Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

can you blame me, they're hot!

You have a warped sense of what is hot Lanc...

[CurzonDax]

Alder: I agree, I forgot about the Stormavik. That gets my vote with the 'Bolt. I have heard stories from Luftwaffe AA and flak gunners shooting at these planes, hitting them several times, with chunks flying off and smoke, and the plane simply turns around and waxes the position. Though I hate to be the pilot when his crew chief sees what he brought home.

Lanc: Get new glasses!!!! Or just get some!!!

:{)

[FLYBOYJ]

Although I choose the Wildcat, I have to agree with Lunatic as well. The corsair was built was like a rock. I posted a thread several moths ago comparing skin thickness and structure of several WW2 combat aircraft and you could really see the difference. For the most part, I think the consensus is...

1. Il-10
2. Thunderbolt
3. Corsair

Note: When I saw a Wildcat (Marlet) much of its skin thickness was about the same as the Zero. The major difference was the rigidity of its structure - there were many more ribs, bulkheads and longerons built into the structure, it resembled an old steam locomotive's boiler.

[Magister]

Lunatic said - Yet, in post war testing (1946-47 I believe) even the USAAF concluded that the Corsair was the more rugged plane.

I have looked for this "admission" and have never found it. I have heard from a number of people that is was chronicled in the Report of Joint Fighter Conference in 1944 which was a gathering of brass, industry, test and fighter pilots and a number of planes including Corsairs and P-47's for the purpose of determining which planes had good characteristics and performance vis a vis others so that the evolution of future fighters could be shaped accordingly.

I have read this report and there is no mention of any comparison between the Corsair and Thunderbolt and no mention or battle damage survivability with respect to either.

Does anyone know where this alleged admission can be found?

I would readily admit that any aircraft designed to crash land into a carrier deck has to have a robust structure but I think there may be a difference between being able to absorb the energy of the impact of a landing through the landing gear, into the wings and into the wing to body juncture and being able to fly after taking ten or twelve 20mm hits.

I have seen the skin thickness of a Corsair and Thunderbolt only on the fuselage and the Thunderbolt is visibly thicker. (I can't speak for the wings)

Incidentally, according to a manual from Republic Aviation, the P-47M had the potential to handle a 4,200lb bomb load (1,600lbs under each wing and 1,000lbs under the belly).

The P-47N had the potential to handle a 3,700lb bomb load (1,600lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the belly).

In sum, the wings and wing to body juncture had to be robust in the Thunderbolt as well.

On a final note, yes a 20mm explosive round may very well pass through fabric without detonation but unless the round is striking at a perpendicular angle to the surface, it will likely strike a structural piece just under the surface and upon detonation, will prove more damaging to the fabric overhead than if it had just struck an aluminum surface and detonated. Have you have ever seen what happens to fabric covered control surfaces after 20mm hits that detonated upon impact with structural pieces underneath? Thanks but I'll take aluminum skin on my control surfaces.

[Erich]

many fighters/fighter bombers could withstand 2cm until the new Minegeschoss was developed and used, then it was all over. reason why I noted ...... what year ? ...........

[NR61]

I know it's not on the list of aircraft types but can I sneak a honorable mention in for the FW 189.

They had a reputation of being very difficult to bring down - I'm at work so not near any of my books but if memory serves me well they were even known to have got back with a boom missing after suffering ramming attacks from frustrated fighter pilots.

Well that's my 2 pence worth.

NR61

[CurzonDax]

Still, I think, after '42 it was had to shoot down any US fighter even the 'Stang. If you look at the inventory, Hellcat, Wildcat, Corsair, 'Bolt, 'Stang, Lightning, Warhawk/Kittyhawk, and so on, thier adveraries always had things to say about how tough these birds were and how hard it was to kill them. Also the all the literature bears this out. It seems to me too that in comparison the rest of the world's planes with the Stormavik being a notable exeption, were not as durable but I think that also stems from the fact that the doctorine and tactics of US allies and enemies was different than that of the US.

:{)

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

......get enough hits on the b-29 and it'll start to de-pressurise, not good, ......

B29's airframe was strong enough to withstand rapid depressurization. It would have made the crews life miserable untill they got down to lower altitudes but it wouldnt have brought down the plane.

[CurzonDax]

Read Rain of Ruin. It talks about a depressuruzation. espisode. Also the designers at Boeing, knowing that the Superfort was going into combat would have not made so fragile (a Italian word!) that it would crumple like a piece of aluminium if it depressurized.

:{)

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by Magister

Lunatic said - Yet, in post war testing (1946-47 I believe) even the USAAF concluded that the Corsair was the more rugged plane.

I have looked for this "admission" and have never found it. I have heard from a number of people that is was chronicled in the Report of Joint Fighter Conference in 1944 which was a gathering of brass, industry, test and fighter pilots and a number of planes including Corsairs and P-47's for the purpose of determining which planes had good characteristics and performance vis a vis others so that the evolution of future fighters could be shaped accordingly.

I have read this report and there is no mention of any comparison between the Corsair and Thunderbolt and no mention or battle damage survivability with respect to either.

Does anyone know where this alleged admission can be found?

I would readily admit that any aircraft designed to crash land into a carrier deck has to have a robust structure but I think there may be a difference between being able to absorb the energy of the impact of a landing through the landing gear, into the wings and into the wing to body juncture and being able to fly after taking ten or twelve 20mm hits.

I have seen the skin thickness of a Corsair and Thunderbolt only on the fuselage and the Thunderbolt is visibly thicker. (I can't speak for the wings)

Incidentally, according to a manual from Republic Aviation, the P-47M had the potential to handle a 4,200lb bomb load (1,600lbs under each wing and 1,000lbs under the belly).

The P-47N had the potential to handle a 3,700lb bomb load (1,600lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the belly).

In sum, the wings and wing to body juncture had to be robust in the Thunderbolt as well.

On a final note, yes a 20mm explosive round may very well pass through fabric without detonation but unless the round is striking at a perpendicular angle to the surface, it will likely strike a structural piece just under the surface and upon detonation, will prove more damaging to the fabric overhead than if it had just struck an aluminum surface and detonated. Have you have ever seen what happens to fabric covered control surfaces after 20mm hits that detonated upon impact with structural pieces underneath? Thanks but I'll take aluminum skin on my control surfaces.

I simply don't have the time to look it up, but it was a joint test done post-war, not during the war. It should be somewhere in my archives which should be available to you soon.

Basically, the two planes are about equally tough except for the wing spar on the Corsair is much stronger, it has the fabric sections which are less vulnerable, it has more redundancy in the wing structure (it has 3 spars, none of which are needed except for carrier landings), the fuel tank is better protected, the pilot is better protected, the landing gear is shorter and therefore tougher, the pilot is less exposed (than the P-47D with bubble top) from the rear, and less exposed from the sides, and the supercharger is much less vulnerable than the turbo unit on the Bolt.

Skin thickness should be similar, both were quite thick.

While the P-47 could theoretically carry just over a 3000 lbs bomb load, the F4U actually did carry and drop a 4000 lbs payload during WWII (C. Lindberg), and had the "potential" to carry up to 6000 lbs!

The most dangerous 20mm (or other caliber) cannon rounds were delayed action HE rounds. These were designed to (ideally) detonate after about 6-8 inches after the fuse made contact with the skin. Such a round hitting the fabric section of the Corsair wing would likely already be out the far side before it detonated even if it hit a minor structral element (such as ribbing). If it hit a major structural element, it would have a good chance of shattering and not detonating at all. Also, at angles from 90 degrees to something less than 30 degrees the odds are less than 50/50 that a such a round would pass through and through w/o hitting metal at all. At shallower angles the chances the round might strike the forward section where the metal begins increases substantially, but that part of the wing is exceptionally tough. There is nothing but ribbing under the fabric sections of the wings, and the space between the ribbing far exceeds the space of the ribbing.

The fabric used on the F4U was a tyvex like stuff soaked in an flame retardant (later shown to be hazerdous to handlers). It was very tough material. And F4U control surfaces (i.e. ailerons on the wings) were wood, which was found to hold up to damage (and remain at least partially functional) better than aluminum.

All that being said, the biggest difference between the toughness of the two planes by far lies in the exposure of the P-47's Turbo-supercharger vs. the very well protected dual supercharger of the F4U. I suspect the evaluation was mostly w.r.t. ground fire, where the placement of the turbo unit plumbing would be particularly detrimental.

=S=

Lunatic

[Hunter368]

Wow very interesting stuff, thanks.

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by Erich

many fighters/fighter bombers could withstand 2cm until the new Minegeschoss was developed and used, then it was all over. reason why I noted ...... what year ? ...........

Personally, I think that all things considered the Hispano 20mm HEI rounds, once the fusing issues were resolved by mid 1943 or so, were more effective. They carried 2/3rds the HE, had much more significant shrapnel effect, much better pentration, and tremendously better ballistics.

The mine rounds could not support a time delay fuse like the Hispano rounds. The mine rounds shell casing is so thin that it will often be split and shed even on passing through the skin of the target, especially if it hits at a relatively low angle. To delay it would create a huge chance the fuse would be seperated from the HE resulting in a dud. Without a delay, the rounds tended to do there damage very close to the surface of the target rather than deeper where the critical items are to be found. Half of the approximately 1.8 liter core of the explosion (the volume of the gasses after expansion) was wasted. With the Hispano round, almost all of the approximately 1.1 liter core of the explosion was placed for effect.

=S=

Lunatic

[Magister]

Lunatic, I have seen literally dozens of pictures of fabric covered control surfaces (I believe you have as well) after hits by 20mm HE rounds. All I can say is that perhaps the delayed fusing doesn't operate as you have indicated. Otherwise, how do you explain the observed phenomenon?

The P-47's ability to carry heavier bombloads is not theoretical and not limited to 3,000lbs either. Dimensional/Capacity data published by Republic Aviation specifies that the P-47M's maximum bomb loading is 1,600lbs under each wing and 1,000lbs under the fuselage. The P-47N has the same wing loadings but only 500lbs under the fuselage. That's 4,200lbs for the M and 3,700lbs for ther N.

