Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

[plan_D]

The Spitfire could out-climb and out-turn the Fw-190A. It was faster and had a higher operational ceiling, it was faster in acceleration. It was easier to fly, it was easier to recover.

The only things the Fw-190A-8 had over the Spitfire XIV was dive and roll rate. I'm sure you won't find hundreds of Spitfire XIV being shot down by the Fw-190A.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Spitfire could out-climb and out-turn the Fw-190A.

Through the first 45 degree's of a turn the Fw 190A would turn inside the Spit very quickly, and because of its much superior roll rate it could start its turn much quicker.

It was faster and had a higher operational ceiling, it was faster in acceleration.

Sure it was slightly faster in accelleration, but not nearly enough to save its butt in a tough spot against a tailing 190A8.

Originally Posted by Plan_D

It was easier to fly,

Untrue, the Fw 190 was a pilots airplane as described by every LW pilot who flew it.

Originally Posted by Plan_D

it was easier to recover.

The Fw 190A would stall viciously but would easely recover, so there goes that theory.

[plan_D]

No none of my 'theories' are gone out of the window because they were all facts. The Spitfire was easier to fly and easier to recover than the Fw-190.

You've still failed to read properly though. I assume you skip quickly over the posts and then just make up what the other person has said. I haven't changed my mind at all.

First off, I was mocking you for saying the Zero was amazing when all it has over the Wildcat was low-speed turn and climb rates, but the Spitfire was only slightly superior because it had everything but roll and dive. If you don't get it this time, just leave it.

One Zero would be able to deal with one Wildcat but aircraft never went out on their own for combat. The Wildcats would be acting as a squadron and they would use tactics to defeat the Zero. Two Wildcats could defeat four Zeros. The thatch and weave requires speed, what does a dive do? It gives you speed. The Wildcat achieved great success against the Zero once thatch and weave had been perfected.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

No none of my 'theories' are gone out of the window because they were all facts.

With that attitude there's no point in argueing it with you, cause you've already made up your mind and no'one will change it.

So all I can say is, "prove it", either with aerodynamic or historian facts.

The Spitfire was easier to fly and easier to recover than the Fw-190.

Source ?!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The only things the Fw-190A-8 had over the Spitfire XIV was dive and roll rate. I'm sure you won't find hundreds of Spitfire XIV being shot down by the Fw-190A.

I am sure you will. What else was shooting down the Spitfires? Dont tell me that 100's did not get shot down.

Lets see Priller was a Fw-190A pilot and he shot down 68 Spitfires, Josef "Sepp" Wurmheller shot down 56 with a Fw-190A, Maj. Hans "Assi" Hahn shot down 53 with a 190A, Obstlt. Egon Mayer shot down 51 with a 190A, and Maj. Siegfried Schnell shot down 49 with a Fw-190A. and htis is just 5 Luftwaffe pilots who tallied up 277 Spitfires. I can not confirm the type of each Spitfire and I am sure most of them are not XIV's because of the early years they were shot down however who shot down the hundreds, the British themselves!? You keep thinking that plan_D.

The Spitfire was a great aircraft but she was no where near the best of WW2. If you look up what aircraft killed the most Spitfires I am sure you will find that it was a Fw-190A and the aircrat that downed the most Fw-190s was probably a P-47 or P-51 since they had the range to take the fight to the Germans and the Spit did not.

The Fw-190 was very maneuvarable and coudl outfly a Spit just as well also.

I will ask Erich for some info on Fw-190A and Spitfire engangements I am sure he has some and can shed light on the subject.

[GT]

If you haven´t read this so here are some facts:

In July 1942 a Spitfire IX was flown in a comparative trial against a Focke Wulf 190A which had fallen into British hands when its pilot landed by mistake at Pembrey RAF base at in Wales. The trial showed that there was a remarkable similarity in performance. The following are extracts from the official report.

The FW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and maneuverability at heights up to 25,000 feet [7620 met res].

At most heights the Spitfire IX is slightly superior in speed to the FW190 -
the approximate differences in speed are as follows:

At 2,000 ft [610 m] the FW 190 is 7-8 mph [11-13 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire
At 5,000 ft [1524 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same

At 8,000 ft [2440 m] the Spitfire IX is 8 mph [13 km/hr] faster than the FW 190

At 15,000 ft [4573 m] the Spitfire IX is 5 mph [8 km/hr] faster than the FW 190

At 18,000 ft [5488 m] the FW 190 is 3 mph [5 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire IX

At 21,000 ft [6400 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same

At 25,000 ft [7622 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph [8-11 km/hr] faster than the FW 190

Climb: During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 met res], with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better.

Above 22,000 feet [6707 m] the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing.

Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB.

Maneuverability: The FW 190 is more maneuverable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles.

The superior rate of roll of the FW 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX by turning over into a diving turn in the opposite direction.

The Spitfire IX's worst heights for fighting the FW 190 were between 18,000 and 22,000 feet [5486-6707m] and also below 3,000 feet [914m].

The initial acceleration of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage.

The general impression of the pilots involved in the trials is that the Spitfire Mark IX compares well with the FW 190. Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190.

Cheers
GT

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good info and that would go for the Fw-190A also in that he had a good chance of shooting down the Spit.

[plan_D]

He was talking about the Spitfire IX not XIV. You will not find hundreds of XIVs shot down is what I said. The vast majority of those Spitfires shot down were I, II, V and IX. You cannot possibly use total Spitfire losses as a basis for Spitfire XIV losses.

The Spitfire XIV was superior to the Fw-190A. The Fw-190 shooting down Spitfire Mk.V means nothing to the XIV discussion. The Spitfires got their fair share of Fw-190 kills too. Of course Spitfires were going to get shot down the most out of RAF fighters, the Spitfire was basically the only fighter the RAF had after 1941.

The Spitfire V and IX were the two most produced marks of Spitfire. They were the two marks to lose the most also. That counts nothing for the XIV losses.

The Spitfire XIV was superior to the Fw-190A in everything but roll and dive. If encountering a Fw-190A-1 through A-5 it'd have a field day. Only the A-7 through A-9 could contend with the XIV and even then the XIV was still the superior aircraft.

Here's a sum up of the Spitfire XIV against a Fw-190A-3 or A-4, I can't remember;

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS FW 190A
Maximum Speed: From 0-5,000 feet [0-1525 metres] and between 15,000-20,000 feet
[4573-6100 metres] the Spitfire XIV is only 20 mph [32 km/hr] faster than the FW190;
at all other heights it is up to 60 mph [97 km/hr] faster.

Maximum Climb: The Spitfire XIV has a considerably greater rate of climb at all altitudes.

Dive: After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Spitfire XIV has a slight advantage.

Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190. In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced.

Rate of Roll: The FW 190 is very much better.

Conclusions: In defence, the Spitfire XIV should us its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against enemy aircraft. In the attack it can affort to 'mix it' but should beware of the quick roll and dive.
If this manoeuvre is used by a FW190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close
the range until the FW190 has pulled out of its dive.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

See you still dont seem to understand. You are one of those people that thinks that because on paper it says that soemthing is faster than the other or climbs faster or rolls slower or faster or whatever that is automatically over for the other one.

The Spitfire would not have a field day with a Fw-190A. Sorry the Spitfire would have a fieldday with a Bf-109E or a Bf-110 however it would not have a "field day" with an aircraft the calibre of the Fw-190A.

And I am sure that hundreds of XIV were shot down over the course of the war. It was not a wonder aircraft.

[Soren]

Against a Bf-109E the Spit Ia-IIb certainly wouldnt have a field day, only if the 109E's slats jammed, which they unfortunately did quite often on the E series.

Anyway back to the subject....

Yes Plan_D the Spit XIV was slightly superior to the 190A8-9, and approximately on par the 190D-9, if not a tiny bit inferior overall.

However as much as the Spit XIV was no push over for the 190A8-9, the same can be said about the 190A8-9, which would give a Spit XIV a run for its money.

The same can also be said about the late war Bf 109's, which if piloted by an experienced pilot, could give 'any' allied fighter a severe licking.

[plan_D]

I am one of the people that think because in those circumstances you mentioned it's normally true. If you put a Spitfire XIV against a Fw-190A in a climb, the Spitfire XIV will easily climb away from it.

The Spitfire XIV would enjoy a distinct advantage over early Fw-190A-1 through A-6. It would enjoy an advantage over the Fw-190A-7 through A-9.

With a superior climb, speed and ceiling the Spitfire XIV could time and time again achieve a height advantage over the Fw-190A. The Fw-190A was only superior in the initial dive, not in a sustained dive.

