PDA

View Full Version : P-47 Taking more damage...



XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 05:35 PM
My question is wasn't a p-47 able to take more hits before it went down? I got hit in the engine about twice in a coop mission and my engine went out. Same with the other people who were playing with me. we all died because of engine falure. I'm not whining I am just wondering if they were tougher. I have found this to prove that the plane could take more damage everyware.

Used as both a high-altitude escort fighter and a low-level fighter-bomber, the P-47 quickly gained a reputation for ruggedness. Its sturdy construction and air-cooled radial engine enabled the Thunderbolt to absorb severe battle damage and keep flying.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47.htm

When Robert S. Johnson first saw a Thunderbolt, it was love at first sight. The P-47B was a giant with a 2,000 horsepower engine; not very pretty on the ground, but every inch a powerful machine, rugged and sturdy with all the mass of a tank.
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p47_thunderbolt.html


In the entire history of military aviation, there has never been an airplane that could match the P-47 Thunderbolt for ruggedness and dependability. The pilots who flew it into combat called it "The Unbreakable" and "The plane that can do anything." They were not far from wrong.

P-47's often came back from combat shot full of holes, their wings and control surfaces in tatters. On one occasion a Thunderbolt pilot, Lieutenant Chetwood, hit a steel pole after strafing a train over Occupied France. The collision sliced four feet off one of his wings--yet he was able to fly back safely to his base in England.

http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47.html

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 05:35 PM
My question is wasn't a p-47 able to take more hits before it went down? I got hit in the engine about twice in a coop mission and my engine went out. Same with the other people who were playing with me. we all died because of engine falure. I'm not whining I am just wondering if they were tougher. I have found this to prove that the plane could take more damage everyware.

Used as both a high-altitude escort fighter and a low-level fighter-bomber, the P-47 quickly gained a reputation for ruggedness. Its sturdy construction and air-cooled radial engine enabled the Thunderbolt to absorb severe battle damage and keep flying.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47.htm

When Robert S. Johnson first saw a Thunderbolt, it was love at first sight. The P-47B was a giant with a 2,000 horsepower engine; not very pretty on the ground, but every inch a powerful machine, rugged and sturdy with all the mass of a tank.
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p47_thunderbolt.html


In the entire history of military aviation, there has never been an airplane that could match the P-47 Thunderbolt for ruggedness and dependability. The pilots who flew it into combat called it "The Unbreakable" and "The plane that can do anything." They were not far from wrong.

P-47's often came back from combat shot full of holes, their wings and control surfaces in tatters. On one occasion a Thunderbolt pilot, Lieutenant Chetwood, hit a steel pole after strafing a train over Occupied France. The collision sliced four feet off one of his wings--yet he was able to fly back safely to his base in England.

http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47.html

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 08:59 PM
vvs guns tear it apart in one swipe but the german guns it takes a beating from and still flies fine. Somethings very wrong here

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 08:38 AM
just did hole clip on one still few,at 2/3 out on six

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:28 AM
Do you also notice how slow it is, 2000hp, I dont think i have had past 430 flying level, low or hy alt. Shure it can dive real nice, but thats all its good for in FB.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:35 AM
OH yea it takes a beating from LW-guns.. usually up to 10 MK108 hits.. or dozens of MG151/20 hits, before you can down a P-47. However only few hits seem to down the P-47 with VVS guns.. once again ĂŒber VVS-weapons..
Engine and Wings are the vulnerable part for P-47.. and damaged controls


____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 02:07 AM
KSS_XCrim_USA wrote:
- In the entire history of military aviation, there
- has never been an airplane that could match the P-47
- Thunderbolt for ruggedness and dependability.
-

Oh yhea? A-10 ThunderboltII "Warthog".
Shoot it with cannons, hit it with a missile, knock an engine off, it keeps going!

Oh- Vipez, what game is that picture from?

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 09:52 AM
awfull quiet now...

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 12:36 PM
No use discussing anything with a patch 'so close' - I said that a month ago http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 04:39 AM
This is from a Flight journal special issue...P-47 Thunderbolt.....
"Historians will continue to re-fight the battles and argue the contributions of this airplane or that airplane, but it is unarguable that no other fighter absorbed as much as much punishment on a routine basis and still allowed it's pilots to fight another day.
The Pratt & Whitney R-2800 deserves much of the credit for the Jugs ability to stay in the air almost regardless of what was thrown at it. Whereas the Merlin is a finely machined, tightly fitted, thoroughly efficient work of art, the R-2800 is, by comparison, a typically American, oversize, over built, semi crude contraption that generates horsepower- lots of horse power. Like so many things that are uniquely American, however, in combat, the Pratt & Whitney worked. You blew a couple of cylinders off with a 20mm round and it worked, You tore the cowl off with AAA, taking most of the accessories with it, and the engine worked.
On the otherhand a Mustang had about a dozen places where a single rifle bullet could reduce the life expectancy of the Merlin to about 10 minutes before it siezed up. A running Merlin was a wonderful synphony of sound and efficiency, but a damaged Merlin was headed for the ground. .."

There is more but I thought that was interesting and i am beat and dont feel like typing anymore so thats it........
It's a pretty good mag...pick it up at borders fore one place......all except you Sean....../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 04:47 AM
VOL_Jon wrote:
- KSS_XCrim_USA wrote:
-- In the entire history of military aviation, there
-- has never been an airplane that could match the P-47
-- Thunderbolt for ruggedness and dependability.
--
-
- Oh yhea? A-10 ThunderboltII "Warthog".
- Shoot it with cannons, hit it with a missile, knock
- an engine off, it keeps going!
-
- Oh- Vipez, what game is that picture from?
-
-

What about the a10 that was taken down by aaa infront of the cnn camera during the last days of the iraqui invation in live lmao, just one hit and it whent boom!


"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:06 AM
I dont think there is any Jet powered AC that can take the punishment a Jug took. It's design was a part of it's sturdyness...

