# Damage of P47D "Dixie Hall", Capt. Paul Hall, 57 FG, 64 FS



## seesul (Apr 17, 2018)

Good morning to all,

yesterday I found a picture of damaged P-47D "Dixie Gal" from 57FG, 64 FS, 15 USAAF. The text at the FB page says _" Captain Paul Hall's P-47D Thunderbolt fighter 'Dixie Gal' of 57th Fighter Group, US 64th Fighter Squadron at rest at Grosseto, Italy. Captain Paul M. Hall struck the ground during a strafing attack while on a mission near Milan, Italy. He successfully flew the vibrating aircraft 150 miles back to his airfield at Grosseto, Italy."_

_View: https://www.facebook.com/groups/812798735458957/permalink/1937509376321215/_


Although Jug was a very tough airplane I don´t belive that it could fly with such a propeller damage. Not only because of the vibrations but would the propeller be able to produce enough thrust in such a condition to bring this heavy bird to its home A/B?

Looking at the pic of the damaged belly I´d say that the pic shows P-47D that belly landed and then the ground crew got the gear down. Also the prop seems to be damaged while turning on a very low RPM. Just my opinion.

What do you think?

Edit: I´m sorry if this case was already discussed in another thread but I haven´t found anything here so far.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 17, 2018)

Hmm.
I tend to agree Roman. It's possible, or probable, that the aircraft did strike the ground whilst strafing, and then got back to base, damaged, and had a belly landing.
I would have expected the prop blades to have been bent _forwards_, if the prop had struck the ground under power, whereas they look as if the prop was perhaps 'windmilling', after cutting the power during or immediately preceding a belly landing, with the underside damage being more in line with such a landing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 17, 2018)

Stephen King That's a LT. Jim Hare photo from the 57th FG, 65th FS. To quote his caption "*Back on his feet*, but will require engine change. 64th FS P-47 hit ground while attacking on a mission, flew all the way back to Grosseto. Black A-26 invaders of the 47th BG in the background." I'm not going to argue if it's true or not, but those are the comments of the guy that took the pic.

from comments on Facebook.
my bolded text would seem to imply a belly landing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Apr 17, 2018)

I don't see how they could bend forward Terry if the aircraft is traveling forward at 300mph.

I've heard this story before and my doubts have not changed.


----------



## seesul (Apr 17, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Stephen King That's a LT. Jim Hare photo from the 57th FG, 65th FS. To quote his caption "*Back on his feet*, but will require engine change. 64th FS P-47 hit ground while attacking on a mission, flew all the way back to Grosseto. Black A-26 invaders of the 47th BG in the background." I'm not going to argue if it's true or not, but those are the comments of the guy that took the pic.
> 
> from comments on Facebook.
> my bolded text would seem to imply a belly landing.


Exactly my opinion.


----------



## seesul (Apr 17, 2018)

Airframes said:


> Hmm.
> I tend to agree Roman. It's possible, or probable, that the aircraft did strike the ground whilst strafing, and then got back to base, damaged, and had a belly landing.
> I would have expected the prop blades to have been bent _forwards_, if the prop had struck the ground under power, whereas they look as if the prop was perhaps 'windmilling', after cutting the power during or immediately preceding a belly landing, with the underside damage being more in line with such a landing.


Hi Terry, my guess is that should the prop hit the ground under high RPM, it would immediately be destroyed. As it happenned to Gabreski.


----------



## seesul (Apr 17, 2018)

Crimea_River said:


> I don't see how they could bend forward Terry if the aircraft is traveling forward at 300mph.
> 
> I've heard this story before and my doubts have not changed.



I also didn´t know that the prop blades can bent forward untill I found this:_
"Propeller blades are meant to flex, quite a bit actually, and can paint a nice picture for crash scene investigators. When the NTSB investigates a crash, particularly aircraft with a propeller, one of the things they look for is the shape of the propeller in the wreckage. Propellers bow forward quite a bit under load, but they also twist in their hubs as well. If the propeller were to strike something and stop instantly while under that load, they will freeze in that shape. 
A crash scene with a propeller bowed forward substantially tells the investigators that the propeller was under high loads at moment of impact, (pilot was at a high power setting). This would indicate the pilot was trying to climb out if trouble by having full power and "hanging" the aircraft on the propeller at the moment of impact (eg the pilot was in a stall/spin when he crashed). 
A crash scene propeller that is bowed forward a little tells the investigators the pilot was at a cruise power setting when he crashed (eg controlled flight into terrain). 
A crash scene where the propeller is bent backwards at the tips indicate the propeller was windmilling or the pilot was at a low power setting when he crashed (out of fuel, etc)" 
_
Interesting, taken from here_: 
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/494p6v/p47_thunderbolt_propellor_damage_what_would_this/
_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 17, 2018)

Very interesting Roman, thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 17, 2018)

I suspect the use of different words "bow" vs "bent" suggest a rather different appearance. Under power, the propeller is generating thrust which will force the area of the blade that generating most "lift", typically the middle third of the blade, to bow forwards relative to the hub.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 17, 2018)

It does not look like it belly landing. The only damage I see besides the prop is to the bottom front of the cowl and from the wings that can be seen look to be ok. I think if it had nosed over the blades would be damaged more close to the hub. 

