Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

There are no miracles in aerodynamics

Certainly not but you and a lot of people seem to think that what they read in a book or on a piece of paper is the only truth. As someone who works and flies aircraft I know this is not the truth.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Certainly not but you and a lot of people seem to think that what they read in a book or on a piece of paper is the only truth. As someone who works and flies aircraft I know this is not the truth.

I fly occasionally myself, and I havent found that the basic aerodynamic facts are wrong. What aerodynamic facts have you come across that you experienced were wrong ?

Wingloading coupled with airfoil data can usually tell us all about a plane's maneuverability that we need to know to make an assessment on how maneuverable it is. Offcourse there are many other factors wich need to be taken into considderation if we need the 'exact' numbers on its maneuverability.

A plane with a wing loading of 290 kg/sq.m. will 'not' turn tightly, simple as that. You can also go ahead and aquire the P-38's stall speed data, and it will tell you the same story.

I will however not deny that there were some incidents where P-38's have outturned Zero's, but these were all incidents where the Zero pilots were caught off guard.

[lesofprimus]

I will however not deny that there were some incidents where P-38's have outturned Zero's, but these were all incidents where the Zero pilots were caught off guard.

They also could have been rookies who didnt know the capabilities of their own craft..... Or, the could have been really crappy pilots....... Not all Japanese pilots flew like The Devil of Rabaul......

Ever heard of pilots who take their plane into such a dive that their rivets come loose and pieces start breaking off, as their speed approaches 600 MPH, but mysteriosly pull out, while some simply make a crater in the earth???

On paper, it says pulling out of a 80 degree dive at 500+ MPH is impossible........ But some did it..........

Why??? Pilot skill and ability to quickly asses the situation and find the right procedure to rectify the problem, in the shortest period of time.....

[Glider]

As you may have guessed from the name I use, most of my flying experience has been gliding. I am pretty sure that I have spent that time in an aircraft that has far and away the lightest wingloading of almost any powered plane. Gliders are also very slippery and you would be suprised how fast I accelerate in a dive without an engine, I once kept up with a Yak 11 in the early stages.
I can assure you that my rate of roll is massively less than any powered aircraft you care to mention. However, once in a turn I defy anyone to stick with me but getting there is another matter. So do I count as being manoeverable. I would say no but if you go by turn rate and radius you may say yes. Its a balance.
I am aware that I am not comparing like with like but don't go by W/L and Airofoil. There are loads of things to take into account.
A final plea. When comparing aircraft do it with pilots of equal ability. The P38 may be able to do things with an exceptional pilot but if against another exceptional pilot in a plane like the Zero he will and did come unstuck.
The vast majority of pilots in all airforces were average and/or inexperienced. If trying to do a manouver such as the turn in the P38 described before would kill an average pilot, then I don't think it should count as a comparison.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

I fly occasionally myself, and I havent found that the basic aerodynamic facts are wrong. What aerodynamic facts have you come across that you experienced were wrong ?

I am not talking about aerodynamics. The principles of aerodynamics apply to any aircraft. What I am talking about is the performance stats and how an aircraft compares based on performance.

Originally Posted by glider

I can assure you that my rate of roll is massively less than any powered aircraft you care to mention. However, once in a turn I defy anyone to stick with me but getting there is another matter. So do I count as being manoeverable. I would say no but if you go by turn rate and radius you may say yes. Its a balance.
I am aware that I am not comparing like with like but don't go by W/L and Airofoil. There are loads of things to take into account.
A final plea. When comparing aircraft do it with pilots of equal ability. The P38 may be able to do things with an exceptional pilot but if against another exceptional pilot in a plane like the Zero he will and did come unstuck.
The vast majority of pilots in all airforces were average and/or inexperienced. If trying to do a manouver such as the turn in the P38 described before would kill an average pilot, then I don't think it should count as a comparison.

Boy I can tell you, I was out doing an instrument flight the other and this little German airstrip about 20 minutes from my airfield was having a glider competition. We flew past a couple of gliders at about 5000ft. I was amazed at how those things would turn and whip through the sky. It was awesome!

[lesofprimus]

Thats the problem with these kind of discussions... Im always considering 2 opposing pilots of excellent pilot skills who know how to combat their aircraft in the most deadly of ways...

Most do not.......

Although, in many circumstances, there are Axis pilots with 80 kills that get shot down by a pilot with 25 combat hours and 3 kills.........

If trying to do a manouver such as the turn in the P38 described before would kill an average pilot, then I don't think it should count as a comparison.

