P-40 vs. ME-109

Shortround6 · Feb 1, 2010

billswagger said:
What i find interesting about the MTO is that the P-40F was used, featuring the Packard Merlin found in the P-51D.

It was rather different Packard Merlin. A two speed supercharger WITHOUT a SECOND STAGE and WITHOUT INTER-COOLER as used in the P-51B-D.

billswagger said:
The P-40s had a ceiling of 29,000ft but probably could only function decently as a fighter below 20,000ft.

The "ceiling" or service ceiling of most planes was the altitude at which the climb rate dropped to100ft per minute. This is also an indication of the excess power available after level flight is achieved. Please note that "Climbing speed" is where this excess power is available. not max level speed.

MAX. ceiling is the altitude at which the plane cannot climb anymore and Max speed is the same as stall speed which also means the airplane cannot turn or maneuver as the extra drag will cause the airplane to stall.

An airplane with a service ceiling just a few thousand feet higher than another aircraft might, at an altitude a few thousand feet below plane "B"s service ceiling have double the rate of climb, a much better ability to either maintain speed or height in a turn.

The P-40 F might be able to effectively fight 3-5000ft higher than a P-40E but that does not mean it can fight at the same altitudes (24,000-30,000ft) as some Spitfires and the 109s.

billswagger · Feb 1, 2010

Shortround6 said:
It was rather different Packard Merlin. A two speed supercharger WITHOUT a SECOND STAGE and WITHOUT INTER-COOLER as used in the P-51B-D.

The "ceiling" or service ceiling of most planes was the altitude at which the climb rate dropped to100ft per minute. This is also an indication of the excess power available after level flight is achieved. Please note that "Climbing speed" is where this excess power is available. not max level speed.

MAX. ceiling is the altitude at which the plane cannot climb anymore and Max speed is the same as stall speed which also means the airplane cannot turn or maneuver as the extra drag will cause the airplane to stall.

An airplane with a service ceiling just a few thousand feet higher than another aircraft might, at an altitude a few thousand feet below plane "B"s service ceiling have double the rate of climb, a much better ability to either maintain speed or height in a turn.

The P-40 F might be able to effectively fight 3-5000ft higher than a P-40E but that does not mean it can fight at the same altitudes (24,000-30,000ft) as some Spitfires and the 109s.

thanks for reminding me of that.

The ceiling of the F was actually 34,000ft, but as I mentioned was not an effective fighter above 20,000ft, although out put of the one stage two speed Merlin was still 1120hp (@20k ft), I simply see them using the altitude for a tactical advantage diving on climbing 109s, or 109s that are pursuing a formation at medium altitude (15,000ft)

I think its important to recognize what level speed figures mean, and the altitudes they are achieved at. The Merlin Mustang was significantly faster not only because of its engine advances but because it could climb higher into the thinner air.
I'd be surprise to see how the Merlin Mustang and P-40F match up in level speed at 15,000ft.

Erik Shilling contends the P-40 was faster, but i might question his biased. Still it illustrates a point about level speed and altitude. I might clarify, the Mustang was faster at 15k, but i have to recognize that it was also rated for over 60" of manifold pressure. Not looking to argue, just simply raising the question of a P-40 merlin output at 65".

Note: the power plant of the 109F-3 also produced 1300 hp, and previous F-1 and F-2 variants were closer to 1200hp. (SL)

Above 20,000ft, the P-40s short comings become more recognizable and for obvious power to weight reasons but i might argue that at lower altitudes the P-40F and 109s were better matched in speed. Recognize that max speed of the 109 was attained above 22,000ft. Level Speed advantage would diminish with altitude, and where engine HP output was similar.

Hopefully. I'm not repeating what people already know.

At 20,000ft range of the P-40F was as follows:
clean -----------------------------700 miles
43 imp gal drop tank.-- ------875 miles
141.5 imp gal tank, ----------1500 miles.

