Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

[alejandro_]

The Spitfire could out-turn the 109 if caught from behind an go back on the offensive. The 109 could only dive away, not an offensive tactic.[\quote]

Apparently the dive advantage was not that much, only in the initial part and, according to some sources the distance between them was never higher than 1200 feet.

Actually, all a Spitfire pilot had to do when he had run the Merlin for more than 5 minutes at emergency overboost was to inform his squadron leader.
Over Malta a Spitfire Vc pilot ran his Merlin for 30 minutes at full emergency boost, with no engine problems.[\quote]

Very interesting, any more details? many pointed this limit as a disadvantage versus the Bf-109 but it doesn't seem to be the case.

Finaly as a gun platform the Me was vastly supirior to any Spit. The nose mounted guns of the -109 would be effective to twice or three times the range of the Spits wing mounted guns. [\quote]

Mounting the gun in the nose has several advantages but also disadvantages. The use of a gyroscope (called the "ace maker" was a major advantage to the Spitfire.
Regards.

 

[Soren]

The Spitfire could out-turn the 109 if caught from behind an go back on the offensive. The 109 could only dive away, not an offensive tactic.

Nope, not true, the Bf-109 turned just as well as the Spitfire, and even slightly better than the Spit at slow speeds. (Although the 109E wouldn't because of its unreliable slats)

In a very high speed fight however, where the 109 pilot and Spitfire pilot are both average in skill, then yes the Spitfire would then be easier handle in a T&B fight, but otherwise no.

 

[wmaxt]

Nope, not true, the Bf-109 turned just as well as the Spitfire, and even slightly better than the Spit at slow speeds. (Although the 109E wouldn't because of its unreliable slats)

In a very high speed fight however, where the 109 pilot and Spitfire pilot are both average in skill, then yes the Spitfire would then be easier handle in a T&B fight, but otherwise no.

I saw a documentary the other day with several Spitfire and Bf-109 pilots they report pretty much the same thing. In general the Spitfire would out maneuver the Bf-109 but a very skilled pilot in the Bf-109 could at least match the Spitfire and sometimes beat them.

wmaxt

 

[lesofprimus]

the Bf-109 could at least match the Spitfire and sometimes beat them.

Sometimes???

SOMETIMES?????

 

[wmaxt]

Sometimes???

SOMETIMES?????

The German pilots were the ones that said that. They said only the best German pilots could/would get the max out of the Bf-109. For average pilots in both aircraft the Spitfire was a little easier to get the performance out of. An excellent pilot in the Bf-109 had the advantage over an average pilot in a Spitfire. This was in relation to the BoB, I don't know if it was true in later versions of either aircraft.

wmaxt

 

[plan_D]

It's been repeated many times over, the Bf-109 was the plane of the experts. The Bf-109 could out-turn the Spitfire in some circumstances, but you needed an expert at the stick to do it. The Spitfire would generally out-turn the Bf-109 because all air forces are made up of average pilots with a few experienced pilots and even less a number of naturally talented pilots.

Funnily enough, the first encounter between the Spitfire and Bf-109 was on 13th May, 1940. Six Spitfires from No.66 Sqdn. were accompanied by Defiants of No. 264 Sqdn. flew their second operation over Europe in a patrol over Holland. They encountered a flight of Ju-87s and Bf-109s , in the combat five Defiants and one Spitfire were exchanged for four Ju-87s and a Bf-109.

Any more detailed information on this combat would be appreciated? German units involved? Amounts of German aircraft? As I figure there were six Defiants and six Spitfires.

 

[Hop]

According to Tony Woods claims lists, all the German claims were by 5 JG26. In total they seem to have been awarded 7 Spitfires and 1 Defiant in the Rotterdam area between 6:45 and 7:05.

Ltn. Eckardt Roch claimed 3 Spitfires
Ltn. Hans Krug claimed 2 Spitfires
Fw. Walter Meyer claimed 1 Spitfire
Uffz. Hans Wemhöner claimed 1 Spitfire
Fw. Erwin Stolz claimed 1 Defiant

Twelve Days in May gives few details, but describes German strength as "a staffel".

 

[Hunter368]

The German pilots were the ones that said that. They said only the best German pilots could/would get the max out of the Bf-109. For average pilots in both aircraft the Spitfire was a little easier to get the performance out of. An excellent pilot in the Bf-109 had the advantage over an average pilot in a Spitfire. This was in relation to the BoB, I don't know if it was true in later versions of either aircraft.

wmaxt

I have read 6 books on the BoB alone and I never have heard of that one before. The area that I know best is German day time pilots and never have I heard that said by them, especially consistently said by them (maybe one or two, but that is just personal choice). I have most likely 25-35 plus books on German pilots, never heard that more than one or twice. Like I said unless you seen it once and thought it was a general feeling by all pilots. If one or two German pilots actually did say that I think that is a very small demographic out of the number of German 109 pilots. There were plus and negatives to both planes, both were great planes, which is better? Its a personal choice, what mission are you doing, where are you fighting, etc. They are very very equal planes. It came down to pilot skill and who had the advantage at the time, thats the biggest deciding factor (at least between these two planes) in a victory.

