.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.
You speak way too General. While the 190 was never famous for its rate of climb, during specific periods of the war(1942,early 43) its roc was very decent and competitive until 6500m. It was the heavier A6,7,8 vertions with their heavy armament and armor that suffered. But even the A8, later in1944, with the Extra boost and wide blade propellers, improved its roc.At Some units that could get rid off the fancy radios and the second pair of 20 mm guns was even better.
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.
I dont remember when you had a "discution with me"
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.
Untrue. Unless you mean flight test Reports the flights of damaged ,captured examples. But i do use datas from other sources as well as flight tessts. For example , the pilots of jg26 , reported to JG 26 war diary, that regadless the offical datas, the Fw190A8 at low level was the fastest fighter of the ination front. Maybe they are wrong but i do take notice of their experience. Other pilots, like Lipfert,Obleser, while report the haevy aileron Forces of the 109 at High speeds, clearly stated that they often fought at High speeds. (Of course you know better.The 109 could only fight at 280mph). Others cleaely stated that it was possible for the 109 to outturn the spitfire, pusshing hard even after the deploypment of the slats. I will accept their opinion that is in contrast with the opinion of the fancy airshows pilots
We must be reading different Brown books. The PR variant IS a late model Spitfire.
It is a late spitfire but it s unfair to compare a recce vertion with a fighter vertion
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.
Obviously you understand that its an entirely diferent bird
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.
So since he made some careful circuits in a old rebuild machine we can keep his opinion and ignore Rescke,Hanning,Buchner,and many others that fought with the aircraft and reported postwar their memories
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.
Well the habits of this site are well Known and i will not repeat them here
ing
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.
Simply Untrue.
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.
No, there were not in good condition being repeired and maintained by unfamiliar techitians. Additionaly some of them were Jabos 190s with diferent engine triming. Finaly ,these Reports were at wartime and included in their concusions secret motives
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?
If you have a performance figure but not the flight weight, the power settings,and in the case of the 109, the airframe configuration ,DO NOT POST IT.It is useless and leads to false conclusions . Some sites do this on purpose.
How The Spitfire Mk XIV Compared to the K4 and Other Questions
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
Dedalos - your claim that Spitfireperformnce is biased was often reported by Soren, Kurfest, etc. Kurfest, Soren and others including you made the claims but I haven't seen specific flight test reports that reside in Kurfust's site that contradict, or contain edits that vary from the reports that they have.
What specifically do you wish to bring forward that you can use as evidence of manipulating published documents or specific LW Flight Test data to compare against a specific set that Spirfireperformance.com presents?
What specifically do you wish to bring forward that you can use as evidence of manipulating published documents or specific LW Flight Test data to compare against a specific set that Spirfireperformance.com presents?
Kurfurst was an extremely effective internet presence who single handily changed, infact corrected for better the perception and reality of the Me 109 a few of his statements are not proven but most are. I do miss his passion and to an extent his sarcasm, which got him into trouble. He seemed to respond with ad Hominem when he perceived bias. Sometimes it takes that kind of personality to make a change.
Sometimes one sees absurd comparisons used. For instance the AFDU (I think) comparison of the Griffon Engine Mk XIV Spitfire versus an much older Me 109G6. The conclusion is that the Mk XIV is superior. Wow! Why not compare it against an Me 109E4 or even richthofen's Fokker D.III. Of course the AFDU probably didn't have an more chronologically appropriate aircraft to compare it with ie a captured Me 109G5AS, 109G6ASM or 109G14AS yet too many folks seem to give this sort of report credence.
ww2permancetesting is an excellent site since it provides primary data. Missing, last time I checked, is a comparison between the Me 109K4 and other advanced Me 109 with the Spitfire IX at a time that Castle Bromwich was still churning them out. It's a small quibble and one can do the comparison oneself using the primary data that is there and maybe a spreadsheet.
Sometimes one sees absurd comparisons used. For instance the AFDU (I think) comparison of the Griffon Engine Mk XIV Spitfire versus an much older Me 109G6. The conclusion is that the Mk XIV is superior. Wow! Why not compare it against an Me 109E4 or even richthofen's Fokker D.III. Of course the AFDU probably didn't have an more chronologically appropriate aircraft to compare it with ie a captured Me 109G5AS, 109G6ASM or 109G14AS yet too many folks seem to give this sort of report credence.
ww2permancetesting is an excellent site since it provides primary data. Missing, last time I checked, is a comparison between the Me 109K4 and other advanced Me 109 with the Spitfire IX at a time that Castle Bromwich was still churning them out. It's a small quibble and one can do the comparison oneself using the primary data that is there and maybe a spreadsheet.
Last edited:
The AFDU wasn't interested in fair comparisons. There was a very real war on, they weren't interested in internet nerds 70 years in the future with a strange, personal, investment in their favourite little airplanes.
drgondog
Major
Difficult to imagine how this could have occurred until post WWII - a period where only a few units cared about post mortem comparisons
I will say this - my battles with Soren were largely around what I perceived to be a lack of holistic aero background, often citing text book/wiki like data to extract W/L and Power loading to infer acceleration to debate turn performance - when many other important factors such as trim drag, vortex/form drag delta's due to angle of attack (independent of Induced Drag)and the fact that Maximum turn rate and Corner speeds are achieved at CL below airfoil plots for CLmax.
Even this discussion regarding comparison of Climb rates leads folks to pull out Power to weight and Gross weight as primary factors when the key data requirements are Thrust, Total Drag, the climbing velocity and Gross weight. In my analysis above, I didn't Know that either the climbing speeds or angles of climb are the same between 109K and Mk XIV - but I did try to demonstrate how CL for each was materially different by making those assumptions then driving to the significantly greater CL for the 109K and how (CL)^^2 is the major Induced Drag factor that tips the climb performance toward the Mk XIV.
The only one I recall that seemed to 'get that' during those days was VG33(?)..
Any chance of a screan scrape or shot. I'm in a place videos and images are tightly controlled; oil money and cooperative network router manufacturers make for an extremely controlled Internet. The VPN on my iPad is absolutely transparent. They can see through it like the proverbial hot knife through butter.
GregP
Major
I'll say this dedalos, the Ha.1112 is NOT an entirely different bird from a Messerschmitt. In fact, from the firewall back it is a Bf 109 G-2. Obviously the Merlin is different from the DB as well as the cowl and spinner, but the systems, and rest of the fuselage as well as the 95%+ of the wings are 100% Bf 109 G-2. In fact, we are using a G-2 manual for overhaul / restpration and so far have found no differences except firewall forward as expected. Acutally, we haven't yet gotten to the engine compartment except to install a new engine mount. We DID move the hydraulic system from the engine compartment to a location behind the pilot to get the hydraulic oil away from hot exhaust even by accident, but otherwise it's stock. Since theis is an airshow aircraft, the hydraulic system is unlikely to take enemy fire and thus malfunction where it is located now.
There weren't "periods of war" when the Fw 190 climbed wonderfuly; time doesn't change climb. There might have been a specific model or models that climbed well, but I see you refrain from indentifying these Phoenix birds or posting the climb rate(s) or references to where the flight test reports might be found. I await the references with anticipation.
As for Steve, I'm glad to hear you visited and have talked with him about it, and so you know what his flight test procedures in Arizona were. I didn't get any farther than asking about cruise speed and roll rates myself.
ALL captured aircraft are repaired by people essentially unfamiliar with them, not just the Fw 190. But these "unfamiliar" people are trained A&P mechanics and radial engines are radial engines. They start and operate very similarly to one another. If the engine will make rated RPM and MAP, then it is making rated power. It doesn't take a Luftwaffe-trained Fw 190 mechnic to get an Fw 190 ready for flight. The captured birds many times required no repair or restoration .... just flight prep, fuel, and oil. Our test pilots were every bit as good as yours were.
I'll post whatever numbers I find that are appropriate to the subject. If the data that everyone wants are included, that's great. If they aren't and you are curious enough, then by all means go find the data. I will not refuse to post some related numbers just because you think they may be misleading unless complete. But, if I HAVE the data, I'll be happy to post it.
There weren't "periods of war" when the Fw 190 climbed wonderfuly; time doesn't change climb. There might have been a specific model or models that climbed well, but I see you refrain from indentifying these Phoenix birds or posting the climb rate(s) or references to where the flight test reports might be found. I await the references with anticipation.
As for Steve, I'm glad to hear you visited and have talked with him about it, and so you know what his flight test procedures in Arizona were. I didn't get any farther than asking about cruise speed and roll rates myself.
ALL captured aircraft are repaired by people essentially unfamiliar with them, not just the Fw 190. But these "unfamiliar" people are trained A&P mechanics and radial engines are radial engines. They start and operate very similarly to one another. If the engine will make rated RPM and MAP, then it is making rated power. It doesn't take a Luftwaffe-trained Fw 190 mechnic to get an Fw 190 ready for flight. The captured birds many times required no repair or restoration .... just flight prep, fuel, and oil. Our test pilots were every bit as good as yours were.
I'll post whatever numbers I find that are appropriate to the subject. If the data that everyone wants are included, that's great. If they aren't and you are curious enough, then by all means go find the data. I will not refuse to post some related numbers just because you think they may be misleading unless complete. But, if I HAVE the data, I'll be happy to post it.
parsifal
Colonel
I have no idea what you just said DG, but boy it sounded impressive. You were probably describing how you felt about my mother, for all i know....
drgondog
Major
Parsifal - I apologize for speaking in Tongues.
That being said, discussion of comparisons between airframes often beg the questions "Why" or "Why Not" or "What matters" or "I'm Confused" or "Why are you speaking so ugly to me".
TheDab mentioned that he wasn't quite sure how a much lighter airframe with the same HP (109K-4) did not demonstrably outperform the heavier airframe (Mk XIV) to which I answered to discuss 'The Other important Stuff"
That being said, discussion of comparisons between airframes often beg the questions "Why" or "Why Not" or "What matters" or "I'm Confused" or "Why are you speaking so ugly to me".
TheDab mentioned that he wasn't quite sure how a much lighter airframe with the same HP (109K-4) did not demonstrably outperform the heavier airframe (Mk XIV) to which I answered to discuss 'The Other important Stuff"
What s the point of any performance Number if you dont know the power setting and the flight weight?????????????????????????????
GregP
Major
My copy says the climb was just about equal until 23,000 feet, after which the Fw 190 fell off. Brown did like the Fw 190's control harmony better but decidedly not the stall, which resulted in a spin if the pilot was not on his toes.
The radial 190's always were starting to lose performance above 20,000 feet faster than the competition, but that did not detract from their good control harmony and manners when not stalled. The Fw 190 was and IS a superb fighter.
Of course, all this started in a thread about the Spitfire XIV versus the Bf 109K, which were later birds than the A-3 and Spit IX, at least the next set of "upgrades." I never said the Fw 190 ws a bad fighter, dedalos. I said that for all it's fine characteristics, climb wasn't the one usually noted as being superior. If you were to compare just the A3 and Spit IX, you'd be much closer to having a climb to brag about, but they weren't the only variants flying about and the other variants of the Fw 190 didn't match that climb rate. But ... for the Spit IX versus the Fw 109 A-3, the climb appears to be quite comparable with the Fw 190 still being a bit less.
If you go look here: FW 190 A-3 Performance, the performance charts at combat power don't show it to be as good as the Spit IX at combat power, and they DO have charts of the BMW 801 performacne limits.
Perhaps you have some links to German flight tests showing the rate of climb at operational power settings? I'm not talking about experiments, I'm talking about service limit power settings. The BMW 801 service limits, after some service experience, were anywhere from 1.28 ata at 2,350 rpm for 30 minutes to 1.42 ata at 2,700 rpm for takeoff and 1.35 ata at 2,350 rpm for 3 minutes.
This chart (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-datasheet-29-11-42.jpg) certainly doesn't show it to be exceptional in any way at climb, though also not bad.
In fact the Fw 190 A-3 accounted for 910 of the slightly more than 20,000 Fw 190-series aircraft built, or about 4.4%. Coincidentally that is just a bit less than the Spitfire XIVs completed (957). Interesting they made almost the same number of Spitfires as Fw 190s in total.
