Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

I can't see why the Spit IX was a better pure fighter than the Fw-190A, except if we're talking late 44 to 45 where the +25lbs boosted version appeared, but AFAIK this was only used for chasing V-1's and had a very short service life.

However we need to consider the Bf-109 here as-well, which considering its climb rate, speed and agility is a serious contender and atleast the equal of the Spitfire as a pure fighter, if not slightly better. The Bf-109 G-2 and Spitfire IX were very equal on all aspects of flight really.

I don't really have an answer Soren. Particularly since we are limited to 1942 for end of comparisons.

I consider all three to be excellent 'fighter-fighters'. While I like the Spit IX better than the Fw 190A2 or A3 and the Me 109F it isn't based on compelling case for any of them - but I like the Fw 190 versatility better, particularly in 1942.

Further, I was thinking Spit IX with -66 Merlin when strictly speaking that didn't happen until 43. If comparison was between Fw 190 through A5 and Spit IX with -66 Merlin I would faver the Spit slightly because of speed and climb advantages, particularly at 20K+ altitude.

If the -61 Merlin, I like the Me 109G2 and Fw A2-5 better. The latter because Roll rate shoud trump turn rate. In every other case they are too close to call. In every case, if they both see each other with no energy advantage, the winner is best pilot or luckiest, not the airplane. I feel this applies when you bring the Mustang into the equation also.

But ask them to perform as fighter bombers and the Fw 190 gets my nod

I think as a 'pilot's airplane' they are all in equal esteem - depending on who flew what.


Regards,

Bill

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

I can't see why the Spit IX was a better pure fighter than the Fw-190A, except if we're talking late 44 to 45 where the +25lbs boosted version appeared, but AFAIK this was only used for chasing V-1's and had a very short service life.

However we need to consider the Bf-109 here as-well, which considering its climb rate, speed and agility is a serious contender and atleast the equal of the Spitfire as a pure fighter, if not slightly better. The Bf-109 G-2 and Spitfire IX were very equal on all aspects of flight really.

Firstly the 190 vs the Spit IX.
They are so close with differing strengths. The 190 was more flexible and capable of carrying a decent GA load. The Spit was better at high altitude the 190 at low altitude. The Spit had a better turn but the 190 had a better roll rate so that equalled out in most cases.
To be honest I wouldn't disagree if people chose one or the other as the best, at the end of the day the tactical position and pilot would make the difference. I am sure that the pilots of both didn't feel short changed and were more than happy with their mount.

Spit IX vs 109G (first versions of both as this is 1942)
I feel the Spit had the advantage. It certainly had the advantage at height which is no small thing. It also had the better manoeuverability. The 109 had a better dive but the advantage was limited as the 109 was red lined at a similar level to the Spit. The initial acceleration was greater in a 109 which is a decent advantage but not overwhelming.
The Spit was more flexible. For instance, it could be upgunned with a minimal impact on performance, when the 109 was upgunned the impact was significant.
I am certainly not saying it was an easy target, or that the difference is huge, far from it ,but the question is which is the best.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Glider

Spit IX vs 109G (first versions of both as this is 1942)

The Spit was more flexible. For instance, it could be upgunned with a minimal impact on performance, when the 109 was upgunned the impact was significant.
I am certainly not saying it was an easy target, or that the difference is huge, far from it ,but the question is which is the best.

Good point on armament - I had forgotten that differentiation, particularly between 190G2 and 4x20mm equipped Spit.

[The Basket]

The Focke Wulf Fw-190 wins for me. That wide track undercarriage and big canopy make it a more modern and better thought out design. Didn't swing on take-off either.

Spitfire was also excellent but the 190 had higher perfromance in this time frame.

The 109 was F model about now and the Fredrich was good. But I've never liked the 109 so it gets third.

But I believe the Finns and their Buffalos got the best kill ratio...so you can't ignore results!!!

The Heinkel He-100 was the best fighter in this time frame so it should have won...but it never got the nod so Fw-190 it is.

[Soren]

Glider, I agree with about everything except the below.

I feel the Spit had the advantage. It certainly had the advantage at height which is no small thing. It also had the better manoeuverability.

The Bf-109 & Spitfire were very equal in terms of maneuverability, the Bf-109G-2 holding a slight edge in sustained turn rate, climb rate & roll rate, as well as speed at at low to medium altitude. The Spitfire IX held a slight advantage in instantanous turn rate and speed at high altitude. All in all they were very similar, th pilot being the deciding factor.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Glider, I agree with about everything except the below.



The Bf-109 & Spitfire were very equal in terms of maneuverability, the Bf-109G-2 holding a slight edge in sustained turn rate, climb rate & roll rate, as well as speed at at low to medium altitude. The Spitfire IX held a slight advantage in instantanous turn rate and speed at high altitude. All in all they were very similar, th pilot being the deciding factor.

I would give the 109 the advantage in climb and roll rate but the Spitfire the advantage in sustained turn rate but as we both agree it is close.

What isn't in doubt, is that all three f these were ahead of anything else in service during 1942. The P38 being the only real contender

[Soren]

I don't really see the P-38 as a contender, atleast not as a pure fighter. Had it been a good deal faster than it was I would look at it otherwise.

[Arsenal VG-33]

Given the years indicated, there are several other fighters from other countries that should have been listed, at least perhaps mentioned. Especially when "early war" ETO is the criterion. I would have included aircraft from countries like:

France: D.520, MS. 406, MB 152
Holland: Fokker DXXI, Fokker G.1
Poland: PZL P.24
Italy: Fiat G.50, Macchi MC 200 & 202, Caproni-Reggiane Re 2001
Russia: MiG-1 & 3, LaGG-3, Yak-1
Yugoslavia: Rogozarski IK-3
Romania: IAR 80

How about a poll for the "non-US-UK-Ger aircraft"?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

I don't really see the P-38 as a contender, atleast not as a pure fighter. Had it been a good deal faster than it was I would look at it otherwise.

I tend to agree Soren but the P-38G, out into operations 1942, was no slouch although some 30kts slower than the J and L, but still 345mph at 5,000 and 400+ mph at 25,000 feet with normal internal fuel load.

The upgrade to the 1325hp 1710-51/55's gave it excellent acceleration, speed and climb so it was close to both the 109G2 and Fw190A-3 in many respects. Combined with its range with just internal fuel and load carrying capability I looked at it pretty hard in comparing with all of them in late 1942.

This was the ship that Steinhoff had a lot of respect for...

But I don't get really excited about the 38 until the L series - then it was formidable across the board at all altitudes.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Arsenal VG-33

Given the years indicated, there are several other fighters from other countries that should have been listed, at least perhaps mentioned. Especially when "early war" ETO is the criterion. I would have included aircraft from countries like:

France: D.520, MS. 406, MB 152
Holland: Fokker DXXI, Fokker G.1
Poland: PZL P.24
Italy: Fiat G.50, Macchi MC 200 & 202, Caproni-Reggiane Re 2001
Russia: MiG-1 & 3, LaGG-3, Yak-1
Yugoslavia: Rogozarski IK-3
Romania: IAR 80

How about a poll for the "non-US-UK-Ger aircraft"?

Although I like the Fokker D.XXI, it's is not a real contender. It was pretty outdated at the time, fixed gear, not very well armed (4 x 7.92 MG's). They did well considering the circumstances, but I feel the dutch pilots deserved much more credit for that than the plane itself. The G.I is another matter. I really believe it was much better than it's main adversary, the Bf.110C. But it wasn't a fighter pure sang. It was probably the first real multi-role fighter, being build as a scoutplane, fighterbomber and interceptor altogether. Dutch pilots said it could turn with a D.XXI which is quite a feat for such a heavy plane as the D.XXI was aready a very manouverable plane itself. So it didn't have the problem that the BF110 had. Too bad it never had the chance to prove itself.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I tend to agree Soren but the P-38G, out into operations 1942, was no slouch although some 30kts slower than the J and L, but still 345mph at 5,000 and 400+ mph at 25,000 feet with normal internal fuel load.

The upgrade to the 1325hp 1710-51/55's gave it excellent acceleration, speed and climb so it was close to both the 109G2 and Fw190A-3 in many respects. Combined with its range with just internal fuel and load carrying capability I looked at it pretty hard in comparing with all of them in late 1942.

This was the ship that Steinhoff had a lot of respect for...

But I don't get really excited about the 38 until the L series - then it was formidable across the board at all altitudes.

Steinhoff admired its armament and amazing zoom climb, that is really all. (I have his book) But as a fighter the P-38 was no match for the Bf-109 or Fw-190.

Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to bash the P-38, it was great in some roles such as ground attack and for shooting down intercepting Zerstörers, but unless it had a great speed advantage (Like in the PTO) it was doomed as a fighter, esp. compared to the faster single engined fighters in the ETO. Fact is that the P-38 was considered easy meat by the LW fighter pilots.

The P-51, Spitfire & Yak-3 were the only Allied fighters that the LW had any real respect for, knowing the first was bloody fast while the other was as nimble and equally or nearly as fast as their own fighters and the third was like a piece of plywood with a 1,500 HP engine strapped to it.

[Hop]

I would love to see a source that gives the 109 an advantage in roll rate over the Spitfire IX...

[claidemore]

Here's a comparison of a LF MkIX Spitfire vs 109G-6-U-2 done by British Central Fighter Establishment. This would be spring of 1943 data, but it is useful for comparison.


"TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE LF.IX
Speeds
17.........The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.

Climb
18.........The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.

Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.

Turning circle
20.........The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.

Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet. "


....and a little more data, comparing Merlin 61 Spitifre with 190A3 and 109G2...

"Air Ministry, A.I.2.(g), Whitehall
20 March 1943
The Spitfire IX at 28,000 to 30,000 ft. is superior in speed to the Me 109 G and the Fw 190 A.

Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost.

When fitted with the 0.477 reduction gear and at +15 lb. per sq. inch boost the Spitfire is equal in rate of climb to the Me 109 G-2; when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost it is superior to all German fighters at present in service. (note: with 0.477 red gear, climb to 20k was 6.5 min at normal power, and 5.6 min at combat power with Merlin 61)

The ceiling of the Spitfire IX is considerably higher than that of the Me 109 G or the Fw 190 A at present in service. "

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by claidemore

Here's a comparison of a LF MkIX Spitfire vs 109G-6-U-2 done by British Central Fighter Establishment. This would be spring of 1943 data, but it is useful for comparison.


"TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE LF.IX
....

I should be careful with these kinds of tests as they usually are mor "political correct" than real. It wouldn't have looked good if the British during the war would have claimed the Bf109 superior to their prime fighter, would it?

[Arsenal VG-33]

Perhaps this was covered elsewhere, but I'll ask anyway: How well could the P-38 maintain flight with only one engine?

Personally, I tend to place a higher value on those P-38s which were used in photo-recconnaissance than in fighter/escort roles.