Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

Crumpp · 01-01-2008, 09:41 PM

Quote:

The Fw 190F and G were much more durable at low level than the IL2 ever was....

The G was far less durable than the F series. The F series I wouldn't put in the same league as the IL2. Close but not quite there IMHO.

My reasoning is the oil system on the Focke Wulf. While the oil cooler was well armored, the oil lines were exposed. A projectile entering the engine compartment had a chance of of ricocheting off the armor and the engine until it pierced a hose.

It's kind of a bullet trap if one enters in the first set of baffling.

Several of the cylinders recovered from wrecks show definitive strikes, tumbling, and ricochet’s. In fact I gave my mechanic a BMW801 cylinder with a perfect .50 cal furrow in the fins. I put a .50 cal slug in it for him.

But it is all an opinion as we have no data to back it up. You could argue that a liquid cooled engine will no longer work without a radiator. An aircooled radial's have been known to continue to function with entire Jugs missing.

All the best,

Crumpp

kool kitty89 · 01-02-2008, 01:29 AM

What were the Major volnerabullity differences between the 190F and G?

Jugs? Is that cylinders?

And though radials are certainly tougher in general and the P-47 could continue to fly with several dead cylinders, the V-1710 was probably as tough an inline as seen in WWII. In some cases managing to continue to function on lost cylinders and even with direct hits to the block, crank-case, and oil pan. (at least untill most of the oil was lost, or the coolant linkage was severed).

Here's a good example: YouTube - Dogfights: " Flying Tigers " 3/5

And though far from the F6F or P-47's damage resisistance, compared to most Japanese a/c the P-40 was extremely rugged and well armmed. Like comparing a Spitfire or Bf-109 to a P-47. And it was still probably about as tough as a Wildcat, despite the liquid cooled engine (which was armored as well), pluss it would be a much harder target to hit than the less agile and bulkier Wildcat. And the Nose oil cooler and radiator was much less volnerable than the P-51's belly mounting.

The P-36 could have been considdered even tougher with its radial engine, but it lacked the added armour of the P-40.

AL Schlageter · 01-02-2008, 04:33 AM

Jugs is the nickname for the P-47s while jugs are the cylinders of a radial engine.

Aussie1001 · 01-02-2008, 04:38 AM

the sunderland gets my vote it was extremely durable.

Crumpp · 01-02-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

And though radials are certainly tougher in general and the P-47 could continue to fly with several dead cylinders, the V-1710 was probably as tough an inline as seen in WWII. In some cases managing to continue to function on lost cylinders and even with direct hits to the block, crank-case, and oil pan. (at least untill most of the oil was lost, or the coolant linkage was severed).

Hi KoolKitty,

Your argument has merit.

There are just too many variables in combat and if we examine usable maintenance data, there is little difference in any aircraft engine. This is a function of the physics and stresses of the very fact they are airplane engines.

Quote:

What were the Major volnerabullity differences between the 190F and G?

The amount of armor dictates the main vulnerability differences. The FW190G series was a bomber designed for long range attack mission. It carried no the same amount of armor as a fighter variant and was plumbed to carry additional fuel. The engine was set up differently from the Antons.

The F series was a Front Line Tactical Support Aircraft. Its role was similar to the IL2 Sturmoviks. The F series was highly armored to protect its crew and was fitted with the grossebombenelectrik weapon management system. This was the key to its strike capabilities. The engine was set up differently from the Antons.

All the best,

Crumpp

drgondog · 01-02-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

Jugs is the nickname for the P-47s while jugs are the cylinders of a radial engine.

LOL.. and JUG's are the dual mammary glands on a well endowed female

renrich · 01-02-2008, 10:16 AM

The P40 is an interesting airplane, perhaps deserving the honor(dubious) of being the most underappreciated AC in WW2. It was there in the beginning and at the end and served all over the world. It was rugged, well armed,was maneuverable and had good performance below 15000 or 20000 ft. Perhaps the biggest knock was it's performance above 20000 ft. It was a good looking bird too.

Crumpp · 01-02-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

LOL.. and JUG's are the dual mammary glands on a well endowed female

Well they say the average male thinks about sex every 7 seconds.

Just reached that 7th second before the end of the sentence. Sorry.

kool kitty89 · 01-02-2008, 08:32 PM

The Merlin (single-stage 2-speed supercharger) engined P-40's were good to ~20,000 ft, the Allisons to ~13,000-15,000 ft, though I think the P-40M's V-1710 was rated for 1125 hp at 17,300 feet. The Allison engined P-40s were somewhat lighter though, and faster at critical altitude with the P-40E being about as fast at 15,000 ft as a Merlin P-40 was at 20,000 ft, with the Allison P-40s performing better at low level than the Merlins did at altitude and low level. (except for the stripped-down short-range P-40L)

It was good looking in the sleek B/C/Tomahawk, but the larger radiator and less streamlined/less shark-like nose on P-40D and later models made it somewhat ugly, though somewhat more menacing. (akin to the Bf-109's Ugly beauty) Though performance, firepower, and cockpit visibility were decidedly better. We've discessed this already here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...s-3322-42.html (Most beautiful planes) and more http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...s-3322-43.html (Most beautiful planes)

I'd say that the P-39 and F2A would rank along with the P-40 as underappreciated, though with the Finns and the Russians the planes were well liked, though for some reason the Russians disliked the P-40, though not so much as the Hurricane. Though the P-39 had a speed and high speed maneuverabillity advantage, the P-40 was tougher (by most accounts, and particularly the wings) and had better low speed and stall characteristics, debatably better firepower, and much better range. (in fact enough to make a decent escort, particularly for low-level duty)

And I'm sure the Flying Tigers apreciated their P-40s. It was possibly the toughest liquid-cooled inline-engined fighter of the war. And interesting to compare to the Hurricane as both airframes are from around the same time in the P-36 and Hurricane Mk.I, though the P-40 certainly out developed the Hurricane. (though by the time it entered service the Spitfire was certainly outperforming it)

I rember reading in The Amazing George Welch: Part One how it wasn't the poor high-alt performance of the P-39D that gave Welch his bad feelings tward his "Iron Dog," but the small combat radius (the P-39D wasn't equiped for drop-tanks, though the P-39D-1/2 were iirc, though still shorter ranged than the P-40) which was why he was so eager to get a P-38, and with ~1,400 mi combat range with a 140 gal tank (nearly 2,000 mi ferry) I bet it would have been much preferred.

FLYBOYJ · 01-02-2008, 08:41 PM

Kitty - the F2A and the Brewster Model 239 had some notable differances and the Finns did some work on the aircraft as well.

kool kitty89 · 01-02-2008, 09:17 PM

I know, and as said before, some USN aviators preferred the F2A to the F4F, under normal load conditions. (at half fuel load the F2A-3 had better speed, climb, agility and about the same range as the F4F-3, while the F2A-2 was even better, though with less armor and no self-sealing tanks)

Still the Finns a/c were fairly slow at just under 300 mph top-speed and relied mostly on agility and firepower (more than most other Finnish fighters, and most earl-war Soviet fighters) Still the B-239 was virtually the same as the F2A-1, though less powerful (950 hp, compared to 1050 hp iirc), slower, slightly lighter with naval equipment removed and armor added. Though engine reliabillity was improved with some modifications on the Finnish machines. I just wonder what the Finns would have done with B-339s had he gotten some, nothe the heavier E modelof the Buffalo I, but the lighter model received by other users in the Pacific. It would have still been somewhat heavier than the B-239, but with 1,100 hp and better speed and range along with similar Finish improvements and the same excelent tactics used to play to the a/c's strengths, it would probably have been sucessful as well.

Still, I wonder why the Soviets disliked the P-40E/M compared he P-39N/Q, maby due to the lower speed and high-speed agility, or maby they liked cannon armament more aganst the German a/c. It may have been better matched aganst the Bf-109 than the P-40 was as well. Iremember reading that the Soviets also found the P-39 to be more durrable than the P-40, maby the P-39 stood up better to the coold climate... Plus the P-39D-2, G, K, and Q had more powerful engines than the P-40. Though the light weight early P-40N was as fast as most P-39s.

And the internal oil cooler and wing root radiators may have been less volnerable to ground fire than the P-40's ones. (though probably more volnerable to enemy a/c, especially the rear-mounted engine.)

And here's one interesting statistic: (from: Wartime Service of P-39 with USAAF)

Quote:

With the formation of the US Twelfth Air Force in the Middle East in the Autumn of 1942, Airacobras saw service in the Mediterranean area with the 81st and 350th Fighter Groups and two squadrons of the 68th Observation Group. These aircraft were diverted from a Soviet consignment, being a mixture of P-400s and P-39D-1s. In the Middle East, the Airacobras were used primarily for very low-altitude strafing missions, escorted by Warhawks or Spitfires. They took part in the Allied landings in Tunisia, at Anzio, in Sicily, and operated throughout the entire Italian campaign. In spite of the Airacobra's obvious deficiencies, units using the P-39 achieved the lowest loss rate per sortie of any USAAF fighter used in the European theatre.

renrich · 01-03-2008, 10:16 AM

A big part of the problem with the P39 was that it was just too small. Both to carry much fuel and to carry much pilot. It was designed for a pilot no more than 5'8" tall. Pilots taller than that had a problem. Being so small it was difficult to "stretch" the design to meet the US mission requirements such as long range or additional ordnance capacity. One of the main problems with the F2A as far as the USN was concerned was that it's landing gear was not robust enough for carrier landings.

Crumpp · 01-03-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

And here's one interesting statistic:

There are just too many factors for that to be a viable statistic on the vulnerability or maintenance of the P39.

All action is not equal in combat and the logic of using this as evidence the P39 was less vulnerable in combat breaks down.

For example, I went to Desert Storm. That makes me a combat veteran no matter where else I served.

In comparing soldiers in Desert Storm to US Army soldiers on D-Day, we can now logically conclude that the human body was much more vulnerable in 1944 than the human body of today.

We are just tougher than they were 60 years ago.

Doesn't work too well, huh?

All the best,

Crumpp

renrich · 01-03-2008, 10:33 AM

I have posted on occasion statements I have read where certain AC engines(mainly radials) have come home with "jugs" cylinders missing. Others on this forum have also done so. I have been thinking about this and although I am not an engineer, I don't see how this is possible. If a cylinder on a radial engine is badly damaged wouldn't it mean that the cylinder would be deformed so that the piston would be jammed and then tear loose the connecting rod? If the cylinder is damaged enough to deform would not the oil leak out? Can someone explain this to me?

FLYBOYJ · 01-03-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

I have posted on occasion statements I have read where certain AC engines(mainly radials) have come home with "jugs" cylinders missing. Others on this forum have also done so. I have been thinking about this and although I am not an engineer, I don't see how this is possible. If a cylinder on a radial engine is badly damaged wouldn't it mean that the cylinder would be deformed so that the piston would be jammed and then tear loose the connecting rod? If the cylinder is damaged enough to deform would not the oil leak out? Can someone explain this to me?

On a radial there is a lot of mass at the crankshaft and any potential "jamming" of a piston would be quickly overpowered, but what you described has happened. If the engine is lucky enough to have just a small tear in the head there might be enough engine oil to keep the engine operating - remember radials used a dry sump system and the oil capacities of these tanks were huge. Also keep in mind that even if a radial was running with a limited oil supply, cooler temps at altitude as well as running the engine rich will help as well.

Here's a pic of a recovered P-47 engine - this will give you an idea of the size of the jugs, pistons and crankcase.