A loose comparison with the 109F puts its range at 710km (440 miles) at 16500 ft alt.
and closer to 600 miles range with a drop tank (note: no reference to altitude)

There are many 109 variants, and forgive me if i haven't detailed their ability extensively, really my intent was to show the superior range of the P-40F with contemporary 109s which would've been 109E/Fs and early G models.

\\

Bill

Colin1 · Feb 2, 2010

billswagger said:
I'd be surprised to see how the Merlin Mustang and P-40F match up in level speed at 15,000ft

No surprises I'm afraid

P-40F around 352mph @ 15,000ft
P-51B around 415mph @ 15,000ft

billswagger · Feb 2, 2010

Interview with L.Kulakov

This is an interview with Leonid Sergeevich Kulakov, posted in the begining of the thread.

He flew the Kittyhawk as well as the Cobra and the Yak.

His thoughts on the Kittyhawk were that it was excellent in the horizontal and even out turned Yak7s, however the Yak was much better in the vertical because of its speed. He could not compare the cobra well to the kittyhawk because he never had to dogfight in a cobra.
He simply said the cobra was faster,

Apparently, the Kittyhawk also offered excellent visibility and he contends that as long as he was able to see his adversary he was able to evade them. This probably in't saying much, but i think it shows that the plane was still formidable if flown properly.

His opponents were often 190 and 109s flying much higher and faster than himself.

Bill

Vincenzo · Feb 2, 2010

good read, need to take in consideration the him talking of training biplace Yak 7

billswagger · Feb 2, 2010

Vincenzo said:
good read, need to take in consideration the him talking of training biplace Yak 7

I didn't catch that, he mentions training in a Yak7, and i have to think he also flew a single seater.
I'm certain the Yak out performed the Kittyhawk in many ways i just thought that was an interesting remark. If i had the choice i would still take the Yak.

Colin1 said:
No surprises I'm afraid

P-40F around 352mph @ 15,000ft
P-51B around 415mph @ 15,000ft

Indeed.

Look at level flight characteristics of contemporary 109s at 5000m (16404ft):

F-2 362mph (592kph)

F-4 387mph (623kph)

G-1 365mph (588kph)

G-2 366mph (590kph)

As you can see the speed advantage is reduced significantly at medium altitudes.
The reality was such that 109s would often avoid the conflict if possible and instead speed away and climb to a position of advantage, however 109s caught from above or by surprise had to endure a dogfight, which i tend to think gave the advantage to the 109 in the vertical and the advantage to the P-40 in horizontal. It would not surprise me if the P-40 was also faster in the dive given the higher weight of the plane and being the power output of the two planes were very similar at these altitudes.
In level flight or extended climbs the P-40 was likely to see the 109 pull away, barring overheating or engine problems.
The P-40 was also able to retain more speed out of dives, because of weight, and power, although turns would quickly bleed off any speed advantage.
109s probably still faired best to keep the fight vertical, where if the P-40 chose to follow, would lose any advantage in repeated loops. I don't believe the 109 could turn with a P-40 unless the chase was at higher speeds where speed and rate of turn are more effective than radius. Its possible the 109 may match the P-40 in many turns, on paper, but the reality of energy in a dogfight when making such turns is that the plane that bleeds off speed faster would be able to make the tighter turn.

Bill

Vincenzo · Feb 2, 2010

specifically he tell that in training never flew alone in yakovlev, late he never talking to fly with yakovlev.

soem notes on 109 speed
at time of P-51B the F-2 can go a 612 km/h but was hard find one for the 51 i think, also the speed of F-4 maybe highest in late 43 the engine was cleared for WEP (using american termonology) the speed of G-1 in Rechlin test was 622 km/h at 5 (and w/o wep, and at time of 51 the wep was cleared)

billswagger · Feb 2, 2010

=Vincenzo;631381]specifically he tell that in training never flew alone in yakovlev, late he never talking to fly with yakovlev.

Oh, i took that to mean he never flew Yaks with out other Yaks. My bad.

