Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

[cheddar cheese]

Well the Fw-190's werent exactly too shabby in terms of production numbers. I think it also had better flight characteristics than the 109 and was probably easier to fly. 109's were most efficient in the hands of well experienced pilots, as is any plane, but more so in this case.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

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

Actually I think I got confused and thought we were talking about something else. Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

The Fw-190 Series, IMO, was much more adaptable and combat effective than the Spitfire Series... More deadly, carried a bigger PUNCH

100% Completely agree

Originally Posted by 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.

The 190 could do the same both bombs and rockets. The 190 was a great intereceptor and was still a better ground attack aircraft then the Spitfire. The 190 was more rugged and versatile then the Spitfire. I think the only the Spitfire could do that the 190 could not was have floats attached to it.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Spitfire did perform ground attack duties though. It carried rockets and bombs. ....... On top of that, the Spitfire served in every thearte of the war. So it's worth in all different weather conditions were proven. Something the Fw-190 never had chance to do.

Correct however the "Butcher Bird" was desingned to do some effectivly from the beginning and was better suited for the task.

The 190 flew in the harshest condition of the war. The Russian front. It surely would have done just fine in the Med theatre. It flew in the Italian campains. It flew just about everywhere except the Pacific. Big deal.

South East Asia would have been terrible, dont take me wrong. I agree with you Burma was a harsh climate with the heat and moisture, but the harsh winters and cold climates of Russia would have been worse. The only thing worse than that would have been the desert. The sands and winds of the desert destroy moving parts, get into bearings and other greased parts and just grind them down. Our aircraft in Iraq were falling apart after about a month.

Not to take anything away from the Spit. It was one of the finest aircraft to see combat in WW2 and one of the finest piston aircraft ever built.

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

The 190 was far better than the 109 and I think the Lufwaffe were very naive not to have it as their main frontline fighter. I dont think they could have coped with out it....

Polotics my friend. Messerchmitt was favored by the Party not Tank.

[cheddar cheese]

Yeah I know. The RLM should have realised it was better than the 109 though...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

True but that was the problem with the regime, everyone was out for themselves.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Soren, I don't think you understand the stresses and strains the harsh tropical climate of South-East Asia can have an aircraft.

Yes I do, and it wasnt as serius as in the weather conditions accuring in Russia.

And as I've already mentioned, the Spitfire survived the Russian winter too.

Do have any specifications on how it handled the weather conditions, and/or it needed special russian modifications to do so ?

[plan_D]

Do you want to go read up on the Russian modifications of RAF aircraft sent out there? I think you'll find it's strictly armament and armour modifications.

So what? The South-East Asian climate is one of the harshest climates on the planet. If you can just shrug it off, I really don't think you do understand.

The Spitfire served in every theatre of the war. If you're going to doubt it's capability to handle harsh climates then I don't think this discussion is worthy of my time.

[Soren]

So what? The South-East Asian climate is one of the harshest climates on the planet. If you can just shrug it off, I really don't think you do understand.

Im definitely not trying to shrug it off, and yes it is a very harsh inviroment, one of the worst. But the Russian winter was worse though.

The Spitfire served in every theatre of the war. If you're going to doubt it's capability to handle harsh climates then I don't think this discussion is worthy of my time.

I definitely am not doubting its ruggedness against weather conditions, as I know it was tough in that department, but it wasnt anymore tough than the 190, the 190's campaign in Russia proves that.

[plan_D]

The worst conditions would be South-East Asia, Russian Winter and Desert.

They are also three drastically different conditions. By being able to serve in one, do you think it's a certainity they could serve in the others?

[lesofprimus]

I feel the -190 could definatly survive and effectively fight in ALL climates........ Jeez, if it can hadle the Russian Winter, it can do the other ones as well......

[FLYBOYJ]

I'd give the -190 an up in adverse weather conditions because of the radial engine. With an in-line you got another system with fluid in it, more maintenance, more to go wrong, and if it carries a fluid, it WILL eventually leak! (FLYBOYJ'S law)

[lesofprimus]

and if it carries a fluid, it WILL eventually leak!

Amen brother.....

[plan_D]

I think the fact that the Spitfire survived through the Russian winters, desert sand storms and Burmese monsoons shows that the inline could handle it.

[lesofprimus]

I agree... I dont think its a question of whether on not it could, cause it did....

[the lancaster kicks ass]

so we've established they could both servive harsh conditions, maybe we could now talk more about performance.....

[cheddar cheese]

190D-9 all the way.