I don't care much about individual Me 109 models as far as the dash number or the maker goes. The Me 109E was a great fighter in its time. It was superseded by the Me 109F, touted by its own pilots as the best of the breed. The G was the most produced and the K models were the fastest and touted by the 109 supporters as "superior to everything else."
Regardless of claims to the contrary, the Me 109 was a slow to medium-speed dogfighter that could, in later versions, sprint a bit, but was not maneuverable when doing so. It was always a strong climber … rarely as strongly as the contemporary Spitfire, but strongly. The Me 109 rolled better than the Spitfire at some speeds and less well at others.
Basically, the Me 109 was probably better at 180 – 220 mph and the Spitfire was probably better at 280 – 350+ mph, with the speeds in between being more or less equal. That being the case, the pilot probably decided the outcome most of the time unless the encounter physics favored one or the other through height, speed, numbers or a combination of all three.
You may agree or disagree, I don't much care to argue because it is what I believe despite any rhetoric in here. I believe that because of the pilots I know and have spoken with, both German and Allied. I had a 30-minute conversation with Herr Rall once, and was impressed with his forthcoming personality. He was a great speaker and a good person to talk with. He agreed the Messerschmitt was better at slower speeds and the Spitfire was better at higher speeds. I respect his opinion and the thing that makes me think hard was his statement that people who test fly planes don't necessarily fight them. He believed the Messerschmitt was better at attack and the Spitfire was better at defense … that was because he was attacking and the Spitfires were defending. But, if pressed, he would choose the Messerschmitt mostly due to familiarity and training. He felt sure that if he were as familiar with the Spitfire as he was with the Messerschmitt, he would fight either one and expect the same result. The message was that the pilot made the difference, then as well as now ... not the plane. Of course, he didn't fight Spitfires, but he was very familiar with them, performance-wise.
I spoke with Saburo Sakai (early 1980's) , Bud Mahurin, and Ralph Parr (about Korea). Once I met Pappy Boyington (early 1980's) , but never got a chance to talk about fighter operations with him due to airshow activities. Later, they took him for a Mustang ride.
Saburo Sakai had great respect for his American opponents, and was very nice. He had praise for the Zero as well as the Wildcat and Hellcat. They took him for a Mustang ride and he was very thrilled about it. He said he never ever expected to get to fly in a Mustang, especially after 40 years after the war. That was about 1984 or so. Bud had respect for his opponents but was typically sure he was better than any opponent, as was his mount. He said if you were NOT sure you were better, then you were definitlely WORSE. He could be right, or he could have simply survived the war. The same could be said of the other WWII pilots I have met casually. The common theme seems to be to keep your eyes open and see the enemy first. If you did THAT, you could survive. If you didn't, you probably couldn't.
Let's face it, most Allied test pilots were not planning an attack in the Messerschmitt they were test flying, they were evaluating it. Most German test pilots were not planning an attack in the Spitfire or Mustang they were evaluating, they were test flying it. The point was to see what the enemy was flying and do some evaluation before the example they had became non-operational due to lack of spare parts or poor piloting technique.
The real speeds these things flew were 180 – 330 mph, with a typical cruise at 220 -240 mph. Some radial fighters cruised at 180 mph or so, but could sprint at 400+ mph when required.
In the jet era, the F-4 Phantom was widely known as a Mach 2.5 airplane. If you followed a specific flight profile and did EXACTLY what was required, you could actually get to Mach 2.5 in a clean airplane. If you didn't, it was a Mach 1.6 airplane. In a turning dogfight at 5+g, it was subsonic with a lot of extra thrust.
WWII fighters were 3 – 4 g airplanes that could sustain 8 g for a short duration, but bled speed badly when doing it. So, they didn't pull 8g for long, ever. Did they pull 12g? Yes, once in awhile when they encountered "compressability" and had "experiences" that were survivable. Anything over 4g was a momentary load. Yes, they could go fast, but mostly didn't due to wanting to get home on the engine that was currently running in the plane.
Would You want to drive your Chevelle 396 to a dragstrip 400+ miles away, drag race it, and then drive it home 400+ miles?
Could you do it? Yes. Would it possibly break? Yes, probably … sometime. If you had to do that 25 – 40 times, would you flog it hard every time and expect to get home alive? If you said, "Yes," you are not being realistic. Pilots treated their aircraft with a lot of respect and care because it got them there and back. If they were defeiding over home airfields, they could afford to flog the equipment and not worry about it. Otherwise, it was fight and get home.