Comparing the P-51, P-38, P-47

[Daryl Hunt]

I would agree up until early 1944. The New P-47D-XX was introduced with it's added power, added fuel capacity and paddle bladed props. Meanwhile, the P-51D was coming into the inventory as was the P-38J-LO-25. All 3 were faster and more maneuverable than either the 190 or the 109.

When you look at just this time period, which of the 3 are better is only determined with the specialized job it was sent to do.

I don´t think that is true. This is the time when the Americans adopted a new strategy: The fighters came first and confronted possible interceptors. The Westen Front is also not a good "tool" to measure the planes´ strength unless its one on one and not 1000 vs 100.

On that I agree. Saying the P-38F-H is inferior to the 109 and the 190 sounds good. But early on, the P-38 (in small numbers) faced 11-1 and not in their favor. It's hard to compare birds when the AAF Pilots are so inexperienced, flying a more complex bird and so out numbered. But by the time the real heavy weights showed up, the P-38 not only made dent but ended up with a 1.5 to one kill rate. It just looked really bad because so many P-38s were lost getting there. Let's face it, the Luftwaffe, arguably, had the most experienced fighter pilots during that time period.

In late 43 and on, it shifted. The P-47, and the P-38J-LO-15 (with the fowler flaps and hotter engines) came into the inventory plus the level of experience of the AAF Fighter Pilots had increase many times over. Also, during this time (middle 43 to early 44) Germany sent it's most experienced pilots to the Russian Front. In early 44. they started shifting them back to ETO to combat this new threat. In comparison, German had a finite supply of troops and equipment while the Allies seemed to have an infinite number. Not so from middle 43 and earlier where Germany had the advantage. When they changed to doctrine and released the fighters to go ahead of the bombers, everything changed. Germany lost more fighters that it could afford (losing the pilots is worse than losing the bird) and it allowed more bombers to get through which took even more resources and manufacturing away from Germany. When the fighter sweeps started, for all practical purposes, the war was lost by Germany.

I wonder, because if that German pilots were so experienced, that experience must come from somewhere.

They had been actively at war even before the rest of Europe. They flew their brand new BF109 in the Spanish Civil War. Nothing could equal it in that war. That war experience was carried directly into WWII.

They didn´t have any serious opponents in Spain.

When it began in 1936, the Soviets provided a whole slew of Polikarpov I-15, the best fighters that Russia had. The Germans provided the rebels with the Heinkel He-51. Both were biplanes. The HE-51 was the worse of the two and were severely out numbered. Then Stalin sent a batch of Moscas giving the Republic a leap forward over the Revolutionaries. Spanish Pilots were going against German Pilots.

In 1939, the Germans got tired of getting their butts handed to them by the Spanish pilots. The Muskov was far superior to the HE-51s. They sent 30 brand spanking new BF109s. Even the Lufftwaffe didn't have those yet. It was the beginning of the end for the Republic of Spain.

What is sad, the French could have sent fighters and other types that were equal to the birds the German Pilots were flying. Britain could have send Hurricanes which could hold it's own. Instead, the decided to appease Hitler and stay completely out of it. Only Russia stood up to be counted. Unfortunately, Russia didn't make thing quite yet to stand toe to toe with the BF109 at the time.

 

[Syriusly]

I have found these interesting comparisons.

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
Fw-190 vs P-47 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
P-51 vs Me-262 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Remarkable is that the Bf/Me 109 gets the most piston "Lethality Points" and ranks only second to the Me 262. The P-51 that I considered to be the best American fighter, sucks with only 60 Points compared to the 109´s 115 points.

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

I have no clue what those "Lethality Points" are based on but I think it is the "Kill/Death ratio".

Compared to the P-51 the P-47 is somewhat ugly but I have to give it the point in the poll. Overall, it is difficult. The 109 is an outstanding aircraft produced in huge numbers but the Me 262 is a jet fighter.

That looks like pure fire power.
The P-51 had 6 .50 caliber, the P-47 had 8- the P-38 had a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50(? or 4- .30)

Funky website- since the website itself doesn't explain its own ratings- why use it?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have found these interesting comparisons.

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
Fw-190 vs P-47 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
P-51 vs Me-262 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Remarkable is that the Bf/Me 109 gets the most piston "Lethality Points" and ranks only second to the Me 262. The P-51 that I considered to be the best American fighter, sucks with only 60 Points compared to the 109´s 115 points.

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

I have no clue what those "Lethality Points" are based on but I think it is the "Kill/Death ratio".

Compared to the P-51 the P-47 is somewhat ugly but I have to give it the point in the poll. Overall, it is difficult. The 109 is an outstanding aircraft produced in huge numbers but the Me 262 is a jet fighter.

That looks like pure fire power.
The P-51 had 6 .50 caliber, the P-47 had 8- the P-38 had a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50(? or 4- .30)

Funky website- since the website itself doesn't explain its own ratings- why use it?

I see where they always used the worst possible model for the US birds and the best possible comparision on German birds. Or toss some numbers in that just weren't true. I've seen this before when dealing with the Luft46 What If crowd.

