Bf-109 vs P-40

[tigercub]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

1/3 of all 109s built were destroyed in takeoff and landing accidents. That's ridiculous. Nothing like that happened to the P-40.

This is only because the Me109 was forced to land and take off in the poor airfields of the USSR and narrow under carriage.....the spitfire suffered the same thing.

The p40 was only a little better fighter than the Hurricane!

[tigercub]

Originally Posted by claidemore

In 1943 the 109s were most likely G6 variants, which were definately not as 'sprightly' as the 109F's, which the P40s faced in North Africa (where those who flew them maintained the P40 had slightly better turn capabilities). I don't doubt that a bunch of later model, heavier 109s would get in trouble in a big furball with P40's. A 4 to 1 kill ratio adjusted for 'actual'? losses (as opposed to claims) is pretty darn good for the P40s and shows that they were able to exploit the differences (advantages) they had over the 109.

Had the 109s used their advantages, (speed and climb) they would have fared much better.

The Finns also enjoyed good success with planes that were inferior on paper. I don't think anyone would argue that the Brewster was a better plane than the later designs they faced, and the Soviets definately weren't clamouring for the USA to give them some lend lease Brewsters rather than P40s and P39s.

The p40 would only have slightly better turn capabilities (maybe) if the me109g6 had wing mounted guns if there were not fitted the G6 would easy out turn the P40.Then the Germans used the Me109 a fighter (not with wing guns) or as a bomber attack aircraft (with wing guns 20-30mm,200m rocket)

[claidemore]

tigercub:
According to the Rechlin trials (1940?), the Curtis Hawk (radial engine fighter with same fuselage/wing etc of the heavier inline engined P40) could easily outturn the 109E. Roll rate of the Hawk was better than either the 109 or the Spitfire.
According to pilots who flew Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in North Africa, they could 'just' outturn 109Fs.
According to pilots who flew both 109Fs and 109Gs, the Friedrich was much more manueverable.

If a P40 can just outturn the 109F, (and roll rate of the P40 was same as the Hawk75) then it follows that it would have an easier time manuevering against the 109G6. I believe the wing gondolas on the 109 added about 2 seconds to it's turning circle, so the advantage of the P40 in turn time would be even greater againt that variant.

JoeB: I think your question was answered a few posts earlier, but: i was referring to a single combat with the 325th where a 4 to 1 ratio was achieved. (Claims were 16 to 1.)

[HoHun]

Hi Claidemore,

>According to the Rechlin trials (1940?), the Curtis Hawk (radial engine fighter with same fuselage/wing etc of the heavier inline engined P40) could easily outturn the 109E.

According to my calculations, the Hawk at 2608 kg was able to turn at almost 25 deg/s at sea level.

However, the P-40E with the same wing weighed in at 3911 kg, resulting in less than 17 deg/s turn rate at sea level - which shouldn't come as a surprise.

The Me 109E (depending on exact variant and engine) turned at some 20 deg/s at sea level at 2690 kg, and the G-6 weighed in at 3090 kg at substantially increased power, losing hardly anything on the Emil in terms of turn rate.

>If a P40 can just outturn the 109F

No way :-)

>(and roll rate of the P40 was same as the Hawk75)

Hm, why do you think so? From some British reports, I believe the aileron actuation system was revised when the P-40 was designed to gain high-speed roll rate at the expense of low-speed roll rate.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[claidemore]

Hm, why do you think so? From some British reports, I believe the aileron actuation system was revised when the P-40 was designed to gain high-speed roll rate at the expense of low-speed roll rate.

Even better! 109 and Spitfire roll rates coincide at higher speeds, and RAE reports show the Hawk rolling better than the Spit at higher speeds, so any improvement there is a plus for the P40.

The Finnish 109G6 manual shows turn time of 26 seconds at 400kmh. Thats only 13.8 degree/second. The P40N or P40F (1943) should have no trouble beating that, particularly with a superior roll rate at higher speeds.

I believe the following clip from the RAE report comparing the Hawk 75 to the Spitfire Mk 1 gives us a pretty good clue as to what happened when the 109s 'bounced' the 325th FG P40s.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by claidemore

If a P40 can just outturn the 109F, (and roll rate of the P40 was same as the Hawk75) then it follows that it would have an easier time manuevering against the 109G6. I believe the wing gondolas on the 109 added about 2 seconds to it's turning circle, so the advantage of the P40 in turn time would be even greater againt that variant.

JoeB: I think your question was answered a few posts earlier, but: i was referring to a single combat with the 325th where a 4 to 1 ratio was achieved. (Claims were 16 to 1.)

OK I subsequently saw that referred to one combat. The only completely conclusive combat between Zeroes and P-35's saw one Zero downed for a P-35 damaged (in all the others P-35's were shot up but none actually ever downed) .

The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.

In general though, 12th AF fighter units were facing an enemy with a lot more combat experience. We don't always have to stick with one head to head match up and argue what portion of the result was human factors. We could also look cross section-wise and see that early 12th AF real results in fighter combat weren't that impressive with P-38's or reverse Lend Lease Spit V's either. Even the typically more experienced RAF/CW fighter units didn't typically have favorable real ratio's v LW units in the MTO in late '42-early 43. We could study whether the results by type were *any* different at all, statistically significantly speaking. I haven't, but that's the kind of real research that could be done to actually advance such a discussion.

*although it wasn't purely subjective, also tested and demonstrated to new pilots using the 325th's Bf109G 'Hoimann' captured in Tunisia, with due caution to condition of captured planes, but again pointing out these are just not simple matters of fact to easily calculate *without* demonstrating that the calculation is correct at full scale.

Joe

[HoHun]

Hi Claidemore,

>The Finnish 109G6 manual shows turn time of 26 seconds at 400kmh. Thats only 13.8 degree/second.

At 400 km/h, I calculate the sustained sea level turn rate for the P-40E as just 9.8 deg/s, so 13.8 deg/s would make the Me 109G-6 look rather good. The speed of best turn rate is around 250 km/h for both types, after all.

However, there is no altitude given in the Finnish manual, and the manual actually quotes 13 s for 180 deg, not 26 s for 360 deg, so there is no telling if this is a sustained turn at sea level or a instantaneous turn at some relevant combat alttiude.

>I believe the following clip from the RAE report comparing the Hawk 75 to the Spitfire Mk 1 gives us a pretty good clue as to what happened when the 109s 'bounced' the 325th FG P40s.

Oh dear - you can't just pick one trait and explain any specific combat outcome with it. That's like picking one trait of a chess piece and using it to explain the outcome of an endgame when you weren't even there to witness the game.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Glider]

The following may be of interest re 325th FG

Ops Summary
Total Vic AC

I admit that I find the figures more than a little high. They seem to higher than any fighter unit of any airforce that I can think of and as they were an inexperienced unit when they entered action with the P40 it just doesn't feel right. There is no reason I can think of why they should have done so much better than any other P40 unit with their lack of experience.

[renrich]

JoeB, Thanks for your post. In some ways, it seems as if some are trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse with a P40. Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" gives a good appraisal of the various models of the P40 and pilot comments also. There were good reasons why the P40 was not used much later in the war in the areas where high intensity air fighting was going on. The AAF had better fighter aircraft to replace the P40, just as the USN had better AC to replace the F4F. The BF 109 seemed to be able to be adapted enough that it could compete with the latest models of Allied AC. If it had not been adaptable, the LW would have quit ordering it. Try as they might Curtis could not bring the P40 up to late war standards.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by JoeB

OK I subsequently saw that referred to one combat. The only completely conclusive combat between Zeroes and P-35's saw one Zero downed for a P-35 damaged (in all the others P-35's were shot up but none actually ever downed) .

The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.

In general though, 12th AF fighter units were facing an enemy with a lot more combat experience. We don't always have to stick with one head to head match up and argue what portion of the result was human factors. We could also look cross section-wise and see that early 12th AF real results in fighter combat weren't that impressive with P-38's or reverse Lend Lease Spit V's either. Even the typically more experienced RAF/CW fighter units didn't typically have favorable real ratio's v LW units in the MTO in late '42-early 43. We could study whether the results by type were *any* different at all, statistically significantly speaking. I haven't, but that's the kind of real research that could be done to actually advance such a discussion.

*although it wasn't purely subjective, also tested and demonstrated to new pilots using the 325th's Bf109G 'Hoimann' captured in Tunisia, with due caution to condition of captured planes, but again pointing out these are just not simple matters of fact to easily calculate *without* demonstrating that the calculation is correct at full scale.

Joe

Great post Joe and that hits the nail on the head

[Amsel]

The P-40 was a great aircraft in the early war. It easily outclassed most other aircraft in some ways except for a select few. I don't believe the P-40 gets enough credit for that. The main problem with the P-40 has been stated already and that is its failure to be upgraded so it could be more competative after 1943. The P-40 was only outclassed by the Spitfire barely and if one had to choose an existing Allied aircraft for 1940 to 1942 the P-40 was one of the best.

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>All points taken but as you plotted out, its obvious the -109 could out perform the P-40, but the limitations of the aircraft did not make it a "sitting duck," I think that's the point attempting to be made.

To be made by whom in response to whom?

I at least was quite specific in pointing out that the P-40E was outperformed with regard to speed, climb rate and turn rate by the Me 109E and the Me 109F alike. One doesn't become a sitting duck merely by being out-performed, but it certainly is bad for your karma to fly an out-performed fighter ... and from the poll results, most forum members seem to have understood that well.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Amsel,

>The P-40 was a great aircraft in the early war.

Against the Me 109 specifically?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Amsel]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Amsel,

>The P-40 was a great aircraft in the early war.

Against the Me 109 specifically?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

No I didn't say that. The Emil and Franz outclassed the P-40. I was comparing the P-40 to the existing Allied arsenal in the early war. The Me109 was the best until the P-47.

[HoHun]

Hi Amsel,

>The Emil and Franz outclassed the P-40.

Hm, understood, but "Franz" is really a modern-day srcrew-up appelation for the Me 109F that is quite unfortunate.

The subtype designation was "F", which in the common German phonetic alphabet also used by the Luftwaffe was coded "Friedrich", a name that might be shortened to "Fritz" outside of a formal context. Note that the German phonetic alphabet had a civilian origin and that it was (and still is) universally used outside of the military context naturally.

I don't think I have ever seen a mention of the wrong "Franz" coding that is older than the 1980s.

As a phonetic code, you won't usually find "Friedrich" or other phonetic codes mentioned in contemporary documents since on paper, there was no ambiguity with regard to the identity of the latter. However, unlike sometimes claimed, "Emil", "Friedrich", "Gustav" and so on were no nicknames but simple phonetic codes.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)