Quote:
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.