Bf-109 vs P-40

[Juha]

So Soren
Can you mention a German test which claims that Bf 109 was a better turner than P-40 or Spitfire?

BTW, as I have mentioned earlier, all Wolfrum's victories were achieved in East, and VVS made only limited use of Spitfires, most of which went to PVO ie for air defence of big cities.

Juha

 

[VG-33]

Hello,

Njaco,
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.

Can you show us those soviet tables speaking for themselves, where Fw-190 A4 are turning better than Bf-109 and P-40?


Best Regards

 

[Soren]

Hello,



Can you show us those soviet tables speaking for themselves, where Fw-190 A4 are turning better than Bf-109 and P-40?


Best Regards

VG-33, didn't you read the link posted earlier?

 

[Juha]

Soren
if you read the table, turning time for 360deg turn for 190A-4 is given as 19-23sec, a bit ambivalent, but for P-40C as 18sec, which is a better result and for P-40E as 19,2 sec, not necessary worse than 19-23sec.

Juha

 

[VG-33]

VG-33, didn't you read the link posted earlier?

So i did, it's why i'm asking a source, a link, a reference, a picture (bmp, jpg, pdf...) or anything else for your soviet tables.

Regards

 

[Soren]

VG-33,

My table ? We're talking about the same table my friend. The Soviet table makes it quite clear that the Fw-190A4 turns better than both the P-40 and the Bf-109 by stating a 19 second turn time. I really don't see what so hard to understand by that.

 

[drgondog]

VG-33,

My table ? We're talking about the same table my friend. The Soviet table makes it quite clear that the Fw-190A4 turns better than both the P-40 and the Bf-109 by stating a 19 second turn time. I really don't see what so hard to understand by that.

Soren - if the soviet testresults are to believed, Henning's models result in almost 'opposite' results for 109 vs P-40 turn rates with P-40 same or better than 109 and near same as Fw 190..

All appeared to be so close that only a pilot of much better skill will prevail in a pure turning manuever -

I have thoroughly looked at Henning's paper - I like the physics and summation of the variables - and abhor the assumptions (with incomplete data available) that MUST be made to run a model at all. The turning, prop driven a/c with large AoA and trim drag effects are the most difficult, to achive some semblance of real world vs theoretical - as we debated to death for two years.

 

[Soren]

Exactly Bill, that is why I say one should take the Soviet tests with a HUGE grain of salt.

IMHO Hohun's tables are some of the most accurate a/c comparisons made here on this forum, and I really can't find any faults in them. Only thing I was able to really question was some of the weight and 'e' figures and the prop efficiency for each a/c. That's it.

 

[MikeGazdik]

All appeared to be so close that only a pilot of much better skill will prevail in a pure turning manuever -
.

That just about sums it up perfectly. I love this thread! You can all argue the Curtiss vs Messerschmitt all you want, but they are both still inferior to the mighty Bell P-39!!!!!! ( at least with Red Stars on it! )8)

 

[Matt308]

Unbiased summation, ofcourse.

I like a man with conviction.

 

[Juha]

IMHO the Soviet table is rather good but of course only a rough guide, giving info only on one kind of turn and without info how much skill was needed to achieve optimum turn performance.

One must notice that Soviet tests gave very nearly same results than those the Finnish got entirely independently, Bf 109G-2 22sec and I-153 12 sec.

On HoHun's tables I noticed one oddity above all, according to him Fokker D.XXI turned better than Curtiss P-36A, that was clearly contrary to all FAF pilots opinion I have seen, and some of them had flown both Hawk 75As and Fokker D.XXIs many times, even tested them during same day. On the other hand some HoHuns results were in line of what FAF pilots have told.

And of course turning ability was important to fighter but less important than speed and climb rate, maybe also rate of roll was more important than pure turning ability.

