Bf-109 vs P-40

To add to FBs comment on tail draggers, the Wildcat could be a handfull when landing at an airfield. Very easy to ground loop because of the narrow and springy landing gear. The arresting gear on a carrier largly obviated this problem. A note on pilot training: The USN and USMC pilots at the beginning of the war were extremely well trained (although of course not combat experienced) and according to Lundstrom in "The First Team" were better trained in gunnery, overall, than any other pilots in the world.

renrich said:

To add to FBs comment on tail draggers, the Wildcat could be a handfull when landing at an airfield. Very easy to ground loop because of the narrow and springy landing gear. The arresting gear on a carrier largly obviated this problem. A note on pilot training: The USN and USMC pilots at the beginning of the war were extremely well trained (although of course not combat experienced) and according to Lundstrom in "The First Team" were better trained in gunnery, overall, than any other pilots in the world.

Click to expand...

Another thing that made them a handful was the solid rubber tailwheel used on a carrier deck.

Cromwell said:

Note : You may notice I was comparing the Hurricane with the 109.


- But, yes, the Spit did have a narrow cart like the 109 for sure.


However, I understand that the Spits cart was


a. Much more straight up and down, not 'splayed' like the 109s

b. Stronger in all points.

c. Attached to the Main Spar - not tacked on to the Engine Mounting as per the 109

Click to expand...

This old chestnut(didn't a thread close on this heated subject.) The main problem is the location of the CG in relation to the undercariage when comparing the Spit vs 109(too far forward and it will nose tip, too far back and it will ground loop).The rearward CG of of the 109 tends to make it more likely to ground loop. Spits is further forward .

I am voting for the 109.

To me it is quite obvious that Bf-109 turns better than the P-40, and this has nothing to do with bias I promise you that, it's just pure logic. The Bf-109 is lighter, much less draggy, has more power available and features a considerably higher wing Clmax. Also add to that the Bf-109 is considered one of the best WW2 turn fighters by modern pilots who actually fly these a/c, being ranked as very close to the Spitfire in terms of turn performance, which is saying a lot.
Fact is that Hohun made an excellent piece of work with these charts, taking into account many physical factors we usually never even approach when we argue about a/c performance. In short the rules of physics seem to fully support Hohun's charts.

Some people apparently question the accuracy of the chart because of the apparently great performance of the Beaufighter. Well I'll tell you what, that the Beaufighter was a good performer in a turn at a weight of 8,000 kg, which is way below normal combat weight, doesn't surprise me at all, I mean look at thickness of those wings and the sheer size of the wing area! That the Beaufighter usually weighed 10,000 kg or more is another matter though, so in normal combat condition it did considerably worse ofcourse, Hohun's charts just went off of a different basic weight, hence the results.

You see when it comes to a/c performance there's no magic involved, it can all be explained with physics, and that's fact.

And now for the Soviet turning time figures, I would take those with a HUGE grain of salt if I were you guys! First of all the first G-2 actually tested was one with gunpods attached (I have the picture of the a/c in question), secondly the other one had crash landed and was so badly damaged that a new wing had to be made for it by Russian engineers. And third, the engines were not running at full power as the Soviets didn't have the proper fuel. And the fourth and final reason: Look at the chart, the Fw-190A4 managed to turn 360 degrees in 19 seconds straight, that is better than the P-40 and Bf-109. Now I don't know about you guys but I happen to know for a fact that the Bf-109 was a much better turn fighter than the Fw-190, something which is backed up by every comparative test made by the LW. Yet the Fw-190 managed to outperform both the P-40 and Bf-109 in Soviet turn performance testing ? To me a clear sign that the Bf-109 is a better turn fighter than both.

Also for those interested in a direct comparison between the Bf-109G6, Fw-190A8 La-5FN, have a look at Hans Werner Lerche's book, Luftwaffe test pilot. In it there's a thurough test of a La-5FN in excellent condition, with the original document describing the testing of the La-5FN and the difference between the three a/c in detail. The conclusion was that the La-5FN turns worse than the Bf-109G6 and better than the Fw-190A8, and is slower than both. Now there are some claims that the La-5FN in question wasn't in good condition because of the speeds achieved, this however is incorrect as the condition of the a/c is mentioned as very good, and the fact that the speeds achieved were lower than Soviet figures isn't surprising either as the official soviet performance specs rarely seemed to hold true in any foreign tests. Furthermore German fighter pilots have made it quite clear that they never met a Soviet fighter they couldn't outrun.

Anyway I'm not trying to piss on the P-40 as a fighter a/c, it is often way underrated by people today, but compared to the Bf-109 it was just clearly outmatched.

Soren
If you bother look the Soviet table you will see that it has specs for 109G-2 AND for G-2/R6 and max speeds 666 and 665km/h showed that there was nothing wrong with engine power of the planes. And in fact Soviet turn time for "clean" G-2 was a bit better than that of Finnish test result.

BTW Soviet got more than few intact 109Gs which landed in error on Soviet airfields or were delivered by defecting pilots.

Hans Werner Lerche's book data clearly show that the LW test results were clearly worse than those of Soviet tests made using randomly pickedup La-5FNs when on the other hand those 109G-2s tested by Soviets achieved at least as good max speeds than those tested at Rechlin.

Juha

Soren said:

Anyway I'm not trying to piss on the P-40 as a fighter a/c, it is often way underrated by people today, but compared to the Bf-109 it was just clearly outmatched.

Click to expand...

I think the ultimate prop fighter of WWII would have been a Spitfire with a DB engine ...

In fact it DID exist ! Aha !

From : Unreal Aircraft - Hybrid Aircraft - Supermarine/Daimler-Benz Spitfire



Quote :-

"After a couple of weeks, and with a new yellow-painted nose, the Spitfire returne to Echterdingen. Ellenreider was the first to try the aircraft. He was stunned that the aircraft had much better visibility and handling on the ground than the Bf.109. It took off before he realised it and had an impressive climb rate, around 70 ft. (21 m.) per second. Much of the Spitfire's better handling could be attributed to its lower wing loading.

The Spitfire's wing area was about 54 sq. ft. (5m²) greater than that of the Bf.109. The Messerschmitt was faster at low altitude, but at 11,000 ft. (3350 m) the speeds evened out. The DB 605A engine gave better performance, according to the test group, than the Merlin, which was rated 150 hp below the German engine. It gave the Spitfire a ceiling of 41,666 ft. (12700 m.), about 3,280 ft. (1000 m.) more than a Bf.109G with the same engine and 5,166 ft. (1475 m.) more than that of a Spitfire Mk.V."

Cromwell said:

I think the ultimate prop fighter of WWII would have been a Spitfire with a DB engine ...

In fact it DID exist

Click to expand...

I think a mating of a Bf109F airframe with the Merlin 66 would have borne more fruit than a Spitfire IX airframe mated with a DB603; the Spitfire required more horsepower to fly at the same max speed as the contemporary Bf109

Soren I think no one is denying that the -109 was a superior aircraft HOWEVER you keep bringing up F and G models. Make the comparison with the Emil to the P-40B and that's where the differences are a lot narrower. In fact, depending who you talk to, the P-40B was actually a bit faster than the -109E

Colin1 said:

I think a mating of a Bf109F airframe with the Merlin 66 would have borne more fruit than a Spitfire IX airframe mated with a DB603; the Spitfire required more horsepower to fly at the same max speed as the contemporary Bf109

Click to expand...

Spit with a DB 603 would've been something like early Griffon variants, offering a noticeable increase in performance over the Mk IX. It would allow installation of motor cannon and allow deleting of the LMGs while increasing the fire power.
So, the Spitfire would've benefit with 603 installed.

The installation of Merlin 66 would render mounting of motor canon impossible, possibly forcing the 2 cannons mounted in under wing gondolas. The plane would've benefit though, since the Merlin 66 would offer a 300HP increase.

As far as I can tell from the data available the Bf-109E was better than the P-40B in every aspect of flight except for roll rate.

The official top speed of the Emil was 570 km/h (Got the Datenblatt), some 15 km/h faster than the P-40B.

tomo pauk said:

...the Merlin 66 would offer a 300HP increase.

Click to expand...

That's where I was coming from

FLYBOYJ said:

Soren I think no one is denying that the -109 was a superior aircraft HOWEVER you keep bringing up F and G models. Make the comparison with the Emil to the P-40B and that's where the differences are a lot narrower. In fact, depending who you talk to, the P-40B was actually a bit faster than the -109E

Click to expand...

If you look at time lines, the P-40B and C should be compared to the 109F

ssnider said:

If you look at time lines, the P-40B and C should be compared to the 109F

Click to expand...

Ok - then make the comparison with a P-40 (no suffix)

Soren said:

To me it is quite obvious that Bf-109 turns better than the P-40, and this has nothing to do with bias I promise you that, it's just pure logic. The Bf-109 is lighter, much less draggy, has more power available and features a considerably higher wing Clmax.

Click to expand...

Several pages back there was a lengthy discussion about the difficulties of making accurate mathematical models for turn performance, carried out by people who clearly know ten times as much as I do about the requisite science. Given the fact that even they were stumped, I don't think it's a good idea on our part to proclaim this or that fighter to be superior by citing a few raw performace stats and then trotting off singing "Science!"

It's far more useful for us to consult actual testing data and then examine the methodology for potential error-inducing errors, like you are doing.

Also add to that the Bf-109 is considered one of the best WW2 turn fighters by modern pilots who actually fly these a/c, being ranked as very close to the Spitfire in terms of turn performance, which is saying a lot.

Click to expand...

Not to be harsh, but I flat-out don't believe this. What I just said about raw performance stats not telling the whole story nonwithstanding, the day that a plane with a wing-loading of 40 pounds per square foot turns anywhere close to a plane with a wing loading of 25 pounds a square foot is the day I eat my socks.

Furthermore, I rather doubt that "modern" pilots are capable of getting a proper feel for those aircraft's maximum abilities. Any modern pilot that pulls a max-G turn in a 60 year old aircraft is a man who is tired of life.

I've done a fair bit of reading myself and I have never seen any instance where they Bf-109 was regarded as anything but a decent turner. It wasn't a bad turner, but it was never in the "exceptional" category with planes like the Spitfire or La-7.

Sorry Demetrious but you need to read some more then.

Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."

Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."

Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Skip Holm interview about P-51 vs Bf-109 vs Spitfire:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

Mark Hanna interview on Bf-109:
Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET

And there is plenty more where that came from!

As for estimating a/c performance, sorry but we disagree, there's nothing magical out there that can't be explained. But if you wish to place all your faith in 60 year old data and disregard both physics modern day assessments alike then be my guest, but I don't have to be like that myself.

Soren, hate to quibble but I don't think there are that many Bf 109s flying around today to test as opposed to 60 years ago when 30,000+ were available. I understand it might be old but whose to say it isn't correct? I'm not defending either plane but I think sometimes data from that time period is correct.

And exactly how long ago are those LW experten quotes referencing?

Njaco,

The thing is that 60 years ago there was a lot of bias present, today that isn't the case. Also the pilots who get the most out of an a/c are those who are used to flying it. Russian, British US pilots weren't used to flying German a/c and vice versa. And I think the Soviet tables also speak for themselves when you see the Fw-190A4 turning better than most of the fighters there, including both the Bf-109 P-40.

Hello Soren
As I have wrote early, a full quote of Kaiser's statement fully shows that he thought that Spitfire Mk V turned better than Bf 109F. And here is a Rechlin opinion, Curtiss was Hawk 75A
Kurfrst - Vergleichsfliegen Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane und Curtiss.

Quote: "Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss.

…Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times."

Juha

Hello
I dug out my earlier comments to Soren

- Polls (Polls - Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums)
- - f6f-5 vs 109 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/f6f-5-vs-109-a-16319.html)

…
Juha 01-10-2009 01:11 PM

Some 20 RAF and 3 LW pilots tell us that Spit I turned better than 109E here, scroll down until subtitle Turning appears http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

On Spit IX vs 109G again scroll down until subtitle Pilot Accounts appears, there are at least hundred of them http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

Not saying that 109 was a bad turner, it was better than many older stories suggest, but maybe not as good as Soren claims. And as always the man behind the stick was a very important factor in ac vs ac comparasion.

…
Juha 01-12-2009 06:30 PM

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:" Oddly enough the site doesn't quote Erwin Leykauf and Herbert Kaiser though who claim the Emil could turn with the Spit."

Yes, it's a pity that the site doesn't quote Kaiser, because the complete quote continues after that what Soren quoted.
"…Our first victims were Mark Vs and it was not difficult opponent to Bf 109 F(-4) except in turning combat (Kurvenkampf) – so we simply avoid that kind of combat. When Allied made amphibious landings to North-Africa, Sicily and Italy, we met Mk IXs and they were entirely different opponents. We suffered in their claws…"
Source: Hannu Valtonen Messerschmitt Bf 109 ja Saksan... p. 228, his source was Christy, Joe (Ed.) WW II: Luftwaffe Combat Planes Aces. Vol 18 Modern Aviation Library, Book Number 218. p. 86.

Juha

Worth remembering is also that the only German test which claims the Spitfire to be a better turn fighter than the 109 is from 1940 and against an Emil, and the Emil was at that time very well known to suffer from its' slats jamming in tight turns causing irrecoverable spins (Rall nearly getting killed this way), making pilots vary of such a maneuver, explaining the results. This is also further explained by many other German pilots including Leykauf Wolfrum. The issue was solved with the introduction of a new slat design with the Friedrich however.