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:19 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:
- I dont think there is any Jet powered AC that can
- take the punishment a Jug took.

Id take that bet!



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 09:48 AM
wat about em hind gunships i heard em take multi stinger hits and keep going also with a 60% survival chance for the crew on crash.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 11:37 AM
VOL_Jon wrote:
-
- Oh- Vipez, what game is that picture from?
-
-

this picture is from an "animal rights activist" webpage, where they try to prove that IL2 is used to train for none legal tiger hunting using 0.50cal guns.

by international law it is strictly forbidden to kill tigers, so they trying to get an UN resolution that forces Oleg to remove the abbility to kill tigers from IL2!

ooh, I nearly forgot /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 12:41 PM
It was only in exceptional cases that A-10's returned with wings shot off, engines missing etc. Fact is, the Su-25 was able to take way more damaged (I sawa flick in which a 60mm round shot at the cockpit left nothing more on its armour that a little scratch mark). Also, the Mi-24 Hind is, AFAIK, able to take a huge beating too. SOmething like 4 stingers in teh wrong places and it'll keep on flying no problem at all. Ground troops in some countries are taught NOT to fire any ground/personal weapons at a Hind, as it'll only get p*ssed and come after you.

<center>
---------------------------------------
"Atleast I'll go down in style!"
http://www.elleemmeshop.com/model1/aero/re4341.jpg
</center>


<center>
---------------------------------------
"Atleast I'll go down in style!"
http://www.elleemmeshop.com/model1/aero/re4341.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 12:48 PM
Red_Storm wrote:
- Also, the Mi-24 Hind is,
- AFAIK, able to take a huge beating too. SOmething
- like 4 stingers in teh wrong places and it'll keep
- on flying no problem at all. Ground troops in some
- countries are taught NOT to fire any ground/personal
- weapons at a Hind, as it'll only get p*ssed and come
- after you.

The Afghanistan war in the 80's shows a complete different thing to your statement. It has show in any conflict, helicopters are a very vulnerable target of calibres >12.7mm not to speak of G2A missiles.

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


"Kimura, tu as une tĂÂȘte carrĂ©e comme un sale boche!"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 01:20 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- Red_Storm wrote:
-- Also, the Mi-24 Hind is,
-- AFAIK, able to take a huge beating too. SOmething
-- like 4 stingers in teh wrong places and it'll keep
-- on flying no problem at all. Ground troops in some
-- countries are taught NOT to fire any ground/personal
-- weapons at a Hind, as it'll only get p*ssed and come
-- after you.
-
- The Afghanistan war in the 80's shows a complete
- different thing to your statement. It has show in
- any conflict, helicopters are a very vulnerable
- target of calibres >12.7mm not to speak of G2A
- missiles.
-

gun's are one thing, missiles another.
before they got missiles, they carried 20mm AA up the hills to fire at Hinds flying lower, because from uppward was the only angle this weapons where effectiv against them.



quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 01:39 PM
Pic is taken from Operation Flashpoint compined with Invasion 1944 demo.. (check http://www.invasion44.com) .. and the Tiger is real.. (the hairy one i mean) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 02:04 PM
quiet_man wrote:

-
- gun's are one thing, missiles another.
- before they got
missiles, they carried 20mm AA up
- the hills to fire at Hinds flying lower, because
- from uppward was the only angle this weapons where
- effectiv against them.

Have a look at these links. I'm in doubt many of them were shot down from above, by freedome fighters, as you stated.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/afghanistan/1980.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/afghanistan/1981.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/afghanistan/1982.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/afghanistan/1983.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/afghanistan/1984.htm

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


"Kimura, tu as une tĂÂȘte carrĂ©e comme un sale boche!"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:15 PM
Red_Storm wrote:
- It was only in exceptional cases that A-10's
- returned with wings shot off, engines missing etc.
- Fact is, the Su-25 was able to take way more damaged
- (I sawa flick in which a 60mm round shot at the
- cockpit left nothing more on its armour that a
- little scratch mark). Also, the Mi-24 Hind is,
- AFAIK, able to take a huge beating too. SOmething
- like 4 stingers in teh wrong places and it'll keep
- on flying no problem at all. Ground troops in some
- countries are taught NOT to fire any ground/personal
- weapons at a Hind, as it'll only get p*ssed and come
- after you.
-

I saw that show too...it was a 20mm that shot the cockpit not a 60mm..do you have any idea what a 60mm would do to that plane? And FYI the FrogFoot has the same Titanium BathTub cockpit as the A10.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 09:49 PM
just somthing. if one bullet hit a cirtain part of the engine (i think the coolent thingamagig) on the P-51 could bring the whole plane down.
lou69

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 09:56 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- quiet_man wrote:
-
--
-- gun's are one thing, missiles another.
-- before they got
- missiles, they carried 20mm AA up
-- the hills to fire at Hinds flying lower, because
-- from uppward was the only angle this weapons where
-- effectiv against them.
-
- Have a look at these links. I'm in doubt many of
- them were shot down from above, by freedome
- fighters, as you stated.
-

???
rereading what I wrote I think it says the rebels had problems shooting them down, couse 20mm from below where ineffective

where did I say many where shoot down?

missiles are something different, but
a. you need to have one
b. you need to aquire target
c. still no gurantee to kill the target

as far as I know mostly the rebells already failed at a or b, not to speak about c

so far you are right, not many where shoot down. But already the danger of missiles might have forced a change of tactics for the hind pilots.


quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 10:35 PM
tagert wrote:
- Bearcat99 wrote:
-- I dont think there is any Jet powered AC that can
-- take the punishment a Jug took.
-
- Id take that bet!

me to!

if I remember right it was during or after the Korean war that the USAAF made an survey about reports of 0.50cal being to weak in air to air combat.

to my own surprice (thats why I remember this survey at all) the result was that jet powered AC have less critical points because of the engine system!
They showed examples of F86 that where able to return to home base with more than 50% turbine blades lost and holes going through the hole engine. Such damaged engines didn't provided much trust, but they also didn't quit.

if I remember right this survey was the cause for the 20mm version of the F86

(correct me if I'm wrong)


quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 03:00 AM
quiet_man wrote:
- me to!

