RAF development V LW development

[Hawco]

Hi guys

I'm interested to hear from anyone that could shine some light on the above ?

I often read on here about the Spit such and such being introduced with a different engine to counter the 109 such and such.

Was this a constant development battle between the 2 ? Were they reacting to each other ? i.e. The 190 A5 makes an appearence and then it's backs to the wall in blighty developing something to take it on ?
Or was it mostly a case of each side doing their own thing and letting fate decide?

[Guppy35]

Fighter development was certainly  both proactive and reactive.  The introduction of the 190 is a perfect example.  Totally caught the RAF by surprise.    Certainly the Tiffie was already in development, but it was rushed in and had problems with things like tails falling off.

Spit IX was a lash up of the Merlin 61 to the Spitfire V and put into action to counter the 190.  The VIII was already on the board too but the IX went into the line faster to basically hold the line and ended up being produced in far greater numbers then the VIII which was the most refined Merlin Spit.

The Griffon Spit XII was also a reaction to low level 190 raids on the south coast of England.  Only 100 built but done to counter that threat.

On the flip side the Spit XIV and Tempest got into the game before the 190 D9 which was in essence the counterpart to those fighters along with the P51.

It went back and forth on both sides.  That isn't to say that there weren't independent development projects going on with both the Allies and Axis.  The development of the jet fighters is a good example of that.

[Angus]

What Guppy said.
They kept overlapping and/or countering each other.

[Hawco]

Thanks for that guys, I can only imagine the production and procurement process, they must have been able to go from zero to a protoype in weeks.

No way on Earth they could do that now. Maybe that's why there is so many 109 varients that are always debated on here, by my last count, I think there was 6 different 109 G6's? go knows how many others there must be on different 109s.190's and spits etc.
All very interesting though, I do find the debates on spit boost levels interesting, escpecially in the context of this thread, msut have been all sorts of different boost ratings for different threats.

[Bruno]

Just search this section of the forums. This has been discussed / argued over many times.

Just a few things,

The 190A-5 had one of the lowest production runs of any of the 190A series. It used quite often as a fighter-bomber. The 190A-3s and A-4s are what the RAF originally had problems with.

The 190D-9 development had little to do with the Spit XIV or Tempest. It was developed in an attempt give the FW series better performance at altitude. D-9s were most often used to escort the bomber killers. They were to deal with the P-51s. As it turned out the D-9s FTH wasn't much better then the A series. Ultimately, the need for a high alt fighter lead to the Ta-152H series. Like the 109s and the D-9s, the Ta-152 was meant to combat escort fighters giving the bomber killers space to attack bombers.

Once the Ami bomber campaign ramped up the LW in the west were more focused on shooting down bombers and dealing with Ami long range escorts then countering the newest Spitfire variant.

[Angus]

And yet, after D-Day...those Spitties were all over the Axis held territory.

And of course before...N-Africa, Malta, N-Fronts...

[Bruno]

and that has f' all to do with anything I posted above...

[Angus]

Oh really?

" It was developed in an attempt give the FW series better performance at altitude"

Why would they want that? Oh, because they weren't up to the game at altitude.
When did they find that out in the first place. There was only one serious enemy through the beginning year of the 190A series...

[Angus]

Me bad. Forgot odd things like Mossies..

[Bruno]

It was developed in an attempt give the FW series better performance at altitude

Has f'all to with D-day, N. Africa, Malta or Norway...

Why would they want that?

I said why:

It was developed in an attempt give the FW series better performance at altitude. D-9s were most often used to escort the bomber killers. They were to deal with the P-51s.

Here you go playing the clown at every occassion...

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Angus
Me bad. Forgot odd things like Mossies..

D-9s were not intercepting Mosquitos.

You just make stuff up, don't you?

[HoHun]

Hi Hawco,

>Was this a constant development battle between the 2 ? Were they reacting to each other ?

It's important to realize that the main development battle was not between the airframe makers but rather between the engine makers. Performance was determined by the power plants, and normally, performance aspects were overriding all other concerns.

There were some instances when the sides reacted to each others' technological advances, but in my opinion, the long development lead times meant that they mostly had to rely on anticipating the enemy's progress, and that they occasionally missed the mark.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Hawco]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hawco,

>Was this a constant development battle between the 2 ? Were they reacting to each other ?

It's important to realize that the main development battle was not between the airframe makers but rather between the engine makers. Performance was determined by the power plants, and normally, performance aspects were overriding all other concerns.

There were some instances when the sides reacted to each others' technological advances, but in my opinion, the long development lead times meant that they mostly had to rely on anticipating the enemy's progress, and that they occasionally missed the mark.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Think you got the nail on the head there sir, Engines were probably the life blood of any development, I just find it very very interesting to think about Engineers working on both sides to counter the next development, it truely was a constant battle of the brains.
Hawco

[gripen]

Well, in the most cases the developement of the engines used during WWII was started long before the war and the Brits seem to be have been far more succesfull to put their advanced designs to service than the Germans.

Of course one could argue about the jets but those reached quite limited service and very limited succes.

griepn

[Angus]

If there was no problem with high alt stellar performers (Maybe better to quote engines rather than aircraft types) why bother about improving the 190's alt performance?