cheddar cheese
Major General
Good info les...I agree...
Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
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
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
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.
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.
plan_D said:
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.
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.
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.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
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??
cheddar cheese
Major General
Sure, why not.
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?
And that is what this topic is about, so if there is no need for discussion then why do we have this thread?
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.
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.
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?
What is so hard to see that the Fw-190A was not a push over even to a Spitfire XVI?
Agreed.....Finally!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
hang on pD, in WWII it was still the Mk.21, not F.21........
plan_D 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. 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"
- Status
