[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Flammenwerfer

Hi!

I have some questions about this late german fighter.

First, I heard a lot of opinions that Bf 109K-4 was not good enough comparing with Fw 190D-9 or H-1, both well known as the best German propeller fighters at the end of WWII. Is that really true?

That`s debatable. I`ll leave the 152H out, it was a specialized figther and unbeatable in high altitutdes, but otherwise nothing special at normal altitudes.

D-9 vs. the K-4 is a very close match IMHO, and similiar like previous 109/190 comparision. Basically the 'Forke' was a bigger, heavier and well armed airframe, quite ideal choice but as manouveribility concerned, esp in turnfights the 109 was better. Roll would probably give advantage to the Dora, even with it`s rate of roll reduced over the Antons.

Climb rate was again in the Kurfurst`s favour as usual, even if the early low powered versions at low levels, and at alttiude it was definietely superior thanks to it`s high altitude engine. With 2000 HP introduced in 1945, it was among if not The fastest climbing fighter of the war.

Speed is reversed. At lower altitudes, Doras were around 10-20 kph faster, though the 2000HP 109s came very close.At around mid altitudes the situation reversed, and high up the 109K was definietely superior.

Then the pilot`s factor... the 190 was more modern, w more auxilary/comfort systems like electrically operated flaps etc, and had a better field of vision. I`d risk the 109 pilot was better protected from enemy fire. Control harmony was good, and lighter than the 109. Stall characteristics were quite vicious otoh, whereas the 109 was probably the most forgiving aircraft in the air (and the least forgiving on the ground), and better in turns and at altitude. Both aircraft were very simple to fly, controls being highly automated, the cocpits well laid-out.

Armament... the D-9 is more balanced with 2x20mm. The 109K otoh is a butcher with a meat clever. The MK 108 could do very ugly thing to enemy fighters, a single hit ripped them to pieces, but it was harder to hit with than the higher velocity Mauser cannons.

Range, unlike the urban myth says, was fairly equal in both machines.

Briefly, I`d say a toss-up. If I`d be flying 109s before, I`d not trade the 109K for anything. It`s a culmination of performance envelope 109 tactics were built on. It`s also definietely better for altitude work on the Western front. The 190 is more for low-medium alt work, it`s more rugged and versatile - the 109 was and remained a pure interceptor by it`s design. The Dora is very fast, armament is good, handling quite simple and the field of vision is excellent... it`s really a matter of choice.

Second, I'm interested with comparing the number of Bf 109K and Fw 190D9/Ta 152H1 at their service in Luftwaffe. I hope the number of victories of each aircraft and the number of serving planes will give me good view of true effectiveness these fighters.

Service numbers you can find on ww2.dk. A while ago, I collected the makeup for Dec44, but I can only recall the results. In Oct-Nov-Dec, there were a stable 200 K-4s around in service, the D-9s were somewhat rarer I think, around 150 or so, I don`t know how the Dora numbers changed after that. 109Ks become more widespread in 1945, the type was to replace all other 109s and every 4th 109 was a K-4 by the end of Jan45, whereas the D-9 was originally seen as an interim solution.

The Ta-152s were extremely rare, of course.

As for the victories, it`s even more diffiicult stuff. First because 1945 victory data is hard to come by, second because the units were generally made up of similiar, but mixed types, and hard to tell which type scored the victory..

Third, what was the production cost of one Bf 109K-4, Fw 190D-9 and Ta 152H-1. If it's possible to find, I want to know.

I guess near-impossilbe, though I`d tend to think the costs increase in that order, simply by the complexity and size..

Finally, what was true value of Bf 109K-4. Was it a scrap with powerful engine (I heard such as opinion) or was it a good fighter?

I`d say it was a very good fighter with capabilities similiar or even better than it`s opposition or rivals. The 109K was a big 'facelift' project for the 109, lots of long planned stuff was implemented, and I consider it the peak of the design and the design philosopy behind it : mount a very powerful engine in small and very sleek, light airframe, put highly destrive cannon on it (the Mk 108) and you can hardly make it bad... check, check, check! Thrust to weight is the basic function of nearly all manouveribilty areas, and the 109K had the best of all WW2 fighters, with as much as 2000 HP for only 3.3 tons...