# Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?



## Chiron (Apr 21, 2005)

Every fan of Spit. claim that the Spitfire IX outperformed the Fx-190, but I meant Germans did imporove Fx-190 to counter Spitfire Ix, right?

So, which one is best European fighter of WWII?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 22, 2005)

Fw-190D-9...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2005)

I put this in another post:

Advanced FW-190 feature: 

"The engine was controlled by an ingenious, advanced Kommandogerat-a sort of electronic brain box that greatly relieved the pilot's responsibility to control airscrew pitch (rpm), fuel mixture and engine boost (throttle) in combat. In addition, the engine's two-speed supercharger shifted automatically at about 21,000 feet, and control of the important oil-cooler flaps was automatic, thus relieving the pilot of two more major cockpit duties. The pilot needed only to keep his hand on the throttle and his eye on his assailant. In the heat of combat, it was very easy for an Allied fighter pilot to forget to move one or both of the other two required controls if he needed immediate full power to beat his opponent." 

In todays world this is called FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control).

Many aircraft designers today didn't even know this existed. I believe Beech was the first GA company to do this (1980s) and relized they might have patten problems when they found out about this system. A real tribute to Kurt Tank and his design team!


----------



## Chiron (Apr 22, 2005)

I dont know if its true in reality. I found Fw-190 is much difficult to handle than in Spit. in CFS 2. (obviously, there is no other way to experience the thrill of flying these babes than in a fly simulation game)

Fw-190 is so easy to stall in fly, that I kind got frustrated, whereas in Spit, its so easy to fly without place too mach concentration on stall problem.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2005)

The sim may not be too far off. This subject was brought up before. Because of the Spits elliptical wing, it going to have better stall characteristics. The stall will occur at the wingtip and pronounce itself through of the wing to the wing root. The pilot will feel this happening. I would believe that a 190 may not have this pronounced characteristic and the stall may be a bit more abrupt and unforgiving.

Sometimes sim games cold be quite accurate. In my fav "Mig Alley" the F-86 will drop a wing if you get too slow during the landing flare. I did maintenance and "crewed" an F-86 owned by a fellow named Al Hansen. When I showed him the game, he said his bird did the same thing!


----------



## Chiron (Apr 22, 2005)

Since Fw-190 had such "serious" flaw in their plane, did German engineers address in their later design? 

And how about German pilots, who do they counter the stall problem when they try to dogight or dodge Spits?

I meant when I try to intercept a Spit, because of stall problem, I counld not even follow a Spit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2005)

I don't think you could this a design problem, remember, fighters are designed to be inherently unstable. Are you trying to turn with the spit and if so how fast are you going? Try putting your flaps down then turning, let me know what happens!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 22, 2005)

One thing that flight sims cannot reproduce is the feel of the airplane. Like FBJ said, there is a shudder that warns you of the impending stall. Yo can't replicate that with a flight sim.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2005)

evangilder said:


> One thing that flight sims cannot reproduce is the feel of the airplane. Like FBJ said, there is a shudder that warns you of the impending stall. Yo can't replicate that with a flight sim.



Yep - you hit the nail on the head. Sims are good for numbers (Bankangles at certain airspeeds, airspeeds at a certain climb rate etc.) but there's nothing like the feel on the yoke or stick that will tell you what you're aircraft is really doing as its going through the air.


----------



## Chiron (Apr 22, 2005)

"fighters are designed to be inherently unstable. Are you trying to turn with the spit"

The game is not with me now, but thats interesting to know that fighters are designed unsatble.

So, a Fw-190 can not turn with Spit? so whats the proper tactic fight with Spit instead? which plane has upperhand in air combat?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2005)

Fight in the "vertical" Up and down like a big "egg." Manage your energy when coming over the top and try to use diving speed to gain the advantage. If the Spit turns, pull up, come over the top, and try to desend with energy (airspeed) on his rear. If you slow down to the Spits airspeed, or loose positional advantage, go full power and leave the fight. This is a modified "high speed yo-yo"

See the pic and check out this site

http://www.planetstupid.com/ACM.htm


----------



## Chiron (Apr 22, 2005)

http://www.combataircraft.com/tactics/high_speed_yoyo.asp

Like that? I tried before the yo-yo tactic, but whenever I pull up, I lost the sight of enemy, especially the Spit..........maybe i need more practice to master the timing....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2005)

Make sure you got airspeed when entering the battle, the minute he turns, go straight up. Notice on those manuvers the attacking plane trying to get the advantage defeats the tight turn by going into the vertical. "Engery mangement." An old book call "Fighter Tactics and Strategy" has some good stuff as well, this guy explains a lot of the subjects we just discussed here between a Spit and a 190.

I edited my last post - check out this site: http://www.planetstupid.com/ACM.htm


----------



## Chiron (Apr 22, 2005)

thnks, FLYBOYJ  

i learned a lots today.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 22, 2005)

evangilder said:


> One thing that flight sims cannot reproduce is the feel of the airplane. Like FBJ said, there is a shudder that warns you of the impending stall. Yo can't replicate that with a flight sim.



A friend of a friend is a chopper pilot and apparently he can't fly the helicopters in the Microsoft Flight Simulator Series because it is all done through feeling, that is what is missing in a sim. And the fact that you can refly a mission if you get killed


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2005)

Chiron said:


> thnks, FLYBOYJ
> 
> i learned a lots today.



Hey, no problem


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

I would have to say that the best fighter of ETO would have to be a tie between the Fw-190D-9 and the P-38. The P-38 was greatly overshadowed by the P-51D but in my opinion she was better. Now both aircraft the Fw-190 and the P-38 had advantages and disadvantages but they were in my opionion atleast the best Axis and the best Allied fighter of the ETO.



Chiron said:


> I dont know if its true in reality. I found Fw-190 is much difficult to handle than in Spit. in CFS 2. (obviously, there is no other way to experience the thrill of flying these babes than in a fly simulation game)



Actually a company in Germany called Flugwerk is rebuilding Fw-190A's, Me-109's, and P-51's. They are kit planes and in the email I recieved from them you can buy one for $500,000. It may not be the same as the real thing but it is the closest you can ever get. I know I would love to buy one!



> Most all of the common interest is drawn upon the FW 190 project which Flug Werk started in June 1996. The first short flight was done on July 22nd ’04 and we have made further on a row of very successful test flights.
> 
> As is natural with recreating such a complex aircraft, a few things needed fine-tuning, balancing and more investigation. To an extent of more than 95% we have achieved all of our design-goals without the need for any remedies.
> 
> ...


----------



## plan_D (May 2, 2005)

Force Feedback gives you the shudder before a stall. Playing Il-2 FB + AEP with a Sidewinder 2 (Force Feedback)...


...and in my opinion, to answer the question, is the pope really catholic?

Spitfire Mk.XVIII


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 2, 2005)

plan_D said:


> ...and in my opinion, to answer the question, is the pope really catholic?
> 
> Spitfire Mk.XVIII



The first Mk XVIII was not delivered until May 28 1945. A wee bit late for the hostilities in Europe.


----------



## plan_D (May 2, 2005)

Official hostilites, yes. There were still tiny groups of resistance. Much smaller than expected and Hitler hoped for but still...


----------



## Glider (May 2, 2005)

I hadn't realised that you could buy a 'new 190'. I do recall there was a splash of interest in a new Spit ( that was produced at Duxford a couple of years ago. 
It was to original plans and standards with a new merlin but with modern analysis systems built into the airframe for ease of maintanence. What with the Russians supplying new build Yak 9? all we need is a new Lancaster to keep everyone happy


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

A new Mossie aswell, if you're offering


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 2, 2005)

Someone in New Zealand is already working on that.
http://www.mossie.org/articles/CWD/Mos.html


----------



## The Jug Rules! (May 3, 2005)

Hey, I'm gettin a lot of mixed reports about the p-38. Some say the p-38 couldn't turn as well as single engined figters, and that its only advatage was boom and zoom tactics. Others say that it could outclimb and outturn single engined fighters...Whats the real story??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Well the P-38L could climb with anything single engined. As for manoverability, they could turn with anything, especially at altitude.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

The actual aircraft could turn, yes. It was not simple though, P-38s required experienced, well trained or naturall talented pilots to fly them to their extreme. 
When one of those pilots got in the seat it could climb with, turn with, dive with, roll with the best and worst of them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Yep, I forgot to mention that. Many accidents were had early on because pilots werent recieving enough training.


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2005)

It wasn't just early on though. I interviewed a guy that flew them late in the war and the training was woefully inadequate. They went from single engine fighters to the P-38 after just an orientation flight, squatting behind the pilot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Glider said:


> I hadn't realised that you could buy a 'new 190'. I do recall there was a splash of interest in a new Spit ( that was produced at Duxford a couple of years ago.
> It was to original plans and standards with a new merlin but with modern analysis systems built into the airframe for ease of maintanence. What with the Russians supplying new build Yak 9? all we need is a new Lancaster to keep everyone happy



The 190's not completely built to original plans but it is the closest thing you will find to it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

actually they're amazingly close to the real thing, they spent thousands just to have the bolts needed specailly made...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

What I mean is the engines are not the same, the instruements are not the same, and I belive but I am not sure that the fuselage is not the same size.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Yeah, it does look different to the original.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (May 3, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Well the P-38L could climb with anything single engined. As for manoverability, they could turn with anything, especially at altitude.



Zero too??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2005)

The Jug Rules! said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Well the P-38L could climb with anything single engined. As for manoverability, they could turn with anything, especially at altitude.
> ...



IF YOU WERE DICK BONG OR TOMMIE MCGUIRE


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

At high speeds, yes. That's not hard though, against a Zero. I don't know about below 275 mph.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

It could easily outclimb and out dive it. Turning with it wasnt too easy, but there are reports the Richard Bong managed to turn with them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

but absolutely anything could turn inside it at 250mph+........



CC said:


> Yeah, it does look different to the original.



they look exactily the same!!, show me two pics of them, and point out differences you can see........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Why dont YOU get the pics for once?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

because i'm not the one saying i can see a difference between them..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

As Adler stated, the fuselages look slightly different. To me it looks slightly shorter and a little bit fatter. It also has the essence about it that it isnt real. I cant put my finger on it, its just something i seem able to sense.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

The Jug Rules! said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Well the P-38L could climb with anything single engined. As for manoverability, they could turn with anything, especially at altitude.
> ...



I think the P-38 could turn with just about anything.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> It could easily outclimb and out dive it. Turning with it wasnt too easy, but there are reports the Richard Bong managed to turn with them.



He actually would throttle back the engine on the inside of the turn and add more power on the outboard engine. This is more difficult than it sounds. If you get uncoordinated on the controls or on the throttles you spin, if you're low, you spin and die!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

it also took forever to go from cruise configuration to combat configuration...........

and CC, i think you're problem is that the new FW, is just that, because it's new, if it looked aged i bet you wouldn't tell a difference.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Wow!  I never knew how he managed it, but that sounds very difficult but also like a viable explanation 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I never said the fuselage looked different, I just said I think the size was different. I think the aircraft just looks new like Lanc said.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it also took forever to go from cruise configuration to combat configuration...........



The P-38?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Wow!  I never knew how he managed it, but that sounds very difficult but also like a viable explanation 8)



I think he also threw some flap in there as well, especially if he was slow.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > it also took forever to go from cruise configuration to combat configuration...........
> ...



yes


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2005)

Well not forever, but it was rather a lengthy process.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

yes but if you've just been bounced from behined it's not ideal is it.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2005)

Just go into a dive. That should see em off


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

if you've ust been bounced from behind diving is unlikely to be your first course of action, think about it, there's someone behind you shooting at you, do you try and turn to get into a position where you can shoot back, or put the stick straight forward and loose all your altitude??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2005)

Id dive. During the dive id engage combat configuration. Then id pull up and out climb the other guy.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

you assume the other man had followed you, and do you really think, that after you have, on instinct , dived after being bounced, you'd be able to switch to combat configuration whilst under severe G forces?? wouldn't you be using all your effort to concentrate on perhaps pulling out of your dive?? and you'd loose allot of speed again during the climb back up to meet your oponent, where you're easy prey again, what are you gonna do to get your speed up again?? dive??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2005)

dive mildy in a spiral. The power will easily build the speed up. Besides, if you are experienced in a P-38 then switching to combat configuration should be like second nature, and not take that long.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

but many many more pilots were lost in P-38s due to lack of experience than those who did become experienced.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2005)

Lack of training. Not the planes fault.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

well perhaps if the plane was designed to be easier to fly??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2005)

Well it was fairly easy to fly if you know how. But going from a simple single engined trainer to a big, powerful twin engined with an unorthodox twin boom layout isnt the most moderated step-up ever.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

yes however that should to be considdered in the design, if a plane's hard to fly that's the plane's fault, it's not to do with the level of training..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2005)

But in any case, a tricky plane to fly requires sufficient training. The USAAF knew it wasnt simple, and these levels of training were not met. Simple as that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

well why not make the plane easier to fly??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2005)

And how do you propose to do that?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

well when it was designed, it should have been designed to be easier to fly.......


----------



## evangilder (May 4, 2005)

Maybe, but some airplanes that are difficult to fly become great assets once a pilot is seasoned in it. Sometimes its just a matter of how you do things. The Corsair was a miserable airplane to land on a carrier, but it was a great fighter. Sometimes making it easier to fly can make it less effective. 

A standard Cessna will always try to right itself to level flight when you do something squirrely. That is how it was designed. The Pitts S2C, and aerobatic plane on the other hand will not. It is designed that way to be a great aerobatic plane. Not an easy bugger to fly, but a good pilot can do amazing things with it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



Combat config?  All you got to do is push the throttles fwd first, push the props to high pitch and go, watching that you didn't overboost. I understand that the P-38 accelerated rapidly.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you assume the other man had followed you, and do you really think, that after you have, on instinct , dived after being bounced, you'd be able to switch to combat configuration whilst under severe G forces?? wouldn't you be using all your effort to concentrate on perhaps pulling out of your dive?? and you'd loose allot of speed again during the climb back up to meet your oponent, where you're easy prey again, what are you gonna do to get your speed up again?? dive??



Sorry Lanc, I have to disagree, you're bounced, you dive make turns in the dive and use the energy to build up speed and not over stress the airplane, at that point you decide to re-enter the fight or turn to home. 

In the dive you "manage your energy," and use that to climb back up. That's fighter pilot 101 - I've had the opportunity to do some simulated dogfighting in T-33s, Fougas, and L-29s. The whole thing resembles a egg shape flight. At that point you look to exploit the opponent by entering high speed or low speed scissors, or just try to turn with the opponent. I actually learned its better to fight in the vertical. 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> But in any case, a tricky plane to fly requires sufficient training. The USAAF knew it wasnt simple, and these levels of training were not met. Simple as that.



This was recognized in about 1943 and many P-38 pilots came out of multi-engine aircraft ranks (B-25 and A-20 pilots were frequently tapped to go to P-38s). Any multi engine recip aircraft could be tricky to fly, especially if you're a low time pilot. Even today in Generl Aviation, there is a large accident rate for multi engine aircraft (Cessna 300 series, Piper Aztecs etc.) because the pilots flying them don't stay proficient, especially in emergency engine out take off procedures.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2005)

Yes. Also the P-38 was designed to "Specification X-608. In Specification X-608, the aircraft was required to maintain a top speed of 360 mph, whereas previously designed aircraft were only required to maintain a top speed of 300 mph. This aircraft would also be required to operate at altitudes of 20,000 and contain firepower three or four times higher than any other existing fighter aircraft. Essentially, this aircraft would be able to perform any mission any other fighter would be capable of, but not limited to any specific one. " Essentially meaning that this was to be far superior to other fighters of the time. Imagine the difference going from a P-35 or P-36 into this.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > But in any case, a tricky plane to fly requires sufficient training. The USAAF knew it wasnt simple, and these levels of training were not met. Simple as that.
> ...



Yeah but I personally have always loved the added security of having another engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yes. Also the P-38 was designed to "Specification X-608. In Specification X-608, the aircraft was required to maintain a top speed of 360 mph, whereas previously designed aircraft were only required to maintain a top speed of 300 mph. This aircraft would also be required to operate at altitudes of 20,000 and contain firepower three or four times higher than any other existing fighter aircraft. Essentially, this aircraft would be able to perform any mission any other fighter would be capable of, but not limited to any specific one. " Essentially meaning that this was to be far superior to other fighters of the time. Imagine the difference going from a P-35 or P-36 into this.



And you're right CC - there was no aircraft available to provide a easy transistion, especially for a twin engine aircraft. A simialr thing happened to many countries after WWII when they went from the F-86 into the F-104.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > cheddar cheese said:
> ...



Yep, as long as the pilot says proficient


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

And thats why there is training flights. They always seem boring but when the infimous words "Oh Shit!" are said you realize why you spent all those hours in the simulator and in the traffic pattern.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

The F-104 nicknamed Widowmaker.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

Yeap the Starfighter had a habit of it.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

Also nicknamed Hoover because it sounded like a vacuum cleaner when it was taxiing. "Hey, mate, you missed a bit"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

Ive never actually seen one operationally.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

I haven't but my dad has. He said they used to joke about them hoovering the runway when ever they heard a F-104 taxiing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2005)

They scream when they take off!


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2005)

Can I comit something close to sacrilage and ask if we are not over egging the P38. 
If you read the trail we have a plane that can turn with anything in the sky, even a Zero and no doubt the Spit, both extreamely agile planes. All that metal and the forces that follow.
Match close to anything in a climb on one engine, I don't think so. I am sure that you have seen the shots of a Mossie doing a slow roll in a climb on one engine. Anyone seen a P38 doing the same?
Has the three times the firepower of any other fighter. Again those flying 190's Tempests, Spit 5C and even the humble Hurricane IIC would disagree. Four cannons each equal to 2.5 to 3 HMG's equals 10 - 12 HMG equivalent. These are more than equal to the 7 equivalent in the P38. Being on the centre line does make a large difference but it doesn't multiply things by a factor of 5.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the P38 was a fine plane that did a lot but we have to keep a sense of balance. 

Now having lit the blue touchpaper, I will retire.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 4, 2005)

Is it okay if I chuck some petrol on that touchpaper of yours Glider?

A single engined plane naturally has a smaller wingspan than a twin engined plane (unless it is a la Do 335 but that's still big) simply because the wings have to house the engines. These longer wings would reduce rate of roll, reducing it's manouverability


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

Doesn't bother me, I'd rather be in the Spitfire. The only way the Lightning would be able to beat a Spitfire is if the Lighting has a seasoned pilot. 

It's all well and good having an awesome plane but what's the point if no one is capable of flying it to it's extreme?


----------



## mosquitoman (May 4, 2005)

When it comes down to it, it's the pilot in the plane and who's got the height/sun etc...


