Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

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 name Seafire was arrived at by collapsing the longer name Sea Spitfire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

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!

Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"Shooter"

Major General

1st Lieutenant

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Brigadier General

Master Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Major General

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads