We don't need no steenkeeng one-man rig

[Ralph Jones[_3_]]

How about a FIFTY man rig...;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2D3k0sJ8HM

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:52:19 -0600, Ralph Jones wrote:

> How about a FIFTY man rig...;-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2D3k0sJ8HM

Amazing. I would have never guessed that a P-4 could be assembled like
that and flown away, but I suppose something like that must have been
possible for any WW2 war that didn't have the range or carrier capability
for self delivery to its operational area, i.e. in the North African,
Burmese and Pacific theatres.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Key Dismukes]

On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:35:54 PM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:52:19 -0600, Ralph Jones wrote:
>
>
> Not that different from some gliders i've helped rig!

Key


> > How about a FIFTY man rig...;-)
>
> >
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2D3k0sJ8HM
>
>
>
> Amazing. I would have never guessed that a P-4 could be assembled like
>
> that and flown away, but I suppose something like that must have been
>
> possible for any WW2 war that didn't have the range or carrier capability
>
> for self delivery to its operational area, i.e. in the North African,
>
> Burmese and Pacific theatres.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>
> org |

[BobW]

> On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:35:54 PM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:52:19 -0600, Ralph Jones wrote:
>>
>>> How about a FIFTY man rig...;-)
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2D3k0sJ8HM
>>
>> Amazing. I would have never guessed that a P-47 could be assembled like
>> that and flown away, but I suppose something like that must have been
>> possible for any WW2 [plane] that didn't have the range or carrier
>> capability for self delivery to its operational area...
>>

Nifty!!! I've long wondered why the Schweizer boys overlooked the
ease-of-rigging enhancement otherwise known as the fuselage dolly when they
designed all their glider trailers. Watching this film may have been the
reason!!! :-)

Lay the wings on the ground, indeed...

[[email protected]]

....we have to instruct our crew not to walk on the wings when installing the wing pins......

[Tom K (ES)]

Reminds me of my Lak-12...

[Dan Marotta]

What??? The 1,800 lb wing?

I used to be the only one who *didn't* disappear when Dave R. got his LAK-12
fuselage out of the trailer... So I moved!

"Tom K (ES)" > wrote in message
...
> Reminds me of my Lak-12...

[Bill D]

Let's see...

The FAA certified it as meeting the 51% rule and the GI's got their Repairman's Certificate.

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:04:44 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> What??? The 1,800 lb wing?
>
>
>
> I used to be the only one who *didn't* disappear when Dave R. got his LAK-12
>
> fuselage out of the trailer... So I moved!
>
>
>
> "Tom K (ES)" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Reminds me of my Lak-12...

That P-47 wing had a self-sealing fuel tank, 4, .50 cal gun mounts with ammunition trays and numerous hard points for bombs and rockets. It also had a main gear leg to support all that weight. The fuselage had pilot armor and heavy vacuum tube avionics. "Civilianized" WWII fighters often weighed a ton less than the GI versions after they were stripped of the mil-stuff.

I was surprised to see so few men lifting the propeller. Those had steel blades with silver solder contouring the airfoil. They were seriously heavy.

[Ralph Jones[_3_]]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Bill D >
wrote:

[snip]
>
>That P-47 wing had a self-sealing fuel tank, 4, .50 cal gun mounts with ammunition trays and numerous hard points for bombs and rockets. It also had a main gear leg to support all that weight. The fuselage had pilot armor and heavy vacuum tube avionics. "Civilianized" WWII fighters often weighed a ton less than the GI versions after they were stripped of the mil-stuff.
>

About 10,000 lb empty, 17,000+ MGTOW. Actually the guns, which
accounted for about 350 lb per wing, wouldn't have been installed
until after assembly.

>I was surprised to see so few men lifting the propeller. Those had steel blades with silver solder contouring the airfoil. They were seriously heavy.

About 400 lb, IIRC.

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:42:18 PM UTC-6, Ralph Jones wrote:
Actually the guns, which
>
> accounted for about 350 lb per wing, wouldn't have been installed
>
> until after assembly.

Yep. I tried to say just the mounting hardware not the guns themselves but I wasn't clear. The gun mounting hardware is heavy.
I found a reference saying each P-47 blade weighed 110 Lbs so maybe 500 lbs including the hub. That's still a lot for those guys to be lifting as high as they did. Greatest generation indeed.

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:44:01 PM UTC+1, Bill D wrote:
>
> That P-47 wing had a self-sealing fuel tank, 4, .50 cal gun mounts with ammunition trays and numerous hard points for bombs and rockets. It also had a main gear leg to support all that weight. The fuselage had pilot armor and heavy vacuum tube avionics. "Civilianized" WWII fighters often weighed a ton less than the GI versions after they were stripped of the mil-stuff..

Minor detail - P-47s didn't get internal wing tanks until the late-war P-47N model. If this is a C, it wouldn't even have wing bomb/drop tank racks.

Still a big hunk of metal!

Kirk
66