As for G-2 speed, it may have been faster, but the graph (in German) rated speed a bit lower specifically in the 4000m-6000m range from what appeared to be overheating.
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1_messung601e605a/files/Blatt8.jpg

It may have gone faster in short bursts and overheating would've been limited with the introduction of MW50. As far as i know that didn't begin to appear in production 109s until mid to late 1943.

This is also a test on a captured 109G2 of the MTO, although it gives no specific figures at 5000m.
Kurfrst - Bf 109G/trop Middle East trials: Dimesnions, Weights and Performance

There is probably a margin of error on any published figures for most aircraft anyway.
To quibble over a small difference in numbers is insignificant. It isn't to say that the P-40 was faster in level speed, only that at medium altitudes the speed disadvantage was within 10-30mph depending on variant. Also i'm not attempting to mislead you, in that the 109 could fly faster and higher. Higher = faster which is generally seen as a huge advantage.
If range permitted, I know tactically it was better for German planes to elude lower altitude fights so they could climb to a vantage point. From reading more of the interviews on that website, it appears that was a very common tactic of the German/Russian air war.

Bill

Vincenzo · Feb 2, 2010

you take the comparison test with 601 and 605 engine this is not a production fighter configuration, the test of rechlin you can find ever in kurfuerst page at Kurfrst - Rechlin E`Stelle Erprobungsnummer 1586, ,the plane of G2 trop has, within other trouble, a hole in the prop...
why looking a enemy test or a special purpouse test when there are the official flight trials available?

billswagger · Feb 2, 2010

duplicate

billswagger · Feb 2, 2010

Vincenzo said:
why looking a enemy test or a special purpouse test when there are the official flight trials available?

Well, i can't look at a test in 43 to see how a fighter performed in 42.
Even flight trials are done to measure an increase in performance, and aren't always best for comparison reasons, but that is all we have short of actually flying the planes ourselves.
And noteably, there are flaws in the data of most tests which have to do with limitations in instrumentation. For that reason i mention a margin of error +/- 10mph (16kph).
Nothing i'm saying is doctrine, simply my educated opinion.

Even with this said, production variant 109s tested and rated in early 43 would not have seen combat til mid 43/late 43. And by then the P-40 was being phased out with P-47s and P-51Bs.

Its not really a relative discussion of speed in this context, simply put, the 109 was faster, however speed advantage was reduced with altitude.

BTW, the speed at 15,000ft by the P-40F of 352mph, was achieved at 48" of boost. It was ran in combat up to 55" and according to some pilots could achieve over 60" of boost in emergencies.

Australian pilots reported pushing 70"s of boost using their Allison driven Kittyhawks. (P-40E) with out problems, yet you see more published numbers on speed indicated when they were used at 42" of boost.

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allison 1710-39 abuse.pdf

You can see how much power the Allison was capable at lower altitudes where supercharging was not such an issue as it was in thinner atmosphere. The horsepower is considerably higher.

The Merlin was better at altitudes of 10-15k ft, where i have to wonder what speeds could be produced using higher boost pressures.

Perils P40 Archive Data

So speed and advantage is a bit difficult to nail down with discussion of test flights alone,

Bill

Vincenzo · Feb 3, 2010

billswagger said:
Well, i can't look at a test in 43 to see how a fighter performed in 42.
Even flight trials are done to measure an increase in performance, and aren't always best for comparison reasons, but that is all we have short of actually flying the planes ourselves.
And noteably, there are flaws in the data of most tests which have to do with limitations in instrumentation. For that reason i mention a margin of error +/- 10mph (16kph).
Nothing i'm saying is doctrine, simply my educated opinion.

Even with this said, production variant 109s tested and rated in early 43 would not have seen combat til mid 43/late 43. And by then the P-40 was being phased out with P-47s and P-51Bs.

Its not really a relative discussion of speed in this context, simply put, the 109 was faster, however speed advantage was reduced with altitude.

