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

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

Hop

The turning was of secondary importance in the high speed combats. IIRC the corner speed and turning radius of the Fw-190 at high speeds was excellent, with the controls well harmonized.

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

Yes, there was a issue with the cylinders and the fuel injection. On the other hand the Spitfire radiator was quite vulnerable, one shot could knock it out. The higher rolling capacity it's a great advantage because many manouvers start with a roll. The Spitfire had a mediocre rolling rate at high speeds (that's why the wings were modified in the Mk21).Anyway, IMO, in the sort of fighting in the Western Front the Fw-190 had a slight edge.

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.
Click to expand...

I probaly agree with you if we are talking about a Fw-190A and a Spitfire MkIX. On the other hand I think the Fw-190D-9 has an edge in high altitude over similar Spitfires.

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

Could you say which version? IIRC it was starting with the MkXIV. It would be nice if you can explain a bit more on these controls, the info I got is fairly limited.
 
HOP wrote:

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.
Click to expand...

The Mauser shoot at higher rate of fire and it could deliver a more large amount of high explosives per second that the Hispano.

For example. the A-6 version that introduce as standar the 4 xMG-151 battery, was enourmous hard hitting.
The inner electromechanically sincronizated guns shoot at 670-680 rpm and the externals Mg-151/E had a rate of 750 -770 rpm.
so the total rate of fire was about 2900 rpm...and dont forget the MG that probably helped a little.

mg15118pp.jpg


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.
Click to expand...

Actually they saw some combat, they claimed a FW-190 destroyed and loss one Spit.

And Udet...the raid was in 19th august 1942...not 1941
 
Hi :) I'm new here, great forum guys, love it.

Aren't we largely talking as has been suggested, personal preferences and flying styles here? I mean comparing the two is a little like comparing an interceptor to an attack plane isn't it?
One of the most decorated German aces was a Stuka pilot, responsible for numerous (I forget how many), fighter kills.

Aren't we kinda forgetting the blokes who flew them?

Bader got Bf 109 victories in his Hurricane didn't he? Obviously the better aircraft? No, I don't really think there's such a thing so long as the designs are relatively contemporary to each other.

(this is a bodgied example that's probably wrong all over the place but still):
Hurricane strengths, stability, willingness, good armament. Weaknesses, construction, hp/speed, fixed wooden prop (updated later).
109E strengths, hp/speed, climb rate, dive capacity, powerful armament. Weaknesses, complicated, heavy, uncomfortable.

So the better aircraft? I should think it's up to the pilot on the day, and what others can take from that, tactically.

Myself, I like the Fw-pig. But it stalls too easy and can't take a hit. If I had to get near the ground I'd go a Gustav or a Kurfurst.
Choice with the Spit? Nah, fuel injection and bottled boosters rule. Just don't go up top unless you've got a Dora.
Now the Dora, I'd take that over anything but a Schwalbe.

But then I'd probably get shot down 6 days out of 7, so don't listen to me.
My impression of the Spits? Overrated. It's not the Superplane every teenage combat fighter enthusiast searches for, there isn't one. But it's a top high altitude fighter intercept, I think designed to assuage a public fear of Luftwaffe bombers generated in the 30's and had the agenda of taking out escorts. But this is just an opinion, like I said I'd probably get shot down.
 
I hate people who call the Spitfire over-rated. :rolleyes:

And welcome.
 
:lol:

no the spitfire was far from over rated............

and, whilst you make some good points about pilot preference, i feel i must point out that the hurricane's construction was most definatly a strengh, as it was very strong and easy to repair.........
 
Oh come on, the presentation of the Spitfire as a WWII fighter is the British equivalent of the Stars and Stripes coming up during the movie and all of a sudden the hero is immune to gunfire and blows up entire buildings with his .44"

It's about en par with any front line fighter of its day. In 1943 that meant the Bf 109G, but documentarians persist in claiming the Fw 190 was a clearly superior aircraft. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I don't think Supermarine Spitfire meant Superhuman fighter design. It was average, in a time when average was damn good.

Luftwaffe to RAF fighter kill ratio in 1943 was 8:1, for whatever that's worth.

Besides, it's ugly. Check out those wings, man. Talk about pussy whipped designers. I betchya Mr Supermarine had to book sex a week in advance.
"And here is my new design for bomber intercept, I thought of it brushing bits of flower petals off after my wife cracked a vase over my head."

:p
 
I think id rather be taking hits in a plane with a radial than an inline...
Click to expand...
Documentarians as the source materiel once again, but I heard the reason the 109 was pushed as a late war fighter-bomber was due to the Fw's radial being more suceptable to ground fire.
They do tend to interview war vets on film and give plenty of war footage...

But it's not like I was there to know.

:oops: tanks for the welcome, not trying to poo-poo the parade or anything.
 
vanir said:
Besides, it's ugly. Check out those wings, man. Talk about pussy whipped designers. I betchya Mr Supermarine had to book sex a week in advance.
"And here is my new design for bomber intercept, I thought of it brushing bits of flower petals off after my wife cracked a vase over my head."

:p
Click to expand...

Searche the internet and find out about elliptical wings - they were used for a purpose (although I know Soren won't agree with me)

The designer of the Spit, Reginald Mitchell was one of the most brilliant aircraft designers of his day as not only designing the Spitfire, but designing the Supermarine SB racers of the 1930s. He died of Cancer before the war.
 
Yeah I was just poking some fun.

Can you tell me, were the Spit's wing design to give high altitude characteristics? Was it as I suspect, designed to answer the public phobia built in the 1930's about bomber air power?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
HELP A NEWBIE - FW 190's on Drive to Leningrad
Replies
8
Views
806
sopwith21
S
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
1K
GregP
GregP
NTGray
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
20 21 22
Replies
424
Views
21K
Just Schmidt
J
tomo pauk
Fw 190 performance
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
tomo pauk
tomo pauk
S
Is elliptical wing superior to the regular profile in term of aerodynamics?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
GregP
GregP
Back