Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIB vs. Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Even with decent armor and competent fuel tanks the Ki 43's structure was fatally frail.

The only Japanese fighter of the War to have any real durabillity comparable to Allied fighters was the N1K, though the Ki 84 and to a lesser extent the Ki-100 and Ki-44 were pretty tough. (as far a Japanese fighters go)
 
That Ki-43 pilot in the above interview really stressed that point too, and how his comander was dissapointed with it. I didn't know that some of the IJA leaders were so displeased with this a/c even long before it entered service or even production!
 
In reguards to the airframe, the Hurricane would be far tougher than the
F4F or the p 40. There are several reasons for this.

The F4F, P40 and most WW II planes are of stressed skin construction, meaning that the skin of the aircraft is part of the load bearing structure of the aircraft. Any damage to the skin brings a resultant loss in the structural integrity of the airframe. These airframes are vunerable to machine guns ripping the skin or the overpressure from cannon shells rupturing the skin. The Hurricane is based on an older English method of construction. Although tubular steel airframes had been used since WW I, most of these used low quality mild steel that was welded together. This resulted in a heavy airframe that wasn't really that strong. Hawkers solution to the problem was to use lightweight high quality steel alloys held together with mechanical fastners.
This type of structure is very resistant to damage especially from over pressure but also from mg fire. It was also much more easily repaired. The wing is a two spar structure running clean through the fuselage. The spars are also made of steel , the two in the center section being made of heat treated spring steel using Hawkers welll known dumbell spar. The only stressed skin construction on the Hurricane was from the gun bays outward to the wing tips. Keep in mind the Hurricanes wings are also 18 inches thick at the gun bays adding to this immense strength. For its size the Hurricane is relatively light , the main drawback of this type of construction is that it leads to a bulkier less efficient airframe.

Slaterat
However, because the skin is stressed, its actually tougher than if it wasn't.
One of the benefits of placing things under a certain amount of tension is added resiliency.
Granted, I do agree with you that the any damage would degrade the integrity of the skin, but the plane didn't have a monoque body. It was still skin applied to a frame, so its not like the plane would just fold up and fall out of the sky.
It would only make the plane a little less "bullet-proof" in that area of damage.

...and bolts?

This reminds me of a tank that was once part of the USA's arsenal.
The M3 "Lee" tank.
Most (if not all) used bolts to fasten the hull together.
Because of this, the tankers used to call that one "A Bucket of Death".
An enemy's shell didn't neccessarily have to penetrate the armour to inflict injury or death, because the resulting impact would break some of the bolts causing them to fly around inside the tank.
That's why Sherman's (which was based on the M3) went, first, to a riveted hull, then to a welded hull, and finally a cast hull.
Each succeeding form of construction made for a safer environment for the people inside, over the prior one.
I do agree that bolting the frame together makes maintenance/repair easier, but I wouldn't say it was an aspect of making the plane any "tougher" than most others.

Thus, I have issues with the statement that the Hurricane was a "tougher" plane than an F4F or a P-40.
I think they all have their merits, resiliancy being one of them, but I wouldn't say one is any "tougher" than any of the others.




Elvis
 
I've always thought...that the Oscar was a very clean and sleek design.
I do agree with this one.
In fact, have you ever noticed how much it resembles the FW-190?
Even my avatar, the Swedish FFVS J22, has similar lines.
Simple but quite sleek....and all 3 planes had very good performance for the time.



Elvis
 
Reviewed the u tube video on the Hellcat versus the Zero and as usual TV has got it pretty wrong. The pass was a flat side full deflection run. In other words the two planes were at the same altitude and the Hellcat was approaching the Zero's flight path at approx 90 degrees. The picture showed the Hellcat wings level, firing in front of the Zero and the enemy plane running into the bullets. In a flat side, full deflection run the Hellcat has to open fire when he is at about 1000 feet and about 90 degrees off the target's flight path holding a CONSTANT lead. Since the Hellcat was approaching the Zeke from his port side and the target was crossing from right to left, that means that the Hellcat had to be turning to the left and his guns had to be pointed CONSTANTLY in front of the target. As youall know a coordinated turn in an AC means that the airplane has to be banking to the left in order to be hold the CONSTANT lead which means the nose is pointed in front of the target. The higher the delection shot the more the nose has to be pointed in front of the target. That is where visibility over the nose is important because if the pilot cannot see the target while his nose is pointed in front of the target he cannot tell if he is holding the correct lead. It is a dynamic situation with the lead angle and range constantly changing. That is part of the reason that deflection shooting was difficult.
 
However, because the skin is stressed, its actually tougher than if it wasn't.
One of the benefits of placing things under a certain amount of tension is added resiliency.
Granted, I do agree with you that the any damage would degrade the integrity of the skin, but the plane didn't have a monoque body. It was still skin applied to a frame, so its not like the plane would just fold up and fall out of the sky.
It would only make the plane a little less "bullet-proof" in that area of damage.

...and bolts?

This reminds me of a tank that was once part of the USA's arsenal.
The M3 "Lee" tank.
Most (if not all) used bolts to fasten the hull together.
Because of this, the tankers used to call that one "A Bucket of Death".
An enemy's shell didn't neccessarily have to penetrate the armour to inflict injury or death, because the resulting impact would break some of the bolts causing them to fly around inside the tank.
That's why Sherman's (which was based on the M3) went, first, to a riveted hull, then to a welded hull, and finally a cast hull.
Each succeeding form of construction made for a safer environment for the people inside, over the prior one.
I do agree that bolting the frame together makes maintenance/repair easier, but I wouldn't say it was an aspect of making the plane any "tougher" than most others.

A few points there Elvis.

First off one of the things that made Japanese aircraft so flimsy was the basic skin riveted to a structure - in many cases the skins and bulkheads were never more than .032 thick in many places. In many US aircraft there was a corrugated skin riveted to the basic framework and then the outer skin was riveted to that, this being on the wings. I know the B-17 and P-38 was assembled in that manner. There was also a great use of steel and magnesium to hold major sub assemblies together.

As far as bolts vs welding - welding of a primary aircraft structure DOES NOT produce a stronger structure with regards to combat damage resiliency. To my knowledge the only WW2 aircraft that had the majority of its primary structure welded together was the Kingfisher, and that was decided because of loads that the aircraft would take during water landings. Aircraft structures need to twist and bend and welding to a primary structure doesn't achieve that. Even aircraft with 4130 welded steel fuselages are designed to twist and bend around the welded tubing.

For the most part, the "bolts" used to assemble primary structures are usually close tolerance metal pins with various manufacturer's names, and the methodology of assembly varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.
 
Plus most explosive shells, flack, or bullets hitting an aircraft wouldn't be of the same nature as the shells hitting a tank, along with the different nature of aircraft structure to tank construction.

Welding tends to give a more rigid structure, with the welded joints being the most rigid parts, but these areas would be prone to fatigue and failure and were more brittle to begin with. (welds usualy being more hard and brittle than the base metal) On the other hand bolts and other metal fasteners allow alot more "give" and shifting of the structure and would be much more resistant to fatigue from landing and maneuvering. (and general loading on the a/c) It would probably be more restant to battle damage as well as a hit to a weld could result in the subsequent failure of the entire weld, while the same construction with fasteners would have some degree to redundancy due to multiple fasteners and the greater flexibility or "give" in the structure would be less likely to fail with most battle damage.
 
Plus most explosive shells, flack, or bullets hitting an aircraft wouldn't be of the same nature as the shells hitting a tank, along with the different nature of aircraft structure to tank construction.

Welsing tends to give a more rigid structure, with the welded joints being the most rigid parts, but these areas would be prone to fatigue and failure and were more brittle to begin with. (welds usualy being more hard and brittle than the base metal) On the other hand bolts and other metal fasteners allow alot more "give" and shifting of the structure and would be much more resistant to fatigue from landing and maneuvering. (and general loading on the a/c) It would probably be more restant to battle damage as well as a hit to a weld could result in the subsequent failure of the entire weld, while the same construction with fasteners would have some degree to redundancy due to multiple fasteners and the greater flexibility or "give" in the structure would be less likely to fail with most battle damage.

And that's why there weren't many aircraft with all their primary structure welded together.
 
The cockpit canopy seen in the pilot's perspective of the Hellcat in the Dogfights clip is also quite wrong. In fact it apears to be the Zero's canopy! (or at least it closely resembles it) Though the rest of the cockpit seen seem to be of the Hellcat...

It is especially obvious in this clip:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ob3lvqowHo

Compared to this cockpit view:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dq7LN14LnI And the Zero's:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1_0X6jtK1Y (from the Il-2 combat flight simulator)
 
Plus most explosive shells, flack, or bullets hitting an aircraft wouldn't be of the same nature as the shells hitting a tank, along with the different nature of aircraft structure to tank construction.

Welding tends to give a more rigid structure, with the welded joints being the most rigid parts, but these areas would be prone to fatigue and failure and were more brittle to begin with. (welds usualy being more hard and brittle than the base metal) On the other hand bolts and other metal fasteners allow alot more "give" and shifting of the structure and would be much more resistant to fatigue from landing and maneuvering. (and general loading on the a/c) It would probably be more restant to battle damage as well as a hit to a weld could result in the subsequent failure of the entire weld, while the same construction with fasteners would have some degree to redundancy due to multiple fasteners and the greater flexibility or "give" in the structure would be less likely to fail with most battle damage.

I'm not a welder, but I've done some welding, and worked and talked with a lot of guys who make their living stickin pieces of metal together. So I'm sure there's others who have a better understanding of this, but here goes....

Generally when a weld breaks, at least a good weld, it's not the weld material that breaks, but the steel. It might break at the point it's welded, because that is usually a stress point, but technically it is not the weld that breaks (this would be a breakage due to fatigue or stress).

Depending on the type of rod used the weld is usually stronger than the original material. Again depending on the type of rod used, the weld may or may not be more brittle than the original material, I believe that aluminum weld is not that brittle, most of the breaks on aluminum that I've seen are not at the weld points. Of course my experience there is with livestock trailers, it might be quite different in aircraft. I reckon Flyboy would have some knowledge to share there.

I agree that a mechanical fastener is going to give more flexibility, but I'm not sure that a welded joint would be more susceptible to battle damage, in fact I believe it would be more resistant to impact and explosive force than the original material.

Claidemore
 
Hi Claidemore,

>I agree that a mechanical fastener is going to give more flexibility, but I'm not sure that a welded joint would be more susceptible to battle damage, in fact I believe it would be more resistant to impact and explosive force than the original material.

The advantage of a steel tube construction against explosive shells is actually mostly independend of the connection method. Unless directly struck, a steel tube will probably take no damage from a 20 mm shell exploding nearby. The real damage these shells do is to the stressed-skin surface, both by blast and by fragmentation, which weakens the target aircraft's structure.

The Hurricane with its steel-tube framing covered by fabric will lose its fabric cover, but the load-bearing structure will remain intact. (According to the Finnish experience against the Hurricane, holes in the fabric can lead to the slipstream ripping off the entire cover of the tail, resulting in aerodynamic trouble. I don't think I've ever read about this effect from Luftwaffe pilots, though, so I'm not sure about its significance.)

The Hurricane seems to have stood up reasonably well agaist the fire of the Me 109 in the Battle of Britian, and the A6M2 had a similar battery as the Messerschmitt, though the cannon shells it fired were somewhat less powerful.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Claidmore,

Thanks for educating the others on those aspects of welding that you pointed out.
My own experience and knowledge of the aspects of welding seem similar to yours.
As far as I know, what you related is quite true.
If one welds two pieces of metal togther and the weld breaks under a stress test, the weld is considered "bad".
It should always be the strongest part of the new piece.

However, I seem to have (once again) overstated in my post that garnered so much response.
My mention about welding was only in passing (relatiing to the construction history of the M4 Sherman tank), and my point was that the post I was replying to stated that the Hurricane was tougher because it used "mechanical fasteners" (bolts).
I disagree with that statement and used the story of the M3 Lee tank as an example of why I am in disagreement.

That was all.

My apologies to the others for any misunderstanding my post may have created.




Elvis
 
I'm not a welder, but I've done some welding, and worked and talked with a lot of guys who make their living stickin pieces of metal together. So I'm sure there's others who have a better understanding of this, but here goes....

Generally when a weld breaks, at least a good weld, it's not the weld material that breaks, but the steel. It might break at the point it's welded, because that is usually a stress point, but technically it is not the weld that breaks (this would be a breakage due to fatigue or stress).

Depending on the type of rod used the weld is usually stronger than the original material. Again depending on the type of rod used, the weld may or may not be more brittle than the original material, I believe that aluminum weld is not that brittle, most of the breaks on aluminum that I've seen are not at the weld points. Of course my experience there is with livestock trailers, it might be quite different in aircraft. I reckon Flyboy would have some knowledge to share there.

I agree that a mechanical fastener is going to give more flexibility, but I'm not sure that a welded joint would be more susceptible to battle damage, in fact I believe it would be more resistant to impact and explosive force than the original material.

Claidemore

The brittleness of the weld on aluminum will depend on the aluminum alloy. 2024 material will be less brittle, 7075 a bit more brittle. In either case for the structure to maintain uniformity it will need to have the stresses removed from the weld area and re-heat treated, another reason why you don't see a lot of aircraft primary structures welded.
 
The advantage of a steel tube construction against explosive shells is actually mostly independend of the connection method. Unless directly struck, a steel tube will probably take no damage from a 20 mm shell exploding nearby.
More than likely however, the tube structure will take some damage if a round is exploded within the fuselage.
 
Claidmore,

Thanks for educating the others on those aspects of welding that you pointed out.
My own experience and knowledge of the aspects of welding seem similar to yours.
As far as I know, what you related is quite true.
If one welds two pieces of metal togther and the weld breaks under a stress test, the weld is considered "bad".
It should always be the strongest part of the new piece.

See my last post - sometimes a good weld will break under stress if there in ununiformity within the weld and adjoining areas, a reason for a welded structure to be annealed and re-heat treated after welding.

However, I seem to have (once again) overstated in my post that garnered so much response.
My mention about welding was only in passing (relatiing to the construction history of the M4 Sherman tank), and my point was that the post I was replying to stated that the Hurricane was tougher because it used "mechanical fasteners" (bolts).
I disagree with that statement and used the story of the M3 Lee tank as an example of why I am in disagreement.

That was all.

My apologies to the others for any misunderstanding my post may have created.

Elvis
No worries Elvis
 
Hi Flyboyj,

>More than likely however, the tube structure will take some damage if a round is exploded within the fuselage.

Hm, Germans tests on the gunnery range seem to indicate that a conventional aircraft tube structure stays intact, at least in the sense that it will allow the aircraft to fly home and possibly to be repaired. The tubing presents a comparatively small attack area to the shockwave of the explosion, and a high strength (compared to the surface of a stressed-skin aircraft).

Maybe it's just that I'm talking about the macro structure of the tubing while you're talking about the crystal lattice of the material? I imagine that at that level, you'd see distinct traces of the damage, especially when we also figure in the fragmentation effect.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Flyboyj,

>More than likely however, the tube structure will take some damage if a round is exploded within the fuselage.

Hm, Germans tests on the gunnery range seem to indicate that a conventional aircraft tube structure stays intact, at least in the sense that it will allow the aircraft to fly home and possibly to be repaired. The tubing presents a comparatively small attack area to the shockwave of the explosion, and a high strength (compared to the surface of a stressed-skin aircraft).

Maybe it's just that I'm talking about the macro structure of the tubing while you're talking about the crystal lattice of the material? I imagine that at that level, you'd see distinct traces of the damage, especially when we also figure in the fragmentation effect.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


Hi Henning.

Keep in mind that on 4130 tube fuselages, the steel tubing is taking up about 80% of the strength. The formers and stringers used to give shape to the fuselage also play a part in the equation. It is true that unless there is a direct hit on the tube, most rounds or shrapnel debris will probably pass harmless through the fabric. Even large fabric tears may not affect the aircraft's integrity if they exist on non-aerodynamic surfaces. More than likely however, I don't see this always being the exception to the rule.

Also keep in mind that any damage to that tube, especially if it was bent during a hard landing will put the aircraft out of service.
 
See my last post - sometimes a good weld will break under stress if there in ununiformity within the weld and adjoining areas, a reason for a welded structure to be annealed and re-heat treated after welding.
Ununiformity with the weld would be defined as a bad weld (possibly welding material related, but still a bad weld).

...and thanks for being understanding concerning the rest of what I wrote.



Elvis
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back