Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

[GT]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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..

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Cheers
GT

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

Are you sure about that?

 

[ricardo]

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

Are you sure about that?

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]

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.