I wouldnt go so far as to say kill... But the discussion was that the -38 could NEVER turn inside a Zero, which was just plain old WRONG information... And dont forget about the combat flaps that the later -38 model employed....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And that is what really matters, it all comes down to skill in most cases and a lot of luck!

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Thats the problem with these kind of discussions... Im always considering 2 opposing pilots of excellent pilot skills who know how to combat their aircraft in the most deadly of ways...

Most do not.......

Although, in many circumstances, there are Axis pilots with 80 kills that get shot down by a pilot with 25 combat hours and 3 kills.........

I wouldnt go so far as to say kill... But the discussion was that the -38 could NEVER turn inside a Zero, which was just plain old WRONG information... And dont forget about the combat flaps that the later -38 model employed....

Don't forget the dive flaps, a truly exceptional stall capabilities, differential throttle and power ailerons. When the speed got really low a "clover leaf" turn was used with a stall/recovery tactic that would cut the corner and allow the P-38 to cut inside anything at speeds that could get below 90mph according to several sources.

Another thing not mentioned much is the ability of the P-38 to turn equaly well in either direction at any speed/throttle setting with no torque effect.

The P-38 was great in the verticle too.

As for discussing experianced pilots over inexperianced pilots: while it's true that a pilot of 25hrs sometimes shot down more experianced pilots, much more often it was the 1-20hr pilot that got shot down. In the MTO the basic assumption was if you made 6 missions you would usualy complete the tour.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It maneuvered great all around, with the right pilot as Flyboy will say.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

They also could have been rookies who didnt know the capabilities of their own craft..... Or, the could have been really crappy pilots....... Not all Japanese pilots flew like The Devil of Rabaul......

.....

Agreed.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I am not talking about aerodynamics. The principles of aerodynamics apply to any aircraft. What I am talking about is the performance stats and how an aircraft compares based on performance.

Werent we talking about the P-38's ability to turn ? I was.

[Glider]

Whilst on the subject of the P38. Does anyone know why they were replaced in the ETO with what seems to be almost indecent haste. They were the first long range fighters in Europe but from what people are saying it looks as if they should have stayed.

Deralder, I agree with your 8,01 posting.

Lesof, Wars are won and lost by Mr and Mrs Average. If Mr and Mrs Average couldn't get one plane to turn inside another then in my view for comparison purposes it couldn't.
The logic is straightforward
If an exceptional pilot in his P38 could turn inside an average pilot in say a Spit, then it was down to the better skill of the better pilot.
If when flown by two average pilots, the Spit could turn inside the P38, then it is down to the better plane. As the vast majority of turning fights were between average pilots then the spit would wiin the vast majority of the fights.
Of course other factors come into play in particular altitude. If at altitude the P38 would be able to fight in the vertical diving and climbing. If caught on the deck he would be in trouble.
I promise to say no more on the subject apart from agreeing to disagree.

[lesofprimus]

Ummm, yea, and we're inside the Spit vs. -109 thread....... LoL

The stuff wmaxt posted is another proof in point... If LGuy was still around, this woulda been cleared up awhile ago... I know that he posted a graph chart that showed a -38 with flaps outturning anything else in WWII...

Whatever........ Point is, it happened.... For WHATEVER reason, it happened... Skill, ignorance, equipment, luck, stupidity, or act of god...... One or all were accounted in this equation..... On paper it's one answer, in real life it's another.........

Point is, it happened.......

Back on Topic maybe???

The Fw-190 Series, IMO, was much more adaptable and combat effective than the Spitfire Series... More deadly, carried a bigger PUNCH, and overall, made more of an impact during WWII..........

[Glider]

Lesof, Back on the thread as promised

That the Fw190 was more adaptable, Agreed
That the FW190 was more combat effective, As a fighter it was a draw, but it could do other things so overall I will agree
That the Fw190 carried a bigger punch, Agreed
That the FW190 made more of an impact during WW2, Strongly disagree. To agree would be to ignore the service and impact that the Spitfire had before the 190 came into service. That you cannot ignore.

[plan_D]

I believe you're both missing out the bomb and rocket carrying Spitfires. It wasn't strictly an interceptor, it could do ground attack duties.

I believe the Spitfire had more impact on the war. As, Glider said, it was in service longer than the Fw-190 and in that pre-190 era it was a great aid to both the RAF and VVS.

Also, why should we confine the Spitfire's service to NW Europe? What about it's actions over the Med, North Africa and the CBI.
The Spitfire Mk.VIII was a massive help over the CBI.