----------



## wmaxt (May 4, 2005)

Many pilots complained of going from single engined aircraft into combat with only 20hrs cockpit time in the P-38. This seemed to occur in thr ETO much more than in the Pacific. I've read that in the MTO they figured if you made it through 6 missions you would make it through your tour. If you add a new more complicated aircraft and new to combat you have big problems.

Rings Doc researce site has a comparison between a P-38F and a Fw-190.

I've read that it was both easier and harder to fly than the P-51 so I don't know on that score. With an experianced pilot it was exceptional in the roles it was used especialy the J/L models.

The controls were simplified in later models to make it easier to go from cruise to combat. 

A favorite tactic when bounced was to turn into the attacker where the concentrated fire of the P-38 was its most effective.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Many pilots complained of going from single engined aircraft into combat with only 20hrs cocpit time in the P-38. This seemed to occur in thr ETO much more than in the Pacific. I've read that in the MTO they figured if you made it through 6 missions you would make it through your tour. If you add a new more complicated aircraft and new to combat you have big problems.
> 
> I've read that it was both easier and harder to fly than the P-51 so I don't know on that score. With an experianced pilot it was exceptional in the roles it was used especialy the J/L models.
> 
> ...



I had a neighbor who flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO. He liked the 38 better but said the heating system was poor. He said the mustang was faster more maneuverable but less stable. He flew P-51 C models that were field converted from "Bs". These did not have the ventral in front of the V stab making the aircraft a little unstable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2005)

> The controls were simplified in later models to make it easier to go from cruise to combat.



Lanc mention this earlier, someone explain to me if they read this somewhere in the Pilot's Manual or something?!?!

Has anyone come up with any information on this? I went through My P-38 manual and I could not find anything on cruise to combat configuration (It makes me think of a Star Wars X-wing fighter spreading its wings). In flying high performance aircraft, going to a high speed mode you go full throttle, high propeller pitch, mabe full rich on the mixture (if you're not too high above sea level) monitor temps (oil and coolant) and if you have a supercharger you may have a tach for impeller speed. I can't think of any other thing that the P-38 would do different. Comments?


----------



## wmaxt (May 4, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > I had a neighbor who flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO. He liked the 38 better but said the heating system was poor. He said the mustang was faster more maneuverable but less stable. He flew P-51 C models that were field converted from "Bs". These did not have the ventral in front of the V stab making the aircraft a little unstable.
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > wmaxt said:
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

Did anyone find info on "Cruise to Combat Configuration?"


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 5, 2005)

I havent found anything yet. Ill keep looking though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2005)

Me neither.


----------



## wmaxt (May 5, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Did anyone find info on "Cruise to Combat Configuration?"



I will look for a better description but these are some of the steps:

Switch fuel tanks from drop tanks to main (both fuel systems are seperate).
Drop drop tanks.
Mixture controls
Propellar controls
Throttles
Charge guns (early models) if not already done.

The engine controls must be moved in that order to prevent detonation or overspeeding. This was simplafied in later models. Lockheed had better engine controls that would not only have simplafied things but would have given the P-38 better mixture control and faster cruise speeds. The WPB (War Production Board) didn't allow them to be completed and installed.

It's a lot to do in a hurry and with the various controls placed around the cockpit I'd bet it could be exciting when someone is attacking you!

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone find info on "Cruise to Combat Configuration?"
> ...



 Hmmmm....With the exception of the drop tanks and charging guns, that's not much different when flying any other twin engine airplane, granted that someone is shooting at you, but what you describe there is even typical for most single engine WW2 fighter aircraft as well. For the most part, if that took you 5 or 6 seconds, you took your time. Keep in mind that these steps were probably on a checklist that a properly trained pilot could do in his sleep.

As far as detonation or over speeding, I think this is not an issue considering they were running pretty high octane fuel and you could always come back on the mixture. The P-38 has a constant speed prop (Propeller governor equipped), unless you wind the thing up outside the dive speed envelop, I doubt the engine will over speed.

Thanks for the info, anyone got anything else?


----------



## wmaxt (May 5, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > FLYBOYJ said:
> ...



The engine control sequence is right out of the flight manual. Mine is an Avaition Publication so I think it is a collaboration of early and late information.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > wmaxt said:
> ...



Thanks for the reference!

You know, I think I have the same one, but again I could tell you those tasks don't take that long. I'm still wondering about this combat comfiguration?!? It still reminds me of an X wing fighter openeing up its wings


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

Most of the controls should be right around the same spot in the cockpit anyhow. I am not familiar with the cockpit of the P-38 but I would think the mixture and propellar controls would be on the throttle and the drop tank jettison and the gun charger would be on the cyclic or yoke, which ever it has.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Most of the controls should be right around the same spot in the cockpit anyhow. I am not familiar with the cockpit of the P-38 but I would think the mixture and propellar controls would be on the throttle and the drop tank jettison and the gun charger would be on the cyclic or yoke, which ever it has.



You're right my friend, everything is within a hand's reach. Throttle, Mixture and Prop control are all next to each other on the left side of the cockpit, I believe the drop tank control is just forward of that and i believe the fuel tank position control is on the center pedestal (I'm writing this from memory)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

It just makes sense to me and most modern aircraft today are built like that. You control the aircraft with your right hand and you control the throttle and other important controls with the left hand.

The same is for helicopters, the cyclic is between the pilots leg (as it is in most fixed wing fighter aircraft, with the execption of several newer aircraft with the stick on the right) and the collective with throttle controls on the left of the pilot.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2005)

Here is a shot of the cockpit of a P-38


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

It still amazes me though that they did not use cyclic type controls rahter than yokes like in this picture. I find that an aircraft is more easier to control with a cyclic then with a yoke.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2005)

Although having never flown a plane, I personally would rather have a yoke.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It just makes sense to me and most modern aircraft today are built like that. You control the aircraft with your right hand and you control the throttle and other important controls with the left hand.
> 
> The same is for helicopters, the cyclic is between the pilots leg (as it is in most fixed wing fighter aircraft, with the execption of several newer aircraft with the stick on the right) and the collective with throttle controls on the left of the pilot.



You said it - and thats why I had a hard time understanding this combat configuration thing. Sure, you're going to different power settings and configurations during W/E ops but for the most part the process should be the same if your in a nomal climb or decent during non-combat flight, and all this would be on a checklist. The exception here is doing WE you're going to be going through that checklist a lot quicker!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

Same thing here. I was confused.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Here is a shot of the cockpit of a P-38
> 
> Although having never flown a plane, I personally would rather have a yoke.





Thanks CC - you could see most engine controls are on the left hand side within close reach of each other.

I could tell CC, I feel more confortable in a single engine aircraft with a stick. 2 or more engines for the most part I like a yoke.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Here is a shot of the cockpit of a P-38



I did this from memory (its slow at work right now). I'll check myself later!


----------



## wmaxt (May 6, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a shot of the cockpit of a P-38
> ...



Where you labled "Gun Charger" is the Cannon firing button  but the rest are correct. What is not visable is the Fuel Selector Switches (2)on the left floor/shelf. Heaven help you if you turn them to a spot between two positions or an empty tank in the excitement of combat!

I belive the Gun Charge Handle is/would be behind the control arm to the control wheel. It/s hard to say in one picture I have it looks like it's on the panel behind the yoke the other pictures are a later model without the charg handle (Early models through H dad a gun charging handle) other models were charged on the ground prior to flight.

wmaxt


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 6, 2005)

More at http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > cheddar cheese said:
> ...



Hey thanks for the critique - and you're right, it would be a bummer to turn to an empty tank - I almost did it flying a Bonanza, not fun, but that's why you use a checklist when you fly!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> More at http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html



Thanks KK - I got the same manual


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a shot of the cockpit of a P-38
> ...



When it comes to accrobatics and combat aircraft I would rather have cyclic or stick but for just slow private flying such as in a Cessna I would rather have a yoke. I just fine that a stick gives you more maneaverabilty but then again I have never flown a combat aircraft that had a yoke so I do not know. The only aircraft with yoke that I have flown are Cessna's. All the military aircraft I have flown had a stick.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > cheddar cheese said:
> ...



Try a Citabria or a Super Cub - "It's a kick with a stick"! The most comfortable plane I've flown with a stick is a T-34. I got about 70 hours in these an I could tell you with a stick you feel like the ailerons are part of your arms!


----------



## wmaxt (May 7, 2005)

I think with the P-38 it was used to make sure the Pilot had enogh strength to operate the controls effectively it's a big plane. It was probable convienence that kept it in the J-25 and L models. I bet it was nice if your flying a 9 hour mission.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I think with the P-38 it was used to make sure the Pilot had enogh strength to operate the controls effectively it's a big plane. It was probable convienence that kept it in the J-25 and L models. I bet it was nice if your flying a 9 hour mission.
> 
> wmaxt



Steve Hinton, A pilot form the Chino air museum has a lot of hours in a P-38. I asked him about this one time and he said "as long as the aircraft is kept trim, its light on the controls." 

I've flown aircraft for long durations and I could tell you if you're penatrating rough air, that's when you work, size of the aircraft a different matter. I've gone on 4 hours flights in calm air in a Cessna 210T and felt fine after the flight, yet I've flown Cessna 150s in 40 knot winds for 20 minutes and it felt like iI got mugged by a New York street gang!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

Exactly size of the aircraft does not matter, especially in the modern world of hydraulics and hydraulic pumps, servos, primary servos, and flight control rods and fly by wire. You can weigh 90lb and fly a 747.

As FLYBOYJ said though when the winds get crazy you have to fight the winds and that is when you start to feel muscles that you never had. Try flying through the Alps of Austria at 5000ft at a speed of 135 knots with a winds of 42 knots. It was crazy for about 30 minutes until we got through the pass. Sort of like a roller coaster, you would see the aircraft in front of you just disappear and then it was like "Oh Shit guys, hold on!" Good fun though.


----------



## evangilder (May 8, 2005)

Good fun, in a pucker factor sort of way! I know what you mean though, it's fun once your realise that no one got hurt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

Exactly afterwards when you are drinking a beer at the pub. The funny thing was on that flight my left auxternal fuel tank was not seated properly and it was not transfering fuel. We thought we were going to have to make an extra stop in Hungary on our way to Bosnia. The winds and turbulence were so crazy that it seated my tank for me and the fuel started transfering just fine, so we were able to continue the flight as planned.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

I thought it was quite amuzing.


----------



## evangilder (May 8, 2005)

Gotta love when that happens. 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

When I lived in California, the area around Edwards AFB and Mojave airport are well know for thier crazy winds. You could take off out of Edwards or Mojave and the winds will be dead calm, come back in an hour and they'll be 35 gusting to 55 mph with turbulance that could toss you around +/- 500 with no problem! At Mojave Airport the winds come from all directions. It location is at the foot of these mountains that produce some wild mountain waves, the worse place in the world to build an airport. The MARINES built the place during WW2 - Go Figure!  

I was putting around in a friend's C-150 over Mojave airport after completing its annual inspection when I got smacked so hard that the needle valve in the carbuerator float stuck, pouring gas straight out of the carb! I could swear that I saw the whole windscreen and nose of the airplane actually "twist" from the turbulance!  It made a squeeking and popping noise that led me to believe that I was about to be left 1000 feet above Mojave Airport with an airplane split in 2! Luckily I was turining base to final and landed without incident, but the gas kept pouring from the carb and the engine kept running! When I got back to our hangar, you should seen the look on the face of the guy who owned the plane! He only belived my story after we took his carbuertor off the plane (after shutting off the fuel) and I showed him the stuck carbuertor! 

But anyway, from a C-150 to A 747, as Adler stated, any aircraft could be a handful when flying through rough air!


----------



## evangilder (May 8, 2005)

Yikes! I have heard that Mojave can be a real trick to fly in and out of. I was once down at the airport in Ocotillo Wells, out in the desert near Palm Desert. The heat gets so bad there, the Cessnas have a tough time sticking their landings. Fun to watch the rookies trying to get them down. Not that _I_ would want to try it!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

Pull power back about a mile away, and hope the thermals die down before you turn final!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

We were flying around over here in Germany in a Blackhawk about 2 years ago when the turbulence got so bad and the pilot on the controls tried to fight it so much that the blades started vibrating past the limits to the point that they were litterally shaking the aircraft apart and we had to make a precautionary landing and wait for maintenance crews and TI's to inspect the aircraft just so we could fly home. It was to me probably the most scariest moment that I have flown in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

Yikes!  I could just see those composite blades turining into splinters!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

Who knows, maybe like that the P-58 could of done 450 mph?!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

there's an outside chance that post is in the wrong topic??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> there's an outside chance that post is in the wrong topic??



OMG your right


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

you sound supprised 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

I am - that's what happens when you're typing a report and answering a thread at the same time!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

you mean you're supprised i'm right?? i'd have thought you'd have gotten used to that by now


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

Now Lanc, let's not get carried away, you know its only Monday


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

dude it's tuesday...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> dude it's tuesday...........



OMG Did it again  

AND YOU BETTER NOT SAY ANYTHING!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Tuseday?  I thought everyone going to school on a Saturday was a little strange...


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 10, 2005)

Yeah, that would be downright nutty. Especially in August.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 10, 2005)

Nah, I thought it was Dec 31, obviously you've proved me wrong. Oh well...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2005)

Where am I? And who are you people?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

Whats an plane? Is it like superman holding two guns?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

no, that's just what american pilots think.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

A-mer-i-ca...Whos he?


----------



## evangilder (May 11, 2005)

Actually it's what American fighter pilots _know_!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Actually it's what American fighter pilots _know_!



And if he is a US Naval fighter pilot, you can address his as "GOD" 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

Murphy's laws of war clearly state however that

"4. You are not superman; marines and fighter pilots take note"......


----------



## evangilder (May 11, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

i still have a copy of them next to my computer........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

But what if Clark Kent was a fighter pilot?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> But what if Clark Kent was a fighter pilot?



He'd be an Ensign


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

and he has poor vision so proberly wouldn't be able to fly anyway......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and he has poor vision so proberly wouldn't be able to fly anyway......



So he says!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

The glasses are just a decoy lanc  He has X-Ray vision so he'll fight well in the clouds


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

i thought only superman had the powers?? i didn't realise when he was clark kent he still had the powers??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The glasses are just a decoy lanc  He has X-Ray vision so he'll fight well in the clouds



and look at the women!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

and their bone structure??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

If hes looking at women I think hell be more worried about his bone structure


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and their bone structure??



I'm sure he could adjust the intensity, being a US Navy Fighter pilot ya know! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

dude using X-rays that still wouldn't work........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

Yeah but that only makes it more freaky!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

"Stop undressing me with your eyes!"

"I cant help it, its a condition I have "


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

NO CC I WILL NOT HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH YOU!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

That isnt what you said lastnight...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

wow CC, that's a mature comeback


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Well thats what I am. Mature cheddar cheese


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

i'm not even gonna dignify that with a responce..........


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

You just did.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

damn........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Damn what? Busters?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

no that would be dam busters.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

No I was talking about Damn busters, such as that talk you get in that crazy film the fast and the furious  You a buster?


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2005)

Well back to the title of the thread....

The Fw-190 and Spitfire remained very well matched throughout the war, and neither was ever really superior to another, except maby at the Fw-190's first introduction to the war where it DID outclass the Spit.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 12, 2005)

Thanks for getting us on-topic Soren, I'll agree with you but at the end of the war the Spit was best


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Thanks for getting us on-topic Soren, I'll agree with you but at the end of the war the Spit was best



The SPit XIV was definitely superior to any "Anton", but it wasnt more than equal to the "Dora 9". The Spit would have a REALLY hard time against a Dora 9, and vice versa.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2005)

Ill agree with that. Add to that the fact that the Fw-190 was far more versatile and you have one of he greatest planes of the war (IMO)


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2005)

I'd still rather be in a Spitfire Mk.XIVe. It had better fighter vs. fighter armament.


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I'd still rather be in a Spitfire Mk.XIVe. It had better fighter vs. fighter armament.



Why is that? Both the Dora and XIV had 2 20mm and 2 .50"/13mm guns.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2005)

The M2 Browing .50 cal (12.7mm) delivered a 43.3 gram shell at 880 m/s, with a 750-850 rpm. That's against the MG131 13mm which delivered a 36 gram shell at 730 m/s at 900 rpm. 

MG131 fires more but is slower and lighter. 

The Hispano Mk.II 20mm delivered a 130 gram shell at 880 m/s, with a 600 rpm. Against a MG151/20 20mm delivering a 105 gram shell 725 m/s, at 700 - 750 rpm. 

MG151/20 fires more but, again, is slower and lighter. 

I'd still rather have the Spitfire armament although they were more equal in fighter vs. fighter than I previously thought.


----------



## Soren (May 13, 2005)

The armaments were very close to each other. The Fw-190 having a higher rpm, while the Spit having more power pr round. I would call it even.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 13, 2005)

I would as well.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 14, 2005)

And I would rather fly in an Fw-190D-9... The differences in armaments are negligable... 

In the hands of a 180+ Ace, u were pretty much unbeatable against anyone and any other airframe, as long as u weren't gettin bounced or at 5 to 1 odds of course...


----------



## mosquitoman (May 14, 2005)

If the Spit got you into a turning battle, you'd be a goner- but then again I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to try to turn with a Spit


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The M2 Browing .50 cal (12.7mm) delivered a 43.3 gram shell at 880 m/s, with a 750-850 rpm. That's against the MG131 13mm which delivered a 36 gram shell at 730 m/s at 900 rpm.
> 
> MG131 fires more but is slower and lighter.
> 
> ...



The Dora's guns are closer to the centre line of the a/c. Convergence is not a big a problem as would be for the Spitfire with it guns ~7' from the a/c centreline.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> If the Spit got you into a turning battle, you'd be a goner- but then again I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to try to turn with a Spit



Normally yes, but at or above 400mph the Fw-190D would be the winner of T&B fight. You don't want to get into a high speed fight with a Dora-9 !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2005)

Soren said:


> mosquitoman said:
> 
> 
> > If the Spit got you into a turning battle, you'd be a goner- but then again I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to try to turn with a Spit
> ...



Try banking either aircraft at or above 400 mph (especially at high "Gs") and I guarantee you won't be doing 400 mph for long!  That's where I think the Spit could win.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > mosquitoman said:
> ...



No but long enough for the Dora to get vital hits on a running Spit !  

Also with a 2000+HP engine you will be able to hold a 400mph turn for a pretty amount of time, the circle might not be the smallest but the rate of turn is immense !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2005)

Soren said:


> the circle might not be the smallest but the rate of turn is immense !



And that's where you're going to get in trouble!:

See the attached chart on maneuvering speed, then take note

the 190D9 had a wing-loading of about 46.3 lbs per Sq/ft

The Spit XIV had a wing-loading of 35 lb/sq. ft

The 190D had a stall speed clean of about 109 mph

The Spit XIV had a stall speed clean of about 87 mph

(If we use earlier spitfire models the disparity gets worse.)

At any given speed, the Spitfire will turn better and stall last and will give better stall warning with its elliptical wing


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > the circle might not be the smallest but the rate of turn is immense !
> ...



Hold it, hold it !! 

The Spit's elevators are almost useless at 400mph and above, but the 190's are as light as a feather, and the same goes for the aileron controls.

Yes the 190 has a higher stall speed, and at speeds below 400mph the Spit XIV will definitely turn tighter, but were talking at 400mph or above. 

The last thing you wanna do with a Dora-9 on your tail at 400mph, is to try and bleed speed, as the Dora's turn rate at that speed is immense !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Soren said:
> ...



From those numbers, not as immense as a Spitfire! That radius of Turn Vs. Velocity chart is universal, the only thing different is the stall speed. Just because you go faster and have power, it doesn't mean you're turning tighter. Rate of turn vs. radius - there is a great difference!


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From those numbers, not as immense as a Spitfire!



Yes it is, it is alot more immense than the Spit's. By your logic the Jap. Zero would be turning tighter than any other fighter at 400mph aswell, but it certainly wouldnt !

The Spit can barely turn or roll at 400mph, as its elevators are too heavy. The Fw-190D9 doesnt have heavy elevators at all at that speed, neither has it got heavy ailerons at that speed. 




> That radius of Turn Vs. Velocity chart is universal, the only thing different is the stall speed. Just because you go faster and have power, it doesn't mean you're turning tighter. Rate of turn vs. radius - there is a great difference!



Rate-of-turn can be as beneficial as turn-radius, or even more beneficial. The Spit could offcourse slow down and turn smaller circles, but the Dora-9 could make bigger but faster circles without losing any considderable amount of speed in the process. And at the same time the Dora-9 had the energy advantage. It is a kind of stalemate.

Also the Fw-190D9's initial turn rate at all speeds is alot faster than the Spit's, wich can be very beneficial.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > From those numbers, not as immense as a Spitfire!
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2005)

Sorry for my last post Soren, I reall botched that up


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

> If it had the capability to overcome control "heaviness" as described below, in theory it would considering its wing loading.



But it didnt, and neither did the Spit. At 380mph the Spit and Dora-9 would be approx equal in turn rate, above that the Dora-9 begins to really have the advantage. 



> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > The Spit can barely turn or roll at 400mph, as its elevators are too heavy. The Fw-190D9 doesnt have heavy elevators at all at that speed, neither has it got heavy ailerons at that speed.
> ...



Sorry, I really messed it up there !!  I wasnt impliyng that no Aileron-defelection is necessary for initiating a turn or that the elevators initiated the turn alone (but the ailerons would get heavy aswell), the elevators were just the main problem as they would get REALLY stiff. And as you know, without elevators there will be no horizontal movement once the ailerons has brought the plane into banking position.



> If we're at 400 mph, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that we're going to see 390 mph very quickly.



Not if you don't bank to violently, and it is 380mph wich is the "Deadline" if so to speak.




> Agreed, the D9 would have an advantage before the spit starts slowing down, but once it does, it goes back to the spit.



Definitely.



> I think if you do the math in this equation, the Spit will wind up inside the Dora with a firing solution in hand!



Not at all, as the Spit would have to bleed speed to get inside the Dora's circle, and at the time it does the Dora is going much faster.



> I'd like to see the number on that from each aircraft's flight manuals.



It is commonly known that fighters with higher wingloading will have a faster 'initial turnrate' through the first 45 degrees than one with lower wing loading, also the Dora-9 has a very long rear fuselage helping its rear control surfaces turn the plane better.



> All in all while I agree the D9 is an excellent aircraft, I think trying to turn with a Spit at any speed is not a good thing because I believe you could get verily easily "suckered" into the Spits field of advantage.



I agree, however if you stay above or around 400mph, the Spit would be the sucker to try and follow, except if it has a height advantage. Below 400mph the Dora better not try to turn with a Spit, as when the speed bleeds off the Spit will be much more maneuverable in the Horizontal ! 



> Sorry for my last post Soren, I reall botched that up.



No problem, did it myself when I forgot to mention the Ailerons, making you believe I ment only the elevators were needed for a plane to initiate a turn or roll


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 15, 2005)

Soren, it's a pleasure to do "business with you"  I think are argument lies between 380 and 400 mph. At that point I think it might be in the hands of the pilots!


----------



## Soren (May 15, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren, it's a pleasure to do "business with you"



It goes both ways FLYBOYJ !  



FLYBOYJ said:


> I think are argument lies between 380 and 400 mph. At that point I think it might be in the hands of the pilots!



I agree. Fact is both planes were very equal, although they didnt share the exact same maneuvering qualities.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2005)

you guys realise though how unlikely it is you'll be going into a dogfight and be staying at 400mph for very long??


----------



## Soren (May 15, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you guys realise though how unlikely it is you'll be going into a dogfight and be staying at 400mph for very long??



That highly depends on the tactics being used. But in an good old classic dogfight, no, they wouldnt even be doing 400mph in the first place, as good old classic dogfights takes place at slow to moderate speeds. Good old classic dogfighting envolves max banking maneuvers, all of wich bleeds speed VERY fast.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 15, 2005)

Or at a certain altitude?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 15, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you guys realise though how unlikely it is you'll be going into a dogfight and be staying at 400mph for very long??



My point in the beginning of this discussion. The D9 pilot would want the fight to remain at high speed (over 400 mph), the Spit would want the fight well under 380, where its maneuverability can be exploited. If the D9 begins to maneuver his airspeed will bleed off, at what rate as compared to the Spit was Soren's and I discussion. Altitude would play a role as both aircraft will perform differently at different altitudes and again advantage/ disadvantages encountered and/or exploited.

In my experience, having the opportunity to participate in mock dogfights in jets, I have found entering the fight with lots of airspeed and fighting in the vertical was the way to go because instinctively we want to turn and stay in the horizontal plane (after all our aircraft basically fly horizontally). The thing to master was managing energy while zooming up and down in the "egg."


----------



## lesofprimus (May 15, 2005)

I think that in any combat situation, whether its on the ground , in the air, or in space with X-Wings, managing energy is the #1 factor in winning any engagement...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 15, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> I think that in any combat situation, whether its on the ground , in the air, or in space with X-Wings, managing energy is the #1 factor in winning any engagement...



Bingo - Fighter Pilot 101!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2005)

along with actually have a good enough aim to hit the other guy.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

Unless you abide by the "Spray and Pray" ruling


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> along with actually have a good enough aim to hit the other guy.......



That's fighter Pilot 102


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Well I would go with a 190 over a Spit. In the beginning the 190A was superior to the Spit in just about anyway. Later on the Spit took the 190 however when the 190D came out, the Spit never regained superiority. It would give a 190D a good run for its money, but the 190D was just a class above the Spit. The Spit still being a great aircraft though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

I think Ill agree with that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

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.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

That I can agree with. However the Spitfire does need to be in the "Top of the Top" group too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

I dont know. It would be close.


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

I think it should be in the "Top of the Top" because the Spitfire Mk.XIV was superior to the Fw-190A in almost every way.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

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 (May 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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 (May 16, 2005)

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 (May 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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 (May 16, 2005)

Soren said:


> 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.



Soren said:


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



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


----------



## Soren (May 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


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



That was until aerodynamics proved them wrong.  




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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 (May 16, 2005)

No prob, I was just talking about my tops.

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


----------



## Soren (May 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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 (May 16, 2005)

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 (May 17, 2005)

> 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 (May 17, 2005)

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 (May 17, 2005)

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 (May 17, 2005)

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 (May 17, 2005)

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


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

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


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

> 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)



Actually at higher speeds the P-38 had a phenomenally good roll rate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Glider said:


> 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
> ...



Believe it or not Glider, Dick Bong, Tom McGuire, and Gerry Johnson were a few pilots in the PTO who supposedly mastered this. What you saying needs to be accomplished isn't that difficult providing you practice it and stay proficient. I've flown twins and and say that it is possible (would I do it? HELL NO!).  

I believe in another post there was mention of the P-38 going to "Combat Configuration." I think what this boiled down to is going to full power, full pitch, fuel tank X-fer (if required) charge guns and monitor gages. I think with a checklist this could take the average P-38 Joe about 8 seconds, in actual time maybe 3. Mind you I realize you're in a combat situation, so this amount of time could seem like an eternity.

Also with this in mind I believe it was also mentioned in another post that you couldn't do much with a P-38 on one engine. Tony LeVier performed numerous demonstrations where he would do slow rolls on one engine. Mind you I bet if 90% of USAAF who flew 38s' in WW2 attempted this, they would of died very quickly.

So bottom line, is it possible to make a P-38 turn inside an aircraft like a Zero or FW 190, Yes!, but only 5-10% of those who flew it during WW2 could!


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

I'd say like 1-2% could do it.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2005)

Those odds are probably pretty accurate....... Not all pilots used their aircraft as an extension of theirselves........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I'd say like 1-2% could do it.



OK - I'll agree, 2-3% (ya gotta exaggerate sometime!)


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

I'm good with 2 -3%


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

Ahh good we have an agreement


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2005)

I think it applies to all aircraft and pilots.......

Some pilots found the Corsair a sonofabitch to fight, and some guys thought it was the Shiznitkabibble.......

My grandfather loved it, and felt completely unbeatable in it, even if it almost cut the top of his head off....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> I think it applies to all aircraft and pilots.......
> 
> Some pilots found the Corsair a sonofabitch to fight, and some guys thought it was the Shiznitkabibble.......
> 
> My grandfather loved it, and felt completely unbeatable in it, even if it almost cut the top of his head off....



Yep, as I stated in other posts an old neighbor of mine flew in the ETO. Loved the P-38, didn't like the P-51, although he scored 3 kills in it.

Les, how did your grandfather almost have the top of his head cutoff?!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

Yes that should be an interesting story.


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > 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..........




Yes, as the center of gravity was moved  The long tail section was for the things I mentioned above. (Wich includes the optimization of the center of gravity)

-------------------------------------------------------

As for the P-38 outturning a Zero, sure, at speeds above 300mph maby.

P-38J Wing loading *Loaded*: *290.88* kg/sq.m. Power-loading: *0.32* hp/kg.

And for comparison, the heaviest and clumsiest 109: 

Bf-109 *G-6R6* Wing-Loading *Normal Loaded*: *195 *kg/sq.m. Power-Loading: *0.46 *hp/kg.

The stats don't look good for the P-38 at all !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

Stats dont prove anything though. Sorry but paper is not the same thing as actuall combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Understand Soren that when you're determining aircraft turn performance with regards to wing loading, it's assumed that the turn is coordinated. These guys who flung these P-38s around by "jockying the engines" skid or slipped through the air with great forces to make their aircraft do what they wanted it to do. I once read that Tom McGuires crew chief stated that McGuire was always overstressing his aircraft, actually poping rivets and coming back from missions with all kind of structural damage from some of his maneuvers!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

You have to fly it like you stole it!


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Understand Soren that when you're determining aircraft turn performance with regards to wing loading, it's assumed that the turn is coordinated. These guys who flung these P-38s around by "jockying the engines" skid or slipped through the air with great forces to make their aircraft do what they wanted it to do. I once read that Tom McGuires crew chief stated that McGuire was always overstressing his aircraft, actually poping rivets and coming back from missions with all kind of structural damage from some of his maneuvers!



That might very well be true, but just by looking at the stats above it is clear that a P-38 would never outturn a Zero if both pilots were aware of each other. 

The incidents where P-38's have outturned Zero's have been ones where the Zero pilot wasnt aware of the P-38's presence or whereabouts.

Lets not confuse claims with reality.



> You have to fly it like you stole it!



How true !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

Again my friend stats dont prove anything, stats are just aproximations and paper can be burned.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Soren said:


> The incidents where P-38's have outturned Zero's have been ones where the Zero pilot wasnt aware of the P-38's presence or whereabouts.
> 
> Lets not confuse claims with reality.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Again my friend stats dont prove anything, stats are just aproximations and paper can be burned.



There are no miracles in aerodynamics


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now that's where I beg to differ with you - Many of the people who flew with Bong, Mcguire, and Gerry Johnson (their wingmen and guys in their flight, even Charles Lindberg saw Tom McGuire do this) saw these guys do this on NUMEROUS occasions. There'a a book called "Peter 38" that documents alot of this this. Although the pilots who were able to do this were far and few, the REALITY is they did it and have CLAIMS to show for it!



And I believe their claims FLYBOYJ, but, their claims say nothing about how the Zero pilots saw this fight or what he was doing in his cockpit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Does it matter? Bottom line, the Zero, Oscar or Tony attempted to turn during a dogfight. All of a sudden this P-38 manages to stay right on his butt, something thought to be impossible. And again, this wasn't on just one occasion by one pilot. Ironically these guys were all in the PTO where the heaviest concentration of P-38 were situated.


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Does it matter? Bottom line, the Zero, Oscar or Tony attempted to turn during a dogfight. All of a sudden this P-38 manages to stay right on his butt, something thought to be impossible. And again, this wasn't on just one occasion by one pilot. Ironically these guys were all in the PTO where the heaviest concentration of P-38 were situated.



Yes it does matter, who says the Zero pilot was aware of a P-38 on his tail ? And who says that the Zero pilots pulled back the stick with all his might ? 

Bottom line is, who could possibly know what that Zero/Tony pilot was thinking or doing in his cockpit ? Maby he was thinking "That big bird will never follow even a slight turn of mine" so he gently and only slightly pulls back his stick to preserve energy. Who knows ?

Also as you stated " _PTO where the heaviest concentration of P-38 were situated_" wich adds to the odds of something like this happening to some of the P-38 pilots on rare occasions. 

I can tell you one thing for sure, the Japs certainly didnt see the P-38 as a worthy opponent in a turnfight


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Does it matter? Bottom line, the Zero, Oscar or Tony attempted to turn during a dogfight. All of a sudden this P-38 manages to stay right on his butt, something thought to be impossible. And again, this wasn't on just one occasion by one pilot. Ironically these guys were all in the PTO where the heaviest concentration of P-38 were situated.
> ...



I could agree with you in asmuch as who knew what either pilot was doing during these dogfights, but the fact remains, P-38 pilots perfoming these maneuvers did so on many occasions, sometimes the P-38 pilot scored and othertimes he didn't. The point made these guys did the impossible!

As far as the Japanese considering the P-38 not a worthy opponent in a turnfight, sure I agree, thats why most P-38 pilots didn't turn with the Zero and fought in the Vertical or yo-yo, as a result the P-38 ended us with a 10-to-1 kill ratio, and those numbers can hardly be disputed! 8)


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

> I could agree with you in asmuch as who knew what either pilot was doing during these dogfights, but the fact remains, P-38 pilots perfoming these maneuvers did so on many occasions, sometimes the P-38 pilot scored and othertimes he didn't. The point made these guys did the impossible!



Yes they certainly did the impossible ! 

Im sure that whenever ANY Zero pilot saw a P-38 he would think, "Well he won't try turning with me, thats for sure" but so this 'Special' P-38 pilot did, and he caught the Zero pilot with his pants down.



> As far as the Japanese considering the P-38 not a worthy opponent in a turnfight, sure I agree, thats why most P-38 pilots didn't turn with the Zero and fought in the Vertical or yo-yo, as a result the P-38 ended us with a 10-to-1 kill ratio, and those numbers can hardly be disputed! 8)



They certainly can't, although the kill rate is most likely quite blown up, but the ratio WAS high nonetheless.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Soren said:


> They certainly can't, although the kill rate is most likely quite blown up, but the ratio WAS high nonetheless.



Ok, call it 6 to 1, I think you see what I'm saying


----------



## wmaxt (May 17, 2005)

Soren said:


> > I could agree with you in asmuch as who knew what either pilot was doing during these dogfights, but the fact remains, P-38 pilots perfoming these maneuvers did so on many occasions, sometimes the P-38 pilot scored and othertimes he didn't. The point made these guys did the impossible!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was a high ratio, It was not recomended to turn with the Japanese fighters Especiale new pilots and earlier planes. Why fight at about equal level of performance when you have much more lopsided options available? The P-38 did turn with a Zero (or anything else for that matter) as shown in many places. So it wasn't imposable it just took a good pilot. Here is another account:

http://www.kilroywashere.org/003-Pages/Tilley-John/03-Harm-Tilley-story.html

The Planes and Pilots of WWII has comments from Art Hieden who flew both P-38s and P-51s in the ETO. 

The Book "Top Guns" by Matthew Brennan has some good accounts of P-38s in maneuvering situations.

As to the Japanese View of the P-38 " The P-38 boded ill for the future and destroyed the morale of the Zero pilot" Saburo Sakai Japanese ace. The rest of his statement can be found at 'P-38 Online'.

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2005)

FJ If its the 2-3% who could do the engine balancing turn then I bow to your experience in twins. 
The Aces of any country could do remarkable things with whatever they flew which is why they became aces and tended to live longer than the rest. The interesting question is, would it be enough if they met one of the Jap 2-3% pilots, as they would also know a trick ot two?

Seriously thanks for your input


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

> It was a high ratio, It was not recomended to turn with the Japanese fighters Especiale new pilots and earlier planes. Why fight at about equal level of performance when you have much more lopsided options available?



As I said earlier on, if the Zero pilot was aware that the P-38 was trying to turn with him, the outcome of those incidents would have been VERY different. 

There are no miracles in aerodynamics, and a plane with a Wingloading of a whole 290 kg/sq.m simply slips through the air during a hard turn and stalls, and has absolutely no chance of turning with a Zero. 



> The P-38 did turn with a Zero (or anything else for that matter) as shown in many places. So it wasn't imposable it just took a good pilot. Here is another account:
> 
> http://www.kilroywashere.org/003-Pages/Tilley-John/03-Harm-Tilley-story.html
> 
> ...



Oh I've heard all these accounts hundreds of times, but that still doesnt change reality, and reality is the P-38 pilots who actually achieved these claims caught the Jap pilot off guard.



> As to the Japanese View of the P-38 " The P-38 boded ill for the future and destroyed the morale of the Zero pilot" Saburo Sakai Japanese ace. The rest of his statement can be found at 'P-38 Online'.



Got the book myself, and varius other books about the Zero, and the Japanese Zero pilots certainly werent afraid of a P-38 ever outturning them. The P-38 was a devastating foe nonetheless, and because of its speed and better handling at high speeds it was superior.

You will find abslolutely NO Jap. pilot that will tell you that a P-38 turned well, no they will tell quite the opposite.


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > They certainly can't, although the kill rate is most likely quite blown up, but the ratio WAS high nonetheless.
> ...



