Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
A program I watched on the Military channel last night, Top Ten Greatest Fighters.
Bf-109 vs P-40
- Thread starter beaupower32
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I didn't think the leading edge slats were that popular with the Luftwaffe pilots, having a tendency to flick open and shut at the critical time in the firing solution, 'bunting' the Bf109 on and off its target; didn't most of them get their ground crews to just wire them shut?
Even if they did, I still don't think a decent P40 pilot would have much luck with an equally decent Bf109 pilot; what did the P40 have on the Bf109? A better rate of roll and that was about it, wasn't it? I'm not underestimating rate of roll as a key factor in fighter warfare, I just don't think it's enough here.
I thought the low-speed handling characteristics of the Bf109 were better than most of their WWII contemporaries anyway, with or without the slats.
Isn't a fight 'down on the deck' something of a great equaliser amongst WWII fighters? I'd have attributed victory to nerve and pilot skill down there, over innate technical superiority of a particular machine.
Hi everyone by the way, new guy to shoot at
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
First of all hello and isn't this site great!!
I cannot agree more. I think down in the trees is an equalizer. But the Bf 109 would still have a better climb rate I think. And, since thier speeds down low are likely similiar, the P-40 would have a tough time breaking off the contact, whereas the Bf pilot could if he wanted to leave.
Eurofighter
Airman
- 26
- Dec 11, 2008
Speaking about P-40s and Me-109s this week I visited a flight museum and fortunetly they had both the P-40 and the Bf-109, good looking warbirds by the way and since the P-40 is airworthy, I was lucky that it was in the museum and not in an airshow.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The early P-40s were in the 320mph range and had poor high altitude performance so their ground attack mission was always on the cards. Also they are quite rugged and more hardy than Spitfires.
The Spitfire was a far better fighter than the Kitty so let the Kittys do the ground work. Later P-40s did have greater performance than the Hurricane so if caught by a 109 in North Africa..the P-40 would do better than a Hurricane.
The F Model 109 was very good but I do agree that the engine made the 109.
I do like the Curtiss fighter. It always deserved more glory and it was never a second rate aircraft. Just inferior to newer machines that were not around in 1942.
The Spitfire was a far better fighter than the Kitty so let the Kittys do the ground work. Later P-40s did have greater performance than the Hurricane so if caught by a 109 in North Africa..the P-40 would do better than a Hurricane.
The F Model 109 was very good but I do agree that the engine made the 109.
I do like the Curtiss fighter. It always deserved more glory and it was never a second rate aircraft. Just inferior to newer machines that were not around in 1942.
Thanks for the answers guys. Yes, once the Germans sent 109's to Africa and the Japanese were fighting us in the Pacific sending Spits became a must, as far as I am aware the Hurricane was only sent to Africa for the ground attack role as well so I am in agreement with what you are saying basket about pilots having a better chance in a P-40 than in the Hurri which is tougher, but also a lot heavier I think. Would it be correct then to rank the P-40 above the Hurri, but below the Spitfire (and 109, natch)? Could we regard it as about equal to the Hurricane II?
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Curtis tried all sorts of measures to increase performance of the P40 including the Merlin engine. It's performance hardly improved. Look however at the performance improvement over it's lifetime of the 109!
In actual fact the Bf-109F turns significantly better than the P-40. And we only need to look at the physics to confirm that.
The lift to weight and power to weight ratio are two of the most important factors to turn performance, and the Clmax of the Bf-109's wing is much higher than that of the P-40's wing, leading to the Bf-109's much higher L/W ratio. The reason of the Bf-109's higher Clmax was the automatic LE slats increasing the Clmax critical AoA by 25% in the covered areas, and the entire lift generated by the wing by about 12.5%. And since the Bf-109 had available more power whilst being lighter than the P.40 as-well, the Bf-109's P/W ratio was therefore also higher.
Clmax = Max Lift Coefficient
L/W = Lift/Weight ratio
P/W = Power/Weight ratio
So P-40 pilots certainly had their hands full in Africa. But we must also remember that it wasn't all Bf-109F's in Africa, there were Bf-109E's as-well, and the Emil had serious problems with its slats jamming (esp. in Africa because of the sand dust), and its performance wasn't significantly better than that of the P-40.
You might want to check out some more sources before coming to a conclusion.
To me it would have to come down to pilot skills and tactics as well as altitude. I think that the Me 109 has the advantage but not as much as some might think. The one thing that astonished the Germans and British was how quickly the USAAF pilots learned to fight in the air. Due to the bad start they did not expect as much from the Americans.
The Me 109 had the altitude advantage and that is why it was able to perform effectively as an interceptor of the 8th AF heavy bombers, a role the P-40 would not be good at. But a Me 109 forced to fight on the P-40's terms basically had no advantages. The battles between the Me 109 and the P-40 in the MTO show how important tactics and skills are, even more important then A/C capabilities as long as the performance is in somewhat the same range.
The Me 109 had the altitude advantage and that is why it was able to perform effectively as an interceptor of the 8th AF heavy bombers, a role the P-40 would not be good at. But a Me 109 forced to fight on the P-40's terms basically had no advantages. The battles between the Me 109 and the P-40 in the MTO show how important tactics and skills are, even more important then A/C capabilities as long as the performance is in somewhat the same range.
What you just described is air combat, and any two given aircraft.
You get the gist then.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
When I "dream" of flying one of these aircraft, in combat, I have two modes of thought. The offensive side wants me in the plane in which I dictate the attack. Something I can swoop in and slice and dice the opponent with. In that thought three planes come to mind first; Spitfire, Messerschmitt 109, and Mustang.
The other part of me wants the dirt and concrete bunker with wings. And one that can survive a hard crash landing. In that, I think of P-47, P-40 or F6F.
As far as this P-40 vs Bf 109 goes, I want to be in the German fighter so I can be the Hunter, when thinking on the offensive side. I want to be in the Curtiss, if I get raked with some rounds, because I think my chances of survival are better at that point.
Regardless of the record the P-40, in my opinion, is the most important fighter the U.S. had in WWII. It was there in the beginning, and did a job in which you are destined to "fail" ; outnumbered, out-skilled, out performed. But there were enough of them with pilots that learned fast, to hold the line until better equipment arrived. Without the P-40, better equipment would have been of little use if its already over.
The other part of me wants the dirt and concrete bunker with wings. And one that can survive a hard crash landing. In that, I think of P-47, P-40 or F6F.
As far as this P-40 vs Bf 109 goes, I want to be in the German fighter so I can be the Hunter, when thinking on the offensive side. I want to be in the Curtiss, if I get raked with some rounds, because I think my chances of survival are better at that point.
Regardless of the record the P-40, in my opinion, is the most important fighter the U.S. had in WWII. It was there in the beginning, and did a job in which you are destined to "fail" ; outnumbered, out-skilled, out performed. But there were enough of them with pilots that learned fast, to hold the line until better equipment arrived. Without the P-40, better equipment would have been of little use if its already over.
How do you expect your chances of survival to be better in a P-40 when you are being raked by rounds?
Marshall_Stack
Senior Airman
Mike,
You are obviously a fan of the P-40. It is rare to find praise for the P-40 except for what you have said. I don't know if you have read this, but this former AVG pilot praises the P-40.....
R.T. Smith
G'day Mike. So too does Peter Bowers. He places the blame for the P-40's inadequacies squarely on the customer...
Marshall_Stack
Senior Airman
I just got done reading "Doomed from the Start" which chronicles the USAAF's operation during Japan's raids/invasion of the Philippines. I was surprised how well they did considering all of the things they had to endure. Most of the P-40s were lost to operational causes (accidents) and from being strafed on the ground. The AAF pilots quickly learned that they couldn't turn with the Nates and Zeros but had to fight in the vertical.
Skip M
Airman
Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov - Major-General (Ret) Flew the P-40 on the Russian front. His opinion was that it was very good against the Bf-109. It is a long 4 part interview but very interesting and well worth reading.
Conversations with N.Golodnikov
Conversations with N.Golodnikov
- Status
