P-40 vs. ME-109

[Elvis]

Wildcat,

Thanks for the updated info and the correction on Col Pay's name (turns out Cole Palen was associated with The Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome).
Sorry to hear of the passing of both those gentlemen.



Elvis

[phoenix7187]

I'll add these 2 things 70% of pilots that got shot down in WWII did know they were under fire. Second The P-40 was an out dated before it entered service. The RAF used it in the support roll not so much fighter roll (yes some were due to necessity) It really wasn't up to air war in the ETO. From what I know about the P-40 I would want to take it into combat against 109F or better. your just asking to be another hash mark on some 109's rudder.

[claidemore]

I get a kick out of how most articles about the P40 start:

"The United States was 'forced' to put the P40 into mass production because it was the 'best' fighter they had."

It's always worded like an apology. Why not write it:

"The United States put their best fighter into mass production, the Curtiss P-40!"

Soviet lend-lease P-40s were used against various models of the 109 ranging from the Emils to 109G6's. They certainlly weren't able to dominate the 109s, very few planes did, but they did hold their own.

In one of the Soviet P40 pilot interviews he goes on quite a bit about the interviewers 'obsession' with max speed. He points out that in combat max speed was seldom attained,(when it was it was usually in a dive where the P40 held an advantage) and wasn't a critical factor in a fight. Acceleration was more important than max speed in his opinion and according to him the P-40 could accelerate quickly enough to catch a 109 before it's higher max speed could pull it out of range.

From Wiki:

The P-40 was generally considered roughly equal or slighly superior to the 109 at low altitude, and inferior at high altitude. Though this varied depending on the specific variants, the P-40 usually had an edge over Bf 109 in horizontal maneuverability, absolute dive speed, and structural strength; was roughly equal in firepower, slightly inferior in speed and outclassed in rate of climb and operational ceiling

Wiki has 239 Wing RAF in the Western Desert as claiming 283 kills vs 100 losses. Thats almost a 3-1 claim/loss ratio. If you cut the kills in half for over claiming and you still have a 1.4/1 positive kill ratio. Against F and G model 109s thats pretty good.

BTW, I consider the shark nosed Kityhawks in RAF desert camo paint scheme to be one of the most visually appealing fighters of WWII.

Claidemore

[Soren]

Claidemore,

The P-40s didn't just shoot down fighters - something which is often forgotten when talking kill/loss ratios.

As for the topic; The Bf-109 is the best hands down. Can't think of an area besides roll rate where the 109 wasn't better than the P-40.

[claidemore]

Originally Posted by Soren

Claidemore,

The P-40s didn't just shoot down fighters - something which is often forgotten when talking kill/loss ratios.

As for the topic; The Bf-109 is the best hands down. Can't think of an area besides roll rate where the 109 wasn't better than the P-40.

True, they didn't just shoot down fighters, but most of the stuff they were shooting at shot back. But you are right, that kill ratio would be against all types of planes.

I agree that the 109 was a better plane overall.

Advantages of the P40 near as I can tell:
a) firepower, 6 x.50 mg compared to 1x20mm and 2 x7.92 in the F and G2 109s.(the two wingpod guns would give the advantage to the 109G2 here)
b) roll rate as you pointed out, so it gets into a turn quicker
c)turn rate, P40 pilots said they could turn better than the 109, and the RAE test show the P36 Hawk turning better than the 109. Since the P40 has more horsepower available, it should turn as good or better than the P36.
d) max dive. maybe
e) visibility from the cockpit
f)range, 650 miles compared to 550?
g)wider landing gear, safer on takeoff and landing


The 109 was faster, climbed better, possibly had dive advantages, and had better high alt performance. I'd say the 109 cockpit layout was better too, the P40 cockpit always looked confusing and cluttered to me.

[HoHun]

Hi Claidemore,

>In one of the Soviet P40 pilot interviews he goes on quite a bit about the interviewers 'obsession' with max speed. He points out that in combat max speed was seldom attained,(when it was it was usually in a dive where the P40 held an advantage) and wasn't a critical factor in a fight.

Hm, to give a rough indication: At 6 km and up, the Me 109G-2 probably cruised around 50 km/h faster than the P-40 could do at emergency power. This limits the tactical options of the P-40 pilot considerably ...

In fact, if there is one universal, overriding trend in WW2 fighter design, it's the trend towards higher top speeds at the expense of manoeuvrability. Obviously, top speed was what combat experience showed to be critical, even if the mileage of individual pilots varied :-) (In assessing the interview, you also have to take into account that a pilot necessarily focuses on the strengths of his aircraft because that's what he needs to do to survive.)

"Though this varied depending on the specific variants, the P-40 usually had an edge over Bf 109 in horizontal maneuverability"

With two aircraft using a very similar airfoil, having a similar wing loading and a similar power output, I really wonder how the one that's heavier than its opponent by a ton got the reputation of superior "horizontal maneurability" :-) No way!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[claidemore]

Hi Henning,

I get a wingloading of 35.5 lbs/sq ft for P40k (Kittyhawk III)and 39 lbs for a 109G2. Thats figuring 6800 lbs for the 109 and 8400 for the P40, 1600lbs heavier (pretty close to a ton). I've seen lighter and heavier weights for the 109 even on the same document.
I get a P40K @1325hp and 109G2 @1335 (1.42ata) and 1455 takeoff power.
Haven't found a stall speed for P40 yet.

I might be mistaken about the RAE tests, I can't seem to find it now, and I might be confusing them with the Rechlin tests against a Curtiss,Spit and Hurricane. Don't know if the Curtiss referred to is a Hawk 75 (radial) or a Tomahawk. In any case, the Rechlin test says:

Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.

[Glider]

This was a radial Curtis

[claidemore]

Originally Posted by Glider

This was a radial Curtis

Agreed. I checked the date on the Rechlin test, and it's almost impossible for Luftwaffe to have a Hawk 81 or Tomahawk at that time. Has to be a French Hawk 75A.

[renrich]

Some info on the P40, all in the Med. Flew 67059 sorties, had 553 losses, not a bad ratio but intensity of combat probably not as great as in Europe. The P40 had 592 kills in the Med, so losses to kills were about even. These, I believe, are all sorties by AAF pilots.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by claidemore

Hi Henning,

I get a wingloading of 35.5 lbs/sq ft for P40k (Kittyhawk III)and 39 lbs for a 109G2. Thats figuring 6800 lbs for the 109 and 8400 for the P40, 1600lbs heavier (pretty close to a ton). I've seen lighter and heavier weights for the 109 even on the same document.

The 109 has got automatic LE slats, that's the deciding difference, hence why it turns much better than the P-40. Marseilles for one shot down quite a few Spitfires, Hurricanes & P-40's in turn fights, cause he was not afraid of the slats unlike the British test pilots and some of the early Emil pilots.

I get a P40K @1325hp and 109G2 @1335 (1.42ata) and 1455 takeoff power.

Hence why the Bf-109 has a MUCH better sustained turn rate.

As for the stall speed of the 109G-2, it's 145 km/h clean flaps & gear up.

I might be mistaken about the RAE tests, I can't seem to find it now, and I might be confusing them with the Rechlin tests against a Curtiss,Spit and Hurricane. Don't know if the Curtiss referred to is a Hawk 75 (radial) or a Tomahawk. In any case, the Rechlin test says:

And it must be stated that this test was not only carried out with an Emil which had frequent problems with its slats jamming and behaving oddly in flight, it was also in 1940, a period where there weren't many experienced pilots in the type. The German test pilot in this case was as vary about the slats as the British test pilots were when they flew it.

The problems only occured in tight turns though, and not in a slow speed straight stall, in which the slats on the Emil worked very well. The stall speed of the Emil is 61 mph flaps & gear down and 75 mph clean gear & flaps up.

All the problems with the slats were addressed with the introduction of the F series, and from there'on the Bf-109 could & did comfortably engage in turning fights with the Spitfire and win.


Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."

Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."

Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

[slaterat]

I can find hundreds of quotes of Spitfires and Hurricanes easily outurning
109s. I can also find quotes from German aces saying they never turned against spits or Hurricanes. Both German and RAF testing confirmed that the 109 was inferior in the turn.

Slaterat

[Elvis]

Watched the feature on the P-40 I referred to earlier, that had Col Pay and Bobby Gibbes in it.
According to an interview of Gibbes, upon the unveiling of Pay's (then) newly restored P-40 (Gibbes attended the ceremony), Gibbes said the P-40 had better dive speed than a Spit, and (when flown properly) could turn with the Spit.
Considering how good of a showing the Spit made against the 109, it could be said that the P-40 could've had similar results against the 109 that the Spitfire did.
Gibbes also mentioned that the six 50's of the P-40 was better armorment than the eight 303's of the Spit.
He also talked quite highly of the 109, but didn't mention any comparitives between it and the P-40.


Elvis

[Kurfürst]

Soviet figures for P-40, 109G turn times, 1000m.

P-40C 18 secs
P-40E 19,2 secs
Bf 109F-2 19,6 secs (this one was in pretty rough shape, so..)
Bf 109G-2 20 secs, 290 m radius

Bf 109E
from Mtt report, 0 m : 18,92 secs, 203 m
from Baubeschreibung für das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit DB 601 : 170 m w/o flaps, 125 meter with flaps. Turn time not given.

Messerschmitt Me. 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests BY M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC.

When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.

...

The gentle stall and good control under g are of some importance, as they enable the pilot to get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of then Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.

[Elvis]

kurfurst,

Thanks for the informative post, but the only thing I see that whole report really saying is that unexperienced pilots were most likely easier target for more experienced pilots, because they weren't as secure in the performance of their planes.
Kinda funny, because that conclusion would seem like "common knowledge", but now they have PROOF.

Thanks for the turning figures between the 109 and the P-40, as well.



Elvis