Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

Erich · 01-31-2006, 01:31 PM

debate on this all you want the Luftw ammo was incredibly effective and could bring down any Allied a/c just as Hispano 2cm could from Allied fighters. the films of P-47's being hit by HEI 2cm are ugly and 3cm HEI even worse. .50's making mince meat out of 109's and fw 190's the same treatment dished out just more ammo to do so

The B-17 issue is plain bogus without a rear-tail gunner effectively defending from rear attacks the Fortress, Liberator, Halibag. Lanc were all doomed

evangilder · 01-31-2006, 02:26 PM

Agreed, Erich. There are a lot of Lutwaffe guncam films that will confirm that. Once the tailgunner was taken out, the carnage was terrible.

FLYBOYJ · 01-31-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunatic

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

Canvas was not used to cover most fabric aircraft or control surfaces in WW2. Irish Linen (British 7F1) and Cotton (Mercerized cotton, grade A) fabric was used in most aircraft. These were treated with nitrate cellulose dopes.

Dupont synthetic might of been a brand name for polyester which was the exception to the rule....

Magister · 01-31-2006, 06:20 PM

Irish linen and cotton?

Sounds like my wife's dress.

Udet · 01-31-2006, 06:26 PM

The P-47s and the Fw190 A and F have to be the fundamental contenders.

The Corsair in fact appears a very tough toy, but I am not too familiar with the type (a PTO craft).

I have guncamera footage of Butcher Birds getting pounded by the .50 cals of the USAAF and they simply do not go down.

The Il-2, well, knowing there were not too many planes designed specifically for ground atttack, yes, it was to some extent hard to bring down; still it should not be forgotten the IL-2 can also contend for the Gold Medal of the "most shot down plane of the war". Both the jäger and the Flak brought down just too many thousands of them.

The IL-10 hardly saw any service, most of its performance data and record comes from the post-war years and the improvements of the design over its predecessor were not that juicy.

I am impressed to see there are people appointing the Typhoon as a plane tough to bring down; does not seem that much.

Erich · 01-31-2006, 06:38 PM

as I said none of them are hard to bring down come late 44 till wars end with newer more volatile ammo and I stand by this reasoning.

dein Alt ~

FLYBOYJ · 01-31-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magister

Irish linen and cotton?

Sounds like my wife's dress.

Yep! That was the material used for many years to cover fabric aircraft!

Later polyester was used, today "Stitts" is the new craze, you iron it on!!!

Magister · 01-31-2006, 09:44 PM

"Dupont synthetic might of been a brand name for polyester which was the exception to the rule...."

FLYBOYJ · 01-31-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magister

"Dupont synthetic might of been a brand name for polyester which was the exception to the rule...."

That's what it was called!!

Magister · 01-31-2006, 11:09 PM

Flyboy, you seem to know more about this stuff than anyone here so what is your take on treated Irish linen, cotton and polyester vs. aluminum?

Lunatic · 02-01-2006, 02:42 AM

Dupont developed a very wide range of synthetic materials immeadiately before and during WWII. Nylon, Rayon, and Teflon are just 3 examples. The fabric for the Corsair wings was probably a mix of sythentic and possibly natural materials.

One thing is for certain, Vought did not choose to cover the wings with fabric because they thought it would make the plane more vulnerable to enemy fire! Duraluminum was readily available and could easily have been used instead. It was secifically done to make the plane more resistant to damage despite the fact that it was harder to maintain than dural sheeting.

Magister, forgetting about the wings, how do you argue against the much increased vulnerability of the P-47's Turbo-supercharger and its plumbing? Even if the two planes are considered equally damage resistant in every other catagory, this one feature makes the Corsair the more damage resistant of the two.

Also, the wing join to the fuselage on the F4U is optimized for strength, being at a perpendicular angle. All other angles of connection are weaker, which is why it was done the way it was.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: this connection makes uploading of images extremely time consuming. In previous post's ( I think in the Corsair vs. Spitfire thread) I've posted many pictures of the F4U's sheet metal, which was generally (the same thickness) uniform across the whole plane.

CurzonDax · 02-01-2006, 07:25 AM

Still what always gets me that these hi-tech (for the '40s) aircraft still used fabric. I know why the materials were used but I still think that it's still archiec. Also if you read Tommy Blackburn auto-bio he has a very hir raising accoint of what happens to fabric covered surfaces when it recieves cannon fire. I think it saved his life to to have fabric covering his ammo because the force of the explosion went to the weakest section of the wing thus giving the force of the explosion a way out and saving the rest of the wing.

:{)

FLYBOYJ · 02-01-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magister

Flyboy, you seem to know more about this stuff than anyone here so what is your take on treated Irish linen, cotton and polyester vs. aluminum?

Fabric control surfaces were used to "lighten" control surfaces. As WW2 aircraft were further developed very clever balancing and counter balancing systems were developed that ended the need for fabric control surfaces, besides on some high performance aircraft, the surfaces tended to "balloon" at high speeds. Irish linen was the basic fabric used for covering aircraft. It was a tightly woven flax fiber that offered a tensile strength of 80 psi in its raw form. Offering the same properties as Grade A mercerized cotton (Grade A) it was to be used on aircraft with a wing loading greater than 9 pounds per square foot and speeds over 160 mph. In the US cotton was the choice material and anything under grade A was to be used for aircraft that flew under 160 mph and had a wing loading of under 9 psf. Of course Irish linen and Grade A were more expensive than other materials.

During WW2 polyester and synthetic fabrics were developed that offered higher strengths and were a bit easier to treat. Apply dope to aircraft fabric is a messy and stinky job, the use of polyesters required less coats of dope. In more recent years with the advent of home building "stitts" is an iron-on cloth that requires even less work and has made the application process even easier. I have worked on fabric aircraft and to me its a real pain, as a maintainer I'll take sheet metal any day.

If you want detailed information on how this process is done, here is a link for a VERY LARGE PDF file. Chapter 2 has everything you want to know about basic aircraft fabric. This document AC 43.13 is the "bible" for standard aircraft repairs and alterations outside the manufacturer's maintenance manuals....
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...7?OpenDocument

Magister · 02-01-2006, 09:43 AM

"how do you argue against the much increased vulnerability of the P-47's Turbo-supercharger and its plumbing?"

This thread is about which plane can absorb more damage and keep flying. Yes, the P-47 has a vulnerable system that the Corsair doesn't even have. Damage to all that ducting will not cause the plane to suffer mechanical failure and so it just keeps flying.

What I've been saying is that I have been looking for the admission of the AAF for quite some time now and have never found it. I don't think the Corsair can absorb more damage than the P-47 and keep flying.

Also, I don't believe that fabric was chosen because, "It was secifically done to make the plane more resistant to damage despite the fact that it was harder to maintain than dural sheeting." You know better than that Lunatic.

Magister · 02-01-2006, 11:45 AM

FLYBOY,

What is your opinion on fabric vs. aluminum on control surfaces with respect to holding up to heavy machine gun and cannon fire?