Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
56RAF_Roblex

Is the level of prop damage OTT?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

There have been a few people posting instances of propellers being wrecked and I have suffered it myself a few times and I wonder now if it is entirely authentic. Every real life ace will tell you 'Get in close before shooting' but would they say that if there was such a big chance of losing your engine instantly? Other flight sims in the past had the ability to get a 'damaged' prop which just meant having to reduce the revs right back and limp home. I remember way back with 'Fighter Squadron: Screaming Demons Over Europe' if your prop got hit by light debris then the engine started to run very rough and vibrate and if you were not very careful getting home it would shake enough to damage the engine and cause an oil leak then eventually shake itself to destruction. Fair enough when hit  by an undercarriage leg but I wonder, would a rudder or aileron actually bend the props flat and kill the engine instantly?   I don't know; I am just wondering if anyone else knows.

I did find one reference that might be relevant

 

Quote

 

On 11 November 1940, Flight Lieutenant Howard Peter Blatchford (Canadian) of No. 257 Squadron RAF used the propeller of his Hawker Hurricane to attack a Fiat CR.42 near Harwich, England. Blatchford had used up his ammunition during a mêlée with Italian fighters, and upon returning to base discovered two of his propeller blades missing nine inches. 

 

 

and another which seems to show that yes a tail can bend the props back but even with two props bent back it might still fly well enough to fight on a bit longer.  Not sure if this describes one or two collisions and whether the second one involved the prop.   Bullshit?

 

Quote

 

Getting within 20 feet of the enemy plane, Klingman struggled through the Nick’s prop wash to catch up. Realizing he wouldn’t be able to reach from directly behind the Nick, he nosed over, ramming the tail of the Nick with his Corsair’s propeller.

“I only had enough extra speed to chew off some of his rudder and elevator before being blown away,” Klingman said. “Since he was still flying, I climbed above him for a second run. I nosed down and I pulled out too soon and only got some of his rudder and part of the top of the rear canopy. At this time I remember seeing the rear seat gunner frantically looking around and trying to operate his machine gun. I imagine at this altitude he was probably freezing to death.”

Realizing it was time for the finishing blow, Klingman climbed above the Nate, chopping the right side of the Japanese plane and causing both planes to go into a spin.

Spiralling out of control, Klingman regained command of his aircraft after dropping 1,000 feet.

As Klingman regained control, Reusser joined him just in time to watch the Nick disintegrate in the sky. “Ken was alongside me by then,” recalled Klingman. “We both observed the enemy plane in a spin with both wings coming off at about 15,000 feet.”

Klingman’s plane was shaking so badly that his instruments were unreadable. Running low on fuel and unable to determine his direction, Klingman relied on Reusser to guide him home.

Then, the battered Corsair ran out of steam. “About 10,000 feet, I ran out of fuel, but thought I could still make the field”, Klingman remembered. “I remember Ken said he thought I had better bail out. I felt I was in good enough shape that a wheels-up landing was not necessary. This was almost a costly mistake as I was surprised at the loss of altitude when I put my gear and flaps down.”

Reusser raced ahead and landed in time to watch Bob come in. Though out of gas, his luck held and Klingman’s plane hit the ground, bouncing down the runway. Officers and enlisted crowded around the Corsair. The F4U was peppered with pieces of the Nick stuck in the engine cowling, bullet holes in one wing and six inches of one propeller blade missing. The other two blades were bent back almost to the cowling.

 

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low%25252520flying%252525201.jpg&f=1

 

This plane struck the ground during a strafing run and still managed to fly home. If you were looking for proof propeller damage in IL-2 is exaggerated by several orders of magnitude, look no further.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

 

This plane struck the ground during a strafing run and still managed to fly home. If you were looking for proof propeller damage in IL-2 is exaggerated by several orders of magnitude, look no further.

 

I don't believe this. Do you have a primary source to back it up?

It appears far more likely to me that this was a landing or takeoff incident where the plane ended up in a partial nose down position on the runway. Perhaps someone was too heavy on the breaks.

 

At the speeds that prop would need to run at to make enough thrust like that, the engine would shake out of it's mounts.

 

I suspect the strafing story has been apocryphally added afterwards, but I welcome being proved wrong.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Props hit the water during low-level flight. Ju 88 shrugged it off and came home...

Junkers-Ju-88A-1.(F)123-(4U+SV)-after-a-

 

Unless there's some damaging dissymmetry that would shake-loose connetions, lines and gaskets, there's no reason why a struck prop should kill the engine instantly.

There might be some damage and the engine will probably have to be replaced, but chances are you can make it home or at least across the frontline.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I don't believe this. Do you have a primary source to back it up?

It appears far more likely to me that this was a landing or takeoff incident where the plane ended up in a partial nose down position on the runway. Perhaps someone was too heavy on the breaks.

 

At the speeds that prop would need to run at to make enough thrust like that, the engine would shake out of it's mounts.

Personal experience from acft accident investigation. T-34B made gear up approach to within inches of runway before realizing gear was retracted and executed wave off. After safe landing from next approach and acft inspection six inches of prop were bent backwards and the bottom anti collision light outer cover was broken but underside of the fuselage showed no damage - no paint scrapes, scratches, dents - nothing. Lucky bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have the source but I read the story attatched to the picture. And if that story dont lie it is correct. 

I can get it that it flew. As long as the propellers still get adequate propulsion  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I don't believe this. Do you have a primary source to back it up?

It appears far more likely to me that this was a landing or takeoff incident where the plane ended up in a partial nose down position on the runway. Perhaps someone was too heavy on the breaks.

 

At the speeds that prop would need to run at to make enough thrust like that, the engine would shake out of it's mounts.

 

I suspect the strafing story has been apocryphally added afterwards, but I welcome being proved wrong.

 

Two stories about the P-47's toughness in here, one the abovementioned prop damage, the other running headlong into a bunch of trees:

 

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/325/language/en-CA/Lower-than-a-Snakes-Belly-in-a-Wagon-Rut.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that many times when your prop takes damage the game is also assigning damage points to your engine: certainly if your prop disc is hit by a cannon shell. 

 

Someone would have to test these low flying damage effects directly to be sure that it is only prop damage.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's that good old video of some gramps bellying in his Aerostar, striking his props, taking it around and then flying some additional 100 miles before he eventually lands.

 

Video:

 

 

Daily Fail article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3051973/Plane-touches-without-deploying-landing-gear-skids-runway-belly.html

 

Post landing picture:

RzagTxjPkhWSvzqOUtvPgW1vcEteX9ZTJO0RlMKT

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Two stories about the P-47's toughness in here, one the abovementioned prop damage, the other running headlong into a bunch of trees:

 

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/325/language/en-CA/Lower-than-a-Snakes-Belly-in-a-Wagon-Rut.aspx

 

Good enough for me! I was wrong.

 

1 minute ago, LuseKofte said:

But I believe these incidents are rear and not the rule

 

We never hear about all the planes that took light prop damage and didn't make it home because they either didn't make it home or never got to inspect the plane after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

We never hear about all the planes that took light prop damage and didn't make it home because they either didn't make it home or never got to inspect the plane after.

Also I found multiple explanations on same picture on different sites.

I find interweb very unreliable if one are after facts 

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PainGod85 said:

Low%25252520flying%252525201.jpg&f=1

 

This plane struck the ground during a strafing run and still managed to fly home. If you were looking for proof propeller damage in IL-2 is exaggerated by several orders of magnitude, look no further.

No no no you have it all wrong... this it the ‘Q-tip’ prop style..... 🤪

But all in all the props do feel like they are kinda weak... I don’t know specific data or anything to prove it, but gradual degradation of engine from prop damage would be cool too... 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

Low%25252520flying%252525201.jpg&f=1

 

This plane struck the ground during a strafing run and still managed to fly home. If you were looking for proof propeller damage in IL-2 is exaggerated by several orders of magnitude, look no further.  

 

I have to say that we have seen this picture here before and I am pretty sure someone posted evidence showing that it he did not damage them on a mission and fly home.   That is why I did not post that pic in my OP.     I can't remember what the evidence was but I left it out anyway,

 

EDIT: I did a comprehensive search of the forum archives and did not find anything apart from someone asking almost the same question as me back in 2014 🙂   Someone referred to several cases aircraft flying home from France with prop damage from hitting telephone wires but he did not provide any evidence.

 

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damaged prop blade would  cause vibrations that would eventually affect prop shaft and some other parts of the engine, so engine would suffer after a while....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lost my prop/engine to a dislodged P47 canopy way too many times. You wouldn't expect acrylic to be tough or heavy enough to do that.

 

I'd love to see prop damage revisited

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pfrances said:

I've lost my prop/engine to a dislodged P47 canopy way too many times. You wouldn't expect acrylic to be tough or heavy enough to do that.

 

 

Hmm, not sure if this isn't realistic - the canopy of the P47 is not only made of plexi but also has some sturdy frame... and have you ever seen

the damage a bird strike can inflict to the fuselage and not to mention the turbines?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, -=-THERION said:

 

Hmm, not sure if this isn't realistic - the canopy of the P47 is not only made of plexi but also has some sturdy frame... and have you ever seen

the damage a bird strike can inflict to the fuselage and not to mention the turbines?

Collision speed is typically slower than that of the birds (canopy just came off a p47 close to you that was going similar speeds typically, so it may have only slowed by 40mph in the air, making it a 40mph collision, vs a  180-200-ish mph bird strike. Saying that, 40mph collisions are no joke

 

Also, turbine blades are MUCH thinner, making them far more fragile to bending forces such as a stray bird/ canopy. However, I do not have any idea of the strength of plexiglass vs a metal or wooden prop. I would assume something like a D9 would get a fair chunk bitten, whereas a thicc prop such as a p47's getting hit by some axis bubble canopy would fare a little better.

Edited by TheTacticalCat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, -=-THERION said:

 

Hmm, not sure if this isn't realistic - the canopy of the P47 is not only made of plexi but also has some sturdy frame... and have you ever seen

the damage a bird strike can inflict to the fuselage and not to mention the turbines?

 

A turbine goes thousands of RPMs even at idle. A P-47D's propeller coupled to the engine with its 2:1 reduction gear goes a mere 1350 RPM at full throttle. The blades will still turn at around 0.8-0.85M at the tips, but they're much, much more massive than a turbine's vanes and they're not shrouded like a turbine is, so any object flying into the propeller may actually be deflected away out of the prop disk than sucked in and turned to splinters. Plus there's the whole rotor/stator setup in turbines that generally takes offense at getting clogged up, then stalls explosively.

Edited by PainGod85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I don't believe this. Do you have a primary source to back it up?

It appears far more likely to me that this was a landing or takeoff incident where the plane ended up in a partial nose down position on the runway. Perhaps someone was too heavy on the breaks.

 

At the speeds that prop would need to run at to make enough thrust like that, the engine would shake out of it's mounts.

 

I suspect the strafing story has been apocryphally added afterwards, but I welcome being proved wrong.

 

I was thinking the same thing. Its a much more likely explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Damaged prop blade would  cause vibrations that would eventually affect prop shaft and some other parts of the engine, so engine would suffer after a while....

You are right. It would in huge radials aswell. But you can fly for a while distance depending on engines. 

A double wasp wright engine works well with multiple pistons or cylinders not working. 

The torque and power would probably tear off the piston from the shaft if it get stuck and it can fly for a remarkable distance. In fact this is the plane that can pull it off.

The reason I doubt this can fly for longer distance is the hub and propeller itself. I do not think they could operate for long with that vibration 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

I have to say that we have seen this picture here before and I am pretty sure someone posted evidence showing that it he did not damage them on a mission and fly home.   That is why I did not post that pic in my OP.     I can't remember what the evidence was but I left it out anyway,

 

EDIT: I did a comprehensive search of the forum archives and did not find anything apart from someone asking almost the same question as me back in 2014 🙂   Someone referred to several cases aircraft flying home from France with prop damage from hitting telephone wires but he did not provide any evidence.

 

 

 

There's really no way this flew with that prop.  (I haven't flown a Jug but I've helped change an engine in one and I've sat in a couple, so I'm clearly qualified to make this statement.  😎)  The entire belly is flattened all the way back to, and including, the turbo shroud.  This airplane landed gear up, was raised and gear dropped and then towed to where photographed.  I've been part of several runway recoveries and this one is very typical.  What often happens is a very real incident gets associated somewhere down the line with either the wrong aircraft, or often times, the same aircraft but with a  photograph after a different incident.

 

 

9 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

The question is:  Would an aluminum prop have lasted with the same damage?

Edited by chuter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Props hit the water during low-level flight. Ju 88 shrugged it off and came home...

Junkers-Ju-88A-1.(F)123-(4U+SV)-after-a-

 

Unless there's some damaging dissymmetry that would shake-loose connetions, lines and gaskets, there's no reason why a struck prop should kill the engine instantly.

There might be some damage and the engine will probably have to be replaced, but chances are you can make it home or at least across the frontline.

 

 

A propeller produces almost all of its thrust in the outer 40% of the blade with peak efficiency at around 25% from the tip.  Losing the outer 20/25% of the blades is going to rob you of most of your thrust.  For the crew this must have been ... exciting.  Now that I think of it, I believe I have this aircraft confused with one that did the same thing but Americans are posing with it ... not at a German airfield (I think, unless this one didn't actually make it back to a friendly field).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chuter said:

The entire belly is flattened all the way back to, and including, the turbo shroud.  This airplane landed gear up, was raised and gear dropped and then towed to where photographed. 

 

My thoughts too.   The fact that so many sites back up the story is meaningless as everyone just copies each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 1:18 PM, [DBS]Browning said:

Good enough for me! I was wrong.

 

I was wrong about being wrong. I now think I was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I was wrong about being wrong. I now think I was right.

As I said. Even if you find a picture saying it flew like that on interweb. It does not mean it is true. 

I found another picture with a couple of cylinders shot off. 

It contained info about pilot , place and time. Such information would make the photo more believable. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, pfrances said:

I've lost my prop/engine to a dislodged P47 canopy way too many times. You wouldn't expect acrylic to be tough or heavy enough to do that.

 

I'd love to see prop damage revisited

 

A canopy can do lots of damage. This is Svein Heglunds Spitfire after shooting the canopy off a FW190. Going to guess the metal did the damage though.

9788299219426.jpg

I can agree that it would be cool to have a more dynamic system for the prop. A wooden propeller might be shred at the end and still retain enough effect to bring you home. I might suspect the same would be the case with a slighty curved metal prop.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

As I said. Even if you find a picture saying it flew like that on interweb. It does not mean it is true. 

I found another picture with a couple of cylinders shot off. 

It contained info about pilot , place and time. Such information would make the photo more believable. 

 

 

Like this one?

 

LowDown118.jpg

 

"A P-47 flown by Lt. Richard Sulzbach of the 364th Fighter Squadron, 350th Fighter Group, 12th Air Force on 1 April 1945. Lt. Sulzbach had a little run-in with some trees while on a strafing run over Italy. He was able to fly the plane 120 miles back to base and land safely. It’s a real testament to how tough the P-47 was."

 

E: Also, if that P-47 with the bent prop had landed wheels up, at least one of the bomb racks' side struts would've been bent out of shape in the process, yet they look both undamaged.

Edited by PainGod85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Like this one?

 

LowDown118.jpg

 

"A P-47 flown by Lt. Richard Sulzbach of the 364th Fighter Squadron, 350th Fighter Group, 12th Air Force on 1 April 1945. Lt. Sulzbach had a little run-in with some trees while on a strafing run over Italy. He was able to fly the plane 120 miles back to base and land safely. It’s a real testament to how tough the P-47 was."

 

E: Also, if that P-47 with the bent prop had landed wheels up, at least one of the bomb racks' side struts would've been bent out of shape in the process, yet they look both undamaged.

That information is believable. And I know a lot of creditable similar stories. 

I just dont trust photos with inadequate information. Sometimes I think people find them on Pinterest and just add text 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

As I said. Even if you find a picture saying it flew like that on interweb. It does not mean it is true. 

I found another picture with a couple of cylinders shot off. 

It contained info about pilot , place and time. Such information would make the photo more believable. 

 

Everything on internet is true! 🤣

It all depends on amount of damage taken, how much vibrations it will produce and how much weight inbalance between blades will be.

About that p47 bended blades, that was caused by the kiss of the ground imo, in that case engine suffered a lot (torque shaft...etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Like this one?

 

LowDown118.jpg

 

"A P-47 flown by Lt. Richard Sulzbach of the 364th Fighter Squadron, 350th Fighter Group, 12th Air Force on 1 April 1945. Lt. Sulzbach had a little run-in with some trees while on a strafing run over Italy. He was able to fly the plane 120 miles back to base and land safely. It’s a real testament to how tough the P-47 was."

 

E: Also, if that P-47 with the bent prop had landed wheels up, at least one of the bomb racks' side struts would've been bent out of shape in the process, yet they look both undamaged.

Holy COW.....L.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 1:59 PM, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I don't believe this. Do you have a primary source to back it up?

It appears far more likely to me that this was a landing or takeoff incident where the plane ended up in a partial nose down position on the runway. Perhaps someone was too heavy on the breaks.

 

 

I agree that it looks to bent to be true. But - as with all pictures you can right click (if using Chrome) and then select "search on Google for this image". Doing that you find it on many pages with this story naming the pilot Paul Hall etc. The most convincing is maybe from the official 57th fighter group web page that has a ton of images from the same airbase (and reunion dates for the veterans that would know if this was not true).

 

http://www.57thfightergroup.org/pictures/james_hare/grosseto4.html

 

Found another fun page where it is also included - and a silly amout of low level flying shots!

 

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/325/language/en-CA/Lower-than-a-Snakes-Belly-in-a-Wagon-Rut.aspx

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

My thoughts too.   The fact that so many sites back up the story is meaningless as everyone just copies each other.

 

  --  Wait, what?  The Interwebs copying itself?  -- 

 

I really think that a real event (a plane, maybe "Dixie Gal", "struck the ground" while Capt. Hall was strafing and and then returned to base) somehow got connected with a photo of "Dixie Gal" after a belly landing.  One way to clear this up would be to look at the history of "Dixie Gal" and see if separate incidents are noted.  (Of course, he it might have bellied in after returning from said mission adding to the damage ...)

 

Have you seen "p-38 halifax mid air collision"?  Obviously (to me, anyway) a Halifax ran over a parked P-38 (actually an F-5) and it's advertised as a mid-air collision the P-38 flew away from.  The image and caption are taken straight from a physical book but ... still ... really, people?  lol 

 

 

Hey, I just came across this in "Air-to-Ground Battle for Italy" by Brigadier General Michael C. McCarthy on page 92:

 

"I had picked a young, bright first lieutenant to be my assistant operations officer. He had been an outstanding flight commander who took care of his guys and demonstrated unusual leadership qualities. P. M. Hall also seemed to be a magnet for88-mm flak. He had already brought two heavily damaged P-47sback to Grosseto that could not land safely on the runway. He belly-landed both beautifully on the beach at Marina Di Grosseto within walking distance of our squadron building. Before the war ended, “Pranger” Hall would add two more P-47s to his victory list. P. M. survived the war but continued his penchant for crash landing good flying machines and, finally, bailed out o fa P-80 in Alaska in frigid winter conditions. He did not survive.The country lost another great fighter pilot."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm - but still, the image is present on the 57th FG page where the original photographer seems to have uploaded all his pics from Italy with his own comments. Feels like a rather "original source" compared to all the copies on other pages. There are a bunch of other photos from the beach etc that looks like they are from the "same roll". They seem to have been scanned in the same batch with similar dust etc. And he has written this text for this image (and comments for other images that really feels like they could only be from the original photographer):

 

"Back on his feet, but will require engine change. 64th FS P-47 hit ground while attacking on mission, flew all the way back to Grosseto. Black A-26 Invaders of 47th BG in background."

 

But - that comment may indicate that you are right and that it was a combination - as he writes "back on his feet"... Why write that if it did not belly land as well? I agree that the prop looks very much like other images of P47s that have belly landed... 

 

http://www.57thfightergroup.org/pictures/james_hare/grosseto4.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

Yet neither bomb rack seems to have incurred any damage.

They are quite a bit above the belly at their lowest point.

Image result for p-47 PROFILE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Elem said:

They are quite a bit above the belly at their lowest point.

Image result for p-47 PROFILE

 

What do you think happens once a plane has slowed down sufficiently during a belly landing? That's right, it will generally settle on a wingtip - only, the first point of contact on the wing's way down will be the bomb rack's sway bracing, which would then take damage from the longitudinal load that doesn't seem to exist in this picture.

 

Here, for comparison:

4513098206_866ae7c38a_z.jpg

Edited by PainGod85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

What do you think happens once a plane has slowed down sufficiently during a belly landing? That's right, it will generally settle on a wingtip - only, the first point of contact on the wing's way down will be the bomb rack's sway bracing, which would then take damage from the longitudinal load that doesn't seem to exist in this picture.

Sorry, but I thought you were referring to this one...

Low%25252520flying%252525201.jpg&f=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, looking around I found two other pictures - that according to the text are from the same incident:

 

This from https://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=14651

 

air_lightning86.jpg

 

And this from https://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=14650

 

 air_lightning85.jpg

 

That underside initially looks very much like it has bellied - or maybe "bounced off" the ground if that is possible ;) The things that look a bit weird for the belly scenario is the cut in the leading edge of the wing, and the damaged stabilizer that the pilot seems to think is very interesting. Can't figure how to damage the tail like that from a belly landing and it does not look like combat damage? The "belly damage" also has a bit to little "scraping along the ground for a couple of hundred yards longditudal damage" if you understand what I mean?

 

Seems like images from the same position at least as the edge of that Marston mat looks the same.

 

EDIT:

 

And looking at the original shot - it really is strange that the bomb rack arms are not damaged on either wing after a belly landing. How would one side not get damaged? They are poking straight down and should be ripped back on one side? This truly is a nerd discussion ;)

 

a5VXCVZ.png

 

Last edit: That comment "Back on her feet..." still feels like it kills this interesting conspiracy theory disussion. Why write that if it did not belly land...

Edited by mazex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...