How The Spitfire Mk XIV Compared to the K4 and Other Questions

[thedab]

compared to what? as the D-9 only does about 23/ms from O to 1000m which is about the same as the Tempest V on 9lb boost which is about 22.3/ms and the Tempest is a bit heavier but only by 2072lb.mine you it does have a better climb than other 190s
let's have a look at the K-14, I have been told that the K-14 has a 4-bladed propeller,and if that is so,we can have look on this chart herehttp://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/messerschmitt-bf-109-performance-chronology-41004-7.html?highlight=109,compared it to K-6 does seem to out climbed it,and it climbed with the K-4 and the K-4 is 772lb (350kg)lighter,and the K-6 is 100lb (50kg) lighter,but I could be wrong about that propeller I'm still looking in to it,

just one more thing,the post war Ha-1112(3300Kg the same as the K-4) with the 1600BPH Merlin and 4-bladed Rotol has a climb of 28m/s but I did get that from Wiki,so....

just found more stuff on the K type the K-4 6 had a 9-12159 propeller and the K-14 had a 9-12199 propeller,so the K-14 with 4-bladed is looking good ..so far.

 

[stona]

K-6, K-14 ? We are talking about mock ups (of at least the wings, one lash up, partially armed MAY have flown) and paper planes. Referring to them as if they were real aeroplanes doesn't make any sense to me. Only the K-4 was ever produced.

One K-4 was fitted with a four bladed propeller (VDM 9-12199) in January 1945, but this was as part of the K-14 programme. Some sources suggest it was tested with a DB 605 E engine but I'm not aware that any test results survive.

There were other tests at the same time with developments of three bladed propellers. An improvement on the performance of the VDN 9-12159A fitted to the DB 605 D on the K-4 was expected, but it too remained theoretical, just like the K-14.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Koopernic]

What version of Spitfire is that?

Possibly a Spitfire V maybe an IX.

The Spitfire VIII and XIV had stronger wings than the V, even though it was of teh same profile.

So it is said, though I see no proof of that, they did have smaller ailerons, a classic move to allow increased deflection and greater roll rate at speed with a cost at low speed roll rate.

They can't have been entirely satisfactory else the new wing wouldn't have been developed.

The production of the VII, VIII and XIV which had this wing was somewhat limited.

 

[Koopernic]

In fact the original plan was for the K series to have a largely wooden wing. Wolf-Hirth GmbH started to work on a wooden wing as early as mid-1943 and no less than 3,395 pairs of wings were to come from the Butchowitz company of Brno. Eventually all sorts of issues led to the K series using the 'Proven' metal wing. This implies that it was essentially the same as earlier wings.

The K series was really designed around new and heavier armament rather than the more powerful engines which anyway found their way into other versions.

Cheers

Steve

In the course of researching this I checked on the German Wikipedia.de. On the issue of the increased armament they note that some old publications mentioned this but that the claims are essentially impossible. First of the claim that the MG131 13.2mm machine guns could be replaced by the 15mm MG151/15. This is essentially impossible given the size of the breaches, receiver and the 2m length of the gun. Likewise the claim that a modified long barrelled Mk 103 canon could be fitted is also dismissed as impossible (though I'm a little more accepting of this).

The one armament modification that was to be expected was the integration of the Mk 108 canon into the wings. It's odd that these gun positions were ever abandoned since some Me 109F with the new wing similar to the one used on the Me 109G actually did have in wing Bf 109E style armament as an option and photographs exist of such Me 109F. The Mk 108 was a fairly light and compact weapon, probably short enough not to protrude beyond the leading edge and might have compared favourably with the short barrelled Hispano's fitted to Spitfires.

I suppose the MG151 might go into the wing positions but even the 20mm version is quite long.

I have never heard of the wooden wing Me 109K, the Me 109K0 didn't have them as far as I can tell. It is possible, Heinkel had great success with the wooden wing and metal fuselage He 70 and proposed that the He 112 fighter would have a metal fuselage and a wooden wing (a structure repeated on He 162) at least for the prototypes which lead to problems with the compound curves of the elliptical wing for which tooling was not developed which forced hand beating with unsatisfactory results. I have my doubts over its ability to handle the buffeting of heavy canons which the He 112 would have overcome with fuselage 20mm guns.. Wood also can not be recycled. Nevertheless here was the German opportunity to save metal, perhaps more than the British did on the Mosquito, given the potential production quantities.

Butchowitz company of Brno sounded anachronistic so checked, it should be the Butchowitz company of Brünn(the German name at the time) it had been for many centuries a German majority city before the population was ethnically cleansed after 1945 in a process that had slowly begun in 1919. Likewise for the whole region of the Sudetenland. Read about Brno/ Brünn in Widkipedia one is given the impression that the universities were shut down as a measure against Czechs when the population was mostly German.

The changes to the K4 relate mainly to the obvious ones such as the retractable extended tail yoke, tall tail, near engine front. However the sheet metal work received extensive modifications in the form of more and repositioned access hatches. This is because there were major changes to equipment positions and changes in electronics.

The possibility of in wing armament is interesting, this station on the Me 109E was known for having a rather small magazine capacity (around 10 second with the MG FF) with the ammunition running outwards along the length of the wing. Nevertheless that may be all that was needed to deal with a heavy bomber.

K-6, K-14 ? We are talking about mock ups (of at least the wings, one lash up, partially armed MAY have flown) and paper planes. Referring to them as if they were real aeroplanes doesn't make any sense to me. Only the K-4 was ever produced.

Steve

The DB605L (two stage version existed) and it did not need extensive modifications to fit as it had no increased cooling requirement hence producing a Me 109K14 from the Me 109K4 would seem a relatively minor exercise as the designation suggests. As it was the aircraft was to receive a 4 blade prop to handle the thinner air and likewise an increased area oval air intake to suck in the extra air the supercharger was able to compress in the rarefied high altitude atmosphere. Even without these modifications the aircraft might have had improved performance.

The improved props also would seem a relatively minor modification that is an inevitable result of increased engine power.

Sure you are changing the goal posts as you eliminated some Spitfire Mks when it was shown that of the Mks you first mentioned there was more produced than the K-4.

The Lw did have 150PN fuel, it was C3 and have seen a British report on C3 that gave it a PN of 165.

As for the K-4s: new build production data from primary sources

Where was the other 65L of MW50 stored in the a/c as the fuselage tank was of 85L capacity?

The tank was 118.5L which would give about 14 minutes of full boost if the MW50 was added at the same rate as fuel, which it was. Even with this tank full the DB605 is lighter than the Griffon 65.

Why not accept point that K4 production, during the war, exceeded production of the Griffon variants of the Spitfire. The new wing, the new engine, clearly presenting tooling challenges.

If the flettner tabs had of been fitted the roll rate issue would be gone and the Me 109K series very competitive with Mk XIV and the F.21.

 

[thedab]

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/279781d1418579012-messerschmitt-bf-109-performance-chronology-ks.jpg that were I got it from and I don't know if theoretical or not,

but what I want to know is the thrust to weight ratio for these planes,as that tell us a lot more.

 

[stona]

The K series didn't have wooden wings, that was the intention at the original design phase for exactly the same reason as other aircraft went down this path. We are talking mid 1943 here and some of the Wolf-Hirth documents relating to the wooden wings survived. That's Wolf-Hirth GmBh based at Nabern-Teck, still an airfield as far as I know. One of the fundamental problems was the installation of the required MK 108 cannons in the wings. Some metal elements were inevitably required and then the joints between dissimilar materials caused structural problems. The wooden wing was abandoned on 28th December 1943, long before a K series aircraft was ever built, but a wooden wing mounting an MK 108 cannon was the original intention. The K series and others did of course get other wooden elements, notably the tail.

