Bf109 G10/K-4 VS P38 L

Thats as fast as a Spitfire Mk.XIV flying at full boost (2050 HP), and that aint gonna happen. A P-51B might be able to keep up, but not the heavier "D" model.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you are forgetting the "Meredith effect", which supplied quite a bit of power... I think that at 275mph IAS this extra power was 300HP.

Regards.

alejandro_ said:

wmaxt

I think Lunatic mentioned in another debate that most books written on US fighters give the max speed on military power, but not on war emergency power. One case was the P-51D, most sources say it reaches 437mph but in reality it's 448 mph.

The P-38 had a very tight turning circle, good roll, one of the best climb/dive speeds, amoung the best accelerations. By utilizing its strengths could and did fight effectively 1:1 with its adversaries.

Click to expand...

The tight turning cycle was not that important in the high speed clashes fought in the ETO. The Fw-190 could easily outroll the P-38 at high speeds, and IIRC the Bf-109 too.

Regards

Click to expand...

Jabber showed us a test by the AAF that gives a P-51D a top speed of 445mph and I showed a Lockheed chart of a P-38l at 442-444mph. The point is that there very close. Speed differences of less than ~20mph are pretty meaningless anyway, its not enough to get you out of P-38 gun range soon enough (non converging guns). Less than a 20mph advantage is not enough to catch up in a stern chase of more than a ~mile either.

The 1100hp curve on that chart in actuality, I belive, is for Military power climb because it matches the POH 1425hp(54"), 17400lbs climb chart very closely. Second, the P-51D climb curve for comparison is in military power, and is actuly better than the Military power climb as provided in the P-51D POH.

I stand by my statement - it not only happened, it wasn't unusual esp the later J/Ls. Remember the vast majority of P-38 clashes were from October '43 to June '44 when the Germans had both the numerical superority and the experiance edge. Even with the edge if you take ALL P-38 losses including Training accidents, collisions, bombing and ground attack missions (accounting for ~3/4 of the P-38 losses), the P-38 had a better than 1:1 loss average in Europe. It also had ~5:1 (608 Axis:113 P-38s) average in the MTO.

The Roll rate of the P-38J-25/Ls exceeded the Fw-190s from 350mph on up, These P-38s had hydralic boost the Fw-190 didn't, check the graph I posted earlier. It must also be noted that combat speeds were in the 275 to 375 region in most maneuvering engagments and always after the first turns were completed. One P-38 pilot made this coment about a Fw-190s roll rate "If I have him in my sites and he rolls, thats OK because my roll is close enough to keep him in sight and the more he roll the more energy he bleeds off - the quicker I drill him".

wmaxt

wmaxt

The Roll rate of the P-38J-25/Ls exceeded the Fw-190s from 350mph on up, These P-38s had hydralic boost the Fw-190 didn't, check the graph I posted earlier.

Click to expand...

The Fw-190A4 shown in the graph is a damaged model captured by the US. The Fw-190 was one of the best aircraft when it came to rolling. The Royal airforce stated that at high speeds the rolling rate was slow because of heavy aileron forces.

Remember the vast majority of P-38 clashes were from October '43 to June '44 when the Germans had both the numerical superority and the experiance edge.

Click to expand...

Well, in the mediterranean it was a very effective fighter but in northern europe it's perforamance suffered quite a bit. I already mentioned the problems in another post.

Regards.

alejandro_ said:

wmaxt

The Roll rate of the P-38J-25/Ls exceeded the Fw-190s from 350mph on up, These P-38s had hydralic boost the Fw-190 didn't, check the graph I posted earlier.

Click to expand...

The Fw-190A4 shown in the graph is a damaged model captured by the US. The Fw-190 was one of the best aircraft when it came to rolling. The Royal airforce stated that at high speeds the rolling rate was slow because of heavy aileron forces.

Click to expand...

I never said the peak roll rate of the Fw-190 was anything but the best, I'll also agree that the Fw-190s best roll rate is in the most frequently used speeds in maneuvering combat. My point was and is that from the top portion of that range the Fw-190s roll rate had deterioriated to the average roll rate of WWII fighters and esp the P-38s with boosted ailerons. The damage to that Fw-190A (the best rolling model) did not affect the ailerons or thier function.

alejandro_ said:

Remember the vast majority of P-38 clashes were from October '43 to June '44 when the Germans had both the numerical superority and the experiance edge.

Click to expand...

Well, in the mediterranean it was a very effective fighter but in northern europe it's perforamance suffered quite a bit. I already mentioned the problems in another post.

Regards.

Click to expand...

The actual performance of the P-38 in combat in the ETO was just as effective, the 8th AF only lost 451 P-38s to ALL causes. The common issues except for lack of heat, inexperianced pilots and ground crew were more due to operating procedures than anything else. Doolittle confirms this point himself. I recomend this site for a good picture of the P-38 in the ETO, check it out even/esp if you know all the standard stuff thats been laid on the P-38 I think you'll find some interesting stuff:
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html
Ale, there is another reason I belive this way, In the Aleuitions the same models of the aircraft were used for long range missions at altitudes of 15,000ft to 25,000ft with slightly different operating technics. The P-38s were praised for their reliability and capability and the temp were -40deg On The Ground and got colder as they went up! Somebodies telling fibs in the ETO!

wmaxt

The damage to that Fw-190A (the best rolling model) did not affect the ailerons or thier function.

Click to expand...

Are you sure? I thought the Fw-190A5 captured had problems in the engine and the ailerons were not correctly set.

Regards.

alejandro is infact correct, the Fw-190A-5/U4 tested by the US can in no way be seen as representative for a properly functioning Fw-190A, not by a long shot !

The A-5U4 tested by the US had severe engine problems as it was running on Allied fuel which it wasn't built or calibrated to use, and its ailerons were badly out of adjustment exhibiting aileron flutter and reversal leading to premature stalling in turns.

Both of the fighters are almost exactly tied.

Both the 38L and the K4 are fast as hell (the 38L had a top speed over 440mph to the k4s 448mph), neither one can outclimb the other or out gun them. Still the 38L was more maneuverable since it competed maneuverability with the P-51 and P-47 which were both more maneuverable than the k4. But the K4 had the advantage in acceleration and rate of roll, especially at high speeds.

If I had to choose a fighter for its versatility (and range) the 38L; but if I had to choose a fighter for its sheer power the k4.

i've some troble with your consideration on manuevrability, idk for 38L but generally 38 it's best turning of 51 47, for rolling if i remember right the 38 is badest of 4751. 109 is best turning of 51 47 but also rolling bad (ever if my memory not fault) so i think there isn't a clear advantage in manuevrability.

The P-38 was without a chance in a turn fight and climb against the Bf109K-4, the K-4 is simply a lot better in both aspects of flight, and it was faster as-well.

Another topic that pits 2 planes separated by a almost a year between they were operational

And almost 4 years old thread

1, IFF didn't help fighter pilots in air combat. It only returned a 'friendly' signal to ground radar stations, but fighter pilots in the air could not receive it, unless they informed via radio that unknown 'boogeys' may be near their position. But given the limited range of radar sets, in practice it gave the defender an advantage (whose fighters were in range of their own radar).

2, The Germans had their own IFF system (the type FuG 25 Erstling) on their fighters for precisly the same reason.

wmaxt said:

.



The actual performance of the P-38 in combat in the ETO was just as effective, the 8th AF only lost 451 P-38s to ALL causes. The common issues except for lack of heat, inexperianced pilots and ground crew were more due to operating procedures than anything else. Doolittle confirms this point himself. I recomend this site for a good picture of the P-38 in the ETO, check it out even/esp if you know all the standard stuff thats been laid on the P-38 I think you'll find some interesting stuff:
P-38: Der Gabelschwanz Teufel

There are quite a few historical errors in his narrative regarding P-38's 'carrying the long range escort load 'until ~ march 1944'. Both the 354th and 363rd were 'loaned to 8th AF for LR target escort. In December 1943 the 354th had only 50% strength compared to combined 20th and 55th - but the aborts were so high with their P-38s that the 354th by itself was putting nearly 40% of the effectives in December through mid February 1944 - then the 357th FG and 4th and 363rd added their three Combined Mustang Groups.

During Big week there were twice as many P-51s going deep as P-38s. By the time the 364th was operational in March the 4th and 355th had fully converted from P-47s to Mustangs.

Blakeslee did Not command the 354th as stated in the article, he Led the 354th on their first couple of missions in December - but the only combat group that Blakeslee Commanded was the 4th FG throughout the war.

Ale, there is another reason I belive this way, In the Aleuitions the same models of the aircraft were used for long range missions at altitudes of 15,000ft to 25,000ft with slightly different operating technics. The P-38s were praised for their reliability and capability and the temp were -40deg On The Ground and got colder as they went up! Somebodies telling fibs in the ETO!

wmaxt

Click to expand...

Curious - what is your source for 451 P-38 losses in ETO?

My count for the 8th AF is 296 lost Operationally including combat and non combat losses. I have not yet been able to find a reliable source for all 9th AF and Recce losses.

I also have 613 P-47s and 1383 P-51s and 21 Spifires all in/all causes for 8th AF