BTW, the speed at 15,000ft by the P-40F of 352mph, was achieved at 48" of boost. It was ran in combat up to 55" and according to some pilots could achieve over 60" of boost in emergencies.

Australian pilots reported pushing 70"s of boost using their Allison driven Kittyhawks. (P-40E) with out problems, yet you see more published numbers on speed indicated when they were used at 42" of boost.

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allison 1710-39 abuse.pdf

You can see how much power the Allison was capable at lower altitudes where supercharging was not such an issue as it was in thinner atmosphere. The horsepower is considerably higher.

The Merlin was better at altitudes of 10-15k ft, where i have to wonder what speeds could be produced using higher boost pressures.

Perils P40 Archive Data

So speed and advantage is a bit difficult to nail down with discussion of test flights alone,

Bill

do you know modification on G1 or G2 that give speed up from early production and late??
and why compare a 42 gustav neither P-40F or P-51B fightning in '42?
difference also from a aircraft and other can give also difference in performance.
a bit pessimistic on timing on lw plane, no they are fastest, they aren't US planes that must pass the ocean.
i've laready reading in this forum info on overboosted P-40 but (i still not read the links) i think this give best a lower altitude (lower of 15'k)

Kurfürst · Feb 3, 2010

Official specifications for Bf 109G-1(as well as -2/-3/-4):

Kurfrst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausfhrung

Range figures for Bf 109F/G:

billswagger · Feb 3, 2010

Vincenzo said:
and why compare a 42 gustav neither P-40F or P-51B fightning in '42?

The majority of operations for the P-40F was from mid 42 to mid 43, but the plane was used into 44 as it was being phased out.
Prior to that, the P-40E was used in North Africa.

Contemporary fighters would've been the 109E/F/G and Macchi 202s. The time table suggests that 109F was the predominant fighter with many Es still in operations.

i've laready reading in this forum info on overboosted P-40 but (i still not read the links) i think this give best a lower altitude (lower of 15'k)

Most of what i've seen for overboosting is related to the Allison engined (P-40E). It was not as efficient at 15k as the Merlin engine found in P-40Fs.
The rated boost was 52" for take off and 48" as combat power. Though my reading suggests pilots pushed the Merlin to 65". I'm not sure how that translates to horsepower or speed but it does suggest a substantial improvement above using 48". I also have to wonder how long they could fly overboosted and if engine problems occurred.

Bill

billswagger · Feb 3, 2010

[

Kurfürst said:
Official specifications for Bf 109G-1(as well as -2/-3/-4):

Kurfrst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausfhrung

Range figures for Bf 109F/G:

I've been looking for those. Do you have figures on the 109Fs specifically the R types used as long range fighters?
Possibly even early Gs or G-2s?

These look to be late war figures.

A brief search pegs the F with service range of 800miles with tank, but im not sure how accurate that is.

Also do you happen to know what altitude those ranges occurred?

thanks

Bill

Milosh · Feb 3, 2010

Interesting graphic.

Has the Spitfire IX fast cruise speed at almost 365mph (no external fuel tank) while the 109G's fast cruise speed is approx. 300mph.

Vincenzo · Feb 3, 2010

Milosh said:
Interesting graphic.

Has the Spitfire IX fast cruise speed at almost 365mph (no external fuel tank) while the 109G's fast cruise speed is approx. 300mph.

what graphic?

in the table are 331 for LF IX and 321 for gustav...

billswagger · Feb 3, 2010

So far everywhere i've looked the mention of max range with a tank is 600-800miles depending on 109 variant.
Specifically the numners i see are 1000km, and its repeated over several sources.
They also site Rechlin
I also have to ask if the fuel injection offered better fuel economy, but i'm not able to decypher those figures looking at German sources.

I don't doubt other configurations offer better range, perhaps two tanks.

