Spitfire vs Me-109

[Domobran42]

So I was wondering about some specific differences between Spitfire, Me-109 and their evolution:

1. Why did Spitfire have elliptical wing while Me-109 had a cut-off wing? And what were specific advantages and disadvantages of their wings in terms of aerodynamic performance and otherwise (I remember reading that Spitfire's elliptical wing was particularly difficult to manufacture, but something must have justified it?)
2. How did their comparative performance in terms of acceleration, turn rate, climb rate, roll rate and overall maneuverability shift with altitude?
3. What altitude did the encounters typically take place at, and how did this shift as Me-109 was forced into close bomber escort during the Battle of Britain?

 

[PAT303]

Mitchell decided rightly that the semi elliptical wing gave the best all round performance in take off, climb, turn, speed and ability to carry guns, likewise Willy went his way with more traditional you could say wings because he went with cowl mounted/engine mounted guns, even that is not true because the centerline cannon wasn't mounted to the engine but the forward bulkhead. In the end even though they went in different directions there is probably no two fighters more closely matched than the Spit and 109. Both could go head to head with each other at any altitude and they did, up to and over 30,000ft, the close escort was in response to Goring mostly, he failed to read the battle, RAF fighters ignored Luftwaffe fighters and went for the bombers, their primary target and while there is no shortage of knockers who say the .303 was a pea shooter, compared to the 20mm but it had it's problems too, they were devastating the bomber crews so Goring insisted on close escort which took away any advantage the 109 had. In saying all that it must be remembered that Fighter commands integrated air defense was the best in the world in 1940.

 

[tomo pauk]

So I was wondering about some specific differences between Spitfire, Me-109 and their evolution:

1. Why did Spitfire have elliptical wing while Me-109 had a cut-off wing? And what were specific advantages and disadvantages of their wings in terms of aerodynamic performance and otherwise (I remember reading that Spitfire's elliptical wing was particularly difficult to manufacture, but something must have justified it?)
2. How did their comparative performance in terms of acceleration, turn rate, climb rate, roll rate and overall maneuverability shift with altitude?
3. What altitude did the encounters typically take place at, and how did this shift as Me-109 was forced into close bomber escort during the Battle of Britain?

1. Designer's choice, based on experience? Shenstone 'brought' the idea from Heinkel, Mitchell agreed - or, at least, that is my understanding of that, while Bf 109's wing planform seems a good deal to be related to the Bf 108 Taifun?
Spitfire's wing was difficult to manufacture because the ribs and formers, and probably some other structural members, were built-up pieces - all of that drove the manufacturing hours sky high; same story was with the Italian fighters.
Bf 109's ribs were stamped from a single piece of sheet metal - excellent for mass production.

2. Worthy of a good book? Variables are plentiful there.

3. All the way between SL and 30000-35000 ft.
Late in the BoB, Bf 109s were sometimes being intercepted (or at least RAF tried) at very high altitudes - each side was trying to gain altitude advantage over the other. Despite the close escort ordered, that will mean altitudes of ~6 km (~20000 ft).

 

[PAT303]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/74-stephen-30nov40.jpg

I love this report, engaged in combat at 34,000ft before finally breaking off at 4,000ft, the bottom paragraph shows he has max rev's max fuel max boost max pitch going straight down at over 450mph, what a ride.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/74-mungo-park-30nov40.jpg

This is another good report showing the extreme heights the BoB was fought at.