In truth, I'm not sure why you are arguing. Nobody who knows anything about WWII ever suggested the Fw 190 was a bad fighter. Most including me consider it to be the best German piston fighter of the war. I consider the best to be the Fw 190D-9. It was fielded in sufficient numbers to be able make a difference and it proved to be a good one.
According to the veterns that I have heard speak at events, all foreign fighters were flown and maintained by experienced aircraft mechanics; they didn't use rookies for captured aircraft. The Fw 190s we had for evaluation were not mysterious, just different. Most captured enemy planes were flown anywhere from 10 - 25 hours or until they broke without a real chance for repair, after which they were usually scrapped.
The Germans did the same with captured Allied aircraft. Nothing overly impressive about any of the evaluations. We DID use German mechanics when testing the Me 262 after the war, but none were flown overly long since the engine life usually wouldn't allow that and we hardly ever captured one with zero-time engines.
As you noted above, our pilots weren't particularly fond of the single power lever in the Fw 190, but did allow it was better and easier for combat use. They weren't so impressed for formation flying or cruising. It wasn't that they didn't understand it, a single lever is almost self explanatory. It was that they could not get fine adjustments with it for economy or for formation flying. At least that is what was said in the US evalautions I have read.
The point was a bit unimportant after the war since they went fairly quickly from pistons to single-power-lever jets anyway. During the war, we never had single power lever setups in a production fighter and didn't after the war until we went to jets. But you know that.
The radial 190's always were starting to lose performance above 20,000 feet faster than the competition, but that did not detract from their good control harmony and manners when not stalled. The Fw 190 was and IS a superb fighter.
Of course, all this started in a thread about the Spitfire XIV versus the Bf 109K, which were later birds than the A-3 and Spit IX, at least the next set of "upgrades." I never said the Fw 190 ws a bad fighter, dedalos. I said that for all it's fine characteristics, climb wasn't the one usually noted as being superior. If you were to compare just the A3 and Spit IX, you'd be much closer to having a climb to brag about, but they weren't the only variants flying about and the other variants of the Fw 190 didn't match that climb rate. But ... for the Spit IX versus the Fw 109 A-3, the climb appears to be quite comparable with the Fw 190 still being a bit less.
If you go look here: FW 190 A-3 Performance, the performance charts at combat power don't show it to be as good as the Spit IX at combat power, and they DO have charts of the BMW 801 performacne limits.
Perhaps you have some links to German flight tests showing the rate of climb at operational power settings? I'm not talking about experiments, I'm talking about service limit power settings. The BMW 801 service limits, after some service experience, were anywhere from 1.28 ata at 2,350 rpm for 30 minutes to 1.42 ata at 2,700 rpm for takeoff and 1.35 ata at 2,350 rpm for 3 minutes.
This chart (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-datasheet-29-11-42.jpg) certainly doesn't show it to be exceptional in any way at climb, though also not bad.
In fact the Fw 190 A-3 accounted for 910 of the slightly more than 20,000 Fw 190-series aircraft built, or about 4.4%. Coincidentally that is just a bit less than the Spitfire XIVs completed (957). Interesting they made almost the same number of Spitfires as Fw 190s in total.
In truth, I'm not sure why you are arguing. Nobody who knows anything about WWII ever suggested the Fw 190 was a bad fighter. Most including me consider it to be the best German piston fighter of the war. I consider the best to be the Fw 190D-9. It was fielded in sufficient numbers to be able make a difference and it proved to be a good one.
According to the veterns that I have heard speak at events, all foreign fighters were flown and maintained by experienced aircraft mechanics; they didn't use rookies for captured aircraft. The Fw 190s we had for evaluation were not mysterious, just different. Most captured enemy planes were flown anywhere from 10 - 25 hours or until they broke without a real chance for repair, after which they were usually scrapped.
The Germans did the same with captured Allied aircraft. Nothing overly impressive about any of the evaluations. We DID use German mechanics when testing the Me 262 after the war, but none were flown overly long since the engine life usually wouldn't allow that and we hardly ever captured one with zero-time engines.
As you noted above, our pilots weren't particularly fond of the single power lever in the Fw 190, but did allow it was better and easier for combat use. They weren't so impressed for formation flying or cruising. It wasn't that they didn't understand it, a single lever is almost self explanatory. It was that they could not get fine adjustments with it for economy or for formation flying. At least that is what was said in the US evalautions I have read.
The point was a bit unimportant after the war since they went fairly quickly from pistons to single-power-lever jets anyway. During the war, we never had single power lever setups in a production fighter and didn't after the war until we went to jets. But you know that.
Last edited:
The ADFU was supposed to be supplying accurate comparative information to RAF pilots of the relative performance of their aircraft compared to the enemies. The Mk XIV comparison versus the G6 comparison is correct, they may have had no information of advanced Me 109 types when the report was done. In terms of a modern context it is however not correct to not mention that G5AS, G6ASM and G14's were the chronologically equivalent. A Mk XIV pilot coming across the more advanced German types might be in quite some danger if he assumed his performance advantage was so significant. On line gummers of course will argue this.
wuzak
Captain
Those variants will have better climb and straight line speed, but did they offer better manoeuvrability?
In other words, will the tactics of the Spitfire pilot have to be changed much?
I guess it's just a different mindset. If BiffF15 wants to write a post comparing the Eagle to the Me 262 I'm all ears. I'm not going to
- say it's 'incorrect'
- take personal offense that my favourite, pet aircraft has been libeled
- take the comparison (or conclusions thereof) as an attack on German ability and know-how
All's fair in comparing equipment X with equipment Y in my opinion. Is it interesting enough to get me to read it? That's all I care about.
Gentlemen,
Please visit Mike William's site on the FW-190G-3 test at Fw 190 G-3 Performance Test
That site gives a climb rate of 4000 feet per minute on a captured aircraft. That is not too shabby if you ask me,
Eagledad
Please visit Mike William's site on the FW-190G-3 test at Fw 190 G-3 Performance Test
That site gives a climb rate of 4000 feet per minute on a captured aircraft. That is not too shabby if you ask me,
Eagledad
GregP
Major
From zero to 4,000 feet it DOES look pretty good. 41.1 inches is 1.42 ata. which was approved for takeoff and up to 3 minutes.
It is identified as an "Fw 190, EB-104" and dated 26 Mat 1944. They flew it at 8,535 lbs (3,871 kg) and the "fighter-Bomber" version waa regularly flown at 10,670 lbs (4,840 kg). Empty it was 7,694 lbs (3,490 kg), so flying it at 8,535 lbs. gives a useful load of 1,159 lbs. Since it is light (for a fighter-bomber mission), I'd expect it to climb well, but it was probably loaded pretty close to the weight for a normal fighter mission.
At low altitide the Spitfire XIV climbs at a bit over 5,000 ft/min, making the Spitifre XIV some 25% better in climb. Still, 4,000 ft/min is pretty good until you realize it was only to about 4,000 feet. By the time it got to 10,000 feet the climb rate was down to 2,800 ft.min where the Spitfire XIV was still at 4,400 ft/min as seen here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climb-level.jpg
So the Fw 190 you mention here was no slouch, but the Spitfire XIV still climbs 57% better at 10,000 feet and. More importantly for the ETO, the Fw 190 is at 3,000 ft/min at 20,000 feet while the Spitfire XIV is at 3,650 ft/min. There is no point on the two charts where the Fw 190G outclimbs the Spitfire XIV which is, after all, the subject of the thread.
I never said the Fw 190 was a dismal climber or a bad fighter; it was an excellent fighter and climbed competitively with most Allied fighters, Mustang included. I said it wasn't the climber the Spitfire was ... and it isn't according to the charts,unless the two were severly mismatched. If you do the research, the Spitfire was the best-climbing piston fighter of the war. There were no fighters anywhere else in large-scale production that climbed any better. Top dog is top dog, but this is only climb rate.
I'm sure there are Fw 190s that can out-climb a Spitifre I or III but if you were actually IN a Spitifre I or III, you'd be up against the Bf 109E model or BF 110 during the BOB, not a late model Fw 190.