The bend in the blades look like a high sped hit to me. Could the prop have hit the ground bending all 4 blades back, then hit the bottom of the cowl pushing the bent blade tips forward?


----------



## Crimea_River (Apr 17, 2018)

Thanks for posting that Roman, but what they are describing is the deflection of the prop under aerodynamic load, not from a ground strike.


----------



## seesul (Apr 17, 2018)

Crimea_River said:


> Thanks for posting that Roman, but what they are describing is the deflection of the prop under aerodynamic load, not from a ground strike.


My English is limited so I can be wrong but if I got it right the leaf stays bent forward when the prop is under the aerodynamic load and hits something (also ground) at the same time. And the last sentence, on my opinion, exactly describes the situation that I can see on the picture of that Jug : _A crash scene where the propeller is bent backwards at the tips indicate the propeller was windmilling or the pilot was at a low power setting when he crashed (out of fuel, etc)" _


----------



## Crimea_River (Apr 17, 2018)

Aerodynamic load bends it forward yes. But what they are saying is that if the aircraft  hits something, the prop can remain permanently deformed with a forward set. There is no way that the blades would bend forward when they strike the ground under power with the plane going at speed.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 17, 2018)

On my airfield crash / rescue/ fire fighting course, it was mentioned about prop tip angles, as we needed to know the circumstances of a belly landing or crashed aircraft (if we hadn't actually seen the incident happen), so that we might have some idea of the state of the master switch, or magnetos, battery isolator etc.
I remember being told that, if the props, or prop tips were bent forward, the engine was under power when the aircraft struck the ground, and if bent backwards, then the power was more than likely at idle, or off, and the prop either static or windmilling.
Since then, I've attended, or seen, a number of incidents where (with metal props of course) this was precisely the case.
Those aircraft I've seen where the engine was 'cut' before impact all had the prop blades bent backwards, whilst those under even moderate power, had at least the first two or three blades to make contact bent forwards 
With wooden props, the largest areas of splitting and splintering were on the front of the blades where power was 'on', and at the rear of the blades when 'off', static or windmilling. That is, the wooden prop would break forwards, leaving more exposed wood at the front, if the engine was under power when the prop blade made contact.
The pic below shows a Stampe that had a heavy landing, on a surfaced runway, where the undercart collapsed just as the pilot tried to increase power to 'go around', after 'floating' across the runway. I was around 50 yards from the runway as this happened, at approximately '10 o clock' to the nose of the aircraft, and saw the splintered prop remains fly forwards. The pic was taken after a group of us man-handled the aircraft back onto the grass parking area.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## seesul (Apr 17, 2018)

Here few pics of belly landed Jugs I just found on Internet. Propeller leaves seem to bent the same way as the ones on the Jug in question.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 17, 2018)

Yep, typical of a belly landing with power cut. The original pics you posted Roman, show under-side damage extending quite some way down the fuselage, very much in line with a belly landing.
I don't doubt that the aircraft, or prop, struck the ground during strafing, but the end result certainly looks like damage following a belly landing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## seesul (Apr 17, 2018)

Airframes said:


> Yep, typical of a belly landing with power cut. The original pics you posted Roman, show under-side damage extending quite some way down the fuselage, very much in line with a belly landing.
> I don't doubt that the aircraft, or prop, struck the ground during strafing, but the end result certainly looks like damage following a belly landing.


Agree Terry. I can´t say what happened during straffing, but looking at the prop and the belly damage it seems like clear belly landing damage to me. And on my opinion, an airplane with such a prop damage that is on the pic could never fly.


----------



## Crimea_River (Apr 17, 2018)

Terry, thanks for explaining, however I remain unconvinced that prop tips could ever bend forward due to a prop strike with the ground whilst in flight.

Anyway, this is going OT a bit so apologies for the digression Roman.


----------



## seesul (Apr 18, 2018)

Crimea_River said:


> Terry, thanks for explaining, however I remain unconvinced that prop tips could ever bend forward due to a prop strike with the ground whilst in flight.
> Anyway, this is going OT a bit so apologies for the digression Roman.


No need to apologize, I find this discussion very interesting in many aspects. What do you mean by OT?


----------



## Crimea_River (Apr 18, 2018)

"Off Topic". I didn't want an extended discussion to escalate on the physics of prop bending.


----------



## seesul (Apr 18, 2018)

Crimea_River said:


> "Off Topic". I didn't want an extended discussion to escalate on the physics of prop bending.


Thank you and no problem at all. I'm not an aircraft mechanic and am learning a lot thank to such discussion. It would be interesting to hear an opinion of some experienced mechanic anyway.


----------



## Crimea_River (Apr 18, 2018)

I not an aircraft mechanic either but am a retired structural engineer.


