FW-190D9 vs Spitfire MK XVI roll rates

[skorpion]

as the title says, what one rolls better? ive heard the 190 does but i think the Spit16 can roll with it depending on your compitence with it. also, is it better to out-roll a Spit16 in a D9 or is it better to outdive it? ive heard its better to out-dive because the Spits wings snap off like a toothpick if you pull too many G's suddenly.

[Karnak]

Fw190s roll a little bit better than the Spitfire Mk XVI.

[skorpion]

Fw190s roll a little bit better than the Spitfire Mk XVI.

anything else...? such as out-diving or out-rolling a spit16 in the D9?

[Karnak]

D-9 should accelerate faster in a dive, but maximum controllable speed in the Spitfire may be faster.  Many players seem to have greatly exaggerated expectations of dive acceleration difference though.

[skorpion]

D-9 should accelerate faster in a dive, but maximum controllable speed in the Spitfire may be faster.  Many players seem to have greatly exaggerated expectations of dive acceleration difference though.

i saw the last part you stated all too much, someone tries to dive in a plane that they have no knowledge of and end up killing themselves by auger or just plain hitting the guy there chasing. the Spit16 to me, seems that with its wings being clipped it would have dived faster due to less drag.

[icepac]

Depends on altitude and airspeed.

[skorpion]

Depends on altitude and airspeed.

lets say at 12k and at max throttle.

[Karnak]

i saw the last part you stated all too much, someone tries to dive in a plane that they have no knowledge of and end up killing themselves by auger or just plain hitting the guy there chasing. the Spit16 to me, seems that with its wings being clipped it would have dived faster due to less drag.

The calculations are a lot more complex than that.  Apparently the Spitfire had an unusually high critical mach number for a piston engined fighter due to its aerodynamics.  The clipped wings don't really play inot it.

[skorpion]

The calculations are a lot more complex than that.  Apparently the Spitfire had an unusually high critical mach number for a piston engined fighter due to its aerodynamics.  The clipped wings don't really play inot it.

huh...i thought the wings would have helped because of them being clipped, but the aerodynamics part is what really intruiged me. i didnt know they were aeronomically superior to other spitfires, i just thought they kept the same fuselage and wings and upgraded the engines/guns up to the MK 14 spitfire.

[icepac]

lets say at 12k and at max throttle.

That should still favor the 190's roll rate if in level flight.

There are certain conditions that would favor the spitfire XVI but pretty narrow parts of the flight envelope.

Maybe 30,000 feet at 150mph.

[Karnak]

huh...i thought the wings would have helped because of them being clipped, but the aerodynamics part is what really intruiged me. i didnt know they were aeronomically superior to other spitfires, i just thought they kept the same fuselage and wings and upgraded the engines/guns up to the MK 14 spitfire.

There were various structural changes as well.

Keep in mind that the speeds we're talking about are higher than what WWII fighters were designed for and the engineers of the day were encountering new problems aerodynamically speaking.  That one fighter had a high critical mach number and another a lower number was almost entirely happenstance.  Pilots, in generally, should not have been pushing the aircraft to those speeds and so it shouldn't have come up in combat very often.

[skorpion]

That should still favor the 190's roll rate if in level flight.

There are certain conditions that would favor the spitfire XVI but pretty narrow parts of the flight envelope.

Maybe 30,000 feet at 150mph.

its kind of rare to find a decent fight against a spit16 at 30k in a 190...but im sure the spit would have the turning advantage at almost any altitude. unless it gets slow then the 190 might have a chance because ive noticed the spit16 doesnt like to handle well at stall speed turn fights. usually one wing stalls more than the other and manages to throw you off to the point where your forced to re-do the attack.

[Jabberwock]

huh...i thought the wings would have helped because of them being clipped, but the aerodynamics part is what really intruiged me. i didnt know they were aeronomically superior to other spitfires, i just thought they kept the same fuselage and wings and upgraded the engines/guns up to the MK 14 spitfire.

The airframe and wings of the Spitfire changed considerably through the war. There was a significant in upgrade with the Mk Vc, both for the wings and the airframe. There was another significant airframe and skinning change in the Mk VII and VIII. There were also some major changes for the Mk XIV.

Spitfire airframe family progression is roughly :

Mk I -> Mk II -> Mk Va/b -> Mk Vc - Mk IX/XVI
Mk Vc -> Mk VII/VIII -> Mk XII -> Mk XIV -> Mk XVIII
Mk 21 -> 22 -> 24

There was a lot of cross-pollination between the Mk Vc/VIII airframe and the Mk IX/XVI, with improvements progressively incorporated as production stretched through the war.

[skorpion]

The airframe and wings of the Spitfire changed considerably through the war. There was a significant in upgrade with the Mk Vc, both for the wings and the airframe. There was another significant airframe and skinning change in the Mk VII and VIII. There were also some major changes for the Mk XIV.

Spitfire airframe family progression is roughly :

Mk I -> Mk II -> Mk Va/b -> Mk Vc - Mk IX/XVI
Mk Vc -> Mk VII/VIII -> Mk XII -> Mk XIV -> Mk XVIII
Mk 21 -> 22 -> 24

There was a lot of cross-pollination between the Mk Vc/VIII airframe and the Mk IX/XVI, with improvements progressively incorporated as production stretched through the war.

did some of the airframes change due to the types of engines? i heard that if it was a griffon engine, the nose was longer and if it was a merlin it was shorter. is this true? also, thanks for the info on how it evolved. was wondering how the spits airframe changed.

[Guppy35]

did some of the airframes change due to the types of engines? i heard that if it was a griffon engine, the nose was longer and if it was a merlin it was shorter. is this true? also, thanks for the info on how it evolved. was wondering how the spits airframe changed.

The Spit Vb was basically the same airframe as the Spitfire I and II.  The B Wing was also found on some versions of the I and II.  The Spitfire Vc was a more strengthened airframe and had the redesigned universal wing.  The Spitfire IX/XVI and first 50 of the XII were built on the Vc airframe.  The VIII had a updated airframe with the retractable tail wheel.  The last 50 Spit XII were built on that airframe.  All XII had the pointed wider chord rudder as did all the XVIs.  Many IXs did as well.  The majority of the VII and VIII had this wider taller rudder too.

The Spitfire XIV was built on the VIII airframe with a redesigned tail to take on more of the torque. 

In terms of diving, the thin wing of the Spitfire was the biggest factor.  Testing was done at Farnborough with a Spitfire XI which had none of the guns or bumps for cannons etc.  It reached the highest speed in a dive for a prop bird.

In terms of roll rate, the clipping of the Spitfire wing made a big improvement.  This could be done to any of the Spit wings though as you could find clipped Vbs, Vc, IX, VIII, all XII and many XIVs in particular post war.

The Spit XVI used a Merlin rated for better performance down low so you wouldn't find it at 30K.  The clipped wing was also meant to help down low, another reason it wouldn't be up high