Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
An incendiary round going through the ammo belts will ignite every charge of powder it hits, theirs 1.4kgs of powder per 100 .50 cartridge's, the P47 carried around 1600 rounds, do the math's. As to which plane had armored ammunition bays, the spit after it got cannons for exactly that reason.And do you have any links to verified instances of a fighter's ammo cooking off in the wing due to hits? How many fighters of the day had armored ammo storage? Please, be specific.
You realise both the RAF and Luftwaffe adopted cannons to burst self sealing fuel tanks open right?.You realize the fuel tanks are self-sealing, correct?
No way I love the Jug, I just don't believe the hype.It's interesting to see the effort to play down the P-47's attributes.
An incendiary round going through the ammo belts will ignite every charge of powder it hits, theirs 1.4kgs of powder per 100 .50 cartridge's, the P47 carried around 1600 rounds, do the math's. As to which plane had armored ammunition bays, the spit after it got cannons for exactly that reason. View attachment 650930
... so how often did each issue happen such that you call the-47 "fragile"? Quit pussyfooting and let's see some numbers from you, or documented complaints from the units flying them that they had a problem with brewing up or ammo cooking off from a hit. Remember to include your links.You realise both the RAF and Luftwaffe adopted cannons to burst self sealing fuel tanks open right?.
That impressive looking damage seems to mostly be the R/H flap, with some adjacent skin damage to the trailing edge. Doesn't look like any fuel tank was hit, at least from what I can see. As well, with the propeller bent backwards, it seems as though some of the visible damage could have been from a dead stick, wheels up landing. Unless he nosed it over after applying brakes. Either way, that pilot must have had one hell of a dayOne hit very close to the main tanks which obviously dispersed shrapnel, and one directly in the area of the tanks blowing a hole clean through the wing. Note both landed safely without fire being an issue
That impressive looking damage seems to mostly be the R/H flap, with some adjacent skin damage to the trailing edge. Doesn't look like any fuel tank was hit, at least from what I can see. As well, with the propeller bent backwards, it seems as though some of the visible damage could have been from a dead stick, wheels up landing. Unless he nosed it over after applying brakes. Either way, that pilot must have had one hell of a day
Right, it's aft of the tank cells, but I'm doubtful it's a wheels-up landing -- wouldn't that grab wingtip first and end up as a wheel-less ground-loop or simply tip damage?
Additionally, looking at the direct damage to the flap -- and you're right, that's the impact point -- you can see clear signs of explosion, including slivered strips of metal curling away, which if you follow them to their base indicate the point where the shell exploded. I'd guess most of the shrapnel passed upwards and through the top surface, but statistically some of that should either deviate or be ricocheted into the fuel tanks so close-by.
We also see some bad damage at the aft wing-root which would seem hard to explain with just a wheels-up landing.
I'd noticed the prop damage and think your guess of a nose-over is probably most likely.
Both of those seem to clearly be cannonshot, and the second one appears to be directly inside the perimeter of the fuel cells. I could well be wrong, and as I noted, anecdotes are not evidence, but it does seem to push back on the idea that these things were tinderboxes waiting to go up in a whoof.
If it wasn't a wheels-up landing then the aircraft almost certainly ground-looped shortly after landing as evidenced by the starboard mainwheel tyre that's virtually ripped off the wheel rim. The prominent bend in thee prop indicates it hit something hard while it was under power, which could have come either from a wheels-up landing or a ground-loop that put the aircraft on its nose.
Given the damage to the flap, I suspect the aircraft came in at high speed (due to no flaps) which probably explains the other damage as such landings are notoriously hard to control and execute successfully.
I never called the P47 fragile, not once.so how often did each issue happen such that you call the-47 "fragile"?
Plenty of aircraft made it home after taking a serious beating, the Jug is no exception.A quick addition about damages. Thread Airwar WW2 The Pilots p.49 post 964 has a link to Prinz Wittgenstein (Wiki) in which is detailed his loss of 2 meters of one wing of his Ju 88 and came back at night.
If that was directed at me I didn't say that either.these things were tinderboxes waiting to go up in a whoof.
I never called the P47 fragile, not once.
Would there not be a relatively long run of hot, high pressure air? I wonder what the effect of a few holes in the system would have to surrounding structure or equipmentThe air in the turbo charger system was just air until the ducts brought the air back to the carburetor.
No I didn't, you should try reading my posts and understanding them before commenting, what I did say is by late '43-'44 onwards both cannons and the .50 BMG where reliable weapons with reliable effective ammunition and any fighter receiving a solid hit by them was either disabled at best but most likely destroyed, either way the aircraft was no longer in fighting condition and the pilot was nursing it home if possible. And just a final point, one of the top scoring P47 pilots, Neel Kearby was shot down and killed by a Ki 43, an aircraft armed with only two 7.7mm, one 7.7mm and one 12.7mm or two 12.7mm machine guns, so the toughest most rugged fighter made shot down by what was arguably the least rugged and lightly armed one, I'll stand by my statement that any fighter receiving a solid burst of fire is in trouble.You certainly insinuated it.