Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

Okay granted what you are saying is correct however all allied fighters and even against Spitfires or P-51s it was still not a push over.
 
Okay granted what you are saying is correct however all allied fighters and even against Spitfires or P-51s it was still not a push over.[/quote]

At the beginning I thought that the newer versions of any aircraft was an improvement of the type, but no ... in this case Germany was under attack by heavy bombers, so they had to put a good interceptor against the heavy bombers. Heavy armament, good armour and bravery were some of the elements they needed....

NOW...What happens if you take an A-8 and you remove all the excesive armour, and leave it only with 2 x 12.7mm and 2 x 20mm? you will find that NO allied fighter at that time will have a chance against the Fw190A-8 (at least at medium and low altitudes), and once again the Fw190 will have the upper hand.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I will give you that the A-8 was more suited for intercepting bombers.
Click to expand...

You 've found the magic words. I'm 100% agree.

Those Fw190A-8 bomber interceptors were also called "Ramjagers".
 

A big what if.....

Remove the armor from a Spit or Mustang.....

Same thing
 

Can't compare apples with pineapples my friend..... We are talking about removing EXCESSIVE armour. Spit and Mustang don't have heavy armour at all. Their armour was average, but not enough to stop a 20mm and the armour plates of Spits and Mustangs were behind the pilot seat ONLY.
 
While the A8 is an excellent bird, I think it need to be determined how much extra armor are we talking about. I would guess 500 pounds will give the aircraft and extra 40 or 50 mph, but if we're only talking about 100 pounds, well.....
 
FLYBOYJ said:
While the A8 is an excellent bird, I think it need to be determined how much extra armor are we talking about. I would guess 500 pounds will give the aircraft and extra 40 or 50 mph, but if we're only talking about 100 pounds, well.....
Click to expand...

Two plates on each side of the cockpit, one huge plate on the floor, the engine.... I think it is almost 500 pounds.
 

That might be close - it would be interesting to find out and then compre the numbers with say a P-51.
 

Plan_D think about what you just said, and then come back, cause thats just ridiculous..

The heaviness of the controls has very little if anything to do with the a/c's maneuverability.

As an example you can have an a/c with very light controls, but a slow roll rate. Figure the rest out for yourself....

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.
Click to expand...

ONLY 400 HP ??!!!! Do you have any Idea what an extra 400 HP means just in terms of power-loading ?!

A-3: Loaded *Clean*= 3,890 kg(8,580 lbs) - Power-loading= 2.28 kg/hp (5.04 lbs/hp)
A-8: Loaded *Clean*= 4,165 kg(9,180 lbs) - Power-loading= 1.98 kg/hp (4.37 lbs/hp)

Note: The available Climb rates for the A-8 were obtained with a power of only 1800 HP, explaining the low results.

Just read many sources across the entirety of the Internet, they all state the A-4 out-climbed the A-8.
Click to expand...

Internet

You don't own a book about the FW 190 I presume ?

Fact is most sources mention the Bomber interceptor version of the A-8 which had extra armor and gun-pods + bomb racks(Hence the 4,900 kg Max. weight figure.), and yes with these extra's the A-8 was inferior in maneuverability to the A-4...

But in Loaded *Clean* configuration the A-8 only weighed a mere 600lbs more than the A-3-4, while additionally having a larger lighter wing and 400 extra horsepower. So in clean configuration the A-8 was at least 'as' or even 'more' maneuverable than the A-3-4 !

The extra ~270kg (~600lbs) *clean* loaded weight of the A-8 was mainly due to extra armor, and the option for either GM-1 nitrous-oxide engine boost for high-altitude operation, or an additional internal fuel tank.

The Spitfire XIV could out-climb the A-8, up and away and there's nothing the A-8 can do.
Click to expand...

If directly behind the Spit, the Spit better not try to climb as then its dead meat. If not, then the A-8 can simply dive and chicken out while the Spit wastes energy in the climb...

I highly doubt that vague comment, since you don't even say which Bf-109 you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Doubt it all you want, its proven though.... And I clearly stated "Late-war" Bf 109 and Spitfire.

Ricardo said:
But if you try to compare a Bf109K against a Spitfire Mk I it doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

I guess this is directed at me, for no reason though...

Ricardo I clearly said "Late war" Bf 109 and Spitfire, meaning late war 109 vs late war Spit.

Ricardo said:
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.
Click to expand...

No the A-3-4 were no better dogfighters than the A-8 in clean configuration, while the A-5-6 were admittedly slightly better though.

FW 190A-8 stats:

Empty Weight: 3,470 kg. (7,750 lbs)
Loaded *Clean*: 4,165 kg. (9,180 lbs)
Max. Loaded Weight: 4,900 kg. (10,800 lbs)
 
It is a well known fact that Spitfire controls were stiff, if the pilot cannot overcome the controls to put his Spitfire into position he cannot turn the plane. A plane with light controls doesn't mean the plane will turn or roll well, it's aerodynamics could hold it back from turns or rolls of great rate.

The extra 400 hp was in boost, you cannot add that to the standard hp number. 600 lbs isn't a 'mere' increase in weight, it's actually quite a lot for a plane of the Fw-190s build. The Fw-190A-8/R8 was an extra 800 lbs heavier than the Fw-190A-4!
If the Fw-190A-8 climbed with his boost from take-off, he wouldn't have anything in the dogfight because he only had 10 minutes of it. Then all his extra power would be gone and he would just be a heavier A-4.

Saying "Late war" doesn't tell me what Bf-109 you're refering to, nor does "late war" Spitfire tell me what you're refering to. Are you refering to Bf-109K-4 or Bf-109G-10? Sptifire XIV, XII or 21?
 
Hi everybody.

There are so much "what ifs", but we can't change what really happened.

It's true, a Fw190A-8 "clean" could outperform a A-3/4/5/6/7.... but what is also true is that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

The Fw190A-8, I repeat, was not intended as an air superiority aircraft.... it was an interceptor, antibomber, but not a dogfighter. However, at medium and low altitudes (and in good hands, of course) I guess it was still a good match against any allied fighter.
 

Very true I am sure there are many instances of aircraft that have light controls but handle like crap. As for the weight that is very true. An aircraft that only weights lets just say 2000lb as an example and you ad 500lb to it you have just added a quarter of its own weight witch will greatly influence the performance of an aircraft.
 
I think the majority of us here recognise the Spitfire XIV as superior to the Fw-190A but the Fw-190A as no walk over. I believe Adler and I agreed on that earlier.
 
Plan_D what about the test results I presented didnt you understand or missed ?

Turning Circle
18. 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
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.

-----------------------------------------------

The heaviness in the control can very well be a result of extra aerodynamic pressure, and slightly because of the extra weight, however it didnt hamper maneuverability. (Except if "too" heavy) Only a inexperienced pilot would have problems with the extra weight of the controls, however not to any degree where it seriously hampered maneuverability.

And as a side-note, the heaviness in controls was only noticed in the prototype XIV, and wasn't mentioned in the production model. (Read XIV vs IX test above)

Read the Spit XIV prototype vs Spit VIII conclusion:

Conclusions- Of the two aircraft the Spitfire VIII is preferable at all heights up to about 25,000 feet except for its turning capabilites. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performance and fuel consumption are better. The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII. The difficulties of trimming will probably be reduced as pilots gain familiarity.


Plan_D said:
if the pilot cannot overcome the controls to put his Spitfire into position he cannot turn the plane
Click to expand...

The pilot could easel overcome the extra weight of the controls, as proved by the test results presented above.

The extra 400 hp was in boost, you cannot add that to the standard hp number.
Click to expand...

The Fw 190A-8 had a continuous power of 1800 HP, 100 extra horsepower than the A-4.

600 lbs isn't a 'mere' increase in weight, it's actually quite a lot for a plane of the Fw-190s build.
Click to expand...

Really, and hows that ?

The Fw-190A-8/R8 was an extra 800 lbs heavier than the Fw-190A-4!
Click to expand...

The bomber interceptor version....

If the Fw-190A-8 climbed with his boost from take-off, he wouldn't have anything in the dogfight because he only had 10 minutes of it.
Click to expand...