 

[Bleipriester]

I don´t think that is true. This is the time when the Americans adopted a new strategy: The fighters came first and confronted possible interceptors. The Westen Front is also not a good "tool" to measure the planes´ strength unless its one on one and not 1000 vs 100.

On that I agree. Saying the P-38F-H is inferior to the 109 and the 190 sounds good. But early on, the P-38 (in small numbers) faced 11-1 and not in their favor. It's hard to compare birds when the AAF Pilots are so inexperienced, flying a more complex bird and so out numbered. But by the time the real heavy weights showed up, the P-38 not only made dent but ended up with a 1.5 to one kill rate. It just looked really bad because so many P-38s were lost getting there. Let's face it, the Luftwaffe, arguably, had the most experienced fighter pilots during that time period.

In late 43 and on, it shifted. The P-47, and the P-38J-LO-15 (with the fowler flaps and hotter engines) came into the inventory plus the level of experience of the AAF Fighter Pilots had increase many times over. Also, during this time (middle 43 to early 44) Germany sent it's most experienced pilots to the Russian Front. In early 44. they started shifting them back to ETO to combat this new threat. In comparison, German had a finite supply of troops and equipment while the Allies seemed to have an infinite number. Not so from middle 43 and earlier where Germany had the advantage. When they changed to doctrine and released the fighters to go ahead of the bombers, everything changed. Germany lost more fighters that it could afford (losing the pilots is worse than losing the bird) and it allowed more bombers to get through which took even more resources and manufacturing away from Germany. When the fighter sweeps started, for all practical purposes, the war was lost by Germany.

I wonder, because if that German pilots were so experienced, that experience must come from somewhere.

They had been actively at war even before the rest of Europe. They flew their brand new BF109 in the Spanish Civil War. Nothing could equal it in that war. That war experience was carried directly into WWII.

They didn´t have any serious opponents in Spain.

When it began in 1936, the Soviets provided a whole slew of Polikarpov I-15, the best fighters that Russia had. The Germans provided the rebels with the Heinkel He-51. Both were biplanes. The HE-51 was the worse of the two and were severely out numbered. Then Stalin sent a batch of Moscas giving the Republic a leap forward over the Revolutionaries. Spanish Pilots were going against German Pilots.

In 1939, the Germans got tired of getting their butts handed to them by the Spanish pilots. The Muskov was far superior to the HE-51s. They sent 30 brand spanking new BF109s. Even the Lufftwaffe didn't have those yet. It was the beginning of the end for the Republic of Spain.

What is sad, the French could have sent fighters and other types that were equal to the birds the German Pilots were flying. Britain could have send Hurricanes which could hold it's own. Instead, the decided to appease Hitler and stay completely out of it. Only Russia stood up to be counted. Unfortunately, Russia didn't make thing quite yet to stand toe to toe with the BF109 at the time.

What I actually meant is that the pilots couldn´t gain dogfight experience with coequal planes.

 

[Bleipriester]

I have found these interesting comparisons.

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
Fw-190 vs P-47 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
P-51 vs Me-262 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Remarkable is that the Bf/Me 109 gets the most piston "Lethality Points" and ranks only second to the Me 262. The P-51 that I considered to be the best American fighter, sucks with only 60 Points compared to the 109´s 115 points.

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

I have no clue what those "Lethality Points" are based on but I think it is the "Kill/Death ratio".

Compared to the P-51 the P-47 is somewhat ugly but I have to give it the point in the poll. Overall, it is difficult. The 109 is an outstanding aircraft produced in huge numbers but the Me 262 is a jet fighter.

That looks like pure fire power.
The P-51 had 6 .50 caliber, the P-47 had 8- the P-38 had a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50(? or 4- .30)

Funky website- since the website itself doesn't explain its own ratings- why use it?

I see where they always used the worst possible model for the US birds and the best possible comparision on German birds. Or toss some numbers in that just weren't true. I've seen this before when dealing with the Luft46 What If crowd.

There are no specific variants.

 

[Bleipriester]

I have found these interesting comparisons.

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
Fw-190 vs P-47 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
P-51 vs Me-262 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Remarkable is that the Bf/Me 109 gets the most piston "Lethality Points" and ranks only second to the Me 262. The P-51 that I considered to be the best American fighter, sucks with only 60 Points compared to the 109´s 115 points.

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

I have no clue what those "Lethality Points" are based on but I think it is the "Kill/Death ratio".

Compared to the P-51 the P-47 is somewhat ugly but I have to give it the point in the poll. Overall, it is difficult. The 109 is an outstanding aircraft produced in huge numbers but the Me 262 is a jet fighter.

That looks like pure fire power.
The P-51 had 6 .50 caliber, the P-47 had 8- the P-38 had a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50(? or 4- .30)

Funky website- since the website itself doesn't explain its own ratings- why use it?

Because the info on the web is missing. This is the only type of ranking or measuring I could find. The page doesn´t look biased in any way.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

On that I agree. Saying the P-38F-H is inferior to the 109 and the 190 sounds good. But early on, the P-38 (in small numbers) faced 11-1 and not in their favor. It's hard to compare birds when the AAF Pilots are so inexperienced, flying a more complex bird and so out numbered. But by the time the real heavy weights showed up, the P-38 not only made dent but ended up with a 1.5 to one kill rate. It just looked really bad because so many P-38s were lost getting there. Let's face it, the Luftwaffe, arguably, had the most experienced fighter pilots during that time period.

In late 43 and on, it shifted. The P-47, and the P-38J-LO-15 (with the fowler flaps and hotter engines) came into the inventory plus the level of experience of the AAF Fighter Pilots had increase many times over. Also, during this time (middle 43 to early 44) Germany sent it's most experienced pilots to the Russian Front. In early 44. they started shifting them back to ETO to combat this new threat. In comparison, German had a finite supply of troops and equipment while the Allies seemed to have an infinite number. Not so from middle 43 and earlier where Germany had the advantage. When they changed to doctrine and released the fighters to go ahead of the bombers, everything changed. Germany lost more fighters that it could afford (losing the pilots is worse than losing the bird) and it allowed more bombers to get through which took even more resources and manufacturing away from Germany. When the fighter sweeps started, for all practical purposes, the war was lost by Germany.

I wonder, because if that German pilots were so experienced, that experience must come from somewhere.

They had been actively at war even before the rest of Europe. They flew their brand new BF109 in the Spanish Civil War. Nothing could equal it in that war. That war experience was carried directly into WWII.

They didn´t have any serious opponents in Spain.

When it began in 1936, the Soviets provided a whole slew of Polikarpov I-15, the best fighters that Russia had. The Germans provided the rebels with the Heinkel He-51. Both were biplanes. The HE-51 was the worse of the two and were severely out numbered. Then Stalin sent a batch of Moscas giving the Republic a leap forward over the Revolutionaries. Spanish Pilots were going against German Pilots.

In 1939, the Germans got tired of getting their butts handed to them by the Spanish pilots. The Muskov was far superior to the HE-51s. They sent 30 brand spanking new BF109s. Even the Lufftwaffe didn't have those yet. It was the beginning of the end for the Republic of Spain.

What is sad, the French could have sent fighters and other types that were equal to the birds the German Pilots were flying. Britain could have send Hurricanes which could hold it's own. Instead, the decided to appease Hitler and stay completely out of it. Only Russia stood up to be counted. Unfortunately, Russia didn't make thing quite yet to stand toe to toe with the BF109 at the time.

What I actually meant is that the pilots couldn´t gain dogfight experience with coequal planes.

In the Prop Fighter world, you are superior then equal, then weaker, then superior, then coequal, then....... It's always been that way since the first fighter took to the skies.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have found these interesting comparisons.

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
Fw-190 vs P-47 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
P-51 vs Me-262 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Remarkable is that the Bf/Me 109 gets the most piston "Lethality Points" and ranks only second to the Me 262. The P-51 that I considered to be the best American fighter, sucks with only 60 Points compared to the 109´s 115 points.

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

I have no clue what those "Lethality Points" are based on but I think it is the "Kill/Death ratio".

Compared to the P-51 the P-47 is somewhat ugly but I have to give it the point in the poll. Overall, it is difficult. The 109 is an outstanding aircraft produced in huge numbers but the Me 262 is a jet fighter.

That looks like pure fire power.
The P-51 had 6 .50 caliber, the P-47 had 8- the P-38 had a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50(? or 4- .30)

Funky website- since the website itself doesn't explain its own ratings- why use it?

Because the info on the web is missing. This is the only type of ranking or measuring I could find. The page doesn´t look biased in any way.

When I see a BF109 coming close to the climb rate of the P-38F then there is something wrong. Even the ME109 couldn't accomplish that feat. Nothing short of the ME163 ven came close to any model of the P-38 in a climb. I imagine that there more things like that as well. Trying to make the Luftwaffe fighters better than they really were.

 

[Bleipriester]

I wonder, because if that German pilots were so experienced, that experience must come from somewhere.

They had been actively at war even before the rest of Europe. They flew their brand new BF109 in the Spanish Civil War. Nothing could equal it in that war. That war experience was carried directly into WWII.

They didn´t have any serious opponents in Spain.

When it began in 1936, the Soviets provided a whole slew of Polikarpov I-15, the best fighters that Russia had. The Germans provided the rebels with the Heinkel He-51. Both were biplanes. The HE-51 was the worse of the two and were severely out numbered. Then Stalin sent a batch of Moscas giving the Republic a leap forward over the Revolutionaries. Spanish Pilots were going against German Pilots.

In 1939, the Germans got tired of getting their butts handed to them by the Spanish pilots. The Muskov was far superior to the HE-51s. They sent 30 brand spanking new BF109s. Even the Lufftwaffe didn't have those yet. It was the beginning of the end for the Republic of Spain.

What is sad, the French could have sent fighters and other types that were equal to the birds the German Pilots were flying. Britain could have send Hurricanes which could hold it's own. Instead, the decided to appease Hitler and stay completely out of it. Only Russia stood up to be counted. Unfortunately, Russia didn't make thing quite yet to stand toe to toe with the BF109 at the time.

