Bf-109 vs P-40

The P-40 was a great aircraft in the early war. It easily outclassed most other aircraft in some ways except for a select few. I don't believe the P-40 gets enough credit for that. The main problem with the P-40 has been stated already and that is its failure to be upgraded so it could be more competative after 1943. The P-40 was only outclassed by the Spitfire barely and if one had to choose an existing Allied aircraft for 1940 to 1942 the P-40 was one of the best.

Hi Flyboyj,

>All points taken but as you plotted out, its obvious the -109 could out perform the P-40, but the limitations of the aircraft did not make it a "sitting duck," I think that's the point attempting to be made.

To be made by whom in response to whom?

I at least was quite specific in pointing out that the P-40E was outperformed with regard to speed, climb rate and turn rate by the Me 109E and the Me 109F alike. One doesn't become a sitting duck merely by being out-performed, but it certainly is bad for your karma to fly an out-performed fighter ... and from the poll results, most forum members seem to have understood that well.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Amsel,

>The P-40 was a great aircraft in the early war.

Against the Me 109 specifically?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hi Amsel,

>The P-40 was a great aircraft in the early war.

Against the Me 109 specifically?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

No I didn't say that. The Emil and Franz outclassed the P-40. I was comparing the P-40 to the existing Allied arsenal in the early war. The Me109 was the best until the P-47.

Hi Amsel,

>The Emil and Franz outclassed the P-40.

Hm, understood, but "Franz" is really a modern-day srcrew-up appelation for the Me 109F that is quite unfortunate.

The subtype designation was "F", which in the common German phonetic alphabet also used by the Luftwaffe was coded "Friedrich", a name that might be shortened to "Fritz" outside of a formal context. Note that the German phonetic alphabet had a civilian origin and that it was (and still is) universally used outside of the military context naturally.

I don't think I have ever seen a mention of the wrong "Franz" coding that is older than the 1980s.

As a phonetic code, you won't usually find "Friedrich" or other phonetic codes mentioned in contemporary documents since on paper, there was no ambiguity with regard to the identity of the latter. However, unlike sometimes claimed, "Emil", "Friedrich", "Gustav" and so on were no nicknames but simple phonetic codes.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hi Amsel,

>The Emil and Franz outclassed the P-40.

Hm, understood, but "Franz" is really a modern-day srcrew-up appelation for the Me 109F that is quite unfortunate.

The subtype designation was "F", which in the common German phonetic alphabet also used by the Luftwaffe was coded "Friedrich", a name that might be shortened to "Fritz" outside of a formal context. Note that the German phonetic alphabet had a civilian origin and that it was (and still is) universally used outside of the military context naturally.

I don't think I have ever seen a mention of the wrong "Franz" coding that is older than the 1980s.

As a phonetic code, you won't usually find "Friedrich" or other phonetic codes mentioned in contemporary documents since on paper, there was no ambiguity with regard to the identity of the latter. However, unlike sometimes claimed, "Emil", "Friedrich", "Gustav" and so on were no nicknames but simple phonetic codes.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

I agree, and good point. I meant Freidrick but I am guilty of using both." Unfortunate"?

Hi Amsel,

>" Unfortunate"?

LOL! OK, I meant to say it's unfortunate that a bogus name like "Franz" has managed to become popular because the same old internet texts get copied again and again. Through sheer repetition, stuff like that tends to creep into one's system even if one knows better - has happened to me, too!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

That makes sense!

HoHun said:

Hi Flyboyj,

>All points taken but as you plotted out, its obvious the -109 could out perform the P-40, but the limitations of the aircraft did not make it a "sitting duck," I think that's the point attempting to be made.

To be made by whom in response to whom?

Click to expand...

No one - just a point being made

HoHun said:

I at least was quite specific in pointing out that the P-40E was outperformed with regard to speed, climb rate and turn rate by the Me 109E and the Me 109F alike. One doesn't become a sitting duck merely by being out-performed, but it certainly is bad for your karma to fly an out-performed fighter ... and from the poll results, most forum members seem to have understood that well.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

Especially if shot down! But what boost for your ego if you're completing the mission with a sub-performing aircraft

Hi Flyboyj,

>>To be made by whom in response to whom?

>No one - just a point being made

A point made by no one?

Here is an another assessment by a P-40 pilot of the MTO, James Troy Johnson:

For some reason, or lack thereof, about that time [Mid 1943] the U.S. Congress, studying war progress, put out the word that P-40's were OK -- the air to air score was 2 to 1 in our favor. We had lost many of our friends and were pretty uptight. That press release, as far as we know not questioned by anyone, made us cussing mad. We thought everyone knew the P-40's were substandard. Our only hope in combat was to spot the Jerries as they came out of the Sun -- spot them in time to turn about for a climbing head on attack! I guess there just wasn't anyone in Washington at that time who could or would describe to the Congressmen that combined frustration, anger, helpless aws**t feeling you would get when you made your turnabout in time, but stalled out trying to climb into range for a shot -- while the ME-109 easily climbed out of range and retained the capability to yo-yo at you any time he chose. Talk about a game of chicken; but that was no game, fighting under those conditions was our only chance for survival! Jerries rarely followed through if you could get around in time to make a head-on pass. They preferred, wisely, to climb back up out of your range and try to pull another surprise later; or split up flights and kill stragglers. What we desperately needed was some of the new P-47's or P-51's we had heard would come sooner or later.

Written by James Troy Johnson, Col. USAF (ret.) - last Squadron Commander of the 316th Fighter Squadron 1942-1945, flying P-40F in the MTO.

Click to expand...

The quote is from a 2002 post in Oleg Maddox's Ready Room forum, which apparently closed down recently.

A short biographie of Johnson:

http://www.p47pilots.com/P47-Pilots...e.cfm&vm=BIO&pilotid=276&p=James Troy Johnson

More on Johnson's WW2 experience:

Table of Contents

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

JoeB said:

The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph.

Click to expand...

Aircraft performance can be calculated by pretty straightforward formulas. It is really not rocket science and it predicts the performance with sufficient accuracy.
That said, of all performance parameters, the turning performance is most dependent of the pilot, who (in Yeager's words), "have to fly an airplane close to the ragged edge where you've got to keep it if you really want to make that machine talk."

Timppa said:

Aircraft performance can be calculated by pretty straightforward formulas. It is really not rocket science and it predicts the performance with sufficient accuracy.
That said, of all performance parameters, the turning performance is most dependent of the pilot, who (in Yeager's words), "have to fly an airplane close to the ragged edge where you've got to keep it if you really want to make that machine talk."

Click to expand...

Depends on what 'sufficiently accurate' means. If taking a common sense approach and viewing say a 20mph (just to pick a number) calculated difference as basically negligible, when considering variation among a/c and among type's of a/c as to degradation of performance in field conditions, then OK.

But if trying to read too much into small differences, then let's agree to disagree how useful the calculated graphs we often see on the internet really are. Original sources often differ noticeably as to tested speeds of a/c and tested speeds and real combat speeds weren't necessarily the same and didn't necessarily differ as much between a/c types. One approach to uncertainty is to make a best effort to decide what's the 'best' data, then take that as the 'fact', use consistent software to calculate and use those results as 'fact'. It's basically a computer simgame mentality. A simgame has to be programmed with something definite (or I don't know of games which randomly vary the characteristics of the a/c). When studying air combat history, a different topic than simgaming though they overlap, we can recognize that performance characteristics contained an element of uncertainty. We can admit we just don't fully know in all cases what the actual performances would be of particular a/c in particular combat conditions.

I definitely agree though on turn relative to other characteristics, much more uncertain and relative to not only the pilot but the particular maneuver in question under the umbrella of 'turn'. The flat statement that the 109 out turned the P-40, based on calculated estimates, is the most questionable use of calculated estimates in this thread. In this particular case, P-40F/L (say, the 325th's P-40's) and early series Bf109G there's no doubt that 109 was tactically usefully faster. But as mentioned, the 325th used its own captured 109G to show new pilots joining the group that *they* could out turn the 109 flown by one of the group's experienced pilots, it wasn't just a matter of master P-40 pilots being able to. This is just one piece of evidence, but trying to brush it off with ' my estimated graphs from canned software show that's not true' is not a very worthwhile response, IMHO.

Joe

imho also "the 325th used its own captured 109G to show new pilots joining the group that *they* could out turn the 109 flown by one of the group's experienced pilots, it wasn't just a matter of master P-40 pilots being able to" is not a very worthwhile response you can outrun all planes if the pilots are agree

Timppa said:

Aircraft performance can be calculated by pretty straightforward formulas. It is really not rocket science and it predicts the performance with sufficient accuracy.
That said, of all performance parameters, the turning performance is most dependent of the pilot, who (in Yeager's words), "have to fly an airplane close to the ragged edge where you've got to keep it if you really want to make that machine talk."

Click to expand...

Timppa - I agree the equations as used are a.) not rocket science and b.) will provide useful estimates.

Where the departure between useful approximations/applied equations occurs from real world is than an airframe does not simply reduce to linear equations when describing behavior of complex wing body shapes in curvilinear motion in a statistically unstable medium. Lab and wind tunnel results for two dimensional airfoils differ from the theoretical results - particularly with respect to WWII state of the science in Fluid Mechanics and applied math.

Aeroelatic effects on wings and tails under loads were not well understood. Assymetrical loads, while understood, are not easily modellled in the context of the differential equations required to describe the equations of motion for a free body in the complex medium described as 'air'.

For example each element in the equation for induced drag is an approximation of sorts - such as the Lift Coefficient and dependency on Aspect Ratio (another applied 'fudge factor' to account for the difference in planform efficiency between one wing config and another), the 'e' factor of the airframe lifting contributors (wing as it deviates from elliptical, rudder/elevator and aileron trim drag, etc) relative to changes in relative angle of attack.

Obviously a mere change in reality of a true airframe set of rigorously obtained data in contrast to an 'approximation' of 'e' can easily be off +/- 10% from theoretical or even 'common knowledge' and be further in error under asymmetrical load conditions encountered in a turn.

Parasite Drag is FAR more complicated and particularly for bodies immersed in a propeller stream tube. In level straight flight it is different from turning flight in which the axis of the stream tube changes and results in a change of pressure and flow conditions further influencing a continuous free body dynamic motion.

Net- if all the factors (you personally use in the non rocket science equations are correct for that specific airframe (CL, AR, e ), then your equations of motions for straight flight will usefully return Induced Drag within perhaps 5% of similar results obtained and validated with flight tests under rigorous controls.

The accuracy will quickly depart when one tries to use level flight calculation results and apply them to a dynamic, non linear, analysis of that same body in a rapidly changing set of conditions right up to perceived stability in a sustained rate of turn.

The difference between 'simple applied theory approximations' and actual flight results diverge quickly when complex wing-body interactoions in non symmetric flow and load conditions occur relative to the 'simple equations'..

That is why there were so many suprises exposed from airframe preliminary design and actual performance when the 'as predicted' was translated to the 'as built'.

JoeB offered another set of challenges - namely not every aircraft flown and engaged was within manufacturer specs - and certainly the biggest variable of all was pilot skill and experience.

I respect your opinion but IL2 and other fashionable computer games, etc, are far from reality.

To get close you need to have a lot more modelled sophistication and reliable flight test/wind tunnel results to plug for a specific airframe in the VERY expensive Flight Simulators used for pilot training.

Hi Flyboyj,

>>The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.

>Great post Joe and that hits the nail on the head

Better be careful about who you applaud there.

I told Joeb in no uncertain terms here on this forum:

>>My advice is to ask "May I see your math, please?" the next time you're about to launch a post that tries to downplay the significance of a quantitative analysis.<<

He never asked.

This means that he is neither ready to deal with engineering facts in a rational manner, and lacks the good sense to stop sniping against something of which he is guilty of self-chosen ignorance.

Here is a telling bit from the paragraph of his post which you applauded:

"these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph."

You should be aware that Joeb doesn't know my methods. The "knowledge" that I'm making 'a few inputs into canned software' is fake knowledge - he doesn't know what I'm using because he avoided to ask when challenged.

And his bracketed "shouldn't be to anyone who's thinking" - oh well, anyone who is thinking would have first asked "May I see your math please?", and had a look at it, before posing as a scholar and making comments on their value. (Or he would have admitted that the math is above his head and stopped the sniping.)

However, Anyone who's just trolling wouldn't have minded the bigotry and continued the sniping from his position of ignorance - did you notice the entirely uncalled for "canned" attribution to insinuate I'm not aware of what the software actually does?

If you'd like to check the challenge to Joeb (and more examples of his typical behaviour) look at post #130 in this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/spitfire-mk-vb-seafire-vs-zero-12810.html

If someone can prove to me with engineering methods that the P-40E can out-turn the Me 109F in a sustained turn, he's welcome to try - it will be an interesting learning experience regardless of the final conclusion. However, considering that with otherwise very similar parameters, the P-40E is a ton heavier than the Me 109F, I don't expect too many volunteers.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hi Flyboyj,

>>The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.

>Great post Joe and that hits the nail on the head

Better be careful about who you applaud there.

I told Joeb in no uncertain terms here on this forum:

>>My advice is to ask "May I see your math, please?" the next time you're about to launch a post that tries to downplay the significance of a quantitative analysis.<<

He never asked.

This means that he is neither ready to deal with engineering facts in a rational manner, and lacks the good sense to stop sniping against something of which he is guilty of self-chosen ignorance.

Here is a telling bit from the paragraph of his post which you applauded:

"these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph."

You should be aware that Joeb doesn't know my methods. The "knowledge" that I'm making 'a few inputs into canned software' is fake knowledge - he doesn't know what I'm using because he avoided to ask when challenged.

And his bracketed "shouldn't be to anyone who's thinking" - oh well, anyone who is thinking would have first asked "May I see your math please?", and had a look at it, before posing as a scholar and making comments on their value. (Or he would have admitted that the math is above his head and stopped the sniping.)

However, Anyone who's just trolling wouldn't have minded the bigotry and continued the sniping from his position of ignorance - did you notice the entirely uncalled for "canned" attribution to insinuate I'm not aware of what the software actually does?

If you'd like to check the challenge to Joeb (and more examples of his typical behaviour) look at post #130 in this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/spitfire-mk-vb-seafire-vs-zero-12810.html

If someone can prove to me with engineering methods that the P-40E can out-turn the Me 109F in a sustained turn, he's welcome to try - it will be an interesting learning experience regardless of the final conclusion. However, considering that with otherwise very similar parameters, the P-40E is a ton heavier than the Me 109F, I don't expect too many volunteers.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

Glider and I asked and I am well prepared to discuss your 'methods' - and in particular the P-38L-25 and above using manuevering flaps in curvilinear motion?

I offer zero proof or even opinions (except for P-38 results) regarding any of the results because I a.) do not have truly reliable data for a perfectly flown airframe for any version of any aircraft you have modelled, and b) I don't care to attempt to develop a full blown and rigorously correct model of any of those aircraft in both transition and fully developed flight motion, with attention to detail of propeller/wing-body effects, asymmetric flow and trim drag changes to Parasite Drag.

I suspect you do not either - and certainly not to the points I just posed to Timppa above.

So, trot out your model?

>So, trot out your model?

You will remember that you aggressively accused me of forgery over on LEMB when MY figures were perfectly accurate while YOU blew the mph to km/h conversion, and that you then denied me an apology when I was proven right and you were proven wrong.

If you had politely asked "May I see your math please?" back then - before or rather instead of launching your attack -, you'd perhaps not be on my ignore list now, so I'd not have to ignore your request now.

That I read your particular post here at all is not due to any inclination on my part to remove you from my ignore list, but just to prevent potential confusion among other readers not aware of this bit of background information.

HoHun said:

Hi Flyboyj,

>>The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.

>Great post Joe and that hits the nail on the head

Better be careful about who you applaud there.

I told Joeb in no uncertain terms here on this forum:

>>My advice is to ask "May I see your math, please?" the next time you're about to launch a post that tries to downplay the significance of a quantitative analysis.<<

He never asked.

This means that he is neither ready to deal with engineering facts in a rational manner, and lacks the good sense to stop sniping against something of which he is guilty of self-chosen ignorance.

Click to expand...

Did you ever consider the HISTORICAL facts and the final outcome despite what you could prve mathimatically???

HoHun said:

Here is a telling bit from the paragraph of his post which you applauded:

"these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph."

You should be aware that Joeb doesn't know my methods. The "knowledge" that I'm making 'a few inputs into canned software' is fake knowledge - he doesn't know what I'm using because he avoided to ask when challenged.

Click to expand...

And that's his opinion - have you challenged any of his coments based on actual combat reports and final outcomes? I have and for the most part the man is a wealth of knowlege and have tried to bring an accurate unbiased picture to a discussion that is more historical then scientific.

HoHun said:

And his bracketed "shouldn't be to anyone who's thinking" - oh well, anyone who is thinking would have first asked "May I see your math please?", and had a look at it, before posing as a scholar and making comments on their value. (Or he would have admitted that the math is above his head and stopped the sniping.)

Click to expand...

Well Henning, maybe he should, but does that make any of his less significant when he provides actual results of battles involving these aircraft?

HoHun said:

However, Anyone who's just trolling wouldn't have minded the bigotry and continued the sniping from his position of ignorance - did you notice the entirely uncalled for "canned" attribution to insinuate I'm not aware of what the software actually does?

Click to expand...

Henning, I think you need to relax, an I'll elaborate that in a minute

HoHun said:

If you'd like to check the challenge to Joeb (and more examples of his typical behaviour) look at post #130 in this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/spitfire-mk-vb-seafire-vs-zero-12810.html

If someone can prove to me with engineering methods that the P-40E can out-turn the Me 109F in a sustained turn, he's welcome to try - it will be an interesting learning experience regardless of the final conclusion. However, considering that with otherwise very similar parameters, the P-40E is a ton heavier than the Me 109F, I don't expect too many volunteers.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

And you probabaly won't find many challengers on that one either. The point being made is P-40s operating out of North Africa and the ETO made a decient show of them selves against as you so adamently pointed out a more superior aircraft. With that said, as I do find your graphs extrememly informative and have compared them to some performance charts contained in some flight manuals I own and for the most part that are spot on and I commend you on your imputs. Now with all that said, I am suggesting that you tone down some of your rhetorical comments to those who have a different opinion about using computer models or those who point out that despite the most detailed calcualtions, "things could actually come out opposite as planned." (A man named MacNamara leared that that hard way diring a little skirmish called Vietnam). Let's face it, the the superioty shown in your data the Bf 109 should have cleared the skies over the MTO and it didn't, and we could detail numerous reasons for why that happened...

So please, for the sake of harmony within this discusion and not wishing to escalate this any further (and cannot put me on your ignore list if this angers you), please be a bit more tactful in your response when you find that someone may not be presenting an agrument to you in a manner that coinsides with your technical ability.

Thank you...

HoHun said:

>So, trot out your model?

You will remember that you aggressively accused me of forgery over on LEMB when MY figures were perfectly accurate while YOU blew the mph to km/h conversion, and that you then denied me an apology when I was proven right and you were proven wrong.

BS. I simply challenged your unequivocal statement that the FW 190D-13 outperformed the P-51H in every performance category at all altitudes. You still have yet to admit you 'over claimed' and went to exhaustive lengths to prove your claim - all unsubstantiated without unimpeachable documented facts.

If you had politely asked "May I see your math please?" back then - before or rather instead of launching your attack -, you'd perhaps not be on my ignore list now, so I'd not have to ignore your request now.

First I asked for sources - similar to 'show me the math' but different as the discussion never went as deep as manueveability and flight mechanics.

As to being on your 'ignore list' I must confess deep sadness and a complete loss of emotional equilibrium

That I read your particular post here at all is not due to any inclination on my part to remove you from my ignore list, but just to prevent potential confusion among other readers not aware of this bit of background information.

Click to expand...

The 'background' you should pay attention to is that absent showing others the 'math', you come across as a potential BS artist. I would never claim that you are an ID10t but you seem to feel that any challenge to your self proclaimed 'engineering competency' or comparative performance conclusions, should be unquestioned.

You are a smart, but exceedingly arrogant, fellow.

Ho Hum you bring a lot to the forum but, equally, your personality sucks. I will confess that mine is not exactly stellar so perhaps we fit similar profiles of 'obnoxious'.

You are desparately trying to avoid presenting me the math - so present it to Glider and 'ignore' me?

I too would like to see the math, just to appease the others here....