Certainly.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2005)

Does anyone here think that maybe 1 or 2 or even 10-12 pilots actually witnessed a P-38 turn inside of one of his comrades, and then went back to base and reported this information to the base Intel Officer???

Anyone think that a Japanese pilot could actually turn his head around (did they actually swivel their heads around in combat or look straight ahead?) while in an easy left hand turn to shake off a -38, and then realize, "Oh shiit, hes turning with me!!" and then yanks the stick back harder, and harder, and harder, while still looking over his shoulder watching the rounds rip into his wing root????

Its funny how people always seem to know what goes through 100% of the pilots minds in 100% of all the aerial engagements that happened in 100% of the War.......

Amazing actually....... I wonder if these brilliant individuals can read my mind right this very second............ I only freakin wish.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Glider said:


> The interesting question is, would it be enough if they met one of the Jap 2-3% pilots, as they would also know a trick ot two?



They did, look what happened to Tom Mcgurie on his last mission!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Does anyone here think that maybe 1 or 2 or even 10-12 pilots actually witnessed a P-38 turn inside of one of his comrades, and then went back to base and reported this information to the base Intel Officer???
> 
> Anyone think that a Japanese pilot could actually turn his head around (did they actually swivel their heads around in combat or look straight ahead?) while in an easy left hand turn to shake off a -38, and then realize, "Oh shiit, hes turning with me!!" and then yanks the stick back harder, and harder, and harder, while still looking over his shoulder watching the rounds rip into his wing root????
> 
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Glider said:


> FJ If its the 2-3% who could do the engine balancing turn then I bow to your experience in twins.



I think those 2-3% represent the best twin pilots in the USAAF during WW2


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2005)

Trying to turn inside a Zero wasn't often needed either, since it has been mentioned the P-38 had many other advantages over the Zero. 

I imagine it only happened a few times when those 2-3% thought, "The best thing I can do is..." in a matter of seconds, he's flung his P-38 around like a whore and his guns are on the weak bitch in front of him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> in a matter of seconds, he's flung his P-38 around like a whore and his guns are on the weak bitch in front of him.


----------



## wmaxt (May 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Trying to turn inside a Zero wasn't often needed either, since it has been mentioned the P-38 had many other advantages over the Zero.
> 
> I imagine it only happened a few times when those 2-3% thought, "The best thing I can do is..." in a matter of seconds, he's flung his P-38 around like a whore and his guns are on the weak bitch in front of him.



You said it.  

What's important here is that the P-38 with a good pilot (John Tilley fought a Zero down to 1,000ft and 90mph and beat it. John was not a Bong or MaGuire) could be very effective, it was done in ALL Theaters against ALL foes. That 2-3% (or more) could really make them dance even 1,000 miles from home.  

Even Bong complained that training in the P-38 could have been better (this is true times 10 in the ETO where training was 20hrs in the P-38 before you went into combat). Think about that.  

Remember MaGuire was stupid that day, which is always fatal in combat.  

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Seriously, who doesnt drop tanks when fighting an more manouverable foe at low altitude......

My grandfather had told me on numerous occasions that the training he recieved prior to combatting the Corsair was a joke, and he was not at 75% capability when he flew his first operational combat sortie...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Remember MaGuire was stupid that day, which is always fatal in combat.
> 
> wmaxt



Or Greedy or Both


----------



## Glider (May 18, 2005)

FJ I feel as if I am going to regret asking this, but what did Tom Mcgurie do on his last mission?
Everyone else seems to know but me


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)

Glider said:


> FJ I feel as if I am going to regret asking this, but what did Tom Mcgurie do on his last mission?
> Everyone else seems to know but me



Hey no problem....

Jan 45' his flight got jumped by 2 Oscars, One of them was claimed to be the top Japanese Ace at the time Shoichi Sugita. McGuire whipped his P-38 around to save his #4, didn't punch off his drop tanks, stalled and spun into the ground. Some say it was an act of bravery, others say it was his blind obsession to pass Dick Bong's score of 40 kills (McGuire had 38 and was always obsessed about surpassing Bong's score). Either way, he was a hero and remarkable pilot in my book!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

FBJ.... All of the above..........

Of all the World War II aces, Thomas B. McGuire, Jr. stands out of the crowd for one reason: he openly lusted for the fame that would come with being a leading ace, and thereby the best pilot. In the American and British air forces, there is a tradition of modesty regarding this goal. No one will ever accuse a man like Chuck Yeager of lack of ego, but it is kept in public check behind an "aw shucks, I was just doin' the job" attitude. McGuire's lust for fame and glory would make him America's Number Two ace of all time, with 38 victories behind the 40 of his great rival, Richard I. Bong, but it would also insure he could never become Number One. 

There are diffferent stories regarding this.........

Leading a flight of 4, he spotted a lone "Zero" low over the jungle of Negros Island. He had always preached never to get low, slow and heavy with the P-38, but this time he didn't let go his drop tanks. He saw the "Zero" as an easy kill, and with it and one more he would tie Bong. He made the fatal decision to keep his tanks, make the bounce, and continue the hunt. 

Unfortunately for McGuire, the pilot he attacked was NAP 1/c Soichi Sugita, at that time the top-scoring surviving IJN ace with 80-odd kills scored over Rabaul, a master at the controls of a "Zero". In the ensuing fight, Sugita managed to shoot down one of McGuire's wingmen, and severely damage the other two. He then went after McGuire. Low over the jungle, heavy with fuel, McGuire stalled out trying to get away from Sugita and crashed to his death, a pointed example of the dark side of the lust for fame and glory. 

OR...............

On January 7th, 1945, McGuire borrowed Fred Champlin’s and Hal Grey’s aircraft #112 in order to lead a fighter sweep of four P-38s over the Japanese airstrip of Fabrica on Negros Island in the Philippines. Flying in difficult weather, the P-38s finally broke through a cloud barrier at about 1,700 feet over the enemy airstrip and discovered a Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar returning to the field at an extremely low altitude. McGuire dove to meet the foe, and the enemy immediately turned toward the P-38s. The fight was on. The Lightnings were still burdened with fuel tanks that McGuire was reluctant to drop since he had hoped to continue on patrol after this engagement. Unknown to McGuire, a Nakajima KI-84 “Frank” from a nearby airstrip had entered the fight. The situation turned bad quickly. Trying to clear Capt. Edwin R. Weaver’s tail, McGuire entered a tight turn at the limits of the P-38’s capabilities, and crashed. McGuire’s extraordinary career as a fighter pilot ended while in aerial combat over Negros Island in the Philippines. He was only twenty-five years old.

Because of his inspiring leadership and peerless achievements, in 1945 Major McGuire received a posthumous Congressional Medal of Honor for his final mission and for the missions of December 25-26th, 1944. His final victory total of 38 makes him the second leading Ace in Air Force history.

Not only was McGuire a prolific fighter pilot, he also authored the book on combat tactics in the Pacific that was adopted by the Army Air Corps. This gave the U.S. airmen the advantage needed to successfully accomplish the difficult task of defeating the Japanese with a minimal loss of American planes and lives.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)

GREAT STUFF LES - YO DA MAN!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Dude u crack me up............


----------



## Glider (May 18, 2005)

FJ and Les, thanks to you both, much appreciated.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Np, copy and paste.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

Soren said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Again my friend stats dont prove anything, stats are just aproximations and paper can be burned.
> ...



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 (May 22, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



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 (May 22, 2005)

> 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 (May 22, 2005)

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 (May 22, 2005)

Soren said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Soren said:
> ...



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.



glider said:


> 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 (May 22, 2005)

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 (May 22, 2005)

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


----------



## wmaxt (May 22, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> 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.......
> 
> ...



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 (May 22, 2005)

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


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > 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......
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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 (May 22, 2005)

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 (May 22, 2005)

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 (May 22, 2005)

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 (May 22, 2005)

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.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

> To agree would be to ignore the service and impact that the Spitfire had before the 190 came into service.


I could never ignore the service/impact of the Spitfire against the -109s in the BOB.... The Hurricane would not have been able to stem the Luftwaffe alone... 
However, with the -190 came alone so many different platforms, that the Luftwaffe didnt need to design or build other aircraft to fit other mission parameters.... 

The impact of this on the war effort was huge....... Once the Fw-190A came out over the skies of Northern France in the summer of 1941, the Allieds have tried to counter it and the different follow on versions...... Truely amazing how the design of One aircraft can change how the rest of the world designs theirs......

That to me is a GLOBAL Impact, and one worthy of my opinion..........


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

That's how technology advances though, les. Someone designs something and the enemy designs something else to counter it. 

The British never had to redesign a new aircraft for the job that the Spitfire could do perfectly, it was developed upon. If the Fw-190 was a capable escort fighter with a long range, I would give it a real edge but in my opinion it was nothing over the Spitfire.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2005)

Glider said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> > I've always heard that the Mustang was so touted, the brass running US ETO figher ops couldn't wait to get their hands on them. Also there were numerous complaints on how cold the P-38 was. I think this lack of creature comforts put the nail in the coffin for the P-38 in the ETO.
> ...


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

> That's how technology advances though, les. Someone designs something and the enemy designs something else to counter it.


I agree 100%... But...

The -190 had ground attack capabilities the Spit and the -109 didnt have... The -190 had the ability to tackle large box formations of bombers with heavily armored Butchers... I dont recall seeing many nightfighting Spitfires........

Point is, when i say impact, its meant as a strategy changer....... The Germans werent designing and making changes in their fighters to counter Allied advances...... (Mossie excused) They were more about keeping their advancememnts in technology ahead of the Allies.....

Always make ur opponent react to YOUR actions, not the other way around...... U win engagements by being the aggressor, not by reacting to the aggressors actions.... 


> The British never had to redesign a new aircraft for the job that the Spitfire could do perfectly


While this is true, they constantly made new Marks to keep up with the changing German machines.....


> but in my opinion it was nothing over the Spitfire.


Hmmmm.... Can u re-read what was said in the above posts... I think its pretty clear than the -190 accomplished more all around than the Spitfire did in WWII... Do u think the Spit contributed more than the -190 did in terms of Diversity??? The Spit was a fighter... Period... The -190 was so much more...

Not to deny the Spitfire its place in history, for it truely shows the strength and will of the British people......

Im rambling now so ill stop....


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

The Spitfire _did_ perform ground attack duties though. It carried rockets and bombs. 

The Spitfire probably could have been a nightfighter but why make it one when you already had the best in the Mosquito?
The Spitfire did a lot of bomber attacking in the early war years when the Fw-190 wasn't even in service. 

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.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 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.



Whats tougher than the Russian winter ?


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

The Tropics of Burma. Plus, 1,300 Spitfire Mk. Vs served with the VVS.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

Hmmmm... The Typhoon and the Hurricane were used for the ground attack role more so than the Spit was.... That engine didnt take to kindly to ground fire....


> The Spitfire probably could have been a nightfighter but why make it one when you already had the best in the Mosquito?


The Germans had several different planes that flew night missions... The more the merrier... The Mossie was the best, I will not agrue u there....


> The Spitfire did a lot of bomber attacking in the early war years when the Fw-190 wasn't even in service.


But did they specially produce a Mark to do these duties???

I'm not knockin the Spit, in any way shape or form... The SPit in all its Marks was a superb aircraft... I just feel overall, the -190 provided more for the Luftwaffe than the Spit did for the RAF....


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Tropics of Burma.



I'd say the Russian winter was alot tougher !

If your airplane can survive the Russian winter, well then it would most likely survive any WW2 scenario.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

The Hurricane couldn't take a lot of ground fire to the engine either. What I am saying is; the Spitfire wasn't just a fighter. 

It was an interceptor first and foremost but it was also a ground attack aircraft. Not to mention it was the most important PR plane of the ETO. The Pr.IX and Pr.XIX took more pictures of Europe than any other plane of the war. 

Soren, I don't think you understand the stresses and strains the harsh tropical climate of South-East Asia can have an aircraft. And as I've already mentioned, the Spitfire survived the Russian winter too.


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2005)

I did not forget that the Spit could and did carry bombs and rockets and I am sure that Les didn't either. However I am sure we both agree that the 190 was a better GA aircraft than the Spit with different versions and a larger payload.

As for other impacts you are correct to say that we didn't need a nightfighter Spit as the Mossie and don't forget the Beaufighter were the best at their respective times anywhere in the world in that role.

The 190 did things that the Spit didn't, but the Spit did things that the 190 didn't e.g. as a carrier plane. I know it had some fundamental flaws and wasn't the best carrier plane but the 190 wasn't the best nightfighter.
The Spit was also a far more effective PR plane with an excellent range and record in this role.

As for overall impact I would again call it a draw. The Spit obviously did things, great things before the 190 came into service. After the 190 was introduced the Spit did other things and served in all areas of combat while the 190 plowed its own furrow.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 23, 2005)

Great politically correct post glider.....


> Not to mention it was the most important PR plane of the ETO.


100% agreed........

While ur listing all the great qualities and multi-mission capabilities of the Spit, the -190 has more......

And I would say that the harsh tropical enviornment is ALMOST as bad as a Russian Winter.... Pretty damn close, but the Tropics didnt wear men down like the jungle did.. The heat and humidity did not actually break things off due to the cold.... It may have warped some things, and dehydrate some men, and the malaria, JESUS the malaria.......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2005)

i must say that this has made very interesting reading......

and overall i feel the spit had more of an impact on the war, not only did she serve for longer, but what would the RAF do without the spit?? what other fighter could replace it?? the luftwaffe could have coped without the -190, just about...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 23, 2005)

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....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 24, 2005)

well CC they didn't really cope with it 

and it was the weight of numbers and high level performance of the -109 that kept it as their main frontline fighter...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

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 (May 24, 2005)

Soren said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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



lesofprimus said:


> 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



plan_D said:


> 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.



plan_D said:


> 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. 8) 



cheddar cheese said:


> 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 (May 24, 2005)

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

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


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 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 (May 24, 2005)

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 (May 24, 2005)

> 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 (May 24, 2005)

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 (May 24, 2005)

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 (May 24, 2005)

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 (May 24, 2005)

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


Amen brother.....


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2005)

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


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2005)

190D-9 all the way.


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> 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......



Exactly.



FLYBOYJ said:


> 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)



I definitely agree.



Plan_D said:


> 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.



The Spit was tough when it came to tolerating weather conditions, no doubt about it, but the -190 was atleast as, or even tougher than the Spit.


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

You have no proof that the Fw-190 was tougher than the Spitfire in weather conditions. I'm not saying that the Fw-190 wouldn't be able to but you never know, however there can be no doubt that the Spitfire could because it did!

The Fw-190 didn't have much, if any, PR to it's name. The Spitfire was the most important PR plane of the ETO. 

Spitfire had more theatres and air forces to it's name. 

Fw-190 was a better ground attack aircraft but the Spitfire could do it too. 

In a dogfight, the Spitfire Mk.XIV and Fw-190D-9, I think the Spitfire has a slight advantage. The Fw-190D-9 has to stay fast which is hard to do. Someone mentioned the D-9 has to come in fast and close to the Spitfires tail, in most cases of a dogfight if any plane did that to another he's jumped him and the fight is over in a matter of seconds. 

Spitfire was carrier capable in the Seafire. Fw-190?

I'm still saying Spitfire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Fw-190 didn't have much, if any, PR to it's name. The Spitfire was the most important PR plane of the ETO.



Well I go with the Fw-190 in toughness, performance, armament, everything. The Butcher Bird was the ultimute aircraft culminating with the D-9.

Are you sure about the PR?

Here are PR varients:

*Fw 190A-3/U4* Reconnaissance fighter, without the 2 x 20 mm MG FF, but with 1 or 2 Rb 12.5/7 cameras 


*Fw 190A-4/U4* Reconnaissance fighter without the 2 × 20 mm MG FF, but with 1 or 2 Rb 12.5/7 cameras 

*Fw 190A-5/U4* Reconnaissance fighter with same cameras as the Fw 190A-3/U4


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Spitfire was carrier capable in the Seafire. Fw-190?
> .



Ofcourse it was not. However it could have been made into one had the GZ made it operational and lasted for a while (quote if it had lasted for a while)


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2005)

The Spitfire PR was much more important than the Fw-190. The Spitfire took more pictures of Europe than any other aircraft of the war. 

Performance and armament, they're on an equal playing ground. D-9 Vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV

Also, you can't just assume the Fw-190 would be a carrier capable plane. You don't just stick a tail hook on and say "Go on, go land on the carrier". I would actually doubt that the D-9 would be a capable carrier plane with that long fat nose.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Who cares if it took more pictures. Now your just getting silly.  You said there was no Fw-190 PR aircraft and I showed you that there were. Who cares who took more pictures. The Fw-190 was able to do so. And do you have proof that the 190 did not take as many pictures? HUH do you?! Just kidding man.  

As for the carrier plane who said anything about 190D. This topic is Spitfire versus Fw-190. It does not specify which kind. If you want to discount it because of its fat nose, look at all of the US carrier planes the Corsair, Hellcat, Wildcat....etc. They were all radial engine aircraft and had had big fat noses. They did not have a problem. 

Besides if the Bf-109T could be a carrier plane (a horrible one at that) the 190 could have even better. It had a wider landing gear track. It easilly could have been modified to one.


----------



## evangilder (May 26, 2005)

For long, fat nosed carrier planes, the Corsair was probably the biggest beast to land on the deck.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2005)

well how fast was the -190's stalling speed?? that's more important for a carrier landing??


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well how fast was the -190's stalling speed?? that's more important for a carrier landing??



About the same as the P-51's IIRC.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2005)

that's not much help.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

A Fw-190A-8 would stall around 130 mph with power on but no flaps.



> There also was a naval version of the Spitfire called the Seafire. It was especially adapted for operation from aircraft carriers: with an arrester hook, folding wings and other specialised equipment. However, like the Spitfire, the Seafire had a narrow undercarriage track, which meant that it was not well suited to deck operations. Due to the addition of heavy carrier equipment, it suffered from an aft centre-of-gravity position that made low-speed control difficult, and its gradual stall characteristics meant that it was difficult to land accurately on the carrier. These characteristics resulted in a very high accident rate for the Seafire.
> 
> Compared with other naval fighters, the Seafire II was able to outperform the A6M5 at low altitudes when the two types were tested against each other in WW2. However, contemporary western carrier aircraft like the F6F and the F4U were considerably more powerful. Late-war Seafire marks equipped with the Griffon engines enjoyed a considerable increase of performance compared to their Merlin-engined predecessors.
> 
> ...





