alejandro_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
I am reading his book on the D-9 and I have not seen any information on such ratio. Doras were more sucessful against VVS -according to German pilots- but nowhere near to those statistics.
Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I am reading his book on the D-9 and I have not seen any information on such ratio. Doras were more sucessful against VVS -according to German pilots- but nowhere near to those statistics.
claidemore
Senior Airman
Hate to play the devils advocate, but if Soren were here he would jump all over the statement about the K4 being a beast to fly!
His argument would be that the K4 had a more powerful engine, was lighter, more aerodynamic, and handled more like a G2 or F4 than a G6 or the other itermediary models. He would argue, and I would agree, that the K4 was not a 109 developed too far, but developed as far as it could go, ie the ultimate 109. I have read accounts of some Spitfire pilots being scared of the Mk XIV, (because of the extremely powerful engine).
That being said, the MkXIV would be my number one choice for top late war high perf fighter, bar none.
GregP
Major
I went back and read the first post. I had to laugh. Soren rated the visibility as good from the cockpit! I guess he never sat on one ... it isn't. It's good to the side and just OK to the front, but you can't see much of anything forward and to the left or right. Pretty abysmal there.
I went with teh Spitfire XIV because we had to choose one from sea level to 30,000 feet, and there were only four choices. The Me 109K wasn't a great foghter by mid-to-late 1944, and I'd take the La-7 at 15,000 feet and below and the Spitifire XIV at 15,000 feet and above ... but we were asked to choose one. I picked for the ETO in 1944 and later. If I were on the Russian front, it would be the La-7 all the way. In the PTO, I'd probably pick the Yak-3.
I would not pick the Me 109K ever since, by the time the K model was oeprational, the Me 109 was obsolescent and in decline. The Me 109 would be a good choice in 1939 - 1941, but not after about mid 1942. But if you wanrted to pick for 1939 - 1941, none of tehse variants were yet operational.
I went with teh Spitfire XIV because we had to choose one from sea level to 30,000 feet, and there were only four choices. The Me 109K wasn't a great foghter by mid-to-late 1944, and I'd take the La-7 at 15,000 feet and below and the Spitifire XIV at 15,000 feet and above ... but we were asked to choose one. I picked for the ETO in 1944 and later. If I were on the Russian front, it would be the La-7 all the way. In the PTO, I'd probably pick the Yak-3.
I would not pick the Me 109K ever since, by the time the K model was oeprational, the Me 109 was obsolescent and in decline. The Me 109 would be a good choice in 1939 - 1941, but not after about mid 1942. But if you wanrted to pick for 1939 - 1941, none of tehse variants were yet operational.
drgondog
Major
Hate to play the devils advocate, but if Soren were here he would jump all over the statement about the K4 being a beast to fly!
I have read accounts of some Spitfire pilots being scared of the Mk XIV, (because of the extremely powerful engine).
That being said, the MkXIV would be my number one choice for top late war high perf fighter, bar none.
I had this debate with Soren and quoted Uffr Georg Genth III./JG26 who preferred the G-10 over the K-4 citing "unnatural sensitivity" at altitudes above 28,000 feet making formation flying difficult. Pg 379 "The JG26 War Diary" by Caldwell.
I have read many accounts of German fighter pilots preferring the G-10 as a dogfighter over the K-4. In other words Soren's argument would have been contradicted by the vets that flew it.
drgondog
Major
"I think Urbanke wrote that since the beginning of the battle for Berlin until ? the Doras scored 115 kills (all aircraft) with a loss of 5 of their own.
Similar goes for Yak-3 and La-7 (have to look for the sources)."
The reference must mean Fw 190D vs VVS. Against the 355th FG alone, the ratio of D-9's credited destroyed in the air vs Mustangs lost was 9:2 with oth losses occurring when 190D's bounced the 355th near the deck from cloud cover. Having said that the 355th overall ratio against the 190A (in Mustangs) was 8:1 and slightly over 9:1 vs 109s.