I do not have any data for the D model but as you know, there is no structural variance in the wings of the M and D.

I will readily admit that I am aware of no instance where the P-47 carried those maximum loading into combat but the fact that a capacity is unused does not render it impossible or even theoretical. More likely, it was the fact that 1,600lb bombs weren't an ordinace that was used.

Lastly, as I have indicated, the skin thickness of the fuselage (aft of the pilot) is significantly thicker in the P-47. That plane is a tank. Sounds like the Corsair is tank like too.
Again, I cannot speak for the wings as I had no opportunity to compare these areas.

I am interested in learning of where the admission of the AAF came from as I can't find it anywhere and frankly suspect that it doesn't exist.

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by Magister

Lunatic, I have seen literally dozens of pictures of fabric covered control surfaces (I believe you have as well) after hits by 20mm HE rounds. All I can say is that perhaps the delayed fusing doesn't operate as you have indicated. Otherwise, how do you explain the observed phenomenon?

1) The round hit something else immeadiately under the fabric and detonated. Otherwise canvas will not set off the fuse.

2) The fabric was of ordinary canvas rather than the thin Dupont synthetic used on the Corsair wings.

Originally Posted by Magister

The P-47's ability to carry heavier bombloads is not theoretical and not limited to 3,000lbs either. Dimensional/Capacity data published by Republic Aviation specifies that the P-47M's maximum bomb loading is 1,600lbs under each wing and 1,000lbs under the fuselage. The P-47N has the same wing loadings but only 500lbs under the fuselage. That's 4,200lbs for the M and 3,700lbs for ther N.

I do not have any data for the D model but as you know, there is no structural variance in the wings of the M and D.

I will readily admit that I am aware of no instance where the P-47 carried those maximum loading into combat but the fact that a capacity is unused does not render it impossible or even theoretical. More likely, it was the fact that 1,600lb bombs weren't an ordinace that was used.

This does not change the fact that the F4U actually did carry 3 x 1000, and 2 x 2000 lbs bombs into combat, and that it could carry up to 3 x 2000 lbs bombs (never done in combat).

Originally Posted by Magister

Lastly, as I have indicated, the skin thickness of the fuselage (aft of the pilot) is significantly thicker in the P-47. That plane is a tank. Sounds like the Corsair is tank like too.
Again, I cannot speak for the wings as I had no opportunity to compare these areas.

I'm just not sure this is true. The photos I have showing the skin thickness on both planes look almost identical.

Originally Posted by Magister

I am interested in learning of where the admission of the AAF came from as I can't find it anywhere and frankly suspect that it doesn't exist.

A couple of days ago I uploaded about 700 mb (zipped) of archived data to this site. Hopefully in the near future Horse will make it available to you. I'm on vacation right now, and have a flight in about 3 hours to go back into the sticks. Somewhere in that archive the report is mentioned. I think it is also available on one of the F4U websites. I'm sure someone will run across it while investigating the info.

Why would you think this not to be the case though? The two planes are very similar in most respects, but the P-47 turbo unit makes it more vulnerable - pure and simple. You cannot run pressurized fuel in pipes and turbines along the belly of the plane w/o making it more suceptable to battle damage right? Aside from this one difference, and the cockpit layount (superior vision for the P-47 bubble top, superior protection for the F4U non-bubble top), the planes are increadibly similar from a combat damage perspective. Both are very large, heavy aircraft with the same engine.

=S=

Lunatic

[Magister]

"1) The round hit something else immeadiately under the fabric and detonated. Otherwise canvas will not set off the fuse."

That's what I said earlier when I said, "On a final note, yes a 20mm explosive round may very well pass through fabric without detonation but unless the round is striking at a perpendicular angle to the surface, it will likely strike a structural piece just under the surface and upon detonation, will prove more damaging to the fabric overhead than if it had just struck an aluminum surface and detonated."

"2) The fabric was of ordinary canvas rather than the thin Dupont synthetic used on the Corsair wings."

Doesn't make a hill of beans difference because we're talking about duraluminum vs. fabric and not canvas vs. the material you referenced. Duraluminum is better and thus servesd as one point why the P-47 could take more damage to the control surfaces that on the Corsair are fabric.

I was never arguing that the Corsair didn't carry those heavy bomb loads. It was you who asserted that heavy bomb loads of just 3,000lbs for the Thunderbolt were theoretical. I was just informing you that the Thunderbolt had a similar capacity that wasn't "theoretical" but in fact a designed spec.

"The photos I have showing the skin thickness on both planes look almost identical."

I would like to see those pictures (of the fuselage). As I indicated, I recall differently with respect to the fuselage. As I already pointed out, I have no knowledge concerning the wings.

"I think it is also available on one of the F4U websites."

I have seen the same claim on a website advocating that the F4U-4 was the best fighter bomber. Perhaps it is the same one. If so, it is just a conclusory statement with no source referenced.

Indeed both planes are very similar and there probably isn't much difference between their ruggedness. Until I see some evidence that the AAF admited that the F4U was more rugged or could take more damage, I will stick to the view you asserted concerning both aircraft being very similar.