Bf109 G10/K-4 VS P38 L

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The P-38 L was superior to the Bf 109 G-10 in all-out speed?

How come?

In fact, both German versions, G-10 and K-4 are faster than this Lighting. At about the 25,000 ft. altitude we have the following facts:

P-38 L: 414 mph=666km/hr

G-10: 429 mph= 690 km/hr

We have a +/- 15 mph top speed difference in favor of the G-10.

The K-4, in the various boosts it served, has even a clearer advantage in the maximum speed department over the P-38.

The G-5,-6,-14/AS versions were faster than this particular version of the P-38, making 424 mph at altitude.
 
Well, the P-38 was a very dangerous ennemy in the Mediterranena and especially in the PTO, where combat distances were longer and japanese fighter could not dive with any american fighter.

In Europe it's performance was badly affected by the insufficient coolant, the cockpit would freeze and the pilot could not see a thing. The engines would suffer a lot of failures, and the buffeting problems meant that it was not capable of following a Bf-109/Fw-190 in a dive. Even if it had the best climb rate among US fighters it was still lower than the advanced Bf-109/Fw-190 IIRC.

Regards.
 
Soren: that is correct!

Although I can tell of the accounts of some German pilots who affirmed the P-38 could be a very tough enemy, I know of other opinions telling the Lightning was the less troublesome craft in the Allied fighter menu.

Again, any of the German fighters which encountered it were in my view superior planes.
 
At high altitude, the p-38 (don't know if this was solved in the L model), produced a pair of white contrails, that were visible for miles.
That , and the fact that it was easy to identify by enemy pilots, since it looked like no other fighter, put it in a less favourable tactical situation. It was quite probably a disadvantageous one.

I would pick the Me-109 K-4, if I was an expert.
 
Because it looked unique, it was also an advantage when friendlies were around. Contrails are produced when the weather patterns are just so. At higher altitudes, just about any WWII aircraft produced contrails.
 
By the way, didn't allied fighters have the IFF system installed? That would probably give them a fair tactical advantage, when identifying enemies was difficult.

Why didn't the germans copy that system? Was it such a difficult technical hurdle? They probably didn't know about it.
 
The different appearance of the -38's twin booms was both a positive and a negative...

I know that Bartles layed several of his claims on this difference.... He didnt have to wait until his visual identification was confirmed, he just initiated a bounce and basically eliminated the dogfight...
 
IFF is a electronic beacon that highlights or adds an electonic signature to your blip on search radar since no dayfighters had radar it would not be of any help its initial purpose was to enable the fighter controllers (ground radar) to identify hostile from friendly a/c
 

I disagree:

The Vets views are going to be biased. Even if their plane was shot down, they might blame their own failings on their craft.

On paper specs can also be dodgy.

I like these discussions and learn a lot from them, also even manage to teach other people something sometimes.


lesofprimus said:
In all these hypotheticals, the discussion always gets mired into the same swamp; pilot proficiency
Click to expand...

True.


Thanks for the info again wmaxt.


Twitch said:
The original poster mentioned the P-38''s "central armament," as an advantage. The 109 has the same "central armament" so there is no advantage. Had nothing to do with how many or whatever guns you want to mount.
Click to expand...

Jabberwocky said:
Higher rate and weight of fire, no prop synchronisation and better ballistics and range.
Click to expand...

I agree with Jabberwocky, sorry Twitch.

alejandro_ said:
the buffeting problems meant that it was not capable of following a Bf-109/Fw-190 in a dive.
Click to expand...

Yes, but like vs the Spifire, the wings could break off the Me in a long dive, reducing this advantage.

The P38 had it's problems, but so did the 'Schmitt.

IMHO the Fork-Tailed Devil and Me were both 8)
 
schwarzpanzer said:
Yes, but like vs the Spifire, the wings could break off the Me in a long dive, reducing this advantage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you certainly teached us something there...

Schwarz, the 109's wings could take over 12 G's without failing ! (Thats more than most of the fighters of WWII)
 
taught us something, taught us something! - Only kidding.

I know the Emil's wings were flimsy, this problem may well have been sorted on the Gustav or even Freidrich? I honestly don't know - just covering all possibilities.
 
No you DON'T know Schwarz, cause the Emil's wings weren't flimsy at all ! You're mistaking its wings with the Bf-108's !
 


That site is full of myths and untruth's, German pilots did in no way ever question the structural resilience of the 109's wings, especially considering it was structurally more sound than most Allied fighters. Its an untrue myth, and its a stupid one too.

Next there's the fact that the 109 actually has thicker wings than the Spitfire !

And here's the worst pile of BS written on the site: "that the 109 would have to pull up sooner or later, and when they did pull up it was done gently to avoid overstressing the thin wings, which was a genuine weakness of the design." This is completely and utterly untrue !
 
With me, its a tough call. I like the 109K-4 and on ward, but the P38 is also a big favorite of mine. However, if pressed I would have to say that I would go with the P38, because I wouldn't have to worry about lining the shots up as much, because the guns are in the nose and not the wings (although the same can be said of the 109K-4). That, and I would much rather have four .50s in the nose than two 13mms in the cowling, the reason being I have a higher weight of fire (I think, not good with physics and math) and more fire power pouring out per minute than two guns.
 
The obvious question is: if their situations in 1944/45 had been reversed, which would you of rather flown?


P-38 as a bomber interceptor is a pretty good proposition:

Excellent rate of climb. Not as good as the 109 but it still approaches 4000 fpm.

Excellent speed at high altitude. Those turbosuperchargers keep the engine at peak power for a long time.

Reasonable firepower. 109 with a 30mm Mk 108 probably wins out here as a bomber destroyer, but 1x20mm and 4 x 12.7mm. Adding 20mms to the 109s wings killed it manouverability, but may it a lethal bomber hunter.

Long loiter time. Wins out over the 109 here, as it can stay aloft for 4 hours and make long runs at high speed if the bomber formation doglegs away from the interception point.

Good landing characteristics: tricycle landing gear, low stall speed and a very gentle stall due to counter-rotating props mean that landing accidents would be less likely than on the famously difficult 109.

The negatives would be:

Expense: With its size, weight and twin engines, the P-38 would be much more expensive than the 109. So not as much production and more expensive to repair.

Pilot training: To get the best out of single engined fighters like the 109 required less training than the complex P-38. The LW didnt have the luxury of long training peroids, so would of thrown in pilot with relatively less training then the USAAF did in the ETO, which wasn't that much anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
L-4 Grasshoppers at War
Replies
0
Views
567
MIflyer
M
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register