Full Version: P-47 vs F4U
Which would you consider to be the better ground attack a/c, and why?
F4U could bring in lot heavier bomb load. Other than that, about equal.
Bomb load was about the same. P-47 could take more damage and survive.
QUOTE(JWB @ Sat 28 Mar 2009 1824) 
Bomb load was about the same. P-47 could take more damage and survive.
Based on what?
Based on there being a lot more of it?
Personally I'd take the Corsair, if only because I suspect it would have been handier down low and dirty, the Jug's reputation and a turn and burn fighter being what it is
shane
Personally I'd take the Corsair, if only because I suspect it would have been handier down low and dirty, the Jug's reputation and a turn and burn fighter being what it is
shane
It would be tough to do an effective job of a ground attack mission against Chichi Jima in a P47.
-Mark 1
-Mark 1
QUOTE(Sardaukar @ Sat 28 Mar 2009 1741)
Based on what?
There is no direct comparison of large scale operations of F4U's and P-47's right alongside each other. But, USN statistics for side by side operation of F4U's and F6F's from carriers in 1945 showed a markedly higher loss rate to AA fire for the F4U*. One reason was the F4U's oil system with relatively long oil lines to the coolers in the wing roots. The F4U also had a poor reputation for groundfire vulnerability in Korea in the naval services, and the oil cooler issue was often pointed to. The AU-1, purpose built attack version used by USMC in Korea in 1952-3 and later by the French in Indochina, had the cooler placed behind the engine, and underside of cowling armored. The F4U-7 purpose built for the French retained that arrangement.
*Naval Aviation Combat Statistics-WWII, table 29, 26% of F6F's hit by AA were lost v. 41% of F4U's, and 24% of FM's. F6F's were slightly more likely to be hit, so the sortie loss rates to AA, on sorties meeting AA, were 1.4%, 2.3% and 1.2%. This was for 1945 carrier ops, the only really comparable situation of F4U and F6F operations. Prior to '45 virtually all F4U ops were land based, and a more seriously damaged a/c could land safely at a land base than on a carrier, and be eventually repaired rather than be pushed overboard to make room for a replacement.
Joe
QUOTE(Mk 1 @ Sat 28 Mar 2009 1334)
It would be tough to do an effective job of a ground attack mission against Chichi Jima in a P47.
-Mark 1
-Mark 1
Why's that, Mark 1? At 150 miles from Iwo, it's well within the P-47's combat radius, if we're talking about post-Iwo Jima strikes. In a late-war comparison, the P-47N had a lot more range than the F4U-4, which somewhat makes up for the lack of carrier capability, depending on what the mission is.
I've heard that the F4U oil coolers were vulnerable to ground fire, as Joe Brennan has noted. Both the P-47 and F4U used the R-2800, which has a reputation as a very durable engine. The P-47 is turbosupercharged, while the F4U was mechanically supercharged. But not a whole lot to choose from in terms of low altitude performance, reliability, or damage tolerance.
The P-47 does have (8) .50cal vs (6) for the F4U, although some F4Us were fitted with (4) 20mm cannon--although the cannon was apparently not preferred over the MGs. Additionally, in comparing the later models, didn't the P-47N have the M3, with a much higher ROF than the M2 in the earlier models & F4U-4? I think the F4U carried fewer rounds per gun, but possibly offsets this with a higher maximum bomb load?
QUOTE(From Joe Baugher's article on the P-47N)
Performance of the P-47N-5-RE included a maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 800 miles at 10,000 feet. Armanent included six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and two 1000-lb or three 500-lb bombs or ten 5-inch rockets. Weights were 11,000 pounds empty, 16,300 pounds normal loaded, and 20,700 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 42 feet 7 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 322 square feet.
