Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes but if you see I put the Fw-190A in the same cattagory as the Spit, but I put the Fw-190D in the Top of the Top.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I just personally think that the Spit, Me-109, P-51, Fw-190A, P-38, Tempest, all belong in the top class group. While the P-51D, Fw-190D, P-38 and Tempest belong in the Top of the top class.

I would rate the Spit XIV, Bf-109G10-14, F4U-4 Corsair and Fw-190D at the Top of the top fighters. (Were talking fighters here right ?)

I can't see how the P-51, P-38 or Tempest can be along with the Top of the top fighters, as all of the above would trash each and everyone of these in a dogfight. (The P-51H is another matter though, but sadly it came too late)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-38 could fly just as well as the Fw-190D. The Tempest was a damn good aircraft. The 109G could not turn as well as a Spit and the Spit was not as good as a Fw-190D. Thats why.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The P-38 could fly just as well as the Fw-190D.

What ?! Seriusly Adler, that is ludacris ! The P-38 is surrounded by mystery; some say it turned very well, some say it could barely turn.

In any case the roll rate of the P-38 was pathetic, and in theory so was its turn rate. (Although some will dispute this)

The Tempest was a damn good aircraft.

Ground attack aircraft, yes, but not a good fighter !

The 109G could not turn as well as a Spit

The Bf-190G10-14 could very well turn with a Spit XIV, and vice versa, as they were approximately equal in this kind of fighting, except at very slow speed where the Spit was much inferior.

and the Spit was not as good as a Fw-190D. Thats why.

The Spit XIV was certainly not inferior to the Dora-9 ! They were different in qualities, but about equal in overall dogfighting capability.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

What ?! Seriusly Adler, that is ludacris ! The P-38 is surrounded by mystery; some say it turned very well, some say it could barely turn.

Some would say the same things about the Fw-190D.

Originally Posted by Soren

Ground attack aircraft, yes, but not a good fighter !

Where did I say anything about fighter? I said damn good aircraft.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Some would say the same things about the Fw-190D.

That was until aerodynamics proved them wrong.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Where did I say anything about fighter? I said damn good aircraft.

Sorry Adler, I was under the impression that we were talking about the Top fighters of WW2, as I highlighted in my previus post(s).

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No prob, I was just talking about my tops.

And as proving them wrong, can you please continue with this.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

And as proving them wrong, can you please continue with this.

Power-loading, lift-loading, and varius other things. One very important thing wich is often forgotten is the reason why the Dora-9's tail section was extended from the "A" series. This was done for improving all-round maneuverability at high speeds, and it improved the 190's center of gravity aswell, futher improving horizontal maneuverability.

[delcyros]

Both are comparable planes,
the 190A had an advantage ove the MK V when it was introduced, the MK IX was somehow comparable to the A-4/-6/-8 it faced and the MK IVX was comparable to the D-9. However at this time the Luftwaffe suffered from secondaries (fuel, training degree and so on..), which decreased the capabilities of the D-9. With this in mind, the benefits of the MK IVX weight more and so I rate the Spit slightly (if even) better than the D-9.But ech plane has advantages of it´s own. A really classic combination.

[lesofprimus]

One very important thing wich is often forgotten is the reason why the Dora-9's tail section was extended from the "A" series. This was done for improving all-round maneuverability at high speeds, and it improved the 190's center of gravity aswell, futher improving horizontal maneuverability.

It was extended because the nose was extended to allow the larger engine..........

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I too believe the Dora was the best Axis aircraft out there but I do not understand how you can not say the P-38 was not in the same catagory, but put the Me-109G in there which was on the downward spiral.

[plan_D]

With the right pilot the P-38 could turn with just about anything out there, even if the pilot had to power back on one engine and power up on the other to make it turn. Do it wrong and you spin, do it right and you're on the inside of a Zero.

The Spitfire Mk.XIV was not not out-classed by the D-9. They were on an equal playing field when dogfighting.

The Fw-190A was superior to the Spitfire Mk.V but the Spitfire Mk.IX soon caught up to it.

The Tempest was an effective low-level fighter.

[Glider]

I admit to hearing about this stunt of putting the power on one and back on the other but find it hard to believe. once your in the turn you would have to equal it up almost instantly or you would wing over. Once equalled up you lose the advantage. I haven't flown any twins but this lacks all logic to me. It takes say one - two seconds to get into a bank and in that time your supposed to have
a) changed two power settings at the same time.
b) let one speed up and the other slow down (and they happen at different rates
c) get into the turn
d) equalise the power settings
e) Again let one run up and the other down
f) try to work out where the other guy has gone

All within two seconds.

Am I the only person in town who thinks this is a lot of wishful thinking? Or are there any people with twin experience who can tell me where I have got this badly wrong.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

don't worry Glider i'm with you........

[plan_D]

I imagine he didn't bank it around. He probably brought power down on one side and swung the wing around.