And many others Ill bet! Well, others that know that is! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- to my own surprice (thats why I remember this survey
- at all) the result was that jet powered AC have less
- critical points because of the engine system!

Make sense, espically on the earlier jet eng.

- They showed examples of F86 that where able to
- return to home base with more than 50% turbine
- blades lost and holes going through the hole engine.
- Such damaged engines didn't provided much trust, but
- they also didn't quit.

Interesting! Funny things is I was refering to the AC that he actually felt wouldnt cut it... ie the A10. In that the A10 has tripple redunded systems!! That and a titainium bath tub for the pilot to sit in... That and it has two engines with good seperation between the two, ie if one gets hit, odds are low the other will. Those three things alone would put it on par if not ahead of the P47 with regards to damage!



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 04:09 AM
Ok, just to cover all of the aspects of the P-47's damage model that seem to have been of interest to he original poster.

First, I am a P-47 nut. It has been my plane of choise since Forgotten Battles came out, and I have extensively studied the aircraft's vulnerabilities in the game. Here are the points that I have found:

Note, when I say "small calibre fire" I am talking about the German 7.9mm machine guns. Ju-88's and He-111's are deadly to Jugs.

Any small calibre hit to the ducting under the engine in the direction of the aft turbocharger (inside the knot unde the tail), is highly likely to damage or destory the entire turbo supercharger and take the engine with it.

The indications that this has happened are oil on the windscreen, and hte aircraft will begin a thin trail of smoke from the left waste gasses gate. There will be an immediate noticable loss of power, and the engine will cease function within fifteen minutes. It's enough time to scamble for altitude, if you are free of a dogfight (extremely unlikely), but you will almost always be dead sticking the plane in, for a kill to the other side.

I suspect that this is happening because the engine models all turbo compressors as directly connected to the engine. The USAAF turbo superchargers were relatively unique in that the turbochearger segment did not have a direct connection to the engine. You can blast it to kibble and the engine will continue to run, abite at reduced maniforld pressures. The turbo charger stage on the P-47 was a known vulnerability, and prone to get damaged in ground attacks, however, to the best of my knowledge it caused no more serious problems than a loss in high altitude performance, unless the turbine where to freewheel loose through the fuselage (think buzz saw here).

The P-47 is also very succeptable to fuel loss. Small calibre fire is likely to puncture the aft auxiliary fuel tank. Within twenty minutes, the aircraft's entire fuel supply will have completely drained, even from 100% fuel. Note, the forward 250 gallon fuel tank is note likely to get hit.

I suspect this is due to Il-2 modelling the entire fuel system as a single large tank. US aircraft typically depended on multiple fuel tanks positioned throughout the aircraft, and most have enough fuel on their own to get a lightly loaded aircraft home. In particulare, I strongly suspect that the 87 gallon auxiliary fuel tank was nearly always drained before P-47's would enter combat, with the aircraft running off of the well protected 250 gallon forward tank. Punctures in the empty auxiliary tank would be nearly meaningless in combat. Even if the tank was not empty, losing 87 gallons of a fuel system that could contain close to four times that is nearly meaningless.

However, in Il-2, you don't lose just 87 gallons; you lose everything.

The P-47's control surfaces also seem highly vulnerable to battle damage. I don't have much information on that subject, but I high suspect that the P-47's aileron system was not dependent on both ailerons functioning. I do know it used push rods, so snapping the rods on one wing should not prevent the other aileron from being usable. however, again, Il-2 is limited in that it models the aileron controls as a single control system. To my knowledge, one cannot disable one aileron without the other being disabled as well.

As for pilot kills, Thunderbolt pilots took many, many hits during combat. It in every other battle account, it seems, someone came home full of shell shrapnel, with fingers or toes blown off, bullets in them, or injured by hostile fire in some way. It was not just the planes that came back full of holes. I am beginning to come to the opinion that it is actually the pilots' durability that is being undermodelled, rather than the pilot protection of the aircraft. The armour wouldn't stop a 20mm round, but it would slow it down enough it wouldn't kill you.

Note, a general increase in pilot durability would also deal with the 190's propensity for pilot deaths. Most other aircraft break up before pilot deaths, so thye are unlikely to be imbalanced by it.

Now, no of this has been verified, or even commented on by the devs (I do not believe they have even become aware of my posts on the subject). I'm running completely under my own studies of the aircraft, knowledge of Il-2, and reasoning ability. All of this could be completely wrong, so take it with a grain of salt.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 04:22 AM
Hmm... Looks as though we aren't permitted to edit messages anymore.

Here is the addendum I wished to add into my previous post:

Addendum: Basically, P-47's don't often die in spectacular ways, but if the plane is trailing smoke or fuel, it is a dead bird; the only questions remaining are how long will it stay aloft, and how much damage can it do before it dies.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 06:40 AM
Just remember for every report or photo of a '47 or any plane taking massive damage and making it home there was probably another 10 that were shot out of the skies by a single bullet too the pilot or fuel/coolant/oil etc. not in a governments interest to publish this type of info.

Seeing as I nearly always fly a G2, from my perspective the '47 is tough enough /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




JG4_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 07:47 AM
the afgans had stingers to use against the hinds from the US, some hinds were even able to take multiple stinger hits and fly on, its weakness was its tail, great peice of machiney tho 2nd fastest hele in the world strong can carry troops and alot of weapons it was very much feared its cogpit glass was capable of stopping 20mm rounds.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 07:47 AM
Tiger27 wrote:
- Just remember for every report or photo of a '47 or
- any plane taking massive damage and making it home
- there was probably another 10 that were shot out of
- the skies

Exactally!

