longer needed by that time)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2008)

Kool Kitty - the F2A (Navy and Marine Birds) was a dog made by a poor manufacturer. Although placed in the worse possible condition for initial deployment (A critical battle where the aircraft AND tactics were poor) the aircraft still showed its liabilities in its theater of operations. Read "Bloody Shambles" and there were dozens of design flaws in the aircraft that although easily corrected in the field, would play havoc for the Brits who had to fly her. An improved version? I don't think so - the best use for the F2A was it's deployment at Pensacola as an advanced trainer!


----------



## Elvis (Jan 5, 2008)

Hey kiddies, I'm back from the dead and just skimmed over the past 4 pages of dialogue on the various a/c and engines, that I missed while I was gone.

Ok, RENRICH, this is coming from a guy with 35+ years of mechanical experience.
Yes, an engine can run with a "dead" cylinder.
You may have run across this phenomena yourself, in times past.
The condition is called a "miss". As the engine runs, you hear a slight, but noticeable "hiss" coming at regular intervals from the engine. That's the resultant pressurized fuel/air mixture leaking past the rings (and probably the valves, to some degree) because the cylinder did not fire.
A cylinder's operation can be compromised by something as simple as a chunk of carbon breaking loose and holding a valve open.
The cylinder will fire, but the "charge" will escape through the opening. This is known as a "backfire". If it blows through the exhaust, its that valve that's open. If it blows back through the carburetor, its _that_ valve that's open.
Simply put, a cylinder needs to SEAL in order to work properly.
If it cannot, it won't work, or won't work _as well as it should_.
Also, we're talking about engines with 12-18 cylinders. If you incapacitate one or two cylinders on an 18-cylinder engine, BFD! There's still 16 or 17 cylinders to take up the slack.
Its like having a miss with the V-8 in your car. It won't run quite as well, but it'll still run good enough to get you home or to a garage.
A carburetor cannot be "injected" (not sure if you were the one asking that, but I recall someone asking if the Allison's used an "injected carburetor").
Fuel injection and Carburation are two similar, but different fuel systems.
The closest you get to an "injected carburetor" is what is now known as "T.B.I" (any of you who own GM products may be familiar with that term), which means "Throttle Body Injection".
A carb is a really just a big air box where the fuel "mists" in under low pressure (5-7 psi). The air running through the venturi (commonly known as a "barrel") sets up a low pressure condition at the point where the fuel "mists" in. Since the fuel is pressurized to a higher point than that part of the venturi, it spreads rapidly and this enhances its ability to mix with the oncoming air.
From there, the mixture simply makes its way to the cylinder, as which point its ignited and creates power.
With a fuel injection system, fuel is brought to the engine under low pressure (5-7psi) and then pumped into either an "injection pump" or the injector itself, depending on the particular type fuel injection system being used.
An injection pump is simply a pump (if you will) that increases the pressure of the fuel to whatever it needs to be at, in order to work in the engine.
On most gas engines, its around 25-50 psi. On a diesel powerplant, it can be as high as 2000 psi, because of where and when the fuel is introduced into the cylinder.
With the injection pump type system, the injector becomes (really) just a gloified poppet valve, with the spring pressure set to release the fuel from the injection pump, at its rated pressure.
I think the system used on the DB601 used an injection pump (inline), because I seem to remember seeing one, although I cannot be certain, as of this writing.
BTW, the other type of injection system uses what is known as a "Unit Injector". 
In this type, there is no "injection pump". Fuel comes from the tank, through a filter, through the fuel pump, through another filter and straight to the injector, all at low pressure.
The injector, has a plunger and spring inside of it that is timed off a rocker arm that is connected to the camshaft and the forcing of the fuel into the cylinder, via the plunger, is what pressurizes it.
Any 2-cycle DDA motor uses this type of fuel injection system.

...and a "Jug" is just an old term for a cylinder on ANY motor. It's ususally associated with air-cooled engines, since they all seem to built like a motorcylce engine, in which the cylinder and head are separate units that fit into the engine block.

As for Allison V-1710 vs. R-R Merlin, I recently traded a series of email with one of my boyhood heroes, who worked on the Unlimited Hydroplane circuit back in the 1970's and '80's.
I asked him why the Allison were never as competitve as the Merlin's were, as the Allison was 300 lbs. lighter and displaced an additonal 60 cubes.
He told me he wasn't sure, but he's seen enough of both to note that the Merlin's were built a little heavier and they seemed to be able to pull more power out of those engines, probably due (in part) to that.
I know there were some tests during WWII, of the Allison, and it successfully pulled 1600HP with a two-stage supercharger with no sweat, but by then, Packard had the lease on building the Rolls engine and priority was simply given to that engine, which meant it got the two-stage supercharger and the Allison was saddled with the single-stage unit.





Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 5, 2008)

Still the F2A could have turned out better with a better situation with the company...

In the cercumstances it developed in, it was certainly not a great a/c (by the time it reached the F2A-3 or Buffalo I), but it's had to tell how it would have done if it had been developed better from the start, though the basic design was obsolete by late 1941 and certainly by the time it saw service... Though so were several other planes that continued to serve later on, some with better reputations (much due to early acomplishments when they were not so outclassed), many of which did just as poorly as the Buffalo. (the P-40 would not be one, though it was outdated by almost any standards, though many P-43s met a similar fate, and the Hurricane wasn't a shining fighter in the PTO either, though decidedly better than the Buffalo as well, and far from the worst, though the range was quite short)


----------



## Elvis (Jan 5, 2008)

Kool Kitty,

Too many conversations have broken out in this thread.
By "it", are you referring to the F2A?
Fine fighter, if they'd either left it alone or developed it better.


Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 5, 2008)

I asked about the carborator, and I'm not really sure why I phrased it like that. I think I just meant to ask what type of carborator the V-1710 used. Early Merlins used side-draft carborators, but later they switched to a system better able to handel negative G-loads and inverted flying, though the "Tilly Orifice" was used as an intrim measure to allow limited improvements.

The DB-600 series engines used direct fuel injection iirc, though this was a less efficient configuration it offers more power iirc. My knoledge of this is fairly limited, but from what I've raed and heard, direct fuel ingestion didn't get practically efficient untill the advent of computerized engine regulation in the 1980's. (otherwise fuel was injected durring non firing cycles as well). I do wonder why TBI wasn't used earlier, as computerization isn't necessary and it offers better power and performance under high G loads. (and shouldn't require any complex regulation to be practical, with a carborated engine being realitively simple to modify to such a system)

From what I know, the V-1710 was built with vercitility in mind with one standard version (with just the integral supercharger) to be produced with a dedicated excesories section for any added applications. This way one production line could produce engines for a variety of uses, the various excessories being added separately. In fact the AAC hadn't been originally interested in the design and it was the nave that funded the initial prototype and used the first production version V-1710A (an un-supercharged revercable version for use on the Arcon and Macon a/c carrier rigid air ships, the V-1710B). Though by this time the AAC was very interested in the design, and was giving considderable support. Though it was an earlier AAC decision that the focus was to be put on turbochargers for altitude performance, not mechanically driven superchargers (thought to give an advantage over the European counterpars focusing on mechanical superchargers). Thus the V-1710 was to be built with the integral low-altitude supergharcer, with a turbocharger added if aditional altitude performance was needed. (another flaw in the AAC's logic later on was that the US was immune to high-altitude bombers, and thus the focus should be put on low-altitude close support and strike fighters, and not high altitude interceptors, luckily the P-38 continued with turbochargers despite this). Eventually an auxillery supercharger was developed (as an afterthought) and was made available for V-1710-45 and later models iirc. Though the early versions were very simple and lacked intercoolers or aftercoolers, though water-ingection was introduced early on (allowing boosts of up to 1,800 hp in combat conditions). However these simple versions were realitively reliable and practical (compared to turbocharges, which often prooved problematic to mate to the engine, as well as bulky; often the latter worsening reliabillity as well as porr ducting among other things resulted in trying to instal a turbocharger) and effectively allowed critical altitudes of 25,000 ft to be acheived. Later versions added aftercoolers, and later, intercoolers as well, though many prooved to be unreliable or maintence heavy, particularly those used on the P-82s in place of Merlins. (G-series iirc, though I'm not sure of the validity of these particular claims)

Early merlins were less powerful than the Allison counterparts, though the power increased to around the same level with the same higher octane fuel the V-1710 had been running with. (~1150 hp with the Mirlin III iirc) though with the heavier structores of the Merlin XX along with the improved supercharger, power levels of 1,300+ hp were acheived with high-octane fuel.
From what I've seen the Merlin and V-1710 were capable of similar power levels in various models of similar time periods, albeit thhe V-1710 did it at 200-400 rpm higher. Though the Griffon largely beat these, the Turbo-compound V-1710 eventually produced nearly 3,000 hp at high efficiency (still limited by turbine stresses early on), though this wasn't produced until well after the war.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 5, 2008)

With the F2A, it reallyis hard to say how further development would have gone, hhi the large number of small problems had been corrected and internal fuel limited to allow for ~900 mi max range, with the same other improvements of the F2A-3, and better self-sealing and landing gear. (the gear had actually been progressively improved, but the increase in weight which progressed as well, maintained the problem, somthing that would be improoved with smaller tanks)

Still the horrible situation Brewster was in due to overgrowth with lack of sufficient management killed any real chance of reasonable progress made in quality, quntity produced, or developmental improvements.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>The DB-600 series engines used direct fuel injection iirc, though this was a less efficient configuration it offers more power iirc. 

Hm, if you mean fuel-efficient when you say "efficient", the one striking feature of the DB600 series actually is its low fuel consumption at high power settings.

The DB605A consumed about 480 L/h at 1475 HP, or 244 g/HP/h.

The V-1650-7 consumed roughly 800 L/h at 1660 HP, or 277 g/HP/h.

(Figures not entirely accurate as they probably used fuels of different density, but you get the idea.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 5, 2008)

I'm not sure why this would be... I messed up erarlier though, the DB-600 wasn't injected, the 601 and later were.

Everything I've read or heard has said that, despite offering excelent power and throttle performance, it offered poor fuel efficience and very high emmissions (even up through the 1970s) due to unburnt fuel resulting from injection every cycle and inherantly running rich (in the exaust).

Maby the German design was somthing akin to TBI, though I though it was direct injection. (tbi offers similar efficiency to carborators without the need for eletronic regulation and still offers some, though not all, of the improved power, thottle, and G-load performance of direct-injection)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Still the F2A could have turned out better with a better situation with the company...



I doubt it - there an old saying - "You can't polish a turd."


----------



## HoHun (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>Everything I've read or heard has said that, despite offering excelent power and throttle performance, it offered poor fuel efficience and very high emmissions (even up through the 1970s) due to unburnt fuel resulting from injection every cycle and inherantly running rich (in the exaust).

Hm, from von Gersdorff at al. as well as from Müller (Junkers-Triebwerke), the German designers actually got both better power and better efficiency from direct fuel injection because the process of mixture generation could be controlled much more accurately.

Very rich running at high power is actually typical for the carburetted engines of the era.

Another example: According to the B-29 manual, the R-3350 of the B-29 used 1060 L/h for 2200 HP at take-off power. That's 346 g/HP/h specific fuel consumption in a turbo-supercharged engine which runs more efficiently than a mechanically supercharged one (if you look at shaft power as we do here).

