Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

ricardo · Jun 21, 2005

My replies:

Soren said:
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 !

Soren said:
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 !

Nouuu.... I didn't mean that. Read this carefully:

Emil Lang was the most successfull fighter pilot on the Invasion front flying Fw190A-8. He claimed 15 victories in june 1944 alone (including 4 USAAF P-51 fighters within minutes on 20 june and another 4 USAAF P-51 in one mission on 24 june again!!! ) flying the Fw190A-8.... more?

14jun44: 3 P-47s in one mission
09jul44 : 3 Spitfires in 5 minutes
25aug44: 3 P-38 in one mission

I guess that few pilots achieved this... remember that Emil Lang was an outstanding experienced pilot.... so I think that ONLY pilots of that calibre had some privileges. Priller was another pilot whose personal Fw190A-8 had only 2 x 12.7mm and 2 x 20mm (he removed the outer 20mm cannons and his aircraft had standard armour protection like Emil Lang's "Green 1").... my point is that not everybody had these privileges.

The mayority of the Fw190A-8s were equipped with extra armour and heavy armament to the teeth.

If you have SQUADRON SIGNAL PUBLICATION FW190 IN ACTION you will find that the Fw190A-8 had max speed (clean) = 650km/h.... compared to Fw190A-4 max speed (clean) = 676Km/h....weight increased a lot too... It brings me to the point that Fw190A-4 had a better performance than the Fw190A-8.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 21, 2005

plan_D said:
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.

That we did.

Soren · Jun 21, 2005

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.

This has been discussed before, and NO, pilots didnt prefer the IX's maneuverability, only its easier handling.

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

The A-3-4 had a continuous power of 1700 HP, the A-8 had 1800 HP Plan_D ! Do some research before posting !

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

Pure nonsense !

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.

Now what are you talking about ? Do you really believe that the Spit XIV would fly at full ceiling all the way to Germany ? No the biggest chance is that they'll meet each other at about the same alt.

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

Appear Read a book about the plane for gods sake...

Do you want to inform the pilots of 91st Squadron who flew the F.21 in combat that it never saw combat?

The Spit 21 didnt see any combat with German a/c during WW2.

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.

I mentioned the XIV, and accidently left out the XII. And the reason I mentioned the IX, was because IIRC it saw service in 44 aswell.

Didn't it see service Soren?

I didnt say it didnt see service Plan_D ! Read my posts ! I said it didnt see any combat. (Atleast not against any German a/c)

And as far as my sources tell me, the Spit 21 never saw action against any German military unit.

Soren · Jun 21, 2005

ricardo said:
Nouuu.... I didn't mean that. Read this carefully:

Emil Lang was the most successfull fighter pilot on the Invasion front flying Fw190A-8. He claimed 15 victories in june 1944 alone (including 4 USAAF P-51 fighters within minutes on 20 june and another 4 USAAF P-51 in one mission on 24 june again!!! ) flying the Fw190A-8.... more?

14jun44: 3 P-47s in one mission
09jul44 : 3 Spitfires in 5 minutes
25aug44: 3 P-38 in one mission

I guess that few pilots achieved this... remember that Emil Lang was an outstanding experienced pilot.... so I think that ONLY pilots of that calibre had some privileges. Priller was another pilot whose personal Fw190A-8 had only 2 x 12.7mm and 2 x 20mm (he removed the outer 20mm cannons and his aircraft had standard armour protection like Emil Lang's "Green 1").... my point is that not everybody had these privileges.

The mayority of the Fw190A-8s were equipped with extra armour and heavy armament to the teeth.

Ok, then we agree.

ricardo said:
If you have SQUADRON SIGNAL PUBLICATION FW190 IN ACTION you will find that the Fw190A-8 had max speed (clean) = 650km/h.... compared to Fw190A-4 max speed (clean) = 676Km/h....weight increased a lot too... It brings me to the point that Fw190A-4 had a better performance than the Fw190A-8.

The Official Climb rate and Speed figures for the A-8 were obtained with full armor and fuel, and with a power setting of only 1800 HP. (While clean means it carried no Bomb racks or Gun-pods) So the real Max Climb rate and Speed figure was considderably higher.

Btw that A-4 speed figure was obtained with MW-50, which wasnt fitted on the production model.

plan_D · Jun 21, 2005

Where did the extra 100 hp come from, Soren? The A-8 had the same engine as the A-4.