- by a single bullet too the pilot or
- fuel/coolant/oil etc.

Single or many, it still holds, for every photo of ONE that made it back with lots of damage there were many more that didnt make it back for many reasons!

- not in a governments interest to publish this
- type of info.

Enh, I dont buy into the whole conspericy thing, ie dont show the photos of the ones that didnt make it back! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The simple thing is/was they couldnt show you photos of the ones that didnt make it back! That and when one did make it back with lots of damage... well it was a photo op plan and simple! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- Seeing as I nearly always fly a G2, from my
- perspective the '47 is tough enough

LOL!




TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 11:44 AM
Tiger27 wrote:
- Just remember for every report or photo of a '47 or
- any plane taking massive damage and making it home
- there was probably another 10 that were shot out of
- the skies by a single bullet too the pilot or
- fuel/coolant/oil etc. not in a governments interest
- to publish this type of info.
-
- Seeing as I nearly always fly a G2, from my
- perspective the '47 is tough enough /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- JG4_Tiger

To my knowledge, the P-47 had the lowest loss rate of any fighter of WWII, with only a 0.7% loss rate for over 546,000 combat sorties. That is a statistical survivale rate of 142 sorties per plane. Even high American numbers at the end of the war are not enough to completely account for such a high survivability rate for an aircraft, especially considering how by late war, it's primary role was ground attack.

The plane in Forgotten battles is ussually a dead aircraft after only limited ammounts of damage. I have almost never successfully returned to base after taking even minor damage, even if I won the dogfight.

I have not kept up with the online wars, but I strongly suspect that the aircraft has nowhere near equalled its historical combat survivability, even in more historical combat enviroments.

Harry Voyager

Addendum: If you are flying the G-2, then you should have no problem dealing with a P-47. Most likely you do not know how to recognise a destoryed aircraft, and are trying to rip wings off of already dead planes. Enemy pilots are continually dumping ammo into my P-47 well after it is a destroyed aircraft, because they simply don't know it. The irritating thing is that I can't bail when I'm being peppered by 7.9mm rounds, and sooner or later, one of them finds its way into my cockpit. It is very frustrating, being pinned and pilot killed in a dead plane by idiots who can't tell the difference. Can't you even give me a chance to bail, or are you really that insistant on killing my pilot?

G-2 pilots are the worst about it too, and then they grouse about how they couldn't kill me, so my plane is clearly overmodeled. Try it and see how quickly it falls apart under fire. Maybe you'll let me out next time I'm going down.

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

Message Edited on 07/18/0305:51AM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 09:36 PM
Red_Storm wrote:
- It was only in exceptional cases that A-10's
- returned with wings shot off, engines missing etc.
- Fact is, the Su-25 was able to take way more damaged
- (I sawa flick in which a 60mm round shot at the
- cockpit left nothing more on its armour that a
- little scratch mark).

OK, whatever. You should do a bit more research, the SU-25 has less firepower and takes less damage than the A-10. It is a faster aircraft though, but I am not sure about the aircraft's turn rate.


Also, the Mi-24 Hind is,
- AFAIK, able to take a huge beating too. SOmething
- like 4 stingers in teh wrong places and it'll keep
- on flying no problem at all. Ground troops in some
- countries are taught NOT to fire any ground/personal
- weapons at a Hind, as it'll only get p*ssed and come
- after you.

Here I agree, an MI-24 hind should not be attacked with anything less than an AIM-9 Sidewinder or 25mm chain-gun, maybe a TOW-2 anti-tank missile might do it, but i'm not sure.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 09:47 PM
Actually, the MI-24 Hind can be taken down with other weapons like a .50 caliber if shooting the right place. Trouble is if you miss the target then you get about a ton of hot lead shot back at you.
The Stinger missiles are a bit light, but a single hit in the right place will down the chopper.

I think the oil coolers are the weakpoints, but if you can't hit and kill with your first round from a .50 or Stinger, you had better attack it with something so big it dosen't matter where you hit.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 11:28 AM
VOL_Jon wrote:
-
- I think the oil coolers are the weakpoints, but if
- you can't hit and kill with your first round from a
- .50 or Stinger, you had better attack it with
- something so big it dosen't matter where you hit.
-
-

usually the rotorhead is the weakest point of a helicopter

I think they placed the guns higher in Afganistan to get a higher possibility to hit the rotorhead.


quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-26-2003, 04:25 AM
Yes, but I thought the Hind's rotorhead was made to take 23mm gun hits.

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 11:54 AM
Any similarites between the P47 in FB and the one in real life that Fighter Pilot Robert S. Johnson describes?

The P47 in FB in no where as rugged as it should be.


I thought you might want to read this excerpt from Military History Magazine interview of Robert S. Johnson (P47 driver) on aircraft types vs aircraft ruggedness :


MH: Pilots generally swear by their aircraft. GĂŒnther Rall and Erich Hartmann praised the Messerschmitt Bf-109, Erich Rudorffer and Johannes Steinhoff the Me-262, and Buddy Haydon the P-51 Mustang. I have to say after seeing all of the old photos of the various Thunderbolts and others that were shot up, I can't imagine any other plane absorbing that much damage and still flying. What is your opinion of your aircraft?

