Jump to content
CrazyDuck

Spit IX vs Fw 190 D9

Recommended Posts

Let's play this a bit differently. It's 1944 and you are a defense minister of a peaceful country tasked with finding a single fighter type for your country needs. These include all common needs of a WW2 fighter:

- Free hunt

- Close/medium range battlefield domination at any altitude

- Bomber and CAS aircraft interception

- Bomber and CAS aircraft escort

- CAS missions

- Short to medium range recconaisance missions

 

Your country has good relations with both Germany and UK and your generals limited your choices down to Spitfire MkIX (Merlin 66) and Fw 190 D9 (both as represented in this sim, similar price). Which one do you pick?

 

(I know in reality a lot more would to be clarified for an informed decision, but let's have some fun anyway...) :)

 

Like  Spit

Thanks  Dora

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my choice would boil down to how much time and money I had for pilot training.

 

If I could be as luxuriant with training as the United States, I'd take the D9 (If I couldn't nail down a contract with North American for P51 Ds  first).

If I needed to get aircraft operational in a hurry and had limited training times and budget, I'd take the Spitfire.

 

If I had my druthers, and all the money I needed, I'd take Mustangs and Tempests, and cover all the bases properly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Availability of parts and ease of maintenance would settle the score in my view. If in your scenario our "nameless neutral country" had equal diplomatic relations with both countries (a bit of a stretch, in RL), so that commercial and diplomatic issues are written off the scenario, I would go with the one more apt to be built and replaced in great numbers. That would be the Spit! And if you threw in an american plane in the mix, I would go for it for the same reasons!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hypothetical country in this hypothetical scenario would be choosing spit XIV's ;) 

They would want access to the latest models, but they would also want their citizens to look to the sky and consider their taxes well spent on these most beautiful flying war machines :)
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D9.  Both are great planes.  Both highly versatile although IMHO D9 has the edge.  Both easy to fly.  Not sure about Spit ease of maintenance but FW was known for it.  IMHO D9 performance is a bit better than the Spit IX.

 

If it was Spit XIV vs D9 then that is a different discussion.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think either fighter is well-suited for all of the above missions. That said, of the two the Spitfire is probably the fighter type that did end up doing all those missions. By the time the D9 enters the war you don't really have a lot of bombers to escort, especially at high altitude.

The FW190 is better offensively, especially against ground targets and against bombers. Not sure how well it would do on escort duty.

Frankly the Spit is not well suited to escort duty either due to low range, but really only the Americans ever produced a viable long-range escort fighter, and only because of their daytime bombing doctrine.

If I HAD to pick one it would be the D9 (if we're deciding on airframe capability alone). Heavier armament, higher speed, it can devastate targets in a single pass and get the hell out of dodge, saving precious pilots (who are much, much more valuable than the airframes themselves.)

I think the 'one fighter for all tasks' thing we see, especially in modern times, has more to do with the economics of maintaining peacetime standing armies (or the kind of grey-wartime we seem to find our selves in the last 20 years or so) than with actual flexibility or effectiveness. Even with modern jet fighters we see diminished effectiveness the more roles you try and force a fighter to perform. Its mitigated by advanced tech and the general lack of air opposition faced by modern air forces against their enemies. Better to have two or three airframe types, not necessarily hyperspecialized but designed with their roles in mind and some flexibility to work outside it, but no expectation that your CAS aircraft will also be your primary air superiority fighter, just that it could defend itself in a pinch and maybe do some rear-area CAP while your air superiority fighters are busy. 

And within the two main airframes, sub-variants for some specialized roles could be implemented (i.e. your air superiority fighter could perform a Wild Weasel role, using speed, stealth and maneuverability to evade enemy fire and target enemy air defences.) 
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RedKestrel Agree that modern aircraft design is very much influenced by cost.  With the per airframe cost there is simply not enough money for more dedicated types.  For the first time the plane really is more valuable than the pilot.  In the US inventory you still have the F22 as the dedicated air superiority weapon while the F35 is the ground attack plane with significant air to air capability.  A little bit like the P-51 and P-47 (I concede the analogy is far from perfect).

