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

[seesul]

"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]

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

 

[FSG43]

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.

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

 

[seesul]

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

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

 

[seesul]

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

 

[FSG43]

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]

Thank you Frank. I copied your opinion here Sue Haugh

 

[pcurtj1974]

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.