- Thread starter
- #41
Hardest plane to take down in WW2?
- Thread starter Hunter368
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Erich said:
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
Airman 1st Class
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.
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.
Magister said:
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:
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:
I'm just not sure this is true. The photos I have showing the skin thickness on both planes look almost identical.
Magister said:
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
Airman 1st Class
"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.
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
the old Sage
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
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
"Shooter"
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Lunatic said:
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
Airman 1st Class
Irish linen and cotton?
Sounds like my wife's dress.
Sounds like my wife's dress.
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.
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
the old Sage
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 ~
dein Alt ~
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Airman 1st Class
"Dupont synthetic might of been a brand name for polyester which was the exception to the rule...."
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Airman 1st Class
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?
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.
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.
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Magister said:
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
Airman 1st Class
"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.
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
Airman 1st Class
FLYBOY,
What is your opinion on fabric vs. aluminum on control surfaces with respect to holding up to heavy machine gun and cannon fire?
What is your opinion on fabric vs. aluminum on control surfaces with respect to holding up to heavy machine gun and cannon fire?