" target="_blank">http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html+-->
QUOTE(From http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html)
Chance Vought's F4U-4 came about as a development of the F4U-4XA, which was first flown in early April 1944. It was fitted with an up-rated Pratt & Whitney R2800-18W or -42W engine. This powerplant developed 2,450 bhp with water injection. It was also fitted with a four blade hydromatic propeller which provided the necessary efficiency to utilize the greater power. The carburetor inlet was moved from the wing root leading edge to a duct located under the engine. The exhaust stacks had to be re-routed as a result. Armament remained the same as the F4U-1, with six .50 caliber Browning MGs. The limited production F4U-4B was armed with four M3 20mm cannon. Under-wing load capability was substantial. Up to three 1,000 lb. bombs along with eight 5 inch rockets could be carried. Reportedly, it was not unusual to rig the F4U-4 with as much as 6,000 lbs of ordnance. Apparently the robust structure of the Corsair could bear these loads without undue wear and tear on the airframe. Almost certainly, such overloaded Corsairs did not operate from carrier decks, but exclusively from shore bases.
Let’s compare the F4U-4 to its earlier sibling, the F4U-1 so that we can clearly see the improvements made.
Maximum speed:
F4U-1: 417 mph @ 19,900 ft.
F4U-4: 446 mph @ 26,200 ft.
The -4 displays a 29 mph speed advantage, but more importantly, does it at a considerably greater altitude. The F4U-4 is actually 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the Mustang’s best altitude.
Rate of climb:
F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.
While the -4 has a more powerful engine, it also weighs more than the F4U-1. This marked increase in climb rate can be attributed to the more efficient 4 blade propeller as well as the higher power of the up-rated powerplant. The increase moves the Corsair into stellar company with fighters such as the P-38L and the F7F Tigercat. The F4U-4 climbs at a rate 20% better than the P-51D.
There is little doubt that the Corsair was likely the greatest load carrying fighter of its era. There is little to compare to it except perhaps late-war models of the P-47, which still fall somewhat short in maximum load.
Let’s compare the F4U-4 to its earlier sibling, the F4U-1 so that we can clearly see the improvements made.
Maximum speed:
F4U-1: 417 mph @ 19,900 ft.
F4U-4: 446 mph @ 26,200 ft.
The -4 displays a 29 mph speed advantage, but more importantly, does it at a considerably greater altitude. The F4U-4 is actually 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the Mustang’s best altitude.
Rate of climb:
F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.
While the -4 has a more powerful engine, it also weighs more than the F4U-1. This marked increase in climb rate can be attributed to the more efficient 4 blade propeller as well as the higher power of the up-rated powerplant. The increase moves the Corsair into stellar company with fighters such as the P-38L and the F7F Tigercat. The F4U-4 climbs at a rate 20% better than the P-51D.
There is little doubt that the Corsair was likely the greatest load carrying fighter of its era. There is little to compare to it except perhaps late-war models of the P-47, which still fall somewhat short in maximum load.
Most of the comparisons in the article on the F4U-4 are against the P-51, with occasional number for the P-47D. Also, the analysis is lacking in factual information on the P-47 and nothing at all for the later versions of the P-47. The article also states that the AF considered the Corsair to have a more rugged airframe, but no supporting details.
I'd say that it'd be pretty much a wash.
Douglas
The Corsair question that has always daunted me doesn't involve ground attack. With the low opinion that the USN had of the F4U early in the war, why didn't a bunch of those birds wind up in Europe escorting 8AF bombers as part of the USAAF? Were the 2 pursuit designations that were never used perhaps reserved for the Corsair and the Hellcat, just in case...
QUOTE(ta192 @ Sat 28 Mar 2009 1502)
The Corsair question that has always daunted me doesn't involve ground attack. With the low opinion that the USN had of the F4U early in the war, why didn't a bunch of those birds wind up in Europe escorting 8AF bombers as part of the USAAF? Were the 2 pursuit designations that were never used perhaps reserved for the Corsair and the Hellcat, just in case...
What two pursuit designations? Edit: P-73 & -74? That'd put them after the place occupied by the AF version of the F7F (P-65), which wouldn't seem to fit the timeline. Most references state that -73 and -74 were skipped as a political move by Fisher to nab -75 for their Eagle.
Douglas
And I was in impression that F4U could haul 2 x 2000lbs and drop tank in a pinch.
Thanks Ol Paint and Joe B.
Is there any info available on P-47 ground attack operations in the SEA area?
Is there any info available on P-47 ground attack operations in the SEA area?
If digging japanese troops off Okinawa:
I'd prefer a Marine F4U-4 to an Air Force P-47N , sod the stats. (Which dont show different tactics, bombing heights etc etc )
I'd prefer a Marine F4U-4 to an Air Force P-47N , sod the stats. (Which dont show different tactics, bombing heights etc etc )
Not to mention P-47N was not that common...
At close to 1,700 P-47Ns built vs. a little 2,100 F4U-4s (including post-war production of the Corsair), it's a pretty even match given dates of service and number of aircraft built. We could also do comparisons with earlier variants of both aircraft, but I picked the -47N and -4 since the subject of Chichijima raids was raised.
I have seen reference to P-47s carrying 2x1,000lb + 1x500lb bomb & heftier loads for the F4U. WWII really seemed to be a war where the bomb load was determined by what ground crews could strap on and how long the runway was.
Apparently there was a joke that went "How much runway does a P-47 need to take off?" Answer: "All of it." Republic went on to build other ground-loving airplanes like the F-84 and F-105 until the claim was made that, if anyone ever built a runway that circled the globe, Republic would build a plane that needed every inch of it. Doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, but it's funny.
Douglas
[Edited for doubling.]
I have seen reference to P-47s carrying 2x1,000lb + 1x500lb bomb & heftier loads for the F4U. WWII really seemed to be a war where the bomb load was determined by what ground crews could strap on and how long the runway was.
Apparently there was a joke that went "How much runway does a P-47 need to take off?" Answer: "All of it." Republic went on to build other ground-loving airplanes like the F-84 and F-105 until the claim was made that, if anyone ever built a runway that circled the globe, Republic would build a plane that needed every inch of it. Doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, but it's funny.Douglas
[Edited for doubling.]
QUOTE(Ol Paint @ Sun 29 Mar 2009 0020)
At close to 1,700 P-47Ns built vs. a little 2,100 F4U-4s (including post-war production of the Corsair), it's a pretty even match given dates of service and number of aircraft built. We could also do comparisons with earlier variants of both aircraft, but I picked the -47N and -4 since the subject of Chichijima raids was raised.
I have seen reference to P-47s carrying 2x1,000lb + 1x500lb bomb & heftier loads for the F4U. WWII really seemed to be a war where the bomb load was determined by what ground crews could strap on and how long the runway was. Apparently there was a joke that went "How much runway does a P-47 need to take off?" Answer: "All of it." Republic went on to build other ground-loving airplanes like the F-84 and F-105 until the claim was made that, if anyone ever built a runway that circled the globe, Republic would build a plane that needed every inch of it. Doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, but it's funny.
Douglas
[Edited for doubling.]
I have seen reference to P-47s carrying 2x1,000lb + 1x500lb bomb & heftier loads for the F4U. WWII really seemed to be a war where the bomb load was determined by what ground crews could strap on and how long the runway was.
Apparently there was a joke that went "How much runway does a P-47 need to take off?" Answer: "All of it." Republic went on to build other ground-loving airplanes like the F-84 and F-105 until the claim was made that, if anyone ever built a runway that circled the globe, Republic would build a plane that needed every inch of it. Doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, but it's funny.Douglas
[Edited for doubling.]
The long take-off rolls of Republic aircraft is where the various "Hog" nicknames came from; "Ground Hog, Super Hog, Ultra Hog", etc. I don't remember which name went to what airplane, though "Wart Hog" for the A-10 was not reflective of its take-off performance. "Wart Hog" was an homage to the earlier Republic aircraft, as well as the ugliness of the A-10.
QUOTE(shep854 @ Sat 28 Mar 2009 2048)
The long take-off rolls of Republic aircraft is where the various "Hog" nicknames came from; "Ground Hog, Super Hog, Ultra Hog", etc. I don't remember which name went to what airplane, though "Wart Hog" for the A-10 was not reflective of its take-off performance. "Wart Hog" was an homage to the earlier Republic aircraft, as well as the ugliness of the A-10.
Ultra Hog was the F-105, along with "Thud." Super Hog was, I think, the F-84F (also sometimes referred to as "bent-wing Thunder-hog" in at least one instance I ran across some time back). I think the Ground Hog or just plain Hog was the P-84/F-84 of the straight-wing variety. Both the F-84 and F-105 were also referred to as "Lead Sled," but that's a moniker shared by a number of other aircraft. And there was also the Thunderscreech/Thundershriek--XF-84H.
http://web.mit.edu/btyung/www/nickname.html Partial list of names that certainly isn't all inclusive. I do like "Thunder Piglet." Predictably, a Republic product.
The Grumman Iron Works managed to get off with a set of "cat" names, although they shared a rep for building tough airplanes. Their products didn't have the propensity (or the luxury) of loving the ground, though. The overrun from a carrier is mighty short...
Douglas
QUOTE(Jeffro @ Sat 28 Mar 2009 2234)
I'd prefer a Marine F4U-4 to an Air Force P-47N , sod the stats. (Which dont show different tactics, bombing heights etc etc )
The only loss stats presented were by me about F4U v F6F, and that's directly apples to apples, same operations same period same or similar air arm (USMC and USN F4U units, USN F6F units but carrier ops only). The F4U had a notably higher loss rate to groundfire.
And even if one is of the persuasion where all stats are automatically suspect and never prove anything, the F4U in Korea acquired a definite anecdotal reputation of having a glass jaw in the ground strike role. In that case the comparison was perhaps not as fair. It was being compared among naval types to the legendarily tough AD and to jets which were harder to hit; still it didn't have a good reputation for survivability.
The AU IMO was an excellent strike a/c, among a/c designed around the R-2800. It was no longer an all around fighter, but wasn't expected to be and addressed the F4U vulnerability issue while increasing bombload. The earlier F4U's were great WWII fighters but not great strike a/c because of the vulnerability problem. In reality a lot of fighter bomber ops were distracting and harassing the enemy and keeping his head down, not dealing great destruction on every mission as aviators liked to think; being able to come back and do it again and again without racking up excessive losses, was very important.
On practical combat loads, USMC ops reports in Korea show that F4U-4/4B's usually carried 2*1000# and several rockets, or equivalent (ie. substituting napalm cannisters weighing 780# for a 1000#, and sometimes few 100#'ers instead of rockets) from land bases in SK, sometimes lightened up with 500# instead in ops from CVE/CVL's, seldom heavier loads. A common standard load of AU's became 3*1000# plus pair of 250#, though many variations (like 5*500# plus some 100's). I doubt that practical P-47 loads differed much from F4U-4.
Joe
QUOTE(shep854 @ Sun 29 Mar 2009 0248)
as well as the ugliness of the A-10.
I never understood that part.
IMO the A-10 is a pretty neat looking airplane. QUOTE(shep854 @ Sun 29 Mar 2009 0148)
The long take-off rolls of Republic aircraft is where the various "Hog" nicknames came from; "Ground Hog, Super Hog, Ultra Hog", etc. I don't remember which name went to what airplane, though "Wart Hog" for the A-10 was not reflective of its take-off performance. "Wart Hog" was an homage to the earlier Republic aircraft, as well as the ugliness of the A-10.
The P-47 was nicknamed "Jug" short for "Juggernaut."
I believe the RAF Thunderbolts in SE Asia were effective and well-thought-of, but I have no specific data.
QUOTE(KingSargent @ Mon 30 Mar 2009 0049)
The P-47 was nicknamed "Jug" short for "Juggernaut."
I believe the RAF Thunderbolts in SE Asia were effective and well-thought-of, but I have no specific data.
I believe the RAF Thunderbolts in SE Asia were effective and well-thought-of, but I have no specific data.
Another story for "Jug" was that the fuselage resembled a big milk jug. The joke went, that if enemy fire got too bad, the pilot could jump out of his seat and run around in the fuselage to dodge bullets.
"I never understood that part. huh.gif IMO the A-10 is a pretty neat looking airplane."--Red Ant
Yeah, it's pretty neat, but that don't make it "pretty". Granted, if I were pinned down and an A-10 was rolling in to deliver CAS, it would be the loveliest, most graceful, most beautiful thing this side of the angels!
I would add that P-47 was a far easier aircraft to fly, with better visibility. Corsair had some nasty stall characteristics and was not very suitable to green pilots.
Are these statistics available in the internet?
QUOTE
*Naval Aviation Combat Statistics-WWII, table 29, 26% of F6F's hit by AA were lost v. 41% of F4U's, and 24% of FM's. F6F's were slightly more likely to be hit, so the sortie loss rates to AA, on sorties meeting AA, were 1.4%, 2.3% and 1.2%.
Are these statistics available in the internet?
P-47's had the ability to dive attack targets like bridges (probably a shallow dive like 30-45°, I don't recall the angle).
The loss rate of P-47's was extremely low, it was able to use 2x 1,000 lbs bombs or some heavy rockets and had a superior gun armament (simply 33% more).
The P-47D's cockpit was well-suited for all-round observation, an important consideration for a ground attack plane as these expose themselves to attacks from above frequently (only few interceptor Corsairs had a similar canopy).
I'm not sure about the range, maybe that would give the F4U the edge on some missions.
The loss rate of P-47's was extremely low, it was able to use 2x 1,000 lbs bombs or some heavy rockets and had a superior gun armament (simply 33% more).
The P-47D's cockpit was well-suited for all-round observation, an important consideration for a ground attack plane as these expose themselves to attacks from above frequently (only few interceptor Corsairs had a similar canopy).
I'm not sure about the range, maybe that would give the F4U the edge on some missions.
QUOTE(Red Ant @ Sun 29 Mar 2009 1643)
I never understood that part. IMO the A-10 is a pretty neat looking airplane.
IMO the A-10 is a pretty neat looking airplane.I think the "ugly" is in the eyes of many fighter pilots. It's not streamlined, the engines are out on pods, tails out on the end of stabilizers like an old bomber...
BTW, at the Hill Aerospace Museum at Hill AFB in Utah, they have an A-10 with gun in and another GAU-8 sitting next to it. The old cliche about the A-10 being a plane built around a gun isn't far from the truth.
QUOTE(lastdingo @ Thu 2 Apr 2009 1827)
P-47's had the ability to dive attack targets like bridges (probably a shallow dive like 30-45°, I don't recall the angle).
Supposedly the F4U could be dived up to an angle of 85 degrees.
QUOTE(aevans @ Thu 2 Apr 2009 1358)
I think the "ugly" is in the eyes of many fighter pilots. It's not streamlined, the engines are out on pods, tails out on the end of stabilizers like an old bomber...
BTW, at the Hill Aerospace Museum at Hill AFB in Utah, they have an A-10 with gun in and another GAU-8 sitting next to it. The old cliche about the A-10 being a plane built around a gun isn't far from the truth.
BTW, at the Hill Aerospace Museum at Hill AFB in Utah, they have an A-10 with gun in and another GAU-8 sitting next to it. The old cliche about the A-10 being a plane built around a gun isn't far from the truth.
The A-10 is a perfect example of "form follows function". After being designed around the GAU-8, everything else was put together with damage tolerance in mind. For example, the engines are on pods for ease of function, as well as isolating damage. The twin tails shield the IR signature of the engines' exhaust, as well as provide redundancy. The main wheels protrude to minimize damage if a gear-up landing is necessary. I culd go on nad on...
As far as the gun, if you look at a picture of the A-10 on the ground from straight ahead, you will see that the nose gear is offset to the left, so that the firing barrel will be exactly on the aircraft centerline. When working with an internal weapon system as big as a car, you can't just tack it in as an afterthought.
Aesthetically , it's still ugly, tho. From a functional POV, it's a work of art!
The airliner like planform of the Hog gave it odd handling characteristics. The test pilots who flew the prototypes complained that it was "No better than stuka". 
QUOTE(KingSargent @ Mon 30 Mar 2009 0149)
The P-47 was nicknamed "Jug" short for "Juggernaut."
I believe the RAF Thunderbolts in SE Asia were effective and well-thought-of, but I have no specific data.
I believe the RAF Thunderbolts in SE Asia were effective and well-thought-of, but I have no specific data.
The company secretary at the first firm I worked for had flown P-47s with the RAF in India/Burma. He'd come from Spitfires which were a lot more cramped. He said a standing joke was that, in a P-47, you could take evasive action by releasing your harness and running around the cockpit.
QUOTE(JWB @ Thu 2 Apr 2009 2140)
The airliner like planform of the Hog gave it odd handling characteristics. The test pilots who flew the prototypes complained that it was "No better than stuka".
The test pilots must have been fighter jocks
*. I don't know how they could have made that comparison, unless the Air Force has a JU-87 or two squirreled away somewhere, but given the mission, that's a pretty good complement.*Since then, the A-10 has been one of the most sought-after assignment in the Air Force.
QUOTE(shep854 @ Mon 30 Mar 2009 0153)
Another story for "Jug" was that the fuselage resembled a big milk jug. The joke went, that if enemy fire got too bad, the pilot could jump out of his seat and run around in the fuselage to dodge bullets.
....
....
I'll have to recheck the book, but ace Robert Johnson in his WWII memoir Thunderbolt said something to that effect, that it was the shape; much the same as the Spanish pilot that christening their I-15 fighters the "Chato" [equivalent to a shot glass] in the SCW.
QUOTE(Ken Estes @ Fri 3 Apr 2009 1804)
I'll have to recheck the book, but ace Robert Johnson in his WWII memoir Thunderbolt said something to that effect, that it was the shape; much the same as the Spanish pilot that christening their I-15 fighters the "Chato" [equivalent to a shot glass] in the SCW.
Yeah, that was the title that seemed to be whispering through the static of years passed...
QUOTE(JOE BRENNAN @ Sat 28 Mar 2009 1525)
There is no direct comparison of large scale operations of F4U's and P-47's right alongside each other. But, USN statistics for side by side operation of F4U's and F6F's from carriers in 1945 showed a markedly higher loss rate to AA fire for the F4U*.
...
*Naval Aviation Combat Statistics-WWII, table 29, 26% of F6F's hit by AA were lost v. 41% of F4U's, and 24% of FM's. F6F's were slightly more likely to be hit, so the sortie loss rates to AA, on sorties meeting AA, were 1.4%, 2.3% and 1.2%. This was for 1945 carrier ops, the only really comparable situation of F4U and F6F operations. Prior to '45 virtually all F4U ops were land based, and a more seriously damaged a/c could land safely at a land base than on a carrier, and be eventually repaired rather than be pushed overboard to make room for a replacement.
...
*Naval Aviation Combat Statistics-WWII, table 29, 26% of F6F's hit by AA were lost v. 41% of F4U's, and 24% of FM's. F6F's were slightly more likely to be hit, so the sortie loss rates to AA, on sorties meeting AA, were 1.4%, 2.3% and 1.2%. This was for 1945 carrier ops, the only really comparable situation of F4U and F6F operations. Prior to '45 virtually all F4U ops were land based, and a more seriously damaged a/c could land safely at a land base than on a carrier, and be eventually repaired rather than be pushed overboard to make room for a replacement.
Given the amount of engineering cross-pollination between Long Island-based Grumman and Seversky/Republic, I'd argue that the F6F is an acceptable stand-in for the P-47 in such comparisons.
--Garth
QUOTE(shep854 @ Thu 2 Apr 2009 1549)
The main wheels protrude to minimize damage if a gear-up landing is necessary. I culd go on nad on...
Also makes the aircraft easier to chock:
QUOTE(Garth @ Sat 4 Apr 2009 1835)
Also makes the aircraft easier to chock:
Military humor, ya gotta love it!
I don't see damage from that angle--I hope the pilot did not forget something...There's a saying in aviation; "There are two types of pilots: Those who have landed gear-up, and those who will."
BTW, didja notice how the 30mm was slammed forward, out of its mounting?
On super zoom I notice it has been mangled.
Deleted for saying nothing.
QUOTE(Ken Estes @ Sat 4 Apr 2009 0104)
I'll have to recheck the book, but ace Robert Johnson in his WWII memoir Thunderbolt said something to that effect, that it was the shape; much the same as the Spanish pilot that christening their I-15 fighters the "Chato" [equivalent to a shot glass] in the SCW.
Curious. I always thunk that the nickname "Chato" was put because of the snub-noseness of the plane.
See http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?T...&LEMA=chato
QUOTE(sunday @ Mon 6 Apr 2009 0832)
Curious. I always thunk that the nickname "Chato" was put because of the snub-noseness of the plane.
That's what I mean, the shape.
QUOTE(JWB @ Sun 5 Apr 2009 0214)
On super zoom I notice it has been mangled.
Upon further thought, the gun damage may have been internal (some sort of ammo detonation, like a cook-off?), blowing the barrel assembly forward and likely disabling the nose landing gear, with a precautionary gear-up landing following.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.