No the Spitfire XIV wouldn't fly at maximum altitude but the XIV could raise above the Fw-190A for combat. Height advantage is important.

The IX saw service to wars end, it doesn't make it late war. Hurricane Is saw service until the wars end in the CBI, that wouldn't make them late war aircraft.

Since all I've read on the F.21 state it made a few victories, it's more likely than not the F.21 made contact and got victories against Luftwaffe aircraft.
How did two Spitfire XXIe sink a midget submarine if they never saw service against any German unit?

Soren · Jun 21, 2005

Where did the extra 100 hp come from, Soren? The A-8 had the same engine as the A-4.

Early in 1943, the Fw 190A-5 appeared. It was essentially similar to the A-4 but its revised engine mounting moved the engine six inches (15cm) farther forward. This opened up the area behind the engine and allowed the cooling air to exit the engine faster and leave through the cooling gills on the side of the fuselage. The A-6 followed with a redesigned wing that was lighter and could take four 20mm cannon. In December 1943 came the A-7 with a slightly uprated engine, and this was followed by A-8 to A-10. Although many models and versions were designed, most of the Fw 190s produced were A-3, A-4 and A-5 models.

This engine was the same BMW 801 engine, but slightly more powerful "1800 hp". (Im still looking for the specifics of the modifications.)

No the Spitfire XIV wouldn't fly at maximum altitude but the XIV could raise above the Fw-190A for combat. Height advantage is important.

True, but it goes both ways as the 190A-8 could relatively easy chicken out in such a situation.

The IX saw service to wars end, it doesn't make it late war. Hurricane Is saw service until the wars end in the CBI, that wouldn't make them late war aircraft.

I was talking the ETO, and maybe mentioning the VIII instead of the IX might have been better.

Since all I've read on the F.21 state it made a few victories, it's more likely than not the F.21 made contact and got victories against Luftwaffe aircraft.

No its very unlikely as many sources states it didnt.

How did two Spitfire XXIe sink a midget submarine if they never saw service against any German unit?

Does it say from which country these midget subs were from, or where the incident accured ? No.

So all we can do is speculate....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 21, 2005

Pure Nonsense? Pure Nonsence that the Fw-190 would not be effected by 600lb or a small aircraft would not? 600lb is a lot for a small aircraft.

Soren · Jun 21, 2005

Looked through some of my books, and here's what I found:

FW 190A-4

Engine: BMW 801 D. (1700-1720 HP)

Fw 190A-8 R11-12

Engine: BMW 801 TU. (1800 HP)

The BMW 801F series engine(2000 HP) was also planned to be mounted on the A-8, but this was never realized.

Note: Not all A-8's were equipped with the BMW 801 TU engine, the majority used the BMW 801 D engine.

Soren · Jun 21, 2005

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Pure Nonsense? Pure Nonsence that the Fw-190 would not be effected by 600lb or a small aircraft would not? 600lb is a lot for a small aircraft.

No, pure nonesense that the Fw 190 was affected more by increase in weight than any other fighter of WW2.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 21, 2005

Okay was just wondering.

plan_D · Jun 21, 2005

I don't believe I stated that the Fw-190A was affected anymore than any other plane with an increase of 600 lbs. An increase of 600 lbs on any fighter during World War 2 was a lot.

The BMW 801TU provided 1774 hp.

The incident was off the coast of Holland and it happened on the 26th April, 1945. All you can do is try and deny it.

Soren · Jun 22, 2005

plan_D said:
I don't believe I stated that the Fw-190A was affected anymore than any other plane with an increase of 600 lbs. An increase of 600 lbs on any fighter during World War 2 was a lot.

You said: 600 lbs is a lot for any plane but the Fw-190 it's felt even more

Convinced ?

The BMW 801TU provided 1774 hp.

Source ?

Most sources quote the BMW 801TU's continuous power as 1800 HP, others 2000 HP, I've come across none that mention 1774 HP.

You might be confusing the BMW 801 with the Jumo 213A-1 which had exactly 1774 HP without boost.

The incident was off the coast of Holland and it happened on the 26th April, 1945. All you can do is try and deny it.

Thanks for the info. And "no" im not denying it, but that seems to be the only action account against any 'German' military unit accessible.

And according to my sources, the Spit 21 'never' saw action against any LW a/c.

plan_D · Jun 22, 2005

The Fw-190 is a small plane, of course it's going to feel it more than a larger plane. Is that hard to understand?