The 190D was a fine airplane but, certainly against the West, they were confronted by both superior numbers of aircraft and skilled fighter pilots - not a great formula for success.
Similar goes for Yak-3 and La-7 (have to look for the sources)."
The reference must mean Fw 190D vs VVS. Against the 355th FG alone, the ratio of D-9's credited destroyed in the air vs Mustangs lost was 9:2 with oth losses occurring when 190D's bounced the 355th near the deck from cloud cover. Having said that the 355th overall ratio against the 190A (in Mustangs) was 8:1 and slightly over 9:1 vs 109s.
The 190D was a fine airplane but, certainly against the West, they were confronted by both superior numbers of aircraft and skilled fighter pilots - not a great formula for success.
This ratio I have read in one book about the dora that I have if not in Urbankes book. Can't find it right now, probably in the attic.
I am sceptical about this number, too. It's way too high to put it mildly.
I'm curious, so what were the superiour fighters (comparating to a Gustav) in operation in the 2nd half of '42?
wuzak
Captain
GregP
Major
Hi Vicenzo,
Let's see, Spitfire IX, P-40E below 16,000 feet in early to mid 1942, Fw 190A through A-4, the F4U Corsair COULD have been introduced earlier, but wasn't until December 1942 and it was better by a lot if a bit later than my posted date, Grumman F6F Hellcat, Hawker Typhoon, Lavochkin La-5, martin Baker MB-3, Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52, Mitsubishi J2M-3, Nakajima Ki-44 IIb, the P-51A would be a tough competitor in 1942, the Polikarpov I-16 Type 24 in cold snowy conditions since the Me 109 wopuld be grounded most of the time, the P-47C, and Yakovlev Yak-9 below 18,000 feet (which is wehre they fought on the Russian front).
At the time, the Me 109F was competitive, but the Me 109G was a backward step in my opinion. Yours may differ, but that's OK, I still have my opinion. Past the me 109F, I am not fond of the Me 109 series of aircraft. There were too many high-speed faults, too many low speed faults including asymmetrically-opening slats and the landing gear issues, poor visibility, no range, and it was manually started.
As I said, just my opinion after talking with pilots who have flown MANY warbirds including the Me 109. I agree the 109 was employed effectively, but we're talking about direct comparisons of aircraft, not pilots. The Germans HAD some great pilots. Think how much more they might have done with a better fighter aircraft.
Let's see, Spitfire IX, P-40E below 16,000 feet in early to mid 1942, Fw 190A through A-4, the F4U Corsair COULD have been introduced earlier, but wasn't until December 1942 and it was better by a lot if a bit later than my posted date, Grumman F6F Hellcat, Hawker Typhoon, Lavochkin La-5, martin Baker MB-3, Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52, Mitsubishi J2M-3, Nakajima Ki-44 IIb, the P-51A would be a tough competitor in 1942, the Polikarpov I-16 Type 24 in cold snowy conditions since the Me 109 wopuld be grounded most of the time, the P-47C, and Yakovlev Yak-9 below 18,000 feet (which is wehre they fought on the Russian front).
At the time, the Me 109F was competitive, but the Me 109G was a backward step in my opinion. Yours may differ, but that's OK, I still have my opinion. Past the me 109F, I am not fond of the Me 109 series of aircraft. There were too many high-speed faults, too many low speed faults including asymmetrically-opening slats and the landing gear issues, poor visibility, no range, and it was manually started.
As I said, just my opinion after talking with pilots who have flown MANY warbirds including the Me 109. I agree the 109 was employed effectively, but we're talking about direct comparisons of aircraft, not pilots. The Germans HAD some great pilots. Think how much more they might have done with a better fighter aircraft.
wuzak
Captain
Martin Baker MB-3?
Wan't even close to production.
Wan't even close to production.
GregP
Major
Nope, but it flew and was an airframe in contention. After the 109F I simply do NOT like the Me 109 series.
Your opinion may differ and that is OK. Mine is fixed by virtue of research and talking with active pilots of warbirds and WWII pilots of warbirds. It is what it is. I really like the Me 109, but not after mid-1942 ... against any competent opponent. Surprise is a different matter and the 109 was good at ambush by virtue of the pilots, not the airframe. One-on-one with an even break, it was past its prime. Again, just my opinion.
Give Hartmann a Piper Cub with two bazookas under the wings and he could probably shoot down most opponents. But give him another more competent mount than his trusty Me 109 and he would have been even better ... with a bit of practice in the new mount ... even though he didn't like the Fw 190. Given the vast difference in strengths and flying characteristics, it would only be the likely case. Given a plane with characteristics more similar to the Me 109, but with the faults corrected (see above list), he might very well have changed his mind.
I can't say and nobody else can either. Again, just my opinion, not an established fact.
Your opinion may differ and that is OK. Mine is fixed by virtue of research and talking with active pilots of warbirds and WWII pilots of warbirds. It is what it is. I really like the Me 109, but not after mid-1942 ... against any competent opponent. Surprise is a different matter and the 109 was good at ambush by virtue of the pilots, not the airframe. One-on-one with an even break, it was past its prime. Again, just my opinion.
Give Hartmann a Piper Cub with two bazookas under the wings and he could probably shoot down most opponents. But give him another more competent mount than his trusty Me 109 and he would have been even better ... with a bit of practice in the new mount ... even though he didn't like the Fw 190. Given the vast difference in strengths and flying characteristics, it would only be the likely case. Given a plane with characteristics more similar to the Me 109, but with the faults corrected (see above list), he might very well have changed his mind.
I can't say and nobody else can either. Again, just my opinion, not an established fact.
Last edited:
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Greg, most of those you list weren't operational in the second half of 1942:
F6F, F4U (which you've already acknowledged), all three of the Japanese types you've listed and the P-47C had all yet to see combat service.
I'd consider the Yak-9 and the La-5 a match for the 109G, but only under 15,000 ft. P-51A was definitely a better fighter, but only below about 12,000 ft. Later La-5s i'd consider better than the 109Gs, but only in 1943/1944.
Typhoon (as much as I love it) was not a better fighter than the 109, being hamstrung by its slow rate of roll and its mediocre altitude performance.
Spitfire F IX was a match for the 109G, but not superior until the LF IX debuted in 1943, with the Merlin 63/66 engines with an extra 155 hp.
P-40E I'd consider widely outclassed by the 109G.
Most interviews I've read don't consider the 109G a retrograde step until the G6 appeared.
alejandro_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
Do you have more details? he did try the Me-262 but he wanted to stay with JG52.
Indeed. Only one prototype (R2492) flew and only three times. On the third flight Val Baker was killed in a crash of this prototype,on 12 Aug 1942. With his death the MB.3 was a dead duck. Martin Baker had only just started construction of the second (of three proposed) prototypes and work seems to have stopped immiediately.
It never even made it to the A+AEE so any assessment of its flying qualities is more or less conjecture based on hearsay and the comments made by Baker after the first two flights,both of which were curtailed due to the Napier Sabre II engine overheating.
James Martin wrote that the top speed "appeared to be 430 mph at 20,000 feet" and that Baker had flown it "with hands and feet off."
Baker did not die in vain. Aircrew safety became a priority for James Martin,culminating in his development of the ejection seats still manufactured by the company today. They have saved countless lives.
Steve
GregP
Major
Let's just say I consider ALL the planes on my list to be very competitive with the Me 109G and later variants. The g and latyer variants were a LOT heavier and had the same wing area, so they were much more heavily loaded. It made for an unfriendly aircraft to the pilot and limited combat options.
The P-40E is a good candidate. It rolls MUCH better at combat speed, had decent armament, is longer ranged, and at or below 16,000 feet or so would be a VERY bad encounter for the Me 109G. Ask most German Me 109G pilots in North Africa ... they know ... so do the P-40E pilots.
