What was the best - or most significant - fighter-bomber of the war?

[wuzak]

The black ones, at least, seem to be oil lines?

 

[wuzak]

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The black ones, at least, seem to be oil lines?

Hard to say as I don't know who manufactured those hoses on that P-38. Many times fluid lines are color coded, and maked, sometimes on modern restorations they are just made "pretty" on the outside.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And how well do bullets penetrate round steel when not hitting on the centreline?

Depends on the size of the bullet and tube. Welded steel tubing was made from mild steel (4130/ 4140) and was pretty durable and easily welded and repaired.

 

[wuzak]

Hard to say as I don't know who manufactured those hoses on that P-38. Many times fluid lines are color coded, and maked, sometimes on modern restorations they are just made "pretty" on the outside.

I just suggested that beause they appear to be heading to and from the oil coolers, which are mounted under the front of the engine.

The green one just under the top of the opening seems to be the coolant hose. And it appears to have a tortuous path through to the back, heading for the rear mounted radiators.

 

[wuzak]

Depends on the size of the bullet and tube. Welded steel tubing was made from mild steel (4130/ 4140) and was pretty durable and easily welded and repaired.

And offset from centreline.

 

[CobberKane]

For ground attack the Typhoon had a big advantage over the Tempest and P 47 because of it's ability to carry rockets to supplement it's guns. Though the success (and accuracy) of rocket attacks is debated, they offered an option other than guns or bombs and the Typhoon and Hurricane were the single engined planes that used them most in the ETO. Was the Tempest even equipped to carry them during the war?

Really?? I've seen plenty of pics of P-47s with those rocket-in- a- tube set ups the USAAF used, though I believe it ussually carried bombs. The Tempest regularly carried rockets and used them in the same way the Typhoon did. In fact there was nothing a Typhoon could do that a Tempest couldn't do, and most things the Tempest did better.
I do think the P47 is getting a little over-hyped hare at the expense of the Typhoon. That's not to say the P47 wasn't a terrific fighter bomber - it was - but the Tiffie had some advantages too. The P47 was probably tougher (it was tougher than just about anything) and better air to air, but the Typhoon had a much more firepower and I think it would have been faster down low as well. And although it arrived too late to really have an impact, I think the Tempest was probably the best of the lot

 

[CobberKane]

I confess i dont know about this issue, and am really just thinking aloud.....I would think the chances of hitting a radiator or line so as to immediately seize the engine are not that high. In the outback, i dont know how many times ive hit a radiator line with a sharp rock, punctured the radiator or one of the lines. ive also put conrods through the water jacket once or twice. Puncturing the coolant lines or the radiator is a serious threat to the engine, but it seldom causes an immediate seizure. Depending on just how hot the engine is, and how hard its working, you might get 30 mins or an hour before the whole thing seizes. its bad, but its not as bad as a burst oil line. If oil pressure drops, youve literally got seconds before the whole engine seizes. i am sure that would apply equally to Radials as it does water cooled engines.

With that in mind, it then gets down to how many oil and coolant lines are in each generic type. are there more exposed lines in a radial or a water cooled engine?

Why is everyone talking about radiators and coolant lines? They might be the most vulnerable part of a liquid cooled engine, but the last time I pulled and engine apart the water jacket ran right around the block, which was made of cast aluminium. I would have thought that any .50 hitting an aluminium engine block would have very likely breached the coolant channels, even without thinking what a 20mm would have done. In contrast many radial engines could continue to operate even after similar punisment had removed entire cylinders.
Liquid cooled ingines have some advantages over air cooled engines. Water is far more dense than air and more effective as a coolant, so a liquid cooled motor can achieve a similar cooling outcome to an air cooled motor by putting a radiator out into the airstream instead of the whole engine. The trade off is increased complexity and vulnerability to battle damage. After all, enemy fire can deprive the liquid cooled motor of water/glycol, but it can hardly deprive the air cooled motor of air.

 

[wuzak]

double post

 

[wuzak]

In contrast many radial engines could continue to operate even after similar punisment had removed entire cylinders.

The more I hear that the more it sounds like an urban myth.

Do you have any examples of it happening?

Why is everyone talking about radiators and coolant lines? They might be the most vulnerable part of a liquid cooled engine, but the last time I pulled and engine apart the water jacket ran right around the block, which was made of cast aluminium. I would have thought that any .50 hitting an aluminium engine block would have very likely breached the coolant channels, even without thinking what a 20mm would have done.

Dan Whitney, Vees for Victory, has a picture of an Allison V-1710, from a P-40, that was shot full of holes and managed to enable the plane to return to base.

Just because you lose coolant doesn't mean the engine stops immediately.

After all, enemy fire can deprive the liquid cooled motor of water/glycol, but it can hardly deprive the air cooled motor of air.

You certainly can deprive an air-cooled motor of air. If the control mechanism is damaged and the cowl flaps disabled in the closed position it could mean that full power cannot be used. Damage the cowling itself and disrupt the airflow and the cooling won't be as efficient.

