Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51 (1 Viewer)

[KrazyKraut]

As for German fighters reigning supreme below 25k, don't forget we have other main fighters beside the P51 and P38. We also have the P47, Typhoon, Tempest and Spitfire, not to mention the P39, Yak 1/7/9/3 and La5/7. All of those nine types had certain advantages over the 109 or 190, with the end result that the Allied fighters were 'usually superior' to the German fighters, not the other way around. The only real fighter advantage Germany had was the Me262 (speed) which was operating in an environment where it was outnumbered 50-1 so was doomed from the outset.

And I totally agree with Pasifal, if numerical advantage was the only factor, Germany would not have shot down 2000 Russian planes in a few days in 1941.

2000 largely outdated bi-planes and early Polikarpovs. Not to mention Germany did indeed often have more planes in the air in those days and a large proportion of those Russian aircraft was destroyed on the ground.

And the Allied fighters were not "usually superior", German fighters were "usually superior" on the western front until around summer 1943 and considerably longer on the eastern front. As for altitude, wasn't the P-51 was actually better at low-to-medium altitude than the P-47?

 

[ponsford]

Originally Posted by Soren
However the P-47 P-51 both featured better high alt performance than most German fighters in mid 1944, which was a problem. German fighters were usually superior to Allied fighters from SL and up to 25,000 ft, but the bombers usually flew above that altitude.

Originally Posted by claidemore
Your statement that German fighters were usually superior to allied fighters up to 25000 ft is a pretty big stretch amigo.

That caught my eye too claidemore, but I just laughed. Where's your sense of humour?

Taking off from davparlr's thread of early 1944 performance ( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/battle-over-germany-january-1944-a-13336.html ), this is what I found available for 1944 level speed performance of propeller aircraft in the European theater.

P-51 D with racks
67" Hg MAP: 375 mph at Sea Level, 442 mph at 26,000 ft.
72" Hg MAP: ~384 mph at Sea Level, 447 at Critical alt. ~22-23,000 ft.

P 51B Performance Test
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-engdiv-na-flighttestdata.jpg
P 51D Performance Test
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/supplymemo-11july44.pdf

P-47 D with racks
65": 340 mph at Sea Level, 439 mph at 25,200 ft.
70": 346 mph at Sea Level, 444 mph at 23,200 ft.

P 47D Performance Test
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf

P-38 J
60" Hg. 345 mph at Sea Level, 421 mph at 25,800 ft.
P-38J Performance Test

Fw 190 A-8 with rack
1.58/1.65 ata 345 mph at Sea Level, 396 mph at 18,045 ft.
(without rack 352 mph at Sea Level, 405 mph at 18,045 ft.)

FW 190 A-8 Performance

BF 109 G-14 ASM (presumably without rack, knock a couple of mph off with rack)
348 mph at Sea Level, 423 mph at 24, 606 ft.

BF 109 K-4 (presumably without rack, knock a couple of mph off with rack)
1944, 1.75 ata: 360 mph at Sea Level, 441 mph at 24,606 ft.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/okl-181044-pg5.jpg

Fw 190 D-9 (1944)
1900 PS 353 mph at Sea Level with rack

These last two German aircraft weren't even operational in "mid 1944". There is apparently plenty of data around these days to choose from but I haven't seen much that shows "German fighters were usually superior to Allied fighters from SL and up to 25,000 ft"; at least in 1944. I don't believe things changed drastically in 1945.

 

[Soren]

As for German fighters reigning supreme below 25k, don't forget we have other main fighters beside the P51 and P38. We also have the P47, Typhoon, Tempest and Spitfire, not to mention the P39, Yak 1/7/9/3 and La5/7. All of those nine types had certain advantages over the 109 or 190, with the end result that the Allied fighters were 'usually superior' to the German fighters, not the other way around.

You're completely wrong Claidemore. The Fw-190 Bf-109 pretty much ruled supreme at low to medium altitude.

Fact is that the Bf-109 Fw-190 were mauling the Spitfire over the channel, and making a massacre out of the Soviet fighters in the east right up till the end of the war. The late Bf-109 Fw-190's were considered far superior to any VVS fighter.

As for Ponsford, well he's so biased he can't see straight as he got all the performance figures wrong.


The performance of the German a/c were as follows:

Fw-190 A-8: 578 km/h (361.5 mph) at SL, and 653 km/h (408 mph) at alt
Fw-190 A-9: 590 km/h (369 mph) at SL, and 670 km/h (419 mph) at alt
Fw-190 D-9: 615 km/h (384.5 mph) at SL, and 704 km/h (440 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-10: 585 km/h (366 mph) at SL, and 685 km/h (428 mph) at alt
Bf-109 K-4: 609 km/h (380.5 mph) at SL, and 719 km/h (449.5 mph) at alt

 

[Soren]

Soren - although we have hashed this before, what are your definitions of 'outnumbered' and without fuel and trained pilots.. Chris asked the right question about the 'beginning.

I have a tendency to look at the air war as evolutionary regarding tactics and assets.

The Luftwaffe controlled the air over the occupied countries in Europe until the Mustangs took it away. Even when the air battles of February through June took out many experienced pilots and a/c in the west, the LW continued to rotate Ost front pilots and leaders (i.e like Rall) to try and stem the tide.

True, the LW could not match the skills of a 200-300 hour USAAF or Commonwealth pilot who graduated from flight school with student pilots with the same experience entering combat for first time after the oil campaign was being felt in mid 1944.

LuftFlotte Reich was not outnumbered over Germany by Allied fighters over Germany until fall of 1944 when all the Jugs and Spits and Typhoons that had moved to France and Belgium were available for tactical sorties over Germany to compliment the Strategic escorts with the bombers. Prior to that period, only the 8th AF P-38s and 51s were available deep into Germany where the LuftFlotte Reich could choose where they wanted to fight.

So, back to the question - how do you define outnumbered? Wheels on the ground in England or props over the ground over Germany?

Last - Around the Channel the Luftwaffe was Seriously outnumbered by 8th and 9th AF Fighters plur RAF and only really had two JG26 and JG2 to pick and choose where they wanted to engage.. but that isn't where the Luftwaffe was broken, nor were they ever in a position of controlling the air over France, Holland and Belgium after summer of 1943 - as their tactics of challenging the 8th AF changed to attacking after escort fighters reached max range and had to turn back - usually far western Germany.

No disagreement there Bill, we agree that it wasn't until mid 44 that the LW was outnumbered over own ground. Howver fuel and trained pilots was in low supply throughout 44, and that no doubt is one of the prime reasons behind high losses endured. As we both know the pilot means nearly everything, and by 44 onwards the USAAF RAF pilots were on average better trained.

The lack of fuel also often meant that the LW fighters had to abort a fight in fear of not making it home, and this undoubtedly also cost a lot a lives.

And I also agree that it was the P-51 that robbed the LW of airsuperiority in 44, and mostly because of its speed. The P-51 could from its introduction and through most of 44 catch up with nearly any LW fighter in terms of speed, and high alt performance was better than the std. 109 G-6 190 Anton. Esp. at the altitude of the bomber streams (~30,000 ft) did the P-51 have an advantage in climb rate speed over the G-6 Anton.

The P-51 was what was needed, and no other Allied fighter (Except he F4U) then developed could've done the job as well. The P-51 gave the LW the bloody nose the Allies had been wanting to give it since the beginning of the war.

 

[drgondog]

No disagreement there Bill, we agree that it wasn't until mid 44 that the LW was outnumbered over own ground. Howver fuel and trained pilots was in low supply throughout 44, and that no doubt is one of the prime reasons behind high losses endured. As we both know the pilot means nearly everything, and by 44 onwards the USAAF RAF pilots were on average better trained.

I agree - particularly as the aircraft were fairly well matched. I still think the LW made serious mistakes by avoiding the 8th AF fighters early and allowing new guys a lot of ops to get experience and build confidence... very similar to LW training through 1943 when the could pick and choose when to fight and ease their wingmen in slowly.

In my opinion, this is one of the critical factors in the January-April, 1944 lop sided battles.. those wingmen were now element and flight and in turn were bringing the new guys on rapidly in an environment of very high confidence.

The scenario worked both ways.. most of the 8th AF losses were in pilot blocks with less than 40 hours combat time - no matter what flight experience they had coming into combat ops

The lack of fuel also often meant that the LW fighters had to abort a fight in fear of not making it home, and this undoubtedly also cost a lot a lives.

I had not thought much about this until I saw an interview with Rall and remembered he made a similar comment -the key issue is that his guys were running out of fuel trying to get back to base and the 51s were following them home with more than enough to shoot up a/c in the landing pattern

QUOTE]

Galland made a similar series of observationns in our correspondence

 

[kool kitty89]

That comment Claidmore made about low alt performance was a bit odd on the P-47 though.

As for German fighters reigning supreme below 25k, don't forget we have other main fighters beside the P51 and P38. We also have the P47, Typhoon, Tempest and Spitfire, not to mention the P39, Yak 1/7/9/3 and La5/7.

Including the P-47 is a bit odd, it's performance down low was decent, but not advantageous over contemporaries, and the Mustang usually did perform better than the P-47 down low. (In particular the Allison engined P-51A could out perform the contemporary P-47D up to 15,000 ft)

The P-47 was used as a low level fighter-bomber was due to its durability (resistance to ground fire in particular), not to good low altitude performance.

 

[Soren]

Many LW fighters were shot down while in the landing pattern or emmidiately after having aborted a fight to try and reach home before running out of fuel.

The lack of fuel often meant LW fighters had to do with half full fuel tanks, and even less as the war went on, leaving more and more pilots to abort a fight at very dangerous moments.

And that along with the shortage of trained pilots and overwhelming numerical disadvantage in the air from mid 44 onwards meant that nomatter how excellent superior the German fighters were at that point, the LW just couldn't hope to turn the tide.

The only way the LW could've turned the tide was if Hitler hadn't delayed the Me-262's entering the service in late 43 to early 44. Had the Me-262 entered service at that point the P-51 wouldn't have had the speed advantage which made it so successful. The Me-262's could intercept and strike the bombers and then choose wether they wanted to fight the escorts or head for home depending on the fuel state, with both choices giving the Germans by far the best odds. The Me-262 enjoyed such a large advantage in climb rate, speed high speed maneuverability that it could with relative immunity combat any Allied fighter in service.

 

[Soren]

That comment Claidmore made about low alt performance was a bit odd on the P-47 though.

Not as odd as his claim that Allied fighter were usually superior, cause that's just flat wrong.

 

[kool kitty89]

Yes, but the P-47 issue was easier to argue.
(the other comment will probaly just lead to another long off-topic argument )


I found the charts/tables I was talning about:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/favorite-fighter-interceptor-2164-11.html

 

[ponsford]

Originally Posted by Soren
The performance of the German a/c were as follows:

Fw-190 A-8: 578 km/h (361.5 mph) at SL, and 653 km/h (408 mph) at alt
Fw-190 A-9: 590 km/h (369 mph) at SL, and 670 km/h (419 mph) at alt
Fw-190 D-9: 615 km/h (384.5 mph) at SL, and 704 km/h (440 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-10: 585 km/h (366 mph) at SL, and 685 km/h (428 mph) at alt
Bf-109 K-4: 609 km/h (380.5 mph) at SL, and 719 km/h (449.5 mph) at alt

Because you say so? See, now that's funny. We were responding to claims of "German fighters in mid 1944 […] were usually superior to Allied fighters from SL and up to 25,000 ft. Can you provide documentation supporting those claims of German a/c performance? For 1944? This document has figures sort of close for the 190 A-8 and D-9. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/leistungsdaten-1-10-44.jpg Be sure to check the note at the bottom: Geschwindigkeiten ohne Berücksichtigung des Widerstandsanstieges aus Kompressibilität, ohne ETC unter dem Rumpf, mit bewegl. Fahrwerks-Klappen, Oberfläche gespachtelt u. Glattanstrich. (Speeds without consideration of the drag rise from compressibility, without rack under the fuselage...) What kind of funky conversion factor is being used to convert km/h to mph? Your figures are inaccurate. See Hermann for 190 D-9 performance.

 

[Soren]

Nope Ponsford, you're the one who is using inaccurate figures, I'm using the figures from the original docs, many of them being in Dietmar Hermann's book. And no my conversions are not inaccurate, 1 mph is 1.6 km/h

I'll give you a little taste:

Fw-190 A-5 performance:

So that's 580 km/h at SL and 680 km/h at altitude. Now exactly what Allied fighter except the P-51 could match that ? None. The Fw-190 A-5 also boasted a higher climb rate than any Allied fighter at the time at 21 m/s. Against the P-51 the Fw-190A-5's strengths were its superior turn rate, roll rate climb rate at low to medium alts, while the P-51 was faster and featured better high alt performance.

And the Bf-109G6/AS was faster at SL and up to 25,000 ft than the Spitfire, P-47 P-38. Or do you have a document claiming any of these could reach 585 km/h at SL ?

 

[Vincenzo]

the conversion factor used is 1.6 km and this is wrong, for performance data are possible

the conversion factor is 1.609

 

[kool kitty89]

I.6 is close, but will admitedly have a small but significant error. (~0.6%, so converting kph to mph will result in speeds ~.6% higher than actual)

I use .621 mph/kph (rounded from ~.62137)

 

[Soren]

Exactly 1.609 yes, but there's no difference really.

Fw-190 A-5 A-7: 580 km/h (360.5 mph) at SL and 680 km/h (422.6 mph) at alt
Fw-190 A-6: 579 km/h (359.8 mph) at SL, and 677 km/h (420.8 mph) at alt
Fw-190 A-8: 578 km/h (359.2 mph) at SL, and 653 km/h (406 mph) at alt
Fw-190 A-9: 590 km/h (366.7 mph) at SL, and 670 km/h (416.4 mph) at alt
Fw-190 D-9: 615 km/h (384.5 mph) at SL, and 704 km/h (437.5 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-2: 534 km/h (331.8 mph) at SL, 660 km/h (410.2 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-6: 526 km/h (328.8 mph) at SL, 656 km/h (407.7 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-6/AS: 585 km/h (363.6 mph) at SL, and 685 km/h (427.5 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-10: 589 km/h (366 mph) at SL, and 688 km/h (427.5 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-14: 585 km/h (363.6 mph) at SL, and 685 km/h (425.7 mph) at alt
Bf-109 K-4: 609 km/h (378.5 mph) at SL, and 719 km/h (446.9 mph) at alt

 

[kool kitty89]

Why are there speed figures for the A-8 in parenthacies () but not for the A-9?
(I assume the figures in () are for boosted emergency power, MW-50, Erhöhte Notleistung, C3-Einspritzung etc)

 

[Soren]

Because the A-9 hadn't been cleared for full boost by that time.

The speeds in paranthesis are at full boost with MW-50 (if present).

 

[kool kitty89]

So how fast did the A-9 eventually end up with full boost?

 

[Soren]

With the TS or F engine ??

 

[Soren]

With the TS engine:

590 km/h at SL, and 670 km/h at altitude (5.4km).

 

[pbfoot]

Every time you guys spout numbers about max speed I rarely ever see the speeds they operated at most mentioned. eg hi speed cruise in the Spit IX was 280