What I actually meant is that the pilots couldn´t gain dogfight experience with coequal planes.

In the Prop Fighter world, you are superior then equal, then weaker, then superior, then coequal, then....... It's always been that way since the first fighter took to the skies.

The Bf 109 marked a new generation of fighters.

 

[Bleipriester]

I have found these interesting comparisons.

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
Fw-190 vs P-47 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
P-51 vs Me-262 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Remarkable is that the Bf/Me 109 gets the most piston "Lethality Points" and ranks only second to the Me 262. The P-51 that I considered to be the best American fighter, sucks with only 60 Points compared to the 109´s 115 points.

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

I have no clue what those "Lethality Points" are based on but I think it is the "Kill/Death ratio".

Compared to the P-51 the P-47 is somewhat ugly but I have to give it the point in the poll. Overall, it is difficult. The 109 is an outstanding aircraft produced in huge numbers but the Me 262 is a jet fighter.

That looks like pure fire power.
The P-51 had 6 .50 caliber, the P-47 had 8- the P-38 had a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50(? or 4- .30)

Funky website- since the website itself doesn't explain its own ratings- why use it?

Because the info on the web is missing. This is the only type of ranking or measuring I could find. The page doesn´t look biased in any way.

When I see a BF109 coming close to the climb rate of the P-38F then there is something wrong. Even the ME109 couldn't accomplish that feat. Nothing short of the ME163 ven came close to any model of the P-38 in a climb. I imagine that there more things like that as well. Trying to make the Luftwaffe fighters better than they really were.

I looked into the issue and found out that the mentioned climb rate is that of the P-38L which entered service in June 1944. It had improved engines.

The mentioned 109 climb rate is that of the 109 G-6, which entered service in 1943. Both variants were each the most produced of the models.

"The Bf 109's outstanding rate of climb was superior to all Allied adversaries including the P-51D Mustang, Spitfire Mk. XIV and Hawker Tempest Mk. V. "
Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have found these interesting comparisons.

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
Fw-190 vs P-47 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
P-51 vs Me-262 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Remarkable is that the Bf/Me 109 gets the most piston "Lethality Points" and ranks only second to the Me 262. The P-51 that I considered to be the best American fighter, sucks with only 60 Points compared to the 109´s 115 points.

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

I have no clue what those "Lethality Points" are based on but I think it is the "Kill/Death ratio".

Compared to the P-51 the P-47 is somewhat ugly but I have to give it the point in the poll. Overall, it is difficult. The 109 is an outstanding aircraft produced in huge numbers but the Me 262 is a jet fighter.

That looks like pure fire power.
The P-51 had 6 .50 caliber, the P-47 had 8- the P-38 had a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50(? or 4- .30)

Funky website- since the website itself doesn't explain its own ratings- why use it?

Because the info on the web is missing. This is the only type of ranking or measuring I could find. The page doesn´t look biased in any way.

When I see a BF109 coming close to the climb rate of the P-38F then there is something wrong. Even the ME109 couldn't accomplish that feat. Nothing short of the ME163 ven came close to any model of the P-38 in a climb. I imagine that there more things like that as well. Trying to make the Luftwaffe fighters better than they really were.

I looked into the issue and found out that the mentioned climb rate is that of the P-38L which entered service in June 1944. It had improved engines.

The mentioned 109 climb rate is that of the 109 G-6, which entered service in 1943. Both variants were each the most produced of the models.

"The Bf 109's outstanding rate of climb was superior to all Allied adversaries including the P-51D Mustang, Spitfire Mk. XIV and Hawker Tempest Mk. V. "
Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia

ME109G (Not BF) climb rate was 3,345 ft/min
P-38L climb rate was 4,750 ft/min and it was not as good as the P-38G and H.
P-51D was 3,200 ft/min, the H model was just below the P-38 for climb
P-47D was 3,180 ft/min
FW-190D was 3,300 ft/min

For some odd reason, when a ME-109 went vertical against the P-51D, the ME-109 developed a shaking before the P-51 and had to back out of the climb. Having a higher rate doesn't make it better. If the ME-109 was at low altitude, it could out climb many but as the altitude went up, it got worse. Only the P-38 could out climb a P-47 above 20K.

Using just the claimed numbers doesn't make an accurate picture. Quite a few Lutwaffe ME-109 pilots were lost trying this against all three of the Allied Long Ranged Fighters.

 

[Bleipriester]

I have found these interesting comparisons.

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
Fw-190 vs P-47 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
P-51 vs Me-262 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Remarkable is that the Bf/Me 109 gets the most piston "Lethality Points" and ranks only second to the Me 262. The P-51 that I considered to be the best American fighter, sucks with only 60 Points compared to the 109´s 115 points.

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

I have no clue what those "Lethality Points" are based on but I think it is the "Kill/Death ratio".

Compared to the P-51 the P-47 is somewhat ugly but I have to give it the point in the poll. Overall, it is difficult. The 109 is an outstanding aircraft produced in huge numbers but the Me 262 is a jet fighter.

That looks like pure fire power.
The P-51 had 6 .50 caliber, the P-47 had 8- the P-38 had a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50(? or 4- .30)

Funky website- since the website itself doesn't explain its own ratings- why use it?

Because the info on the web is missing. This is the only type of ranking or measuring I could find. The page doesn´t look biased in any way.

When I see a BF109 coming close to the climb rate of the P-38F then there is something wrong. Even the ME109 couldn't accomplish that feat. Nothing short of the ME163 ven came close to any model of the P-38 in a climb. I imagine that there more things like that as well. Trying to make the Luftwaffe fighters better than they really were.

I looked into the issue and found out that the mentioned climb rate is that of the P-38L which entered service in June 1944. It had improved engines.

The mentioned 109 climb rate is that of the 109 G-6, which entered service in 1943. Both variants were each the most produced of the models.

"The Bf 109's outstanding rate of climb was superior to all Allied adversaries including the P-51D Mustang, Spitfire Mk. XIV and Hawker Tempest Mk. V. "
Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia

ME109G (Not BF) climb rate was 3,345 ft/min
P-38L climb rate was 4,750 ft/min and it was not as good as the P-38G and H.
P-51D was 3,200 ft/min, the H model was just below the P-38 for climb
P-47D was 3,180 ft/min
FW-190D was 3,300 ft/min

For some odd reason, when a ME-109 went vertical against the P-51D, the ME-109 developed a shaking before the P-51 and had to back out of the climb. Having a higher rate doesn't make it better. If the ME-109 was at low altitude, it could out climb many but as the altitude went up, it got worse. Only the P-38 could out climb a P-47 above 20K.

Using just the claimed numbers doesn't make an accurate picture. Quite a few Lutwaffe ME-109 pilots were lost trying this against all three of the Allied Long Ranged Fighters.

I have here a maximal climb rate of 3660 for the G variant. Sea Level climb rate is 3300. It is both 4113 for the 109 G-1. Maybe, what you claim to be a overrating is an underrating in reality.
P-38 Performance Tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That looks like pure fire power.
The P-51 had 6 .50 caliber, the P-47 had 8- the P-38 had a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50(? or 4- .30)

Funky website- since the website itself doesn't explain its own ratings- why use it?

Because the info on the web is missing. This is the only type of ranking or measuring I could find. The page doesn´t look biased in any way.

When I see a BF109 coming close to the climb rate of the P-38F then there is something wrong. Even the ME109 couldn't accomplish that feat. Nothing short of the ME163 ven came close to any model of the P-38 in a climb. I imagine that there more things like that as well. Trying to make the Luftwaffe fighters better than they really were.

I looked into the issue and found out that the mentioned climb rate is that of the P-38L which entered service in June 1944. It had improved engines.

The mentioned 109 climb rate is that of the 109 G-6, which entered service in 1943. Both variants were each the most produced of the models.

"The Bf 109's outstanding rate of climb was superior to all Allied adversaries including the P-51D Mustang, Spitfire Mk. XIV and Hawker Tempest Mk. V. "
Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia

ME109G (Not BF) climb rate was 3,345 ft/min
P-38L climb rate was 4,750 ft/min and it was not as good as the P-38G and H.
P-51D was 3,200 ft/min, the H model was just below the P-38 for climb
P-47D was 3,180 ft/min
FW-190D was 3,300 ft/min

For some odd reason, when a ME-109 went vertical against the P-51D, the ME-109 developed a shaking before the P-51 and had to back out of the climb. Having a higher rate doesn't make it better. If the ME-109 was at low altitude, it could out climb many but as the altitude went up, it got worse. Only the P-38 could out climb a P-47 above 20K.

Using just the claimed numbers doesn't make an accurate picture. Quite a few Lutwaffe ME-109 pilots were lost trying this against all three of the Allied Long Ranged Fighters.

I have here a maximal climb rate of 3660 for the G variant. Sea Level climb rate is 3300. It is both 4113 for the 109 G-1. Maybe, what you claim to be a overrating is an underrating in reality.
P-38 Performance Tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html

You did it again. You used the YP-38 figures for all other P-38s. The YP-38 had a pair of 1000 hp engines that never went into production. Starting with the D (used for testing as well as the E) the engines were 1125 hp. The F was 1125 and went into production. What it shows it that you will cherry pick to arrive with a conclusion that you have already formed. This type of relationships gets pilots killed when they believe it as fact. The fact is, the P-38G/H had the highest climb rate of all birds short of the ME163. While the ME109G, you are almost 1000 feet short. You want to compare apples with apples, stick with the current production models from the same time period. Therefore, you have to use the P-38G,H and J if you want to use your ME-109G.

I would rather use a ME-109F for a time to climb. The G got rather fat and really didn't perform as well as the F model. Just like the P-38H had a better time rate and higher top speed than the J and L models. Your ME-109G petered out around 20K feet for climb in comparison with all 3 of the Allied long ranged fighters. The P-51D started to lose it at 25K but the P-38 G and H Didn't lose it until over 40K. The only place the ME-109G had the advantage was from above 15K to less than 20K. This meant that you had about 1 minute of an advantage before you started to get into a really hasty buffer. The P-51D wold fly right up against it's limits without buffering. Meaning that the ME-109 Pilot avoided going vertical. He used his dive which was a little better than the P-51D to get out of dodge.

How about stopping cherry picking facts and compare apples to apples.

 

[Bleipriester]

Because the info on the web is missing. This is the only type of ranking or measuring I could find. The page doesn´t look biased in any way.

When I see a BF109 coming close to the climb rate of the P-38F then there is something wrong. Even the ME109 couldn't accomplish that feat. Nothing short of the ME163 ven came close to any model of the P-38 in a climb. I imagine that there more things like that as well. Trying to make the Luftwaffe fighters better than they really were.

I looked into the issue and found out that the mentioned climb rate is that of the P-38L which entered service in June 1944. It had improved engines.

The mentioned 109 climb rate is that of the 109 G-6, which entered service in 1943. Both variants were each the most produced of the models.

"The Bf 109's outstanding rate of climb was superior to all Allied adversaries including the P-51D Mustang, Spitfire Mk. XIV and Hawker Tempest Mk. V. "
Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia

ME109G (Not BF) climb rate was 3,345 ft/min
P-38L climb rate was 4,750 ft/min and it was not as good as the P-38G and H.
P-51D was 3,200 ft/min, the H model was just below the P-38 for climb
P-47D was 3,180 ft/min
FW-190D was 3,300 ft/min

For some odd reason, when a ME-109 went vertical against the P-51D, the ME-109 developed a shaking before the P-51 and had to back out of the climb. Having a higher rate doesn't make it better. If the ME-109 was at low altitude, it could out climb many but as the altitude went up, it got worse. Only the P-38 could out climb a P-47 above 20K.

Using just the claimed numbers doesn't make an accurate picture. Quite a few Lutwaffe ME-109 pilots were lost trying this against all three of the Allied Long Ranged Fighters.

I have here a maximal climb rate of 3660 for the G variant. Sea Level climb rate is 3300. It is both 4113 for the 109 G-1. Maybe, what you claim to be a overrating is an underrating in reality.
P-38 Performance Tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html

You did it again. You used the YP-38 figures for all other P-38s. The YP-38 had a pair of 1000 hp engines that never went into production. Starting with the D (used for testing as well as the E) the engines were 1125 hp. The F was 1125 and went into production. What it shows it that you will cherry pick to arrive with a conclusion that you have already formed. This type of relationships gets pilots killed when they believe it as fact. The fact is, the P-38G/H had the highest climb rate of all birds short of the ME163. While the ME109G, you are almost 1000 feet short. You want to compare apples with apples, stick with the current production models from the same time period. Therefore, you have to use the P-38G,H and J if you want to use your ME-109G.

I would rather use a ME-109F for a time to climb. The G got rather fat and really didn't perform as well as the F model. Just like the P-38H had a better time rate and higher top speed than the J and L models. Your ME-109G petered out around 20K feet for climb in comparison with all 3 of the Allied long ranged fighters. The P-51D started to lose it at 25K but the P-38 G and H Didn't lose it until over 40K. The only place the ME-109G had the advantage was from above 15K to less than 20K. This meant that you had about 1 minute of an advantage before you started to get into a really hasty buffer. The P-51D wold fly right up against it's limits without buffering. Meaning that the ME-109 Pilot avoided going vertical. He used his dive which was a little better than the P-51D to get out of dodge.

How about stopping cherry picking facts and compare apples to apples.

You are wrong. I do no cherry picking. Consult the page again and you see that it includes several variants of the P-38. The figures are taken from the P38G-1.

The power of the 109s varies from 680 PS (emergency power, ca 5 mins) of the first variant to 2000 PS (emergency power, ca 30 mins?) in the latest variant, the 109 K-4.

 

[Divine Wind]

Someone chose the P-51 but didn't say why?

I chose the P-51. The "D" model was the most versitile and best, IMO, all around fighter.

The P-47 was tough. Yeager hit a telephone pole with his on a strafing run and flew home. I doubt the P-51 or P-38 could have done that.

The P-38 was both fast and had twin-engine reliability. Great for over the Pacific where Richard Bong racked up his 40 kills.

Richard I. Bong - Biography of America's Top Ace in WW2, P-38 Pilot

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When I see a BF109 coming close to the climb rate of the P-38F then there is something wrong. Even the ME109 couldn't accomplish that feat. Nothing short of the ME163 ven came close to any model of the P-38 in a climb. I imagine that there more things like that as well. Trying to make the Luftwaffe fighters better than they really were.

I looked into the issue and found out that the mentioned climb rate is that of the P-38L which entered service in June 1944. It had improved engines.

The mentioned 109 climb rate is that of the 109 G-6, which entered service in 1943. Both variants were each the most produced of the models.

"The Bf 109's outstanding rate of climb was superior to all Allied adversaries including the P-51D Mustang, Spitfire Mk. XIV and Hawker Tempest Mk. V. "
Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia

ME109G (Not BF) climb rate was 3,345 ft/min
P-38L climb rate was 4,750 ft/min and it was not as good as the P-38G and H.
P-51D was 3,200 ft/min, the H model was just below the P-38 for climb
P-47D was 3,180 ft/min
FW-190D was 3,300 ft/min

For some odd reason, when a ME-109 went vertical against the P-51D, the ME-109 developed a shaking before the P-51 and had to back out of the climb. Having a higher rate doesn't make it better. If the ME-109 was at low altitude, it could out climb many but as the altitude went up, it got worse. Only the P-38 could out climb a P-47 above 20K.

Using just the claimed numbers doesn't make an accurate picture. Quite a few Lutwaffe ME-109 pilots were lost trying this against all three of the Allied Long Ranged Fighters.

I have here a maximal climb rate of 3660 for the G variant. Sea Level climb rate is 3300. It is both 4113 for the 109 G-1. Maybe, what you claim to be a overrating is an underrating in reality.
P-38 Performance Tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html

You did it again. You used the YP-38 figures for all other P-38s. The YP-38 had a pair of 1000 hp engines that never went into production. Starting with the D (used for testing as well as the E) the engines were 1125 hp. The F was 1125 and went into production. What it shows it that you will cherry pick to arrive with a conclusion that you have already formed. This type of relationships gets pilots killed when they believe it as fact. The fact is, the P-38G/H had the highest climb rate of all birds short of the ME163. While the ME109G, you are almost 1000 feet short. You want to compare apples with apples, stick with the current production models from the same time period. Therefore, you have to use the P-38G,H and J if you want to use your ME-109G.

I would rather use a ME-109F for a time to climb. The G got rather fat and really didn't perform as well as the F model. Just like the P-38H had a better time rate and higher top speed than the J and L models. Your ME-109G petered out around 20K feet for climb in comparison with all 3 of the Allied long ranged fighters. The P-51D started to lose it at 25K but the P-38 G and H Didn't lose it until over 40K. The only place the ME-109G had the advantage was from above 15K to less than 20K. This meant that you had about 1 minute of an advantage before you started to get into a really hasty buffer. The P-51D wold fly right up against it's limits without buffering. Meaning that the ME-109 Pilot avoided going vertical. He used his dive which was a little better than the P-51D to get out of dodge.

How about stopping cherry picking facts and compare apples to apples.

You are wrong. I do no cherry picking. Consult the page again and you see that it includes several variants of the P-38. The figures are taken from the P38G-1.

The power of the 109s varies from 680 PS (emergency power, ca 5 mins) of the first variant to 2000 PS (emergency power, ca 30 mins?) in the latest variant, the 109 K-4.

From your own cite:

WAR DEPARTMENT
AIR CORPS, MATERIEL DIVISION
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
February 12, 1941

MEMORANDUM REPORT ON
Lockheed YP-38 Airplane, A.C No. 39-689


Subject: Flight Test

The test wa done early 1941 and involved the YP-38. and the P-38D that never went into production. The YP had the 1000 hp enginess The J had 1600 hp engines. If you are going to use the ME108G and above, I get to use at least the P-38J-LO-15 and the P-38J-LO-25. Here is the writeup for the J-15.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/P-38J_performance_11march44.pdf

Your G and K end up sucking hind tit to both of these at all altitudes for climb, turn and speed. At close range, they are about equal in firepower. But step it off to 500 yds or better and the 20mm was far superior to the 108 cannon 30 mm in the 109. At about 500 yards and beyond, the 109 fire has already crossed and it couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

The only saving grace is if you go into a hard dive. But you really can't tell the difference at a glance between a -15 or a -25. That dive works on the -15 but the -25 will follow you all the way down, shoot your tail off, beat you home and have dinner waiting for you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Someone chose the P-51 but didn't say why?

I chose the P-51. The "D" model was the most versitile and best, IMO, all around fighter.

The P-47 was tough. Yeager hit a telephone pole with his on a strafing run and flew home. I doubt the P-51 or P-38 could have done that.

The P-38 was both fast and had twin-engine reliability. Great for over the Pacific where Richard Bong racked up his 40 kills.

Richard I. Bong - Biography of America's Top Ace in WW2, P-38 Pilot

The P-51D was not the most versatile. That still goes to the P-38. But it was best for late bomber escort.

Chuck Yeager once said, "If I am doing the shooting, I want to be in a P-51 but if I am getting shot at, I would rather be in a P-47".

 

[Bleipriester]

I looked into the issue and found out that the mentioned climb rate is that of the P-38L which entered service in June 1944. It had improved engines.

The mentioned 109 climb rate is that of the 109 G-6, which entered service in 1943. Both variants were each the most produced of the models.

"The Bf 109's outstanding rate of climb was superior to all Allied adversaries including the P-51D Mustang, Spitfire Mk. XIV and Hawker Tempest Mk. V. "
Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia

ME109G (Not BF) climb rate was 3,345 ft/min
P-38L climb rate was 4,750 ft/min and it was not as good as the P-38G and H.
P-51D was 3,200 ft/min, the H model was just below the P-38 for climb
P-47D was 3,180 ft/min
FW-190D was 3,300 ft/min

For some odd reason, when a ME-109 went vertical against the P-51D, the ME-109 developed a shaking before the P-51 and had to back out of the climb. Having a higher rate doesn't make it better. If the ME-109 was at low altitude, it could out climb many but as the altitude went up, it got worse. Only the P-38 could out climb a P-47 above 20K.