 

Back on topic, I suspect that the D9 would have performed just fine a an escort, range not withstanding.  it performed well at altitude and was both fast and maneuverable.  It really did not have significant vices.  As with any escort, it would perform better if it was allowed tactical flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Agree that modern aircraft design is very much influenced by cost. 

So true. But you got it the wrong way around.

 

- If it's is terribly expensive, it's a sale because, then it must be good.

- If it's obcenely expensive, it must be the best and you definitely buy it. We have tons of useless many-star Generals that are desperately looking for a job in the industry. You think they'll help? You betcha!

- If it gets even more expensive than that, you get away with producing a fraction of the items for the same price (Yipeeeee ASP!)

 

If it is that expensive, you get away with disarming your contry over promises like this:

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

I think the 'one fighter for all tasks' thing we see, especially in modern times, has more to do with the economics of maintaining peacetime standing armies

Imagine there would be an alternative to your dog, people would notice what you just did to them.

 

That one aircraft for each mission is more expensive than "one size that fits all" has been wrong since ever. An A-10 costs less than $20 million per Unit, same as an F-16. Giving that old bird an IR detector such as PIRATE (pus modern RWS) and the F-35 is toast. It is as slow as the teen series fighters. Not like a F-22 or the three Eurocanards. Besides, you get 3 F-16 and 2 A-10 for every F-35. And if you're an honest accountant, you get twice of them for each F-35. Given one F-35 is airborne one hour every two days, even the Po-2 can wreck a lot of damage as well, because for that price you have dozens airborne every minute of the day. All they need to do is wait out one hour of F-35 flight time.

 

Not putting ballast on a fighter that is structurtally required to carry bombs puts a tremendous penalty on a fighter. Plus making an aircraft that complicated recuces its maintanance ratio. If only 1 in 5 can be airborne at any given moment, then we hadt to witness that all it takes is some bad weather and you lose aircraft, something that cost you dearly if you only have 150 of them and not 10'000.

 

The most effective USAF aircraft, the A-10, is very much single role, and it is cheap as dirt. Plus it is not stealthy enough that requires airbases such that you can see them from space with bare eyes. Stealth starts in the hangar. So you're basically telling the whole world where your invincible aircraft are located. Half an hour and some cruise missiles later, that's the end of your airforce, because any school child knows where to shoot them. Think of it, the German Army and Marine even signed contracts that made it illegal for them to even watch how only the selling company sevices their ships etc. No wonder they can't even fix a sailboat anymore.

 

Modern fighter design is nothing but fraud and corporate wellfare.

 

That said,

31 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Back on topic

I'd get the Po-2 and send the women to war. I'm inclusive. ;)

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this hypothetical situation I think you pretty much have to go with the Spitfire for several non-airframe or design related reasons.

 

England has a lot more production capacity and I would feel considerably more confident that my order would actually be completed and delivered.

 

I'm not sure I would have full confidence in the state of German industry and quality control at this point.

 

It would be fairly apparent that the war was not going well for Germany at this point and I would be concerned about spare parts availability and support in the long term.

 

If I'm going to be producing the aircraft under license in my own country it gets a lot closer. Purely based on the sim, without considering any of the real world externalities, I'd take the Dora over a Spitfire IX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dora is the more modern airframe (Fw 190) and the more modern engine (Jumo 213 and possibly DB603).

 

The Dora should be compared with the Spit XIV, though - they're more closely matched at normal boost settings.

Keep in mind the Dora is somewhat hindered by the Jumo 213A. The 213F or eben E(B) would easily put it on par with the XIV accross the entire altitude band.

 

Plus there were plans of filling the "tactical hole" in the outer wing with fuel (which had been projected for the jabo 190s much earlier, but had never taken off).

At least two Doras had 4x ETCs in the outer wings, though the curent historicl state of the art has it that those were Dora airframes mated with F-8 wings (which were identical to a Dora wing - except for the ETC provisions). Doras had R4Ms under the wings as standard configuration very late in the war, so Panzerblitz II/III would have been an easy conversion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was to order a single seater in 1944 and was in charge of the military of a peaceful country? I'd fire the incompetent generals and go with jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spit has to have it on a) aesthetics, and b) the factories where they are being produced aren't being bombed into the middle of next week... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JtD said:

I was to order a single seater in 1944 and was in charge of the military of a peaceful country? I'd fire the incompetent generals and go with jets.

