Whistling Death

Maybe you guys have better eyes than me but the only damage I see on the plane is to the prop and the very front of the cowl.
If it were a belly landing there should have been more damage to the underside of the plane.


Wingspar, thanks a million for posting that link to the 57th Fighter group. Lots of wonderful photos there!

wingspar

My Feedback: (3)

Another interesting observation is that looking at all the various pics with sever prop damage show the plane where it came to rest. On the ground. This one is shown on it's gear.. Hummmmmm

jeff naul

My Feedback: (16)

I'm starting to agree that it was a belly landing, but I searched pictures of prop strikes last night and never found any with the tips bent forward... Not doubting that's not true, I just want to see it.

mike early

If the men say it hit the trees and kept flying, then it's time to believe it. Why would they lie? Look at the picture in awe and accept it.

Sport_Pilot

Also the lower blades are bent more than the upper, this is consistant with a belly landing. No way the engine could run 150 Miles with the lower blade bent in like that, in fact I think it might tear up the cowl if it had come around. This is an obvious hoax.

Sport_Pilot

Except maybe the A-10, if you want to consider that a fighter. But then the P-47 was used mostly as an attack plane anyway.

Sport_Pilot

Inboard pylons don't look right, looks like red clay on the outboard pylons, looks like something hinging from the belly of the plane, though the latter could be a crack in the ground behind it.

Whistling Death

Don't you know that guys sitting behind their computer 66 years after the fact know more about this than the guys that were actually there?

Sport_Pilot

I have seen planes that have clipped trees and the props didn't look near that bad. likely the event happened, but nobody took a picture ot the plane so they used this instead.

mike early

maybe it was a weather balloon

Whistling Death

Ball lightning?

Rebel Flyer

Is it possible the upon a normal landing, the pilot MIGHT have been a little too agressive on the brakes and almost nosed it over with the prop stopping it from going all the way to the cowl?

Is it at all possible that the ground crew might have done a little embelishment about when the Jug encured the damage?

Do you think that the pilot might have been a little embarrased to report a nose over on landing, or proud that he made it back from a very low pass from a great distance away?

Without a combat report from this pilot, it is simply speculation...

I also heard the one about a very low pass in a Jug that almost hit a German on the ground. The only way he was missed was that he went BETWEEN the blades of the prop...I supose it is mathematically possible.

Rebel

whstlngdeath

My Feedback: (15)

Here is the same discussion, only it's about a B-17...

http://www.warbirdinformationexchang...7127&view=next

They also talk about the forward-bent props...

Jesse

daleflysrc

My Feedback: (26)

The reason the P-47 did'nt have much damage from belly landing is because of the massive skid built into the belly pan of the jug !! It was to protect the turbo ducting back to the turbocharger which was behind the cockpit !! It was so effective in protecting the aircraft which had gear problems that most of the time it was jacked up, the gear pulled down, hydraulic lines replaced and a new prop installed and it was flying & fighting the next day !! www.rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

daleflysrc

My Feedback: (26)

To better understand how these Thunderbolts units operated try and find the History Channels " THUNDERBOLT " Conquest of the Third Reich !! It also follows the same group as the T-bolts pic in this forum !! some other reading !! Arthur B. or the pilot I refered to in my previous post flew in the 368th F.G. 396th F.S. " Thunder Bums " The 368th consisted of 3 Fighter squadrons Panzer Dusters, Thunder Bums & Jabo Angels !! They have a recent book out titled " NULLI SECUNDUS " Second To None The History of the 368th F.G. NULLI SECUNDUS is Latin for Second to None !! Its Arthor is Timothy M. Grace Also P-47 Thunderbolt at War by William N. Hess Kearby's Thunderbolts The 348th F.G. in WW II by John C. Stanaway & Beware the Thunderbolt !!! The 56th F.G. in W.W.II Stanaway !!

willig10

Hmmmmmmmm. B-17 with forward bent props as well. Did you read the forum on that one?

I still got my popcorn. Bent forward props are a sign of power. Again in a straffing run you are hauling butt. You are not at idle power and more than likely you are in a shallow power on dive associated with a steep pull up to either a split S or a Yo Yo to get the hell out of dodge.

Waiting............

Glenn Williams

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

bah! last time I checked. B-17's indirectly defeated the Luftwaffe. also, far more Fw190's & Bf109's
shot down P-47's then vica versa. thats a fact!

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

Thank you sir. My sentiments exactly.

willig10

You evere heard the phrase "Dont believe everything you read and only half of what you see"? THis is a prime example. That airplane was not flown under power back to a base PERIOD.

I would buy that the pilot did hit something and flew back, but the airplane pictured is not the one the act occured in.

Glenn

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

We didn't really land on the Moon either, right?[8D]

willig10

Ram:
I think at this point I have given you more than enough evidence and proof. The P-47 pictured has a type written sticker on it. Do I believe the story YES. I know many pilots have had similar experiences.

That said I also know that I have seen and worked on many planes that have had gear up landings.

I honestly can tell you that the P-47 that had the incident and the pilot that flew that bird back home was not the one shown in the picture.

Now it is your choice to believe what you will, I will do the same.

So I guess we can agree to disagree. At some point I believe if you do some research you will find that what I have said is correct. I do not mean to discredit you in anyway. I just want you to know that I have worked on many ariplanes in my career and have seen a ton of wierd things. But physics dont lie.

If you would like to try a real simple experiment. Next time you are in a swimming pool take your hand and make it as stiff as you can. Turn your hand the way a propellor would be angled, now forcefully slam your stiff hand into the pool. You will notice if done properly it will go forward. Now take your hand and holding it in the water and move your body forward, the water will pull your hand towards your body.

In essence the the air that the propellor is using to pull the airplane along is the same principle. When a propellor strikes anything under power the tip and subsequent blades that touch anything solid move forward. It cannot move back due to the kinetic force and aerodynamic shape of the prop. However at idle or dead stick the inertia on the propellor is very low and that is the only time a propellor will be bent backwards towards the tail.

Again, I do believe the story happened. I just do not believe that it happened in the airplane that is pictured.

Glenn Williams



Glenn Williams

mike early

maybe.... it is the same plane and when he landed he had another incident.

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

Bending stresses are induced by the trust forces. These stresses tend to bend the blade
forward as the airplane is moved through the air by the propeller.

pic below you can clearly see the tips of the blades are curved foward. proof bar none.

Whistling Death

God please let this thread die...........

wingspar

My Feedback: (3)

No, let it live.

God