Using just the claimed numbers doesn't make an accurate picture. Quite a few Lutwaffe ME-109 pilots were lost trying this against all three of the Allied Long Ranged Fighters.

I have here a maximal climb rate of 3660 for the G variant. Sea Level climb rate is 3300. It is both 4113 for the 109 G-1. Maybe, what you claim to be a overrating is an underrating in reality.
P-38 Performance Tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html

You did it again. You used the YP-38 figures for all other P-38s. The YP-38 had a pair of 1000 hp engines that never went into production. Starting with the D (used for testing as well as the E) the engines were 1125 hp. The F was 1125 and went into production. What it shows it that you will cherry pick to arrive with a conclusion that you have already formed. This type of relationships gets pilots killed when they believe it as fact. The fact is, the P-38G/H had the highest climb rate of all birds short of the ME163. While the ME109G, you are almost 1000 feet short. You want to compare apples with apples, stick with the current production models from the same time period. Therefore, you have to use the P-38G,H and J if you want to use your ME-109G.

I would rather use a ME-109F for a time to climb. The G got rather fat and really didn't perform as well as the F model. Just like the P-38H had a better time rate and higher top speed than the J and L models. Your ME-109G petered out around 20K feet for climb in comparison with all 3 of the Allied long ranged fighters. The P-51D started to lose it at 25K but the P-38 G and H Didn't lose it until over 40K. The only place the ME-109G had the advantage was from above 15K to less than 20K. This meant that you had about 1 minute of an advantage before you started to get into a really hasty buffer. The P-51D wold fly right up against it's limits without buffering. Meaning that the ME-109 Pilot avoided going vertical. He used his dive which was a little better than the P-51D to get out of dodge.

How about stopping cherry picking facts and compare apples to apples.

You are wrong. I do no cherry picking. Consult the page again and you see that it includes several variants of the P-38. The figures are taken from the P38G-1.

The power of the 109s varies from 680 PS (emergency power, ca 5 mins) of the first variant to 2000 PS (emergency power, ca 30 mins?) in the latest variant, the 109 K-4.

From your own cite:

WAR DEPARTMENT
AIR CORPS, MATERIEL DIVISION
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
February 12, 1941

MEMORANDUM REPORT ON
Lockheed YP-38 Airplane, A.C No. 39-689


Subject: Flight Test

The test wa done early 1941 and involved the YP-38. and the P-38D that never went into production. The YP had the 1000 hp enginess The J had 1600 hp engines. If you are going to use the ME108G and above, I get to use at least the P-38J-LO-15 and the P-38J-LO-25. Here is the writeup for the J-15.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/P-38J_performance_11march44.pdf

Your G and K end up sucking hind tit to both of these at all altitudes for climb, turn and speed. At close range, they are about equal in firepower. But step it off to 500 yds or better and the 20mm was far superior to the 108 cannon 30 mm in the 109. At about 500 yards and beyond, the 109 fire has already crossed and it couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

The only saving grace is if you go into a hard dive. But you really can't tell the difference at a glance between a -15 or a -25. That dive works on the -15 but the -25 will follow you all the way down, shoot your tail off, beat you home and have dinner waiting for you.

I am not sure about your point. I compared the g with the g because the comparison was available. Of both the P38 is newer as I wrote.

 

[westwall]

Fun discussion.

i love the Jug- not because it was the best- but just because. Fun to see one next to a P-51- the P-47 dwarfs it.

I had a chance to watch a P38 race at the Reno Air Races years ago- and it was so much fun to watch- but it couldn't fly a tight course like that as well as the P-51's and Bearcats.

Thinking of the P-38, of course it did well in the Pacific- because of its range and firepower- and its role.
I don't think the P-38 was very good as a bomber escort. As I recall- as a bomber escort the P-51 was our best bomber escort.

The P-38 could fly just as tight a line as the other aircraft, the pilots chose not to to lessen the stress to the airframe. It was an original aircraft as opposed to the Mustangs which were all rebuilt with new skins and stringers etc.

 

[westwall]

I have found these interesting comparisons.

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
Fw-190 vs P-47 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
P-51 vs Me-262 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Remarkable is that the Bf/Me 109 gets the most piston "Lethality Points" and ranks only second to the Me 262. The P-51 that I considered to be the best American fighter, sucks with only 60 Points compared to the 109´s 115 points.

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

I have no clue what those "Lethality Points" are based on but I think it is the "Kill/Death ratio".

Compared to the P-51 the P-47 is somewhat ugly but I have to give it the point in the poll. Overall, it is difficult. The 109 is an outstanding aircraft produced in huge numbers but the Me 262 is a jet fighter.

Yeah, that's the problem with theory over reality. The reality is far different. As these "results" show.