Johnson: This is very similar to the German debate. As far as the 109, all of the German pilots loved that plane, but the FW-190 was harder to shoot down. Just like the controversy over the P-51 and P-47. The P-47 was faster; it just did not have the climb and range the Mustang did. But it had speed, roll, dive and the necessary ruggedness that allowed it to do such a great job in the Ninth Air Force. As far as aerial kills go, we met and beat the best the Luftwaffe had when we first got there. It was the P-47 groups that pushed them back, as I said before. The P-51s had the advantage of longer range, and they were able to hit even the training schools, hitting boys just learning to fly. As the war dragged on, many of the old German veterans had been killed--so much of the experience was gone. As far as the 109 versus 190 argument, the 109 had the liquid-cooled engine whereas the 190 had an air-cooled radial engine, much like ours. One hit in the cooling system of a Messerschmitt and he was going down. Also, none of the German fighters were as rugged as a P-47. When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had twenty-one 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets. One nicked my nose and another entered my right leg, where the bullet split in half. I still have those two little pieces, by the way; they went in just under the skin. I had been hurt worse playing football and boxing. However, I had never been that scared, I'll tell you that. I was always scared--that was what made me move quick. "Hub" Zemke liked the P-51 because it had great range, but he put one in a dive and when he pulled out he ripped the wings off that airplane--that was how he became a POW. Adolf Galland, who was a very good friend of mine and who I had known since 1949, flew the Me-262 and loved it, but he still swore by the 109, although it was still easier to shoot down.

When his combat tours were finished, Johnson returned Stateside, to a hero's welcome.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:10 AM
Yes, It would be nice to see the P-47 take more damage. I remember my first day out with FB. Three P-47 kills in one pass!

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 03:47 PM
VOL_Jon wrote:
- Yes, It would be nice to see the P-47 take more
- damage. I remember my first day out with FB. Three
- P-47 kills in one pass!
-
-

me to!
I iust tried the P-47 online
much fun to fly but after three PKs in a row I feel saver in any other plane.

quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:15 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- vvs guns tear it apart in one swipe but the german
- guns it takes a beating from and still flies fine.
- Somethings very wrong here

Which guns? The VVS guns tend to have higher ROF
and muzzle velocity, so in some instances, that
difference might not be unfair (depending on the
extent of it). Given that the patch should be here
next week, everything may change anyway.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:18 PM
VOL_Jon wrote:
- KSS_XCrim_USA wrote:
-- In the entire history of military aviation, there
-- has never been an airplane that could match the P-47
-- Thunderbolt for ruggedness and dependability.
--
-
- Oh yhea? A-10 ThunderboltII "Warthog".
- Shoot it with cannons, hit it with a missile, knock
- an engine off, it keeps going!

Even in WW2 there were planes that could take more
damage. I am sure the B17, for example, could take more
hits, and the Mosquito might give it a run for its money.

It might be true to say about WW2 planes that no other
plane of its size or smaller could match the P47, and
that some larger planes were also not as rugged. The
Il2 must have come at least close, though, in terms
of size and ruggedness.





Message Edited on 07/28/0303:19PM by AaronGT

The_Blue_Devil
07-29-2003, 01:13 AM
One shot to the Ventral Radiator brings an IL2 to it's knees. 2,000 lbs of armour plate rendered useless when one round penetrates the little box on the bottom...Sound like its as rugged as a Jug? Nein Nein Nein Not taking anything away from the IL2..the Thunderbolt owes a lot of it's design properties to her..A La Titanium Bathtub. She could take huge hits to the underbelly ..barring a hit to the Rad. Even fly on with chuncks missing. However she just had that Achilles Heel that keeps her from being #1

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 07/29/0312:16AM by The_Blue_Devil

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:40 PM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
- One shot to the Ventral Radiator brings an IL2 to
- it's knees. 2,000 lbs of armour plate rendered
- useless when one round penetrates the little box on
- the bottom...Sound like its as rugged as a Jug?

One shot in the turbosupercharger cripples a P47.
Is this accurate, or a 'feature' of the sim (in both
cases)?

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 04:04 PM
AaronGT wrote:

- Even in WW2 there were planes that could take more
- damage. I am sure the B17, for example, could take
- more
- hits, and the Mosquito might give it a run for its
- money.

The Mossie was a special case. They came home with holes where cannon rounds passed right through the wood without exploding. There are people here who will claim that German cannon shells had contact fuses so sensitive that hitting paper set them off, but there's more pressure difference in the air shock wave between muzzle and 200m than that! Anyhow, the Mossie may pass most cannon shells without exploding but a 7mm would also put a hole right through at even moderate range. The biggest "armor" I've read of the Mossie was speed and the ability to avoid interceptors.
Of course if the cannon shell did hit the engine, fuel tank, controls, crew seats or other metal parts then I'd guess it would be one hurtin Mossie.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 05:45 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- The Mossie was a special case.

True, but if you say "X was better than all Y" then
if you find a counter example it destroys the argument.
The Mosquito is a special case, in the same way that
the P47, in also being rugged. is a special case.

The P47 was certainly tougher than average, and
probably one of the toughest planes of its size and
class.

(Before anyone jumps in, the phrase "The exception
proves the rule" is based on the archaic meaning
of prove as in to test, which is only really retained
in modern English in the terms of proving a gun.)

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 08:27 PM
My only contribution to this continuing argument.....
the pilots that flew her......

Harrison B. Tordoff, P-47 pilot, 353rd Fighter Group

We loved the P-47 for its toughness and reliability. It was heavy and looked cumbersome but in the hands of a good pilot it could turn and climb with an Me 109 or Fw 190. Nothing could outdive it. We had pilots bring back tree branches and tops of telephone poles in the wings of their '47s. A few even came home with top cylinders shot off. It could be belly landed in a forest, on an open field, it crash landed about as well as it landed on wheels. Pilots learned to appreciate that kind of toughness. The eight .50 caliber machine-guns were devastating on ground or air targets and the plane was a very stable gun platform. On the negative side, the '47 burned fuel at power at 450 gallons/hour. It only carried about 350 gallons internally. It got nose light in a stall and nose heavy in a dive. It had a very nasty spin, violent and hard to stop. I spun out of a slow turn at high altitude with full wing tanks once, by accident, while trying to keep in formation on a combat mission. It tore the wing tanks off and scared the hell out of me. But the general way I felt in a P-47 was invincible.

