Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3 (1 Viewer)

Which is the best at the below criteria?

  • Total voters
    138

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


I basically agree that 109 is superior to E (or N) which is why USAAF switched to P-47/51 from P-40's in MTO.

Convergence however, isn't an issue - particularly inside 200 meters wher the vast majority of victory credits are made. The P-51B/C had only 2/3 of the firepower of the P-40E through N but had a far better record against the 109, despite gun jams... and the P-40 could out turn the 51
 
I largely agree with you Drgondog. I never said the P-40E was superior to the Me 109G. I said I think it was better below its critical altitude of around 16,000 feet or so. Above that, the Me 109G was definitey better ... as long as the Me 109G fuel held out, after that the P-40E was better by virtue of still being in the air and ready to fight.
 

I have a soft spot for the P40 but I think the assertion that it was in the top rank in 1942 at any altitude might be a bit optimistic. This was a period that included the Spitfire IX, Fw109A and La-5, after all. At the end of the day a P-40 just gave away too much power to machines like these to compete on even terms. Sure, a P40 might retain specific advantages like the ability to out-turn a 109G, but unless the 109 pilot is silly enough to play that game the advantage is only useful defensively. Even at its optimum altitude of 15000 ft or so the P40 pilot would be unable to prevent properly flown example of any of the aircraft aabove from climbing away or extending pretty much at will - effectively ceding the initiative.
 
The optimum altitude of a P-40 may be well below 15,000ft. One test shows that in climb a test P-40K loaded to act like a P-40N could hold 57 in MAP (1480hp) to 8,000ft. it could hold 50.5in MAP (1300hp) to 10,400ft but was down to 1090hp at 15,000ft. This for a late model engine with the 9.60 gear supercharger gear. Altitude for high speed in level flight is several thousand feet higher. The P-40 needs a fair amount of the WEP to really be competitive. The Military power rating isn't enough with the P-40s weight.
 
The P-40 was a very good fighter at low altitude. That's all I was saying. At anything like higher altitude, it was outclassed due to a single stage, single speed supercharger. But it was a tough customer for an Me 109G at 10,000 feet with anything like equal pilot ability and a roughly equal starting position. At higher altitude, the Me 109G and later were definitey superior ... at low atitude, they were in a fight that was not a forgone conclusion.
 

They certainly gave stirling service, and plenty of 'superior' fighters went down to P40s, for sure. If a 109 pilot was silly enough to let his speed drop he could no doubt easily get himself shot down before being able to climb or spped away, as happened many times.
I guess, as always most of it would come down to who saw the other first. If it was the 109 he should be able to climb and dictate the fight on the vertical plane. If it was the P40, and he managed to close before the 109 guy could juice it up, things would be much more even.
I think the only original 109G flying for a long time was one the RAF recovered from the desert - after being shot down by a P40
 
Greg you writed "The Me 109 would be a good choice in 1939 - 1941, but not after about mid 1942" so i've ask "what were the superiour fighters (comparating to a Gustav) in operation in the 2nd half of '42?" you nominated P-40E below 16k, 190A-4, Corsair (if introduced earlier but was not introduced earlier), Hellcat, Typhoon, La-5, MB-3, A6M5-52, J2M-3, Ki-44IIb, P-51A, I-16 type 24, P-47C, Yak-9 below 18k.
Corsair, Hellcat, A6M-5-52, J2M-3, Ki-44II, P-47C are all false reply because they were not operational. also the I-16 type 24 is false reply because is not more a operational fighter in the 2nd semester of '42. The MB-3 is a prototype with 1st flight in august '42 so no hope to see it in use in 42. Typhoon is a low level fighter and i don't see as the superiour fighter (it has powerfull engine but is also heavy) also at low level (sure has larger firepower) and had trouble for most of 2nd semster. The La-5 (is not FN for '42) sure a power for the manovring but is very slow for the 42 (580/590 km/h at FTH), the Yak-9 came in late '42 again is slow at FTH but both are good a low level.
Back to P-40E, placing even, that can get 1480hp to 8k this around 15% more that can get the 109 from a 605A (and for 605 is 30' power) still the P-40E weight 20% more of 109G-2 so also at low level the P-40E is surely a good competitor but is not a superior fighter. Sure at 15k is not a good competitor.
imo the only competitor all altitude of Gustav in 2nd semester '42 is Spitfire IX (and of this average there were 5 squadrons)
 
the point you use false explanations for your opinion. opinion: the 109 is not good from mid '42, explanation: there were all this fighters were better, but most of those fighters were not there in mid '42 and those that were are good only at low level. So the opinion is distorted. you don't like 109 with 605 ok, but you can not write is obsolete when data show was one of best fighter of 1942.
 
Funny, it's your complaining that sounds false to me. Why don't you just let it go and agree to disagree? You seem to want to comvimce ME that your opinion is correct each and every time ours differ and I seem to be unable to post almost anything you don't disagree with, so ... in order to push that agenda along, I'll not spar with you anymore.

You are very welcome to your opinions and I'll stick with mine. Cheers to you, really. Be happy. If you have a civil question or request, I'll answer.

I still enjoy working on WWII aircraft and flying in them occasionally, and building Allisons regardless. If it makes you any happier, we'd like to find an Italian warbird for the museum, but they are a bit scarce these days. I think most of the good ones are in Italian museums ... at least you get to see them up close! Enjoy. If you ever get to southern California and agree to be civil, look me up at the Planes of Fame in Chino some Saturday and I'll show you around.
 
Last edited:
Jeez, youse guys...!

I think you could make a good case for the Spit IX being superior to the 109G, or at least I seem to recall that was the conclusion of the RAE when the flew them against each other. Others were undoubtedly better in certain areas or situations, but perhaps not over all. I think suggestiong the I-16 was in the running is drawing a very long bow, though.
Greg, if you ever get to New Zealand check out the Warbirds at Wanaka festival, the RNZAF musem and Peter Jacksons WW 1 aicraft museum in Blenheim. Apart from that the place is awful - crap scenery, no one speaks english and squashed hobbits all over the roads
 

what my point is false that Corsair, Hellcat, Thunderbolt were not in operation in 2nd half of '42 or that Kittyhawk&Mustang&Soviets are low level fighters?
 
Since the debate from last 2 pages was centered around planes in service in 2nd half of 1942, the fact (not an opinion, but fact) is that neither Corsair, nor Hellcat, nor Thunderbolt are the conteders - they were not in flying in war zones in that time. Neither are the Japanes fighters Greg listed - again, a fact. The Typhoon's pilot in 1942 was in danger to be killed by it's own plane, and was hardly in position to threaten German opposition in 1942 above 15kft. Soviet fighters of 1942, ditto Japanese ones, were under-performers when compared with the top 3 (109, 190, Spit IX). Ditto against the P-38F from Aug 1942 (once the engines were cleared for 1325 HP). P-39 and -40, if we consider the altitudes from SL to 30000 ft, still come as 2nd class vs. the 3-4 from the top.
Again, facts, not opinions. So it's easy to agree with vincenzo.
 
Spit XIV to me even if I like much the late La fighters, grat planes at low and mid altitudes. 109K had lots of common with Spit XIV, fast, especially higher up and very good climber.

On the 42 situation, 109G-2 was still very combatible, under 4km altitude there were a few planes that were faster than it, Fw 190A, early Mustangs and Hawker Typhoon but IMHO it was clearly better fighter than Warhawk, even if P-40 rolled and turned better, especially at low level. 109G was faster, climbed and accelerated better.

Juha
 

I agree, Juha. The advantages of the P40 - turn and roll - are most useful defensively. The advantages of the 109G - speed, climb - can be used to dictate the nature of the encounter. As the purpose of a fighter is to shoot down enemy aircraft first and foremost, I would contend that the 109G is clearly superior. Not to knock the P40 though, it was tough, easy to maintain in front line conditions and frequently got the better of the 109. Its one of my favourites, but you gotta be realistic!
 
tomo pauk said:
Ditto against the P-38F from Aug 1942 (once the engines were cleared for 1325 HP).
Click to expand...

For check

i remember (maybe wrong) that first P-38 w/o cooling trouble was the J, so the F also if the engin can give 1325 HP to 25k actually give around 100 hp less (and this would be true also for G)
 
Yep, I've seen those reports. Interestingly, the P-38G makes 404 mph at 22600, on 1225 HP.
From here, the P-38F makes 392 mph at 20000 ft, engine settings 3000 rpm and 47" (= 1325 HP?).
As for the table from the post #317, the critical altitudes should've been typed under the 'without ram', not 'with ram' title?

Anyway, my point is that a P-38 over-performs the P-40 of the same era by a wide margin. Even the P-38E is untouchable, making 387 mph with engine running at 3000 rpm, 40.5" MAP (=1100 HP), at 20000 ft.
 
When reading interviews with Lavochkin/Yakovlev you can see that all of them, when comparing their aircraft with Luftwaffe's, point out the superior diving of the German models. Diving mainly depends on:

- Weight of the aircraft.
- Aerodynamic profile.

It's normal that the Fw-190 has a superior diving capability because it's noticeably heavier, but Lavochkin's weight is similar to Bf 109. Another reason could be the engine settings/pitch angle. German cockpits were more automatized when it came to engine handling. I had a discussion on this and it was pointed out that the pitch angle of the Bf 109 went up to 90°, while Lavochkin only went to 45°, thus the propeller acted like a brake. Can someone confirm/provide more detail?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
785
Jerrybandit67
J
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Snautzer01
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
6
Views
555
SaparotRob
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Menu
Log in
Register