The DB605A according to a Daimler-Benz datasheet had a minimum of 205 g/HP/h at 890 HP at 5.7 km. Without evaluating the B-29 power chart completely, it seems that the R-3350 had a minimum of about 195 g/HP/h at reduced power settings, which probably indicates the same efficiency of combustion as the R-3350 has a efficiency advantage not related to combustion as it does not have to spin a mechanically-driven supercharger like the DB605.

So the DB605A goes from 205 g/HP/h minimum over 215 h/HP/h at maximum continuous to 235 g/HP/h at take-off/emergeny power. 

The R-3350 goes from 195 g/HP/h minimum over 311 g/HP/h at maximum continuous to 346 g/HP/h at take-off/emergency power. 

The Jumo 213E, another fuel-injected, mechanically-supercharged engine, features values of 200 g/HP/h minimum, 210 g/HP/h at maximum continuous and 258 g/HP/h at take-off/emergency power.

I think the relatively flat incline of the specific fuel consumption curve is due to the use of fuel injection of the DB605A and the Jumo 213E. The minimum specific fuel consumption on the other hand is probably very close both for carburetted and fuel-injected engines. However, when you leave this optimum working point, the R-3350 at least begins to become noticably less efficient, and I think it's fairly typical for the engines of the time.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jan 5, 2008)

Elvis, As I stated before I am not an engineer but please give me credit for being a "normal" American boy in the 50s. My first car was a 1950 Buick Special with around 60000 miles on it. I paid 495 dollars for it and drove all around Texas working on it, trying to keep it running. Many times with at least one cylinder not working. I can't remember whether it was a straight six or eight. It did not have much power when everything was working right but it was really a dog when one cylinder wasn't firing. The question I posed was how could an AC engine continue to run with a "jug" or cylinder was shot off like I have heard reported by several writers.


----------



## Elvis (Jan 5, 2008)

Renrich,

I was giving you as much credit as I could, but your last post showed the difference between what you know and what I know.
To you, there's the engine in your old Buick and then there's an aircraft engine.
To me, an engine is an engine is an engine.
Whether you've got a dead cylinder in your old Buick or whether you've just had one shot off your P-47, to me, its all the same. 
You still have an engine with an inoperative cylinder and the result is going to be the same.
Sorry if my post to you seemed demeaning in some way. It was not meant to. I was only trying to answer the questions I saw asked.





Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Jan 5, 2008)

...btw, since it was a '50 Special, it should've had a 6.
The 8 was for the Roadmaster.

...of course, once the *V*-8 hit the scene, that all pretty much went by the wayside.



Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Very rich running at high power is actually typical for the carburetted engines of the era.



Hi Henning;

Actually that is somewhat correct - those fuel consumption charts are based on "normal" mixture settings and also using a richer mixture for engine cooling, something earlier mentioned. At altitude you can continue to lean for air density based on CHT and EGT. And remember, for the most part - maximum power setting (take off and WEP) are always assumed at "full rich."


----------



## Elvis (Jan 5, 2008)

KK,

Fuel injection nomenclature - Direct vs. Indirect.

Direct Fuel Injection is when the fuel is shot directly into the cylinder.
Indirect Fuel Injection is when the fuel is shot into a secondary chamber that has a passage that leads to the combustion chamber.
This secondary chamber is known as a "Pre-Combustion Chamber".
I have only seen these terms used with diesel engines.
I once owned a 1980 VW Rabbit diesel and it used indirect fuel injection because the thinking at the time was that it offered better emissions.
With a gas engine, the fuel is usually shot into somewhere into the intake manifold, so, in a sense, it uses a direct fuel injection system...just _indirectly_.

Anyway, my point is, we're talking about gas engines here, so please refrain from the "direct..." term.
Its confusing and isn't totally correct.

The "inefficiency" of the fuel injection system used on the DB601 could stem from the fact (and I'd have to look this up to be certain) that I believesome of the early f.i. systems (and anything of WWII vintage would be "early") lacked a key component that is common on every f.i. system made today - a "fuel return line".
This is part of the reason why f.i. systems in cars are more efficient than carb's (and why no new auto has featured a carb since something like the 1991 model year) is that they don't use all of the fuel fed to them.
A carb does that. All of the fuel it sees, it dumps into the engine.
With an f.i. system, your injectors feed off a "log" or "manifold" (in this case, its just a pipe) and they only use the amount of fuel that they need. The rest of the fuel just heads back to the gas tank.
The lack of such a feature could be what the writer is getting at in the passage you quoted about the DB601 being "inefficient".

As for turbo's, they didn't really come into vogue until the mid-late 1970's, because they always had bearing problems.
Remember, an engine driven supercharger is running at about 10-15 times that of engine speed (i.e., engine turning 2000 rpm = supercharger impeller speed of 20,000-30,000 rpm). With an exhaust driven turbocharger, the impeller speed is easily 10 times that of the supercharger.
The turbo works by linking two impellers via a common axle. One sees exhaust gas under pressure, the other sees outside air.
By using the force of the exhaust gas, as its driven out of the exhaust manifold, outside air can be forced in under great pressure.
In theory, it tends to be a more effieicient system, compared to an engine driven supercharger, because the engine does not directly drive it. The force of the exhaust does, so no power is robbed from the engine.
The problem is in those super high speed that those impellers turn. Moreso, that super high speed that _the axle that connects them_ turns, combined with the heat from the exhaust side transferring across that axle.
Keeping that axle, and its corresponding bearing, in one piece was quite the daunting task for many years and why the slower running supercharger was favoured.
It wasn't until the advent of the ceramic bearing, in the 1970's, that the "turbocharger dilemma" was quelled.
Since then, turbochargers have almost completely replaced superchargers, in the marketplace.
The only thing a supercharger has going for it, these days, is quicker reaction to the engine. Even with today's advanced technology, we still suffer from a little bit of that "turbo lag".



Elvis


----------



## HoHun (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Actually that is somewhat correct - those fuel consumption charts are based on "normal" mixture settings and also using a richer mixture for engine cooling, something earlier mentioned. At altitude you can continue to lean for air density based on CHT and EGT. 

The chart you couldn't see shows a detailed map of fuel consumptions for the different power settings and for altitudes up to 30000 ft. Obviously, one was expected to (have to) lean so that one ended up with these fuel consumptions (or close by, depending on environmental parameters).

I don't think the R-3350 could get a better fuel consumption than listed from additional leaning at altitude. The chart already takes altitude effect into account.

>And remember, for the most part - maximum power setting (take off and WEP) are always assumed at "full rich."

For the B-29, it is assumed at "Auto Rich", not at "Full Rich". For the late-model P-51D for which the V-1650-7 data listed above is valid, it's assumed at "Run", with "AR Emergency F. Rich" only to be used in a case of malfunction of the automatic regulator. For the early-model P-51D, it was "Auto Rich" like for the B-29.

However, that's just the label on the mixture quadrant. Just how rich the mixture is might vary according to the actual settings of the automatic or semi-automatic mixture regulator. 346 g/HP/h is the actual figure for the R-3350, so it certainly ran richer than the V-1650-7 which consumed just 277 g/HP/h.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> However, that's just the label on the mixture quadrant. Just how rich the mixture is might vary according to the actual settings of the automatic or semi-automatic mixture regulator. 346 g/HP/h is the actual figure for the R-3350, so it certainly ran richer than the V-1650-7 which consumed just 277 g/HP/h.
> 
> ...



That's where I was going with this. It was learned that under certain conditions when using a pressure carburetor with an automatic mixture regulator, further leaning is possible based on MP/ CHT/ and EGT at a specific RPM setting. That was the purpose of South Pacific Lindbergh's tour during WW2. A pilot at altitude could sit there and let the automatic fuel control do the work or he could monitor MP, CHT and EGT and lean more.

I've flown modern GA aircraft with FI and pressure carbs and would always lean at altitude - I would usually see anywhere between 5 and 10% fuel consumption savings.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 5, 2008)

> Actually that is somewhat correct - those fuel consumption charts are based on "normal" mixture settings and also using a richer mixture for engine cooling, something earlier mentioned. At altitude you can continue to lean for air density based on CHT and EGT. And remember, for the most part - maximum power setting (take off and WEP) are always assumed at "full rich."



Engines curves over altitude always assume proper leaning is utilized. This will cause an accident and can lead to running out of fuel if a pilot does not properly lean as all the data assumes proper mixture control.

I think that is what you are saying as well FlyboyJ.

The pilot does have considerable control over how much or little he leans. 

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2008)

Crumpp said:


> Engines curves over altitude always assume proper leaning is utilized. This will cause an accident and can lead to running out of fuel if a pilot does not properly lean as all the data assumes proper mixture control.
> 
> I think that is what you are saying as well FlyboyJ.



Exactly!


Crumpp said:


> The pilot does have considerable control over how much or little he leans.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Crumpp




My local airport is at 5,230' MSL. We take leaning a little serious up here!


----------



## HoHun (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>I've flown modern GA aircraft with FI and pressure carbs and would always lean at altitude - I would usually see anywhere between 5 and 10% fuel consumption savings.

Since the R-3350 runs about 50% richer than the DB605A at WEP settings to begin with, 5 to 10% do not make not much of a difference for the overall picture.

I at least don't see much evidence for direct fuel injection being less efficient than carburetion in WW2 - quite to the contrary.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >I've flown modern GA aircraft with FI and pressure carbs and would always lean at altitude - I would usually see anywhere between 5 and 10% fuel consumption savings.
> 
> Since the R-3350 runs about 50% richer than the DB605A at WEP settings to begin with, 5 to 10% do not make not much of a difference for the overall picture.


It does if you're traveleing 2000 miles over an open ocean.


HoHun said:


> I at least don't see much evidence for direct fuel injection being less efficient than carburetion in WW2 - quite to the contrary.


I agree....


----------



## HoHun (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>It does if you're traveleing 2000 miles over an open ocean.

I don't picture me traveling 2000 miles over an open ocean at take-off/emergency power anyway.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >It does if you're traveleing 2000 miles over an open ocean.
> 
> ...



You won't unless you have to rapidly climb or decent - put it in B-29 operations, this was a common occurrence just in traveling through the jet stream let alone dealing with the enemy.

My point was based mainly on cruise. WEP settings are just for that - emergencies or some other event that will get you in trouble right away!


----------



## HoHun (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>>I don't picture me traveling 2000 miles over an open ocean at take-off/emergency power anyway.

>You won't unless you have to rapidly climb or decent - put it in B-29 operations, this was a common occurrence just in traveling through the jet stream let alone dealing with the enemy.

You are losing me - I would not travel 2000 miles while rapidly climbing or descending either, and I'd certainly not keep take-off/emergency power applied during a rapid descent as that would take me way past Vne.

>My point was based mainly on cruise. WEP settings are just for that - emergencies.

Oh well - my point was that as soon as you move away from the optimum working point of the carburetted engine, efficiency drops markedly. Even at maximum continuous, which could be used for longer spells, specific fuel consumption had risen by 60%.

It also seems that using automatic mixture control was standard operation procedure even in the B-29 though it had a flight engineer on board whose primary task was to operate the engines. The USAAF doesn't seem to have thought there was something to gain from manual leaning.