Harry J Hayduff, P-47 pilot, 78th Fighter Group

If the Hun is right on your tail, do something quick and violent. As one of our pilots once said when the first he was aware of a Hun were the tracers coming over his shoulder, "I put the stick in one corner and the rudder in the other. I don't know what happened but when I came out the Hun wasn't there any longer". If the Hun is in shooting range, always keep the ball going in each corner, never give him an opportunity to line up his sights. Remember this slows you up though.

James Finnegan. P-47 pilot, 50th Fighter Group
Finnegan describes shooting down Adolf Galland's Me 262 in April 1945

I was leading the top flight cover of P-47s that was escorting B-26s to their target. As I gazed down, I saw two objects come zipping through the formation and two bombers blew up immediately. I watched the two objects go through the bomber formation and thought "That can't be a prop job, it's got to be one of those 262 jets". I was at about 13,000 ft and estimated them to be at about 9-10,000. They were climbing and I pulled a split-S towards the one that turned left and almost ended up right on top of him, about 75 yards away. I gave a three second burst and saw strikes on the right hand engine and wing root. I was going so fast I went right through everything and guessed my speed at about 550 mph. I recorded it as a probable. I was flying a D-model Thunderbolt with a bubble canopy, a natural metal finish and a black nose. The Me 262 had a green and brown mottled camouflage with some specks of yellow. That turned out to be my last flight in a P-47. My kills for the war were an Me 109 and a Fw 190, in addition to the Me 262.

Adolf Galland, describing the same incident:

I was shot down by a Republic P-47D flown by a man named James Finnegan, whom I met some years later and we became friends. We were intercepting bombers near Neuberg. I was leading a flight and I attacked from astern. My rockets did not fire but I poured 30 mm cannon shells into one bomber which fell in flames and flew right through the formation, hitting another. I could not tell if that bomber was finished off, so I banked around for another run, all the while my jet was receiving hits from the bomber's defensive fire. Suddenly my instrument panel disintegrated, my canopy was shattered and my right knee was struck. I was losing power and was in great pain. I thought about parachuting out but realized that might be dangerous as some of our pilots had been strafed upon exiting their jets. I flew for the deck and headed for this field at the air base, which was under attack. I cut the power to my good engine and thumped across the field. My nose wheel had been flattened, smoke was pouring from the plane. I climbed out to get away in case it should explode, only to find aircraft dropping bombs and firing rockets at me. Well, our mission netted five victories total and none of the pilots were killed.

Gilbert C. Burns, P-47 pilot, 50th Fighter Group

My fifth combat mission changed my viewpoint on combat flying in many ways. The first four missions I had flown mechanically, the hands and feet flew the plane, the finger squeezed the trigger, doing automatically all the things I had been taught. But this mission got me thinking. I thought about killing. I had killed the rear gunner of an Me 110 by rote, very nonchalantly, like brushing my teeth. However, when I killed three flak gunners, I was acutely aware of what had happened; I had seen their bodies being blown apart and was keenly concerned that I had done something serious. I though about being wounded. I heard a pilot say on radio after he had pulled up from an airfield that he was hit in the knee and that he could not stop the blood from flowing. He wanted to bail out and hoped he could find a German doctor. From that day onward, during every mission I wore four loose tourniquets around my upper arms and thighs. I thought that if I was hit I could just take up on the tourniquets as they were already in place.

Erwin Miller, P-47 pilot, 4th Fighter Group

When we strapped into a Spitfire we felt snug and part of the aircraft. The Thunderbolt cockpit, on the other hand, was so large that we felt if we slipped off the god damned seat we could break a leg. We were horrified at the thought of going to war in such a machine. We had enough trouble with the Focke Wulfs in our nimble Spitfire Mk Vs. This lumbering monster seemed infinitely worse. Gradually however, we learned how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude she was a hot ship and very fast in a dive. If anyone thought to escape a Thunderbolt by diving we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deep into enemy territory where the action was. Reluctantly, we had to give up our little Spitires and convert to the new juggernauts. My heart remained with the Spitfire. The mere sight or sound of a Spitfire still brings deep feelings. She was such a gentle little airplane, without a trace of viciousness. She was a dream to handle in the air.

Enough said. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="LIGHT BLUE">~My at last i'm in compliance, Umm well Sorta Sig~
<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1053396877.jpg
<CENTER>Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<CENTER> <FONT COLOR="RED">

<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif
<CENTER> <FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!
<center> http://usaaf8th.il2skins.com/leadfan.jpg
<CENTER> <FONT COLOR="RED"> Leadspitter: IL-2 Fb's next Skinner of the year!

The_Blue_Devil
07-29-2003, 08:46 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- One shot in the turbosupercharger cripples a P47.
- Is this accurate, or a 'feature' of the sim (in both
- cases)?
-
-
In real life the IL2 was crippled easily in the manner described above..Hell Hartmann's IL2 kills were made in this way. A shot to the TurboSupercharger could in theory cripple a Jug...But it would not shut the bloody Engine down instantly like it does in FB. It is as big as a small washing machine, there would have to be tons of damage done for catastrophic faliure and shut down. I'd actually be surprised if a round made it through the armour and into the turbo super charger



<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 02:46 AM
AaronGT wrote:
- Even in WW2 there were planes that could take more
- damage. I am sure the B17, for example, could take
- more
- hits, and the Mosquito might give it a run for its
- money.

Nope, the A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" hold the title of hardest aircraft to kill. I'd like to see a B-17 take over 200+ 23mm cannon hits! Now add to that the multiple 57mm cannon hits that A-10 took.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 06:08 AM
S!

I thought this was a P47 thread.

I also thought this thread would pertain to how tough the 47 was in real life and hopefully how FB would realisticly represent that fact.

Some people need to remember that /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 06:38 AM
the trouble with extremely detailed models is that it's easy to miss or get some small details right. Add to that what happens when you have many such models all needing to be on the same standard of detail and correctness. How the I-16 has been is a big example of how that can go wrong. FB is a very big mouthfull for any company to chew. Perhaps with the patch we can swallow? Or I guess that some people will always choke or whatever no matter what.

I read a post on how the P47 T-S-charger can be stopped without stopping the engine, the engine will still breathe at whatever pressure the air is. Is there more info on that?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 09:08 PM
VOL_Jon wrote:
-
- AaronGT wrote:
-- Even in WW2 there were planes that could take more
-- damage. I am sure the B17, for example, could take
-- more
-- hits, and the Mosquito might give it a run for its
-- money.
-
- Nope, the A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" hold the
- title of hardest aircraft to kill.

I presumed the discussion was about the WW2 Thunderbolt
at this point.

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 12:51 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- I read a post on how the P47 T-S-charger can be
- stopped without stopping the engine, the engine will
- still breathe at whatever pressure the air is. Is
- there more info on that?
-
-
- Neal
-

Well, that is basicly what stopping a turbocharger does.

The Turbosupercharger system in the P-47 is actually composed of two parts, one is the Supercharger mounted directly behind the engine, I believe, and the second is the turbocharger, mounted in the little bulge under the tail.

Superchargers had a direct mechanical connection to the engine. Turbochargers, however, are only powered by the exhausts gasses of the engine; there is no mechanical connection at all. As a result, stopping the turbocharger only prevents the engine from receiving the air pressure it wants to recieve at a given altitude. Running at a reduced intake air pressure does not destroy an engine, otherwise it wouldn't be able to run at extremely high altitudes, or at reduced throttlew settings. (All the trottle controls is how much air is fed into the engine.)

In addition, at low altitude, the waste gates on the P-47 were completely open; the turbocharger stage was providing very little of the intake air compression. Most of the work was being done by the engine mounted supercharger, so at the altitudes we are fighting at, losing the turbocharger would cause barely a hicup in the aircraft's operation.

What would be noticable, however, would be the quicker drop off of power as the aircraft gained altitude. Just by compairing the P-47's critical altitude with other aircraft that used the R-2800 with weaker turbosupercharger set ups, the aircrat would have lost at least 10,000 feet of altitude capability, probably more. Considering how normally the aircraft had a maximum operating altitude of 40,000 ft, losing 10,000 or so was not a leathal failure.

What I strongly suspect is happening is that the P-47's rather unique and complex turbosupercharing system is being modeled as a single directly connected supercharger mounted under the tail. Considering how it it the only compound turbo-super-charged aircraft in the game, it would make sense that the game would not have built in support for turbochargers.

Now, a Supercharger failure is much more serious. Because a supercharger is directly connected to the engine, typically with a gearing system to massivly increase the blower's rmp, when a supercharger fails, the engine suddenly must contend with a jammed fan attached to its propeller shaft, that it is trying to spin at a considerable speed. Either the engine must stop rotating, the fan must start spinning, or the two must separate.

If the engine stops rotating, with fuel still flowing, and sparks still firing, you have a problem, soon to be confetti all over the inside of your cowling. If the impeller starts rotating, you now have a buzzsaw mounted in your engine compartment. The only hope for a reasonable resolution, is for the two to separate, either by physically breaking the linking gears and drive shafts, or by a built in slip drive. The German superchargers had the built in slip, so they were somewhat protected from a supercharger failure, however it was always possible for the slip drive to also fail, and jam the system. Breakign the linkage was also risky, because then you have the broken linkage to contend with.

Turbocharger failures are so much gentler, provided the impeller does not get loose of its housing.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 02:52 AM
What happened to the engineering practice of the weak link? One part breaks before another more critical part does?

If a supercharger jammed, the connecting shaft would snap before taking the full power of the engine. But I don't know the workings of the P-47 TS, just that by reputation I 'assume' the systems should have been fault-tolerant.

What I do wonder about is the air pathway. If the pathway is jammed to flow then what?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 06:19 AM
Any of you read "Thunderbolt the P-47" with Martin Caidin telling the story of Robert S. Johnson.

Book quote in chapter 18:

Jimmy Stewart took his flight down to strafe Lille airdome; it was a trap, and the moment the Thunderbolts came into sight of the field all hell erupted. Owens fighter took a flak burst in the fuel tanks; Stewart screamed wildly, "Bail out, bail out, your on fire!" A heartbroken Stewart chewed up the field in vicious fashion, running so close to the ground that he smashed into a telephone pole. It was impossible , it couldn't happen, but the Thunderbolt sheared the pole in two and Stewart came home with a jagged piece of the pole impaled in his wing.

Lots more great stuff in this book. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Message Edited on 08/01/0305:30AM by Charlie901

The_Blue_Devil
08-02-2003, 09:42 AM
I thought Jimmy Stewart flew bombers.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 09:09 PM
Yes, there was only 1 Jimmy Stewart in the USAF so where was he? A very uncommon name, that one with both James and Stewart. Perhaps a bit more uncommon than John Smith.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-03-2003, 12:11 AM
VOL_Jon wrote:
- Actually, the MI-24 Hind can be taken down with
- other weapons like a .50 caliber if shooting the
- right place. Trouble is if you miss the target then
- you get about a ton of hot lead shot back at you.
- The Stinger missiles are a bit light, but a single
- hit in the right place will down the chopper.
-
- I think the oil coolers are the weakpoints, but if
- you can't hit and kill with your first round from a
- .50 or Stinger, you had better attack it with
- something so big it dosen't matter where you hit.
-

Stingers take down Hinds jsut fine, the key is knowing when to shoot.

If you fire the Stinger, admittedly a light missile, the ideal shots are from the rear or the front of the Hind. If you make shots from the sides the missile, a heat seeker, is going to home on the engine exhausts, which are extensively armored, and do little if any damage.

If you fire from behind you are either going to shoot the missile up the exhaust pipe and blast an engine or hit the tail, one of the weaker points of the helicopter.