There were also many air cooled installations that were marginal for coling at the best of times. Throw in some blockage, damage to the cooling fins and that could tip them over the edge.


Lop off a cylinder and you will pump all your oil to atmosphere and you'll be on borrowd time. That is providing the rest of th eengine isn't damaged by the cylinder removal.

 

[CobberKane]

The more I hear that the more it sounds like an urban myth.

Do you have any examples of it happening?

Resonse: It was not a myth. I have a set of DVD concerning the P-47 were a couple of aviation historians mention it happening, and on the same DVD a pilot (named Clayton Gross, I think) talks of getting shot up in a thunderbolt, making it back to base and having the ground crew chase him pointing at his plane as he taxied. It turned out he had lost and entire cylinder and the pistog was still whipping up and down in thin air, but to quote him the P-47 still "ran fine"




Dan Whitney, Vees for Victory, has a picture of an Allison V-1710, from a P-40, that was shot full of holes and managed to enable the plane to return to base.

Just because you lose coolant doesn't mean the engine stops immediately.

Response: No it doesn't, but your time is limited. I believe in the incident Gross realated he made it right back across the channel. In contrast, he was also hit by rifle fire from German troops while performing a ground attack mission in a P-51 after D-day. He didn't even know he had been hit until the engine temperature started going through the roof on the way home. He was forced to bail out and was lucky enough to be picked up by American troops in a comandeered german vehicle, far in advance of where they were supposed to be





You certainly can deprive an air-cooled motor of air. If the control mechanism is damaged and the cowl flaps disabled in the closed position it could mean that full power cannot be used. Damage the cowling itself and disrupt the airflow and the cooling won't be as efficient.

Response: As you've said, you might not be able to use full power - but the engine will still run. Puncture the cooling system of a liquid cooled engine and it will stop - its just a matter of time.

There were also many air cooled installations that were marginal for coling at the best of times. Throw in some blockage, damage to the cooling fins and that could tip them over the edge.

Response: Air cooled motors that gave trouble generally did so because aircraft designers were tying overcome one of the major diasvantages of such engines - poor aerodynamics resulting from the need to expose the engine to sufficient airflow for cooling - by fitting tight cowls and the like. It was a balancing act - you want the engine to have sufficient airflow, but you also want to minimise drag overall. The Fw190 introduced a fan behind the prop, running at 3x engine speed, as a novel way of maximising both outcomes


Lop off a cylinder and you will pump all your oil to atmosphere and you'll be on borrowd time. That is providing the rest of th eengine isn't damaged by the cylinder removal.

Response: You very well might loose all your oil - or as Gross's experience illustrates, you might not. The cooling system of a liguid cooled motor is pressurised so that the coolant doesn't boil away. If it is punctured you loose pressure and the boiling point for your coolant drops dramatically - ie your coolant turns to steam and dissappears. Oil in a sump is also pressurised, but even if damage causes deprerisation the oil is not going to evaporate. As long as enough remains in the sump to circulate the engine will run

 

[Shortround6]

There are a few well documented instances of it happening. How often may well be another story and yes, time in the air is rather dependent on the oil supply. The photos of one or two P-47s with such damage show planes (fuselages) almost completely covered in oil.
However, if just a few planes made it back with such damage it does show that a a hit (or hits) to the cylinder fins, cylinder head, valve assemblies are less likely to stop the engine. I would also note that as far as I know ONLY the R-2800 showed the ability to keep going with missing cylinders. Other radials may have done it but I have not heard of it but I certainly do not have the worlds experience. Some other radials may have been a lot more fragile than the R-2800.

Damaged engines (or installations) are going to be very questionable about giving full, or near full, power. But "getting home" might only require 400-500hp from a 1500-2000hp engine. Maybe even less.
I once got a car "home" over a distance of less than 2 miles after putting a rod through the side of the block. The hole was under/behind the exhaust manifold and things did get rather smoky

on a lot of these damaged engines how successful the pilot was at getting back may depend on how far he had to go. 15min from base (friendly field) or over an hour?

 

[wuzak]

Mr Gross is/was a lucky guy.

I certainly wouldn't depend on the engine continuing to run without a cylinder.

 

[wuzak]

Oil in a sump is also pressurised, but even if damage causes deprerisation the oil is not going to evaporate. As long as enough remains in the sump to circulate the engine will run

The oil disappearing is the issue. Some aircraft have bigger oil reserves than others, which may have helped the P-47 in that case.

 

[Rick65]

Cobber

"Tempest Mk. V was tested and cleared to carry 8 zero length 60 lb ground attack rockets. But it was never used operationally during the war. After the war, when used on Mk. IIs, the rockets were often mounted on zero length hooks."
The Hawker Tempest Page
I've seen photos of Tempest IIs (Centaurus) with rockets but not on the Sabre powered versions.
The ground attack rockets always make me think of the Typhoon and Beaufighter, Mosquito in an anti shipping role.

There is lots of footage of P47s shooting up various ground targets in the ETO but I haven't seen any where they used rockets - can any one provide a link?

There is a reference in "Angels 20" to author Ted Park's P47 making it home with fairly catastrophic engine damage. "The plane was fine except for a hole in the cowling. A piece of the cylinder head had blown right through it when the engine surged..... It's an indication of the Jug's legendary toughness that mine got me home that day even though a useless piston was slatting around in a ruptured cylinder , deep in its innards."

 

[Kryten]

Tempest rarely carried bombs either, it was used in NW Europe on strafing missions with cannon and medium alt CAP, the Luftwaffe was a diminishing presence so they spent the majority of thier time attacking trains and vehicles, if you read some of the pilots bibliographies they recount many missions where strafing ground targets was the primary objective, Typhoon was employed almost exclusively in army support operations up to the end of the war!

 

[stona]

There is lots of footage of P47s shooting up various ground targets in the ETO but I haven't seen any where they used rockets - can any one provide a link?

Such footage may exist but would be most unusual.
In North West Europe the first P-47s to use rockets became operational in July 1944 but were only equipped to fire four 5" HVARs. Later this capacity was doubled but the USAAF in Europe (including Italy) never employed rockets on a large scale.
P-47s of the 9th AF fired 13,959 rockets during the war which may sound a lot but pales compared with the 222,515 fired by the RAF 2nd TAF.
The 9th AF preferred napalm.
Steve

 

[NiceShotAustin]

What models (The Sturdy ones) are you assuming were not used in ETO? *The ground strafing of airfields, marshalling yards, rail and barge traffic started when Doolittle told 8th FC to 'go sic em' in February 1944. *The P-38 inventory for the 20th, 55th and soon to be operational 354th had P-38J-10s and continuously upgraded until they transitioned to Mustangs in July. *The last 8th AF P-38 FG was the 479th. Its sister group the 474th went to 9th AF. Both had J-25s in late July and the 474th ultimately had P-38L-1's. *Were they 'Sturdy' or 'Weak' in your opinion.

Given this, the P-38 had the worst record of a.) destruction of German aircraft per fighter lost in the air, and b.) the destruction of German aircraft on the ground.

The latter environment was the most hazardous light flak concentration fighter encountered in WWII. Why did the single engine Mustang achieve far superior ratios?

The 8th AF P-38 destroyed ~161 a/c for the loss of ~ 109 P-38s while strafing at low altituded
The 8th AF P-47 destroyed ~740 a/c for the loss of ~ 200 P-47s " " " " "
The 8th AF P-51 destroyed ~ 4106 a/c for the loss of

The J variants were where most of these issues were solved. The Js were used in the ETO (I definitely should've re-worded "the P-38s used in the ETO we're far from the sturdiest"!), but how often were they used for ground support compared to Ds-Hs? I'd imagine there'd be less Js (and the rare Ls; in the ETO at least) available for ground attack than the Ds-Hs. I don't have any statistics to back this up though. As for the aircraft count, they don't tell near the whole story. How many flak positions did each aircraft suppress? How much resistance did each aircraft encounter? I'm not saying the P-38 was better than the P-47 in the fighter-bomber role in the ETO (I honestly think the P-47 is the better choice in this area), but I think it's pretty safe to say that both the P-38 and P-47 were plenty better fighter-bombers than the P-51. But for what was needed by the USAAF in the PTO, the P-38 is very tough to beat (long range, very heavy payload for a fighter-bomber, nose mounted mgs/cannons, twin engines, etc)

 

[vinnye]

Typhoon - had good range of weaponry - 20mm cannon and rockets - enough to give any tank crew nightmares!

 

[CobberKane]

Cobber

"Tempest Mk. V was tested and cleared to carry 8 zero length 60 lb ground attack rockets. But it was never used operationally during the war. After the war, when used on Mk. IIs, the rockets were often mounted on zero length hooks."
The Hawker Tempest Page
I've seen photos of Tempest IIs (Centaurus) with rockets but not on the Sabre powered versions.
The ground attack rockets always make me think of the Typhoon and Beaufighter, Mosquito in an anti shipping role.

There is lots of footage of P47s shooting up various ground targets in the ETO but I haven't seen any where they used rockets - can any one provide a link?

There is a reference in "Angels 20" to author Ted Park's P47 making it home with fairly catastrophic engine damage. "The plane was fine except for a hole in the cowling. A piece of the cylinder head had blown right through it when the engine surged..... It's an indication of the Jug's legendary toughness that mine got me home that day even though a useless piston was slatting around in a ruptured cylinder , deep in its innards."

Re the Tempest, I stand corrected. I guess with all those Typhoons tearing around the place there was no need to use the Temest to deliver ordinance, even though it could. You might even say this eliminates it as a candidate as the best F/B, as no matter how good it might have ben in the role, if it was rarely used as a fighter bomber I can cardly nominate it as the best.