The Jumo 213A-1 is rated at 1776 hp for take off, which could be boosted to 2240 hp with the MW 50 injection system. The BMW 801TU only powered three types of Fw-190, the Fw-190A-8/R11 and R12 (All weather fighter), Fw-190F-8/R14 (Torpedo-fighter) and Fw-190G-8/R5.

The "clean" Fw-190A-8 were all equipped with BMW 801D rated at 1,700 hp. I can only assume you're refering to the Fw-190A-8/R11 and R12 in your argument, probably the least produced A-8 of the lot.

My sources state that the F.21 got a 'few' kills during it's short World War 2 career. Now, I don't know if that is certainly against Luftwaffe aircraft. However, the Luftwaffe did exist right up until the last day and 'few kills' says to me more than one. I'm currently hunting for other sortie reports from 91st Squadron.

Soren · Jun 22, 2005

plan_D said:
The Fw-190 is a small plane, of course it's going to feel it more than a larger plane. Is that hard to understand?

Nice recovery Fact is what you said could be interpreted in two ways..

The "clean" Fw-190A-8 were all equipped with BMW 801D rated at 1,700 hp.

The "clean" 190A-8 , Plan_D ?
There's no "clean" Fw-190A-8 version... And if your implying that the standard A-8 was the only A-8 version that could be loaded clean, then your horribly wrong !

I can only assume you're referring to the Fw-190A-8/R11 and R12 in your argument, probably the least produced A-8 of the lot.

Yes Plan_D, I 'was' and I 'am' referring to the R11/R12... Read my posts, I clearly stated that.

Now where's your source for the 1774 HP figure ?

My sources state that the F.21 got a 'few' kills during it's short World War 2 career. Now, I don't know if that is certainly against Luftwaffe aircraft. However, the Luftwaffe did exist right up until the last day and 'few kills' says to me more than one. I'm currently hunting for other sortie reports from 91st Squadron.

Well, Good hunting then !

plan_D · Jun 22, 2005

The fact that you interpreted it the wrong way is not my problem.

There were no pure fighter version of the Fw-190A-8. Not all A-8s were equipped with the BMW 801TU, only the R/11-12 were equipped with the engine. They were not the majority A-8 model, and were over 9,000 lbs take off weight.

You mentioned some "clean" A-8 in your discussion with ricardo, whatever that may be refering to, I do not know. A "clean" configuration of any of the other variants does not reduce their internal weight, which would be the extra guns and armour.
Only the R/11-12 were equipped with the BMW 801TU, so in all other A-8 variants your extra 100 hp is null and void.

My source is Classic Fighters by Bill Gunston for the 1776 hp figure for the Jumo 213A-1. As you can see, I stated 1776 hp in my last post not 1774 hp.

For internet sources on the Jumo 213A-1:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/special.asp?period=wwii

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw190d9.html

http://www.simviation.com/gryphon/CFS1.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200010/ai_n8925541/pg_2

Soren · Jun 22, 2005

The fact that you interpreted it the wrong way is not my problem.

There were no pure fighter version of the Fw-190A-8.

Pure fighter "Versions" ?! Plan_D the A-8 'did' engage enemy fighters, and was sometimes intentionally loaded specifically for dogfights, nomatter the version.

Not all A-8s were equipped with the BMW 801TU, only the R/11-12 were equipped with the engine.They were not the majority A-8 model

I've said that already.

, and were over 9,000 lbs take off weight.

´

Yes, 9,180 lbs precisely.

Also for further notice, the "Normal" take off weight has nothing to do with the *clean* loaded weight.

The A-8 was 'normally' sent up to intercept bombers or attack ground-targets, and therefore its 'normal' take off weight was with heavy armament and armor to fit those roles. Its *clean* loaded weight would be lower...

You mentioned some "clean" A-8 in your discussion with ricardo, whatever that may be refering to, I do not know. A "clean" configuration of any of the other variants does not reduce their internal weight, which would be the extra guns and armour.

The *Clean* configuration load is without any unnecessary additional equipment internally or externally. For example, the *Clean* configuration load on the A-8 was without the extra armor and armament for the bomber interceptor role, and without the bomb-racks for the fighter-bomber role, as-well as without the unnecessary extra internal fuel tank.

