Fw190D-9 vs. Spitfire MkXIV

[Karnak]

I will be using the AH Fw190D-9 and I will compare it, based on my data, to the Spitfire MkXIV.


Fw190D-9 vs. Spitfire MkXIV

Top Speed at Sea Level

Fw190D-9: 376mph
Spitfire MkXIV: 363

The Fw190D-9 is a usable, though not huge, 13mph faster at sea level.  The fact that the Fw190D-9 can maintain the power level required for this speed should also be noted.  The MW50 in the Fw190D-9 will last for 10 minutes, far longer than the Spitfire MkXIV's WEP will last.


Top Speed at 18,000 Feet

Fw190D-9: 433mph
Spitfire MkXIV: 414mph

This is the Fw190D-9's optimum altitude for speed and at this altitude it has widened the gap to 19mph.  The Fw190D-9 still retains the advantage of the MW50 as well.


Top Speed at 27,000 Feet

Fw190D-9: 415mph
Spitfire MkXIV: 448mph

This is the Spitfire MkXIV's optimum altitude for speed and it shows as at this altitude it has a significant advantage of 33mph over the Fw190D-9.  It is uncertain how much the MW50 could make up for the Fw190D-9's disadvantage in speed at this altitude.  The Spitfire maintains this speed advantage as the altitude increases from here on out.


Climb Rate at Sea Level

Fw190D-9: 4,100ft
Spitfire MkXIV: 5,110ft

The Spitfire MkXIV has a significant advantage over the Fw190D-9 due to its extremely high rate of climb.  The Fw190D-9 is, however, no slouch in this area and has a good rate of climb at sea level.


Climb Rate at 18,000 Feet

Fw190D-9: 3,100ft
Spitfire MkXIV: 3,600ft

The Spitfire MkXIV's advantage has been halved to 500ft per minute, but it still maintains the advantage.


Climb Rate at 27,000 Feet

Fw190D-9: 1,630ft
Spitfire MkXIV: 2,700ft

The Spitfire MkXIV has regained its 1,000ft per minute climb rate advantage.


Roll Rate

There is no contest, the Fw190D-9 is vastly better at all speeds and altitudes.


Turn Rate

There is no contest, the Spitfire MkXIV is vastly better at all altitudes and speeds.


Turn Radius

There is no contest, the Spitfire MkXIV is vastly better at all altitudes and speeds.


Acceleration

Both the Fw190D-9 and Spitfire MkXIV will accelerate extremely well for WWII fighters.  I do not know which will hold the advantage or at what altitudes the advantage will shift.  Looking at the speed and climb rates of the two aircraft might give us a clue in this area.  I will have to rely on others for this information.


Dive

The Fw190D-9 will hold the initial advantage, and really the functional advantage, but in an extended dive the Spitfire MkXIV will begin to gain.


Fuel Range

The Fw190D-9 and Spitfire F.MkXIVc have essentially the same level of endurance.  They are both short range air-to-air fighters with some ground strike capability.  Drop tanks extend their range to the medium class.  The Spitfire FR.MkXIVe has additional fuel and thus would have the advantage in this area.


Armament

Fw190D-9: 2 x 20mm MG 151/20 with 250 rpg and 2 x 13mm MG 131 with 475 rpg.
Spitfire MkXIV: 2 x 20mm Hispano Mk II with 120 rpg and 4 x 303 cal Browning with 350 rpg; or; 2 x 20mm Hispano Mk II with 120 rpg and 2 50 cal M2 with 250 rpg.

This can be looked at in a number of ways.  Given that AH is the context, the Spitfire MkXIV certainly has the advantage when simply looking at the kind of guns used.  The Hispano Mk IIs are clearly superior to the MG 151/20s in AH.  Although I prefer them, the 303 cal Brownings may as well be hail for all the effect they have on enemy aircraft.  The 50 cal M2 is a very good gun, but I do not know how it compares with the 13mm MG 131.  Given their calibers, I will consider the parable.
Ammunition is where the Fw190D-9 shines.  Carrying more than twice the 20mm load and nearly double the 12.7mm/13mm load gives the Fw190D-9 an overall advantage in the armament area except when strafing tanks.


Loadout

Fw190D-9: 1 x 250 kg bomb if no drop tank is taken; or; 1 x 500 kg bomb if no drop tank is taken; or; no bombs if a drop tank is taken.
Spitfire MkXIV: 2 x 250 lb bomb and 1 500 lb bomb if no drop tank is taken; or; 8 x 3.5 inch Rocket and 500 lb bomb if no drop tank is taken; or; 2 x 250 lb bomb if a drop tank is taken; or; 8 x 3.5 inch Rockets if a drop tank is taken.

