Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

[Hun in the Sun]

You're welcome Hunter.

Whats the story on the kittyhawk?

 

[Hunter368]

Good discussion. Here's a Kittyhawk.

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

Was that in North Africa?

 

[Jank]

Looks like AA. I assume its N. Africa

 

[Hunter368]

Looks like AA. I assume its N. Africa

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

 

[CurzonDax]

Wow, look at the rips in the Vertical stablizer.

:{)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[CurzonDax]

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

Same same!

:{)

 

[Smokey]

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]

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

 

[syscom3]

Thats the Chino Raiden!!!!

 

[syscom3]

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

Its in my thread "All things B29"

 

[Lunatic]

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]

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....

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Twitch]

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

 

[Smokey]

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]

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]

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