P-40 vs. ME-109 (2 Viewers)

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

The best all around performer of the "standard" P-40s would have been the P-40M, which was the same as the P-40K except it had a V-1710-81 engine (same as the P-51A and P-40N). This would not be including the lightened P-40L (short range) or the P-40N's with reduced armament. The Tomahawks of the AVG were a special exception with non-standard (up to 220 higher HP than standard) engines allowing 370 mph top speed and along with there lighter weight (P-40B configuration, though converted from P-40C) would have been the best true "dogfight" performing P-40s.

That aside the wing loading of the P-40M would be similar to the P-51A (albeit the P-40 had a higher CL) and power loading would be slightly worse. Thus climb would be similar (slightly less) and turn rate would likely be slightly less than the P-51 though radius would likely be better. The P-51A was also ~40 mph faster than P-40M. The V-1710-81 had max 1,200 hp takeoff (limited to prevent over boost) and WEP from 5,000-10,400 ft was 1,480 hp. Critical altitude for 1150 hp Mil power was ~18,000 ft. Thus altitude performance was similar to the Merlin engined P-40s, but with much better low alt performance.

I haven't seen many specific figures (with altitudes, load, and power settings listed) for the P-40M or the N of similar configuration, but the P-51A info is here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials

The only real statistics with a good range of info for the P-40M I've seen is in the historical performance info from the Il-2 flight simulator. I can post them later, but I'm not sure of the accuracy. (though from the comparisons I've seen most data is quite accurate and all values which were calculated and not test data are listed as such)


The P-39 would have been much more closely matched to the 109 up to 15,000 ft than the P-40 was with a better turn rate, power loading, and initial climb than most P-40s. Hoever the MAX range of the P-39 was about 50% less than the P-40, though still better than the 109. (with 91 imp gal drop tank the P-39 could manage ~1050 mi, while the p-40 could manage ~1,600 mi at optimum cruise) The range difference is a major reason (along with its ruggedness and the fact that someone taler than 5'8" could fly it) that made the P-40 more successful in the PTO than the P-39. Plus the armament was better suited for dogfighting.
 
The Bf-109 G-2 is a better turn fighter than the P-39 if both a/c are flown to the absolute limits, seeing the 109 features a high lift wing and lower power-loading.

The std. evading tactic for German 109 pilots was a hard climbing turn, something no VVS fighter could follow.
 
I said the P-39 was a closer match not equal or better. Also if the USAAF had the 109 it would not have been as useful as the P-40 was as it lacked the range for many missions the P-40 did. (it could manage a combat radius of at least 500 mi with a 91 imp gal drop tank iirc)

Also any comparisons made with the P-36 from british trials would not be valid for the P-40 as it would have been lighter than even the P-40B! In british tests (the model had a 1,200 hp R-1820 or R-1830, and 6x .303 guns) it was found that it could out maneuver the Spitfire Mk.I, lighter controls at high speed, shorter takeoff, slightly better turn rate, and better dive, but the Spitfire had a ~40 mph advantage in top speed allowing it to break off at will. The P-36 also had a lower critical altitude with ~16,000 ft for the R-1820, while the single-speed supercharged R-1830 models were rated fr only ~11,000 ft.


An interesting comparison though would be the standard P-40B and the Bf 109E. Granted the P-40 would still be outperformed above 15,000 ft, but below it was quite comparable and it still managed a decent range of 730 mi normal. (no external stores could be carried) Along with this it had a maximum speed of 352 mph and an initial climb rate of 2860.

See: Curtiss P-40B


Soren what figures do you have for the 109's range with or w/out drop tanks.
 
Max rang for the G series was 600 + miles with a drop tank, the K series could go further because of its cleaner design.

Hohun are you there ??
 
The P-40M was supposedly capable of reaching 20,000 ft in 7.5 min and a speed of 362 mph at that altitude. These figures seem acurate since the P-51A could manage 20,000 ft in ~6.9 min according to the chart. Max speed should have been reached at 10,400 ft (crit alt for 1,480 hp) as did the P-51A. The P-51A managed 415 mph at this altitude and 408 mph at 17,500 ft. (crit alt for Mil power) So the P-40M proably did ~375 mph at 10,400 ft.

And on range, the late P-40N's had 3x hardpoints capable of carrying bombs or drop tanks. With 3x drop tanks a maximum ferry range of 3,100 mi was possible.
 
I've also seen (Soviet I think, again from Il-2 sim performance archive) figures on the P-39N/Q which list a turn time of 18-19 sec at 10,000 ft. The P-40E/M were listed for 20-22 sec. Times P-40B/C were not listed.
 
Correction, the turn times should all be at 1,000m (3,280 ft) and the P-40E was listed at 19.5 sec. (though this may be with a reduced armament and most Soviet tests seem to be at half fuel load to simulate combat conditions)

The P-39N-1 was 19 sec, Q (with full armament) 19.5 sec, and Q-10 (w/out gun pods and with a 4-blade prop) was 18-19 sec.
 
Hi Koolkitty,

>most Soviet tests seem to be at half fuel load to simulate combat conditions

Do you have any information on the circumstances of the Soviet tests? That would be most fortunate!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
I think the fuel load was mentioned earlier on this thread. Possibly on this site as well: Russian Aviation Museum

Other than that the only specific info on the tests are that they were performed at 1,000 m.

The last few figures of turn times I posted are from the test data in the info secion available in the Il-2 flight sim. I'm assuming they're Soviet as the game is designed in Russia (1C Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and focuses on the Eastern front. And the fact that turn times are listed for a good number of fighters. (somthing the Russians were known for)
 
Hello
according to Finnish tests, flown by a late 109G-2 (MT-215), the fastest 360deg turn was 22sec at the optium speed of 360kmh. But it was possible to turn 360deg in 18sec if the speed was allowed to decrease from 450kmh to 330 kmh during the turn.