Only the R/11-12 were equipped with the BMW 801TU, so in all other A-8 variants your extra 100 hp is null and void.

No, there were also some equipped with the 2000 hp BMW 801 TS engine, but they were much fewer so not really worth mentioning.

My source is Classic Fighters by Bill Gunston for the 1776 hp figure for the Jumo 213A-1. As you can see, I stated 1776 hp in my last post not 1774 hp.

I was talking about the TU engine Plan_D ! and you clearly stated that the TU engine only had a continuous power of 1774 HP, which is untrue !

Plan_D said: The BMW 801TU provided 1774 hp.

So I will ask you again, whats the Source for this figure ?

plan_D · Jun 22, 2005

"Clean" configuration refers to clean wing, no extra wing loading. Are you telling me that before the combat any variant of A-8 would have it's guns pulled and it's armour removed so it could combat fighters?

Which A-8 are you refering to in "clean" configuration because, no, you cannot just get a scramble call and take the guns and armour out of the plane. It doesn't work like that.

Refer to the correct A-8. There were many A-8 sub-variants designed for different purposes, they would not alter a bomber-destroyer sub-variant to suit the needs of a fighter, if they already had a fighter version present.

A-8 refers to the ultimate variant, many sub-variants come under that. "Clean" configuration refers differently to each sub-variant, not the A-8 as a whole.

I mis-read an article on the BMW 801TU. So, I will admit it produces 1,800 hp. However, as we both well know it was only fitted to the R/11-12 sub-variants of the A-8. The majority A-8 sub-variants were equipped with the BMW 801D-2 running at 1,700 hp - the same as the A-4.

If you really are trying to get more indepth, stop generalising the A-8.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 23, 2005

From everything I have read the F.21 reached service in WW2 but it did not see any combat. I may be wrong though.

Soren · Jun 23, 2005

plan_D said:
"Clean" configuration refers to clean wing, no extra wing loading.

No, it refers to no "extra" equipment.

Are you telling me that before the combat any variant of A-8 would have it's guns pulled and it's armour removed so it could combat fighters?

Guns pulled ? Plan_D the standard guns were of-course left to stay, but gun-pods were removed, as-well as any other "Extra" armament. As for the armour; Only the extra armour of the bomber-interceptor or fighter-bomber configuration was removed, as-well as the extra internal fuel-tank.

Which A-8 are you refering to in "clean" configuration because, no, you cannot just get a scramble call and take the guns and armour out of the plane. It doesn't work like that.

Plan_D whenever did I say this was done in a scramble ?! Stop making up stuff Plan_D !

It was done by mech's at the request by either sqd.commander or sometimes the pilots themselves.

Refer to the correct A-8. There were many A-8 sub-variants designed for different purposes, they would not alter a bomber-destroyer sub-variant to suit the needs of a fighter, if they already had a fighter version present.

First of all the All-Weather fighter R11/12 didnt start off as a bomber-interceptor, it could easily become this though and many did, as-well as others becoming fighter-bombers.

Secondly, YES Plan_D, they 'would' alter A-8's with the bomber-interceptor or fighter-bomber configuration into clean configuration if the need was there.(Which it often was)

A-8 refers to the ultimate variant, many sub-variants come under that. "Clean" configuration refers differently to each sub-variant, not the A-8 as a whole.

The R11/12 weighed almost exactly the same empty as the standard A-8.

I mis-read an article on the BMW 801TU. So, I will admit it produces 1,800 hp.

Finally, that took you some time...

I mis-read an article on the BMW 801TU. So, I will admit it produces 1,800 hp. However, as we both well know it was only fitted to the R/11-12 sub-variants of the A-8. The majority A-8 sub-variants were equipped with the BMW 801D-2 running at 1,700 hp - the same as the A-4.

Stop repeating yourself 'and' me Plan_D ! I said from the start of mentioning the TU engine, that this engine wasnt fitted on the majority of A-8's, and that the majority fitted the BMW 801D engine.

If you really are trying to get more indepth, stop generalising the A-8.

And I say "Right back at you !"

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 24, 2005

Wow this one is getting in depth. Good stuff. I am actually learning quite a bit from both of you about this topic. Thanks keep it up.

Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Lieutenant Colonel

1st Lieutenant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Lieutenant Colonel

1st Lieutenant

Lieutenant Colonel

1st Lieutenant

Lieutenant Colonel

1st Lieutenant

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads