Is the Spitfire Really Superior to the FW-190 ... continued

[the lancaster kicks ass]

now you've just try and get me to do it

 

[Udet]

I do not think I can ever get tired of answering a flat NO to this question.

Do not forget the most produced version of the Spitfire throughout the war was the Mk V (A,B and C) with some 6,500 machines manufactured.

Then the Mk IX follows with some 5,600 toys delivered.

Do not forget the Butcher Bird upon its arrival to the west in 1941-42, treated the Mk V with utmost brutality, feasting with this particular version.

So the most produced version of the Spitfire showed what perhaps made the clearest and purest case of inferiority before its foes in the western front after the BoB.

The F versions of the 109 after the BoB treated the contemporary Spitfire in a very similar fashion.

On other thread (P-51 vs Fw190, Bf 109), Mr. Plan_D puts the Spitfire 21 as fighter capable of surpassing the Bf 109 K-4. Very unlikely. The K-4 could swallow it with relative ease, since the 21 was already becoming a real pig to fly, and saw its manouvering further diminished.

The chances of a Spitfire 21 against a G-10, Fw 190 "long nose" or a Ta 152 are, being generous, ghastly.

Although many prefer the G-10 and G-14 over the K-4, the former made a great version.

The only Sptifire models that to some degree could deal with the Fw 190 were the Mk XIV, produced in real modest numbers: less than 1,000 items delivered.

The Mk IX, the second most produced version of the Spit, with some 5,700 planes, was not up to meet the standards of the Fw 190.

See production tables for the Spitfires from mid 1943 to war´s end: all models that followed were produced in very modest quantities, perhaps feeling real safe to know the 8th AF was beginning its assembly in significant numbers in England.

Only when the massive USAAF assembled in full in England in 1944, could the Spitfire achieve any improvements in its performance against the Luftwaffe.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There is no doubt that the Bf-109 was an equal to the Spitfire in combat

Okay now you said the 109 was equal to the Spit in combat now if the 190 was better than the 109 which it was, how does the 190 then compare to the Spit?

 

[Sal Monella]

I think the Fw-190's that were matched with their Spitfire counterparts were generally better weren't they?

 

[plan_D]

I will ignore Udet because he doesn't have a clue and it would waste my time.

Adler - I believe I stated the Bf-109 as being the equal to Spitfire in the Battle of Britain. That would be Bf-109E against Spitfire I...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay then I misunderstood what you read.

 

[Hop]

Do not forget the most produced version of the Spitfire throughout the war was the Mk V (A,B and C) with some 6,500 machines manufactured.

Then the Mk IX follows with some 5,600 toys delivered.

That ignores the fact that 1,050 Spitfire XVIs were made, which was identical to the IX apart from having a Merlin produced in the US. Also 1,650 Spitfire VIIIs, basically the same as the IX apart from minor modifications.

The VIII/IX/XVI family were more numerous than the Vs.

So the most produced version of the Spitfire showed what perhaps made the clearest and purest case of inferiority before its foes in the western front after the BoB.

Uh, no.

The Spitfire V was in service from Spring 1941. It was a full year before the 190 became an effective front line fighter, suffering as it did from numerous engine troubles.

You cannot put the RAF's difficulties in 1941/42 down to just the relative aircraft, the tactical situation was against them hugely, as they were conducting offensive sweeps against the best units in the Luftwaffe, over terrain friendly to the Luftwaffe, and most importantly, against targets the Luftwaffe could chose to defend or not.

Unlike the BoB, where the RAF had to defend their aircraft factories, command centres, bases etc, especially in preperation for the feared invasion, the Luftwaffe in 1941 and 42 were not oblidged to defend targets in France/Beguim/The Netherlands, and engaged only under favourable conditions.

The F versions of the 109 after the BoB treated the contemporary Spitfire in a very similar fashion.

Emphatically not. The RAF were very pleased with their performance against the 109F.

On other thread (P-51 vs Fw190, Bf 109), Mr. Plan_D puts the Spitfire 21 as fighter capable of surpassing the Bf 109 K-4. Very unlikely. The K-4 could swallow it with relative ease, since the 21 was already becoming a real pig to fly, and saw its manouvering further diminished.

Why the Spitfire 21? The XIV was far more involved in the war.

And given a fight between the XIV and the K4, I think I'd make the same choice as Eric Brown.

The only Sptifire models that to some degree could deal with the Fw 190 were the Mk XIV

What, the 190A?

From an RAF evaluation of the 190A vs Spitfire LF IX:

"I am convinced through experience that the Spitfire with Merlin 66 engine is superior at all levels"

About the only clear advantage the 190A had was it's roll rate, and with the clipped wing Spitfire the difference was not that great. In turn and climb the Spitfire IX was far superior, in speeds there wasn't much to chose between them, in acceleration the Spitfire had the edge.

See production tables for the Spitfires from mid 1943 to war´s end: all models that followed were produced in very modest quantities, perhaps feeling real safe to know the 8th AF was beginning its assembly in significant numbers in England.

No, rather see that the Spitfire IX remained a front line aircraft from summer 1942 to the end of the war, at no point did the RAF feel the need to abandon it and switch to only Griffon engined Spitfires.

"Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air." USAAF 31st FG war diary, when they transitioned from the Spitfire VIII to P-51s.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

First of all I just want to say great post and welcome to the site.

While I agree with most of what you are saying with such things as the happy eneogh with the Spitfire that they were not going to replace her with anything else or the fact the the you say the Spitfire was better than the P-51 which I completely agree with.

