Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Chris
you don't mean the A variant here, do you?
B/C-1s with the -3 had a service ceiling slightly over 40,000ft
B/Cs and Ds with the -7 could only top that by about 1,000ft if I recall but both engine versions were more than capable of taking on the Luftwaffe at bomber altitudes.
Shouldn't the Spit XIV be compared to the P-51H? Hardly any of either type aircraft made it into operational service by May 1945.
The AFDU report makes no mention of this.One flight of Fw190A pursued them directly from behind in the high speed condition at around 3000 metres altitude. The Spits could not get away and were chased to the coast, where the Focke's finally caught up with them. But the Spits were still good for combat whilst the Fw's were all overheating and required a cooldown period for their motors. The British never found out about this however.
But you see in a one-on-one the Spit V would start performing better in sustained combat, if the FW could not breakaway and cool his engine. At least for these early series FW.
So my tender is the situation on the Channel Front was partly comparative performance, partly pilot experience and partly the tactics being used. There were still circumstances which could've been exploited, and the air superiority of the Luftwaffe here was I think as much situational as inherent.
The AFDU report makes no mention of this.
Though not mentioned by name, I can't see how the Fw190 involved in the trial could be any other than the Fw190A-3 Wkr Nr 313 which landed by chance at Pembrey on 23Jun42, this would place it in the range of aircraft experiencing 'overheating' problems.
No mention is made of this issue whilst trying to bounce the Spitfire in the trial at high cruising speed and bear in mind, this is the Spitfire Mk IX it's trying to catch, not the Spitfire Mk V.
The AFDU report makes no mention of this.
Though not mentioned by name, I can't see how the Fw190 involved in the trial could be any other than the Fw190A-3 Wkr Nr 313 which landed by chance at Pembrey on 23Jun42, this would place it in the range of aircraft experiencing 'overheating' problems.
No mention is made of this issue whilst trying to bounce the Spitfire in the trial at high cruising speed and bear in mind, this is the Spitfire Mk IX it's trying to catch, not the Spitfire Mk V.
I was under the impression that most of the overheating issues with the early Fw190 series aircraft were during ground running.
Juha said:Hello Soren
IIRC correctly, in his memoirs Rall writes very positively on Bf 109F-4. I don't know what the all other tens of thousands Bf 109 pilots thought but FAF test reports say nothing on aileron snatching, only that pilot noticed "notching" on the stick when the slats deployed. But I wonder was Rall really very worried on slats, it would be a bit strange by judging from his very positive opinion on 109F
I don't see why he couldn't still have had a positive opinion on the F4, the performance of the a/c was great. But then again maybe his comment about the snatching was exclusively regarding the Emil, that could also be. ....
You didn't ask to the Tszaw question what was the difference between F and E slats, except on size.
The operating mechanism was different and a lot less susceptible to dirt. One relied on a swing arm parallelogram mechanism to agitate the slats (Emil) while the other relied on a roller-track mechanism (F,G K). Another big difference between the Emil and later series was the elimination of the inboard to outboard connecting linkage.
So there you have it.
They were remarkably equal
The supremacy of the Fw190 lasted from September 1941 until July 1942 when 64 Sqn started receiving their Spitfire Mk IXs.
useful infoactually, 64 Sqn was the first to receive the Spitfire MkIX M61...
Shouldn't the Spit XIV be compared to the P-51H? Hardly any of either type aircraft made it into operational service by May 1945.