Hey, you might not agree, but this is simply my opinion. I will not engage in a heated debate or flame war, I simply don't like the Me 109G and later variants ... the F and before, yes, in spades. Too many faults and too few strengths on the later planes.
Oh yeah, we HAVE one and I still think that way. Ours is a G-6 ... it is historic, but is not currently flyable (could be easily ... but we would need to do an annual and get it airworthy) ... and nobody wants to make it that way unless we get another engine. We have a policy of not flying any warbirds that we don't have at least two engines for. When they break, you STILL have to fix 'em and fly 'em home! If we find another DB engine for the G-6 at a decent price, we'll probably make it flyable. Otherwise, it exists and is in very good shape.
Just FYI, MiG-15 tires fit just fine on our new replica Aluminum wheels! No more Magnesium!
We are working on our Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon to make IT flyable because we have Merlins. DB's are rare and expensive! So are genuine German VDM propellers ... and small but critical parts ... as you might expect after this long since WWII. With the Ha.1112 we currently have a problem with the main gear down locks. We need the little round pieces that fit into the downlock ... and can't find them at this time. But we will. It will be fitted with a 3-blade prop to emulate the Me 109 instead of the Ha.1112, and will be painted in German colors.
The P-40E is a good candidate. It rolls MUCH better at combat speed, had decent armament, is longer ranged, and at or below 16,000 feet or so would be a VERY bad encounter for the Me 109G. Ask most German Me 109G pilots in North Africa ... they know ... so do the P-40E pilots.
Hey, you might not agree, but this is simply my opinion. I will not engage in a heated debate or flame war, I simply don't like the Me 109G and later variants ... the F and before, yes, in spades. Too many faults and too few strengths on the later planes.
Oh yeah, we HAVE one and I still think that way. Ours is a G-6 ... it is historic, but is not currently flyable (could be easily ... but we would need to do an annual and get it airworthy) ... and nobody wants to make it that way unless we get another engine. We have a policy of not flying any warbirds that we don't have at least two engines for. When they break, you STILL have to fix 'em and fly 'em home! If we find another DB engine for the G-6 at a decent price, we'll probably make it flyable. Otherwise, it exists and is in very good shape.
Just FYI, MiG-15 tires fit just fine on our new replica Aluminum wheels! No more Magnesium!
We are working on our Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon to make IT flyable because we have Merlins. DB's are rare and expensive! So are genuine German VDM propellers ... and small but critical parts ... as you might expect after this long since WWII. With the Ha.1112 we currently have a problem with the main gear down locks. We need the little round pieces that fit into the downlock ... and can't find them at this time. But we will. It will be fitted with a 3-blade prop to emulate the Me 109 instead of the Ha.1112, and will be painted in German colors.
Last edited:
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 510
- Apr 23, 2007
This is quoted by Glider at http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109-vs-p-40-a-16213-24.html. The only problem is that I am not sure if Gibbs should be Gibbes
drgondog
Major
A friend of my father John Bradley 33FG was credited with two Ju 87s and 3-0-2 Me 109s and was shot down himself (but evaded) by a 109. He flew the P-40L for his scores but was of the opinion that the P-40 fared very well in the horizontal with a better roll rate and initial turn but must stay out of the vertical unless attacking from superior altitude. The P-40E May have been a better turner since it was light, but fighting in the horizontal for a P-40 was essentially a defensive situation for it.
The P-40E is heavily inferior to a Gustav (or to a Friedrich) it has good rolling but has not the power for being a competitive fighter the V-1710-39 has 1150 hp to 11,800 feet (oh yes maybe overboosted to lower altitude so could give more power) the DB 605A has 1250 ps to 19,000 feet and the Gustav (early) weight around 20% less of P-40E. Actually the P-40 go bad result vs 109 in Africa. The weaponry is not superiour, the 6 wings .50 had convergency issue so out of area of convergency is hard hit anything the gun and the lmg of Gustav had not this problem (with weapons in same position i'm agree that 6 .50 were more powerfull of 109 trio).