I would not go as far to say that the Spit IX was superior to the Fw-190A. Just look at the 1941 Dieppe Raid in which the Fw-190A even though they were outnumbered seriously hurt the Spitfire V's. I would agree with you that the Spit XIV was superior in some areas and the Spit MK. 21 was better than the Fw-190A.

When it comes to your evaluation of the Spit IX and the Fw-190A, what kind of Fw-190A and how was she configured. You also have to take into account that she was being flown by a British Pilot inexperienced in how the Fw-190A flies.

Through all of this dont take me wrong the Spitfire was a marvelous aircraft and one of the greatest of all times.

 

[plan_D]

The Spitfire IX was an equal of the Fw-190A. The Spitfire XIV was superior to the Fw-190A as was the Spitfire 21.

I really should avoid this 'discussion' from now on because it's repeats of the same old junk. And I really can't take anyone seriously when they say that the Spitfire 21 was a pig to fly.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will agree with you on both points you just made.

 

[alejandro_]

In my opinion the Fw-190 is a step ahead against the Spitfire; the main advantages include:

- Excellent rolling characteristics.
- Dive as well as boom zoom capacity.
- Higher resistance.
- Stronger armament (more firepower and reliable guns).
- Higher maximum speed.
- Better maneouvrability at high speeds. It should be kept in mind that the combats over Europe were, at the end of the war, at medium and high altitudes, engaging at very high speeds.
- Higher range.
- Well suited to ground attack.
- Kommandogedraft to ease engine controls.

Regards.

 

[cheddar cheese]

I agree..

 

[plan_D]

I don't but I'm not repeating myself - just go through old thread.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Plan D can not be budged. Any I am a faithful 190 man on this topic.

 

[plan_D]

Well, really, they're both wonderful aircraft and both sides can produce facts about either aircraft to prove why they're wonderful. No one will be budged off this because they're just amazing aircraft - the pair of them.

And I think that from the Spitfire IX onwards any Fw-190 pilot would be worried that he'd come up against a Spitfire. And any Spitfire pilot would be worried that there's a Fw-190.

 

[Hop]

I would not go as far to say that the Spit IX was superior to the Fw-190A.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

Personally I'd prefer to be in the Spitfire, but they were certainly closely matched.

Just look at the 1941 Dieppe Raid in which the Fw-190A even though they were outnumbered seriously hurt the Spitfire V's.

Oh, there's no doubt the 190 was superior to the Spitfire V, allthough the V did manage to close some of the gap with it's later boost increases (the Spitfire V went from 12 lbs boost up to 16 lbs, adding hundreds of feet a minute to the climb rate and up to 30 mph to the level speed)

But Dieppe was against Spitfire Vs, not IXs. Although there were 4 active Spitfire IX squadrons in service at the time, they were used to cover the first 8th AF heavy bomber raid at the time of the Dieppe landings, and didn't play a part in the air battle.

When it comes to your evaluation of the Spit IX and the Fw-190A, what kind of Fw-190A and how was she configured.

It was an A4 I believe.

In my opinion the Fw-190 is a step ahead against the Spitfire; the main advantages include:

- Excellent rolling characteristics.

And much worse turning

- Dive as well as boom zoom capacity.

And much worse climbing

- Higher resistance.

If you mean resistantce to damage, then not really. The 190 had it's problems, a tendency to catching fire was one of them.

- Stronger armament (more firepower and reliable guns).

Only with the 4 cannon armament, and then not by much. The Hispano was a well sorted cannon in the Spitfire by 1942 and 43, it had a much higher muzzle velocity than the Mg 151, which helped in shooting accurately.

- Higher maximum speed.

Typically not, the speeds were usually similar. The 190 usually had an edge at low altitude, the Spitfire at high altitude.

- Better maneouvrability at high speeds.

Only in the rolling plane. The Spitfire had much better elevator control at high speed.

It should be kept in mind that the combats over Europe were, at the end of the war, at medium and high altitudes, engaging at very high speeds.

At higher altitude the advantage is definately with the Spitfire. It's lower wing loading and higher powerloading (especially at altitude) meant a higher ceiling, and much better manoueverability at high alt.

- Higher range.

Not significantly. Beware of looking at high speed cruise figures for Spits without tanks and comparing them to low speed cruise figures for other aircraft with tanks.

- Well suited to ground attack.

It was undoubtedly better at ground attack than the Spit.

- Kommandogedraft to ease engine controls.

Later Spitfires had interlinked controls, requiring only the throttle to be set, boost, mixture, prop speed etc were all set automatically.

And I think that from the Spitfire IX onwards any Fw-190 pilot would be worried that he'd come up against a Spitfire. And any Spitfire pilot would be worried that there's a Fw-190.

Agree 100%. They were well matched.

 

[wmaxt]

These aircraft were fery well matched - isn't that why we like to debate them?

wmaxt

 

[plan_D]

The problem is this debate has been going on for a long time and everyone has produced something - no one will move from one side to the other.

We all went into this discussion with "They were equally matched" (except Udet but he doesn't have a clue "Spitfire 21...fly...like pig") - and we've all came to the conclusion that "They were equally matched"

 

[evangilder]

Then I guess they both flew like a pig?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you on this Plan_D and agree with your assumption of the pilots of each aircraft meeting each other. I really doubt that we will ever come to a conclusion which one was better.

Now on that note how can we debate and compare these aircraft some more on a different note?