If this is the sum total of the Fw190D-9s loadout capability the Spitfire MkXIV has a distinct advantage in this area.  However I must admit that my knowledge is lacking in this area.  I would appreciate a more complete loadout list for the Fw190D-9 from those who are familiar with it.


Durability

This is a very subjective item.  The Spitfire MkXIV has increased protection for the pilot and a strengthened airframe when compared to earlier Spitfires, however I believe that the innate durability of the Fw190 series probably means that the Fw190D-9 is slightly more durable.  The two aircraft are close enough in durability that it would be very rare for one to be destroyed where the other would not have been.


Pilot Visibility

Fw190D-9:  The visibility from the cockpit is very good, only the Yak can really be considered to be significantly better.
Spitfire MkXIV:  This depends on the version of the Spitfire.  The F.MkXIVc has slightly better visibility than the Merlin Spitfires owing to the downward slant of the Griffon Spitfire's nose, however rear visibility remains merely adequate as in the Spitfire MkIX.  The FR.MkXIVe has a cut down rear fuselage and a bubble canopy, thus achieving parity with the Fw190D-9 in visibility.

The Fw190D-9 has the advantage in visibility if the Spitfire MkXIV is, as I want in AH, the F.MkXIVc.  If the Spitfire MkXIV is the Spitfire than Pongo wishes in AH, the FR.MkXIVe, then visibility is approximately even.


CONCLUSION

These fighters are remarkably well matched despite their divergent performances.  I believe that if the Spitfire F.MkXIVc is added to AH it should not be a perk plane.  It has advantages over the Fw190D-9, particularly at high altitude, but the Fw190D-9 has significant advantages over the Spitfire F.MkXIVc, especially at low altitude.
If the Spitfire FR.MkXIVe is added it should probably be about a 30 point perk plane.  The additionally fuel range and greater visibility give it the edge over the Fw190D-9.

Please give your feedback.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[Tony Williams]

Karnak,  look at http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages/
for an analysis of the armament of the Spitfire and Fw 190.  It's under the "aircraft guns" section.

The Fw 190 is superior in most respects, except for ground attack.

Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

[Karnak]

Tony,
Yes, that is why I mention that AH was the context.  In AH there is no jamming and thus the muzzle velocity on the Hispano MkII makes it the deadliest cannon in the game.

The post you directed me to states things esentially as I saw them in reality.  AH changes a few things due to the lack of jamming and the lack of dying.  The different velocities between the 20mm Hispano and the 303 Browning is definately present in AH.

What it comes down to is that, at least as modeled in AH, both the Spitfire and the Fw190 have more than adequate firepower to shred a single engine fighter in an extremely short period of time.

If you could provide information as to what failings the Hispano MkII had other than jamming, there are many people here who would appriciate it.  Due to my fondness of Spitfires, I'm not really one of them, though I would prefer an accurate simulation, even if it hurts.

The Hispano MkII in AH has a muzzle velocity of 840 yards per second and a rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute or so.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 03-10-2001).]

[HABICHT]

bring in the spit14.
even as an former customer and LW pilot,
i think RAF needs it.

but lets see, how the tempest will do online.

greetings

habicht aka wastel(wb&il2)
9./jg54 MIA

[Jekyll]

Nice analysis Karnak.<S>

However, ......

Durability:  Having not flown the Spit much of late, I would 'probably' give the Spitfire the nod in this area.  Just about any shot that connects on a 190 seems to instantly destroy the engine, irrespective of the aspect from which the shot was fired.  I cannot remember such a general vulnerability in the Spitfire series.

Visibility:  I'd have to give the nod to the Spitfire here.  There are any number of AH aircraft with much better 'out of the cockpit' visibility than the 190 series.  The vertical bar running back along the canopy can be a real bear when it comes to maintaining vis on an opponent.  In fact, from a BFM point of view, I would only rate the P38, La series etc as having worse visibility than the 190s.


------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 03-10-2001).]

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Karnak:
Climb Rate at Sea Level


Fw190D-9: 4,100ft
Spitfire MkXIV: 5,110ft

The Spitfire MkXIV has a significant advantage over the Fw190D-9 due to its extremely high rate of climb.  The Fw190D-9 is, however, no slouch in this area and has a good rate of climb at sea level


Climb Rate at 18,000 Feet:


Fw190D-9: 3,100ft
Spitfire MkXIV: 3,600ft

The Spitfire MkXIV's advantage has been halved to 500ft per minute, but it still maintains the advantage.


Climb Rate at 27,000 Feet


Fw190D-9: 1,630ft
Spitfire MkXIV: 2,700ft

The Spitfire MkXIV has regained its 1,000ft per minute climb rate advantage..

 

Acceleration


Both the Fw190D-9 and Spitfire MkXIV will accelerate extremely well for WWII fighters.  I do not know which will hold the advantage or at what altitudes the advantage will shift.  Looking at the speed and climb rates of the two aircraft might give us a clue in this area.  I will have to rely on others for this information.

the acceleration and climbrate are closely matched. The plane wich climbs faster, is a better accelerator.

SpitXIV is better turner, better climber, and accelerator than D9. Over 25K is also a faster plane than the dora.

D9 is a better roller, faster plane on the deck. And...and..

and  . thats it. Visibility and range dont play a real role here, where an icon tells you where the bad guy is, and where the air bases are 25miles apart one from other.

Where I laughed a lot, Karnak, is when you say that, as the D9 had more ammo, it has better weapons. Lol, you have done this comparison to make the Spit XIV appear not so uber...but...

With the hispanos is easy to hit, and has way harder punch. Long range gunnery is quite easy and high deflection shooting can be done with no problem.

With the Mausers, the drop of the bullet and the slower projectile make it very hard to hit beyond 300yards. Even worse, as the Dora has a long nose, the high deflection shootings are as hard as in a LA.

The machineguns in the spitfire can be used with no problems, linked with the cannons. Simillar ballistics and heavy hitting (for its caliber).

The D9 has its MGs on the nose, where their flash spoil SEVERELY your visibility. Not only that, their ballisticsa are so different than the Mauser's that is almost impossible to harmonize propwerly the weapons.

So dont talk about ammo loads, dude. The Spitfire has twice the firepower of the Dora.


The SpitXIV can turn, accelerate, climb, dive (not as well as others, true, still, it can dive pretty good), has good firepower, decent range, wonderful high altitude performance...

The dora is IMO A non-perk plane because it is quite well matched to the P51D. The spitXIV is a better arena plane than both the P51 and the Dora.

IMHO the Spitfire XIV would be a "cheap perk". I would rate it at 10-15 perk points.

Said that I could care the less if it is perked or not   I have my little toy to play with, so I dont mind  

[StSanta]

Very nice writeup karnak, very nice indeed. I disagree with two points and think perhaps one other might be discussed.

Acceleration

Both the Fw190D-9 and Spitfire MkXIV will accelerate extremely well for WWII fighters. I do not know which will hold the advantage or at what altitudes the advantage will shift. Looking at the speed and climb rates of the two aircraft might give us a clue in this area. I will have to rely on others for this information

This far, the D9's acceleration hasn't impressed me that much - I suspect with that monster engine of the XIV, the Spit will do sigificantly better. Climb rate also indicate this.

Armament

Fw190D-9: 2 x 20mm MG 151/20 with 250 rpg and 2 x 13mm MG 131 with 475 rpg.
Spitfire MkXIV: 2 x 20mm Hispano Mk II with 120 rpg and 4 x 303 cal Browning with 350 rpg; or; 2 x 20mm Hispano Mk II with
120 rpg and 2 50 cal M2 with 250 rpg.

This can be looked at in a number of ways. Given that AH is the context, the Spitfire MkXIV certainly has the advantage when
simply looking at the kind of guns used. The Hispano Mk IIs are clearly superior to the MG 151/20s in AH. Although I prefer  them, the 303 cal Brownings may as well be hail for all the effect they have on enemy aircraft. The 50 cal M2 is a very good gun, but I do not know how it compares with the 13mm MG 131. Given their calibers, I will consider the parable. Ammunition is where the Fw190D-9 shines. Carrying more than twice the 20mm load and nearly double the 12.7mm/13mm load
gives the Fw190D-9 an overall advantage in the armament area except when strafing tanks.

I have to disagree here. The AMOUNT of ammo is not nearly as important as the TYPE of ammo, the ballistics, velocity and ROF.

With regards to the 20mm's, while the D9 has more ammo, the german 20mm's require substantially more lead, making snapshots much more difficult. It also has a very limited range compared to the hispano, and a lot less hitting power. 1-2 hisp round can saw off a wing. Haven't been able to do this with German 20mms more than a few odd times.

Same goes for .50's vs 12.7mm. ROF, velocity, hitting power and ballistics are vastly superior for the .50.

In a co alt, co e engagement, the Spit should eat the D9. Quite easily. It can outclimb, outgun, outaccelerate it and at all alts but down low out run it. And outturn it. The D9 would have to resort to a nose down position to gain separation. Furthermore, the Spit would be far more deadly in HO's, forcing the D9 pilot to give up position to avoid the HO, whereas the Spit pilot can go into one knowing he has the edge. And, of course, he'll turn around much faster for that HO shot.

The Spit will also hav vastly much better vertical performance in the form of getting nose around in immelmans and would easily win a loop fight. After all, the D9 is as heavy as the A8, even though it has a better engine, this doesn't compensate for it.

D9 has roll rate and initial dive, and top speed on the deck. The Spit all the rest.


------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
     

"Live to pull, pull to live"

[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 03-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 03-10-2001).]

[juzz]

Not just faster at sea level - all the way to 20k.

s/l: 377mph vs 363mph
5k: 393mph vs 391mph - Spit 14 1st gear critical alt
8k: 400mph vs 389mph - D-9 1st gear critical alt
12k: 412mph vs 388mph - Spit 14 engages 2nd gear
18k: 433mph vs 413mph - D-9 2nd gear critical alt
20.5k: 426mph tied
25.4k: 416mph vs 446mph - Spit 14 2nd gear critical alt
30k: 407mph vs 443mph

Basically : D-9 is 10mph faster on the deck, roughly equal to 5k - then the Spitfire drops speed until it engages it's 2nd gear at 12k, by then its about 20mph slower, until the D-9 starts to loose speed at 18k. Above 20k, fly a Ta 152H - the Spitfire murders the D-9 for speed.

[Nashwan]

Without the Spitfire XIV the RAF is stuck with the IX as the best Spitfire (the VII would be a bit better, as would the Lf IX, but this is what we currently have)
Spitfire IX v Fw190D9

Top Speed at Sea Level

Fw190D-9: 376mph
Spitfire MkIX: 325mph

The Dora is more than 50mph faster at S/L, and can maintain this speed longer than the Spit can. It can engage and disengage at will.

Top Speed at 18,000 Feet

Fw190D-9: 433mph
Spitfire MkIX: 380mph
The gap has grown slightly. The Dora can again dictate the terms of the fight.

Top Speed at 27,000 Feet

Fw190D-9: 415mph
Spitfire MkIX: 409mph
The Spitfire is almost as fast as the Dora, but again the Dora can hold this speed for longer. It will also accelerate far quicker in the dive, so the Dora can still disengage at will.

Climb Rate at Sea Level

Fw190D-9: 4,100ft
Spitfire MkIX: 3600ft approx
The Dora can outclimb the Spit by a significant margin, and can maintain the climb longer. If you take into account the speed difference, the zoom climb on the Dora will be vastly superior to the Spitfire.

Climb Rate at 18,000 Feet

Fw190D-9: 3,100ft
Spitfire MkIX 2980ft
The dora still has the advantage, though not by much. The zoom climb is still heavily in the dora's favour.

Climb Rate at 27,000 Feet

Fw190D-9: 1,630ft
Spitfire MkIX 2600ft
The Spitfire holds an advantage at this height.

Roll Rate

There is no contest, the Fw190D-9 is vastly better at all speeds and altitudes.


Turn Rate

There is no contest, the Spitfire MkXIV is vastly better at all altitudes and speeds.


Turn Radius

There is no contest, the Spitfire MkXIV is vastly better at all altitudes and speeds

Acceleration
I would have thought a clear win for the Dora

Dive
The Dora will easily outdive the Spitfir

Range
Roughly equal

Armament
Same as the Spitfire XIV v Dora
Do not underestimate the advantage of the extra ammunition carried by the Dora. Still a win for the spitfire, but not by as much as Hispano v Mauser would indicate

Conclusion
The Spitfire F IX was developed in a hurry to counter the Fw190 A3. In tests it showed itself to be roughly equal to the A3. More than 2 years later the D9 came into service, and if the RAF had relied on Spit F IXs then it would have found itself in more difficulties than it did with the Spit V 190A3 match-up. The Spit IX is not capable of engaging the Dora on anything like equal terms

The Dora v Spit XIV match up is close. At low level, where most combat in AH takes place, the Dora is faster than the Spit It rolls better and dives better. In most circumstances the Dora will still be able to disengage whenever it feels like. Against this the Spit XIV will turn better and climb better, and ha a better armament package. Acceleration should be similar. The Spit will also run out of wep before the Dora does

Without the Spit XIV the choices for a better Spitfire are:
Spit IX LF: a bit faster and better climber low down, but still nearly 50mph slower than the Dora.

Spit VIII: handles better than the Spit IX and marginally faster, but still nearly 50mph slower thn the Dora

Spit XII: Faster than the Spit IXs at low level, but still considerably slower than the Dora. Poor performance at altitude. Only 100 built

Spit IX LF or Spit VIII on 150 octane fuel.
The RAF's answer to MW 50. Transforms the performance of Spits. Figures for a Spit VIII on 150 octane, 25lb boost:
362mph S/L
387mph 9,000ft
5,580ft/min S/L
5,100f/min 11,000ft
For 5 minutes a 150 octane VIII/IX would outperform the XIV down low, but after that performance drops dramatically. At altitude there is no advantage over 100 octane fuel.

To sum up, the current Spits in AH are overmatched by the Dora even more than the Spit V was by the 190A3. If that isn't to continue then the Spit XIV is the only logical choice to redress the balance.

[Torgo]

It's clear the single criteria for perking is whether a given AC would be too high a % of the arena aircraft unperked.

It's pretty obvious that over 30-50% of the arena would fly Tempests if it were unperked. 152s? Well, I don't think so. Interesting to see if the cost comes down in the future.

But does anyone here doubt that an unperked Spit XIV would be a higher % of the arena aircraft than the CHog was a couple tours ago?  You'll have massive newbie migration to it, away from the CHog, due to the turning and speed.

[Pongo]

I think that as a text book appraisal that was pretty good. For anything other then vulching though the Spit has far better firepower. That load out is good for 5 kills in A2A. and the Spit XIV will get you in great postion for those kills.
I am postitive we will be know soon one way or the other. I am also sure we will see the XIVe as a perk plane.
The fighting qualities of the Spitfires are just too superior. A constant 25% advantage in climb rate?
As far as comparing 131s to 50s. 50s are to 131/13s as Hispanos are to 151/20s.

[Karnak]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

The general consensus seems to be that the Spitfire MkXIV needs to be perked.

I agree that the Tempest had to be perked as well, so no argument from me on that count.

What do you guys think can be added to give Spitfire drivers, such as myself, a non-perk fighter that is more competitive/contemporary with the La7, Fw190D-9, N1K2-J and P-51D?

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[juzz]

Mk VIII in RAAF markings, and Mk XVI with bubble hood in Canadian Sqn markings.
Plus a VC Trop with 4x20mm and desert camo, also with the Malta option of only 2x20mm.

Replace the Seafire II with a III too.

[Glunz]

It is about time to have the Spitfire XIV.

Non-perked, please, so current Dora dweebs switch to it ASAP.

Real Dora fan will have no problem with Spit XIV.

[Tony Williams]

The comparison between the Hispano II and the MG 151/20 is an interesting one.  The Hispano has a higher muzzle velocity and a heavier projectile, which gives it better range and kinetic energy, and a better chance of scoring a hit in deflection shooting (not that many pilots could score hits in deflection, anyway).  OTOH, the Mauser has a slightly higher rate of fire and could use M-Geschoss shells, which carried 18-20g of HE instead of around 11g for the Hisso, so in some circumstances it would be more destructive.

The ammunition loadout wouldn't be significant in most circumstances.  This is from my book:

"The first 20mm Hispano guns also used a 60-round drum (giving only six seconds firing) which accounts for the RAF’s keenness to introduce belt feeding.   Fighter installations of belt-fed Hispanos typically provided 120-150 rpg (12-15 seconds), although the Beaufighter carried 240-283 rpg, providing almost half a minute’s firing.  These figures proved adequate in practice.  Analysis of camera-gun film revealed that an average of seventeen rounds of 20mm were fired per burst, with three to five bursts per combat, at intervals of between three and ten seconds."

I think that the 20mm Hisso plus .5" was quite a good combination, but the .303 were rubbish.  The MG 151 and MG 131 combo wasn't bad, and the total rate of fire was certainly greater.

As has been observed, both armaments were capable of reducing opposing fighters to scrap in short order.  Nuff said.

Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/