The Fw-190As best chances in a dogfight with a Spitfire XIV were to escape, not to turn the tables on the Spitfire XIV. The initial dive characteristics gave the Fw-190A a good chance to escape everytime. Diving doesn't get you on your enemy unless you are already above him. The Spitfire XIV would almost always achieve height advantage on the Fw-190A.

The Fw-190A was a great aircraft that achieved success throughout it's war life but it, itself was not a wonder aircraft either. The Spitfire IX and XVI were it's equal, the Spitfire XII, XIV, XVIII and 21 were superior.

Soren, the Spitfire I and II were on par with the Bf-109E. I never stated that the Spitfire I and II would have a field day with the Bf-109E. In fact, I only mentioned those two in the losses section of my post.

The Spitfire XIV was superior to the Fw-190A. It could constantly achieve height and speed advantage over the Fw-190A. Being above your opponent is always better than below. The discussion between the Spitfire XIV and Fw-190D raged for a long time, it was accepted in both parties that the Fw-190D and Spitfire XIV were equals.

This discussion isn't about the pilot but the plane. An experienced pilot can make almost any plane look good or perform well. If we placed two equally experienced pilots in both planes, the Spitfire XIV would almost always achieve dominance over most aircraft of World War 2. There's only two or three aircraft that could keep up with a Spitfire XIV in a dogfight.

And I haven't even mentioned the F.21...

[Soren]

As im short in time, I'll just quickly correct you on two points Plan_D. I'll address the rest tomorrow.

With a superior climb, speed and ceiling the Spitfire XIV could time and time again achieve a height advantage over the Fw-190A.

Against a 190A8-9 the advantage would not be so clear, your mistakenly basing your judgments on the British 190A-3 tests.

The Fw-190A was only superior in the initial dive, not in a sustained dive.

No Plan_D, the Fw-190A7-8-9 would all out-dive the Spit XIV both in the initial and sustained dive.

Your wrongly basing your comments on the British Spit XIV vs 190A-3 test, but you can't at all compare the A-3 with the A7-8-9 in the dive or climb.

[lesofprimus]

190A-3 test, but you can't at all compare the A-3 with the A7-8-9 in the dive or climb.

You cannot.... And also remember that the -190A-3 they did the trials with was NOT working correctly either.......

[plan_D]

The Fw-190A-3 running rough has been discussed before. I believe DAVIDICUS provided some good information on the BMW running rough on all A-1 through A-3 Fw-190s, this was partially solved in the A-4.

The A-8 was less agile and had a lesser climb rate than the A-4 due to it's increased weight (An extra 800 lbs with no increase in engine power) . If this is true, the Spitfire XIV had a more marked advantage over the A-8 in climb, speed and ceiling.

The A-7 through A-9 probably did have a slight edge in a sustained dive also due to the increased weight.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The A-8 was less agile and had a lesser climb rate than the A-4 due to it's increased weight (An extra 800 lbs with no increase in engine power) . If this is true, the Spitfire XIV had a more marked advantage over the A-8 in climb, speed and ceiling.

Fw 190 History lesson:
In July 1942, the A-3 was replaced on the production lines by the newer Fw 190A-4 version. The main difference was an BMW 801 D-2 engine adapted to use with a MW 50 system for short period engine power increase by injection of a water-methanol (methyl alcohol CH3OH) mixture in the proportion of 1:1. In this way it was possible to raise engine power to 2100 kW for 10 minutes, after which a high probability of engine failure prevented longer use. Due to delays in MW 50 device production, this system was not mounted on the Fw 190A-4 engines, which had the capability to accept this system. It was not used and only A-8 and later series planes would use the advantages of this invention

So the A-8 had a whole 400 HP more than the A-3-4 ! So no, the A-4 was no more agile than the A-8.

Also the A-8 didnt weigh 800lbs more than the A-3-4. Look at the empty weights:

A-4: 3,273 kg
A-8: 3,470 kg

= 197 kg (434 lbs) difference.

So it could at most be a difference of 600-650lbs(Armor increase), nomore.

And as a sidenote: As is often the case with aircraft that evolve through a long series of variants, the FW-190 suffered from "weight creep", and so a new, bigger, lighter wing was designed, going into production in the "FW-190A-6" subvariant in June 1943.

Helping the climb rate even further...

Originally Posted by plan_D

The A-7 through A-9 probably did have a slight edge in a sustained dive also due to the increased weight.

It wasnt just a slight advantage, take into account the extra power as-well and you'll realize this.