If you shoot from in front, you have a good chance of putting the warhead through the cockpit class or having it go into an engine intake, another disabling shot.

The key to remaining unnoticed by a helicopter crew is to stay still and not to use tracer ammo. You are much easier to spot in the open if you are moving, rather than just sitting behind some rocks with an HMG or a MANPADS.

XyZspineZyX
08-03-2003, 02:20 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- What happened to the engineering practice of the
- weak link? One part breaks before another more
- critical part does?
-
- If a supercharger jammed, the connecting shaft would
- snap before taking the full power of the engine.
- But I don't know the workings of the P-47 TS, just
- that by reputation I 'assume' the systems should
- have been fault-tolerant.
-
- What I do wonder about is the air pathway. If the
- pathway is jammed to flow then what?
-
-
- Neal
-

The weak link only works if the drive shaft is supposed to be under light loads. Driving something at 100,000 RPM is not a low power endeavor. There is going to be at least a few split seconds where the drive shaft is still connected to the engine, even with a very well designed weakpoint. There is also the fact that weakpoints in high power systems tend to be very hard to design.

Anyways, the point is that the P-47's Turbocharger stage does not have a direct connection to the engine. The worst it can do is freewheel loose. Granted, it can chop a large chunk out of the rear of the aircraft if it freewheels through enough of it, but that is rather unlikely, and does not cause an engine failure.

The P-47's Supercharger stage is mounted directly behind the engine, and it nearly impossible to hit without taking the front off of the aircraft.

As for blocking the air pathway on the Thunderbolt, notice that huge scoop under the engine's nose? That is the air intake. That plane has at least one to two square feet of air pathway that would have to be crushed in two separate tubes, before the engine would start being asphixiated, and you would have to actually crush the lines, rather than simply breaking them. The turbocharger's compressor does not block airflow in any way, even when stalled.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-03-2003, 02:34 AM
I was more thinking of the supercharger only. But if you'd have to kill the engine or a large part first then I guess it shouldn't be the cause of stopping after 1 or 2 MG hits.
The blockage or air drag I was thinking of would be from stopped compressors in the supercharger.
A 10,000 rpm blower isn't high power at all compared to the engine itself. Yeah you can make a shaft that would snap if the blower seized just by sizing the shaft down with a sharp 90 degree angle and minimal or no rounding while still maintaining extra strength for startup, which isn't instantly to full load in any case.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-03-2003, 10:12 AM
Its very silly that the i153 and i16 take more damage then the 190s and p47


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 05:29 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- I was more thinking of the supercharger only. But
- if you'd have to kill the engine or a large part
- first then I guess it shouldn't be the cause of
- stopping after 1 or 2 MG hits.
- The blockage or air drag I was thinking of would be
- from stopped compressors in the supercharger.
- A 10,000 rpm blower isn't high power at all compared
- to the engine itself. Yeah you can make a shaft
- that would snap if the blower seized just by sizing
- the shaft down with a sharp 90 degree angle and
- minimal or no rounding while still maintaining extra
- strength for startup, which isn't instantly to full
- load in any case.
-
-
- Neal
-

Then you have to mount the blower's driveshaft perpendiculare to the engine driveshaft. That's actually doable on inline engines; the Ju-213 had it's supercharger mounted that way, if I recall correctly. However, I have not seen any Allied mounting that were like that. The Allision and Pratt and Whitney engines had their supercharger mounted directly behind the engine, with the blower's drive shaft mounted parallel with the engine's driveshaft.

The supercharger on most aircraft engines is an integral part of the engine. Taking one out, without also having severe damage to the rest of the engine is akin to taking out a bank of cylinders without damaging any other component. It is possible, but highly unlikely

Also, we are talking about 100,000 rpm here, not 10,000, though that may have been a typo in your post. I am given to understand that a supercharger could consume 200-400 horsepower from the engine depending on how much compression it produced. The Pe-8 actually had a fifth engine mounted inside the fuselage dedicated to driving the aircraft's supercharging system. In the Merlin, modifying the supercharger for low altitude (i.e. low compression) added an additional 300 hp to the engine below the new supercharger's critical altitude without any other changes.

Finally, as for asphyxiating the engine by putting additional drag into the system's airflow, that is exactly what you do when you adjust the throttle. The engine's throttle only controls how much air is being fed to the engine. At zero throttle, the engine is being very nearly deprived of air. At full open throttle, the engine is being fed as much air as it can accept. Just putting a bank of jammed fans in the way of the engine's airflow is not going to destroy the engine, any more than pulling back on the throttle will. Besides, the fans don't block that much of the airflow when stopped.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 10:10 AM
I hope you guys picked up on what Robert S Johnson said on the day he got shot up. What other WW2 plane besides the P47 could withstand :

Twentyone 20mm cannon shells

More than 200 7.92mm machine gun bullets


"One hit in the cooling system of a Messerschmitt and he was going down. Also, none of the German fighters were as rugged as a P-47. When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had twenty-one 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets. One nicked my nose and another entered my right leg, where the bullet split in half. I still have those two little pieces, by the way; they went in just under the skin. I had been hurt worse playing football and boxing. However, I had never been that scared, I'll tell you that."


Let's see the P47 toughened up in FB.

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 11:52 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- Let's see the P47 toughened up in FB.
-
-

Maybe the work on this problem is what's causing the delay in the patch? Well I can dream, can't I? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

54LUT3!

"Fighter Aces don't win wars" -- el Zed

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 03:14 AM
I have read an interview Oleg did recently in Spain I think it was and hope that if he is travelling (another hope!) then the patch is in thorough testing and soon enough to be out.

BTW, Oleg had his arms around two gorgeous babes in tight t-shirts and bikini bottoms. That brunette... so hot! Flowers and candy for Mrs. Maddox, Oleg smiled very big, LOL! (just kidding Oleg! I know that was a photo-op! But you did enjoy it!)


Neal