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