Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

I'm talking about control surfaces such as ailerons, where aluminum skinning is streched over alluminum brackets of mimimal thickness.

But, even for the wings themselves, the Soviet's found that, barring fire, the wood usually was less susceptible to combat damage than the metal equivalent (example: Yak3 vs. Yak9).

Wood structures are easy to produce but hell to repair, especially in the field. to do a proper repair the surface has to be in a clean environment and sometimes during the curing of glues, you don't want moisture or dirt.

Aluminum will always offer a very flexible repair. You could patch aluminum holes almost anywhere and the training of personnel to accomplish sheet metal repairs are minimal. The thing to look at with wood, being organic is susceptible to many other defects not readily apparent until it too late, where aluminum is forgiving and actually "tells you" when its failing.

As you say "skinning stretched" over brackets (ribs) could range in thickness up to .040 depending on the aircraft. Its quite easy to repair them, especially if a round goes right through. Each manufacturer comes up with a "Structural Repair Manual" that provides guidance for most repairs and takes the guess work out for the mechanic repairing the aircraft.

I'd take aluminum any day, you don't have to worry about shrinkage, temperature related problems and dry rot which will eventually creep up on wood structures, especially in a harsh environment...

I've worked with both and all I have to say id wood sucks! I'd work with aluminum anyday and would believe it is the superior material to work with in a WW2 combat enviornment,unless you're stuck with nothing else!!!

[Twitch]

Smokey I agree the Frank and George were excellent aircraft and difficult to over come in a fight but NOTHING can take punnishment like a P-47

[FLYBOYJ]

P-47 battle damage



Robert Johnson's P-47

[Gnomey]

B-17 Battle Damage





More here: http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm

[CurzonDax]

The top picture's story is that this B-17 collided with a 109. The only thing holding the fuselage in one piece was the aft door. When the 17 got back to its base and the door was opened the fuselage collapsed. Now y'all know why I fly Boeings, NOT Airbus.

:{)

[CurzonDax]

What I think adds to the legendary toughness of US aircraft is in all of these nice Octopus or similar publication books and coffee table books that we ALL own (fess up folks for I own at least a dozen and they do have lots of pretty pictures) is that they always show US planes with the crew or whats left of them smiling around the damage. So it begs the question, for example, unless they were prublished in Signal which I have never seen an issue, where are the similar pics for Axis aircraft. I know that Willy made tough producats but we never see pics of this stuff at least here in the US.

:{)

[Dogwalker]

When an italian pilot came back with a so damaged aircraft, there was nothing to smile at.

AA fire on a SM-79 wooden wing.



DogW

[syscom3]

Ive heard of P38's and A20's that ran into the masts on Japanese ships they were attacking, and flew back to base.

[Magister]

Jank said: "And of course, stresed aluminum skin over a skeletal structure also provides aditional structural strength that fabric does not."

That's right. Take two wing frames that are exactly the same. Cover one with fabric and the other with aluminum. The aluminum covered structure will be stronger.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Magister

Jank said: "And of course, stresed aluminum skin over a skeletal structure also provides aditional structural strength that fabric does not."

That's right. Take two wing frames that are exactly the same. Cover one with fabric and the other with aluminum. The aluminum covered structure will be stronger.

For the most part yes - it depends on how the interior structure is designed and how the stress is transmitted through the structure.

[Magister]

Take a wing structure and cover it with the fabric of a Corsair's wings. Take that same wing structure and cover it with the aluminum of a P-47's wings. I think the aluminum wing will be stronger in every respect.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Magister

Take a wing structure and cover it with the fabric of a Corsair's wings. Take that same wing structure and cover it with the aluminum of a P-47's wings. I think the aluminum wing will be stronger in every respect.

More than likely, but you're missing the point. Most of a semi-monocoque fuselage's strength or a conventional constructed wing (Ribs and spars) is dependent on the internal structure, not the outer skin, if I remember right it's like 30 - 70 on the average. Compare these two for example....

[mosquitoman]

I've heard of a Mossie taking the top of a ship's mast back in the bomb bay, this happened right at the end of the war

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

I've heard of a Mossie taking the top of a ship's mast back in the bomb bay, this happened right at the end of the war

Would not surprise me.

It all in the way the designers figured out the way to transfer the loads and stresses through out the structure...

[syscom3]

Well I think the toughest airplanes were the B29 and B17.

Strongest fighter was the P47. The Corsair, while probably just as strong, didnt go through the ringer like the P47's in the ETO/MTO did.