Sea fang vs Sea fury vs XP-72 (1 Viewer)

[PAT303]

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.

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.

 

[PAT303]

You realize the fuel tanks are self-sealing, correct?

You realise both the RAF and Luftwaffe adopted cannons to burst self sealing fuel tanks open right?.

 

[PAT303]

It's interesting to see the effort to play down the P-47's attributes.

No way I love the Jug, I just don't believe the hype.

 

[cherry blossom]

Of course Japanese aircraft are famously fragile. Here is Kashimura Kanichi 's Type 96 returning from either colliding with a Chinese aircraft or possibly AA damage in a photograph https://ww2db.com/images/air_a5m10.jpg

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

You realise both the RAF and Luftwaffe adopted cannons to burst self sealing fuel tanks open right?.

... 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.

Check out what I found for the fuel system:

One 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, apparently. Anecdotes, not evidence, but still it makes me think your concerns are a bit overwrought.

Remember as well Hitchens's Razor: That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

 

[special ed]

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.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

One 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

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Here is an interesting test of a captured Mk108 30mm cannon, and its destructive effect. No airworthy aircraft would remain so for long after a few direct hits. This is unrelated to the thread topic, but the conversation has meandered in this direction. Enjoy none the less

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

 

[buffnut453]

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 the 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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Thanks for that, I was struggling to understand the prop damage in context, and your points certainly help.

 

[BiffF15]

My guess's are as follows:

Right main tire is flat most likely due to shrapnel from initial hit (imagine where that tire would be sitting with the gear up).

Prop is bent so far back that it literally looks to be touching itself. My guess is it was not turning as it plowed into the ground (nose over?) and was "curled back" by some distance of / prolonged push into terra firma.

No dirt on damaged parts (nor are they flattened towards the bottom of the wing) so i doubt it was bellied in.

Had the pilot been sitting on a piece of coal when he took that hit, he would have made you a nice diamond...

Cheers,
Biff

 

[PAT303]

so how often did each issue happen such that you call the-47 "fragile"?

I never called the P47 fragile, not once.

 

[PAT303]

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.

Plenty of aircraft made it home after taking a serious beating, the Jug is no exception.

 

[PAT303]

these things were tinderboxes waiting to go up in a whoof.

If that was directed at me I didn't say that either.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I never called the P47 fragile, not once.

You certainly insinuated it.

So, did you come up with any reports from the field about ammo cooking off from a shell hit being a problem, or self-sealing fueling tanks brewing up?

 

[Shortround6]

On the P-47 there were NO fuel tanks in the wings EXCEPT on the P-47N variant.

The P-47Ns were only used in the Pacific in the last months of the war.

The P-47 might have been the toughest fighter used in big numbers but that that doesn't mean that P-47s that suffered significant damage continued to "fight on" in combat vs turning to escape/evade mode.

On the P-47 the turbo charger system had no fuel being used in back of the engine itself (about where the engine cooling gills were). The air in the turbo charger system was just air until the ducts brought the air back to the carburetor.
The exhausts ducts did have the high temperature exhaust and perhaps some fuel in the exhaust system from the rich mixture. The only other thing was the oil system for the bearings in the Turbo charger system.

There were a huge numbers of P-47 used so that number of planes that made it back does have to be factored into the number of planes in use.

The Tempest II might have been as as tough but they only built about 450 of them and they weren't until the war ended, so there was very little experience.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The air in the turbo charger system was just air until the ducts brought the air back to the carburetor.

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 equipment

 

[Shortround6]

A few small holes didn't make much difference.

The P-47s did have some maintenance issues as they started running the boost pressure higher and higher up.

But remember that the manifold pressure was measured after the engine supercharger did it's thing.

P-47 that was running 52in of pressure was running close to 30 in of pressure at the carburetor inlet.

At 27,000ft the system was "boosting" the pressure of 10.16 in Hg up to a bit over 30.00. there were some losses in the system.
The more WEP that was used the the higher the pressures was used but please at remember that even at 70 in pressure the turbo system was supplying a percentage of total percentage. That is to say that at 27,000 ft turbo was providing around 41-42in pressure to the carb and the engine supercharger was providing around 1.7 of the pressure ratio,

Yes, there were leaks and problems even with air at only about 4 times the pressure inside the duct than outside but I doubt that equipment or structure was going to be much of problem. 350 mph airflow on fuselage doesn't seem likely to blow off fuselage panels that have a small jets of air hitting them from inside.

If we change for inch Hg we are looking at about 5psi ambient air to about 20-22psi for our "high pressure" blast of of air to damage structure or equipment.

Yes the high temperature exhaust is more likely to problems than the pressure in the ducts in the systems.

 

[PAT303]

You certainly insinuated it.

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.