Is the Spitfire Really Superior to the FW-190 ... continued

[Hop]

I would not go as far to say that the Spit IX was superior to the Fw-190A.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree.



Personally I'd prefer to be in the Spitfire, but they were certainly closely matched.

Just look at the 1941 Dieppe Raid in which the Fw-190A even though they were outnumbered seriously hurt the Spitfire V's.

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)

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.

When it comes to your evaluation of the Spit IX and the Fw-190A, what kind of Fw-190A and how was she configured.

It was an A4 I believe.

In my opinion the Fw-190 is a step ahead against the Spitfire; the main advantages include:

- Excellent rolling characteristics.

And much worse turning

- Dive as well as boom & zoom capacity.

And much worse climbing

- Higher resistance.

If you mean resistantce to damage, then not really. The 190 had it's problems, a tendency to catching fire was one of them.

- Stronger armament (more firepower and reliable guns).

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.

- Higher maximum speed.

Typically not, the speeds were usually similar. The 190 usually had an edge at low altitude, the Spitfire at high altitude.

- Better maneouvrability at high speeds.

Only in the rolling plane. The Spitfire had much better elevator control at high speed.

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.

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.

- Higher range.

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.

- Well suited to ground attack.

It was undoubtedly better at ground attack than the Spit.

- Kommandogedraft to ease engine controls.

Later Spitfires had interlinked controls, requiring only the throttle to be set, boost, mixture, prop speed etc were all set automatically.

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.

Agree 100%. They were well matched.

[wmaxt]

These aircraft were fery well matched - isn't that why we like to debate them?

wmaxt

[plan_D]

The problem is this debate has been going on for a long time and everyone has produced something - no one will move from one side to the other.

We all went into this discussion with "They were equally matched" (except Udet but he doesn't have a clue "Spitfire 21...fly...like pig") - and we've all came to the conclusion that "They were equally matched"

[evangilder]

Then I guess they both flew like a pig?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you on this Plan_D and agree with your assumption of the pilots of each aircraft meeting each other. I really doubt that we will ever come to a conclusion which one was better.

Now on that note how can we debate and compare these aircraft some more on a different note?

[alejandro_]

Hop

The turning was of secondary importance in the high speed combats. IIRC the corner speed and turning radius of the Fw-190 at high speeds was excellent, with the controls well harmonized.

If you mean resistantce to damage, then not really. The 190 had it's problems, a tendency to catching fire was one of them.

Yes, there was a issue with the cylinders and the fuel injection. On the other hand the Spitfire radiator was quite vulnerable, one shot could knock it out. The higher rolling capacity it's a great advantage because many manouvers start with a roll. The Spitfire had a mediocre rolling rate at high speeds (that's why the wings were modified in the Mk21).Anyway, IMO, in the sort of fighting in the Western Front the Fw-190 had a slight edge.

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.

I probaly agree with you if we are talking about a Fw-190A and a Spitfire MkIX. On the other hand I think the Fw-190D-9 has an edge in high altitude over similar Spitfires.

Later Spitfires had interlinked controls, requiring only the throttle to be set, boost, mixture, prop speed etc were all set automatically.

Could you say which version? IIRC it was starting with the MkXIV. It would be nice if you can explain a bit more on these controls, the info I got is fairly limited.

[CharlesBronson]

HOP wrote:

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.

The Mauser shoot at higher rate of fire and it could deliver a more large amount of high explosives per second that the Hispano.

For example. the A-6 version that introduce as standar the 4 xMG-151 battery, was enourmous hard hitting.
The inner electromechanically sincronizated guns shoot at 670-680 rpm and the externals Mg-151/E had a rate of 750 -770 rpm.
so the total rate of fire was about 2900 rpm...and dont forget the MG that probably helped a little.

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.

Actually they saw some combat, they claimed a FW-190 destroyed and loss one Spit.

And Udet...the raid was in 19th august 1942...not 1941

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Which aircrafts guns had the better stopping power? I dont know if that sounded right? Do you understand what I mean?

[CharlesBronson]

Well...I believe that this weapon topic was discussed already in here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1092

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1188

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ah thanks.

[vanir]

Hi I'm new here, great forum guys, love it.

Aren't we largely talking as has been suggested, personal preferences and flying styles here? I mean comparing the two is a little like comparing an interceptor to an attack plane isn't it?
One of the most decorated German aces was a Stuka pilot, responsible for numerous (I forget how many), fighter kills.

Aren't we kinda forgetting the blokes who flew them?

Bader got Bf 109 victories in his Hurricane didn't he? Obviously the better aircraft? No, I don't really think there's such a thing so long as the designs are relatively contemporary to each other.

(this is a bodgied example that's probably wrong all over the place but still):
Hurricane strengths, stability, willingness, good armament. Weaknesses, construction, hp/speed, fixed wooden prop (updated later).
109E strengths, hp/speed, climb rate, dive capacity, powerful armament. Weaknesses, complicated, heavy, uncomfortable.

So the better aircraft? I should think it's up to the pilot on the day, and what others can take from that, tactically.

Myself, I like the Fw-pig. But it stalls too easy and can't take a hit. If I had to get near the ground I'd go a Gustav or a Kurfurst.
Choice with the Spit? Nah, fuel injection and bottled boosters rule. Just don't go up top unless you've got a Dora.
Now the Dora, I'd take that over anything but a Schwalbe.

But then I'd probably get shot down 6 days out of 7, so don't listen to me.
My impression of the Spits? Overrated. It's not the Superplane every teenage combat fighter enthusiast searches for, there isn't one. But it's a top high altitude fighter intercept, I think designed to assuage a public fear of Luftwaffe bombers generated in the 30's and had the agenda of taking out escorts. But this is just an opinion, like I said I'd probably get shot down.

[FLYBOYJ]

uh - Welcome!

[plan_D]

I hate people who call the Spitfire over-rated.

And welcome.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

no the spitfire was far from over rated............

and, whilst you make some good points about pilot preference, i feel i must point out that the hurricane's construction was most definatly a strengh, as it was very strong and easy to repair.........

[Nonskimmer]

I hate people who call the Spitfire over-rated.

And welcome.

Ditto.