Glider · Feb 4, 2010

The following are the list of combats that RAF 112 squadron had in Tunisia which should give a fair indication as to how well the P40 did against the Me109. All details from Fighters Over Tunisia

23rd Dec 2 x P40 lost 2 x P40 belly landed 1 x Me109 claimed
11th Jan 1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 belly landed
5th Feb 1 x P40 l1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 belly landed, 1 x Me109 claimed
27th Feb 1 x P40 lost. 1 x Me109 Probable claimed
7th March 1 x P40 Badly damaged
8th March 7 x P40 lost (1 pilot returned) 2 x Me109 1 x Ju87 claimed
22nd March 1 x Me109 as a probable claimed
19 April 1 x Me109 claimed
20 April 1 x Ju88 claimed

Also did the same for 68th Fighter Squadron of 33rd Fighter Group
12th Dec - 1 German claimed no type given
19th Dec - 1 x He111 claimed
21st Jan - 1 x P40 lost
3rd Jan - 2 x P40 lost
4th Jan - 3 x P40 lost 1 x P40 damaged
8th Jan - 1 x Me109 and 2 x Fw190 claimed (1 German actually lost and 1 Damaged), 2 x P40 lost
11th Jan - 1 x P40 lost 1 x Me109 claimed (but no actual losses recorded)
12th Jan - 1 x Ju88 1 x Me109 claimed
13th Jan - 1 x Beaufighter shot down, 2 x Ju88 shot down (note these were seperate incidents)
15th Jan - 1 x P40 lost
17th Jan - 1 x P40 lost
30th Jan - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
24th Mar - 5 x P40 lost 5 x Me109 claimed but only one Me109 (Richard Wolfmier) actually lost
29th Mar - 3 x Me109 claimed plus 3 x Me109 claimed by 60th FS. 4 x Me109 actually lost for 1 x P40 lost from 58th FS
31st Mar - 1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 damaged, 7 x Me109 claimed but none lost
4th Apr - 2 x P40 lost 2 x Me109 claimed but none lost
5th Apr - 1 x P40 lost, 1 x Mc202 and 1 x Me109 claimed
7th Apr - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
10th Apr - 4 x Mc 202 claimed
23rd Apr - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
4th May - 2 x P40 claimed 2 x Me109 claimed but no losses to either side
7th May - 1 x p40 lost to AA fire.

Note the 33rd FG unit received a Distinguished Unit Citation for action on 15 Jan 1943 but this must have been on the 13th Jan as that was the oly time they went against a large number of German Bombers destoying 12 in total.

According to German Records

Total German Claims 965

Total German Losses
Combat - 182
Accident -68
AA fire - 23
own AA fire - 3
Own Fighter - 2
Total 278

Generally speaking there is little here to say that the P40 could hold its own in combat against the Me109.

Kurfürst · Feb 4, 2010

billswagger said:
[

I've been looking for those. Do you have figures on the 109Fs specifically the R types used as long range fighters? Possibly even early Gs or G-2s? These look to be late war figures.

The following comes from a British report on a captured Bf 109G-2/trop in North Africa (same plane today flies restored as Black Six)

Kurfrst - Bf 109G/trop Middle East trials: Dimesnions, Weights and Performance

Later the British intel issued revised range figures, reduced to the ca 600/1000 miles as seen on the first range doc I posted, but there is no specific reason why the figures were revised, and it only seem to effect range at economic cruise).

If you mean 109Fs with drop tank under "specifically the R types", it wasn't a seperate variant, nor is, for example, a designation like "F-4/R3" correct, there wasn't a suffix when a drop tank was carried (it could be carried by all). Only special variants had such designation, like the F-4/Z (GM-1 boost) or the F-4/R1 (gondola cannons, but only because only these late Fs could carry gondolas, there was no such on the G-series, as all were prepeared to do so).

As for the 109Fs range, German papers give it as roughly the same as the G-series, ie. the 109F-4 is given is German datasheets and range tables as with a range of 1600 km with droptank, 835 km without, at a cruise of 410 km/h.

P-40 vs. ME-109

Major General

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Captain

Staff Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads