pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Just read about a impromptu test between a P38 and Spit and the Spit pilot said if they started out equal within 2 360's he would be on the 38's tail
Bf109F vs P-38F
- Thread starter ricardo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes I am talking about when the 109F was at its hight.
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
mmmm. would still pick the 109 over the p38 no matter what model of plane of either....
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
I don't quite see how it is possible, after all, the weight difference between the G-10 and K-4 was (unsurprisingly, given their similiarities in equipment) marginal, being around 70 kg, and in the case of the comparable armed G-10/U4 with the MK 108 cannon, about 20 kg.
The K-4 weighted a little less than the Spit IX, and was a bit more than 1000 lbs lighter than the XIV.
In fact the story of the 109F being such a shiny performer (though indeed it was) 'before the evil G-series begun to add weight' is rather bizarre when one considers that the difference in weight between 109F-2 and F-4 was greater than the difference in weight between the F-4 and G-2...
Konigstiger205
Staff Sergeant
The K-4 was the last 109...it was the end of the war and the lack of proper materials put its mark on the K model.The 109F however was indeed a great plane and like Adler said probably the best from the 109 family.
Odd. It's my understanding the K4 was developed, tested and standardized THEN the G10 was developed as a way to make additional K4's out of the never ending supply of wrecked G(various) components . . .
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Indeed the G-10 was a 'bastard' aircraft, a G airframe with many internal components from the 109K (new generator, engine amongst others). It ensured that factories could make use of 109K components without re-tooling for a (somewhat) new airframe.
Thorlifter
Captain
True, your really not comparing apples to apples. But, to answer your question, I vote for the 109.
SoD Stitch
Banned
I don't quite see how it is possible, after all, the weight difference between the G-10 and K-4 was (unsurprisingly, given their similiarities in equipment) marginal, being around 70 kg, and in the case of the comparable armed G-10/U4 with the MK 108 cannon, about 20 kg.
The K-4 weighted a little less than the Spit IX, and was a bit more than 1000 lbs lighter than the XIV.
In fact the story of the 109F being such a shiny performer (though indeed it was) 'before the evil G-series begun to add weight' is rather bizarre when one considers that the difference in weight between 109F-2 and F-4 was greater than the difference in weight between the F-4 and G-2...
Kurfurst, you are quite right, I didn't do the research . . .
The K-4 was, actually, a bit faster than the G's due to it's increased power output (it had a bigger supercharger) and it's lighter construction. My main reason for disliking the K-4 was the decline in quality and extensive use of wood in it's construction.
- Thread starter
- #30
Thanks to all for your replies. I chose the Bf109F against P-38F because they were fighting in the same theater (Africa) and in the same period (1942). I think this comparison makes sense.... now, if I make a comparison between a P-51H against a Bf109D... well.... obviously the P-51 comes out the winner, but it is not a valid comparison.
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
meh good enough....
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
That's a good point. In timewise, a P-38J wouldn't be fighting a BF 109F, but more likely a Bf 109G?
I find these discussions about the lacking qualities of the 109G a little bit of a problem as the different g-subtypes differ so strongly. G2 was more similar to the F-models in my opinion than to the G6. And also a late G6(+MW50)/G14 or one of the types with AS or D engines with better high altitude chargers were quite different than an early 1943 G6.
superpumper
Recruit
I might be wrong but I think I read somewhere that the 109 could lose its wings in combat in very tight turns if one wasn't careful at least in the early models. Is this so?
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
I,ll go for the 109f.
Not that this threads about it but I'd like to have seen what the 309 could have done slower but with two 30mm two 20mm and four 13mm pretty devastating
Not that this threads about it but I'd like to have seen what the 309 could have done slower but with two 30mm two 20mm and four 13mm pretty devastating
Early versions of the Bf 109F had problems with vibrations which could make the wing surface to break apart. This however was fixed very quickly.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
I believe I remember reading that at a certain RPM range the empennage (horizontal stab I believe) would suffer catastrophic failure due to sympathetic vibrations.
Glider
Captain
I have heard this before on other threads, but on the thread about Gunther Rall, the following statement of his caught my eye.
Anyway, I was chased by P-47. I knew exactly that in a dive P-47 is much faster than 109. And the P-47 has a much higher structural strength. They can go up to 1400 kilometers per hour. The 109, if you go to 1000, pull it up, you risk that the wings come off.
If Gunther was cautious of the wings coming off, then other less experienced pilots must have experienced a wing failure. This proves to me anyway that the problem was more widespread than just 109F vibrations
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Any wing will fail after the dive limitations are exceeded, or if the ailerons are badly set up. The 109's 'problems' with wing failures were not any more pronounced than your avarage WW2 fighters. It happened, from time to time, the usual culprit was the pilot exceeding the Vne, badly set up ailrons or simply worn-out, old airframes. Usually the problem was not as much the lack of structural strenght, but that conditions could arise which grossly overloaded the wings. No WW2 fighter's wing was built to resist twisting movements, for example, you will find the NACA making such reports with regards of the P-47 Thunderbolt.
Certainly there were quite a few fighter types more notorious for these kind of troubles than the 109.
Certainly there were quite a few fighter types more notorious for these kind of troubles than the 109.
Konigstiger205
Staff Sergeant
The 109 was not the most excellent fighter in WW2 but it did its job and in the hand o experienced pilots it proved a very deadly plane and the numbers in which was produced shows as much.
