Fw-190 Vs Spitfire

[Cryptic Phant0m]

I keep getting mixed answers from sources and other people about which planes had better performance in aerial combat.

From what I understand the Fw-190 had a better turn rate over the Spitfire, while the Spitfire had better climb and roll rate.

I read that Fw-190's (Butcher Birds) could easily destroy the Spitfire MK II and IX and that it wasn't until the Spitfire XVI that Fw-190's had a better adversary.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
"The Focke Wulf Fw 190, which appeared in July 1941, was superior to the Spitfire being used by the RAF at the time but this changed with the production of the Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XIV."

So my question is are the Spits better or the 190s and why?

[drkdeath5000]

Well im no expert on planes just an il2 fan but both planes are better than the other in different ways. Again im no expert so i dont know whether this is correct but i think the fw have a better initial turn rate so on their first pass they can out turn a spit and then its all down to there superior roll rate. The spitfires however are alot more aerodynamic and agile so can pull off some insane manouvers which most of the time the fw is unable to follow.

Personally if it was a real life situation 1 on 1 fw v spitfire id say the fw would have won due to that initial suprise, turn rate and firepower. BUT in a team based situation ie more than 1 id say the spit would come out on top since it can pull of those better moves and turns at any moment where the fw wouldnt be able to.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Cryptic Phant0m

I keep getting mixed answers from sources and other people about which planes had better performance in aerial combat.

From what I understand the Fw-190 had a better turn rate over the Spitfire, while the Spitfire had better climb and roll rate.

I read that Fw-190's (Butcher Birds) could easily destroy the Spitfire MK II and IX and that it wasn't until the Spitfire XVI that Fw-190's had a better adversary.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
"The Focke Wulf Fw 190, which appeared in July 1941, was superior to the Spitfire being used by the RAF at the time but this changed with the production of the Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XIV."

So my question is are the Spits better or the 190s and why?

There seems to be a bit of an issue with your source.

My understanding is that a FW 190 could not out turn any spitfire.

It's main advantages over the Spit were that it could out climb and dive them and out roll them. The FW-190 was so effective that the RAF considered grounding Spitfires in '41-'42. At the time the MkV spitfire was the latest mk. The IX spitfire was a direct response to the FW threat and was seen initially as a stop-gap until the Griffon powered Spits came online.
(Late '43). It proved so sucessful that the IX was produced up till the end of the war.

Obviously it was a continually changing technology race and between 41-45
there were times where one side would gain an advantage by installing new bits to the planes. So the balance was always changing.

Truth is, if you knew how to maximise your aircrafts performance and use all the advantages whilst avoiding the limitations then either one could defeat the other.

Also you need to think about the roles, Spits were good interceptors but not good at escorting or long range stuff because they were so limited by the small fuel tanks. In 41-42 with the 'rhubarbs and circuses' the RAF lost lots of Spitfires and some of it's best pilots to 190's and 109's.

It's (like most things) swings and roundabouts.

[scottyvt4]

were early spits fitted with carbs also, and a lot of the german aircraft with direct fuel injection giving them the upper hand at times but pilots developed there own strategy round this .......... i might be wrong but im sure ive seen it on something or read it som where!!??!!

[whoarmongar]

All Spitfires were with carbs. The manouver to avoid neg G cut out is to roll on your back and pull the stick to enter a dive thus preserving positive G.
A stop gap "fix" to the neg G cut out came in March 1941 with the fitting of the famous "Miss Shillings orifice" developed by Miss Tilly Shilling this was superseded by true negative G carbs fitted from 1943 onwards.
Its worth remembering that the performance of the Spitfire versus German fighters was more remarkable if you consider the size of the merlin engine . At "only 27 lts" its a far smaller engine than contempory German fighters engines. Think of it as a 1.6 carb engined sports car racing against a 2.0 fuel injected sports car. The 2.0 ltr may be faster on the straights but you should be able to outdo him in the corners.

[whoarmongar]

As the FW-190 didnt appear till mid 1941 its doesnt concern us really yet
However when it did appear it was a nasty shock to the RAF. The superior speed dive and roll rate meant that the contempory Spit (MkV) was outclassed. As at the time the RAF was launching "Rhubarb and Circus" patrols across to France any Spit shot down was over enemy teritory and the pilot lost, the roles had been reversed now it was the RAF pilots who had to undertake the hazardous channel crossing in a vulnerable liquid cooled fighter.
The "stopgap" answer came with the introduction of the MkIX which was visually indistinguishable from the MkV, eventually this "stopgap" model would be the largest production run of any Spitfire model.
The roll rate problem still persisted and to counter this some Spits had the wings shortened the so called "clipped wing" Spitfires in order to improve the roll rate. This obviously affected high allitude performance but by then the RAF and luftwaffe both seemed to have agreed that 30000 feet was a bloody silly place to have a dogfight.
As for turning neither the FW-190 or the Me109 could outurn a Spitfire. The reason for this is obvious just look at the wing. That wide Spitfire wing simply produces more lift even with you fancy leading edge slats. Also the Spit was a more benign beast when entering or on the edge of stall, it seems that the inner edge of the wing stalled first producing buffeting and giving the pilot plenty of warning that he was about to stall

