Strongest aircraft?

[Civettone]

And yet the Re.2005 was considered structurally too weak for the DB 603...

And doesn't those G-forces especially apply to the wings and not so much to the fuselage?

Kris

 

[red admiral]

The g-forces mainly act on the wings during the turn or pulling out of a dive. Humans can only stand a few seconds at 9g so there was plenty of redundancy.

I have my doubts about the reports of the Re.2005 being structurally weak. The Germans don't mention it in their comparative report. I've only seen it mentioned in English secondary sources. The Re-2000 and Re-2001 were able to be catapult launched, there weren't any occasions(that I've found) of a Re.2005 shedding its tail section.

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

armor doesn't really determine how many G's an aircraft can pull - the Spitfire VIII can pull about 9 and dive to about 570 mph before ripping apart while the F4U will only dive to about 560 mph and pull a similar load.

not sure myself, but i remember reading that spitfires actually could pull a LOT of G's.

 

[Seawitch]

Hi all
How about the Boomerang? It seems so short and stubby a monoplane that nothing could bend anymore except the person flying it!
BB
Seawitch

 

[johnbr]

Me I like the B17 and P47 they both should that they could take it.

 

[hairyspin]

Not sure I'm talking about the same thing, but a Spitfire XI dived at Mach 0.92 from 40000ft with a Farnborough pilot at the controls. This took him seriously into compression effects and he could not pull it out of the dive. The only reason he lived to land the plane and tell the tale was the prop and the reduction gearing flew off and the now tail-heavy Spit zoom climbed straight back up.
Having blacked out from the g forces, the pilot came round back at 40000ft! He was able to glide the plane back to a safe landing with the first slightly swept-back wings seen on a Spitfire.... This is still a record for a propellor driven aircraft.
(source: Wings on my sleeve by Eric 'Winkle' Brown)

 

[bigZ]

The g-forces mainly act on the wings during the turn or pulling out of a dive. Humans can only stand a few seconds at 9g so there was plenty of redundancy.

I have my doubts about the reports of the Re.2005 being structurally weak. The Germans don't mention it in their comparative report. I've only seen it mentioned in English secondary sources. The Re-2000 and Re-2001 were able to be catapult launched, there weren't any occasions(that I've found) of a Re.2005 shedding its tail section.

If I remmember correctly the fusalge by the tail was distorted during high speed violent maneuvers. Seen a few upturned wings on the Re2005 because of ground loops but haven't read of any weakness in the design of the wing.

 

[bigZ]

The g-forces mainly act on the wings during the turn or pulling out of a dive. Humans can only stand a few seconds at 9g so there was plenty of redundancy.

I have my doubts about the reports of the Re.2005 being structurally weak. The Germans don't mention it in their comparative report. I've only seen it mentioned in English secondary sources. The Re-2000 and Re-2001 were able to be catapult launched, there weren't any occasions(that I've found) of a Re.2005 shedding its tail section.

If I remmember correctly the fusalge by the tail was distorted during high speed violent maneuvers. Seen a few upturned wings on the Re2005 because of ground loops but haven't read of any weakness in the design of the wing.

How do you define the strongest aircraft? Ability to take battle damage, G's it can pull, Load capability etc?

 

[102first_hussars]

The Il2 Sturmovik was a pretty strong aircraft

 

[Jank]

Renrich said, "The only a/c the AAF admitted that was stronger than the P47 was the Corsair. One could shed some fabric off the control surfaces but I never heard of a structural failure in flight."

I just discovered this thread so apologize for being a Johnny come lately.

Renrich, I have heard about this admission a number of times and have been looking for a source literally for years now to no avail. (I frankly wonder if it is a myth that is feeding on itself through repetition.) One person finally told me that its source was the 1944 "Report of Joint Fighter Conference" which I proceeded to read from beginning to end only to discovery that there is no such statement nor is there any other statement from which that could be inferred.

Do you know where this admission is documented or who the statement can be attributed to? Just to clarify, I am not arguing that the alleged admission is not true but I have repeatedly searched and questioned for it and have never been able to determine a source.

Related to the issue of shedding fabric, I know that in flight stress tests, the fabric would "bulge" tremendously. There were films made of the phenomenon and the brass swept them under the rug for fear that it would scare Corsair pilots from engaging in stressful manuevers. (Apparently, after viewing the film, one was left with the impression that the fabric was stretched well beyond the must tear point.)

 

[renrich]

Per your request, Jank, I have put on my spectacles, gotten out my books and am looking for that quote that I quoted. So far, I have not found it but will keep looking. I have found that at normal weight the designed limit load was 7.5 g positive and 3.5 g negative for the Corsair. I do have the source of the anecdote in Korea where a Navy pilot broke his left hip and strained back and shoulder muscles pulling out of a dive into compressibility in a Corsair while the airplane was unimpaired. I would have a hard time believing that a P47 could have a stronger airframe than a Corsair since the Corsair was designed from the beginning for carrier landings.