In fact, I seriously doubt that one could reduce the minimum 195 g/HP/h by any meaningful amount, but should you want to prove your point, here you can download the B-29 Flight Engineer Manual you might find helpful:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ot...ngineering-flight-book-8691-3.html#post260968

It lists a minimum of 201 g/HP/h at 15000 ft. Apparently, the automatic control knew how to lean with altitude, too. This is actually a higher figure than the minimum from the cruise control chart and reinforces my opinion that the abovementioned 195 g/HP/h are already the optimum. Daimler-Benz list their minimum with a tolerance of +10 g/HP/h - only towards higher figures. That's how I tend to read the US figures, too: no way you're going to shave off another 10% from the 195 g/HP/h figure.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2008)

HoHun said:


> You are losing me - I would not travel 2000 miles while rapidly climbing or descending either, and I'd certainly not keep take-off/emergency power applied during a rapid descent as that would take me way past Vne.


Not necessarily - WEP application in a decent will build up airspeed but not as quickly as you might think especially in a large aircraft. I'm talking about seconds here...


HoHun said:


> >My point was based mainly on cruise. WEP settings are just for that - emergencies.
> 
> Oh well - my point was that as soon as you move away from the optimum working point of the carburetted engine, efficiency drops markedly. Even at maximum continuous, which could be used for longer spells, specific fuel consumption had risen by 60%.


OK...


HoHun said:


> It also seems that using automatic mixture control was standard operation procedure even in the B-29 though it had a flight engineer on board whose primary task was to operate the engines. The USAAF doesn't seem to have thought there was something to gain from manual leaning.


Actually FEs did manually lean, especially if at a certain altitude/ MPP setting/ CHT the engine began to run hot or cold.


HoHun said:


> In fact, I seriously doubt that one could reduce the minimum 195 g/HP/h by any meaningful amount, but should you want to prove your point, here you can download the B-29 Flight Engineer Manual you might find helpful:


I seen that - you could doubt it if you like - if you lean to the point that you're not running at high CHT you're going to save fuel.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ot...ngineering-flight-book-8691-3.html#post260968


HoHun said:


> It lists a minimum of 201 g/HP/h at 15000 ft. Apparently, the automatic control knew how to lean with altitude, too. This is actually a higher figure than the minimum from the cruise control chart and reinforces my opinion that the abovementioned 195 g/HP/h are already the optimum. Daimler-Benz list their minimum with a tolerance of +10 g/HP/h - only towards higher figures. That's how I tend to read the US figures, too: no way you're going to shave off another 10% from the 195 g/HP/h figure.


You also have to remember that the automatic fuel controllers found in pressure carbs weren't the most accurate pieces of equipment. They did go out of adjustment quite frequently and it is a maintenance activity to adjust them at specified hourly intervals.

I work around T-41s that have IO-360s. We've discovered that the automatic mixture control goes out of adjustment about every 100 hours. Continental has a service bulletin to deal with this but for the most part most operators ignore the SB and only deal with the problem if they have a hard time starting the engine. I could see this problem being two fold on a large radial where the automatic mixture controller functions through a series of bellows and rubber diaphragms.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Actually FEs did manually lean, especially if at a certain altitude/ MPP setting/ CHT the engine began to run hot or cold.

It's the manual I referred to that defines the use of Auto Rich as normal practice. I'm sure the engineers were trained to deviate from normal practice when necessary, but the manual describes what the USAAF considered the best way to operate the engines, and it relies on the automatic mixture control.

>You also have to remember that the automatic fuel controllers found in pressure carbs weren't the most accurate pieces of equipment. 

That's why tolerances in specific fuel consumption are given towards increased consumption from the minimum figure. 

If the engine is running sub-optimally, you might get it back to optimum performance by manual leaning, but that doesn't mean you can beat the minimum figure.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2008)

I downloaded the manual - on P87 (Chart C60) there is a mixture control setting based on constant RPM. Max cylinder head temp is 240C. Depending on altitude desired airspeed, density altitude etc., you could lean up to the 240C limit, it may not be desirable, but if so it seems, based on that chart, you'll exceed the numbers on the fuel flow chart. Now with that said there is the the best power setting where the pressure carburetors are probably set to (or the goal is to get them as close to possible to that setting). I cannot read the reange chart on the computer I'm using, I'm going to download it on my home PC to I could read the notes....


----------



## renrich (Jan 5, 2008)

My original question was how can an engine continue to run with a cylinder(or jug) missing. I can see how that might be unclear. I meant with a cylinder or meaningful part of a cylinder no longer there(missing, MIA) because it had been significantly damaged by gunfire or malfunction.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2008)

HoHun said:


> If the engine is running sub-optimally, you might get it back to optimum performance by manual leaning, but that doesn't mean you can beat the minimum figure.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



Lindbergh did it with the P-38..

_"Lindbergh explained cruise control techniques he had worked out for the Lightnings: reduce the standard 2,200 rpm to 1,600, set fuel mixtures to "auto-lean," and slightly increase manifold pressures. This, Lindbergh predicted, would stretch the Lightning's radius by 400 hundred miles, a nine-hour flight." _

Here's another example....

