Bf109F vs P-38F

drgondog · 08-20-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Because with the added weight the Bf 109G started to lose the qualities that made the Bf 109 such a great aircraft.

I had the same vote for same reasons - the P-38L was a much better match against the G/K than the P-38F was against the 109F

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-20-2007, 01:00 PM

I think the 109F was the best all around 109 ever built. It had great performance for its time, great maneuverability and at the time was probably the best fighter in the sky.

My fav 109 is the 109G however but that is for another discussion.

drgondog · 08-20-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I think the 109F was the best all around 109 ever built. It had great performance for its time, great maneuverability and at the time was probably the best fighter in the sky.

My fav 109 is the 109G however but that is for another discussion.

Chris - I'm thinking you are thinking 1942 for 109F being best? and I'm saying to myself the 109F Fw190 and the Spit are hard to choose from, with the Fw190 getting nod over Spit V...

Regards,

Bill

SoD Stitch · 08-20-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I think the 109F was the best all around 109 ever built. It had great performance for its time, great maneuverability and at the time was probably the best fighter in the sky.

My fav 109 is the 109G however but that is for another discussion.

My fave 109, also, Adler; probably the G-10 is my favorite, before they ruined it with the K-4. Decent performance, decent armament, and faster than a -190 in a straight line.

timshatz · 08-20-2007, 02:27 PM

I've heard the Me109F was the most manuverable of the 109 Family while the P38F was the least of the P38 Family. Might feel different if it were the P38J vs 109G but for this one, my money is on the 109F.

pbfoot · 08-20-2007, 03:00 PM

Just read about a impromptu test between a P38 and Spit and the Spit pilot said if they started out equal within 2 360's he would be on the 38's tail

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-20-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgondog

Chris - I'm thinking you are thinking 1942 for 109F being best? and I'm saying to myself the 109F Fw190 and the Spit are hard to choose from, with the Fw190 getting nod over Spit V...

Regards,

Bill

Yes I am talking about when the 109F was at its hight.

Aussie1001 · 08-20-2007, 05:37 PM

mmmm. would still pick the 109 over the p38 no matter what model of plane of either....

Kurfürst · 08-21-2007, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

My fave 109, also, Adler; probably the G-10 is my favorite, before they ruined it with the K-4. Decent performance, decent armament, and faster than a -190 in a straight line.

I don't quite see how it is possible, after all, the weight difference between the G-10 and K-4 was (unsurprisingly, given their similiarities in equipment) marginal, being around 70 kg, and in the case of the comparable armed G-10/U4 with the MK 108 cannon, about 20 kg.

The K-4 weighted a little less than the Spit IX, and was a bit more than 1000 lbs lighter than the XIV.

In fact the story of the 109F being such a shiny performer (though indeed it was) 'before the evil G-series begun to add weight' is rather bizarre when one considers that the difference in weight between 109F-2 and F-4 was greater than the difference in weight between the F-4 and G-2...

Konigstiger205 · 08-21-2007, 05:44 AM

The K-4 was the last 109...it was the end of the war and the lack of proper materials put its mark on the K model.The 109F however was indeed a great plane and like Adler said probably the best from the 109 family.

chuter · 08-21-2007, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

My fave 109, also, Adler; probably the G-10 is my favorite, before they ruined it with the K-4. Decent performance, decent armament, and faster than a -190 in a straight line.

Odd. It's my understanding the K4 was developed, tested and standardized THEN the G10 was developed as a way to make additional K4's out of the never ending supply of wrecked G(various) components . . .

Kurfürst · 08-21-2007, 06:58 AM

Indeed the G-10 was a 'bastard' aircraft, a G airframe with many internal components from the 109K (new generator, engine amongst others). It ensured that factories could make use of 109K components without re-tooling for a (somewhat) new airframe.

Thorlifter · 08-21-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

The P38 wasnt even designed for dogfighting.

It was a bomber interceptor.

True, your really not comparing apples to apples. But, to answer your question, I vote for the 109.

SoD Stitch · 08-21-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I don't quite see how it is possible, after all, the weight difference between the G-10 and K-4 was (unsurprisingly, given their similiarities in equipment) marginal, being around 70 kg, and in the case of the comparable armed G-10/U4 with the MK 108 cannon, about 20 kg.

The K-4 weighted a little less than the Spit IX, and was a bit more than 1000 lbs lighter than the XIV.

In fact the story of the 109F being such a shiny performer (though indeed it was) 'before the evil G-series begun to add weight' is rather bizarre when one considers that the difference in weight between 109F-2 and F-4 was greater than the difference in weight between the F-4 and G-2...

Kurfurst, you are quite right, I didn't do the research . . .

The K-4 was, actually, a bit faster than the G's due to it's increased power output (it had a bigger supercharger) and it's lighter construction. My main reason for disliking the K-4 was the decline in quality and extensive use of wood in it's construction.

ricardo · 08-21-2007, 04:44 PM

Thanks to all for your replies. I chose the Bf109F against P-38F because they were fighting in the same theater (Africa) and in the same period (1942). I think this comparison makes sense.... now, if I make a comparison between a P-51H against a Bf109D... well.... obviously the P-51 comes out the winner, but it is not a valid comparison.