Spitfire Mk.22 vs. Fw 190D-13

[spicmart]

How, do you think, would the respective pinnacles of the Spitfire and Fw 190 compare to each? Which would have, if ever, the upper hand in a dogfight? Always thought the D-13 could take on any allied fighter on equal terms. I know one should take game simulations
with a grain of salt but in World of Warplanes the Spitfire Mk.22 is THE late war dogfighter, outperforming most other fighters in every department except in speed, even outrolling the Fw 190D-9 at higher speed. The only advantage the Fw 190D-13 has is its roll rate due to boosted ailerons.There it is said that the only means to achieve parity is to install the Jumo 213 EB. What do you think about it?

 

[tomo pauk]

IMO these two are about as equally matched as it is possible. Height and/or positon advantage will be much more a deciding factor, as well as who saw the opponent 1st.
The projected performance of the Fw 190 with the Jumo 213EB engine is along with what Spiteful was able to do.

 

[dedalos]

IMO these two are about as equally matched as it is possible. Height and/or positon advantage will be much more a deciding factor, as well as who saw the opponent 1st.
The projected performance of the Fw 190 with the Jumo 213EB engine is along with what Spiteful was able to do.

I have different opinion. The historical Mk22 is much lighter than the D13. It s engine is more powerful, especially with 150 grade fuel. Its wing much superior than the D13s, much more efficient and with constant improvement during the entire war. D13s wing was almost identical to that of the Fw190A6 and not much different than the Fw190A2 s.
According to this forum, the multi blade propellers of the allied planes were more effective than the late war german propellers.
The spitfire has better surfaces building quality, better cannons and better gun sight.
The D13 maybe has very very slightly less frontal area, but not really important.
On paper the Mk22 with much better power and wing loading ,more powerful and reliable engine and far more superior wing should dominate the D13 relatively easily. Even the Jumo213EB would not change much. The Spitfires advantage was simply huge. I would say that the D13 was clearly inferior to Spitfire XIV too. Perhaps the D13 could be near the performance of the Mk IX with 150 grade fuel. Actually the Fw190D13 was 18 months late in comparison with its competition

 

[Clayton Magnet]

cue the comments about video game comparisons...

 

[spicmart]

Can you elaborate on the much "superior" wing ? Why is it more efficient and in what respect?
I know that it was a vast improvement to the old wing as it was made much stiffer in order to keep manoeuverability at high speeds.
The Fw 190 always had a very stiff and rugged wing which accounted for its high roll rate. Don't know if its development could keep up.

Afaik the german propellers were better for climb rate while the allied props gave advantages in speed. Can you name the thread about propellers which names rhe superiority of the allied propellers?

All I know it is generally said, even by Eric Brown, that Spitfire XIV and Fw 190D-9 were equal as can be, with advantages of the Fw at low altitude and for the Spit at high altitude.

Maybe there is new knowledge by now?

I have different opinion. The historical Mk22 is much lighter than the D13. It s engine is more powerful, especially with 150 grade fuel. Its wing much superior than the D13s, much more efficient and with constant improvement during the entire war. D13s wing was almost identical to that of the Fw190A6 and not much different than the Fw190A2 s.
According to this forum, the multi blade propellers of the allied planes were more effective than the late war german propellers.
The spitfire has better surfaces building quality, better cannons and better gun sight.
The D13 maybe has very very slightly less frontal area, but not really important.
On paper the Mk22 with much better power and wing loading ,more powerful and reliable engine and far more superior wing should dominate the D13 relatively easily. Even the Jumo213EB would not change much. The Spitfires advantage was simply huge. I would say that the D13 was clearly inferior to Spitfire XIV too. Perhaps the D13 could be near the performance of the Mk IX with 150 grade fuel. Actually the Fw190D13 was 18 months late in comparison with its competition

 

[wuzak]

I haven't seen Brown's remarks regarding the Fw 190D-9, but in testing the Ta 152H he said that the Spitfire XIV (actually a XIX on tests) was superior below 30,000ft, the Ta 152H was superior above 35,000ft and there was not much between them in the 30,000ft - 35,000ft altitudes. That is not surprising, since the Ta 152H was a specialised high altitude aircraft.

The Fw 190D-9 looks to have a speed advantage over the XIV at low altitudes, below 5,000ft. But I think the XIV would have the manoeuvrability advantage at all heights.

Development for the XIV and 20-series would have included the 100 series Griffon which would have given a ~20% power gain at low altitude thanks to its 3 speed supercharger. Most 100 series Griffons were built for counter-rotating props, which would have improved handling and propeller efficiency - the propeller in the XIV was, probably, undersized.

 

[spicmart]

Brown said that it was the excellent roll rate of the Dora which prevented the XIV from being the winner and gave them two parity. Turn rate of the XIV was better at all speeds although the right turn at high speed of the D-9 almost matched the Spit's. But overall-manoeuverability especially at high speed goes to the Dora. Spitfire climbs better though.

Give them equal engines (Griffon or Jumo 213) and see which one comes out on top.

I haven't seen Brown's remarks regarding the Fw 190D-9, but in testing the Ta 152H he said that the Spitfire XIV (actually a XIX on tests) was superior below 30,000ft, the Ta 152H was superior above 35,000ft and there was not much between them in the 30,000ft - 35,000ft altitudes. That is not surprising, since the Ta 152H was a specialised high altitude aircraft.

The Fw 190D-9 looks to have a speed advantage over the XIV at low altitudes, below 5,000ft. But I think the XIV would have the manoeuvrability advantage at all heights.

Development for the XIV and 20-series would have included the 100 series Griffon which would have given a ~20% power gain at low altitude thanks to its 3 speed supercharger. Most 100 series Griffons were built for counter-rotating props, which would have improved handling and propeller efficiency - the propeller in the XIV was, probably, undersized.

 

[spicmart]

I have different opinion. The historical Mk22 is much lighter than the D13. It s engine is more powerful, especially with 150 grade fuel. Its wing much superior than the D13s, much more efficient and with constant improvement during the entire war. D13s wing was almost identical to that of the Fw190A6 and not much different than the Fw190A2 s.
According to this forum, the multi blade propellers of the allied planes were more effective than the late war german propellers.
The spitfire has better surfaces building quality, better cannons and better gun sight.
The D13 maybe has very very slightly less frontal area, but not really important.
On paper the Mk22 with much better power and wing loading ,more powerful and reliable engine and far more superior wing should dominate the D13 relatively easily. Even the Jumo213EB would not change much. The Spitfires advantage was simply huge. I would say that the D13 was clearly inferior to Spitfire XIV too. Perhaps the D13 could be near the performance of the Mk IX with 150 grade fuel. Actually the Fw190D13 was 18 months late in comparison with its competition

I'ts been a while ago, but how much did the Mk22 weigh? Why do you think the wing of the Mk22 is much superior?
The D-13 had hydraulically boosted ailerons so its wing was different to A-versions.
The early Antons had some issues with the ailerons. These were corrected.
When Eric Brown said that the D-9 is equal to the Spifire XIV then the D-13 is not "clearly inferior" to it. In fact the D-13 is about as good as the D-9 down low but has a dedicated high-altitude engine to be on par up high with the Allied fighters.

How you write a lot of phrases like "much better, clearly inferior, more powerful and reliable, far superior, more efficient, much lighter, simply huge, dominate easily" everything sounds mainly in favor of the Spitfire. I don't think that the D-13, which is the pinnacle of Focke Wulf fighters along with the Ta 152, was as low-performing as an Spit IX. A lot of bias and inobjectivity sound from your words tbh.

 

[spicmart]

IMO these two are about as equally matched as it is possible. Height and/or positon advantage will be much more a deciding factor, as well as who saw the opponent 1st.
The projected performance of the Fw 190 with the Jumo 213EB engine is along with what Spiteful was able to do.

So despite not having a laminar flow wing the Dora with Jumo 213EB would have been competitive to the Spiteful?

 

[CORSNING]

I believe the true contemporary of the Fw 190D-13 was the
Spitfire Mk.21 not the 22. The Mk.21 became operational in
January 1945 and the Fw 190D-13 entered service March
1945 when two A/C were delivered according to the aircraft
distribution plans of Gen. Qu. 6 Abt.
The Spitfire 22 became operational sometime after WW2.
The Spitfire 21's handling was unacceptable at the time of
its introduction. Many corrections were made. Pilots never
considered it to be a pilots airplane. 120 A/C were built.
The Spitfire had the fastest roll rate of all Spitfires over
200 mph. however it had lost much of the beautiful handling
qualities of all the earlier Spitfires and its sustained turning
abilities did not even match those of the Merlin powered
Mustangs. The Spit 21 could still outturn the D-9/13 though.
The Fw 190D-13 could out roll the Spitfire 21 up to speed
of about 400 mph. The Spitfires new wing allowed it to
command above that speed.
Note: At 400 mph up the Tempest V was superior to both.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-roll.jpg
--------------------------------------------/wade-turning.jpg

I do have figure from sea level up for both the D-13 and
Mk.21 for there speeds. I only have performance figures
for climb for at sea level for the D-13 plus some times to
climb.

 

[spicmart]

Thanks for the summary.

I've read that the Mk.22 was essentially a 21 with bubble canopy and enlarged control surfaces.

Is this the roll rate of the Fw 190A which had been thoroughly evaluated early-/midwar, an A-4 IIRC?

If so you have to take into account that these early Antons had some aileron issues, despite their effectiveness, which were later fixed by Focke Wulf.
And it might have been that, as RAF mechanics were not too familiar with those, that those had been wrongly adjusted, thus resulting in a lower roll rate than would have been possible.
And the boosted ailerons should give the D-13 the advantage back at high speed.

Can you provide those climb figures of?

 

[CORSNING]

Thanks for the summary.
You are quite welcome sir.


I've read that the Mk.22 was essentially a 21 with bubble canopy and enlarged control surfaces.

For the most part, that is correct.


Is this the roll rate of the Fw 190A which had been thoroughly evaluated early-/midwar, an A-4 IIRC?

The document makes no indication of exact model. It is a good bet that it was.


If so you have to take into account that these early Antons had some aileron issues, despite their effectiveness, which were later fixed by Focke Wulf.
And it might have been that, as RAF mechanics were not too familiar with those, that those had been wrongly adjusted, thus resulting in a lower roll rate than would have been possible.

I believe you are most likely correct.


And the boosted ailerons should give the D-13 the advantage back at high speed.

Donald Caldwell wrote of the Fw 190D-9 operational debut in his "JG 26 War Diary Volume
Two 1943-1945". December 17, 1944: "The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and
incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engine predecessor. Its 2,240 hp with
MW 50 gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and dived
more rapidly than the Fw 190A. Many of the early models were not equipped with tanks
for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. The D-9 was a bit faster."

I cannot remember at this time where I read that the D-9 and D-13 had very similar handling
qualities.


Can you provide those climb figures of?

Differences of the Fw 190 D-12 and D-13.

Fw 190D-12 armament:
1 x MK 108 30 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.
2 x MG 151 20 mm cannon in the wing roots.

Fw 190D-13 armament:
1 x MK 151 20 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.
2 x MG 151 20 mm cannon in the wing roots.

Fw 190D-12 (10,0.32 lb.) climb:
2,870fpm./S.L. (No MW 50?)

Fw 190D-13 (9,790 lb.) climb:
4,330 fpm./SL (with MW 50)
3,000 m./3.6 min.
6,000 m./7.6 min.
8,000 m./10.7 min.
10,000 m./14.7 min.

Spitfire F Mk.21 LA.187 (the first production Mk.21):
4440 fpm./S.L.
3,000 m./2.34 min.
6,000 m./5.05 min.
8,000 m./7.24 min.
10,000 m./10.4 min.


All above information comes from published material of Dietmar Hermann
and posted material of Mike Williams and Neil Stirling. Without their dedicated
research mine would mean very little.

 

[spicmart]

Donald Caldwell wrote of the Fw 190D-9 operational debut in his "JG 26 War Diary Volume
Two 1943-1945". December 17, 1944: "The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and
incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engine predecessor. Its 2,240 hp with
MW 50 gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and dived
more rapidly than the Fw 190A. Many of the early models were not equipped with tanks
for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. The D-9 was a bit faster."

I never read first hand accounts that the roll rate was really lower with the D-9, but often that it did turn better than the Anton, thanks to better aerodynamics, engine power and possibly CoG change.
The right hand turn of it at speed almost came close to that of the Spitfire XIV because of their propellers, thus torque, turning in the opposite directions.

The 2240 PS figure with MW 50 was most probably from the so-called "A-Lader with Bodenmotor", a special boost. I think it was not available for all machines.
MW 50 was readily available for the later machines iirc. Without it the Dora was hardly on par with the Allied fighters and not much better than an Fw 190A. But pilot accounts say she was.

Differences of the Fw 190 D-12 and D-13.

Fw 190D-12:
1 x MK 151 20 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.
2 x MG 151 20 mm cannon in the wing roots.

Fw 190D-13:
1 x MK 108 30 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.
2 x MG 151 20 mm cannon in the wing roots.

It's actuall the other way around:

D-12 had 1 x MK 108 30 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.

D-13 had 1 x MK 151 20 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.

Fw 190D-13 (9,790 lb.) climb:
4,330 fpm./SL (with MW 50)
3,000 m./3.6 min.
6,000 m./7.6 min.
8,000 m./10.7 min.
10,000 m./14.7 min.

Spitfire F Mk.21 LA.187 (the first production Mk.21):
4440 fpm./S.L.
3,000 m./2.34 min
6,000 m./5.05 min.
8,000 m./7.24 min.
10,000 m./10.4 min.

The 4330 fpm with MW 50 figure is about the same as for the D-9. Afaik the D-13 had almost the same low-/mid-alt performance like the D-9 but was more in its element up high because of the Jumo 213F engine, which was an E-engine without intercooler (later in the war it was possible to install such into the Dora airframe).

I wonder about the climb times differing so much between the D-13 and the Mk.21 when climb rates at sea level are not that much far away from each other.

The Jumo 213A produced (obsure?) 2240PS (= 2210 hp) with A-Lader boost setting compared to the Griffon 61 which did 2035 hp(= 2064 PS).
I don't know if the D-13 had this boost option.
If so then following power-to-weight ratios would result:

D-13 (9790 lbs): 0.226 hp/lb = 0.505 PS/kg

Spitfire Mk.21 (9070 lbs): 0.225 hp/lb = 0.502 PS/kg

Practically identical.

 

[CORSNING]

I never read first hand accounts that the roll rate was really lower with the D-9, but often that it did turn better than the Anton, thanks to better aerodynamics, engine power and possibly CoG change.
The right hand turn of it almost came close to that of the Spitfire XIV because of their propellers, thus torque, turning in the opposite directions.




The 2240 PS figure with MW 50 was most probably from the so-called "A-Lader with Bodenmotor", a special boost. I think it was not available for all machines.
MW 50 was readily available for the later machines iirc. Without it the Dora was hardly on par with the Allied fighters and not much better than an Fw 190A. But pilot accounts say she was.




It's actuall the other way around:

D-12 had 1 x MK 108 30 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.

D-13 had 1 x MK 151 20 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.

I believe you are correct. I double checked the chart and it is as above, however
in the text Dietmar states the opposite. I will change my original post.

 

[CORSNING]

The following figures are for a Typical Fw 190D with MW 50 (most
did not have) when it became (officially) operational on 18 December
1944.

Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / Mph / Fpm
S.L..........376 [382] / 4429
-1,000...388 [395] / 4390
-2,000...400 [408] / 4125
-3,000...406 [412] / 4105
-4,000...416 [421] / 3985
-5,000...427 [432] / 3495
-6,000...427 [432] / 2990
-7,000...421 [426] / 2500
-8,000...413 [418] / 1990
-9,000...403 [408] / 1485
10,000...391 [396] / 985

Speed with ET 504 [without].

Combat weight: 9,590 lb.
Jumo 213A (MW50): 2,071 hp. (2,100 PS) / 1.8 ata
Wing Area: 196.98 sq. Ft.
Wing Loading: 48.69 lb./sq. ft.
Power Loading: 4.631 lb./hp.

Ceilings:
Combat (1000fpm): 32,700 ft.
Operational (500fpm): 36,200 ft.
Service (100 fpm): 38,575 ft.

Pilot plus Notes:

Donald Caldwell wrote of the Fw 190D-9 operational debut in his
"The JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945". December 17, 1944:
"The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of
roll of its close-coupled radial-engine predecessor. Its 2,240 hp. with
MW 50 gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situation. It also
climbed and dived more rapidly than the Fw 190A. Many of the
early models were not equipped with tanks for methanol, which was
in very short supply in any event. The D-9 was a bit faster."

From www.luftwaff-experten.org(http://www.luftwaff-experten.org)) :
"The 2240 PS maximum output that is often quoted for the Jumo213A
with MW 50 is a bit of a mystery. My collection of reports from
Junkers that date up to the end of the war, never mention a 2240 PS
setting. According to Junkers and Focke-Wulf documents the 2100 PS
SEP was the maximum output for all production D-9s that entered
service during WW2."

On Pages 119-121 in "Longnose" by Deitmar Hermann, Lt. Ossenkop
summarized the differences between the Fw 190D-9 and Fw 190A-8.
Page 121 part 7, "Takeoff and climb were rather better than in the
A-8. It was possible to make tighter turns before the onset of flow
separation. In a dive, the D-9 was far superior to the A-8 with its
drag-producing radial engine." He felt that the D-9 was equal to
most enemy A/C above 4,000 meters up to its maximum boost
altitude (est: 6-7,000 meters).

Lt. Ossenkop compared the Fw 190D-9 to its opponents:
vs. Tempest (V): Almost equal in level flight, a lengthy pursuit was
usually fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better, but was
inferior in a dive. Lt. Wssenkop compared the D-9 to the Spitfire,
Mustang and Thunderbolt, but that's another story.

The Fw 190D-9 was tested by the Army Air Forces Air Materiel Command.
Maneuverability and Aerobatics: The outstanding maneuverability trait
of this airplane is its rate of roll. In this respect it compares well with the
P-51D or P-47, but it cannot match the rate of roll of the F-80 or P-38J.
The radius of turn, however, is poor and elevator forces in tight turns are
excessive. Constant stabilizer adjustments is required in turns and if pulled
in too abruptly a fast stall with little warning will occur. The airplane
responds well to controls in all other fly through maneuvers attempted.

OK then, I would gladly do a side by side comparison of the Fw 190D-9
and Tempest V but by the time the D-9 with MW 50 came along the
Tempest was using 100/150 fuel with +13 lb. boost, I think....?

If anyone has dates of when +11 and then +13 lb. boost was introduced
into operational squadrons, I would greatly appreciate the information and
the sources.

 

[spicmart]

I know this part from Luftwaffe Experten.org
May I ask where do you have those D-9 figures? There is an original chart/table which gives 702 kmh/ 436mph as max speed. I think it was even in Dietmar Hermanns book. Don't have my books or other sources at hand.

 

[CORSNING]

Most of the information I use for the long-nosed Focke-Wulfs is from
Mr. Hermann's books (not all). The figures for speed are from a graph
dated 11 March 1945. The ETC 504 reduced maximum speed by an
average of 6 mph. It was a centerline rack that allowed the Fw to carry'
a jettisonable fuel tank or bomb.
Full throttle height low supercharger: 402 mph. (408) / 2,200 m.
Switching from low to high S/C: 402 (408) mph./2,300 m.
FTH in high S/C: 430 mph./5,400 m. (436 mph./5,260 m.)

Climb figures are from a graph dated 5 July 1944 on page 104 in
Dietmar's "Long-Nose".

Note: I have changed the climb figures slightly. I just now realized
that I was using figures from an old formula that no longer applies.

 

[spicmart]

So the D-9 with a climb rate of 4429 fpm practically matches the Spitfire Mk.21 with 4440 fpm at SL.

Reaching 436 mph/702kph at 5260 m is not exactly the high altitude performance the D-9 is often touted to have..

Could you give Lt. Ossenkop's comparison of the D-9 to Spitfire, Mustang and Thunderbolt?

In "First in Combat with the Dora-9" it is stated that the plane stalls/spins very easily and that this was used as an evasive manoeuver no enemy fighter could emulate. Recovery was without problems but this should be performed above 1500 m as it would take that much to recover.
I wonder where there is the difference to the at times violent stall characteristics of the A-variants?

 

[CORSNING]

So the D-9 with a climb rate of 4429 fpm practically matches the Spitfire Mk.21 with 4440 fpm at SL.
S.L........4429 (4440)
3km....4105 (3710)
6km....2990 (3540)
8km....1990 (2560)
10km..985 (1622)
Service Ceilings (100 fpm.):
Fw 190D-9; 38,575 ft.
Fw 190D-13; 42,000 ft.
Spit 21:;43,400 ft.
This shows that the climb of the D-13 with MW 50 would more closely follow the Spit 21.
The Spit 14 is another story at low and medium altitudes.


Reaching 436 mph/702kph at 5260 m is not exactly the high altitude performance the D-9 is often touted as.
The early D-9 had a service ceiling of 35,400-36,225 ft. Later production models reached 38,575 ft.
They were not going to match the Spit 14 or 21 at very high altitudes. I will look into the D-13
more closely as time permits.


Could you give Lt. Ossenkop's comparison of the D-9 to Spitfire, Mustang and Thunderbolt?

Vs. Spitfire (version not given, probably Mk.9): The D-9 was better in level flight,
Climb and Dive. It was slightly inferior in turns.

Vs. Mustang: The two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers, which
was an advantage for us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather faster in a
dive.

Vs. Thunderbolt: We had advantage in level flight, climb and turn. We were hopelessly
inferior in a dive (never try to dive away from a Thunderbolt).

In "First in Combat with the Dora-9" it is stated that the plane stalls/spins very easily and that this was used as an evasive manoeuver no enemy fighter could emulate. Recovery was without problems but this should be performed above 1500 m as it would take that much to recover.
I wonder where there is the difference to the at times violent stall characteristics of the A-variants?

Excellent addition to the Dora 9 information sir.
Thank you, Jeff

 

[spicmart]

Thank you, Corsning!