P40 Vs all other fighters in Europe (1 Viewer)

[Greg Boeser]

Were there any Bf 109E-1s in frontline service by the time Tomahawks are operational? And what gave you got against Lysanders? I read their incredibly low speed was a defensive advantage. A real fighter plane wouldn't be able to stay with them.

 

[BiffF15]

Were there any Bf 109E-1s in frontline service by the time Tomahawks are operational? And what gave you got against Lysanders? I read their incredibly low speed was a defensive advantage. A real fighter plane wouldn't be able to stay with them.

Greg,

Being able to fly slow is a strength, however if your opponent is markedly faster and more maneuverable it relegates one to strafe rag status in the case of a Lysander versus a 109.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Shortround6]

A fair number of army co-operation squadrons had been equipped with Lysanders, both in France in in England.

Sopwith Salamanders would have just wonderful against "real fighters" too.

on a more serious note "118 Lysanders were lost in or over France and Belgium in May and June 1940, of a total of 175 deployed"

and

"The view of Army AOP pilots was that the Lysander was too fast for artillery spotting purposes, too slow and unmanoeuverable to avoid fighters, too big to conceal quickly on a landing field, too heavy to use on soft ground and had been developed by the RAF without ever asking the Army what was needed"

The Lysander may have had a slow flying speed but it also had very heavy controls which made changes of direction ponderous.
Slow and agile might work. Slow and not agile was a recipe for disaster.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

IIRC Lysanders did achieve several kills against -109s. I think someone once posted a list of Lysander kills

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sopwith Salamanders would have just wonderful against "real fighters" too.

I would have gone with a Gunbus...

 

[Shortround6]

IIRC Lysanders did achieve several kills against -109s. I think someone once posted a list of Lysander kills

Well, I keep posting the kills (claims) of Avro Anson/s (one Anson?)
Nobody thought using Avro Ansons was a good idea for air to air combat.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Were there any Bf 109E-1s in frontline service by the time Tomahawks are operational?

Bf 109F's were in service months before the first Tomahawk's, so I would assume all the E-1's had been replaced by at least E-3's by then. Maybe training units had the early Emil's by 1941?

 

[Shortround6]

According to some sources some of the E-1s were rebuilt as E-4s or later.
Some got DB601N engines and some got 20mm cannon and patches can be seen where the 7.9mm mgs used to be.

 

[pbehn]

IIRC Lysanders did achieve several kills against -109s. I think someone once posted a list of Lysander kills

Compared to the Po-2 on the Russian front the Lysander is a speed merchant, the Po-2 maximum speed is just 22mph faster than the Lysander stall speed, something they could make use of but I am sure they would have preferred not to.

 

[Snautzer01]

Compared to the Po-2 on the Russian front the Lysander is a speed merchant, the Po-2 maximum speed is just 22mph faster than the Lysander stall speed, something they could make use of but I am sure they would have preferred not to.

The po-2 slowness could be a weapon. More then 1 luftwaffe pilot stalled and crashed trying to get it in his sights.

 

[MikeMeech]

A fair number of army co-operation squadrons had been equipped with Lysanders, both in France in in England.

Sopwith Salamanders would have just wonderful against "real fighters" too.

on a more serious note "118 Lysanders were lost in or over France and Belgium in May and June 1940, of a total of 175 deployed"

and

"The view of Army AOP pilots was that the Lysander was too fast for artillery spotting purposes, too slow and unmanoeuverable to avoid fighters, too big to conceal quickly on a landing field, too heavy to use on soft ground and had been developed by the RAF without ever asking the Army what was needed"

The Lysander may have had a slow flying speed but it also had very heavy controls which made changes of direction ponderous.
Slow and agile might work. Slow and not agile was a recipe for disaster.

Hi
It should be remembered that the equivalent type to the Lysander in the Luftwaffe was the Henschel Hs 126 and in the USAAC it was the North American O-47. All would have been poor against fighters, indeed it could be argued that the Lysander was the 'best' of the three while the O-47 was probably one of the worst aircraft for the role possible! Exactly what was the US Army thinking?

Mike

 

[Shortround6]

Hi
It should be remembered that the equivalent type to the Lysander in the Luftwaffe was the Henschel Hs 126 and in the USAAC it was the North American O-47. All would have been poor against fighters, indeed it could be argued that the Lysander was the 'best' of the three while the O-47 was probably one of the worst aircraft for the role possible! Exactly what was the US Army thinking?

Mike

At least the US Army wasn't thinking the O-47 could do ground strafing and light bombing.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Hi
It should be remembered that the equivalent type to the Lysander in the Luftwaffe was the Henschel Hs 126 and in the USAAC it was the North American O-47. All would have been poor against fighters, indeed it could be argued that the Lysander was the 'best' of the three while the O-47 was probably one of the worst aircraft for the role possible! Exactly what was the US Army thinking?

Mike

Call me crazy but probably that they needed a new observation plane to replace the old canvas covered biplanes they had.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Greg,

Being able to fly slow is a strength, however if your opponent is markedly faster and more maneuverable it relegates one to strafe rag status in the case of a Lysander versus a 109.

Cheers,
Biff

That OV-10 v F-16 video we discussed a couple of months ago comes to mind.

 

[Shortround6]

Hi
It should be remembered that the equivalent type to the Lysander in the Luftwaffe was the Henschel Hs 126 and in the USAAC it was the North American O-47. All would have been poor against fighters, indeed it could be argued that the Lysander was the 'best' of the three while the O-47 was probably one of the worst aircraft for the role possible! Exactly what was the US Army thinking?

Mike

The progression of the "observation" class aircraft might be a subject all on it's own. It lasted a bit over 20 years and a LOT of different aircraft and it was an essential part of any air force, until it wasn't, really quickly.

 

[MikeMeech]

Call me crazy but probably that they needed a new observation plane to replace the old canvas covered biplanes they had.

Hi
As did the Lysander and Hs 126:

Then we have the O-47:

This was the largest and heaviest of the trio, originally a three-seater, later it is reported to fly with a pilot and observer/photographer, the latter had to do his work from the belly of the aircraft. If used as a two-seater he would have to get back up to use the defensive MG if attacked, at least the observer of the Lysander and Hs 126 were close to their gun while observing.

Mike

 

[Shortround6]

I have opened up a new thread for observation planes

 

[nuuumannn]

The supercharger drive on the DB 601 was better than that of the Merlin III. The S/C itself - probably not. On 87 oct, Merlin was making better power from 15000 ft up, granted the advantage was not a big one. The 100 oct fuel that allowed for greater boost at lower altitudes, meaning now that Merlin III was making better at alltitudes.

Interesting, thanks. The British could not take full advantage of that however, as the Germans largely had the high ground on their approach to the UK.

Emil will cruise high and fast due to having a lot of altitude and speed when making the landfall at the SE English coast. Spitfire does not have that luxury, it's modus opearndi was to scramble as fast as possible to beet the threat head-on, if possible.
Not every Emil was armed with cannons, the E-1 was armed with 4 LMGs; granted LW was trying to up-gun those during 1940.
Bf 109E-1 was delivered in 1056 copies by 30th June 1940, with another 405 to be delivered until end of February 1941. E-3: 1198 copies until end of July 1940. E-4: 185, plus 609 to be delivered until end of January 1941.

Yes, but the point was still the same, the addition of cannon to those Bf 109s that did proved a bonus, also, there were Spitfires that only had two-position props (until retro-fitted with full CS props) versus the Bf 109's fully variable props, which again states that both aircraft had advantages and disadvantages over each other. In 1939 this made a big difference and affected performance.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes, but the point was still the same, the addition of cannon to those Bf 109s that did proved a bonus, also, there were Spitfires that only had two-position props (until retro-fitted with full CS props) versus the Bf 109's fully variable props, which again states that both aircraft had advantages and disadvantages over each other. In 1939 this made a big difference and affected performance.

Your point was that 'Emil has cannon armament'. That was not exactly the case, since hundreds of Emils were with LMGs only.
Bf 109s were not fighting Spitfires in 1939, that were faster than the Bf 109E despite the fixed prop or the 2-speed on the Spitfire.

 

[nuuumannn]

think it was the other way, with the Bf 109E slats helping the Emil hang in there in turns, even if stalled, and the Spitfire being better at medium to high speeds, when the Bf 109E controls got too heavy to be of much use.

Nope, not according to pilots who flew the types. It's well known that the British fighters were superior low speed dogfighters. The Bf 109E could not out turn the Spitfire, nor could it out turn the Hurricane. The problem the slats created was that they tended to snap out asymmetrically when in a tight turn, which disrupted airflow over the ailerons causing snatching of the ailerons and when this happened it made aiming difficult for the Messerschmitt pilot and following through more difficult for the German.