- Feb 8, 2006
What's your thoughts on the matter?
I'm really not sure.
I'm really not sure.
This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Here is a comparison I prepared a couple of years back ...
I've to say that after having spent quite some time comparing cutaway drawings of both types, I'm really suprised how similar they were in their general layout. (For example, both avoid the use of wing tanks which would increase the vulnerable area markedly.)
The differences I see are:
- stronger front spar in Fw 190
- full monocoque construction of Fw 190 centre section
- oil cooler ahead of engine in Fw 190, on both sides below engine in P-47
- armoured cowl ring to protect oil cooler in Fw 190
- large oil tank aft of engine in P-47
- exhaust ducts running from engine to rear fuselage in P-47
- intake ducts running between front and radar fuselage in P-47
- turbo supercharger in rear fuselage in P-47
- push-rod control system in Fw 190, control cable system in P-47
The advantages of the Fw 190 are:
- stronger wing centre section
- no turbo supercharger system to be hit
- push-rods are reportely less vulnerable to damage than control cables
The advantages of the P-47D are:
- lateral protection of fuel tanks due to metal sheet air ducts.
- engine probably more survivable due to larger oil reserves and superior materials
Points with a neutral balance are:
- P-47 supercharging system: The turbo itself probably is hard to destroy. Hits elsewhere might affect ducting and reduce available power, but the engine will survive. The ducts additionally provide some kind of double skin that can protect the fuel tanks.
- Oil system: The Fw 190 oil reservoir isn't positioned well, but it's small and armoured. The P-47 oil system is larger and unarmoured, but positioned better.
My conclusion is that both aircraft were probably fairly equal in their ability to survive damage - and certainly better than most of their contemporaries
That about all they are good for is giving an idea were certain components are located. BTW - I've seen an Fw 190A and P-47 up close - just by outward apparances the P-47 seems twice as robust.[/quote]Hi Flyboyj,
Well, then just ignore the quantitative point I listed and concentrate on the rest, which is entirely qualitative I think cut-away drawings are quite useful in telling me the general arrangement of the major components I listed.
You would not make higher manifold pressures.Re-reading my list, I wonder for example what would happen should the exhaust tubes to the turbo supercharger be pierced ...
True - I'm basing my points on aircraft I have worked on. I actually find push rod control systems easier to maintain.Well, I wrote "reportedly" there ... I remember reading repeatedly about pushrods being superior, but I'd not be able to conveniently find quotes (which might have expressed opinions anyway). You know how difficult it is to find actual operational survivability data ...
Trim would work, also the natural balance of the control surface to maintain a neutral position if no trim device is installed.Are you thinking of trim? I'm not sure how effective it would be with control lines severed. It certainly would depend on the aircraft type. Allegedly, the B-17 would do well with (some) control lines severed because it could be flown by the electrical autopilot whose actuators were close to the control surfaces, providing a good measure of redundancy.
Agree....With regard to fighters, one typical line that stuck to my mind was "The stick went slack in my hands, and I bailed out". However, losing elevator control would be much more serious than for example losing rudder control - I think it was not uncommon for aircraft of the day to come back with rudder "flapping in the breeze". Another typical line that stuck in my mind
I doubt that's going to happen...Hi Flyboyj,Well, that covers about 8 out of the 9 points I listed ... the last point might be better checked by engineering drawings, but so far no-one has volunteered any.
True, again it depends where and how big of a hole you're talking about.Hm, I'm not sure we can ignore the effects of the hot gases on the rest of other components. It seems the gas jets from leaking stub exhausts have caused engine failures in Reno racers, so there is a certain destructive potential to the exhaust gas ...
Stable enough to get the canopy open and jump!I believe a neutral position would not necessary mean stable flight ... many of the fighters weren't too stable to begin with anyway as they were meant to be manoeuvrable. Maybe it would work, but off-hand I can't recall any pilot reports actually demonstrating that (except for the flapping rudder, of course). Maybe mention of one aileron shot off, but not of no aileron or no elevator control.
You mean as in "could absorb the most damage"?
Are there any records of a P-47 vs FW190 engagements?