Which was harder to shoot down, a P-47D or a FW 190A?

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

What's your thoughts on the matter?

I'm really not sure.

 

[<simon>]

Jug all the way!!!

 

[Njaco]

I would say that is only half of the equation - the type of aircraft. The second part would be what type of pilot.

 

[KrazyKraut]

You mean as in "could absorb the most damage"? If not I agree with Njaco.

 

[timshatz]

Go with the P47, just because of the size of the thing. More room to pound on it. It was huge.

Also two different design philosophies went into the manufacture of both fighters. No to sure about Republic's perspective, the the FW was designed to get the most out of the smallest package (with a radial engine, a different part of the equation). The 190 was a ground breaking aircraft, so much so that they brought captured versions back to the US and their design influenced the design of the F8F (or so I've been told).

 

[HoHun]

Hi Welch,

Here is a comparison I prepared a couple of years back ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

---cut-----------------------------

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

 

[drgondog]

curious regarding conclusions on spar.

Spar strength would be a function of cap size and web depth - primarily designed to take bending loads from lift/G's and also landing loads.

Manuever loads should dominate for both and I suspect that the design Limit was 8G and Ultimate ~12G for both at nominal gross weight.

Jug much heavier - Higher total loads at 8G on the wing spar design. Spar should be somewhere between 50-60% stronger for the primary wing spar, near 25% chord.

What am I missing?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi Welch,

Here is a comparison I prepared a couple of years back ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

---cut-----------------------------

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

Cut away drawings aren't going to tell you much unless they were drawn by someone who was very intimate with the airframe in question - the only way to compare structural strength is to physically compare them side by side, review the construction and materials and actually do the stress analysis, sometimes "bigger or beefier" doesn't mean stronger - I have also found a great majority of the cut away drawings grossly out of scale with regards to internal components on many aircraft.

Control cables vs pushrods - it depends - with control rods you have a greater chance of over stressing the airframe because of the direct positive control. At the same time, depending on location and stresses placed on a control rod, it could catastrophically fail if it received minimum exterior damage (a dent). Again I say this in general terms.

Control cables - sure they could be shot away but then we started seeing redundant systems to compensate for that - I don't know what the P-47 had but I would guess there was something engineered into the aircraft to allow it to fly straight and level should cables to any of the control surfaces be rendered inoperative.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>Cut away drawings aren't going to tell you much unless they were drawn by someone who was very intimate with the airframe in question

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.

Re-reading my list, I wonder for example what would happen should the exhaust tubes to the turbo supercharger be pierced ...

>Control cables vs pushrods - it depends

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 ...

>I would guess there was something engineered into the aircraft to allow it to fly straight and level should cables to any of the control surfaces be rendered inoperative.

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.

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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]

Re-reading my list, I wonder for example what would happen should the exhaust tubes to the turbo supercharger be pierced ...

You would not make higher manifold pressures.

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 ...

True - I'm basing my points on aircraft I have worked on. I actually find push rod control systems easier to maintain.

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.

Trim would work, also the natural balance of the control surface to maintain a neutral position if no trim device is installed.

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

Agree....

 

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>That about all they are good for is giving an idea were certain components are located.

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.

>You would not make higher manifold pressures.

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 ...

>Trim would work, also the natural balance of the control surface to maintain a neutral position if no trim device is installed.

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.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

I doubt that's going to happen...

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 ...

True, again it depends where and how big of a hole you're talking about.

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.

Stable enough to get the canopy open and jump!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to go with Other here.

Both are world class fighters. I think it comes down to the pilot.

I don't think anyone here will know which could take more damage. Besides if I recall the Fw 190 was a bit more maneuverable than the P-47 but the P-47 might be a bit more robust.

In the end it comes down to the pilots behind the stick.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>I doubt that's going to happen...

Hehe, you never know what Micdrow might pull out of his hat It's not like we never see any engineering drawings posted, after all.

>Stable enough to get the canopy open and jump!

LOL! Good point, and not unimportant for the pilot personally!

By the way, one so far unmentioned consideration is that a bigger target will take more hits, everything else being equal ... bigger is not always better.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Bigxiko]

i said it depends on the conditions in which they were putted down...
but i think they are both "equally hard to kill"

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

You mean as in "could absorb the most damage"?

Yeah. I was thinking they were both pretty close in strength, but that they probably had some advantages over the other, like armor and stuff. At any rate, they were both the work horse fighters of the gritty groundwork they were put to.

 

[delcyros]

Sheer size helps absorbing damage.
And of course, it all depends on the kind of damage inflicted. For a vis a vis comparison, are those airframes going to face 0.5cal BMG or 20mm mine rounds for comparison reasons?

 

[Erich]

as the war developed so did the LW ammo in the He and HEI range. The P-47 was vaporized just like the P-51, so much for heavier construction. I would say before May of 44 the Jug was probably the harder craft to bring down

 

[Freebird]

Are there any records of a P-47 vs FW190 engagements?

 

[drgondog]

Are there any records of a P-47 vs FW190 engagements?

Tons alex - all written by the winners. More surviving winners flying P-47s which always makes the anecdotal recounts suspect?