> The Supermarine Seafire, or Sea Spitfire (the official name), was a naval development of the Spitfire, and was the first modern carrier based fighter fielded by the Royal Navy. Primarily developed for carrier use, the Seafire incorporated changes such as a tail hook, attachments for catapult use, and on later variants, folding wings. The Seafire was not the ideal carrier fighter and especially landings were difficult; but its performance outweighed the disadvantages. The Seafire had a short range, but its fast climb and agility made it a very good Fleet defence fighter. The last Seafire version Mk 47 was used in the Korean war, and retired in 1952.
> http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Seafire.htm



So the Fw-190 would not have been anyworse.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2005)

The PR comment is directed at a previous comment about the effect each aircraft had on the war. Taking pictures is extremely important if you want to know anything about your enemy. 

The weight, the strength, the take-off speed, the landing speed, the size all have to be taken into account with a carrier capable aircraft. 

If you're going to convert a Fw-190A into Carrier capable, then the Griffon-engine Seafires would slaughter it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The weight, the strength, the take-off speed, the landing speed, the size all have to be taken into account with a carrier capable aircraft.



True but the 190 is not as big of an aircraft as you think it is.

*Weight, empty:* Seafire - 3465 kg Fw-190A: 3175kg

*The Strength?* I think the Butcher Bird has got this one.  

*Take off speed?* Not really when you have a catipult, which the GZ had.

*Landing Speed?* The Seafire has this one however the Seafire was worse in stalling.

*Size:* 
*Seafire: *
Wingspan 36.8 ft (11.23 m) 
Length 29.9 ft (9.12 m) 
Height 11.4 ft (3.48 m) 
Wing Area 242 sq ft (22.48 sq m)

*Fw-190A:*
Wingspan 34 ft 5.5 inch (10.5 m)
Length 29 ft 4.25 inch (8.95 m)
Height 12 ft 1.15 inch (3.69 m) 
Wing Area: 196.98 sq ft (18.3 m²)

So as you can see the Fw-190A is actually smaller then the Seafire. I am sure the Fw-190s wingspan would have been lengthened but it would have been folding also.

I think the Fw-190 could have been a capable carrier fighter and once in the air it would have been as usual supirior to the Spitfire.  



plan_D said:


> If you're going to convert a Fw-190A into Carrier capable, then the Griffon-engine Seafires would slaughter it.



Please explain. A Fw-190 fitted with a Jumo 213 such as the Fw-190 was rated at 2240hp while the Griffon 8 installed in the Seafire F.R. 47 was rated at 2350hp. That is not much of a power difference my friend and besides the 47 did not see service in WW2. It was used in Korea. You can not base this off of engines that were about the same. Most Seafire varients were rated at 1850 hp anyhow and that was with Griffon IV.[/b]


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2005)

Quite simple really, the Griffon engined Spitfire was better than the Fw-190A. The Griffon engined Seafire would be better. 

And the 47 never saw service but then, nor did a carrier-capable 190. 

Also, you forgot that the Fw-190 weight would increase with the upgrades needed to be carrier capable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Quite simple really, the Griffon engined Spitfire was better than the Fw-190A. The Griffon engined Seafire would be better.



Not if we used a Dora with a Jumo 213. Then the Griffon is at best, equal. 



plan_D said:


> And the 47 never saw service but then, nor did a carrier-capable 190.



Good point!  



plan_D said:


> Also, you forgot that the Fw-190 weight would increase with the upgrades needed to be carrier capable.



And then the weight would be about equal to the Spit. So far nothing here can prove to me that the Spit was better then the Fw-190. There were versions that were better but in the end the Butcher Bird comes out on top.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 27, 2005)

THis conversation has gone into the nitpicking zone.........


----------



## mosquitoman (May 27, 2005)

Shall we say that they were about equal then?


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2005)

I think it has to be decided in a duel. 

Tommorow, Mexico City, 10 paces at DAWN!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

LOL, yeah this is getting stupid. I agree I will concede to equal!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

Ok its equal, but the the Fw-190 looks better which means it edges it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2005)

no it doesn't in terms of looks the -190 is blitzed by the spit.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

Na, Fw-190 looks great.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

Im with CC. But here we go again. This arguement will go back an forth and there is no clear winner here.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

I agree with lanc, the Spitfire is better looking. So, with that in mind, it's two on two. Looks like a tag team duel, the only way to tag your partner is by dying...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

Mexico on June 1st! Duel to the death!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2005)

damn i missed it, what heppened??


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2005)

Well, Adler killed me...that hurt quite a bit...then, I came back to life and killed CC...then me and Adler got bored with dueling and went and got drunk.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2005)

but CC was with me in plymouth today??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2005)

Was I?

Oh Right, yeah, I was...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2005)

CC, don't tell me you've forgotten it already, you told me it was specail


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2005)

Ive had bigger craps come out my arse 


Ok this is turning wrong...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2005)

Your crap is turning wrong?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Ive had bigger craps come out my arse
> 
> 
> Ok this is turning wrong...



Yes it has, this one needs to get back on topic fast before it really gets worse.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Answer to topic question? No. 8)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

You do realise all the argument is going to be repeated again, right?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Yes


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

yeah did we ever finish the argument properly last time??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Yes


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2005)

Hows this for an answer........

THE SPITFIRE SUCKS MONKEY NUTZZZZZZZZ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

That's just too silly to be taken into account, to be honest.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2005)

I would certainly hope so, cause it had silly written all over it...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

The monkey inquestion certainly wouldn't enjoy the attempt by a Spitfire to suck his nuts. I'm pretty sure that having it's crown jewels caught in the props wouldn't do anything for his pride.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2005)

The Spitfire doesnt nescessarily have to be moving to do said act....

And as for the monkey not likin it....

Ive seen a monkey eat his own piss and crap, as well as stoke another monkey off... I think the monkey would rather enjoy it.... 

(As long as said prop wasnt moving....)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2005)

well now i'm intreiged, how exactly would the spitfire, do said sucking??


----------



## superunknown (Jun 3, 2005)

I think that this thread is a bit silly really. How do you compare a 190 to a Spitfire? They were built for different roles. It would be like comparing a moth to a butterfly, they both fly, but one is better than the other under different circumstances. Comparing the 109 to the Spitfire would be more reasonable, wouldn't it?


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 3, 2005)

What could the 190 be compared to then? A P-47 is probably the closest to it in terms of role


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2005)

Yeah that would make sense.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2005)

The Spitfire Mk.XIV is better than any Bf-109.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2005)

Agreed.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 3, 2005)

Easily


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 4, 2005)

How about a K-4? comparable speed, climb rate,dives better...


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire Mk.XIV is better than any Bf-109.



The Spit XIV is overall "Slightly" better, yes.

However the Bf-109G-10 G-14 would outturn the Spitfire Mk.XIV, and the K-4 would outrun it. So any 'one on one' confrontation with either of those 109's, would mean a hair raising fight for the Spit XIV.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

The K-4 couldn't out-turn it and the G-10 (G-14) couldn't out-run it, so the simple answer is the Spitfire Mk.XIV is better than any Bf-109.


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The K-4 couldn't out-turn it and the G-10 (G-14) couldn't out-run it, so the simple answer is the Spitfire Mk.XIV is better than any Bf-109.



The K-4 might not be able to out-turn the Spit XIV, but it had a comparable turn rate to the Spit XIV, so the Spit XIV couldnt just outturn the K-4 either. The Fight would be a energy-fight, in which both a/c are roughly comparable, with the K-4 being slightly better in the dive and the Spit XIV slightly better in the climb. But as I see climbing being more advantageous than diving, I would rate the Spit XIV slightly better. 

Against the Bf-109G-10 G-14, the Spitfire Mk.XIV has to strictly rely on its speed and climb advantage, as dogfighting the Bf-109G-10 will most likely not end in the Spit's favor. The Spit XIV's most important "NO NO" against the G-10, is to try and T&B-fight it. 
But by utilizing B&Z tactics however, the Spit XIV will slowly but surely gain the upper-hand over the G-10/G-14(Just like the 190A vs Spit V), and therefore I will again rate the Spit XIV slightly better.

So the simple answer is; The Spit XIV is overall 'slightly' better than the best of the Bf-109's.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

I've just read a report of tests between a Spitfire XIV and Fw-190A. Here's the basics;

_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._


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I've just read a report of tests between a Spitfire XIV and Fw-190A. Here's the basics;
> 
> _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.
> 
> ...



Eeerr... thats against a 190A-4 Plan_D 

They can hardly be compared.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

Hey, it was information...plus they can because they did!  

Is it right though?


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Hey, it was information...plus they can because they did!



Oh dear    



plan_D said:


> Is it right though?



Against the 190A-4, yeah, largely so. 

It shouldnt be news to anyone that the Spit XIV was much superior to the Fw-190A-4.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

Alright, it's not really news to me that the XIV was better than the 190A...I've just never actually read a report on it. 

Here's one on the IX vs. 190A...is it an A-4 again?

_TheFW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet [7620 metres]. 

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 


Climburing comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 metres], 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. 

Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable 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._


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2005)

Yes, its the same Fw-190A-4.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

Did the RAF only have the one Fw-190...that A-4 that landed in Wales?!


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2005)

Yes they only captured one.

It seems it was an A-3 which landed in Britain, not an A-4, and piloted by Armin Faber. (He landed safely in Britain by mistake  )

I remembered it as an A-4, oh well...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

Yeah, what a dumber he was.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

Compare those stats to the A-8 and some of it R/U mods and we've got ourselves are real dogfight.......


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

I thought the A-9 was the best 190A for dogfighting...

The XIV would still be superior and the IX still an equal.


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Yeah, what a dumber he was.



If I was in his shoes, I would happily prefer imprisonment in Britain, rather than facing the squadron commander at home !


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2005)

I always thought the 190A-6 was the best 190A for dogfighting...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

I don't actually know, I was making the statement to get the views out of others.


----------



## Chiron (Jun 8, 2005)

So, is there a consensus here regarding to my question of "Is Spit. superior to Fw-190"?

My opion is that both fighters are close in terms of technical aspect, but Spit is much easy to fly than any German counterparts. In other words, it take less time to train a fresh airmen than in Fw-190.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

It depends on the model. You can not compare a Spitfire XIV to an early 190A. Comparing a XIV to a 190A-4 is like comparing a Sherman to a Tiger or a Fw-190D-9 to a Spitfire Mk. V.

You compare a XIV to a A-8 or A-9 and you have a fight. You compare it to a D-9 and I think the compariosn would deffinatly swing in favor of the 190. If you compare it to a Ta-152H (which was basically an evolution of the D-9) then then the Spit is out of the competition.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2005)

but you want to be carefull there, i don't think we should count theTa-152 in this.........


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2005)

Why not, it saw service...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

I agree with Lanc here it is technically not a Fw-190. It is an evolution of it but it is not a Butcher Bird.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

The Spitfire Mk.XIV would be able to cope with any Fw-190A and it would come down to pilot skill against the D-9. To compare the Spitfire XIV against the Ta-152 is a little unfair as it did see service but the Spitfire XVIII was coming into service by the end of the war. XVIII against Ta152 would be better.


----------



## Chiron (Jun 11, 2005)

"It is an evolution of it but it is not a Butcher Bird."

How did Fw-190 got its nickname as infamous Butcher Bird?

How about Spit? Did German had name for Spit.?


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with Lanc here it is technically not a Fw-190. It is an evolution of it but it is not a Butcher Bird.



Its a Focke Wulf aircraft, and of the same basic design as the 190D. I don't see why we can't count it in aswell....

I basically see the Ta-152 as a Fw-190 just with a longer wing-span, as that's basically what it was... 

However I do see that it isn't a designated "190", so there you have a point as it is a "190 vs Spit" thread. 

So it depends are we going to rely on written designations as a criteria, or the technical aspect ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire Mk.XIV would be able to cope with any Fw-190A and it would come down to pilot skill against the D-9. To compare the Spitfire XIV against the Ta-152 is a little unfair as it did see service but the Spitfire XVIII was coming into service by the end of the war. XVIII against Ta152 would be better.



I really dont see any Spitfire hanging with a Ta-152. Dont take me wrong the Spitfire XVIII would have been great just like the other Spitfires but I think the Ta-152 was the cream of the crop for the time. The 152 had more room then the Spitfire to evolve. And as for the XIV agains the a 190A, you can not imply that the Spitfire would easily do away with it. The 190A was still a very formidable aircraft up until wars end and could do away with a XIV just as well. It too would have been pilot skill.



Soren said:


> Its a Focke Wulf aircraft, and of the same basic design as the 190D. I don't see why we can't count it in aswell....
> 
> I basically see the Ta-152 as a Fw-190 just with a longer wing-span, as that's basically what it was...
> 
> ...



I completey agree with your point but I just agree with Lanc that it should stick to pure 190's. Now a 152 against lets say Spit XIV and higher may be an interesting thread to start up also.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Chiron said:


> "It is an evolution of it but it is not a Butcher Bird."
> 
> How did Fw-190 got its nickname as infamous Butcher Bird?
> 
> How about Spit? Did German had name for Spit.?



I am not really sure but here is what I have read on some websites and in some books. Personally I think the name fits, she was a powerful and deadly aircraft.



> The "FW-190-V1" (V1 meaning "Versuchs 1 / Prototype 1") flew from the Bremen airport on 1 June 1939 with test pilot Hans Sander at the controls. Tank himself, a skilled pilot and definitely a "hands-on" engineer, performed some of the test flights. He gave the machine the name "Wuerger (Butcher Bird / Shrike)".
> http://www.vectorsite.net/avfw190.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

i'd put the butcher bird name down to it's heavy armourment, that's just my thought.........

and the Ta-152 IS NOT a Fw-190, as the designations are different, we do not count the seafire in this do we?? the seafire was essentially a spitfire, however it's a different plane because of slight differences and different designation.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

I think th Ta-152 is more closely related to the 190D than the 190D is to the 190A. I think it could be included...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

but the fact that it is not designated a Fw-190 means that it's not a -190.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I think th Ta-152 is more closely related to the 190D than the 190D is to the 190A. I think it could be included...



This I agree with. The A had a radial and the Dora and the 152 had inline engines. But I do somewhat agree with Lanc in the fact that it really isn't a 190.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 11, 2005)

The Spitfire XIV was superior to the Fw-190A in almost every aspect. It would be pilot skill on the Germans part if he could survive.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2005)

The Ta-152 was developed from the Fw-190C and the abandoned Ta-153 proposal... A long nose derivative of the Dora, powered with the Jumo 213E-1...

The Ta part of the Ta-152 was changed from the Fw to honor Kurt Tank, the designer of the -190... The beginnings of the Ta-152 design are tracked back to the Fw-190Ra-2 and Ra-3, which were based on the Fw-190D abd the Jumo 213 engine... The second phase was the Fw-190Ra-4D...

Those first 2 aircraft were renamed the Ta-152B and the Ta-152H... The Ra-4D was renamed the Ta-153...

I regard the Ta-152 as the next generation of the Dora and as such, part of the -190 family....


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2005)

I am with Lesof on this if it helps.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2005)

Good info les...I agree...


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 12, 2005)

It's an interesting issue. I feel the fw-190/Ta152 the same way I look at the P-47D/M/N and the P-51 D/H the basic design is exactly the same though many parts were changed, in the case of the P-51H every piece was examined and modified. The P-47s had most of the aircrafts components examined and completly new wing designs.

They are still part of the P-47, P-51 or fw-190 aircraft evolution. The change from fw to Ta was to honor/recognise Kurt Tank more than to designate a new aircraft which it really isn't. I've also read this somewhere but I can't remember where or when.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

If we're including the Ta-152 in the equation then, yes, by the end the Fw-190 series was superior. The Spitfire had lived it's life during the war and Britain was starting to give it all up for the jet aircraft. 

The Spitfire was older than the Fw-190, it served a longer military career in more air forces. Technically the Fw-190A was superior to the Spitfire V, equal to the IX, inferior to the XIV. The Fw-190D was superior to the V, IX and equal to the XIV. The Ta-152 was superior to the V, IX and XIV. 

The Spitfire XVIII was the definative war-time Spitfire. It was a strengthened airframe and had an increase in fuel load. The Ta-152 would be superior to the Spitfire XIV and XVIII but by no means would it be an easy fight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire was older than the Fw-190, it served a longer military career in more air forces. Technically the Fw-190A was superior to the Spitfire V, equal to the IX, inferior to the XIV. The Fw-190D was superior to the V, IX and equal to the XIV. The Ta-152 was superior to the V, IX and XIV.



I agree with you for the most part however I still would completely chock it up to pilot skill in a Fw-190A and Spit XIV duel. The Fw-190A was still a very capable and deadly aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

The Spitfire XIV was superior to the Fw-190A. 

Specifications *Fw 190A-8*:
Engine: One 2,100-hp BMW 801D-2 radial piston engine 
Weight: Empty 6,989 lbs., Max Takeoff 10,802 lbs.
Wing Span: 34ft. 5.5in.
Length: 29ft. 1.5in.
Height: 13ft. 0in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 408 mph
Ceiling: 37,400 ft.
Range: 500 miles
Armament:
Two 7.92-mm (0.31-inch) machine guns in nose.
Up to four 20-mm MG 151 guns in wings.

*Mk XIV*: 
Dimensions: 
Wing span: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)
Length: 32 ft 8 in (9.95 m) 
Height: 12 ft 8 in (3.85 m) 
Weights: Empty: 6,600 lb. (2,993 kg) Loaded: 8,500 lb (3,855 kg) 
Performance:Maximum Speed: 448 mph (720 km/h) @ 26,000 ft (7,924m) 
Service Ceiling: 44,500 ft. (13,563 m) 
Range: 850 miles (1,367 km) 
Powerplant Mk XIV: 
Rolls Royce Griffon 65, 2,050 hp, 
(1,528 kw), Vee 12 cylinder, Liquid-cooled. 
Armament Mk XIV: 
Two Hispano Mk.II 20 mm cannon and four Browning .303 calibre machine guns, external bomb load of 
1,000 lb (454 kg); or Two Hispano Mk.II 20 mm cannon and two Browning .50 cal heavy machine guns. 


Just because the Spitfire XIV was better, which it was, doesn't mean the Fw-190A wasn't deadly.


----------



## Soren (Jun 14, 2005)

The Spit XIV was better than the Fw-190A8, but with a good pilot the Fw-190A8 would give the Spit XIV a hair raising fight. 

The 190A-8 was never outmatched by the Spit XIV to a degree where its succes against one would be highly unlikely.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 14, 2005)

i'm with les in as far as the Ta-152 is a member of the same family, this is obviously true, but if it was a Fw-190, surely it would be designated a Fw-190?? the thread asks if the spit was superior to the Fw-190, not Fw-190 and family, when talking about medium bombers do i claim the lancaster was the best, i mean she was in the same family as the manchester, annother medium bomber??


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2005)

I don't believe I ever stated that the Spitfire XIV was better to a degree that the A-8 would never beat one. The Spitfire XIV was just better than the Fw-190A, it's as simple as that. There's really no need for a discussion.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2005)

I was wondering; do we bring the Spitfire Mk.VIII, XII and F.21 into this as they all saw service.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 15, 2005)

Sure, why not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

I will agree that it has better performance but do you really think the Spitfire was going to fly 448 mph in a dogfight? Neither is the Fw-190 going to fly 408mph in a dogfight. At about the same speeds, the Spitfire is not a garaunteed win over the Fw-190A-8. The Spit would still have to have a better pilot.

And that is what this topic is about, so if there is no need for discussion then why do we have this thread?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2005)

The Spitfire XIV wasn't just faster than the Fw-190A though. It was better in almost everything. Given equal pilots, the Spitfire XIV will win. It's a better plane. Speed advantage is always nice to have, especially 40 mph of it. 

The Spitfire wouldn't need a better pilot, Adler, the Fw-190A would. What's so hard to understand about the XIV being a superior aircraft? The Spitfire XII and F.21 were better than the Fw-190A too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

No where am I arguing that fact, no where have I said that it was not a better aircraft then a Fw-190A.

What is so hard to see that the Fw-190A was not a push over even to a Spitfire XVI?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2005)

It's much harder for the Fw-190A than the Spitfire XIV in a dogfight. I don't think I stated the Fw-190A was a push-over, the Spitfire XIV was just superior and the Fw-190A would have to be good to deal with a superior aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

Agreed.....Finally!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

hang on pD, in WWII it was still the Mk.21, not F.21........


----------



## Udet (Jun 17, 2005)

///////////////////////////


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2005)

Not to my knowledge, by 1944 the RAF had started designating their aircraft with letters too. Like the B-17 GR.III, Spitfire PR.XIX and Spitfire F.21.


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It's much harder for the Fw-190A than the Spitfire XIV in a dogfight. I don't think I stated the Fw-190A was a push-over, the Spitfire XIV was just superior and the Fw-190A would have to be good to deal with a superior aircraft.



A simple Split S maneuver and 190A is outta there, and the Spit XIV will have to run circles to get behind it again. This is why the 190 was such an excellent fighter, as it could bugger out of almost any situation, mainly thanks to its quick roll, very fast 45* degree turn, and good diving characteristics. 

So to quote Adler's statement; "_the Fw-190A was not a push over even to a Spitfire XVI_"


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2005)

No one said it was, the Spitfire XIV was still a superior aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2005)

and you can't bais your argument on one point, you're point being that 



Soren said:


> A simple Split S maneuver and 190A is outta there, and the Spit XIV will have to run circles to get behind it again



doing that is simply stupid..........

and this is interest pD, i'll try and lok into the designation system a bit more, but this i do know, in RAF service the B-17 was know as the "Fortress" not the B-17...........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2005)

Nevermind him, lanc, the world of aviation is black and white to him. I'm pretty sure it was being turned into letter systems too, although you might be right. We did have H.F and L.F for fighters and PR. for photo recce. I'm sure they would have had F.21 for the Spitfire F.21. 

I love the way everyone has avoided the F.21.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2005)

I have read that the F.21 received contra-rotating props during World War 2 *and* Griffon engined Seafires were delivered during World War 2. The Mk. XV and Mk.45 were both delivered during World War 2, January 1945 to be precise and the Mk.45 was a converted F.21! hah! 

Ooo, I need a book on all this, the internet is sucking at the moment.


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2005)

What is it with you people ?! 

I never said the 190A8 was superior to the Spit XIV !! So whats the problem ?! 

And yes Lanc, all it takes to escape a Spit XIV in a Fw 190A8 is to do a Split S, and the Spit has totally lost the 190. So 'YES' my point is 100% valid, as this proves entirely that the 190A8 wasnt a easy 'push over' for a Spit XIV.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2005)

Wow, how did any 190s get shot down...bloody hell...

Anyway, the F.21 is even better.


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Wow, how did any 190s get shot down...bloody hell...



How do think ? 

I suppose you forgot that all the Spit has to do to loose a 190A on its tail, is to turn and keep turning....

Its all about which pilot utilizes his a/c's advantages the best. 

But since the Spit XIV is faster, climb better and turns better, it is slightly superior to the 190A8. (strictly talking the two a/c)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2005)

The XIV is faster, climbs better and turns better...it's only *slightly* superior...

The Zero turns better and climbs better than the Wildcat, it's the fuck-in dogs bollocks.


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2005)

Yes Plan_D, Roll rate and diving characterristics count a whole lot.

And btw, the Zero is also superior to the Wildcat.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2005)

You can't read, can you? Or you don't understand the English language. I was mocking you and you walked straight through it without even getting it. 

I know the Zero is superior to the Wildcat...oh just forget it...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You can't read, can you? Or you don't understand the English language. I was mocking you and you walked straight through it without even getting it.
> 
> I know the Zero is superior to the Wildcat...oh just forget it...



You know D, you just don't have a sense of humor (Kidding)


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You can't read, can you? Or you don't understand the English language. I was mocking you and you walked straight through it without even getting it.
> 
> I know the Zero is superior to the Wildcat...oh just forget it...



Oh I see, well sry but I never heard that one before


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

Let me explain the mocking then we'll get back to the discussion. You state that the Spitfire XIV was only 'slightly' superior to the Fw-190A-8 because the Fw-190 had superior roll and dive to the Spitfire but the Spitfire had superior everything else. 

The A6M Zero only had superior low-speed turn and climb to the F4 Wildcat yet it's far superior to the Wildcat, how does that work? 

Now, one on one the Wildcat would fall prey to a Zero, yes. Two Wildcats against four Zeros would come up in the Wildcats favour using the correct thatch and weave tactics. Since you say that the pilot would, or at least should, know how best to use his aircraft the Wildcat is a superior aircraft in real combat because planes don't go out on their own. 

I'm researching the F.21 at the moment, we'll soon come back to that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 19, 2005)

and soren, ok so the -190 can do one menouver to get away from a spit, the spit can do hundreds to get the -190, what point are you trying to prove here?? like i said you cannot base you're argument for the -190 not being a push over on one simple points, when you have taken little else into considderation, in if a plane has superior turning circle, speed and rate of climb, it is more that "slightly" superior to annother.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

Lanc what makes you think the Fw-190A could only do one move to get away form a Spit. So what is your point? 

Lanc I know the Fw-190 is not a British plane or a Lancaster but it is better then you think it is. I am sure you will find hundreds and hundreds of Spit XIV and higher being shot down by Fw-190A's also. The 190A was one of the best fighters of the Second World War. Do you really think a Spit XIV pilot would go "Wow there is a 190A, man this is going to be easy!"

There is more to a plane than its speed, roll rate, and so forth.


----------



## Soren (Jun 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Let me explain the mocking then we'll get back to the discussion. You state that the Spitfire XIV was only 'slightly' superior to the Fw-190A-8 because the Fw-190 had superior roll and dive to the Spitfire but the Spitfire had superior everything else.
> 
> The A6M Zero only had superior low-speed turn and climb to the F4 Wildcat yet it's far superior to the Wildcat, how does that work?
> 
> Now, one on one the Wildcat would fall prey to a Zero, yes. Two Wildcats against four Zeros would come up in the Wildcats favour using the correct thatch and weave tactics. Since you say that the pilot would, or at least should, know how best to use his aircraft the Wildcat is a superior aircraft in real combat because planes don't go out on their own.



Plan_D, you changed your mind already ?  

Plan_D, the Zero wasnt just superior to the F4F in low speed turning and climb rate, it was superior in every aspect of flight up until 300mph(Except diving), and above that it could most of the time loop its way out of trouble.

Also since the Zero is up to 20mph faster than the Wildcat, it is clearly the superior aircraft of the two.

Note: The Thach Weave tactic relied heavily on a speed advantage.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and soren, *ok so the -190 can do one menouver to get away from a spit*, ,



 One maneuver Lanc ? I don't think you know the importance roll rate and diving characteristics has on a plane's ability to maneuver. 

I'll let you think about that one... 



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the spit can do hundreds to get the -190



Sure, hundreds...  What else could it do than turn when it has a 190A on its tail ? (If it climbs, it gets hit)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

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 (Jun 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 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.



Plan_D said:


> It was easier to fly,



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



Plan_D said:


> it was easier to recover.



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


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

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 (Jun 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 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 (Jun 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 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 (Jun 19, 2005)

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 (Jun 19, 2005)

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 (Jun 19, 2005)

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 (Jun 19, 2005)

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 (Jun 19, 2005)

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 (Jun 19, 2005)

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 (Jun 19, 2005)

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 (Jun 19, 2005)

> 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 (Jun 19, 2005)

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 (Jun 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 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...



plan_D said:


> 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.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 20, 2005)

The increase in weight and speed made the Spitfire XIV less agile than the Spitfire IX. The same would apply to the Fw-190A-8 against the A-4, it was heavier and an increased boost. 

The Fw-190A-4 did, in fact, climb faster than the Fw-190A-8 at all altitudes. 
So, the Spitfire XIV had an increased speed, climb and ceiling advantage over the Fw-190A-8. Thus giving it an increased advantage in all around combat, height advantage is always the greatest advantage. 
In any combat situation the Spitfire XIV could just climb away above the Fw-190A, and there's nothing the Fw-190A could do about it.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2005)

> The increase in weight and speed made the Spitfire XIV less agile than the Spitfire IX.



You have absolutely no source to back that up, Plan_D ! 

However I have plenty of sources to debunk your statement, and here's two of them: 

_*Spit XIV TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX*

Turning Circle
The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV. 

Rate of Roll
Rate of roll is very much the same. 

*Spit XIV TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH Spit VIII*

Manoeuvrablility
- The elevator control of the Spitfire XIV was found to be much heavier than that of the Spitfire VIII, unpleasantlly so, and the other controls felt to be slightly heavier than on previous Spitfire Mks. In spite of heavier controls the Spitfire XIV is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire VIII in turns at all heights._

You seem to be highly unaware of how influential power-loading actually is to turn performance.



> The same would apply to the Fw-190A-8 against the A-4, it was heavier and an increased boost.



The A-8 was only slightly heavier, but had a larger lighter wing and 400 extra horsepower, making it considerably better in the climb than the A-4.



> The Fw-190A-4 did, in fact, climb faster than the Fw-190A-8 at all altitudes.



 No.



> So, the Spitfire XIV had an increased speed, climb and ceiling advantage over the Fw-190A-8. Thus giving it an increased advantage in all around combat, height advantage is always the greatest advantage.
> In any combat situation the Spitfire XIV could just climb away above the Fw-190A, and there's nothing the Fw-190A could do about it.



No, the difference in climb and acceleration was small, much smaller than against the A-4. However the difference in diving was rather large.
--------------------------

And to answer an ealier comment..



Plan_D said:


> 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.



Place two very experienced pilots in a late war Bf 109 and Spitfire, and the Bf 109 would give the Spitfire a severe licking ! Piloted by an experienced pilot, the Bf 109 was very close to THE most effective pure fighter of WW2, as history testifies.

So pilot skill does have alot to do with it Plan_D..


----------



## plan_D (Jun 20, 2005)

If the ailerons and elevators of the Spitfire are heavier, it's not going to turn as well because the pilot will be unable to turn. You don't understand anything from the pilots point of view. If he can't spin the plane into turning position, he can't turn it!

The A-8 was 600-800 lbs heavier than the A-4, that's not slightly heavier. It only had extra 400 hp in boost and the wing made little difference. Just read many sources across the entirety of the internet, they all state the A-4 out-climbed the A-8. 

The Spitfire XIV could out-climb the A-8, up and away and there's nothing the A-8 can do. 

I highly doubt that vague comment, since you don't even say which Bf-109 you're talking about. But then, the F.21 was superior to Bf-109, Fw-190A and Fw-190D, also being a much more stable and probably equal to the Ta-152.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

All in all I can say this is really interesting and good points are being put out by everyone.

I agree though with Soren that the A-8 was more equal to a Spit XIV than you think.


----------



## ricardo (Jun 20, 2005)

Hi guys.

First of all, to compare between one aircraft and another it is important to know if both had engagements. For example:

You can compare a Bf109E-4 against a Spitfire Mk II.... okay,

But if you try to compare a Bf109K against a Spitfire Mk I it doesn't make any sense.

I understand that at the very first moment the Fw190A was far superior to the Mk Vb in every respect. The RAF admitted a 4 to 1 in favor of the german aircraft.

On the other hand, the RAF launched ther Spitfire Mk IXa. This one was almost the same as a Mk Vb. The only difference was the engine (which provides a higher speed), but manouverability was the same. The Fw190A still possesed better acceleration, better manouverability, better punch of fire. Spitfire Mk IX managed to reduce the margin of advantage that the Fw190A possesed over the Spitfire Mk Vb, but the Fw190A was still slightly better than the Spitfire Mk IX.

Only with the Spitfire Mk IXb the RAF at last equaled the Fw190A in almost every respect (I'm talking about 1943).


----------



## ricardo (Jun 20, 2005)

Something else I'd like to add:

FYI... the Fw190A-8 was the worst dogfighter in the 190A family. It was armoured around the cockpit and engine and also had heavier armament because it was intended to intercept bombers. 

The Fw190A-8 was not as manouverable as it vas the previous Fw190's and also was slower...TOO HEAVY. It was no match against any of the allies fighters. For me, the better dogfighter of the Fw190A family was the A-4 or maybe A-5.


----------



## GT (Jun 20, 2005)

This is what often happened in a dogfight with a Bf-109 or a FW-190.

Cheers
GT


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

ricardo said:


> Something else I'd like to add:
> It was no match against any of the allies fighters.



Are you sure about that?


----------



## ricardo (Jun 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> ricardo said:
> 
> 
> > Something else I'd like to add:
> ...



Yes, totally sure. The Fw190A-8 was not an excellent dogfighter like the previous versions (Fw190A-3 /4 / 5 / 6 and maybe A-7). Look everywhere and you will find it.

They had heavier armament to blast the heavy bombers on the first pass and the Bf109G-6 were used to bring top cover against the allies escort fighters. Those A-8 had special armour around the cockpit, floor, wing roots and engine to give extra protection to the pilot from the gunners' 0.50cal.


----------



## ricardo (Jun 20, 2005)

GT said:


> This is what often happened in a dogfight with a Bf-109 or a FW-190.
> 
> Cheers
> GT



Well... I think the real opponent of the Spitfire was the Bf109. The Fw190A was superior.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

ricardo said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > ricardo said:
> ...



Okay granted what you are saying is correct however all allied fighters and even against Spitfires or P-51s it was still not a push over.


----------



## ricardo (Jun 20, 2005)

Okay granted what you are saying is correct however all allied fighters and even against Spitfires or P-51s it was still not a push over.[/quote]

At the beginning I thought that the newer versions of any aircraft was an improvement of the type, but no ... in this case Germany was under attack by heavy bombers, so they had to put a good interceptor against the heavy bombers. Heavy armament, good armour and bravery were some of the elements they needed....

NOW...What happens if you take an A-8 and you remove all the excesive armour, and leave it only with 2 x 12.7mm and 2 x 20mm? you will find that NO allied fighter at that time will have a chance against the Fw190A-8 (at least at medium and low altitudes), and once again the Fw190 will have the upper hand.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

I will give you that the A-8 was more suited for intercepting bombers.


----------



## ricardo (Jun 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will give you that the A-8 was more suited for intercepting bombers.



You 've found the magic words. I'm 100% agree.

Those Fw190A-8 bomber interceptors were also called "Ramjagers".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

Well she was good at the bombing killing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

ricardo said:


> NOW...What happens if you take an A-8 and you remove all the excesive armour, and leave it only with 2 x 12.7mm and 2 x 20mm? you will find that NO allied fighter at that time will have a chance against the Fw190A-8 (at least at medium and low altitudes), and once again the Fw190 will have the upper hand.



A big what if.....

Remove the armor from a Spit or Mustang.....

Same thing


----------



## ricardo (Jun 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well she was good at the bombing killing.



Yes!

Walter Dahl = 36 heavy bombers to his credit. 

Visit:
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/viermot.html


----------



## ricardo (Jun 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ricardo said:
> 
> 
> > NOW...What happens if you take an A-8 and you remove all the excesive armour, and leave it only with 2 x 12.7mm and 2 x 20mm? you will find that NO allied fighter at that time will have a chance against the Fw190A-8 (at least at medium and low altitudes), and once again the Fw190 will have the upper hand.
> ...



Can't compare apples with pineapples my friend..... We are talking about removing EXCESSIVE armour. Spit and Mustang don't have heavy armour at all. Their armour was average, but not enough to stop a 20mm and the armour plates of Spits and Mustangs were behind the pilot seat ONLY.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

True there was not much to remove from Spits or Mustangs. Now a P-47 on the other hand.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

While the A8 is an excellent bird, I think it need to be determined how much extra armor are we talking about. I would guess 500 pounds will give the aircraft and extra 40 or 50 mph, but if we're only talking about 100 pounds, well.....


----------



## ricardo (Jun 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> While the A8 is an excellent bird, I think it need to be determined how much extra armor are we talking about. I would guess 500 pounds will give the aircraft and extra 40 or 50 mph, but if we're only talking about 100 pounds, well.....



Two plates on each side of the cockpit, one huge plate on the floor, the engine.... I think it is almost 500 pounds.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

ricardo said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > While the A8 is an excellent bird, I think it need to be determined how much extra armor are we talking about. I would guess 500 pounds will give the aircraft and extra 40 or 50 mph, but if we're only talking about 100 pounds, well.....
> ...



That might be close - it would be interesting to find out and then compre the numbers with say a P-51.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If the ailerons and elevators of the Spitfire are heavier, it's not going to turn as well because the pilot will be unable to turn. You don't understand anything from the pilots point of view. If he can't spin the plane into turning position, he can't turn it!



Plan_D think about what you just said, and then come back, cause thats just ridiculous..

The heaviness of the controls has very little if anything to do with the a/c's maneuverability. 

As an example you can have an a/c with very light controls, but a slow roll rate. Figure the rest out for yourself....



> The A-8 was 600-800 lbs heavier than the A-4, that's not slightly heavier. It only had extra 400 hp in boost and the wing made little difference.



ONLY 400 HP ??!!!! Do you have any Idea what an extra 400 HP means just in terms of power-loading ?!

A-3: Loaded *Clean*= 3,890 kg(8,580 lbs) - Power-loading= 2.28 kg/hp (5.04 lbs/hp)
A-8: Loaded *Clean*= 4,165 kg(9,180 lbs) - Power-loading= 1.98 kg/hp (4.37 lbs/hp)

Note: The available Climb rates for the A-8 were obtained with a power of only 1800 HP, explaining the low results.



> Just read many sources across the entirety of the Internet, they all state the A-4 out-climbed the A-8.