Juha
 
Hello
according to Finnish tests, flown by a late 109G-2 (MT-215), the fastest 360deg turn was 22sec at the optium speed of 360kmh. But it was possible to turn 360deg in 18sec if the speed was allowed to decrease from 450kmh to 330 kmh during the turn.

Juha

Thanks for the info Juha. I've read and re-read the Finnish report (English version) at Kurfursts site, and I don't see any turn time tests there. Is this information on the Finnish version there, or on another test that I haven't read?

The Finnish 109G6 manual lists a 180 degree turn at 400kmh as 13 seconds, so 26 seconds for a 360 turn. Surprising how much difference there was in turn rate for that heavier plane.

Claidemore
 
You know, one thing no one's mentioned yet, is how the Russians thought outside of the box, concerning performance improvements to the the P-40's they used.
While everyone else was increasing the power of their drivetrains (i.e., engines/props), the Russians decided to work with what they had, concerning the P-40's, and instead, lighten the load a little, to better match the power/thrust they had at hand.
The only other aircraft I can think of, off hand, that goes with that train of thought would be F8F, which used the same engine as the F6F, and (possibly) the P-63.

Kudos to the Russians, for seeing another way of upgrade the performance of an airplane.




Elvis
 
Well when the US and Brits were complaining 2x .50's and 4x .30's of the P-40B/C/Tomahawk were too weak the Russians were stripping it down to just the 2x .50's! But if you look at russian a/c of the same period they had similar armaments. In fact very few Russian fighters had wing guns.

In terms of concern for maneuverabillity and light armaments, the Russians were similar to the Japanese, granted most Russian planes were a good deal tougher and better armored. (and the Soviets had some of the best overall guns of the war)
 
Hello Claidemore
the info is from Suomen Ilmailuhistoriallinen Lehti, Finnish Journal of Aviation History, all text in Finnish only. That part of the article is based on the test reports of the tests flown by Kokko in MT-215. So there are more test reports than that on performance tests published on Kurfürst's site. I personally haven't seen the original reports.

Juha
 
Hi Juha,

>That part of the article is based on the test reports of the tests flown by Kokko in MT-215.

Thanks a lot! Is there more information on the circumstances of the test? For example, altitude would be very important. It would also be interesting to hear if Kokko used flaps for optimum turn rate ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Sorry HoHun
I already packed the journal away into attick, but there wasn't much more details. IIRC flaps were not used, altitude wasn't mentioned but there was a graph based on theoretical calculations which match well with the actual tests according to the writer. And according to the graph the time of 360deg turn was almost constant from sea level to appr. 2000m then begin to grow. I personally would have liked more info on the actual tests but there isn't. If you want, I can recheck the graph, it isn't much trouble, but as i wrote it is based on theoretical calculations, not on actual tests. The only concrete info from the actual tests are the times and speeds I gave earlier and that in the 18sec turn a/c had to be rolled almost to 90deg.

Juha
 
Hello again, HoHun
I tried another solution. The writer, Jukka Raunio, have written at least 3 books on Finnish made a/c and a/c used by FAF during the WWII from pilot's point of view, the 2nd, Lentäjän näkökulma II, is on the main fighters of FAF during the WWII, and in it he wrote that the turning tests of MT-215 were flown at 1000m. On the 360 deg turn at 360kmh: the a/c was rolled to 70deg and the G-force was 3. Nothing on use of flaps.


Claidemore
in MT-215, at 1000m, 180deg turn took 10sec when the speed at the beginning was 450kmh and at the end 380kmh and if continued to 360deg, time was 18sec and end speed 330kmh. Source: the above mentioned book.

Juha
 
i personaly love both planes but i think the me 109 has the edge, as i would also say the german airmen were better , but the fact of the matter is if i had my choice i would fly the p -40 , its the american thing too do
 
Hello again, HoHun
I tried another solution. The writer, Jukka Raunio, have written at least 3 books on Finnish made a/c and a/c used by FAF during the WWII from pilot's point of view, the 2nd, Lentäjän näkökulma II, is on the main fighters of FAF during the WWII, and in it he wrote that the turning tests of MT-215 were flown at 1000m. On the 360 deg turn at 360kmh: the a/c was rolled to 70deg and the G-force was 3. Nothing on use of flaps.


Claidemore
in MT-215, at 1000m, 180deg turn took 10sec when the speed at the beginning was 450kmh and at the end 380kmh and if continued to 360deg, time was 18sec and end speed 330kmh. Source: the above mentioned book.

Juha

Thanks Juha. 18 seconds for the G2 is very good, definately a match for most of the Soviet planes it was up against. It also gives some credence to Sorens positon that the 1944 AFDU trials of a 109G2 vs various allied planes doesn't show the 109 up to its potential.

The turn time of the 109G6 of 26 seconds, also supports the pilot reports of Mustang pilots etc. outturning 109s in 1943 and 44.

Claidemore
 
Thanks for the info Juha. I've read and re-read the Finnish report (English version) at Kurfursts site, and I don't see any turn time tests there. Is this information on the Finnish version there, or on another test that I haven't read?

I am absolutely positive there are other tests around with MT 215, but that`s all I have on it what you see on my site.

The Finnish 109G6 manual lists a 180 degree turn at 400kmh as 13 seconds, so 26 seconds for a 360 turn. Surprising how much difference there was in turn rate for that heavier plane.

Claidemore

IIRC the Finnish manual`s figures are not for turn times, but for something else, like safe approach possibilities on landing or something like that.. I am too lazy to look it up. :D

Differences between the G-2 and G-6 were rather marginal, especially in weight (+60 kg or so), so I don`t expect too much of difference in turn.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back