Climb is only one aspect of fighter performance and if you had to choose either the Spifire V or the matching Fw 190, most would choose the Fw 190 ... until the Spifire IX came along anyway.
All of the fighters got better over time witrh development and these two are no different. The end of the war saw the untimate Fw 190-series aircraft in the Ta 152 and the ultimate Spitfire in the Spitfire 21 or maybe 22/24. The Spitfire 21 could still climb at 2,400 ft.min at 30,000 feet. The Ta 152's climb rate sort of depends on your source, but it never was close to a Spitfire XIV / 21 until way up high. The thing is, I doubt seriously if you'll find any Spitfire / Ta 152 combats way up high as the Ta 152 only shot down 7 - 10 aircraft during the entire war and these are well documentred encounters that were NOT at high altitude. In fact, at least 4 - 5 of the 7 - 10 Ta 152 kills were right on the deck around an airfield and happened from ambush, not in a dogfight.
Had any very high-altitude encounters happened, I think the Ta 152 would have had a significant edge given the span and aspect ratio. The Ta 152's edge might or might not have been in rate of climb, but it almost certainly would have turned better and held altitude than a Spitfire way up high where the Ta 152 was designed to operate.
It is identified as an "Fw 190, EB-104" and dated 26 Mat 1944. They flew it at 8,535 lbs (3,871 kg) and the "fighter-Bomber" version waa regularly flown at 10,670 lbs (4,840 kg). Empty it was 7,694 lbs (3,490 kg), so flying it at 8,535 lbs. gives a useful load of 1,159 lbs. Since it is light (for a fighter-bomber mission), I'd expect it to climb well, but it was probably loaded pretty close to the weight for a normal fighter mission.
At low altitide the Spitfire XIV climbs at a bit over 5,000 ft/min, making the Spitifre XIV some 25% better in climb. Still, 4,000 ft/min is pretty good until you realize it was only to about 4,000 feet. By the time it got to 10,000 feet the climb rate was down to 2,800 ft.min where the Spitfire XIV was still at 4,400 ft/min as seen here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climb-level.jpg
So the Fw 190 you mention here was no slouch, but the Spitfire XIV still climbs 57% better at 10,000 feet and. More importantly for the ETO, the Fw 190 is at 3,000 ft/min at 20,000 feet while the Spitfire XIV is at 3,650 ft/min. There is no point on the two charts where the Fw 190G outclimbs the Spitfire XIV which is, after all, the subject of the thread.
I never said the Fw 190 was a dismal climber or a bad fighter; it was an excellent fighter and climbed competitively with most Allied fighters, Mustang included. I said it wasn't the climber the Spitfire was ... and it isn't according to the charts,unless the two were severly mismatched. If you do the research, the Spitfire was the best-climbing piston fighter of the war. There were no fighters anywhere else in large-scale production that climbed any better. Top dog is top dog, but this is only climb rate.
I'm sure there are Fw 190s that can out-climb a Spitifre I or III but if you were actually IN a Spitifre I or III, you'd be up against the Bf 109E model or BF 110 during the BOB, not a late model Fw 190.
Climb is only one aspect of fighter performance and if you had to choose either the Spifire V or the matching Fw 190, most would choose the Fw 190 ... until the Spifire IX came along anyway.
All of the fighters got better over time witrh development and these two are no different. The end of the war saw the untimate Fw 190-series aircraft in the Ta 152 and the ultimate Spitfire in the Spitfire 21 or maybe 22/24. The Spitfire 21 could still climb at 2,400 ft.min at 30,000 feet. The Ta 152's climb rate sort of depends on your source, but it never was close to a Spitfire XIV / 21 until way up high. The thing is, I doubt seriously if you'll find any Spitfire / Ta 152 combats way up high as the Ta 152 only shot down 7 - 10 aircraft during the entire war and these are well documentred encounters that were NOT at high altitude. In fact, at least 4 - 5 of the 7 - 10 Ta 152 kills were right on the deck around an airfield and happened from ambush, not in a dogfight.
