Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

FLYBOYJ · 02-02-2006, 10:52 AM

We've had this dicussion before about WW2 fighter skin thickness. Here's the link that has photos I took at the Gullespi Air Show last April...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/vie...sc&star t=100

CurzonDax · 02-02-2006, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunatic

Quote:

Originally Posted by CurzonDax

In this discussion I am on the Corsair camp. But the argument I have on this, and I might have missed it is that the Corsair never flew against the Luftwaffe where as the 'Bolt flew both against the Luftwaffe and the IJAF and IJN. I guess I don't really have an argument just an observation unless all are saying that a cannon shell is a cannon shell and that, and I am WAY ignorant on this, that Luftwaffe cannons had more hitting power, more muzzle velocity, and more explosive power than those of the Japanese. So if this be true, and again I am just trying to learn here, wouldn't this be a apples and oranges argument since the Corsair was never under Luftwaffe guns.

So therefore again if this is true, its not whether parts of the wings are fabric or not its what and whose cannon and for that matter machine gun, can do the most damage.

I hope I made sense.

:{)

The Japanese Type-II Mod 3 and beyond (used by the IJN) were comperable to the Hispano except the muzzle velocity was a bit lower at around 750 m/s. Its ~130 gram round certainly hit harder than the German 20mm, though of course it packed less HE. It had better ballistics than the Hispano round because them Japanese were crazy - they used unfused PETN rounds, which are so unstable they don't need a fuse. No fuse allowed the front of the round to be pointed. One has to wonder how many planes were lost when the gun blew up upon being fired?

They also used White Phosophorus incendiaries - everyone else considred WP too difficult and dangerous to handle to put it in small caliber aircraft cannon rounds. More than one US bomber thought it was going to make it home only to start decending and have the WP light up as the oxygen supply increased.

The Ho-5 (used by the IJA) was similar in hitting power to the Soviet ShVAK, but fired at 850+ rpm.

Japanese 20mm, after the Type II-mod 1 of the early Zero, were decently powerful cannon.

=S=

Lunatic

Okay with all this in mind while metal is harder than wood, and I am talking the harness level of substances according to thier chemical composition. But also metal has more elastic characterisitcs than wood because of its maleibility. So when one adds the factors or muzzle velocity, hitting power, and the expoding power of shells, whether they come form cannons or MGs, wouldn't a metal plane be harder to bring down. I am talking shattering vs twisitng and flamability. I say this last thing because in the my experience, and many of my family members are either chemists/engineers and/or carpenters, there is really no such thing as a "fire proof" laminate just "fire resistant".

I am not trying to kill the discussion, but in this subject of structural analysis I am WAY ignorant and am trying to learn. So I hope I made sense.

:{)

Hunter368 · 02-02-2006, 11:05 AM

When I started this thread I had no idea it was going to go on this long or this detailed. wow interesting stuff

Magister · 02-02-2006, 11:53 AM

Here's where I got that .188 thickness:

Design Analysis of the P-47 Thunderbolt

by Nicholas Mastrangelo
Chief Technical Publications, Republic Aviation Corporation

Reprinted from the January 1945 issue of Industrial Aviation
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Compressible Recovery Flaps

Late P-47 models have incorporated flaps for the purpose of aiding in recovery from dives of compressibility speeds. These surfaces are operated by two electric, reversible, intermittent motors synchronized by flexible shafting. Magnetic brake and clutch assemblies are incorporated to prevent overtravel and switches limit the flap extension to 22½° so as to hold "gs" to a safe value during "pull-outs."

The compressible recovery flaps are .188" flat sheets of 24-ST and are hinged at the landing gear auxiliary spar, located just forward of the landing flaps. In the retracted position, they are flush with the lower wing surface contour.

syscom3 · 02-02-2006, 11:56 AM

There are many factors involeved in the structural analysis of any aircraft.

The interactions between every component (Bulkhead, skin, rivets, stringers, etc) is a complex event and sometimes nearly defies logical expectations.

A decade ago, I talked about this with a buddy of mine who was a materials engineer for Northrup. He told me sometimes the structural engineers would find that making a componant weaker actually added to the strength by allowing a slight deformation at a certein point and keeping the "stress" energy from transferring to other components.

Another way to look at it: If the Corsair didnt have as many structural components in the outer wings, it may be designed that way to allow a deformation to occur under a high "G" landing on a carrier. A solidly built wing might suffer a catastophic shock and fail. A weaker wing would flex and return to normal shape.

FLYBOYJ · 02-02-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

There are many factors involeved in the structural analysis of any aircraft.

The interactions between every component (Bulkhead, skin, rivets, stringers, etc) is a complex event and sometimes nearly defies logical expectations.

A decade ago, I talked about this with a buddy of mine who was a materials engineer for Northrup. He told me sometimes the structural engineers would find that making a componant weaker actually added to the strength by allowing a slight deformation at a certein point and keeping the "stress" energy from transferring to other components.

Another way to look at it: If the Corsair didnt have as many structural components in the outer wings, it may be designed that way to allow a deformation to occur under a high "G" landing on a carrier. A solidly built wing might suffer a catastophic shock and fail. A weaker wing would flex and return to normal shape.

YEP!!!

Hun in the Sun · 02-02-2006, 12:10 PM

Fighter-P-47
Bomber-B-17
Ground Attack-Il-2
Carrier fighter-Corsair
Carrier torp. bomber-TBF avenger

How tough were the Tempest and Typhoon? I have never heard much about them.