Boost was saved for combat conditions....

Then all his extra power would be gone and he would just be a heavier A-4.
Click to expand...

After 10min of 2100 HP (Which is alot), the A-8 would still have an extra 100 HP to rely on compared to the A-3-4.

Saying "Late war" doesn't tell me what Bf-109 you're refering to, nor does "late war" Spitfire tell me what you're refering to. Are you refering to Bf-109K-4 or Bf-109G-10? Sptifire XIV, XII or 21?
Click to expand...

Bf 109 G-10-14, K-4 vs Spit IX, XIV. (The Spit 21 never made it to see combat)

Ricardo said:
It's true, a Fw190A-8 "clean" could outperform a A-3/4/5/6/7.... but what is also true is that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Click to expand...

Ricardo are you actually trying to tell me that the A-8 never flew a mission in loaded *clean* configuration ?! Cause then your badly mistaken !

Ricardo said:
The Fw190A-8, I repeat, was not intended as an air superiority aircraft.... it was an interceptor, antibomber, but not a dogfighter
Click to expand...

Sure it wasnt meant as a 'main' Airsuperiorty fighter, but that doesnt at all mean it never flew a mission with the clean configuration load ! Not at all !
 
That test pilot could overcome the stiffness of control. There's pilots that flew both that prefered the manuverability of the IX Spitfire, I'm sure pilots wouldn't state that if the XIV and IX were exactly the same.

Where did this extra 100 hp come from, Soren, did it magically appear?

The Fw-190A is a small plane, 600 lbs is a lot for any plane but the Fw-190 it's felt even more.

The Fw-190A-8 was 600 lbs heavier, the Fw-190A-8/R8 was 800 lbs heavier. It was a simple statement.

Boost was saved for combat, so the Spitfire XIV had a quicker climb rate from start. That gives the Spitfire the initial advantage during combat, since it can arrive at a higher altitude. It also had a higher ceiling.

If the extra 100 hp did appear, it's hardly enough for an increase in 600 lbs.

Do you want to inform the pilots of 91st Squadron who flew the F.21 in combat that it never saw combat? IX was 1942, that's not late war. Late war Spitfire refers to XII, XIV and 21 because they all saw operational service and all saw combat.

Here's about the Spitfire 21;

The Griffon 64 (found in operational Spitfire-21's) produced 2375 BHP for combat, had a stiffer wing with a little more span, larger ailerons, a larger 5 bladed (or dual contra-rotating) prop, was armed with 4 x 20 mm cannon, and could carry more fuel than the Spit XIV. It could climb to 30,000 feet in 7.85 minutes and had a top speed of 455 mph. The contra-rotating prop version would also have provided a superior gun platform over normal single prop fighters, and its 5 bladed (or contra rotating prop) would provide superior power to thrust conversion at high altitudes over the Ta-152's 3 bladed prop.
It's maximum rate of climb was 4800 feet per minute at 7700 feet. It had a service ceiling of 42,800 feet. It's first operational sortie was on the 10th of April, 1945. The attached documents shows the dates after delivery and it's first operational sortie with 91st Squadron. The Spitfire XXIe did see service, as you can see. With lanc, you are right it is still refered to as Mk.XXIe.
The first production F.XXI flew on March 15th, 1944 equipped with the Griffon 64, however, some were equipped with the Griffon 85 with contra-rotating props. The Spitfire F.21 claimed a few victories during the war, once such victory was against a midget submarine caught on the surface which two Spitfires sunk on 26th April, 1945.

Didn't it see service Soren?
 

Attachments

  • no91_713.jpg
    133.6 KB · Views: 384
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Forum and Server Software Update :: Tonight 8pm EDT 6-25-18
Replies
2
Views
1K
Wurger
Server Update :: 10-30-17 - Post any issues
Replies
16
Views
3K
ARTESH
V
FW 190 Sturmbock info?
Replies
2
Views
4K
Maximowitz
  • Locked
Nazi hunters give low grades to 13 countries
Replies
4
Views
4K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
  • Locked
Dornier 17 to be restored
Replies
1
Views
2K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Menu
Log in
Register