Had any very high-altitude encounters happened, I think the Ta 152 would have had a significant edge given the span and aspect ratio. The Ta 152's edge might or might not have been in rate of climb, but it almost certainly would have turned better and held altitude than a Spitfire way up high where the Ta 152 was designed to operate.
Last edited:
Gents,
Here is another log on the fire with this climb rate comparison. Yes, an ideal way to compare aircraft is at the same weight (max fuel load, with weapons, etc.). However, the reality of combat doesn't really arrive at the beginning of the "test" with two aircraft with similar load outs. Reality I would think would be the Allied fighters arriving over X with quite a bit of fuel burned down, then engaging in combat with Axis aircraft that were just arriving at fight height, or still in the climb (depending on early warning systems).
What I think is a valid way of looking at things using the similar load out basis is how much of a performance advantage does one aircraft have over another. In the case of the Spit I would think in most scenario's over Europe it would be at the advantage versus Me-109 (both full load out) and or would be greater after having been airborne for longer (having burned out a larger percentage of total fuel than the his opponent).
Also lets not forget that the for the most part the 190 and 109 are both relatively short legged compared to late Spits and the US A/C. There lies one of the few advantages of being on the defensive, you can have better performing aircraft due to not needing to fly very far to get to the fight. But then again you are not very far from the fight, nor is you airfield, nor your family, nor most if not all things you find important...
Yes, the Mig-29 is a hotrod, and performs in many arenas better than the F-15, however he didn't get very far from the flag pole and would not be of much use in an offensive war. It had no legs.
Cheers,
Biff
Here is another log on the fire with this climb rate comparison. Yes, an ideal way to compare aircraft is at the same weight (max fuel load, with weapons, etc.). However, the reality of combat doesn't really arrive at the beginning of the "test" with two aircraft with similar load outs. Reality I would think would be the Allied fighters arriving over X with quite a bit of fuel burned down, then engaging in combat with Axis aircraft that were just arriving at fight height, or still in the climb (depending on early warning systems).
What I think is a valid way of looking at things using the similar load out basis is how much of a performance advantage does one aircraft have over another. In the case of the Spit I would think in most scenario's over Europe it would be at the advantage versus Me-109 (both full load out) and or would be greater after having been airborne for longer (having burned out a larger percentage of total fuel than the his opponent).
Also lets not forget that the for the most part the 190 and 109 are both relatively short legged compared to late Spits and the US A/C. There lies one of the few advantages of being on the defensive, you can have better performing aircraft due to not needing to fly very far to get to the fight. But then again you are not very far from the fight, nor is you airfield, nor your family, nor most if not all things you find important...
Yes, the Mig-29 is a hotrod, and performs in many arenas better than the F-15, however he didn't get very far from the flag pole and would not be of much use in an offensive war. It had no legs.
Cheers,
Biff
GregP
Major
Hi Biff,
Thanks for the scenarios. I was avoiding that lighter Spitfire versus the heavier BF 109 / Fw 190 just on the basis of being accused of bias. Thing is, there is ONE king of climb in WWII and it was the Spitfire. It doesn't mean everything else was bad, it means there was one at the top.
The P-51, P-47, P-39, Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest,cYaks / Lavochkins, Mitsubishi, Nakajima, Kawasaki, and Kawanishi's ALL fell short of contemporay Spitfires in climb. So the Bf 109 and Fw 190 were in some pretty good company while falling short of the Spitfire's climb rate. Didn't make them useless or bad fighters. In fact, if they weren't fighting Spitfires, they might well be the local best climber.
You'd think this was personal or something and it isn't. It's just performance numbers. They were probably more important in WWII than during your time in fighters because there was NOTHING automatic except the single power lever in the Fw 190. Welll, that isn't quite true, I think some radiator shutters had manual or automatic mode, as on the P-38, and the allied mixture could be manually leaned or put in auto-rich.
But you were definitely within visual range when you started a fight or found yourself in one, and it was man versus man, not automatic anything. There wasn't any tail radar untl late in the war and it was often shut off as an annoyance since it warned you of your wingman. Nothing you didn't already know.
So, Biff, any thoughts on the importance of climb rate as a single parameter in WWII? I know it was inter-related to others, but climb rate surely counted for something ... unless you got ambushed and shot without knowing you were under attack. Then even an F-15 might not help. Surprised is surprised.