 

[renrich]

In reviewing the P47 handling and flight characteristics it was stated that at very high dive recovery speeds the elevator trim tab had to be used but caution would need to be observed as a combination of trim tab and heavy pilot pull in the warmer denser air at lower altitudes could result in a g overload and a tail structural failure. I don't know what that g figure would be but it was stated that the recovery at around 16000 or 17000 feet would be a 6 g recovery.

 

[Jank]

Again, I am not definitively saying that the asserted admission is false. I am just trying to source it.

I do not know of any reported tail section structural failure in a P-47 ever. Admittedly, I have not searched for one.

The tail structure failure warning is not restricted to the Thunderbolt. The Corsair's flight manual warns of structural failure in high g dive pull outs as well. (It does not specify tail section) I suspect that all WWII fighters are succeptable to structural damage from engaging in high g dive pull outs.

From Robert Johnson's book "Thunderbolt" (one man's opinion):

He soon learned that "unless we plunged nose first into the ground, we couldn't hurt the Thunderbolt". It could take the stress of any aerobatic maneuver. The pilots of the 56th Fighter Group grew to trust the fighter, knowing they could subject it to any demands of aerial combat.

That being said, I will say that it certainly stands to reason that all naval fighters, being designed for repeated crash landings and cable captures, must have very strong wings and tails.

Please let me know when you find the asserted claim.

 

[renrich]

Will do. I have Johnson's book also, have read it several times and regard it as one of the best books ever about military aviation in time of war. Since we appear to be advocates for a certain WW2 A/c perhaps I need to change my name to U-bird or Hog(or something) and you could change to Jug or Tbolt(or something)

 

[renrich]

Finally found the source for my statement that USAAF admitted that Corsair airframe stronger than P47. I am a PC novice so don't know how to post it here but it is a site called "Planes and Pilots of World War II" and then go to F4U. In this article the author is supporting a claim that the F4U4 was the premier all-around fighter of WW2. He also claims that Corsairs were able to carry bomb loads of 6000 lbs operating off of land bases. Also found the full report of the Corsair that brought down the Nick from 38000 ft by chewing the Nick up with his prop. The pilots name was Bob Klingman in VMF 312(knew he had to be a Marine) and he, because his guns were frozen, went after the Nick 3 times, each time chewing up a little more of the after part of the plane with the last time breaking into the rear canopy and killing the gunner. With that both planes spun out with the Nick losing a wing and the Corsair recovering after 1000 ft. Klingman then flew back to Okinawa with the Corsair vibrating like the dickens(wonder why?) Ran out of fuel but made a dead stick landing where his wheels touched down just short of the runway and then bounced up on the paved area. All 3 prop blades were bent outward with 6 inches missing off each tip. Holes in prop blades, cowling and leading edge of wings. Plane was inspected, holes patched, new prop fitted and a/c was put back in service. Semper Fi

 

[Jank]

Yes, it is that website that initially caused my search for the alleged admission. It is an interesting site but highly biased and full of loose claims and conclusions.

Survivability: There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the Corsair and still get home. Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. That is a remarkable admission.

No source. No reference. Just a republication of the alleged admission, apparently from another source. I have read about the "admission" on a number of forum posts on this and other sites. Just because a person commits a claim to a web page does not make it any more accurate or reliable than passing it on verbally as a thing overheard.

Again, I understand that naval fighters were tough. One thing is for certain though. The P-47 has numerous, actual real world examples of bringing pilots back with horrific damage that far exceed those of any other U.S. fighter.

There's "could've, would've, should've," and then there's "been there, done that."

I for one am still skeptical and will continue my search for the source for the alleged admission.

 

[renrich]

How did I know that I would hear from you on that? I agree with you though because the statement doesn't have any backup whatsoever and may just be a hearsay remark. Must of my knowledge(?) about war planes is based on reading books and it is always nice to have footnotes with sources quoted. That same site has some good stories about the P47 also.

 

[pasoleati]

Since the original question obviously referred to pulling g´s, I´d definitely go for the Italian fighters. As per factory data, the FIAT G.50 had an ultimate factor of 14 g. According to Dottore Eng. Gianni Cattaneo´s Profile booklet on the Macchi C.202, it had an ultimate factor of no less than 15.8 g! That would make it virtually indestructible. Also the Hawker Tempest was strong with its 14+ G strength.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap but no pilot was going to pull that many G's...

So it does not really matter.

 

[pasoleati]

Perhaps not intentionally. But in an emergency you might have to pull for your life and based on many sources blacking out was not uncommon. E.g. Spitfires were designed to well over 10 g factors (ultimate), yet numerous of them suffered fatal overstressing failures in which the pilots pulled over 10 g.