If you have the source on that quote (or quotes) plz pass it along.

 

[plan_D]

According to Paul Eden, only one Spitfire was lost on that day along with five Defiants.

 

[Hop]

Twelve Days in May says the same, 1 Spitifre and 5 Defiants lost. Another case of "Spitfire snobbery" I suppose, where German pilots attribute their losses and victories to Spitfires, as that was the plane they respected most. In the BoB, they claimed about twice as many Spitfires as Hurricanes, despite the RAF actually losing twice as many Hurricanes as Spitfires.

 

[plan_D]

Well, the German pilots claimed eight planes (Seven Spitfires and One Defiant) , someone for a start was overclaiming in general because the RAF only lost six aircraft. And there couldn't have been seven Spitfires lost, 'cos only six were in the air !

Obviously someone was claiming Spitfires for Defiants, and then two people claimed extra prizes.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Both sides overclaimed and under verified kills, I think you will see if you actually take a look at both sides.

 

[plan_D]

I know, I just want to know about that one date. 'Cos it was the first meeting between the Spitfire and Bf-109.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ah I see.

 

[PipsPriller]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've read that the Bf 109E, due to it's superior supercharger in the DB 601A engine, gave it a decided performance advantage over the Spitfire Mk.1 (equipped with the standard Merlin III) - even with the Spitfire advantage of 100 octane fuel. At altitudes over 25,000ft. Is that correct?

On a slightly different subject someone mentioned in an earlier post that twice as many Hurricanes were shot down as opposed to Spitfire losses. Whilst this is true the more telling statistic is the loss ratio between the two. From early May to end of October 1940, Spitfires accounted for almost 40% of combined losses, while constituting only one third of the force.

Spitfires were shot down faster than Hurricanes!

And if anyone wants to know the source it's from "PRO AIR 22/262, 'Daily Returns of Casualties to RAF Aircraft', 25 June -29 September 1940".

 

[Jabberwocky]

That may of been because Spitfire squadrons spent, on average, 25% more time in combat deployment than Hurricane squadrons and Spitfires were the dominant fighter in No 11 group in the later sections of the battle.

The average front line deployment during the Battle period for a Hurricane squadron was around 15 days, the average frontline deployment for a Spitfire squadron was around 20 days.

Spitfires had a much lower pilot loss rate per sortie than Hurricanes. You were about 15% less likely to survive a sortie in a Hurricane than you were in a Spitfire.

The total loss figures from June to the beginning of November are:

Hurricane: 697
Spitfire: 441
Defiant: 28
Blenheim: 132

Total casualties: 1,298

Spitfire losses as a %: 34%

Spitfires losses as a % of S/E fighters: 38.75%

The average claims per squadron for Spitfires was 62 kills.
The average claims per squadron for Hurricanes was 44 kills. By that logic, Spitfire squadrons could be reckoned to be about 50% more efficient than a Hurricane squadron.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The main reasons that Hurris were shot down more is for the reason that Jabber just stated and the fact that there were more Hurris than Spitfires. The Spitfire was the obvious better aircraft but the Hurri was the unsung hero and I think most will agree with me.

 

[DJ_Dalton2]

This 109 vs Spitfire issue was settled both 60 some years ago and in earlier debate. The 109 was vastly superior to the Spitfire in all its incarnations. The only Spitfire that could compete in combat mode was the XIV, but by that time all the wonderful handling was long gone.

The simple fact is Spitfires fell to German Guns in both 109's and 190's throughout the war. Several German Experten had 30 plus Spitfire kills. All but the XIV could not compete vertically with the 109's. Spitfires were fine in round de round turn fights, but thats not how the 109's fought them. The 109's took them vertical and left their Rolls Royce motors gasping and left their planes stalling from the pull.

Its over. The 109 won. You could look it up.

Now, the air war was lost by the 109's for another reason. But it had nothing to do with the Spitfire.

 

[lesofprimus]

Ur gonna find more than a few members here that are gonna dispute ur little post, and besides, the last time u posted was over a year ago, and all ur posts were about how good the -109 was and how inferior the Spit was....

U do know that there were many German Aces flying -109's that died at the hands of Spitfire rookies who had no more than 4 hours of actual stick time, dont u???

U dont think ur slightly biased??? It's kinda obvious pal...

 

[Soren]

The Bf-109 and Spitfire were as equal in capability as possible, with one having a small advantage at slow speeds and the other having a small advantage at high speeds. The Bf-109 wasn't vastly superior to the Spitfire, it was its equal, and vice versa.

The only area where the Bf-109 can be said to be markedly superior to the Spitfire is in climb rate, the Bf-109 always had this advantage.... Other than that, they were the same..