Dog fights on the History channel

[Soren]

LoL, get over yourself Bill! You're clueless on this subject and many others as you have so thuroughly demonstrated many times now. (Let me guess now Bill is going to pull up the suction debate, get ready to be sidetracked thread!)

And now Bill is trying suggest that I claimed bombers were designed for higher stress levels in terms of G forces! This gets crazier by the post!

But hey, lets give Bill a chance to find that exact phrase where I according to him said: B-17's can make 12G turns, a P-51 can only take 8G, oh yes..

Bill apparently doesn't know that the weight an a/c's wings have to carry is multiplied by the amount of G's excerted on the a/c.

So lets see 4,575 kg times 6.5 equals = 29,734 kg Wow! thats the weight of a B-17!! Well 29,710 kg times 3 however results in = 89,130 kg ! Hmm... Nearly three times the weight! But hey since the P-51's wing can take up to 8 G's at a weight of 8,000 lbs I'm sure it can withstand the blast of an 88mm round just fine, nevermind that if a B-17 or B-24 was ever hit directly in the fuselage it usually split in two, cause those bombers were so weak anyhow Heck this one only withstood a fighter tearing straight through it and then flew another 90min to home base where it landed safely after which it broke in two:



Pfff! Thats nothing! A -51 would've maybe just lost a panel or something and thats it, the pilot would probably barely have noticed it

What Bill also obviously doesn't know (Yep, he obviously really doesn't) is that bombers were DESIGNED & BUILT to carry huge loads and at the same time to withstand enemy attacks! The next thing he is clueless about is that when effectiveness against enemy machine gun & cannon is a concern bigger is always better!

But just like I predicted Bill is now trying to suggest that a P-51 can take a direct hit from an 88mm!! Well yes, sure Bill ofcourse it can, it's a P-51 so it can ofcourse take more punishment than a bomber! I mean if it takes the massive power of a single rifle round to down a P-51 I'm sure a cannon shell would be useless


Talk about sticking your nose into unknown territory!

[rochie]

hey soren the P-51 30mm hit episode is here the actual hit is about 4 mins in have a look
YouTube - Dogfights - P-51 Mustang (4 of 5)

[kool kitty89]

Cool that's new, any more on youtube that haven't been posted. (see a couple pages ago for wat les put up, and I added some)


Oh ther's some here:
YouTube - luke650529's Channel

[kool kitty89]

Soren you're right, I don't know where Bill was going with that, except weight for weight the P-51 was stronger, but even so strenght in terms of ability to withstand loads is different than the ability to withstand battle damage or heavy shock.

Some uninformed people for example will assume that since the F4F could take a hell of a lot of damage while the Zero was very fragile (in terms of damage or shock resistance) would mean the Wildcat could take more G's, but in reality the Zero had a quite strong structure for its weight and for this type of loading. (it could probably pull more G's than the Wildcat, and the Ki 43 moreso, but the Zero's frame was not good with aerodynamic loads high speeds though reaching the structural limit well before compressibility at a little over 410 mph)


Though in this case the P-51 does have a fairly tough airframe in terms of construction. (quite a bit tougher than say a spitfire, engine vulnerability aside)


But that first pic of the P-51 Bill posted realy doesn't look like a 30mm hit (even for a normal HE round) but more like a 20mm mine shell hit.

The bottom pic with 1/2 the fin ripped off could have been a 30mm hit near the tip of the fin.

And a wingtip hit from a mine round (that detonated) may not have been a definite kill but it probably wouldn't have left the P-51 in fighting condition.



Again, Soren do you know the mix of ammo that the Me 262 carried?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

LoL, get over yourself Bill! You're clueless on this subject and many others as you have so thuroughly demonstrated many times now. (Let me guess now Bill is going to pull up the suction debate, get ready to be sidetracked thread!)

And now Bill is trying suggest that I claimed bombers were designed for higher stress levels in terms of G forces! This gets crazier by the post!

But hey, lets give Bill a chance to find that exact phrase where I according to him said: B-17's can make 12G turns, a P-51 can only take 8G, oh yes..

What you said was this

" Comparing fighters and bombers is pure nonesense. A bomber is far more ruggedly built and features much larger fuselage and wing sections

How much bigger is a Ju 88 (bomber version) compared to a Lightning or P-47? How much bigger is an A-20 or Douglas B-26 to an F-4 or F-105 or an A-10? Want to compare ruggedness or 'strength' in terms of ultimate or Limit loads?Do you want to compare the load capability and stress level capability of the 'bigger B-17' to the F-105? The B-17 is 8 feet longer - it must be stronger, right?

You live in the world of absolutes. Show us that 'bombers are built more ruggedly and are bigger'

Bill apparently doesn't know that the weight an a/c's wings have to carry is multiplied by the amount of G's excerted on the a/c.

I believe I do Soren. Illustrate that your 'bomber' is bigger and more ruggedly built and compare the load of a B-17, the speed, the G forces and the stresses that a B-17 can take versus an F-105?

I didn't claim that a 51 can take the total damage that a B-17. What I did say is that it is possible for a 51 to take a 30mm hit and survive. You said 'no way' and I asked you to prove it.. and here we are.

Soren - 'weak' and 'strong' are relative terms. Design Limit Loads and Ultimate Limit loads expressed in G forces are not. They are THE foundation for airframe design - not absolute forces. Any pilot and/or airframe guy would know that. Curiously, like aerodynamics, you are not familiar with the terminolgy or the context of terms that you use for airframe structures discussions.

Having a degree in engineering and practicing airframe structures in aviation industry is not relative except in contrast to your background.

I posted my degree Soren and invited you to post your credentials for your statements. I am still waiting.

What Bill also obviously doesn't know (Yep, he obviously really doesn't) is that bombers were DESIGNED & BUILT to carry huge loads and at the same time to withstand enemy attacks!

Some bombers were designed better than others with respect to taking battle damage.. has nothing to do per se to Design Limit and Design Ultimate loads Soren.. Some bobers are much bigger than others, some bombers are smaller than fighters.

A B-17 empty cannot survive the stresses imposed by an 8g pullout that a 109 or Spit loaded can easily survive. An A-20 and Mossie are the closest 'bombers' to large fighter sizes can not take either the raw aerodynamic forces or the resultant stresses of an F4U or P-38 or P-47 even though the A-20 is 'bigger and heavier' and has a larger cross section and wingspan.

But just like I predicted Bill is now trying to suggest that a P-51 can take a direct hit from an 88mm!! Well yes, sure Bill ofcourse it can, it's a P-51 so it can ofcourse take more punishment than a bomber! I mean if it takes the massive power of a single rifle round to down a P-51 I'm sure a cannon shell would be useless

You have both a severe reading and comprehension problem Soren. I have not said that..


Talk about sticking your nose into unknown territory!

I have re-stated what I said.

Ball is in your court.

Your airframe structures design experience and your degree please?

and explain again how a B-17 which is bomber, and by your definition (as everyone knows) is 'more ruggedly built with larger wingspan' than say an F-105, is more 'rugged'.

Proceed with your proof Professor and please let everyone know what your academic and airframe industry work experience credentials are for this discussion?

[drgondog]

PS - Soren, I would agree that the wing of the B-17 is stronger than the wing of the P-51 in terms of amount of force that can be applied before failure - but not stronger in context of sustained multiples of Gravity .. and not near as strong as an F-105 either in terms of relative strength or absolute strength.

And the point would be?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

But just like I predicted Bill is now trying to suggest that a P-51 can take a direct hit from an 88mm!! Well yes, sure Bill ofcourse it can, it's a P-51 so it can ofcourse take more punishment than a bomber! I mean if it takes the massive power of a single rifle round to down a P-51 I'm sure a cannon shell would be useless



This is what I said Soren-

"here are two shots of my father's various flak targets. The P-51B was hit by a 20mm, the P-51D by a 37/40mm.

A wing could be blown off by any of these - depending on a.) where it hit, and b.) how heavily the airframe/wing/tail was loaded stress wise when it was hit.

There excellent examples of B-17s and B-24s being hit by 88mm shells which burst inside the bomber aft of the wing and flew home.

So, you want to make a blanket statement about the 100% attrition of all aircraft hit by a 30mm from an Me 262?

Proof, please?



Talk about sticking your nose into unknown territory!

Is that statement anything like your rant?

It's bad enough when you make dumb claims - but compounded when you can't remember (or comprehend) what is written?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Soren you're right, I don't know where Bill was going with that, except weight for weight the P-51 was stronger, but even so strenght in terms of ability to withstand loads is different than the ability to withstand battle damage or heavy shock.

Bill simply said it was possible, depending on location (i.e away from spar, outboard of guns) and strees condition (ie manuever situation with associated loads) to survive a 30mm hit - no more - no less

Some uninformed people for example will assume that since the F4F could take a hell of a lot of damage while the Zero was very fragile (in terms of damage or shock resistance) would mean the Wildcat could take more G's, but in reality the Zero had a quite strong structure for its weight and for this type of loading. (it could probably pull more G's than the Wildcat, and the Ki 43 moreso, but the Zero's frame was not good with aerodynamic loads high speeds though reaching the structural limit well before compressibility at a little over 410 mph)


Though in this case the P-51 does have a fairly tough airframe in terms of construction. (quite a bit tougher than say a spitfire, engine vulnerability aside)

The Spit was stressed at 11G Ultimate, 51D at 12G ultimate ~ 9% higher load capability.


But that first pic of the P-51 Bill posted realy doesn't look like a 30mm hit (even for a normal HE round) but more like a 20mm mine shell hit.

You may go back and note that the 51B was a 20mm flak hit

The bottom pic with 1/2 the fin ripped off could have been a 30mm hit near the tip of the fin.

You may go back and note that it was believed to be a 37/40mm flak hit on 44-72253 WR-Bbar - on the deck and he survived a snap roll on Mar 22, 1944 around Munich area

And a wingtip hit from a mine round (that detonated) may not have been a definite kill but it probably wouldn't have left the P-51 in fighting condition.

Depends - if it lost an aileron you are right. If it was say, on the Star and missed damaging the spar badly enough to lose the outboard wing tip area, and aileron still worked, it was still probably able to fly and manuever

Again, Soren do you know the mix of ammo that the Me 262 carried?

The point of this debate is that Soren sez the wing or fuselage of a fighter would be blown away with only one hit - presumably every time. We disagree.
As usual.

[Soren]

And you say I can't admit when I'm wrong! Lol!

[Soren]

PS: 1.3 * 6.5 = 8.45 G's, the P-51's ultimate load limit at combat weight (9,700 lbs)

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

PS: 1.3 * 6.5 = 8.45 G's, the P-51's ultimate load limit at combat weight (9,700 lbs)

Wrong - as Usual - 6.59 LIMIT LOADat 9700 pounds about what it would run over the channel outbound to Germany - the 51B and P-51D had an 8G LIMIT load at 8,000 pounds gross weight per NAA and P-51 Pilot Handbook. 12G ULTIMATE LOAD at 8,000 pounds per NAA and Gruenhagen pg 119. For the P-51H it was 11G at Ultimate Load.

When do you suppose you will ever know the ratios from Limit to Ultimate? Clue - it is 1.5 not 1.3.

Degree. Industry experience Soren?

BTW - You never have produced one document supporting your claim that the ultimate Limit for Me 109 (of any variety) limit was "13G" - one of the never ending list of your claims matched by no facts... and of course you never provided the weight for that claim

Still dancing?

degree/work experience in aero and/or airframe structures..

Degree/work experience? Put up or shut up.

[kool kitty89]

Sorry, bill I missed the 20mm 37/40mm thing.

But one thing to note on the 37mm is that a normal HE 37 mm shell will carry quite a bit less than a 30mm mine shell. The US 37mm (similar in size to the german shells) shell used in the M4 cannon weighed about twice as much as a 30mm mine shell, but carried only 45-48g HE compared to 85 grams of the 30mm. (76g for the tracer)



And looking around, it seems only the mine shell was in common use with the MK 108. Soren any info?

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Ammunition

30 mm low-velocity (MK 108 )
Minengeschoß 108 El o. Zerl.
Only the Minengeschoß was fired by the MK 108, also in versions with day or night tracer. The ammunition was not interchangeable with that of the much more powerful MK 101 and MK 103, hence the addition 108. The letters El probably indicate the presence of Elektron, an incendiary compound, in the projectiles. Surprisingly, self-destruction fuses were not used, although German fighters were operating over the home country at this time in the war.

But obviously a wide range of ammo was designed and produced. (I's imagine the AP wouldn't be the best role for the MK 108 due to the low velocity)
Komet weapons: MK 108 cannon

[kool kitty89]

And guys please keep it civil, lets not mess up the thread again.

(that's what PM's are for)



But seeing the animation YouTube - Dogfights - P-51 Mustang (4 of 5) (assuming it's accurate) the 30mm hit apears to be a glancing blow, appearing to be a dud. (which is fairly plausible seeing as some figures show that ~1/4 of them were duds iirc) And a 30mm mineround from a MK 108 wouldn't do much damage if it failed to detonate. (being soft and at a fairly low velocity by the time it ht the target, even initial velocity was only ~1.5 mach depending on alt)

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Sorry, bill I missed the 20mm 37/40mm thing.

No biggie KK

But one thing to note on the 37mm is that a normal HE 37 mm shell will carry quite a bit less than a 30mm mine shell. The US 37mm (similar in size to the german shells) shell used in the M4 cannon weighed about twice as much as a 30mm mine shell, but carried only 45-48g HE compared to 85 grams of the 30mm. (76g for the tracer)

Actually, I have no proof it was a 37mm or 40mm - just larger by estimate of Engineering at Steeple Morden when he bleeid that one in. Whatever large caliber (vs 20mm) most likely to by performing airfield defense.

And looking around, it seems only the mine shell was in common use with the MK 108. Soren any info?

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Ammunition


But obviously a wide range of ammo was designed and produced. (I's imagine the AP wouldn't be the best role for the MK 108 due to the low velocity)
Komet weapons: MK 108 cannon

Don't misunderstand this perspective I have.

1.) any 30mm was a devastaing air to air weapon
2.) Highly stressed fighter a/c inherently are tough, big bombers usually tougher
3.) one of anything below 30mm has a lower probability of a one hit kill unless it hits engine, pilot, fuel tank or main spar.
4.) a 30mm has a higher probability but not a 100% sure thing

[Soren]

Wrong - as Usual

You know what, you're a goddamn prick Bill! You've only proven me wrong twice, both times on VERY minor issues, but then being the prick that you are you not only use that as some sort of evidence in nearly all you're arguments no you also blow it out of proportions by claiming I'm always wrong! Well that's just as ridiculous as your claim that a P-51 is just as rugged as a bomber!

1.3 or 1.5, when one is relying on memory such figures easily get mixed.

So 1.5 * 6.5 = 9.75 G is the ultimate load. No protests from here.

Still looking forward to those pics of -51's taking direct hits from 88's and were still flying.. complete and utter bogus!

KK,

In operational service the Mk108 fired primarily HE(M) rounds, so the -51 hit on the wing was very lucky as if it was a HE(M) round it could've only been a glancing hit, which is most understandable seeing that the 262 attacked from straight behind the -51, and so the impact angle would've been close to 90 degrees when hitting the airfoil. At such an angle the MinenGeschoss wouldn't explode simply because the impact trigger didn't come into contact with the wing. Or it could've just been an AP round, who knows..

More on the HE(M);

The MinenGeschoss was designed to first penetrate the skin of an aircraft and then explode, causing maximum damage, but this also meant that at high impact angles, such as when hitting an airfoil directly from behind, it merely just glanced off. The N type seems to have been designed for not only penetrating the skin of an aircraft but also in such a way that if it came into contact with any liquid (say fuel, oil or hydraulic fluid) it would trigger the charge and the round would explode. Imagine that thing going off inside a fuel tank! The combined explosion could easily cut a bomber's wing.