I wouldn't necessarily disagree.I would not go as far to say that the Spit IX was superior to the Fw-190A.
Personally I'd prefer to be in the Spitfire, but they were certainly closely matched.
Oh, there's no doubt the 190 was superior to the Spitfire V, allthough the V did manage to close some of the gap with it's later boost increases (the Spitfire V went from 12 lbs boost up to 16 lbs, adding hundreds of feet a minute to the climb rate and up to 30 mph to the level speed)Just look at the 1941 Dieppe Raid in which the Fw-190A even though they were outnumbered seriously hurt the Spitfire V's.
But Dieppe was against Spitfire Vs, not IXs. Although there were 4 active Spitfire IX squadrons in service at the time, they were used to cover the first 8th AF heavy bomber raid at the time of the Dieppe landings, and didn't play a part in the air battle.
It was an A4 I believe.When it comes to your evaluation of the Spit IX and the Fw-190A, what kind of Fw-190A and how was she configured.
And much worse turningIn my opinion the Fw-190 is a step ahead against the Spitfire; the main advantages include:
- Excellent rolling characteristics.
And much worse climbing- Dive as well as boom & zoom capacity.
If you mean resistantce to damage, then not really. The 190 had it's problems, a tendency to catching fire was one of them.- Higher resistance.
Only with the 4 cannon armament, and then not by much. The Hispano was a well sorted cannon in the Spitfire by 1942 and 43, it had a much higher muzzle velocity than the Mg 151, which helped in shooting accurately.- Stronger armament (more firepower and reliable guns).
Typically not, the speeds were usually similar. The 190 usually had an edge at low altitude, the Spitfire at high altitude.- Higher maximum speed.
Only in the rolling plane. The Spitfire had much better elevator control at high speed.- Better maneouvrability at high speeds.
At higher altitude the advantage is definately with the Spitfire. It's lower wing loading and higher powerloading (especially at altitude) meant a higher ceiling, and much better manoueverability at high alt.It should be kept in mind that the combats over Europe were, at the end of the war, at medium and high altitudes, engaging at very high speeds.
Not significantly. Beware of looking at high speed cruise figures for Spits without tanks and comparing them to low speed cruise figures for other aircraft with tanks.- Higher range.
It was undoubtedly better at ground attack than the Spit.- Well suited to ground attack.
Later Spitfires had interlinked controls, requiring only the throttle to be set, boost, mixture, prop speed etc were all set automatically.- Kommandogedraft to ease engine controls.
Agree 100%. They were well matched.And I think that from the Spitfire IX onwards any Fw-190 pilot would be worried that he'd come up against a Spitfire. And any Spitfire pilot would be worried that there's a Fw-190.