Adapting the K-14 to a four bladed propeller may have been relatively simple if such a propeller was available in quantity, which it was not. I don't know, I'm not an aircraft engineer, but in my historical experience seemingly minor changes turn out to be rather complicated, needing months of testing and proving before they appear on service aircraft. It's may be one of the many reasons why the K-14 remained a paper plane.

Cheers

Steve

 

[dedalos]

I could be a cad and say the K-4 because it was mostly on the ground rather than in the air......

Typical parsifal.....
And yet it was kurfust that was consindered biased.....

 

[fastmongrel]

Typical parsifal.....
And yet it was kurfust that was consindered biased.....

I think you missed the attempt at humour in Parsifals post, He was in no way being biased that I could see.

 

[GregP]

I post this as a response to the supposed high clib rates for the Fw 190 I saw above. Let's see, ROC = Rate of Climb. I translated m/s into feet per minute. 1 m/s = 196.86 ft/min. So 20 m/s = 3,937.2 ft/min.

1) From the worst source anywhere, Wiki, I get Fw 190 D-9: ROC 3,300 ft/min. They don't say what weight; I assume 9,413 lbs. Fw 190A-8: ROC 2,953 ft/min. Same about weight only I assume 9,735 lbs. Both weights are normal loaded weights. Not much credence by me here, but a start.

2) From the Military Factory: Fw 190 D-9: ROC 2,812 ft/min.

3) From wwiiaircraftperfroamcne.org, a pretty decent online source. Fw 190 A-5: ROC 2,938 ft/min at sea level. Fw 190 (J): ROC 3,290 ft/min at sea level. Fw 190 A-5 performance charts: ROC 2,950 ft/min to 3,300 ft/min at sea level; 408 mph top speed at 20,500 feet, generally 370 mph or less below 12,000 feet. Fw 190 A-8: ROC 2,642 ft/min at sea level.

Fw 190 D-9 calculated ROC: 4,330 ft/min at sea level. This is NOT a flight report.

Fw 190 D-9 flight test (V53); ROC 3,641 ft/min. Another flight test (No. 3) , Fw 190 D-9: ROC 2,775 ft/min at sea level; 3,071 ft/min at 6 km. Updated Fw 190 D-9 flight test on V 53: ROC 3,329 ft/min at combat power at sea level at 9,480 lbs and 3,250 rpm.

4) From "German Aircraft of WWII" by Kenneth Munson:Fw 190 A-8: ROC 2,349 ft/min. Fw 190 D-9: ROC 3,117 ft/min. Ta 152 H-1: ROC 3,445 ft / min. All ROC at sea level.

5) From "Wings of the Luftwaffe" by Capt. Eric Brown: Fw 190 A-8: ROC, sea level, with GM-1 boost 3,450 ft/min.

So, the only report I can find in the above that even approaches 4,000 ft/min is a calculated ROC ... none of the actual flight tests get there in real life.

The Fw 190 had a lot of great flying characteristics and was a formidable fighter. But a high rate of climb is NOT something I have been able to support in reading numerous flight test reports. I CAN find mention of good climb rates in one report of calculated performance ... but not in actual flight test reports.

Eric Brown mentions that the Ta 152 H seems to hold its climb rate quite well above 30,000 feet, but didn't mention the actual climb rate at that height. He says the rate of climb in the Ta 152 was slower and steeper than in a late Spitfire and that the ground roll was shorter. I am assuming the "slower" part means at a lower airspeed. None of the WWII fighters were climbing all that well at 30,000 feet, but relatively speaking, the Ta 152 seems to be one of the good ones above 30,000 feet as far as climb goes.

 

[dedalos]

Let's see, ROC = Rate of Climb. I translated m/s into feet per minute. 1 m/s = 196.86 ft/min. So 20 m/s = 3,937.2 ft/min.

1) From the worst source anywhere, Wiki, I get Fw 190 D-9: ROC 3,300 ft/min. They don't say what weight; I assume 9,413 lbs. Fw 190A-8: ROC 2,953 ft/min. Same about weight only I assume 9,735 lbs. Both weights are normal loaded weights. Not much credence by me here, but a start.