 

Presuming you're a small nation unable to produce your own aircraft, who in 1944 is going to sell you their brand new, extremely rare, and extremely desirable jet fighters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't overlook that 44 jets have decreased altitude performance, short range and short endurance. Knowing that you could plan routes for P-51D/H or P-47N avoiding jets' bases altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither - Tempest.

That’s coming from a Mustang/Jug fan boy.

 

Nothing with one engine moves mud like the Jug - nothing...but it’s vulnerable down low.

 

Tempest to me seems like the F-16 of WWII (in Europe anyway). A superb multi-roll aircraft. Doesn’t give up enough in the payload department to even talk about when it’s ability to defend itself is considered.

 

Nothing it can’t deal with, and with aplomb at that.

 

 

 

Edited by Gambit21
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I’d say FW-190 - its simply the most versatile airframe, cannons and automatic transmission 😆heck you can throw a radial engine back on it if you need to or upgrade to a later Jumo-213 or heaven forbid a DB-603. 

 

Comparatively easy to work on, easy to maintain with minimal tools, can be hand-cranked or battery started and performs well on unprepared airfields with a tougher airframe and wide-track landing gear. 

 

 

 

also, spitfires are for sissies

Edited by CUJO_1970
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the input! Interesting result, I was really split between both options so this is interesting to see. :)

 

Jets - well, not a realistic option in 1944 in my humble opinion (if you are not one of superpowers with them already developed). Many years after WW2 prop fighters were historically still being produced let alone operational even in the most powerful airforces of the world.

 

Yeah, I was thinking about throwing Spit XIV in, however I changed my mind after considering that:

1. It's not represented in this sim (yet), and

2. I consider it a narrow-task speed/climb-demonish brute of interceptor, and as such less comparable to multi purpose Fw 190 D-9 (I might be utterly wrong here).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spitfire could also carry bombs, rockets, drop tank, recon gear and so on. I have no idea how extensively this was done in real life with the XIV, but in theory it could carry four 20mm cannons plus decent ordnance.

 

The issue with the XIV, as with the IX, is that the age of the airframe is showing, more so than on the a few years younger Fw190.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that the Mk XIV will end up being a collectors aircraft :coffee:

Edited by Trooper117
Wrong spelling
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're building it ourselves i'd purchase the Dora all day long. however if we're having to purchase from them directly it'd be the spit. at about this point in the war germany can barely keep up with demand, there's no way they're selling their top of the line Fighters to me. Britain on the other hand at this point was in full invasion mode, stockpiling and training like mad, the pressure was off with regards to the BOB so they'd be better at providing airframes.

that said, again they'd not sell me the latest version anyway, we'd likely get mkV's

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Melonfish said:

at about this point in the war germany can barely keep up with demand, there's no way they're selling their top of the line Fighters to me.

 

 

Actually, at this point in the war Germany had no problem producing a large surplus of fighters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Actually, at this point in the war Germany had no problem producing a large surplus of fighters. 

the pilots flying them were another matter..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JtD said:

The issue with the XIV, as with the IX, is that the age of the airframe is showing, more so than on the a few years younger Fw190.

 

If we are talking about ultimate development potential I don't think there is much of a choice to be had here.

 

Focke-Wulf can be an Anton or F-series with a radial - or it can be Ta-152H for extreme altitudes or Ta-152C...or D-9, D11, D12, D13.....that airframe could literally do it all, right up to the point of piston engine obsolescence at the dawn of the jet age. 

29 minutes ago, Sharpe43 said:

the pilots flying them were another matter..

 

Indeed, but OP was more about selling airframes and not about selling pilots 🤩

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I have a feeling that the Mk XIV will end up being a collectors aircraft :coffee:

We all hope so, don´t we?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Focke-Wulf can be an Anton or F-series with a radial - or it can be Ta-152H for extreme altitudes or Ta-152C...or D-9, D11, D12, D13.....that airframe could literally do it all, right up to the point of piston engine obsolescence at the dawn of the jet age. 

 

Same can be said for the spit though, They were still being manufactured well into the jet age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =11=Herne said:

Same can be said for the spit though, They were still being manufactured well into the jet age

 

But the Spitfire couldn't carry 700kgs of ordnance and go play for some time.

