was the focke wulf 190 superior to the supermarine spitfire?

Question

in general apart from differing modifications

Answer 1

The Fw-190 debut variant was very superior to the then current Spitfire (Why else would the RAF want to make a raid to capture one '190) and it would take the Mk IX a long and sad while before it could match and outperform the 'Wulf.



So the answer is, yes, in general it was and was one of the finest aircrafts of WW-2. That it didnt win the war was a matter of politics and best left undiscussed in an Aircrafts forum.



Well, one of them gobbled up 7 Spits' in a day and there are names like Kittel and Nowotny as proof of its superiority.



And there is the question "Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Wulf?" to ponder over and its famous answer!



Focke Yesss!

Answer 2

Fw 190 Vs Spitfire

Answer 3

Well well just as mentioned in the above posts it's dependent upon the marks you are referring to. The Focke-Wulf was a nasty shock to the Brits when it showed up but the Spitfire was upgraded eventually and was superior to the debut marks of Focke-Wulf but then the Focke-Wulfs were upgraded and on and on.

The FW-190 D-9 is considered by many to be the finest German fighter of WWII. The speed and weaponry on the D-9 made it quite formidable.

The later mark Spitfires were every bit the handful for anything they went up against considering by that time of the war they were sporting 4 20mm guns in the wings.

Probably the best way to tell is compare the equivalent marks and not just group them together in a generic pile.

The Spitfire also had upgrades to the engine just as the Focke-Wulf. The Focke-Wulf got the Jumo engines in the later marks instead of the BMW 801 engines which were rumored to be a copy of the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radial and the Spitfires moved up to the Rolls Royce Griffon engine.

I think the tale of the tape will depend on comparing apples to apples when trying to figure this one out.

Answer 4

Personally, I'd favour the 190. It was compact, fast, agile and heavily armed, as well as having a wide-track undercarriage which gave far better ground-handling than the 109's narrow gear. The 'Battle of Britain' period 109E was an adequate fighter, but after that things seem to go downhill. The 109F was maneuverable but under-gunned, while the late model 109G may have had an uprated engine and more speed, but was also weighed down with more weapons and armour which took the edge of its performance. The less said about the dire S-199 (Czech copies of the 109) which the fledgling Israeli Air Force acquired the better. Fitted with slow-revving Jumo engines instead of DB605s like the 109G, they were notorious for their tendancy to swing and ground-loop, one even killing the CO of 101, the first Israeli fighter squadron in an accident.

Answer 5

Which spitfire -- the early days of the war the 190 was faster but lacked the firepower. The later versions of the spit with the Merlin engine were superior to the 190. The real workhorse in Britain was the Hurricane which shot down the highest number of enemy planes in the war. But none could fly with the Mustang. The U. S. won in every theater in the war with tactics even though they had superior planes. Tactics held off and even beat the dreaded Japanese Zero until we got the Corsairs in the Pacific then we totally dominated. When the Enola Gay flew over Japan to drop the big bomb there were no enemy fighters left to send up against it.

Answer 6

The Allies won WW2, the British won the Battle of Britain.



The FW190 was the answer to the Spitfire, however, both aeroplanes were developed over time so the last Spitfires were superior to the last FW190s.



The success of the Spitfire was such that the Americans took the RR Merlin engine to fit to the P51.

Answer 7

compared side by side yes, it was only by sheer luck the Brits won. the 190 had 1 big advantage over the Merlin engine in the spitfire and that was when a spitfire went to do a loop or attempted a vertical climb the spitfire couldn't achieve this because all the fuel in the carburettor went to the back yet the 190 could do this. the reason?? simple. the engine in the 190 had fuel injection and not a carburettor like the Merlin engines making the 190 a better aircraft but the spitfire did have a tighter turning circle.

Answer 8

FW190 was a good fighter, but a little different from spitfire, superior or inferior depends a lot from the series you take into consideration and superior or inferior in doing what?(dogfight, bomber intercept, ground attack....) and also in which enviroment? (at low altitude or very high altitude).

Answer 9

Technically it was yes but I prefer the Me 109.

America won the war?History books?Obviously ones wriiten by Hollywood and not by accredited Historians.

Answer 10

Depends on which model you are talking about.



In general though, yes, the Fw-190 was the better plane.

Answer 11

Not bad, Spudbuster! 95% right. Check out the VB wing against a Mk.9. Similar, I'd say.....

Answer 12

No. German staffing and tactical deployment was inferior. The Germans had better photo recon equipment but employed fewer

resources to analyse and amend operational orders accordingly, for example. Were they not, Germany could have destroyed the

RAF early, and ignored urban popumation centers.

Answer 13

the fw 190 was superior until the mk9 spit was introduced then nothing could touch it it was faster more agile and better armed.

Answer 14

It is still in debate.Take a look:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfocke190.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWspitfire.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190

Answer 15

Focke yes!!!!!

Answer 16

YOU BETER BELIEVE IT WAS, FAR SUPERIOR

Answer 17

who won WW2?