----------



## FSG43 (Apr 19, 2018)

seesul said:


> Good morning to all,
> 
> yesterday I found a picture of damaged P-47D "Dixie Gal" from 57FG, 64 FS, 15 USAAF. The text at the FB page says _" Captain Paul Hall's P-47D Thunderbolt fighter 'Dixie Gal' of 57th Fighter Group, US 64th Fighter Squadron at rest at Grosseto, Italy. Captain Paul M. Hall struck the ground during a strafing attack while on a mission near Milan, Italy. He successfully flew the vibrating aircraft 150 miles back to his airfield at Grosseto, Italy."_
> 
> ...



Hello,

I've investigated quite a few reciprocating engine powered and turboprop airplane accidents- as lawn darts colliding with the ground at Warp Factor 50 and gear up landings. Based upon the photographs provided, it's my impression the P-47 was involved in a gear up landing event. Regardless of whether the blades were bent forward due to power (which I've never been able to substantiate during my investigative duties) or not, when the engine is under power, as in a strafing run, after the propeller blades struck the ground, they would be pig-tailed, curled, aft. What I see in the provided photographs is an airplane whose pilot was either unable to extend the landing gear or forgot to do so after a wild sortie that had rattled a tired pilot. 

I'm presuming the pilot was operating over relatively level ground and not terrain with numerous mini-hills. If the P-47's belly damage, as illustrated in the photograph, was received during a strafing run, the airplane would most likely have bellied further into the ground, possibly flipped onto its back. Note there's no dirt or vegetation embedded into the belly's deformed aluminum-- whether he hit the top of a little hill or contacted relatively level ground. 

Align the belly with the propeller: The available 'clean-blade' on the propeller would be insufficient to provide the necessary thrust for continued flight. The airplane would have been lost and the pilot injured and/or captured if in enemy held territory. 

Under a low engine power configuration, as in the touch-down phase of landing, you would see the kind of blade bending shown in the picture- seen it many times. Re-examine the P-47's belly damage... it appears to be low speed caused deformation and twisting resulting, I'd venture to say, from contacting a hard surface runway (because it's clean and scrapped as you see). Had the airplane somehow flown onto the ground as is suggested, the belly damage would be much more pronounced and have earthen residue in it and witness marks on it.

This is my three-cents worth (inflation). 

TTFN,

Frank

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## seesul (Apr 20, 2018)

FSG43 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I've investigated quite a few reciprocating engine powered and turboprop airplane accidents- as lawn darts colliding with the ground at Warp Factor 50 and gear up landings. Based upon the photographs provided, it's my impression the P-47 was involved in a gear up landing event. Regardless of whether the blades were bent forward due to power (which I've never been able to substantiate during my investigative duties) or not, when the engine is under power, as in a strafing run, after the propeller blades struck the ground, they would be pig-tailed, curled, aft. What I see in the provided photographs is an airplane whose pilot was either unable to extend the landing gear or forgot to do so after a wild sortie that had rattled a tired pilot.
> 
> ...


Thank you Frank, this is a professional opinion I was waiting for. And I fully agree.


----------



## seesul (Apr 20, 2018)

Btw Frank, may I use your opinion at the 15 USAAF FB group page where I found this picture?


----------



## FSG43 (Apr 20, 2018)

seesul said:


> Btw Frank, may I use your opinion at the 15 USAAF FB group page where I found this picture?



Certainly, it's just an opinion based on a lot of tin-kicking. Have a hunch the statement on the back of the pic was to help out a buddy. Laying an airplane on its belly because you were distracted or forgot is something that can happen to anyone ("There are those who have... and there are those who will put it on the runway with the rollers neatly tucked up." is an old adage). That can be embarrassing and/or can have less than savory consequences for the pilot. Mechanicals are easily understood, but NOT neglecting to extend your undercarriage on final approach to landing unless there are extenuating circumstances.


----------



## seesul (Apr 22, 2018)

Thank you Frank. I copied your opinion here Sue Haugh


----------



## pcurtj1974 (Jun 28, 2019)

I'll add my 2 cents. My grandfather flew the P-40N & P-47D from the UK to the Flak Towers in April of 45'. He described how they would hit the hard targets .. 20mm flak towers. The P-47s would approach at 5000 to 7000 feet then dive hard pulling up at the last moment .. so close to the ground grass would fly up .. "mowing" is what they called it. My guess is that Hal was at such a speed that the P-47 literally bounced off the ground with such force it screwed up the pitch on the blades and threw him right back up into flight. There is no doubt that P-47 vibrated like heck and probably flew home sideways .. but that kind of damage only happens at very high speed. My grandfather spoke of such events. The photo is that of my Grandfather by one of the P-47s he piloted.

Also take into account these blades were very wide and thick. 4 blade propellers were more efficient, could withstand more stress, and were shorter .. allowing for more ground clearance. These are not the same type of blades on today's aircraft .. they are very different. 

If you search thoroughly enough .. you can find the intelligence report in the archives.

Look at the lower left side blade. This plane was not windmilling.


----------