 

That would be the Tempest's (or rather Typhoon's) affair.

The Spitfire just can't do it all. It's a1930s racing-plane. Just like the 109.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask anyone who’s flown a real Spitfire, any pilot - including those with many warbirds under their belt - and they will tell you, it’s the most pure pilot’s plane they’ve flown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

But the Spitfire couldn't carry 700kgs of ordnance and go play for some time.

 

That would be the Tempest's (or rather Typhoon's) affair.

The Spitfire just can't do it all. It's a1930s racing-plane. Just like the 109.

Tempest was a pure fighter. Only a handful of cases at the very end of the war where some squadrons loaded up with bombs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sevenless said:

We all hope so, don´t we?

Nope. I would much rather a mossie or a tiffie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Diggun said:

Nope. I would much rather a mossie or a tiffie. 

 

Yeah I would much prefer a typhoon or mossie over the better spit, and thats coming from a guy who's favourite plane in BoBp so far is the spit 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A spit xiv sounds pretty awesome. It would definitely be a killer. But even a 150 oct spit ix is a killer...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2019 at 4:45 PM, Venturi said:

Ask anyone who’s flown a real Spitfire, any pilot - including those with many warbirds under their belt - and they will tell you, it’s the most pure pilot’s plane they’ve flown. 

I suspect the sentiment is true but it is terribly ambiguous. Eric Brown who likely flew the most WWII aircraft was every bit as effusive in his praise of the 190s and 152s as he was of the Spitfire and he flew carrier combat missions in the Spit during the war. A lot of Americans abhor him for not ranking the P-51 or F4U number #1.

Edited by MoneyShot
redundancy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 9:28 AM, BlitzPig_EL said:

I guess my choice would boil down to how much time and money I had for pilot training.

 

If I could be as luxuriant with training as the United States, I'd take the D9 (If I couldn't nail down a contract with North American for P51 Ds  first).

If I needed to get aircraft operational in a hurry and had limited training times and budget, I'd take the Spitfire.

 

If I had my druthers, and all the money I needed, I'd take Mustangs and Tempests, and cover all the bases properly.

 

Uhmm why, fw190 was built for easiness to fly, you don't have to worry about pitch, mixture, radiator and a bunch of things leaving the pilot free action to combat. I think fw190d9 is a superior machine than the spit9, even Brown says the fw190d9 it's an amazing machine and easy to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Spit XIV is more on the technological time line with Dora than than IX I would have thought.

Thats all nice but in game you get spit from 43 and tempest with engine from 43 to fight 45 stuff, no wonder no one play on allied side on servers and late war missions are empty...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 77.CountZero said:

Thats all nice but in game you get spit from 43 and tempest with engine from 43 to fight 45 stuff, no wonder no one play on allied side on servers and late war missions are empty...

I think I agree with your sentiment, but to be fair, the Tempest engine is from Spring 1944.  The problem is the engines were available modified for 11 lbs boost from around September 1944 onwards, but it looks like we won't get 11lbs boost (hope I am wrong though).  Our in-game Spit IX engine and guns are from earlier 1944.  So I get your point.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 3:45 PM, Bremspropeller said:

The Dora is the more modern airframe (Fw 190) and the more modern engine (Jumo 213 and possibly DB603).

 

The Dora should be compared with the Spit XIV, though - they're more closely matched at normal boost settings.

Keep in mind the Dora is somewhat hindered by the Jumo 213A. The 213F or eben E(B) would easily put it on par with the XIV accross the entire altitude band.

 

 

Yup. It's important to remember that the LW in BoBp is getting it's apex fighters, while on the allied side we're getting slightly older models. This is a function of logistics (the allies had air superiority, so why convert everyone to a new model? Why even retool to the cutting edge models when we can saturate the skies with our current and very effective models?), and probably dev choices based on what was more easily available for modeling.

 

Hopefully, however, we will get 150 octane fuel, which is one way the allies worked to even up performance in late 44. And of course we can also hope to get the Spit XIV as a Collector's Edition :). That one, along with the Tempest, are the true cutting edge of the allied fighter force. Along with perhaps the P-38L (though I hear the P-38J-25, which we're getting, was practically the same thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...