[winny]

Originally Posted by whoarmongar

As the FW-190 didnt appear till mid 1941 its doesnt concern us really yet
However when it did appear it was a nasty shock to the RAF. The superior speed dive and roll rate meant that the contempory Spit (MkV) was outclassed. As at the time the RAF was launching "Rhubarb and Circus" patrols across to France any Spit shot down was over enemy teritory and the pilot lost, the roles had been reversed now it was the RAF pilots who had to undertake the hazardous channel crossing in a vulnerable liquid cooled fighter.
The "stopgap" answer came with the introduction of the MkIX which was visually indistinguishable from the MkV, eventually this "stopgap" model would be the largest production run of any Spitfire model.
The roll rate problem still persisted and to counter this some Spits had the wings shortened the so called "clipped wing" Spitfires in order to improve the roll rate. This obviously affected high allitude performance but by then the RAF and luftwaffe both seemed to have agreed that 30000 feet was a bloody silly place to have a dogfight.
As for turning neither the FW-190 or the Me109 could outurn a Spitfire. The reason for this is obvious just look at the wing. That wide Spitfire wing simply produces more lift even with you fancy leading edge slats. Also the Spit was a more benign beast when entering or on the edge of stall, it seems that the inner edge of the wing stalled first producing buffeting and giving the pilot plenty of warning that he was about to stall

An IX is easily distingushable from a V. Just look under the wings.

And as for the Spitfires stalling characteristics..

The problem was the actual stall which was quite severe.

When the RAF tested a 109 E (theoretical tuning circle 885 feet) against a Spit Mk1 Theoretical turning circle 696 feet) they found that, quote:
"In a surprisingly large number of cases the 109 suceeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire during these tests, merely because our pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning"

(RAF underlined that bit not me)

The stall in a Spitfire was quite bad. From the Pilots notes:

"Never attemt a tail-chase with an enemy aeroplane having a smaller turning circle than a Spitfire. If stalling incedence is reached the aeroplane usually does a violent shudder with a loud clattering noise, and comes out of the turn with a violent flick. This would be a serious loss of advantage in a combat"

[whoarmongar]

Hmmm . So you can tell the difference between an oil cooler and a radiator at 300mph and a few hundred feet can you? The MkIX was "quick fix" to the FW-190 problem. They converted Spit Vc to merlin 61 engines(two-stage merlin) . This entailed modding the cooling system and fitting an additional external radiator in place of the oil cooler unit under the starboard wing, new engine cowlings and a four blade rotol propellor were required. Eventually 5665 of them were built mostly at castle bromwich in Birmingham.
To quote Jeffrey Quill from his book"Spitfire". "The great thing about the appearance of the MkIX was that it was extemely difficult to distinguish a MKIX from a MKV in the air".

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by whoarmongar

Hmmm . So you can tell the difference between an oil cooler and a radiator at 300mph and a few hundred feet can you? The MkIX was "quick fix" to the FW-190 problem. They converted Spit Vc to merlin 61 engines(two-stage merlin) . This entailed modding the cooling system and fitting an additional external radiator in place of the oil cooler unit under the starboard wing, new engine cowlings and a four blade rotol propellor were required. Eventually 5665 of them were built mostly at castle bromwich in Birmingham.
To quote Jeffrey Quill from his book"Spitfire". "The great thing about the appearance of the MkIX was that it was extemely difficult to distinguish a MKIX from a MKV in the air".

I'd agree with Winny actually. If you see the mkix silueted against the sky from the front or back, its pretty easy to spot the extra radiator. Much easier than telling a 109 Friedrich apart from a Gustav from a distance.

[vdomini]

Very interesting post, full of historical information about real FW and Spits.
but in this game all FW series are TERRIBLE compared to spitfires.

Maybe FW can be faster or roll faster than a spit but an overall sums of all his aerial combat performance place it very under what a spitfire can achieve. Talking about turning, spitfire outturn FW very very easily.

So be carefull when flying against those!

My final answer to your question is that on PS3, Spitfires are better than FW (and also bf190) series in pure 1 vs 1 aerial combat.