Spit V versus early FW 190

[TAIPAN_]

Re the altitude discussion, it was mentioned by the Spitfire pilots that the reason they would go up to altitude was to dive on the enemy.

i.e. they could negate the speed advantage of the 190 by starting at a higher altitude and gaining speed in the dive.

 

In this regard I don't see the FW190 being on par with the Spit IX

 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Dan_Taipan

[Bremspropeller]

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Regardless of Clostermanns reliability, the Spit flies far better in the thinner air. Low wing loading and a better supercharger helps. The Anton also shows handling deficits at high altitude. It‘s still a great attacker though.

 

I don‘t really think that the German narratives are really a good account regarding the finer aspects of comperative aircraft performance. The ones that actually provided narratives are usually far better combat pilots than the average Allied pilot. They were successful with the material at hand. At least the few that were left to tell us. Dortenmann was an exeptional pilot. Yet despite good aircraft and his abilities, he couldn‘t do as Hartmann did. He had to be much more selective in picking his scores. In times where they were nothing but trashed at the hands of the Allies, I am not aware him ever complaining about his aircraft. Did he?

 

But it seems clear that the notion about the Spit9 being better has to be seen from the British side after almost two years of being on the receiving side. The Spit gives you way more options turning a fight than the 190 gives you. They surely were happy about that.

 

The point is there is no indication on the german side for this change of tactics by the RAF. There also is no indication of a new Spitfire version that seems to be superior to the 190.

There just isn't. So either the number of fights at high altitude wasn't all that great a fraction, or the superiority wasn that extensive at normal operational altitudes.

The only change we can see, is the addition of a Höhenstaffel for each Gruppe. Had there been a pressing issue with a new Spitfire-version, the Technisches Amt/ RLM wouldn't have spent the year of '43 fast asleep concerning mounting the Jumo 213 or DB603 to a Fw 190 airframe.

 

Therefore, all the narratives of the Spit having an edge over the 190 are breaking down. It had an edge at certain altitudes, while the 190 had an edge at others. Over the majority of operational altitudes, both aircraft were very close. Give or take, depending on the engine.

 

In 1942, Dortenmann was just doing his first flights at the eastern front. There are very, very few pilots active in '42 at the Channel who stayed and survived the war. Rudorffer asked to be transferred east and claims it was most probably the fact that his request was finally admitted (in the end, a draw of a straw favoured him over two other candidates), that he survived the war at all.

We don't have any excerpts of Dortenmann at the Channel-Front (read Invasion Front). The only closer narratives we have is Willi Heilmann's book.

[Bremspropeller]

8 hours ago, Dan_Taipan said:

Re the altitude discussion, it was mentioned by the Spitfire pilots that the reason they would go up to altitude was to dive on the enemy.

i.e. they could negate the speed advantage of the 190 by starting at a higher altitude and gaining speed in the dive.

 

In this regard I don't see the FW190 being on par with the Spit IX

 

 

 

Getting to higher altitude for setting up a bounce on the enemy isn't really a tactic. It's normal ops.

Also, the 190 didn't enjoy much of a speed advantage over the Spit IX - they were very close and any advantage in some altitude-band was set-off by the other aircraft being faster in another altitude-band. That's due to the characteristics of the superchargers.

 

The Spitfire LF IX had an advantage, but it wasn't as pressing.

 

Keep in mind that the Luftwaffe was facing several squadrons of Spitfires and a multitude of different aircraft (types).

If one squadron flew high-cover all the time, that didn't really filter down to the Luftwaffe's intel. They'd just figure there always was a high cover by Spitfires and other fighters (most probably Spitfires, too) at different altitudes. So they'd deal with different threats differently. The high-flyers were kept at bay by the use of Höhenstaffeln, using special versions of 109s - pressurized, GM-1 equipped and  lightened. The 190's lack of high-altitude performance wasn't seen as quite so lacking at this point (as opposed to later in 1944).

A quick-fix (ram-air supercharger inlets) was at hand and could be installed within 20 minutes in the field, but it wasn't introduced.

Ask the RLM why...

 

The 190's high-altitude performance is a story of lots and lots of blown chances.

[41Sqn_Skipper]

Please don't forget the low level tip-and-run fighter bombers that were a serious problem for the RAF. It's not only about the offensive activities over France.

[DBFlyguy]

 

 

Here's some data on when these aircraft were compared during WWII

[=621=Samikatz]

Is there any comparison in loss rates between IX and V squadrons during their overlap in operation? If the IX had a significantly better fighting chance then I'm sure that'd translate to fewer aircraft lost over the same period