If you'd be ready to do so, I'd love to see you argue the engineering part. I recognize that this wouldn't be easy for the average player like me, but I'm really asking out of genuine interest and not to embarrass you.
To be fair, I should point out that I don't think you're right with regard to the Focke-Wulf, but I'm open for new facts :-)
Henning (HoHun)
HoHun. I’m well aware of your expertise in such matters (from AW and now here in AH) and would welcome your input. You are hardly an “average” player
I’m hardly an engineer and fully accept the depth of my own ignorance (which helps me as an editor and writer in some fairly complex areas). I would look on your input without embarrassment and as an educational opportunity.
For my position, starting from the always-questionable anecdotal standpoint, the durability of the P-47 is certainly an established perception for the aircraft, with many stories in support. The same is not generally held for the Fw-190, though such factors as roll rate and lethal armament are commonly cited. Even going from an Ameri-centric historical viewpoint, there seems to be a lack of. “… of all the German planes, the FW was the hardest to shoot down.” Certainly nothing I have read in the past 20+ years sticks out, beyond the technical publications that state “FW-190 was more durable than the Bf-109” which is, of course true
From an Armor standpoint, the two aircraft compare fairly well. The “average” FW A series had slightly heavier armor on the pilot seatback, with varying degrees of angle protection depending upon the model. While straight statistical data would suggest the 9mm to 12mm armor plate used in either would be easily vulnerable to the M2 .50 API round or even the AP Mg-131 at standard combat ranges, the fact that most ballistics test data is based on unobstructed, homogenous armor and not face hardened armor surrounded by structural members and ancillary equipment makes this misleading. In RL, both should (and seemed to) stop a good percentage of AP rounds and most HE rounds, which of course produced additional damage to the airframe and shrapnel damage that often wounded the pilot to some degree. Both aircraft would also be fairly immune to rifle-caliber rounds (the Johnson story hinges on this I believe) and have the significant advantage over inline aircraft in this regard with their vulnerable cooling systems.
Now, if you consider the Fw 190 A-8/R8 with all that bolt-on added armor, or perhaps the early F-8 series with the added low-quarter armor (before the design reverted to the standard A-8 airframe) then perhaps you're right from an armor perspective. However, these additions were not without penalty, so that you could seemingly only have two of the three weight contributors in the F-8/G series -- heavy armor, heavy gun armament or extra fuel /external stores before performance degraded beyond acceptable levels, even for special purpose aircraft. Thus, the decision to revert to the A-8 armor package on the later F series and drop some armament on both the F and G series.
From an engine standpoint, the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 has an exceptional record of flying while missing cylinders and while having virtually no oil pressure. It was a hell of a powerplant with a lot of reserve capacity. The BMW-801 should have many of the same characteristics. One criticism that is pointed out is the location of the oil cooling in front of the cylinders. I have read some allied pilots state that made the HO attack an easy way to get a kill. I have also read a reference to the turbosupercharger creating a similar vulnerability on the P-47. Both claims seem to be somewhat isolated as far as I can tell.
From a structural sense, as far as I can tell, both were fairly conventional with the P-47 being semi-monocoque and the Fw-190 being fully monocoque. As an assumption, and at the risk of making as bellybutton out of myself in the process
, I would imagine that the P-47 would be more resistant to cannon fire and that the FW would be more resistant to MG fire, which would seem to cancel out the advantages of the opposing armament packages to some extent. Beyond that, the size of the P-47 suggests to me that there would be considerably greater redundancy and surplus strength in the wings and fuselage.
In the end, the FW was a hell of a design and a masterpiece of packing as much as possible into as small an airframe as possible, with a big engine out front. This was only surpassed by the F8F Bearcat, which used the FW as a starting point.
Charon
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