2) From the Military Factory: Fw 190 D-9: ROC 2,812 ft/min.

3) From wwiiaircraftperfroamcne.org, a pretty decent online source. Fw 190 A-5: ROC 2,938 ft/min at sea level. Fw 190 (J): ROC 3,290 ft/min at sea level. Fw 190 A-5 performance charts: ROC 2,950 ft/min to 3,300 ft/min at sea level; 408 mph top speed at 20,500 feet, generally 370 mph or less below 12,000 feet. Fw 190 A-8: ROC 2,642 ft/min at sea level.

Fw 190 D-9 calculated ROC: 4,330 ft/min at sea level. This is NOT a flight report.

Fw 190 D-9 flight test (V53); ROC 3,641 ft/min. Another flight test (No. 3) , Fw 190 D-9: ROC 2,775 ft/min at sea level; 3,071 ft/min at 6 km. Updated Fw 190 D-9 flight test on V 53: ROC 3,329 ft/min at combat power at sea level at 9,480 lbs and 3,250 rpm.

4) From "German Aircraft of WWII" by Kenneth Munson:Fw 190 A-8: ROC 2,349 ft/min. Fw 190 D-9: ROC 3,117 ft/min. Ta 152 H-1: ROC 3,445 ft / min. All ROC at sea level.

5) From "Wings of the Luftwaffe" by Capt. Eric Brown: Fw 190 A-8: ROC, sea level, with GM-1 boost 3,450 ft/min.

So, the only report I can find in the above that even approaches 4,000 ft/min is a calculated ROC ... none of the actual flight tests get there in real life.

The Fw 190 had a lot of great flying characteristics and was a formidable fighter. But a high rate of climb is NOT something I have been able to uncover in reading numerous flight test reports. I CAN find mention of good climb rates in one calculated report ... but not in actual flight test reports.

Speaking for myself only, I don't find the Fw 190 series to be particularly good climbers from actual flight tests. Eric Brown mentions that the Ta 152 H seems to hold its climb rate quite well above 30,000 feet, but didn't mention the actual climb rate at that height. He says the rate of climb in the Ta 152 was slower and steeper than in a late Spitfire and that the ground roll was shorter. None of the WWII fighters were climbing all that well at 30,000 feet, but relatively speaking, the Ta 152 seems to be one of the good ones above 30,000 feet as far as climb goes. There weren't many, but they were good birds for high-altitude work.

Greq P
I have great respect for your work at the American warbirds and your General contribustion to this forum
However ,trying to cover , the gap left by the banning of the lw specialists( kurfust, crupp,donL,soren etc)is something out of your knowledge field
Not only at the above post, but all your posts about german aircrafts, you make false assumptions, you use outdated sources, or unreliable sources (ww2aircraft performance),even wikipedia!!!! That leads to false conclusions

Giving a performance figure, without the flight weight AND the power setting makes no sence



Further more , at 5) you speak about roc at sea level with GM1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GM1 was used only at High altitude. It s common knowledge .

You are inaccurate about what Brown said about the ta152H. He did not compare its performance to a " late spitfire" as you write. it compared with a recce XXI !!!! And mentionts that they had neither mw50 nor GM1 !!!
Earlier in the thread, you mention the spitfire as easier to fly.True the spit had lower wing loading but on the other hand The 109, the 190 had automatic engine controls. The landing accidents of the late 109s, much exxagerated in our days, in my opinion had more to do with the lack of training due lack of fuel than the aircraft it self

About the original question spit XIV vs K4.
in my opinion the views presented in this thread are basicaly mirrors of what the author of ww2aircraft.net Claims and how he selecively uses documents
Anyone interested should Visit his site. But should also visit kurfust site, and other lw sites. Then ,he can form his own opinion.

