pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Not really Sparky , Let me count the hours I have polishing one of Marseilles original mounts
Bf-109 vs P-40
- Thread starter beaupower32
- Start date
- Status
Marsielle blows my mind. I've got a quote from German armourers record from his ground crew dated 5 June 1942, just after a sortie where he was credited with 6 confirmed Kittyhawks from No.5 Sqn SAAF.
He only used ten 20mm rounds and 180 7.92mm rounds from his magazine, shooting down six P-40.
That's aerial marksmanship not only of the highest order, but also of the highest confidence. This man was a one shot one kill pilot and knew it.
He only used ten 20mm rounds and 180 7.92mm rounds from his magazine, shooting down six P-40.
That's aerial marksmanship not only of the highest order, but also of the highest confidence. This man was a one shot one kill pilot and knew it.
The Me 109 ended the war as the Me 109K4.
With its engine boosted to only 1.8 ata it could
a/ Fly at 441 mph, as fast as a P-51D.
b/ Out turn and out climb a P-51D at medium altitude (20,000 ft or so)
c/ Out dive a P-51D
d/ Fly at least as fast as a Griffon MK.XIV Spitfire at sea level when the
Griffon Spit was using 21 psi boost (100/150 octane)
this is 365mph at sea level for the Me 109 at 1.8 ata.
The sea level speed and climb performance for the 1.98 ata boosted
version from about Feb 1945 was even greater.
a/ Minor construction quality improvements were capable of adding 14kmh (9 mph)
b/ A 'thin blade' propellor was tested could add 14 mph in speed. (454mph)
c/ A 'Scimitar' propellor was expected to add 20mph in speed. (460mph)
d/ A Me 109K-14 with the DB605L, which had a two stage supercharger was expected
to add to service ceiling and speed (454 mph) considerably even without the above
other improvements to propellors and airframe.
e/ Some versions had servo spring tab assisted ailerons to reduce control forces in the roll plane.
It is a remarkable, I would say totally unique, performance for an aircraft which preceded the Hurricane
and the P-40.
Yes it had its defficiences in range, visibillity etc.
It's likely this aircraft could have remained competitive with P-51H and Post War Mk 22 Griffon Spitfires.
With its engine boosted to only 1.8 ata it could
a/ Fly at 441 mph, as fast as a P-51D.
b/ Out turn and out climb a P-51D at medium altitude (20,000 ft or so)
c/ Out dive a P-51D
d/ Fly at least as fast as a Griffon MK.XIV Spitfire at sea level when the
Griffon Spit was using 21 psi boost (100/150 octane)
this is 365mph at sea level for the Me 109 at 1.8 ata.
The sea level speed and climb performance for the 1.98 ata boosted
version from about Feb 1945 was even greater.
a/ Minor construction quality improvements were capable of adding 14kmh (9 mph)
b/ A 'thin blade' propellor was tested could add 14 mph in speed. (454mph)
c/ A 'Scimitar' propellor was expected to add 20mph in speed. (460mph)
d/ A Me 109K-14 with the DB605L, which had a two stage supercharger was expected
to add to service ceiling and speed (454 mph) considerably even without the above
other improvements to propellors and airframe.
e/ Some versions had servo spring tab assisted ailerons to reduce control forces in the roll plane.
It is a remarkable, I would say totally unique, performance for an aircraft which preceded the Hurricane
and the P-40.
Yes it had its defficiences in range, visibillity etc.
It's likely this aircraft could have remained competitive with P-51H and Post War Mk 22 Griffon Spitfires.
In the begining of his flying carear he wasn't a very good shot, but he used to practice by shooting at his a/c shadow. After alot of hard work he became the Bruce Lee of deflection shooting.
Siegfried the very important thing to consider in a professional comparative assessment is the performance envelope rather than maximums and very limited tech specs. You need charts, compare them for various engine settings and flight conditions, you need comparative flight testing to compare strengths and weaknesses as they evolve in combat.
Our best way of doing that is to rely on wartime comparative evalutions but simply keep in mind that they are inherently biased and may not fully appreciate enemy technology, they may not squeeze the full potential from it.
Generally speaking from the total of documentation it appears the P-40 is generally contemporary with the 109 up to the G-6 under 5000 feet but suffers a progressive disadvantage as altitudes rise, it has next to no chance at 5000 metres. It's simplistic and generalised but basically true. And I know Kittyhawks are tough but so is the 109, it is a simple, cheap, powerful and surprisingly tough fighter.
But as for the late war models, okay you're opening a can of worms Siegfried. It's an overboost rated for a maximum of 10 minutes under extreme emergency conditions only (to escape combat). The normal combat maximum on the late 109 is around 1550hp, which is slightly underpowered compared to the normal combat rating (military) of most Allied fighters. It has superior cruise and short field performance however, but high accident rates.
In realistic service the overboost was always risky, they took the 605 engine right to the very limits of its capabilities and had a reputation of being prone to spontaneous engine failure (switch on overboost and engine immediately fails, mostly solved with the D series but happened with AM motors), it's not something you switch on and then go attack a flight of Mustangs. This is all done at the military and climb ratings, 1200-1600hp is a general guideline for the late war German skies with slight advantage going to the Allied except Russians, they had underpowered aircraft but they performed as superbly as high powered aircraft at low altitude, so were still deadly in this type of warfare.
Our best way of doing that is to rely on wartime comparative evalutions but simply keep in mind that they are inherently biased and may not fully appreciate enemy technology, they may not squeeze the full potential from it.
Generally speaking from the total of documentation it appears the P-40 is generally contemporary with the 109 up to the G-6 under 5000 feet but suffers a progressive disadvantage as altitudes rise, it has next to no chance at 5000 metres. It's simplistic and generalised but basically true. And I know Kittyhawks are tough but so is the 109, it is a simple, cheap, powerful and surprisingly tough fighter.
But as for the late war models, okay you're opening a can of worms Siegfried. It's an overboost rated for a maximum of 10 minutes under extreme emergency conditions only (to escape combat). The normal combat maximum on the late 109 is around 1550hp, which is slightly underpowered compared to the normal combat rating (military) of most Allied fighters. It has superior cruise and short field performance however, but high accident rates.
In realistic service the overboost was always risky, they took the 605 engine right to the very limits of its capabilities and had a reputation of being prone to spontaneous engine failure (switch on overboost and engine immediately fails, mostly solved with the D series but happened with AM motors), it's not something you switch on and then go attack a flight of Mustangs. This is all done at the military and climb ratings, 1200-1600hp is a general guideline for the late war German skies with slight advantage going to the Allied except Russians, they had underpowered aircraft but they performed as superbly as high powered aircraft at low altitude, so were still deadly in this type of warfare.
Last edited:
Yeah the German propaganda dept. interviewed him for the Nazi magazine and asked for his advice to Luftwaffe cadets. He said the secret to his combat successes was learning to control the 109 in low speed handling.
It seems a rudimentary way of telling students to think about their energy in BFM if they want to live through the war.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
There were others just as competent
I'm sure a few of his 158 kills were....
Rall says Marsielle was the most talented ace the Luftwaffe had during the whole war, and he died prematurely (ie. would've been the leading kill score), but that he couldn't control himself anywhere he was stationed where there were women. He said he was a mediocre pilot in europe because he spent all his time romancing local women, in Africa there were no women.
That's what Rall said was the secret of Marsielle's combat successes. He said the brilliance was already there, but needed the right place to shine and Africa has his perfect place, nobody was a better pilot there.
That's what Rall said was the secret of Marsielle's combat successes. He said the brilliance was already there, but needed the right place to shine and Africa has his perfect place, nobody was a better pilot there.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
please look around there were other platers in WW2 amd many just as competent pilots the hero worship of LW and its pilots doesn't do your arguements justice.
pbfoot I understand if there is some personal conflaguration between yourself and Ratsel but you must understand that for us regular browsers, statements like your last post seem pretty out of left field and a stubbie short of rational.
ideally we respect war veterans as individuals without recognising their nations, they weren't politicians man, they were defenders of homes no matter what side they were on. So why on earth would you possibly assert something as infantile as hero worship with patriotic overtones as you have pbfoot, it is simply irrational among enthusiasts. We are researchers here, not a sect.
ideally we respect war veterans as individuals without recognising their nations, they weren't politicians man, they were defenders of homes no matter what side they were on. So why on earth would you possibly assert something as infantile as hero worship with patriotic overtones as you have pbfoot, it is simply irrational among enthusiasts. We are researchers here, not a sect.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Look around a bit I've backed the kid up as much as I've questioned him.
1 It seems to me that that Me 109G enjoyed a climb ate advantage at any altitude over the P-40.
2 When comparing the 441 mph 1.8 ata Sondernoteleistung (special emergeny power or "WEP") of the Me 109G10/K4 with allied aircraft it should be noted that the allied aircraft were also overboosting, using their 100/150 fuel in rich mixture setting when near sea level. Note, when a spifire is using 25psi it is boosting at 2.8 ata, a lot more than 1.8 ata. When a P-51H is quoted at 487mph (and it only ever achieved 475mph in real life) it is also 28psi and using 100/150 plus water injection.
3 The DB605 series had a relatively high military (ie combat) power setting. This is the permanently sustainable power of the engine, though maintenance is increased. AFAIKT the Me 109K4 cruised happily at around 390mph, essentially the top speed of the Me 109G6 only a year back.
4 I believe the 1.8 ata setting was quite solid, having been only a slight step up from the 1.7 ata used in early Me 109AM/ASM and the 1.75 ata on the DB605DM used on early G-10's and K-4. The engine had some issues; many no doubt related to quality of manufacture metalurgy eg supercharger disintegration.
5 If the emergeny boost limit was 10 minutes: then that is good by allied comparisons: the Napier Sabre notoriously had only 3 minutes from when the wire was brocken. After 10 minutes you are out of MW50 anyway.
Engines of course enter squadron service, problems under realistic conditions found and solutions also found. The 1.98 ata rating was removed and then reissued after changes were made (spark plugs and possibly also pistons and fuel)
I've heard it said that statistically Me 109 had landing/takeoff accident rates no worse than other Luftwaffe aircraft. The extended tail yoke essentially solved this problem anyway. Once in the air it handled extremely well with a mild annuciated stall, no tendancy to spin or flip and if ever in a spin easy recovery.
Last edited:
About time some sense came back to this thread in siegfried's last post. Comparing the virtues of The Star of Africa and how many P-40s he shot down is meaningless in a comparison between the two aircraft types. If Marsellaise was flying a P-40, it's likely his kill number would be the same. Aircraft type has little to do with it.
If we are going to haggle pointlessly over whether P-40s shot down more '109s or not, then I add this to the mix. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 comes out on top. Statistically speaking pilots flying Bf 109s shot down more enemy aircraft than pilots flying any other type by a wide margin. More aces were created flying in Bf 109s than any other type. This is because of the following:
More Bf 109s were built than any other fighter. The Germans employed them in air offensives from the Spanish Civil War to Barbarossa, and then they were in service until the end of the war, not necessarily because it was the best fighter overall; it's certainly one of the greatest because of these factors, but it wasn't necessarily the best over each combat arena it fought in.
This all means that an aircraft's performance in a particular combat situation is no reflection of the quality of flying machine that it is. An example is the Fairey Battle; to all intents and purposes it was a well engineered, solidly built machine that was pleasant to fly and did the job it was intended to do adequately. The fact that Battles got decimated over France is down to the specification to which they were designed and the way they were employed. Single-engined day bombers were designed to fly over their target at a level attitude and low speed to enable their bomb aimer to accurately position the aircraft for the bombing. Flak bait and fighter fodder, essentially, but not a reflection on the quality of the design.
Lets keep analysing which aircraft was better because of its speed, range, armament etc and not stupid comparisons between combat situations that prove nothing.
If we are going to haggle pointlessly over whether P-40s shot down more '109s or not, then I add this to the mix. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 comes out on top. Statistically speaking pilots flying Bf 109s shot down more enemy aircraft than pilots flying any other type by a wide margin. More aces were created flying in Bf 109s than any other type. This is because of the following:
More Bf 109s were built than any other fighter. The Germans employed them in air offensives from the Spanish Civil War to Barbarossa, and then they were in service until the end of the war, not necessarily because it was the best fighter overall; it's certainly one of the greatest because of these factors, but it wasn't necessarily the best over each combat arena it fought in.
This all means that an aircraft's performance in a particular combat situation is no reflection of the quality of flying machine that it is. An example is the Fairey Battle; to all intents and purposes it was a well engineered, solidly built machine that was pleasant to fly and did the job it was intended to do adequately. The fact that Battles got decimated over France is down to the specification to which they were designed and the way they were employed. Single-engined day bombers were designed to fly over their target at a level attitude and low speed to enable their bomb aimer to accurately position the aircraft for the bombing. Flak bait and fighter fodder, essentially, but not a reflection on the quality of the design.
Lets keep analysing which aircraft was better because of its speed, range, armament etc and not stupid comparisons between combat situations that prove nothing.
IF your going to look at these two aircraft, then you must consider ALL aspects of both, including pilots. The best plane in the world x 1000 without a pilot in her is just another sitting duck on the ground. Talk to any.. any Luftwaffe 109 pilot they'll tell you that they could match any allied plane, move for move.
A good combat pilot knows the strengths/weaknesses of his apponents aircraft, and will exploit them. IF this meant not getting into a slow turning fight with a P-40, then thats exactly what they are not going to do. And vica versa. SO it boils down to:
1. Element of surprise
2. Energy retention
3. Pilot skill
4. luck
In that scenario, Me 109 pilots had the advantage. Take any two away, he no longer has the advantage.
Kindest Regards
A good combat pilot knows the strengths/weaknesses of his apponents aircraft, and will exploit them. IF this meant not getting into a slow turning fight with a P-40, then thats exactly what they are not going to do. And vica versa. SO it boils down to:
1. Element of surprise
2. Energy retention
3. Pilot skill
4. luck
In that scenario, Me 109 pilots had the advantage. Take any two away, he no longer has the advantage.
Kindest Regards
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
I love when old threads like these reactivate. I read through all 27 pages again just to get up to speed. The strangest thing is reading a post, and saying to yourself; " I agree with that totally", only to see that it was you who made the post a year ago!!
But, it was just as good reading it the second time around! Great thread! I loved watching the video of the interview with "Stocky". Love to actually hear the veterans tell thier stories.
But, it was just as good reading it the second time around! Great thread! I loved watching the video of the interview with "Stocky". Love to actually hear the veterans tell thier stories.
Thanks nuuuam,
The engine sometimes makes the aircraft. How would the MS.460 and DW.520 with their 860hp-920hp Hispano Suiza HS.12X engines were replaced with and engine equal to the DB601A (1100hp) and DB601A1a (1175hp)?
Consider a P.40 with a better engine; say a DB601/605? The supercharged Allison was neglected, the supercharging of the German engines however was not nearly so.
Immagine through fate Donovan Berlin was working for say Arado and instead of working for Curtiss designing the P-40 and he submits the exact same Ar 40 KatzAddler to the fighter competition powered by the Jumo 210. Things go well, nothing goes wrong. However Willy Messerscmitt argues that his Bf 109 is still faster and moreover climbs faster than the bigger Ar 40 which is important to intercept those fast French bombers which in pre radar times will be well over the border in minutes with no warning at all so the Bf 109 still wins the competition.
In a rare momment of procurement prudence Udet and Goering agree to the moderate production of the Ar 40 Katzaddler so long as it is powered by the more readily available Jumo 211 instead of the DB600 series. Our Ar 40 looks like a P-40 with an inverted engine somewhat like a Stuka nose and due to the Jumo 211 has sluggish high altitude performance but it gives away nothing at low altitude.
The battle of Britain comes. The Luftwaffe appreciates an aircraft more manouverable than the Bf 109 and Spitfire that can out roll and out dive both. Moover it has 50% more range than the Bf 109 (and 33% more than the FW 190) and so transforms the Luftwaffes abillity to escort its bombers over Britain and also to escort its transports across the Mediteranean though the aircraft often comes of second best against the fast climbing Spitfire a good pilot can use its speed to stay on top of the Hurricane and use his higher roll rate and slight abillity turn inside a Spitfire to save himself.
The Jumo 211 already has a two speed supercharger and soon in a series of steps the Jumo 211 receives a supercharger shroud, presurised cooling circuit and intercooler and is even outperforming the DB601 and DB605 at least at low altitude. The Ar 40 is providing the Luftwaffe with a long range strike fighter, doing the Job of the Me 210 when that aircraft was missing and providing close support better than the Ju 87.
The aircraft receives the DB605 which transforms its high altitude performance. Unlike Allison and the USAAF the Junkers and DB engines for the Ar 40 remain compact and installable (no long supercharger shafts or intercoolers) and receive good two speed or variable speed superchargers providing good high altitude performance. The aircraft is never slower than the Me 109 though its climb rate is less (not as bad as the P.40) it compensates with better range, roll rate and turn radious and doesn't run out of breath at altitude.
With the 1750hp DB605ASM engine, its streamlined shape which due to its larger size never accumulated the bulges of the Me 109 the Ar 40 KatzAddler achieves 422 mph (speed of P-40Q) and enters service in 1944 soon besting the Mk IX spitfires it only has the P-51 and the rare Griffon Spitfire to fear.
Last edited:
Maybe they should have a talk with Clive Caldwell who dispatched experten like lippert and nearly killed Werner Schröer.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
- Poll
