Author Topic: Spit 5 (Read 13249 times)

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #240 on:** August 17, 2004, 12:59:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35

And of course the Spit XII pilot chasing the 190 over the channel catches him and shoots him down

Dan/Slack

LOL !

Angus · « **Reply #241 on:** August 17, 2004, 01:01:59 PM »

"Yeah, the 190 was worthless piece of crap that could do nothing well. Outclassed, in all respects. Like all the LW planes were, after all. You convinced me. Thanks for the enlightening."

Wrong again Izzie.
The 190A was a very good interceptor, with quite modern control layout and heavy armament. It was a small profile plane, and durable as well.
An average pilot would soon be extremely deadly intercepting enemy aircraft while flying the 190.
However, it would not shine in a fighter vs fighter situations against the fast and well rolling late war US and RAF planes.
Bite it, what I said about it in a tight dogfight situation against the P51 stands!

Crumpp · « **Reply #242 on:** August 17, 2004, 01:16:32 PM »

Quote

Well, Izzie pop, in my "reality" I accept the possibility that a P51 could out-dive, out-climb, out-run, and out-turn the 190A series.

That is not entirely true Angus.

The P51B was much faster in level speed and could outzoom the 190.

The 190's sustained climb RATE was the same as the P51's. It was recommended the P51 not even attempt to climb away unless he was going over 250 IAS. The P51D's climb rate was worse than the B's if I remember correctly.

The turn rate was very close. So close in fact that it was recommended P51's NOT turn with 190's as it was dicy proposition. Remember too the USAAF pilot who piloted the 190 was far from an expert pilot in the type. Turning was only recommended as a defense against the bounce. The bouncing 190 would be traveling at a greater speed so the P51 could turn a much tighter circle since he was slower. I remind you too that the P51D had a worse turn than the B model.

The P51B did always outdive the 190. The P51D definately outdove the 190.

The 190 always outrolled the P51B. This allowed the 190 to change lift vector much quicker than the P51 and made it much more manuverable in everything except a tight turn.

Angus m8, Izzy can be abrasive but he does bring up good points.

The test was against an Unknown FW-190A model. I suspect it was against one of the FW-190A4 Jabo-einsatz the RAF test flight recieved after Fabers A3. Due to the time period it was conducted however it certainly was not an FW-190A8 which had a lot more horsepower for very little weight gain by comparison to the Spit V/ Spit IX development.

Izzy,

Angus and Guppy35 both have always been extremely polite. I have found them both to be very reasonable and enjoy the debates. I do understand your frustration. As the vanquished, the Luftwaffe must deal with the History written by the victors. It is reality but a reality from one point of view that may not neccessarily reflect the true nature.

Crumpp

Guppy35 · « **Reply #243 on:** August 17, 2004, 01:19:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
LOL !

Ahh you don't believe it do you?

Check the encounters from April-May 43 when the Tip and Run A5s of SKG 10 were hitting the South Coast of England.

The Spit XII's were chasing them down while flying on the deck.

Also interestingly noted in the combat reports of some of the early two ship recce flights to the French Coast was that on a few occasions the Spit XIIs were jumped by 190s and were able to extend away while being chased. A couple of pilots forgot to dump their drop tanks and were able to hold their distance from the 190s with neither gaining or losing ground despite the Spit pilot forgetting to lose the slipper tank.

That little Spit XII was a real mover down low.

Dan/Slack
And yeah I'm biased about that particular Spit

Guppy35 · « **Reply #244 on:** August 17, 2004, 01:32:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

Izzy,

Angus and Guppy35 both have always been extremely polite. I have found them both to be very reasonable and enjoy the debates. I do understand your frustration. As the vanquished, the Luftwaffe must deal with the History written by the victors. It is reality but a reality from one point of view that may not neccessarily reflect the true nature.

Crumpp

There ya go being nice Crumpp! Funny you showed up just now as I was looking through my 91 Squadron stuff and it turns out Peter Crump downed a Spit XII on June 16, 43 when he shot down MB835 flown by F/S Mitchell who was killed.

I would agree that this has been one of the more civil discussions around here lately. I prefer it this way as it really is just a sharing of information that everyone should be able to take something from.

As it always was, the development of fighter aircraft during WW2 was punch and counter punch, with each side gaining and losing ground at different times but with neither taking too much of a leap forward until the 262 which based on it's use or lack thereof, was too late to make a difference. I would suggest the other big leap that did have an huge impact was probably the 190 over the Spit V which really drove development of the two stage Merlin, the introduction of the Griffon engine, the Typhoon and others as well.

Just look at the Spit.

Spit I, II -1091-7
109F-Spit Va,b,c
109G, FW190A series -Spit IX VIII, XII
Spit XIV-FW109D
Probably can include the Spit 21 and TA152 as well since both made it in under the wire.

Punch and counter punch all the way through. All great aircraft.

Dan/Slack

Crumpp · « **Reply #245 on:** August 17, 2004, 02:10:28 PM »

Exactly! I started researching the 190A series with the notion of writing a book. The more I dig, the more your statement is confirmed to be the truth.

Quote

Punch and counter punch all the way through. All great aircraft.

Crumpp

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #246 on:** August 17, 2004, 02:10:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
Ahh you don't believe it do you?

..
And yeah I'm biased about that particular Spit

No, I have no problem with that, at all!

Actually, it was very funny and a good one.. I really enjoyed it.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #247 on:** August 17, 2004, 02:14:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Exactly! I started researching the 190A series with the notion of writing a book. The more I dig, the more your statement is confirmed to be the truth.

Crumpp

Crumpp,

why don`t you start a site ? There`s one for the 190D series, I am proceeding slowly with mine on the 109K, I guess a 190A/F/G site wouldn`t hurt either. Performances, development, production...

Crumpp · « **Reply #248 on:** August 17, 2004, 02:45:47 PM »

Izzy bro,

Because I am a "tool" when it comes to computer skills.

Quote

why don`t you start a site ? There`s one for the 190D series, I am proceeding slowly with mine on the 109K, I guess a 190A/F/G site wouldn`t hurt either. Performances, development, production...

Any good software for the "computer" challenged out there for building websites?

BTW, The luft-archive just released the Bf-190K manual.

Crumpp

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #249 on:** August 17, 2004, 04:04:27 PM »

I guess you have MS Office, that includes Frontpage, which is quite enough for all conventional purposes. You don`t need to know any HTML code, everyhing can be done with icons etc. Even with it`s basics, you can create a nice site with some creativity. Then all you need is some webspace, and there you go!

Thanks, I have seen the manual LA.de, I might get the other parts I need, though I have some arrangements with another gentleman, too.

But BTW, be sure it`s a hell to collect all the sources the compile them.. especially if some are missing, heh!

Crumpp · « **Reply #250 on:** August 17, 2004, 04:12:22 PM »

I have MS Office but not Frontpage. Any other recommendations?

Crumpp

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #251 on:** August 17, 2004, 05:07:13 PM »

Have no idea then, since I am happy with FP, didn`t try the others; I am not a great i-net wiz either. Newer versions of Office have Frontpage included though (ie. Office XP). If you have that version, check that it was maybe not checked to be installed during the installation!

Angus · « **Reply #252 on:** August 18, 2004, 09:38:20 AM »

I've heard Dreamweaver is a good one.
A book? Nice

Crumpp · « **Reply #253 on:** August 18, 2004, 02:31:38 PM »

Dreamweaver huh?

Is it pretty easy to use?

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #254 on:** August 18, 2004, 06:26:43 PM »

So I've been told.
A friend of mine is a graphics designer, her recommended it. So did another buddy, he does a lot of vidoe/image - digital work, but I'm not so sure about web-stuff in his case.
Anyway, I'll make a quick check, and that is just my pleasure, for I am looking for the nicest way to make homepage-files.
(I have a homepage, but it was designed in Freehand and then converted to HTML.)
On second thought, we should perhaps make a thread about this in the O'club?
I played with Frontpage for a short while (minutes really) and I did not find it that nice. I had before tried some shareware stuff that was very much easier.
regards

Angus