Juha

ADDITION: One oddity in the Soviet table is LaGG-3 Series 28, Finnish experiences were that LaGG-3s were not good turners, I exclude the lightened Series 66 here, it's pity that Finnish seems to have made a proper tests only with their war booty LG-1, which was a series 4 plane and so a worst case scenario, results at best were 23 sec at 2000m, usually 25sec, with a speed loss of 40km/h, so one must remember that if speed was allowed to drop then according to FAF tests a 109G-2 turned 360deg in 18 sec at 1000m when speed dropped from 450km/h to 330km/h, so with markedly bigger speed loss. Of course one must remember that FAF used warbooty plane in tests but a one which they also used operationally. LG-1 flew 25 combat sorties and got the only LG kill in FAF service, a Soviet LaGG-3 on 16 Feb 44

It would have been nice if Finns had also made thorough tests with warbooty LG-3, which was a Series 35 plane.

 

[VG-33]

VG-33,

My table ? We're talking about the same table my friend. The Soviet table makes it quite clear that the Fw-190A4 turns better than both the P-40 and the Bf-109 by stating a 19 second turn time. I really don't see what so hard to understand by that.

We have got the same table but your's one includes a lot of type mismaches and other rough errors.
Table of ftrs 1943

The good one is in the book "Samoletostroeniye v SSSR 1941-1945, TsAGuI edition 1994. Book two"

It's the source your table is taken from

I have the book, and some Kosminkov's (main autor) articles in french, so i will give correction.

FW-190 A4 turn rate is
- 23-24s LII-NKAP
- 22-23s NII-VVS

Me 109F-4
- 19,6 ( sometimes 19,8 ) -20.5 NII

Me 109G-2
- >20-21,5 middle 21 NII


And page 244, 245;
P-40C
- 18,0s mid. at 3290 kg in 10/1941

P-40E
- 19,2s mid. at 3840 kg in 07/1942


Considering the facts that

- P 40 used poor soviet fuel (92 or 95 octanes)
- Turned at 1000 m high, far under their best Allison altitude (4000+m)
- NII tests for german planes turn of time were estimated, not measured because each test pilot had a limited number of trials. That mean he systematically overquoted turn rates. But LII NKAP or BNT TsAGuI organisations, test condition were more closer to the reality, so more severe for sustainted turns measurements. Each time a same 109 and 190 were loosing or gaining about 1 or 2 seconds from an organisation to another. And also from a plane to another.

In final words, Soren

1) it's better to use the good values.
2) using the good values,it's not finish yet. You'v got to give them the right interpretation. Specialy from sources and other test conditions you don't know.
3) yes, probably keeping the P-40 under 3500-3600 kg as russians did you coud outurn all Bf 109 under 4500 m with a narrow margin, and the 190 with ease.

It does not mean that P-40 in general was a better fighter than Me 109 or FW 190!

VG-33

 

[VG-33]

Soren - if the soviet testresults are to believed, Henning's models result in almost 'opposite' results for 109 vs P-40 turn rates with P-40 same or better than 109 and near same as Fw 190..

Forget it. Soviets test are showing exactly the opposite.

All appeared to be so close that only a pilot of much better skill will prevail in a pure turning manuever -

A plane has got his physicall limits, exactly as a car, even in turn rate. In speed, roll rate, turn rate, turn radius, climb rate.
A good pilots knows better to use it. At a sustainted turn rate he would be closer to his best turn ratio than a rookie, but will never be abble to do better than his plane can do physically. But when pilot use and science isi at it's best ;- Kojedoub La-5FN vs Hartmann 109G, Richard Bong P-38/ Saburo Sakaî Zero - the plane makes difference.

I have thoroughly looked at Henning's paper - I like the physics and summation of the variables - and abhor the assumptions (with incomplete data available) that MUST be made to run a model at all. The turning, prop driven a/c with large AoA and trim drag effects are the most difficult, to achive some semblance of real world vs theoretical - as we debated to death for two years.

It's very kind from him for his curves, can he show/ explain equations and programms he use?

Best regards

 

[VG-33]

Hello Juha

.

One must notice that Soviet tests gave very nearly same results than those the Finnish got entirely independently, Bf 109G-2 22sec and I-153 12 sec.


It would have been nice if Finns had also made thorough tests with warbooty LG-3, which was a Series 35 plane.

Thank you, very informative. Can you also give us the speed and turn radiuses for this results?

Best regards.

 

[Soren]

Believe what you want VG-33, but I prefer to believe in what is actually physically possible.

To me there's no doubt that the Bf-109 turns tighter than the P-40.

 

[Juha]

Hello VG-33
First, thanks a lot for your info on Soviet tests
Very much appreciated.

Now I'm not sure what test results you want but here is the results of LG-1 tests, not from the series which gave the best results but an earlier one from which I have better info.
Meteorological data: air pressure 1007,1 mb, air temp + 15,3 deg C, wind 1 beauf. from N.

360deg turn

At 2000m entry speed 400km/h, end speed 360km/h, time 25sec
At 4000m___________370______________330_________25
At 6000m___________300______________260_________26sec

Sorry, no info on turn radius.
Source: Haapanen's Punatähdestä hakaristiin pp 106-107. Best results were got using 75 deg inclination.

BTW I found also test report made from tests flown in LG-3 but it gives only what feelings ? (tunnonmukainen testi) the test pilot felt during the tests, so no times or turning radius. I have even seen a copy of those tests but I had altogether forgot the docu.

If you mean 109G-2 tests, the only extra info I have to that I gave on 27 May 2009 for 360deg turn while keeping the speed constant from the source in hand (Valtonen's Lentäjän näkökulma II) are: inclination 70deg, 3G. I have a couple other sources on the subject in attic, they might have extra info.

Juha

 

[claidemore]

VG-33,

My table ? We're talking about the same table my friend. The Soviet table makes it quite clear that the Fw-190A4 turns better than both the P-40 and the Bf-109 by stating a 19 second turn time. I really don't see what so hard to understand by that.

I believe that particular source gives 19-23 second turn time for the FW190A4? 23 seconds makes it about the same as the 'five pointer' 109, which is about where most of us would expect it to be.

Given all other evidence and comparisons of FW190 turn rate vs either 109s or allied planes, it isn't hard to see that the 19 second figure is not correct, that it's either an anomoly or a typo or some other error. VG-33's post supports that conclustion...err... conclusively? There certainly isin't any other data (that I know of) that would support a 190 outurning a 109.

While we have to question the figures in any data source, we certainly can't dismiss all the numbers from that Soviet chart. There is too much data there that is completely supported by other sources, so any 'new' numbers, (that may not agree with preconceptions), have to be taken in a positive light.

I have no problem believing that the P40 had a small turn advantage over the 109, but I also believe that the 109 was superior in many other areas, and the overall better fighter.

BTW, your post #204, nicely stated.

 

[Marcel]

It's very kind from him for his curves, can he show/ explain equations and programms he use?

Best regards

He did in a pdf, earlier in the thread.


Juha, Hohun's climbspeed of the D.XXI is also not entirely correct. At lower altitude it fits nicely with the test made by Fokker on a Mercury VIII engined Finnish D.XXI. At higer altitude (over 5000 m) the actual Fokker data shows a greater speed of climb that Hohun's simulated graph. Hohun told me that one of the reason of these inaccuracies could be the fact that his spreadsheet doesn't take into account the fuel consumption. It shows that the theory is not always perfect, but I believe keeping that in mind the graphs can be very useful and give good indications about performance of a/c.

 

[Juha]

Just for comparison
Soviet figure for 360deg turn for Spitfire Mk VB was 18,8 sec and for LF Mk IX 18,5sec

Juha

 

[Juha]

Hello Marcel
I always checked HoHun's graphs with interest and as I wrote some turn results were in line of Finnish experiences, probably most IIRC, the one clear oddity was the D.XXI turn ability. The speed and climb results usually looked right.

BTW the landing light bulge in right wing in FAF FRs might have some effect on turning ability by distrupting airflow.
Juha