_"First one, then two pilots reported dwindling fuel and broke off for home. MacDonald ordered the squadron back but because Lindbergh had nursed his fuel, he asked for and received permission to continue the hunt with his wingman. After a few more strafing runs, Lindbergh noticed the other Lightning circling overhead. Nervously the pilot told Lindbergh that he had only 175 gallons of fuel left. The civilian told him to reduce engine rpms, lean out his fuel mixture, and throttle back. *When they landed, the 431st driver had seventy gallons left, Lindbergh had 260. They had started the mission with equal amounts of gas."*_

Charles Lindbergh and the 475th Fighter Group


----------



## renrich (Jan 5, 2008)

Lindberg conducted classes with many pilots on several types of AC about fuel conservation. I recall reading he told them to forget about much of the stuff they had learned about babying their engines because they were military engines and could take a lot of abuse. He did all this including combat flying while acting as a civilian consultant.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2008)

renrich said:


> Lindberg conducted classes with many pilots on several types of AC about fuel conservation. I recall reading he told them to forget about much of the stuff they had learned about babying their engines because they were military engines and could take a lot of abuse. He did all this including combat flying while acting as a civilian consultant.



Correct.

In actuality "exceeding the chart" could be done in almost any recip aircraft. A lot of times the data is there, it's just a matter of the way it is formatted on a particular chart and the parameters given.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Lindbergh explained cruise control techniques he had worked out for the Lightnings: reduce the standard 2,200 rpm to 1,600, set fuel mixtures to "auto-lean," and slightly increase manifold pressures. 

Certainly - but my impression is that he was able to do that was more the result of the original USAAF "matched power settings" not having been optimized for range beforehand. His strategy matches the procedure the British had established before. (I don't know the V-1710 specific fuel consumption values according to USAAF standard and to Lindbergh, but it would be interesting to know.)

My point regarding the B-29 is that the 195 g/HP/h are an absolute value that is close to the optimum for WW2 era Otto engines, and if you shave off 10% of that you arrive at 175 g/HP/h which is extraordinarily low. For perspective, the optimum figure I found (in Müller, "Junkers Flugtriebwerke") for the turbo-compound variants of the R-3350 running on 115/145 rated fuel is 170 g/HP/h, but that's a significantly improved engine over the R-3350-23 of the B-29 with the benefit of some five years of extra development.

But thanks for checking out the manual - I certainly appreciate that you know more about engines than I do, and if you find something that escaped me, it will be a learning experience for me! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >Lindbergh explained cruise control techniques he had worked out for the Lightnings: reduce the standard 2,200 rpm to 1,600, set fuel mixtures to "auto-lean," and slightly increase manifold pressures.
> 
> Certainly - but my impression is that he was able to do that was more the result of the original USAAF "matched power settings" not having been optimized for range beforehand. His strategy matches the procedure the British had established before. (I don't know the V-1710 specific fuel consumption values according to USAAF standard and to Lindbergh, but it would be interesting to know.)


I don't have a P-38 manual in front of me but I do know Lindbergh's methods exceeded chart values within the POH that were based on standard settings (auto lean and forget).


HoHun said:


> My point regarding the B-29 is that the 195 g/HP/h are an absolute value that is close to the optimum for WW2 era Otto engines, and if you shave off 10% of that you arrive at 175 g/HP/h which is extraordinarily low. For perspective, the optimum figure I found (in Müller, "Junkers Flugtriebwerke") for the turbo-compound variants of the R-3350 running on 115/145 rated fuel is 170 g/HP/h, but that's a significantly improved engine over the R-3350-23 of the B-29 with the benefit of some five years of extra development.


Based on the charts from the FEs manual I came up with the following...

Fuel consumption: 570 gph 42” Hg/2400 RPM @ 25,000 feet

Fuel consumption: 430 gph 38” Hg/2000 RPM @ 25,000 feet 

At 2000 rpm that equates a little over 100 gph at cruise.



HoHun said:


> But thanks for checking out the manual - I certainly appreciate that you know more about engines than I do, and if you find something that escaped me, it will be a learning experience for me!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



Thanks Henning - I think the thing to realize that many cruise charts are based on "medium values" based on very standard operation. I think the example of Lindbergh's P-38 career shows that performance charts can be expanded based on established engine operating parameters CHT/ MP/ EGT against RPM at altitude and applying those parameters against the operational environment.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 6, 2008)

renrich said:


> The question I posed was how could an AC engine continue to run with a "jug" or cylinder was shot off like I have heard reported by several writers.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Based on the charts from the FEs manual I came up with the following...

>Fuel consumption: 570 gph 42” Hg/2400 RPM @ 25,000 feet

>Fuel consumption: 430 gph 38” Hg/2000 RPM @ 25,000 feet 

>At 2000 rpm that equates a little over 100 gph at cruise.

Is it possible to determine the powers for these exact settings? Then I could calculate the specific fuel consumptions for comparison.

>Thanks Henning - I think the thing to realize that many cruise charts are based on "medium values" based on very standard operation. 

Roger that - unfortunately, I have seldom found the charts explicitely specifying for which assumption they are meant. For example, some read "The usual 5% operational margin have not been applied here", others make no comment at all. Some even note "The figures have not been flight-tested yet"!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 6, 2008)

> they had learned about babying their engines because they were military engines and could take a lot of abuse.



This doesn't sound right to me.

All aircraft engines are constrained by the same physics whether they are civilian or Military.

All the Best,

Crumpp


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2008)

HoHun said:


> For example, some read "The usual 5% operational margin have not been applied here", others make no comment at all. Some even note "The figures have not been flight-tested yet"!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



Right now I'm on a project with the USAF where we put upgraded engines in the UV-18 (Twin Otter). Although the mod had been used by civilian operators for a number of years, there were several climb and power setting charts that were never incorporated in the POH. Right now we are developing those charts based on the upgraded engines and will conduct test flights to verify the data. All for a 35 year old aircraft!



Crumpp said:


> This doesn't sound right to me.
> 
> All aircraft engines are constrained by the same physics whether they are civilian or Military.
> 
> ...



Agree - the only one who "baby's" there engine is the owner operator who also flies his aircraft on a shoestring budget! MHO!


----------



## renrich (Jan 6, 2008)

If Lindberg said it, and perhaps he didn't, then I guess he did not know what he was talking about.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2008)

renrich said:


> If Lindberg said it, and perhaps he didn't, then I guess he did not know what he was talking about.


Well you have the whole 431st FS who bore witness of this....


----------



## renrich (Jan 6, 2008)

I thought I remember him saying that but I don't know where I read it. If he said that then I am taking it for gospel. To me, at that time, no one knew more about aircraft and flying than Lindberg. I doubt there was any airplane in the world that he could not fly and fly well.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 6, 2008)

Crumpp said:


> This doesn't sound right to me.
> 
> All aircraft engines are constrained by the same physics whether they are civilian or Military.
> 
> ...


A civi engine of the time would be being abused it ran at the military normal limits. The military engine would be built 'beefier' than the civi engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2008)

renrich said:


> I thought I remember him saying that but I don't know where I read it. If he said that then I am taking it for gospel. To me, at that time, no one knew more about aircraft and flying than Lindberg. I doubt there was any airplane in the world that he could not fly and fly well.


Agree...



AL Schlageter said:


> A civi engine of the time would be being abused it ran at the military normal limits. The military engine would be built 'beefier' than the civi engine.



What do you think was "beefier?"  

Take any US civil engine of the period and if it had a civilian variant and you'll find they were built the same - the same Pratt Whitney R-1830-90C that went into the C-47 went into the DC-3. Here is the "Type Certificate Data Sheet for the R-2800. There are little differences (RGB Speeds and water injection) between the military models and the civilian models and there are even notes on how to use the military models in civilian applications. 

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/cf0f9435e20432008525676a006759e7/$FILE/ATTIAV5I/5E-8.pdf


----------



## renrich (Jan 6, 2008)

Perhaps what he was referring to was that the two engines that would be mostly in use in the Pacific at that time would be the Allison 1710 and the R 2800 and they possibly were purposely designed for the military and were not used by civilian AC yet. Would there be a counterpart in the operation of a typical AC engine of the day used say in a Beech Staggerwing to military power?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2008)

renrich said:


> Perhaps what he was referring to was that the two engines that would be mostly in use in the Pacific at that time would be the Allison 1710 and the R 2800 and they possibly were purposely designed for the military and were not used by civilian AC yet. Would there be a counterpart in the operation of a typical AC engine of the day used say in a Beech Staggerwing to military power?


Yes - The Staggerwing used several different engines - all had military applications. The R-985 one the model s was the same basic R-985 used on BT-13 or C-45


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 6, 2008)

> Agree - the only one who "baby's" there engine is the owner operator who also flies his aircraft on a shoestring budget! MHO!



That's exactly why I don't rent either!  

Guys as FlyboyJ is telling you, the major difference between the Civilian and Military engines was who is the owner of the aircraft.

Power _to weight_ is the major characteristic of an aircraft engine. The physics limits just how "beefy" an aircraft engine can be and still be an aircraft engine.

The physics do not change because of who owns it.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 7, 2008)

Also the R-3350 switched to fuel injection in late 1944, which greatly improved reliabillity due to the more uniform and controlable fuel-air mixture, or so I've read.

And I never said anything about the DB-601 having poor efficiency specifically, I don't know a whole lot about that, but I was talking about what I've heard about early fuel-ingected engines compared to carbs. Though I'd expect the advantage of fuel ingection to be more pronounced with larger engines, and high horsepower, particularly if only considdering a single (or maby dual) carborator system.

Also I'm not really sure what's meant by the comparison of the DB-601 to the R-3350, as this is far from an apples-to-apples comparison, with the horsepower and size ranges considderably different, more importantly the comparison of liquid-cooled inline to air-cooled radial engines, as radiald, in general, tend to be less fuel efficient in general iirc.

A comparison of the DB-601 (or maby the 603, 605, or the fuel-injected Junkers-Jumo 210, 211, or 213 engines) to the V-1710 and Merlin lines would be a better comparison. Or, for ratials, the fuel-injected BMW-801 to the R-2800, or (closer in size, power, and with the same cylinder number and configuration) the R-2600.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 7, 2008)

And Elvis, I read some more, and it seems the German engines did use direct-injection, as the same function as in the Diesel termenology.

Though earlier I had been reffering to earlier (and assuming the "direct injection" of the DB-601 and Junkers-Jumo-210 had) incorrectly, was multi-port fuel injection, which is considderably different, though the problems of complexity of timing each ingection for sequential injection of each cylinder (or the inefficiency of using batched or simultaneus injection) would still not not be fully overcome untill the introduction of electronc fuel ingection and the use of engine control units. (particularly for the smaller engines used in automobiles) And fuel injection for auto engines weren't being used untill the 1950's, and even then only on high-end high-performance cars (and for racing).

But as true direct-ingection (over multi-port ingection, as well as carborators) has inherantly higher efficiency, particularly at high power, this may still have overcome the ineffincy of batched or simultaneous injection, though I'm not sure what type the german engines used. It is possible they used sequential ingection, but the complexity and difficulty of such a system in a mechanically ingected system would be daunting, or so I'd expect.

Does anione know the specific type and reglation of injection the DB-601, or Jumo-210 for that matter, used? (ie if it was actual direct injection straight into the cylinder and if sequential, batched, or simultaneous injection was used?)


----------



## HoHun (Jan 7, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>And I never said anything about the DB-601 having poor efficiency specifically, I don't know a whole lot about that, but I was talking about what I've heard about early fuel-ingected engines compared to carbs. 

There were not many fuel-injected engines that came earlier than the DB 601.

>A comparison of the DB-601 (or maby the 603, 605, or the fuel-injected Junkers-Jumo 210, 211, or 213 engines) to the V-1710 and Merlin lines would be a better comparison. 

Oh well, you could simply go and do some research yourself before posting stuff "you have read". I have provided data for the Jumo 213, and judging from von Gersdorff et al., the entire Jumo series was just as efficient as the Daimler-Benz series (the Jumo 211F even beating the DB605A's minimum, for example). The same source actually shows the Jumo 210 gaining 8% in fuel economy from the carburetted to the fuel-injected version, too.

The V-1650-7 used 211 GPH at 1640 HP in WEP - 350 g/HP/h. Compare: DB605A - 235 g/HP/h at take-off/emergeny power, Jumo 213E - 258 g/HP/h at take-off/emergency power.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 7, 2008)

I also mentioned that I was thinking in terms of multi-port fuel injection and not true direct-injection (which the DB-601 and Jumo-211 and related engines seem to use) earlier. The direct-injected engines do indeed seem to have better fuel efficience in general, what I was really was wondering about was how the fuel was injected, if batched or simultaneous (less efficient but much simpler) or sequentialy injected. That's one thing I haven't seen when I searched it online (or as a quick reference on google) and I don't have any books that really adress the topic.

And it seems the Junkers-Jumo 210G was the first gasoline engine to use direct fuel injection. I havent done a whole lot of reasearch on it, but it seems this engine used a series of piston pumps driven off the crankshaft with one pump coresponding to each main cylinder and was timed to inject fuel at the right point in the intake cycle. So it seems to have used sequential injection for each cylinder.

Myaby I was wrong, but I'd though that such a sequential set-up would be too dificult to arrange for manichanical injection system. Or maby it was more practical to use on large a/c engines then it was for use in auto engines. Though direct injection seems to have started use with production auto engines in the 1950s it seems that other types of fuel ingection were more practical and considderably less expensive, and I'm not sure if these engines used sequential ingection anyway.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 29, 2008)

Did the V-1710 use a "pressure carburetor" and I'm not sure but does a "pressure carburetor" work like a throttle-body injection unit?

It used a Bendix produced carb, which had a larger market for "pressure carburetors" in the late 1930s leading up to WWII, or so I've read.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 1, 2008)

kool kitty89,

Seems you're confusing some terminology here.

Robert Bosch figured out the whole "sequential" thing back in the '20's (I believe) when he came up with the idea of the Injection Pump.

Don't recall if I went into that much detail last time, but basically you have two types of injectors; the style that uses a separate Injection Pump and the style that doesn't use a separate Injection Pump (commonly known as a "Unit Injector").
The style that uses an Injection Pump is the type I believe we're working with here.
What happens is that fuel is drawn up from the tank via a typical fuel pump.
This pump sends the fuel through a filter and into the Injection Pump at "low" pressure (5-7 psi).
The injection pump can take on two forms - inline and rotary (sometimes referred to as a "distributor-style", because it looks a little like the distributor on your car).
I believe the DB601 used the inline style (trying to remember from the cutaway I've seen a couple of times). 
Anyway, what happens is the pump has several small chambers each with a tiny little piston, called a "plunger". Each chamber corressponds with each cylinder on the engine.
So if you have a 6 cylinder engine, your pump is going to have 6 chambers.
If its a 12 cylinder engine, then the pump has 12 chambers. See?
Because of the small size and the fact that the injector (in this case) is basically a poppet valve in a nice shaped "case" builds the fuel up to a much higher pressure (in a diesel engine, it is not uncommon for fuel to be pressurized to around 1500 psi or more. On a modern gasoline car engine its much less, around 40-50 psi).
The combination of the higher pressure of the fuel and the shape of the opening at the end of the injector creates a fine "misting" of the fuel which allows it to burn much more readily, thus combustion is quite efficient.

With the Unit Injector (commonly seen on Detroit 2-stroke and EMD diesel engines) the Injection pump is part of the injector itself.
Basically the plunger is in the injector and fuel is fed directly into it at low pressure via the fuel pump.


MULTI-PORT INJECTION, simply means you have a separate injector at each cylinder.
The alternative to that would be a "Throttle Body" (what GM used to refer as "TBI", meaning "Throttle Body Injection").
A Throttle Body is bascially a carb, but instead of its usual jets and floats, an injector is shoved inside each venturi (assuming more than one) and fires off whenever an intake valve opens up.

So MPI and Seq. Injection are actually two different things, with the only connection between them being that they both deal with Fuel Injection.


Even today, just about every car that still uses what we now call "Mechainical Fuel Injection" (which is pretty much relagated to diesels these days) is based on the Robert Bosch design, no matter what maker's name is embossed on the body of the pump.




Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 2, 2008)

I understand that now (earlier I had confused a few things). I was wrong about the fuel efficiency, I'd been thinking all early systems used "simultaneous" or maybe "batched" injection and not "sequential" injection. (although those were more common on the first automobile engines using direct gasoline injection iirc)

FLYBOYJ (on another thread) described a "pressure carburetor" which sounded like a similar mechanism as single-point injection/TBI. This type of mechanism wouldn't be affected by changing G-forces (particularly -G) and since the V-1710 used a Bendix carburetor (a company known to have a strong market in "pressure carbs" leading up to the war) and since the V-1710 never seemed to have -G induced cut-out it would make sence that it used this mechanism.

It would make sence that someone would use this type of mechanism on a military a/c engine durring the war since the concept is a compromise between a carburetor and "direct fuel injection" having no problems with g-loads and being about as simple as a normal carburetor (albeit with a pressure pump) although somewhat lower performance than "direct injection" in terms of power and throttle response.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2008)

KK just caught up to this and you are correct.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 2, 2008)

Ok. Thanks, that certainly makes sence.


----------