Many early P-38 pilots were shot down while coming up on the rmp and MAP, turning on the gunsight and gun switches, and dropping tanks, and ...
Thanks for the scenarios. I was avoiding that lighter Spitfire versus the heavier BF 109 / Fw 190 just on the basis of being accused of bias. Thing is, there is ONE king of climb in WWII and it was the Spitfire. It doesn't mean everything else was bad, it means there was one at the top.
The P-51, P-47, P-39, Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest,cYaks / Lavochkins, Mitsubishi, Nakajima, Kawasaki, and Kawanishi's ALL fell short of contemporay Spitfires in climb. So the Bf 109 and Fw 190 were in some pretty good company while falling short of the Spitfire's climb rate. Didn't make them useless or bad fighters. In fact, if they weren't fighting Spitfires, they might well be the local best climber.
You'd think this was personal or something and it isn't. It's just performance numbers. They were probably more important in WWII than during your time in fighters because there was NOTHING automatic except the single power lever in the Fw 190. Welll, that isn't quite true, I think some radiator shutters had manual or automatic mode, as on the P-38, and the allied mixture could be manually leaned or put in auto-rich.
But you were definitely within visual range when you started a fight or found yourself in one, and it was man versus man, not automatic anything. There wasn't any tail radar untl late in the war and it was often shut off as an annoyance since it warned you of your wingman. Nothing you didn't already know.
So, Biff, any thoughts on the importance of climb rate as a single parameter in WWII? I know it was inter-related to others, but climb rate surely counted for something ... unless you got ambushed and shot without knowing you were under attack. Then even an F-15 might not help. Surprised is surprised.
Many early P-38 pilots were shot down while coming up on the rmp and MAP, turning on the gunsight and gun switches, and dropping tanks, and ...
Last edited:
I know the question wasnt directed at me but for my 2 cents the spitfire was designed from scratch as a point interceptor, to intercept German bombers, rate of climb is the most important quality for such an interceptor. From that you get a good rate of turn and you could say the power and clean design required makes a high top speed not guaranteed but likely. In other areas like dive and range the spitfire fell short in some areas but that wasnt the designers concern. The other marques you mentioned had a different ethos in the design. Even the Hurricane which was designed to the same spec. but with an eye more on ease of production to known methods as a stop gap before the Typhoon came in.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Hi pbehn,
You are mirroring my thoughts on it. I really don't think the Germans designed the Bf 109 as a point defense fighter. It was designed as an attack fighter and that implies other concerns than an interceptor. In jets, the obvious analogy is the Lockheed F-104 or the EE Lightning. They were interceptors, not really fighters, and could take off, climb FAST, shoot the intruder, and then had to come home and refuel and rearm, much like the Spitfire did in WWII. A Lightning, in particular, wasn't going to go very far, especially if you used the burner or reheat as the Brits call it. Using the go fast/climb levers called throttles on the hard side made missions very short.
Still, when Biff weighs in, we'll see what an F-15 driver thinks. Since the F-15 was the Air Forces's number one air superiority fighter, my bet is he'll know more about it than I do. OK Biff, do some of that pilot crap and tell us ... a lousy nod to Anthony Edwards in Top Gun there ...
You are mirroring my thoughts on it. I really don't think the Germans designed the Bf 109 as a point defense fighter. It was designed as an attack fighter and that implies other concerns than an interceptor. In jets, the obvious analogy is the Lockheed F-104 or the EE Lightning. They were interceptors, not really fighters, and could take off, climb FAST, shoot the intruder, and then had to come home and refuel and rearm, much like the Spitfire did in WWII. A Lightning, in particular, wasn't going to go very far, especially if you used the burner or reheat as the Brits call it. Using the go fast/climb levers called throttles on the hard side made missions very short.
Still, when Biff weighs in, we'll see what an F-15 driver thinks. Since the F-15 was the Air Forces's number one air superiority fighter, my bet is he'll know more about it than I do. OK Biff, do some of that pilot crap and tell us ... a lousy nod to Anthony Edwards in Top Gun there ...
Last edited:
