Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

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.

Click to expand...

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"

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:

IMHO, the P-47 appears more structurally sound.

Click to expand...

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"

Click to expand...

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...

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.

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.

:{)

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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!!!

Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

Airman 1st Class

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

Banned

Banned

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Recruit

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads