Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3

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

spicmart said:
Me 109 G-10/14? Those were as fast as or faster than the most common Yak-3 with Klimov 105 as engine which made about 660 km/h.
The G-10 reached 685 km/h iirc.
Click to expand...

I think the Yak-3 and Yak-9U of 1945 (Gran Bridgehead) was faster than the G-14 with any engine, below 15k. Nether could stay with the P-51D at any altitude.
 
I believe you have noticed that Lipfert flew WITHOUT MW50. He makes absolutely no mention in the entire book for Mw50.
Click to expand...

And how do you know? he barely mentions anything on engines in the entire book. In Bf 109 G-14 MW-50 was standard at the end of the war.

I think the Yak-3 and Yak-9U of 1945 (Gran Bridgehead) was faster than the G-14 with any engine, below 15k. Nether could stay with the P-51D at any altitude.
Click to expand...

At low level the Yak-3 is in general superior, the G-14 should have the edge at higher altitudes. I am going to make a chart to see how the German model compares to Yak-3/9U.
 
spicmart said:
Me 109 G-10/14? Those were as fast as or faster than the most common Yak-3 with Klimov 105 as engine which made about 660 km/h.
The G-10 reached 685 km/h iirc.
Click to expand...

Not absolutely relevant to the Lipfert combat; note the comment:

By now we were turning at full throttle near ground level. The Russian took his time and repeatedly pulled up out of the turn., dropped down again, allowed for deflection and fired.
Click to expand...

Turning at full throttle, meaning that the aircraft were in maximum rate turns so, although flying at full throttle they could not be flying at maximum speed - in those conditions, as noted, the Yak was able to turn with the 109s, spiral climb out of his turn and attack - classic high yo-yo

Regia Aeronautica

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/high-yo-yo-2121.html
 
I have put together a graph comparing the performance of Yak-3, Yak-9U and Bf 109 G-14 with MW 30. The maximum speed of the latter is slightly lower than with Mw 50.
 

Attachments

  • Speed comparison.png
    7.5 KB · Views: 150
Would a Me 109F-4 not have been a better opponent to the Yak-3 as for similar power and wing loading?
 
Perhaps but the 109F-4 had been out of prodcution for a considerable period of time before the Yak-3 showed up. Around 2 years, it is rather doubtful that any 109F-4 remained in front line service when the Yak-3 made it's operational debut.
 
So it was just not practical to reintroduce an advanced F-model to specifically combat these kind of opponents (La-7, Yak-3)?
 
Last edited:
Alejandro, what would be the engine powers at 2000-3000 m?
Click to expand...

Tomo, you can find the data for VK-105PF-2 in the graph below. there are also data on the German engines but it is very general.

1
 
The K-4 is nothing like an F model.

The F-4 was 6,063 lbs loaded normal gross (could be heavier but wasn't for combat ... mostly). It had 1,350 HP. Wing area was 173 sq ft. So, we have a gross weight wing loading of 3.5.25 lbs per square foot and a power loading of 4.5 lbs per HP. Ithink the internet is wrong here I thin the engine was 1,350 PS, not s,350 HP , and the power loadiong would be marginally higher.

The K-4 was about 7496 lbs gross and had 1,677 HP with the DB 305. Same wing area, so the wing loading was 43.6 lbs per sq ft. Power loading was 4.47 lbs per HP.

Being 1,000 pounds heavier, the K-4 was NOT an F model, but an upgraded G-model that tried to standardize the changes that happened in the various dash number G-series planes.. Many references will verify that.

The G and K did NOT have good characteristics in the landing pattern, but the top numbers were quite good if one could overlook the faults of the airframe that were never corrected. Most of the expert pilots were quite used to the 109 by the time the G and K came out and were not handicapped by the faults as were the novices ... the experts were used to the beast and knew it's every nuance. There is a great advantage to being used to your mount when some of the numbers are VERY good. Familiarity can instill confidence that is hard to overcome.

THe Bf 109 was a flawed chariot by mid-1944 (not alone there), but remained very dangerous in the hands of a pilot familiar with it to the end ... much more so than the Zero ever did. The thing is, the top guys WERE familiar with their mounts and the inexperienced guys probably didn't fly enough to get that way ... experience helped a LOT.
 
spicmart said:
So it was just not practical to reintroduce an advanced F-model to specifically combat these kind of opponents (La-7, Yak-3)?
Click to expand...

What would you have to leave out of the "G/K" to get back to the weight of the "F"?

The DB 605 is heavier than the 601 but new 601s would be hard to come by and have less power than the 605.

Pull the 13mm MG 131s and go back to the 7.9mm MG 17s?

Any increases in armor or weight of protected fuel tank (however it was protected?)

Pull any MW/50-GM 1 systems?

Basically there wasn't that much difference in the airframe of an "F" or a "G". most, if not all of the weight came from increased powerplant weight, increased armament, increase protection (?) or increased operational equipment ( better radio fit?). SO it is a question of what you can take back out to lighten the plane. And what effectiveness you loose against other opponents or at other altitudes.
 
That'd make the 109 a specialized low alt fighter just like the aforementioned fighters. But the Germans preferred more rugged, hence the armor, multi purpose machines, I guess.
 
A 109G-6 was about 10% heavier (give or take) than an F-4 in empty equipped or loaded (clean) condition so should be about the same in landing configuration. SO a higher wing loading and slightly faster approach speed. That is at a minimum.
WHERE the weight was added may make a difference, With the proper distribution ( or a little ballast) the CG may not change enough to affect things much at all. With less than proper distribution a shift in CG location may make for a rather exciting time while landing, especially if the plane gets a little bit out of shape on the approach and a novice pilot tries to make a last minute correction.
I sure haven't flown one and I don't know from reading but there seems to be a popular perception that some of the later ones were more of handful (more powerful engines may give more torque roll?) you also have the problem that not ALL 109s had the same fit of equipment. Different armament, different MW/50 tanks/ equipment, different tails (metal or wood, wood required extra armor under oil cooler for CG reasons) may mean that not all 109Gs had the exact same CG or handled the same at landing speeds.

I am not sure if the larger lumps and bumps on some late 109s wings for larger landing gear did anything to airflow at low speeds. Maybe they did nothing.

perhaps the "urban myth" comes from putting low time pilots in a plane that was not easy to land to begin with. Several pilots noting that the 109E was harder to land than a Spitfire or Hurricane. With the experience of the pilots going down and the newer 109s being even a bit harder to land (and many other aircraft got harder to land as they got heavier, more powerful versions) the accident rate was going to go up.
The provision of a few hundred two seaters ( and the planned supply of hundreds more ) shows that something was going on.
 
From what I have read, the 109 was docile until the wheels touched the ground, then all hell could break loose if it only touched down on one wheel. There was no tendency to nose over like a Spit if the brakes were applied hard.
 
I'm not aware of any reports that the G or K were much more difficult to land or take off but as you note the increased wing loading and more power and torque must've had some impact. The fact that Germany was introducing two seaters to me is not really an indication. There were also two seaters for the FW. It's simply an evolution in training principles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

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
547
SaparotRob
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Menu
Log in
Register