Internet  

You don't own a book about the FW 190 I presume ?

Fact is most sources mention the Bomber interceptor version of the A-8 which had extra armor and gun-pods + bomb racks(Hence the 4,900 kg Max. weight figure.), and yes with these extra's the A-8 was inferior in maneuverability to the A-4...

But in Loaded *Clean* configuration the A-8 only weighed a mere 600lbs more than the A-3-4, while additionally having a larger lighter wing and 400 extra horsepower. So in clean configuration the A-8 was at least 'as' or even 'more' maneuverable than the A-3-4 !

The extra ~270kg (~600lbs) *clean* loaded weight of the A-8 was mainly due to extra armor, and the option for either GM-1 nitrous-oxide engine boost for high-altitude operation, or an additional internal fuel tank.



> The Spitfire XIV could out-climb the A-8, up and away and there's nothing the A-8 can do.



If directly behind the Spit, the Spit better not try to climb as then its dead meat. If not, then the A-8 can simply dive and chicken out while the Spit wastes energy in the climb...



> I highly doubt that vague comment, since you don't even say which Bf-109 you're talking about.



Doubt it all you want, its proven though.... And I clearly stated "Late-war" Bf 109 and Spitfire.



Ricardo said:


> But if you try to compare a Bf109K against a Spitfire Mk I it doesn't make any sense.



I guess this is directed at me, for no reason though...

Ricardo I clearly said "Late war" Bf 109 and Spitfire, meaning late war 109 vs late war Spit.



Ricardo said:


> FYI... the Fw190A-8 was the worst dogfighter in the 190A family. It was armoured around the cockpit and engine and also had heavier armament because it was intended to intercept bombers.



No the A-3-4 were no better dogfighters than the A-8 in clean configuration, while the A-5-6 were admittedly slightly better though.

FW 190A-8 stats:

Empty Weight: 3,470 kg. (7,750 lbs)
Loaded *Clean*: 4,165 kg. (9,180 lbs)
Max. Loaded Weight: 4,900 kg. (10,800 lbs)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Wow good info. This convo is really great, it actually stays on topic and I hope we can keep it going.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

It is a well known fact that Spitfire controls were stiff, if the pilot cannot overcome the controls to put his Spitfire into position he cannot turn the plane. A plane with light controls doesn't mean the plane will turn or roll well, it's aerodynamics could hold it back from turns or rolls of great rate. 

The extra 400 hp was in boost, you cannot add that to the standard hp number. 600 lbs isn't a 'mere' increase in weight, it's actually quite a lot for a plane of the Fw-190s build. The Fw-190A-8/R8 was an extra 800 lbs heavier than the Fw-190A-4! 
If the Fw-190A-8 climbed with his boost from take-off, he wouldn't have anything in the dogfight because he only had 10 minutes of it. Then all his extra power would be gone and he would just be a heavier A-4. 

Saying "Late war" doesn't tell me what Bf-109 you're refering to, nor does "late war" Spitfire tell me what you're refering to. Are you refering to Bf-109K-4 or Bf-109G-10? Sptifire XIV, XII or 21?


----------



## ricardo (Jun 21, 2005)

Hi everybody.

There are so much "what ifs", but we can't change what really happened.

It's true, a Fw190A-8 "clean" could outperform a A-3/4/5/6/7.... but what is also true is that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 

The Fw190A-8, I repeat, was not intended as an air superiority aircraft.... it was an interceptor, antibomber, but not a dogfighter. However, at medium and low altitudes (and in good hands, of course) I guess it was still a good match against any allied fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It is a well known fact that Spitfire controls were stiff, if the pilot cannot overcome the controls to put his Spitfire into position he cannot turn the plane. A plane with light controls doesn't mean the plane will turn or roll well, it's aerodynamics could hold it back from turns or rolls of great rate.
> 
> The extra 400 hp was in boost, you cannot add that to the standard hp number. 600 lbs isn't a 'mere' increase in weight, it's actually quite a lot for a plane of the Fw-190s build. The Fw-190A-8/R8 was an extra 800 lbs heavier than the Fw-190A-4!
> If the Fw-190A-8 climbed with his boost from take-off, he wouldn't have anything in the dogfight because he only had 10 minutes of it. Then all his extra power would be gone and he would just be a heavier A-4.
> ...



Very true I am sure there are many instances of aircraft that have light controls but handle like crap. As for the weight that is very true. An aircraft that only weights lets just say 2000lb as an example and you ad 500lb to it you have just added a quarter of its own weight witch will greatly influence the performance of an aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

I think the majority of us here recognise the Spitfire XIV as superior to the Fw-190A but the Fw-190A as no walk over. I believe Adler and I agreed on that earlier.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

Plan_D what about the test results I presented didnt you understand or missed ? 

_Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV. 

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same. _

-----------------------------------------------

The heaviness in the control can very well be a result of extra aerodynamic pressure, and slightly because of the extra weight, however it didnt hamper maneuverability. (Except if "too" heavy) Only a inexperienced pilot would have problems with the extra weight of the controls, however not to any degree where it seriously hampered maneuverability.

And as a side-note, the heaviness in controls was only noticed in the prototype XIV, and wasn't mentioned in the production model. (Read XIV vs IX test above)

Read the Spit XIV prototype vs Spit VIII conclusion:

_Conclusions- Of the two aircraft the Spitfire VIII is preferable at all heights up to about 25,000 feet *except for its turning capabilites*. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performance and fuel consumption are better. The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 *and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII.* *The difficulties of trimming will probably be reduced as pilots gain familiarity*. _




Plan_D said:


> if the pilot cannot overcome the controls to put his Spitfire into position he cannot turn the plane



The pilot could easel overcome the extra weight of the controls, as proved by the test results presented above.



> The extra 400 hp was in boost, you cannot add that to the standard hp number.



The Fw 190A-8 had a continuous power of 1800 HP, 100 extra horsepower than the A-4.



> 600 lbs isn't a 'mere' increase in weight, it's actually quite a lot for a plane of the Fw-190s build.



 Really, and hows that ? 



> The *Fw-190A-8/R8 *was an extra 800 lbs heavier than the Fw-190A-4!



The bomber interceptor version....



> If the Fw-190A-8 climbed with his boost from take-off, he wouldn't have anything in the dogfight because he only had 10 minutes of it.



Boost was saved for combat conditions....



> Then all his extra power would be gone and he would just be a heavier A-4.



After 10min of 2100 HP (Which is alot), the A-8 would still have an extra 100 HP to rely on compared to the A-3-4.



> Saying "Late war" doesn't tell me what Bf-109 you're refering to, nor does "late war" Spitfire tell me what you're refering to. Are you refering to Bf-109K-4 or Bf-109G-10? Sptifire XIV, XII or 21?



Bf 109 G-10-14, K-4 vs Spit IX, XIV. (The Spit 21 never made it to see combat)



Ricardo said:


> It's true, a Fw190A-8 "clean" could outperform a A-3/4/5/6/7.... but what is also true is that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.



Ricardo are you actually trying to tell me that the A-8 never flew a mission in loaded *clean* configuration ?! Cause then your badly mistaken !



Ricardo said:


> The Fw190A-8, I repeat, was not intended as an air superiority aircraft.... it was an interceptor, antibomber, but not a dogfighter



Sure it wasnt meant as a 'main' Airsuperiorty fighter, but that doesnt at all mean it never flew a mission with the clean configuration load ! Not at all !


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

That test pilot could overcome the stiffness of control. There's pilots that flew both that prefered the manuverability of the IX Spitfire, I'm sure pilots wouldn't state that if the XIV and IX were exactly the same. 

Where did this extra 100 hp come from, Soren, did it magically appear?

The Fw-190A is a small plane, 600 lbs is a lot for any plane but the Fw-190 it's felt even more. 

The Fw-190A-8 was 600 lbs heavier, the Fw-190A-8/R8 was 800 lbs heavier. It was a simple statement. 

Boost was saved for combat, so the Spitfire XIV had a quicker climb rate from start. That gives the Spitfire the initial advantage during combat, since it can arrive at a higher altitude. It also had a higher ceiling. 

If the extra 100 hp did appear, it's hardly enough for an increase in 600 lbs. 

Do you want to inform the pilots of 91st Squadron who flew the F.21 in combat that it never saw combat? IX was 1942, that's not late war. Late war Spitfire refers to XII, XIV and 21 because they all saw operational service and all saw combat. 

Here's about the Spitfire 21; 

The Griffon 64 (found in operational Spitfire-21's) produced 2375 BHP for combat, had a stiffer wing with a little more span, larger ailerons, a larger 5 bladed (or dual contra-rotating) prop, was armed with 4 x 20 mm cannon, and could carry more fuel than the Spit XIV. It could climb to 30,000 feet in 7.85 minutes and had a top speed of 455 mph. The contra-rotating prop version would also have provided a superior gun platform over normal single prop fighters, and its 5 bladed (or contra rotating prop) would provide superior power to thrust conversion at high altitudes over the Ta-152's 3 bladed prop. 
It's maximum rate of climb was 4800 feet per minute at 7700 feet. It had a service ceiling of 42,800 feet. It's first operational sortie was on the 10th of April, 1945. The attached documents shows the dates after delivery and it's first operational sortie with 91st Squadron. The Spitfire XXIe did see service, as you can see. With lanc, you are right it is still refered to as Mk.XXIe. 
The first production F.XXI flew on March 15th, 1944 equipped with the Griffon 64, however, some were equipped with the Griffon 85 with contra-rotating props. The Spitfire F.21 claimed a few victories during the war, once such victory was against a midget submarine caught on the surface which two Spitfires sunk on 26th April, 1945. 

Didn't it see service Soren?


----------



## ricardo (Jun 21, 2005)

*My replies:*



Soren said:


> Ricardo are you actually trying to tell me that the A-8 never flew a mission in loaded *clean* configuration ?! Cause then your badly mistaken !





Soren said:


> Sure it wasnt meant as a 'main' Airsuperiorty fighter, but that doesnt at all mean it never flew a mission with the clean configuration load ! Not at all !



Nouuu.... I didn't mean that. Read this carefully:

Emil Lang was the most successfull fighter pilot on the Invasion front flying Fw190A-8. He claimed 15 victories in june 1944 alone (including 4 USAAF P-51 fighters within minutes on 20 june and another 4 USAAF P-51 in one mission on 24 june again!!! ) flying the Fw190A-8.... more?

14jun44: 3 P-47s in one mission
09jul44 : 3 Spitfires in 5 minutes
25aug44: 3 P-38 in one mission

I guess that few pilots achieved this... remember that Emil Lang was an outstanding experienced pilot.... so I think that ONLY pilots of that calibre had some privileges. Priller was another pilot whose personal Fw190A-8 had only 2 x 12.7mm and 2 x 20mm (he removed the outer 20mm cannons and his aircraft had standard armour protection like Emil Lang's "Green 1").... my point is that not everybody had these privileges.

The mayority of the Fw190A-8s were equipped with extra armour and heavy armament to the teeth.

If you have SQUADRON SIGNAL PUBLICATION FW190 IN ACTION you will find that the Fw190A-8 had max speed (clean) = 650km/h.... compared to Fw190A-4 max speed (clean) = 676Km/h....weight increased a lot too... It brings me to the point that Fw190A-4 had a better performance than the Fw190A-8.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I think the majority of us here recognise the Spitfire XIV as superior to the Fw-190A but the Fw-190A as no walk over. I believe Adler and I agreed on that earlier.



That we did.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

> That test pilot could overcome the stiffness of control. There's pilots that flew both that prefered the manuverability of the IX Spitfire, I'm sure pilots wouldn't state that if the XIV and IX were exactly the same.



This has been discussed before, and NO, pilots didnt prefer the IX's maneuverability, only its easier handling.



> Where did this extra 100 hp come from, Soren, did it magically appear?



The A-3-4 had a continuous power of 1700 HP, the A-8 had 1800 HP Plan_D ! Do some research before posting !



> The Fw-190A is a small plane, 600 lbs is a lot for any plane but the Fw-190 it's felt even more.



Pure nonsense ! 



> Boost was saved for combat, so the Spitfire XIV had a quicker climb rate from start. That gives the Spitfire the initial advantage during combat, since it can arrive at a higher altitude. It also had a higher ceiling.



Now what are you talking about ? Do you really believe that the Spit XIV would fly at full ceiling all the way to Germany ? No the biggest chance is that they'll meet each other at about the same alt.



> If the extra 100 hp did appear, it's hardly enough for an increase in 600 lbs.



Appear  Read a book about the plane for gods sake...



> Do you want to inform the pilots of 91st Squadron who flew the F.21 in combat that it never saw combat?



The Spit 21 didnt see any combat with German a/c during WW2. 



> IX was 1942, that's not late war. Late war Spitfire refers to XII, XIV and 21 because they all saw operational service and all saw combat.



I mentioned the XIV, and accidently left out the XII. And the reason I mentioned the IX, was because IIRC it saw service in 44 aswell.



> Didn't it see service Soren?



I didnt say it didnt see service Plan_D ! Read my posts ! I said it didnt see any combat. (Atleast not against any German a/c)

And as far as my sources tell me, the Spit 21 never saw action against any German military unit.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

ricardo said:


> Nouuu.... I didn't mean that. Read this carefully:
> 
> Emil Lang was the most successfull fighter pilot on the Invasion front flying Fw190A-8. He claimed 15 victories in june 1944 alone (including 4 USAAF P-51 fighters within minutes on 20 june and another 4 USAAF P-51 in one mission on 24 june again!!! ) flying the Fw190A-8.... more?
> 
> ...



Ok, then we agree.



ricardo said:


> If you have SQUADRON SIGNAL PUBLICATION FW190 IN ACTION you will find that the Fw190A-8 had max speed (clean) = 650km/h.... compared to Fw190A-4 max speed (clean) = 676Km/h....weight increased a lot too... It brings me to the point that Fw190A-4 had a better performance than the Fw190A-8.



The Official Climb rate and Speed figures for the A-8 were obtained with full armor and fuel, and with a power setting of only 1800 HP. (While clean means it carried no Bomb racks or Gun-pods) So the real Max Climb rate and Speed figure was considderably higher.

Btw that A-4 speed figure was obtained with MW-50, which wasnt fitted on the production model.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

Where did the extra 100 hp come from, Soren? The A-8 had the same engine as the A-4. 

No the Spitfire XIV wouldn't fly at maximum altitude but the XIV could raise above the Fw-190A for combat. Height advantage is important. 

The IX saw service to wars end, it doesn't make it late war. Hurricane Is saw service until the wars end in the CBI, that wouldn't make them late war aircraft. 

Since all I've read on the F.21 state it made a few victories, it's more likely than not the F.21 made contact and got victories against Luftwaffe aircraft. 
How did two Spitfire XXIe sink a midget submarine if they never saw service against any German unit?


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

> Where did the extra 100 hp come from, Soren? The A-8 had the same engine as the A-4.



_Early in 1943, the Fw 190A-5 appeared. It was essentially similar to the A-4 but its revised engine mounting moved the engine six inches (15cm) farther forward. This opened up the area behind the engine and allowed the cooling air to exit the engine faster and leave through the cooling gills on the side of the fuselage. The A-6 followed with a redesigned wing that was lighter and could take four 20mm cannon.* In December 1943 came the A-7 with a slightly uprated engine, and this was followed by A-8 to A-10.* Although many models and versions were designed, most of the Fw 190s produced were A-3, A-4 and A-5 models. _

This engine was the same BMW 801 engine, but slightly more powerful "1800 hp". (Im still looking for the specifics of the modifications.)



> No the Spitfire XIV wouldn't fly at maximum altitude but the XIV could raise above the Fw-190A for combat. Height advantage is important.



True, but it goes both ways as the 190A-8 could relatively easy chicken out in such a situation.



> The IX saw service to wars end, it doesn't make it late war. Hurricane Is saw service until the wars end in the CBI, that wouldn't make them late war aircraft.



I was talking the ETO, and maybe mentioning the VIII instead of the IX might have been better.



> Since all I've read on the F.21 state it made a few victories, it's more likely than not the F.21 made contact and got victories against Luftwaffe aircraft.



No its very unlikely as many sources states it didnt.



> How did two Spitfire XXIe sink a midget submarine if they never saw service against any German unit?



Does it say from which country these midget subs were from, or where the incident accured ? No. 

So all we can do is speculate....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Pure Nonsense? Pure Nonsence that the Fw-190 would not be effected by 600lb or a small aircraft would not? 600lb is a lot for a small aircraft.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

Looked through some of my books, and here's what I found:

FW 190A-4

Engine: BMW 801 D. (1700-1720 HP)

Fw 190A-8 R11-12

Engine: BMW 801 TU. (1800 HP) 

The BMW 801F series engine(2000 HP) was also planned to be mounted on the A-8, but this was never realized.

Note: Not all A-8's were equipped with the BMW 801 TU engine, the majority used the BMW 801 D engine.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Pure Nonsense? Pure Nonsence that the Fw-190 would not be effected by 600lb or a small aircraft would not? 600lb is a lot for a small aircraft.



No, pure nonesense that the Fw 190 was affected more by increase in weight than any other fighter of WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Okay was just wondering.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

I don't believe I stated that the Fw-190A was affected anymore than any other plane with an increase of 600 lbs. An increase of 600 lbs on any fighter during World War 2 was a lot. 

The BMW 801TU provided 1774 hp. 

The incident was off the coast of Holland and it happened on the 26th April, 1945. All you can do is try and deny it.


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I don't believe I stated that the Fw-190A was affected anymore than any other plane with an increase of 600 lbs. An increase of 600 lbs on any fighter during World War 2 was a lot.



You said: _600 lbs is a lot for any plane but the Fw-190 it's felt even more_

Convinced ?



> The BMW 801TU provided 1774 hp.



Source ?

Most sources quote the BMW 801TU's continuous power as 1800 HP, others 2000 HP, I've come across none that mention 1774 HP.

You might be confusing the BMW 801 with the Jumo 213A-1 which had exactly 1774 HP without boost.  



> The incident was off the coast of Holland and it happened on the 26th April, 1945. All you can do is try and deny it.



Thanks for the info. And "no" im not denying it, but that seems to be the only action account against any 'German' military unit accessible. 

And according to my sources, the Spit 21 'never' saw action against any LW a/c.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2005)

The Fw-190 is a small plane, of course it's going to feel it more than a larger plane. Is that hard to understand?

The Jumo 213A-1 is rated at 1776 hp for take off, which could be boosted to 2240 hp with the MW 50 injection system. The BMW 801TU only powered three types of Fw-190, the Fw-190A-8/R11 and R12 (All weather fighter), Fw-190F-8/R14 (Torpedo-fighter) and Fw-190G-8/R5. 

The "clean" Fw-190A-8 were all equipped with BMW 801D rated at 1,700 hp. I can only assume you're refering to the Fw-190A-8/R11 and R12 in your argument, probably the least produced A-8 of the lot. 

My sources state that the F.21 got a 'few' kills during it's short World War 2 career. Now, I don't know if that is certainly against Luftwaffe aircraft. However, the Luftwaffe did exist right up until the last day and 'few kills' says to me more than one. I'm currently hunting for other sortie reports from 91st Squadron.


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Fw-190 is a small plane, of course it's going to feel it more than a larger plane. Is that hard to understand?



Nice recovery  Fact is what you said could be interpreted in two ways..



> The "clean" Fw-190A-8 were all equipped with BMW 801D rated at 1,700 hp.



The "clean" 190A-8 , Plan_D ? 
There's no "clean" Fw-190A-8 version... And if your implying that the standard A-8 was the only A-8 version that could be loaded clean, then your horribly wrong ! 



> I can only assume you're referring to the Fw-190A-8/R11 and R12 in your argument, probably the least produced A-8 of the lot.



Yes Plan_D, I 'was' and I 'am' referring to the R11/R12... Read my posts, I clearly stated that. 

Now where's your source for the 1774 HP figure ?



> My sources state that the F.21 got a 'few' kills during it's short World War 2 career. Now, I don't know if that is certainly against Luftwaffe aircraft. However, the Luftwaffe did exist right up until the last day and 'few kills' says to me more than one. I'm currently hunting for other sortie reports from 91st Squadron.



Well, Good hunting then !


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2005)

The fact that you interpreted it the wrong way is not my problem. 

There were no pure fighter version of the Fw-190A-8. Not all A-8s were equipped with the BMW 801TU, only the R/11-12 were equipped with the engine. They were not the majority A-8 model, and were over 9,000 lbs take off weight. 

You mentioned some "clean" A-8 in your discussion with ricardo, whatever that may be refering to, I do not know. A "clean" configuration of any of the other variants does not reduce their internal weight, which would be the extra guns and armour. 
Only the R/11-12 were equipped with the BMW 801TU, so in all other A-8 variants your extra 100 hp is null and void. 

My source is _Classic Fighters_ by Bill Gunston for the 1776 hp figure for the Jumo 213A-1. As you can see, I stated 1776 hp in my last post not 1774 hp. 

For internet sources on the Jumo 213A-1:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/special.asp?period=wwii

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw190d9.html

http://www.simviation.com/gryphon/CFS1.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200010/ai_n8925541/pg_2


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2005)

> The fact that you interpreted it the wrong way is not my problem.



 



> There were no pure fighter version of the Fw-190A-8.



Pure fighter "Versions" ?! Plan_D the A-8 'did' engage enemy fighters, and was sometimes intentionally loaded specifically for dogfights, nomatter the version.



> Not all A-8s were equipped with the BMW 801TU, only the R/11-12 were equipped with the engine.They were not the majority A-8 model



 I've said that already.



> , and were over 9,000 lbs take off weight.


´

Yes, 9,180 lbs precisely.

Also for further notice, the "Normal" take off weight has nothing to do with the *clean* loaded weight.

The A-8 was 'normally' sent up to intercept bombers or attack ground-targets, and therefore its 'normal' take off weight was with heavy armament and armor to fit those roles. Its *clean* loaded weight would be lower...



> You mentioned some "clean" A-8 in your discussion with ricardo, whatever that may be refering to, I do not know. A "clean" configuration of any of the other variants does not reduce their internal weight, which would be the extra guns and armour.



The *Clean* configuration load is without any unnecessary additional equipment internally or externally. For example, the *Clean* configuration load on the A-8 was without the extra armor and armament for the bomber interceptor role, and without the bomb-racks for the fighter-bomber role, as-well as without the unnecessary extra internal fuel tank.



> Only the R/11-12 were equipped with the BMW 801TU, so in all other A-8 variants your extra 100 hp is null and void.



No, there were also some equipped with the 2000 hp BMW 801 TS engine, but they were much fewer so not really worth mentioning.



> My source is _Classic Fighters_ by Bill Gunston for the 1776 hp figure for the Jumo 213A-1. As you can see, I stated 1776 hp in my last post not 1774 hp.



I was talking about the TU engine Plan_D ! and you clearly stated that the TU engine only had a continuous power of 1774 HP, which is untrue ! 

Plan_D said: _The BMW 801TU provided 1774 hp. _

So I will ask you again, whats the Source for this figure ?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2005)

"Clean" configuration refers to clean wing, no extra wing loading. Are you telling me that before the combat any variant of A-8 would have it's guns pulled and it's armour removed so it could combat fighters?

Which A-8 are you refering to in "clean" configuration because, no, you cannot just get a scramble call and take the guns and armour out of the plane. It doesn't work like that. 

Refer to the correct A-8. There were many A-8 sub-variants designed for different purposes, they would not alter a bomber-destroyer sub-variant to suit the needs of a fighter, if they already had a fighter version present. 

A-8 refers to the ultimate variant, many sub-variants come under that. "Clean" configuration refers differently to each sub-variant, not the A-8 as a whole. 

I mis-read an article on the BMW 801TU. So, I will admit it produces 1,800 hp. However, as we both well know it was only fitted to the R/11-12 sub-variants of the A-8. The majority A-8 sub-variants were equipped with the BMW 801D-2 running at 1,700 hp - the same as the A-4. 

If you really are trying to get more indepth, stop generalising the A-8.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

From everything I have read the F.21 reached service in WW2 but it did not see any combat. I may be wrong though.


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> "Clean" configuration refers to clean wing, no extra wing loading.



No, it refers to no "extra" equipment.



> Are you telling me that before the combat any variant of A-8 would have it's guns pulled and it's armour removed so it could combat fighters?



Guns pulled ? Plan_D the standard guns were of-course left to stay, but gun-pods were removed, as-well as any other "Extra" armament. As for the armour; Only the extra armour of the bomber-interceptor or fighter-bomber configuration was removed, as-well as the extra internal fuel-tank.



> Which A-8 are you refering to in "clean" configuration because, no, you cannot just get a scramble call and take the guns and armour out of the plane. It doesn't work like that.



 Plan_D whenever did I say this was done in a scramble ?! Stop making up stuff Plan_D !

It was done by mech's at the request by either sqd.commander or sometimes the pilots themselves.



> Refer to the correct A-8. There were many A-8 sub-variants designed for different purposes, they would not alter a bomber-destroyer sub-variant to suit the needs of a fighter, if they already had a fighter version present.



First of all the All-Weather fighter R11/12 didnt start off as a bomber-interceptor, it could easily become this though and many did, as-well as others becoming fighter-bombers. 

Secondly, YES Plan_D, they 'would' alter A-8's with the bomber-interceptor or fighter-bomber configuration into clean configuration if the need was there.(Which it often was)



> A-8 refers to the ultimate variant, many sub-variants come under that. "Clean" configuration refers differently to each sub-variant, not the A-8 as a whole.



The R11/12 weighed almost exactly the same empty as the standard A-8. 



> I mis-read an article on the BMW 801TU. So, I will admit it produces 1,800 hp.



Finally, that took you some time...



> I mis-read an article on the BMW 801TU. So, I will admit it produces 1,800 hp. However, as we both well know it was only fitted to the R/11-12 sub-variants of the A-8. The majority A-8 sub-variants were equipped with the BMW 801D-2 running at 1,700 hp - the same as the A-4.



Stop repeating yourself 'and' me Plan_D ! I said from the start of mentioning the TU engine, that this engine wasnt fitted on the majority of A-8's, and that the majority fitted the BMW 801D engine.



> If you really are trying to get more indepth, stop generalising the A-8.



And I say "Right back at you !"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

Wow this one is getting in depth. Good stuff. I am actually learning quite a bit from both of you about this topic. Thanks keep it up.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2005)

"Clean" refers to clean wing, it always has and it always will. Modern day "Clean" wing would be removal missiles, gun-pods and fuel tanks. Your mentioning of removing gun-pods is _exactly_ what would be done to make it "clean". As well as any rockets and bombs. 

Removing armour and fuel tanks would make it a different variant of the Fw-190. For example; if you took a Fw-190A-8/R8 and removed all that made it a R8 - it's not a R8 anymore, is it? It's not going to be a "clean" R8. 

The R11/12 was simply an all weather fighter, in which you base your entire argument of the A-8 being a superior dogfighter to the A-4. 

If you read what I said properly, I stated they would not alter a bomber-destroyer to fighter *if* a fighter version was present. It's a waste of time and resources. 

I fail to see the point in mentioning the empty weights of the R11/12 to the A-8 as a whole. If you wanted to base your entire argument on the R11/12 being a superior dogfighter to the A-4 then it'd have been much more sensible from the start. 

And since this started out with me stating the Spitfire XIV could easily out-climb the A-4 at all speeds and altitudes, which would mean it was probably better against the A-8 since the A-8 had an increase in weight. It still stands that with the vast majority of A-8 variants, the Spitfire XIV would be able to gain advantage quicker than it did against the A-4. The only variant of the A-8 that would be better than the A-4 in a dogfight, would be the R11/12.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Removing standard armor would not be making it clean. Removing extra armour would yes. As Plan_D said it is wings with no stores underneath.


----------



## Udet (Jul 7, 2005)

Putting specifications aside, I do not think any of the Spitfires -whatever the version- could deal with their contemporary Fw190.

Battle records substantiate this assertion.

The Spitfire took disastrous losses at the hands of both the Fw190s and Bf 109s of JG 2 and JG 26 over the Channel and over France throughout the entire years of 1941, 1942 and early 1943.

It was until 1943, when the 8th AF began assemblying in numbers that the Spitifre showed a slight improvement in its performance against the Luftwaffe.

Without the overwhelming numbers achieved by both RAF and USAAF together to conduct the fight against Luftwaffe, the Spitfire seemed uncapable of achieving anything substantial against the German fighters.

It is proven, the German fighter pilots had generous banquets with the Spitfires.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

Udet said:


> It is proven, the German fighter pilots had generous banquets with the Spitfires.




 Udet - you have a way with words!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 7, 2005)

Statistics aside? Sorry, no. The statisics prove that a Spitfire was more than a match for the Fw-190. 

In those years you mentioned, the Spitfires were flying over the Channel - to their range extent. It was the same situation as the Bf-109s flying over England, and suffering heavily at the hands of Hurricanes and Spitfires. 

JG 2 and JG 26 were the elité Luftwaffe formations - that hardly says anything against Green RAF pilots. The Fw-190A gained a large advantage against the Spitfire V in late (July 1941) - it was then matched by the Spitfire IX and taken over by the Spitfire XIV. 

The numbers prove nothing if taken on their own. 

You do have an unhealthy infatuation with the Luftwaffe aircraft. Take a look at the facts of the past discussion - the Spitfire was a match and then some for the Fw-190. 

What next, Udet? "I've seen loads of gun-cam of Spitfires being shot up..."


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2005)

Plan_D, 

"Clean" refers 'no extra equipment', simple as that. It has nothing to do with the wing. Gun-pods and bomb-racks were removed, as-well as any other "Extra" equipment. As for the armour; Only the 'extra' armour of the bomber-interceptor or fighter-bomber configuration was removed, as-well as the 'extra' internal fuel-tank. 

Plan_D, they 'would' alter A-8's with the bomber-interceptor or fighter-bomber configuration (The Converstion kits) into clean configuration if the need was there.(Which it often was) 

So as an example a R8 could become a fighter interceptor in a flash if the need was there, aswell as a R11 could become a fighter-bomber, but they would still retain their original engines. And yes this convertion would slightly alter their original designations. 

Now all this put aside we do agree Plan_D that the Spit XIV 'was' superior to the Fw 190A-8, however less so than against the A-4, as the A-8 could bolster an extra 400 hp and was only a tiny bit heavier.




> In those years you mentioned, the Spitfires were flying over the Channel - to their range extent. It was the same situation as the Bf-109s flying over England, and suffering heavily at the hands of Hurricanes and Spitfires.



First of all let me make it clear that the Spitfire was an excellent fighter, one of the very best of WW2, however no better than the 109 or 190.

During BoB 99% of the RAF's losses were sustained in dogfights with the Bf-109 ! Now take an extra look at stats, and they'll tell you just 'how' well the 109's actually performed considdering their range and offensive situation !  

Remember that the vast majority of LW a/c shot down during the BoB were bombers. 

Moving on, during 41-43 the Spitfires once again met the Bf-109's over the channel, only this time the Spitfire's didnt do very well and were being battered quite severely.

Now what does this tell us ? That Bf-109 and Fw-190 were more than a match for the Spitfire.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 7, 2005)

You're just repeating your old argument for the first part, so I'll leave that. 



> During BoB 99% of the RAF's losses were sustained in dogfights with the Bf-109 !



Did the Luftwaffe have anything else anywhere near comparable in a dogfight to a Hurricane or Spitfire? Answer: No. Did the Luftwaffe use any other fighter as extensively as the Bf-109 during the BoB? Answer: No. Was the only other fighter the Luftwaffe used during the BoB, the Bf-110? Answer: Yes. Does the quote above show anything of significance? Answer: No. 



> Now take an extra look at stats, and they'll tell you just 'how' well the 109's actually performed considdering their range and offensive situation !



I'd advise you to take a look at the states, Soren. First off, the Hurricane was the most numerous fighter in the RAF - therefore the majority of losses suffered by the RAF were Hurricanes. The Luftwaffe also out-numbered the RAF in every encounter - high losses are expected on the RAF side. Your point here of the Bf-109 achieving good success against the RAF is no more a point for the P-51 being great because it achieved success in numbers. 



> Moving on, during 41-43 the Spitfires once again met the Bf-109's over the channel, only this time the Spitfire's didnt do very well and were being battered quite severely.



They didn't meet over the Channel, they met in France. The Spitfire was an interceptor - it was going to it's combat radius extent when flying over to France to tempt the Luftwaffe to attack them. Again, not all losses were Spitfires since these fighter sweeps would often include bombers - to tempt the Luftwaffe. 



> Now what does this tell us ? That Bf-109 and Fw-190 were more than a match for the Spitfire



It tells us that the Spitfire was out there, with green pilots flying against experienced Luftwaffe pilots of JG 2 and JG 26 - and still being able to hold their own - outside of their own environment. 

More than a match would mean better - the Bf-109 and Fw-190 were a match, at best.


----------



## Udet (Jul 8, 2005)

Plan_D:

Soren is very correct.

The Bf 109, E-3 in this particular case, fared much much better over England in 1940 (BoB) than all Spitfire versions that followed the MkI did over the Channel and France during 1941, 1942 and the first half of 1943.
There, over England, the E-3 operated reaching the limits of its range too.

Right, the Richtofen and Schlageter Geschwadern were superb units, but their orders were to remain in France after the Battle of Britain, while the bulk of the jagdgeschwadern were sent east to feast with the VVS in Barbarossa.

Now, you say "green RAF pilots" there. 
Such comment would add support to my overall view of the Battle of Britain. German losses were high during some days, but always remained within the acceptable mode; RAF losses were likewise high.

The Luftwaffe did not cancel the massive operations over England by late 1940 due to "horrendous losses", it was rather Hitler´s decision to switch east that finished operations.

I am convinced the losses endured by the RAF during the Battle of Britain have not been assessed in all due dimension. I am sure the aftermath of the BoB was way more disastrous for the RAF than previously acknowledged.

I have stated this before: the performance of the RAF after the BoB is not one of a victorious air force, since they had a terrible time taking horrible losses at the hands of the newer F version of the Bf 109 and the first series of the Butcher Bird.

Have no doubt on this, the Channel and France were very secondary theathers for the Luftwaffe during 1941 and 1942 when the main effort of the Heer was placed in the soviet union.

The home RAF had therefore a sufficient time to rest, refit and to bring the new pilots on since the Luftwaffe would not appear in British skies the way it did during 1940.

When they attempted moving ahead to tempt the Luftwaffe they took a rough and very harsh treatment.

No Plan_D, I am not going to bring the guncamera issue up 
I can certainly quote two clear examples of how the Bf 109 F and the Fw190A proved to surpass the contemporary Spitfire: the Dieppe Raid and the Channel Dash, when the RAF absolutely failed to achieve anything; not just that, their losses were terrible.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2005)

hey, none of that changes the fact that we won the battle of britian against far superiour numbers


----------



## plan_D (Jul 8, 2005)

There's one vital aspect that you're missing in your entire frame of thought: numbers. 

The RAF began the Battle of Britain with 704 aircraft of all types - the Luftwaffe entered the battle with numbers ranging from 2,600 - 3,700 (I've seen both numbers). The Luftwaffe was far in an advantage in the number game, the RAF intercepted Luftwaffe formations sometimes 10 times bigger than their own. 

With an obvious advantage in numbers the Luftwaffe could provide serious blows to any RAF formation coming in to intercept them. The RAF aircraft would have to split between the bombers and the fighters - and already out-numbered it could mean that four Spitfires would be dogfighting anything up to and including 10 or 20 Bf-109s. 

Even with that obvious, and massive, disadvantage the RAF managed to achieve a greater kill to loss ratio than the Luftwaffe. 

There is no doubt that the Bf-109 was an equal to the Spitfire in combat - not a superior machine. It did not sweep the RAF from the skies though despite the fact that they out-numbered the RAF - such a disadvantage in the sky has never been over-come before or since. 

When the RAF finished up the BoB - they had been battered. The losses suffered by the RAF are not hidden - in fact they are shown in all historical references to show the people the defiance of the British people. No matter the loss - Britain fought on. 

They took to the offensive with a battered RAF - and these sorties were never large. They were nuisance raids against France - often only including four bombers with six fighter escort. The Luftwaffe could choose to engage or not - and often they did not engage because the numbers were unfavourable. During the BoB the RAF didn't have that luxury. 

It is true that the Luftwaffe shifted east but the RAF was not a large force - and never attacked in large numbers, giving the JG 2 and JG 26 an equal playing field. This is nothing against the Spitfire which was a marvel of a machine and anyone who tries to downplay it's excellence should sit down and rethink. 

The Channel Dash was extremely lucky for the Germans - they played off on an extremely high risk and it payed off for them. Which is credit to them - but certainly no discredit to the RAF. 

The Bf-109F was an equal to the Spitfire V - it never proved a massive threat to the design of the Spitfire. The Fw-190A on the other hand, did. You'll never find me denying that the Fw-190A was a superior plane to the Spitfire V. 

Credit where credit is due.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 8, 2005)

> The Fw-190A on the other hand, did. You'll never find me denying that the Fw-190A was a superior plane to the Spitfire V.
> 
> Credit where credit is due.


Write this date down... This is the date that pD said something NICE about a Luftwaffe aircraft.....


----------



## kiwimac (Jul 9, 2005)

New Thread folks


----------