 

[GregP]

Well dedalos,

Considering all the sources I look at list the Fw 190, and the variant of your choice, with dimensions, weights, speeds, ceiling, and some rates of climb ... and NONE of the German fight tests I read show the 190 as being a great climber, I'm not too sure how to react other than saying I am a fan of ALL WWII aircraft, Axis and Allied, particularly the many one-of-a-kind axis prototypes.

I see a LOT of Luf-o-files saying the German planes would do things none of the flight test reports show then as being capable of. Last time I had a "discussion" with you, you shot down the German sources I was using and listed other sources that I can't get or ones that are in German language only and not computer readable.

So I'll say that I've seen you make claims for German planes that are not in line with flight test reports I can find, and that's as far as I'll go. We must be reading different Brown books. The PR variant IS a late model Spitfire.

I'll have to say that German planes may be out of my knowledge field systems-wise, but not performance-wise; I collect the numbers from many sources. One of the problems is finding diverse data that are not all quoted from one source. I certainly learned a lot about 109-type planes by working at restoring our He.1112, though nothing about DB engines rather obviously. I have also spoken personally with the only pilot I know who has flown a real Fw 190 in the past 30 years. The direct observations fit very nicely with the flight test numbers I have.

I'm not too sure why you find wwiiaircrftperformance.org "unreliable" since almost nobody else does, particularly the guys who wrote the reports after flying the planes.

We have a very different view of things whether you click "dislike" or not. I notice you do that when I post most anything even slightly negative about German planes.

Trot out some "reliable sources" that are flight test reports, not computed performance predictions, for the Focke Wulf aircraft and that I can translate or read and I'll add them to my already rather decent collection of Focke Wulf data. I don't have any trouble accepting data, but if it isn't data from a source on company paper or a flight test report number that can be checked and verified, I generally let it go or keep the data in the "unverified" section.

So far, I see no flight-test data for any Focke Wulf 190-series planes that show it to be an exceptional climber. The US reports from captured Fw 190 flight tests certainly don't support it and were flown in good condition with good quality gasoline. The British tests I have seen don't support that either.

Maybe you can change that in the next post or two with some sources that DO support the good climb and are simulataneously readable and verifiable.

One last comment. I can't quote numbers like power setting and rpm when they aren't in the data, and I won't make them up. If they are in the data, I usually quote them. I wish everyone would write down and report the pertinent data when they fly a test, but they many times do not. Do you have any flight test sources for the strong climb performance you assert this time?

 

[Edgar Brooks]

You are inaccurate about what Brown said about the ta152H. He did not compare its performance to a " late spitfire" as you write. it compared with a recce XXI !!!!.

Unfortunately, you are also inaccurate; Brown compared the performance with the P.R.19 (there was no reconnaissance 21.) Since the P.R.19 didn't see service until 1944 (and the pressurised version even later than that, I'd say it qualifies as a late Spitfire.

 

[Milosh]

Ugh Edgar, that could be a typo, XXI instead of XIX.

Also Arabic numbering was not used til the 20 series afaik.

 

[thedab]

you know what I like to see,is flight tests with US planes giving the same fight endurance as european planes,as I like to see a level playing field.and I like to see this done with some Japanese planes as well.

 

[GregP]

Hey there Mr. Dab,

I think we'd all like that. Over in another forum we have a guy who goes by the name of Corsning who is collecting data for comparison in a subforum. But .... the flight test reports in English units are usually every 5,000 feet except for numbers like FTH, and the flight tests in metric are usually every 1,000 meters except numbers like FTH.

But you can make useful curves from both even if they aren't EXACTLY correct due to no data at exactly equivalent heights.

I have a great spreadsheet of Soviet types that gives the time to make a 360° turn at 1,000 meters ... but not the airspeed! So it tells you a lot ... but nothing you can compare against one other except turn time. That doesn't tell you which one is a better dogfighter all by itself. All it can do is make you hunt for more data that aren't there ...

Today, useful data on the front-line jets is almost not to be had ... since the many are still in service. We may know 50 years from now, but we don't know unless we are in a position like Biff, who flew F-15's. He probably can't tell us because it is still likely classified. But there is some instantaneous and some sustained turn rate that he knows about. Same with roll. It takes a certain amount to time to roll 90°, but the roll rate will accelerate and a 360° roll is usually a lot quicker than four times the time for a 90° roll started from level flight.

Perhaps we should start a performance sub-forum in here, and the mods could choose the data they wish to keep in it from the data that are posted. I don't think they'd accept any without source specified.

The thing is, the source doesn't really matter ... there is always SOMEONE who thinks it is "unreliable" because it has different data than those he or she likes. Tough call to make when you collect data. I usually get an much as possible, throw out the high and the low, and average the rest. The "high" always comes from fanatics about some particular type. The low usually comes froma flight test by another country using some maximum power that is below the max used in service.

The British in particular are fond of testing a Mustang or other US aircraft at +18 psi boost and normal weight against a Spitfire or other British plane with a very similar engine run at +25 psi boost and lighter than normal weights. The outcome is easy to forecast. The Soviets usually came up with data a bit slower than we got, but they also probably tested in sub-zero weather using fuel that didn't meet RAF or US standards, and who knows if they deiced before flight. Sometimes they give weight and power settings and sometimes they don't. It seems to vary from report to report. Could be state censors at work, too. I see altogether too many reports with inclomplete data. I can support dedalos' wish for more complete data easily ... but you DO have to find those data.

German flight test reports are either quite good or almost undecipherable. By that I mean their curves are VERY similar to ours or else are shaped completely differently from ours. but the units seem to fit. To me, horizontal units of m/s and vertical units of meters is a rate of climb chart, but there is usually one curve that doesn't fit any known data and it usually runs into the temperature chart from the rate of climb chart and makes no sense. Probably would make sense if I read German. Then again, I've seen US flight test reports with seemingly meaningless charts in them ,too.

Would be VERY nice to have one German, Soviet, or Japanese flight test translated by someone with no axe to grind. Try finding that someone, though ...

 

[Hop]

The British in particular are fond of testing a Mustang or other US aircraft at +18 psi boost and normal weight against a Spitfire or other British plane with a very similar engine run at +25 psi boost and lighter than normal weights. The outcome is easy to forecast.

Can you point to these tests?

 

[Koopernic]

Dietmar Hermann does a comparison of the Fw 190D9 versus the Spitfire XIV and the Spitfire XIV clearly comes out a winner in terms of its spectacular climb rate, about 1000fpm greater. In terms of the Spitfire XIV versus Me 109K4 climb rate its possible that the K4 had a superior climb rate at below its full throttle altitude (since the Spitfire XIV had a better high altitude engine) this is in the proviso that the K4 was not carrying Gondola guns and perhaps that the 1.98 ata rating was available. Unfortunately we don't seem to have climb rate data without gondola weapons.

The Jumo 213 was just entering service in 1944 and the Jumo 213A was a bomber engine that AFAIKT first saw service in April 1944 with the Ju 188A. The fact that it was a bomber engine meant that it did not have provision for mounting the type of propeller needed for a motor canon. Early versions were down about 100hp due to supercharger issues and at 1750hp it was not going to produce an aircraft better than the fw 190A which actually had more power at around 1900 with increased boost and 2050 with C3 einspritzung.

An increased boost rating raised Jumo 213A power to 1900hp on 87 octane B4 and latter additions of MW50 increased power to over 2000hp. There were in fact two systems for MW50 injection: the Oldenberg system that used blower pressure to purge the MW50 from its tank and another high flow system that used a mechanically driven pump. It had higher flow rates and better atomisation. The former was retro fitted by Luftwaffe blackbirds and the latter by Junkers Field technicians. Some 2240hp was within reach for the Jumo 213A with the right fuel and with a 1st stage supercharger gearing optimised for sea level work (A ladder als boden motor) the aircraft could do 396mph at sea level.

The first 'proper' engine for the Fw 190D was the ones supplied for the Fw 190D12/D13 (5 or 12 entered service, one, yellow 12 preserved at the NASM) this had the Jumo 213F engine which had a two stage 3 speed supercharger. It was much the same engine as the Jumo 213E1 used on the Ta 152H but lacked the intercooler and so was required C3 fuel to exploit the engines potential. Both the Jumo 213E/F blocks suffered the same problem as the Napier Sabre II in that the first 200 had weak supercharger shafts essentially locking out 3rd gear much of the time.

Creek and Smith in their 3 volume work on the Fw 190 state that the Fw 190D13 with the Jumo 213F was designed with a new radiator (I believe a radial flow barrel radiator) that had extra capacity and efficiency but that it was decided to produce the aircraft with the annular Jumo 213A radiator. This meant that within a short time the cowling cooling gills had to open and the increased drag slowed the aircraft down again to Fw 190D9 speeds. The aircraft would have had a higher service ceiling, climb rate and power to weight ratio and less sensitivity to loss in height during turns but drag reduced the speed somewhat. I have my doubts about the claim but it should be possible to look at the radiator of the surviving 190D12 (Goetz's yellow 12) at the NASM to tell. Fw 190D9's do seem to have flown with GM-1 at 441 mph and around 433 was possible if the engine seal gap was done properly.

The problem would in any case have been solved in June 1945 when both the Fw 190D13/R25 and Ta 152H would have received the Jumo 213EB engine which featured the proper radiator, a common heat exchanger for oil, intercooling and engine cooling as well as improvements in the engine valves and RPM. Speed was expected to be 488mph. The Ta 152H with this engine would have had the same performance as the Jumo 213E but without the need for GM1, about 475mph and possible at a lower altitude.

With these engines the Fw 190/Ta 152 had some potential to be superior to the Spitfire F.21/F.24 series particularly in speed. The Jumo 213 seemed to have more growth potential than the Griffon and when Rolls-Royce tested one they found it ran well at levels the Griffon had trouble with.

The Fw 190D9 was undergoing a very rapid rate of development due to improvements in its engine.
The difference in speed between a Fw 190D9 between August and October was 30mph, then December added another 7mph due to engine power improvements. More could have been on the way on a plain Fw 190D9 if C3 were available and tolerances were improved.

 

[spicmart]

There is a chart in a Dietmar Hermann book that clearly shows the D-9 to have a climb rate of 22,5 mps.
That is about 4450 fpm.
This I remember definitely. Just have to scan and post it.

Eric Brown, in his comparison, said that the XIV had over 4500 fpm climb rate and the D-9 just under 4500 fpm.
So the difference is not that much.
And he says that those two are each others' equal and the best single engines fighters he has flown.

 

[Milosh]

yellow 12 preserved at the NASM

Wk. Nr. 601088, a Fw 190 D-9 from IV (Sturm)./JG 3 "Udet" Geschwader National Museum of the United States Air Force, on long term loan from the National Air and Space Museum, black <1
Wk. Nr. 836017, a Fw 190 D-13 from 1./JG 26 as flown by Major Franz Götz. part of Paul Allen's Flying Heritage Collection, Yellow 10

 

[thedab]

Dietmar Hermann does a comparison of the Fw 190D9 versus the Spitfire XIV and the Spitfire XIV clearly comes out a winner in terms of its spectacular climb rate, about 1000fpm greater. In terms of the Spitfire XIV versus Me 109K4 climb rate its possible that the K4 had a superior climb rate at below its full throttle altitude (since the Spitfire XIV had a better high altitude engine) this is in the proviso that the K4 was not carrying Gondola guns and perhaps that the 1.98 ata rating was available. Unfortunately we don't seem to have climb rate data without gondola weapons.

here you go test data K-4 without wing weaponsKurfürst - Performance of 8 - 109 K4 and K6 with DB 605 ASCM/DCM