An honest question ...not a trawl.......

[Karnak]

The Spit XIV's advantages over the Fw190D-9 are:

Slightly faster climb
Much better turn rate
Much maller turn radius
Faster at high altitude
2 Hispano cannon with a high muzzle velocity

The Fw190D-9's advantages over the Spit XIV are:

Much better roll rate
Much longer WEP duration
Much faster at most altitudes, including the combat altitudes in AH
Faster acceleration in a dive
250 rounds for each MG 151/20.

They both have their advantages and disadvantages, but in the MA environment of AH the Spitfire MkXIV's advantages are larger.  In the real world, there is little to choose between the two.

[hazed-]

thanks guys i just read all those pages from that site!!! phew! didnt find any mention of one plane using wep whilst the other didnt either. only like you said a small mention of , and i quote:

'speed runs(maximum 3 minute ratings used)

F.W190 ... ... 2700 r.p.m. @ 1.42 ata

spitfire VB... 3000 r.p.m. @ +12lbs/sq.inch
(the spitfire VB has since been cleared for 3000 r.p.m. @ +16lbs/sq. inch)

spitfire IX ... 3000 r.p.m. @ +15lbs/sq.inch'
 

the mention of spitVB being later rated to 16lbs/sq.inch suggests to me that they would mention whether one of the aircraft were not using their full potential if it had happened(as in the spit XIV being tested without using its wep?).

so for now I at least I can take the information in the book i have as accurate.In which case my original question still stands.   phew  

p.s. i wont devote anymor of my time to the spit XIV cause as im a LWer at heart but even i cant see why the spit XIV should be perked for performance reasons alone, as it was produced in large numbers and saw enormous amounts of action.So the only reason it should be perked would be too much use in the MA.So even if it is perked  it should only be similar in price to the F4UC imho.

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]

[juzz]

"It was commonly claimed the 190 was de rated, but the tests clearly show it wasn't."

I think that the data available all points to the fact that the Fw 190A-3 in question(Wk.Nr 5313) DID indeed have a derated engine.

1. http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_a_3.jpg  - PRO doc where they mention the suspected derated engine(36).

2. The above document lists the top speed obtained at 2700rpm/1.42ata as being 390mph, at a critical altitude of 18,000ft(35). US data for a Fw 190A-5 claims 415mph at 22,000ft with the same power settings. Note the 4,000ft difference in critical altitude.

3. If you compare the speeds of the Spitfire F.IX(data at the 4th FG site) with the US Fw 190A-5 data, you will find that there is no correlation with the speed differences listed in the comparison between the Fw 190A-3 and Spitfire F.IX in the PRO docs. If you take Spitfire F.IX level speed data and sum the differences to get what would have been the Fw 190A-3 speeds, you will find those speeds to be significantly slower than those presented in the US Fw 190A data.

So the Fw 190A-3 tested in Britain was significantly slower and had a lower critical altitude than the US Fw 190A-5, when both planes were using the same power settings. It seems obvious to me that the Fw 190A-3 in question did have a derated engine as was suspected.

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: juzz ]