Spitfire Mk. I versus Me 109 E
A Performance Comparison
Introduction:- This narrative makes no attempt at being a full and detailed history of the Spitfire I or Messerschmitt BF 109E, rather its intent is to examine in detail, with emphasis placed on the use of primary source archival material supported by personal accounts, the performance aspects of these aircraft that most books only briefly – and frequently incorrectly - mention.
The Spitfire first flew in March 1936. Entry into service was with No. 19 Squadron at Duxford in August 1938 while 18 more squadrons were equipped with Spitfires by the start of the Battle of Britain in July 1940. The first BF 109 prototype flew in September 1935, ironically powered by a Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine. The first production model, the BF 109B-1, was delivered in February 1937. The BF 109 E, the varient that saw action during the Battle of Britain, came into service early in 1939. Given the multiple aircraft combat environment in which they fought, the performance of the Spitfire Mk I and the Messershmitt Bf-109E was sufficiently close that the results of combat would fall to initial position, numbers, tactics and pilot experience.
Level Speed:- Early production Spitfire Is achieved top level speeds is excess of 360 mph. Trials by the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A. A.E.E.) at Boscombe Down show maximum level speeds of 363 mph for K9787, 367 mph for K9793, and 364 mph for L1007. These aircraft, however, do not represent the condition of those that began the fight over Dunkirk in May 1940. A number of improvements were necessary to make the Spitfire ready for war. The addition of a bullet proof windscreen was one of those improvements, however, it cost about 6 mph and resulted in top speeds during the Battle ranging from 355 to 360 mph. Raising the engine limitations to +12 lb/sq.in. on the Merlin II and III had little effect on top level speed at full throttle height and above, but did have a significant impact on low level speeds.
German data of the Me-109E shows top level speed, depending on source, of either 344 or 348 mph. French tests of a captured Me 109 returned a top speed of 355 mph at 16,400 ft. (Il en résulte une incertitude sur les résultats: from estimated position error).1 Russian data shows top speed of the Me 109E-3 was 342 mph. Some German documents suggest that mature Me 109Es having DB 601As with improved superchargers may have achieved 355 mph at 16,404 ft. All figures without armoured windscreen, excepting Russian where condition is unknown.
The Spitfire data is from A. A.E.E Ref: 4493/44 2 and Air Ministry S.B.13844. For comparison, Spitfire I R.6774 with DH CS prop achieved 288 mph at sea level and 355 mph at 17,800 using 6.25 lbs/sq.in. 3000 rpm. The Me 109 data is from the December 1939 Flight Handbook and flight tests of prototype Me 109 E from report Meßprotokoll vom 26.4.38 of Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, Augsburg. The Me 109 Flight Handbook specifies the engine limits as 1.3 ata, 2400 rpm (1,3 ata und 2400 U/min nicht überschreiten!). Note that Wk.Nr. 1774 was operating in excess of what became the established operating limits of the DB 601A. Trials of BF 109 E3 W.Nr. 1792 by Messerschmitt as reported in Meßprotokoll vom 16.2.39 resulted in a sea level speed of 290 mph at 1.3 ata. Comparitive speed trials carried out by the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough found:
The Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost.3
Climb:- The Spitfire climb performance charted below is shown at an early 1/2 hour rating and represents a Spitfire with a constant speed propeller. The introduction of the constant speed propellers increased climb rate by 730 ft/min. Deliveries of Spitfires with constant speed propellers commenced in December 1939, with No. 54 Squadron at Hornchurch the first to receive the improved version. 4
The Spitfire data is from A. A.E.E trials of N.3171, Me 109 data from the Flight Handbook - Dec. 1939. Neither data set includes pilot armour. Prior to the Battle of Britain the Spitfire I 1/2 hour climb limit was raised to 2850 rpm below 20,000, 3000 rpm above 20,000. Combat climb rating was +12 lbs./sq.in, 3000 rpm. Weight of the Spitfire I was 6,050 lbs, that of the Me 109 E1 5,672 lbs. and Me 109 E3 5,750 lbs. The DB 601A's supercharger was driven through a hydraulic coupling which is reflected in the 109 prototype level speed curve above and the engine curve below. (For more examples showing "proper" 109 curves see HERE). The BF 109 E Flugleistungskurven above must thus be seen as somewhat simplistic.
Engine Power:- Maximum power of the Merlin III was 1305 HP at 9,000 ft. (Emergency) and that of the DB 601 A, 1036 HP at 5,250 ft. (Kurzleistung). As the chart below demonstrates, the Merlin III was a more powerful engine at all altitudes compared to the DB.601 A, giving the Spitfire a clear advantage over the Me 109 E. The DB 601 A engine offered a number of advantages over the Merlin, however, such as fuel injection and better fuel consumption.
The Merlin III data is from Rolls-Royce.5 Trials were successfully carried out in October 1939 to increase the power of the Spitfire's Merlin II and III engines by raising the manifold pressure to +12 lbs./sq.in.6 Emergency use of +12 lbs./sq.in boost was officially adopted 20 March 1940 with the release of the Air Ministry's Air Publication A.P.1590B/J.2-W. 7 It was also in March 1940 that the Spitfire squadrons switched over to 100 octane fuel, without which +12 lb boost would not have been possible; therefore no Me-109 E ever met a Spitfire that did not have 100 octane fuel in its tanks. 8 Combat reports show that +12 lb boost was used by the Spitfire squadrons during their first combats with the Me 109 E in May 1940 while covering the Dunkirk evacuation. 9 Jeffrey Quill recalled:
It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb. 10
The Spitfire I Pilot's Notes lays out the use of +12 boost as follows:11
An August 1, 1940 memo from Air Chief Marshall Dowding to all Fighter Groups shows that the pilots often exceeded these limits. 12 13 The literature of the period is replete with accounts of pilots using +12 emergency power, Hurricane as well as Spitfire, expressed variously as; breaking the wire, pulling the plug, Buster!, pushing the throttle through the gate, pressing emergency overide, Emergency, Emergency power, etc. P/O Colin Gray, with No. 54 Squadron over Dunkirk, recalled the first time he used emergency power. Gray was engaged in a mêlée with Me 110s and 109s on 25 May 1940, when after destroying a Me 109 E and his Spitfire being hit by several cannon shells, he broke off combat:
By this time, as usual, there was not a soul in sight, and I decided the best course of action was to set off for home as speedily as possible. I pressed the emergency boost tit, which poured on the fuel, but was only for use in dire emergency as it could overstress the engine. I considered this was justifiable under the circumstances, since I was still inside France and could not see anyone coming to my assistance. 14
Gray also related a harrowing incident occuring on 31 August when Hornchurch was bombed, the order given "54 Squadron, take off, take off, for Christ's sake take off", followed by section leaders ordering the Pilots to: "...press their emergency boost tits (giving double take off power)". 15
F/LT Brian Lane, serving with No. 19 Squadron, wrote of his 26 May 1940 combat wherein emergency power allowed him to escape a very dangerous situation indeed, his aircraft suffering only light damage:
I was beginning to breathe again when rat-tat-tat behind me and a tracer appeared over the cockpit, the bullets churning up a patch of foam in the water a hundred yards ahead. It was then that I remembered the automatic boost cut-out, a device giving maximum power from the engine for use in emergency. I pushed the lever down and felt the surge of power from the Merlin in front of me as the aircraft accelerated. Twisting and turning, I managed to keep clear of the Hun bullets, very nearly hitting the water several times while doing so. One of the 109s had evidently climbed up to one side and now came diving in at me from the beam. I turned towards him and gave him the last of my ammunition at point-blank range. I think he went straight in, for as I drew away with my superior speed I could see only two Messerschmitts behind me. 16
Of particular interest is Lane's official combat report of this incident, in which +12 boost is specifically mentioned:
A dog fight now ensued and I fired burst at several E/A, mostly deflection shots. Three E/A attached themselves to my tail, 2 doing astern attacks whilst the third attacked from the beam.
I managed to turn towards this E/A and fired a good burst in a front quarter deflection attack.
The E/A then disappeared and was probably shot down. By this time I was down to sea level, and made for the English coast, taking violent evasive action.
I gradually drew away from E/A using 12 lb. boost which gave an air speed of 300 m.p.h. 17
F/Lt. John Webster, of No. 41 Squadron, high-tailed it home using 12 boost on 28 and 29 July 1940, recording in his combat reports:
I returned home at 0 feet 12 boost, and landed at Hornchurch. 18
On reaching sea level I used twelve boost and made for the coast. Seeing that my aircraft was damaged I brought it back to Hornchurch. 19
P/O George Bennions, of No 41 Squadron, engaged in a combat on 28 July 1940 demonstrating that emergency boost was used for offense as well:
...I ordered Yellow Section to carry out a Number One attack on this aircraft. Using the emergency boost I closed right in using full deflection and firing from 200 Yards to 100 Yards. The enemy turned over on its side and went almost vertically downwards, I followed using full boost and gave two more bursts of about 4 Seconds each from a position slightly left of astern, and after the second burst the whole of the enemy fuselage was enveloped in black smoke... 20
P/O Art Donahue's account of using +12 boost during his first combat of 5 August 1940, whilst flying Spitfires with No. 64 Squadron out of Kenley, is typical:
"There are bandits approaching from the north" In quick response to this information, our leader sang out a command: "All Tiger aircraft, full throttle! Full Throttle!" That meant to use the emergency throttle that gave extra power to our engines. I was flying in our leader's section, on his left. As he gave the command "Full throttle", his plane started to draw ahead, away from me. I pushed in my emergency throttle in response to the command, the first time I had ever used it, and my engine fairly screamed with new power. I felt my plane speeding up like a high spirited horse that has been spurred.21
F/Lt George Gribble of 54 Squadron flying from Hornchurch, recorded in his Combat Report for 15 August 1940:
I dived to the attack, using 12 boost and fired a long burst at one from astern. It seemed to "shudder" in mid air and then dived away steeply with black smoke coming from it. 22
F/O Hugh Dundas (later Group Captain), flying Spitfires with No. 616 out of Leconfield, in the northen part of 12 Group, wrote of scrambling to intercept Ju 88s from Denmark on 15 August 1940 :
I set a course and rammed the throttle 'through the gate' , to get the maximum power output, permissible for only a very limited time. Some of the others were ahead of me, some behind. We did not bother to wait for each other or try to form up into flights and sections. We raced individually across the coast and out to sea. About fifteen miles east of Bridlington I saw them, to the left front, and slightly below - the thin, pencil shapes of German twin engine bombers, flying in loose, straggling, scattered formation toward the coast. 23
F/Lt Robert F. Boyd, flying with No 602 out of Westhampnett, wrote an interesting statement in his combat report for 18 August 1940 regarding emergency boost :
I then dived for sea level 10 miles from Coast, saw five aircraft I thought were Hurricanes and climbed to them for protection. They proved to be Me 109's which chased me back to coast, one continuing chase after others had left me: on seeing this I went into a turn, got onto its tail closed to 70 yards and fired 2 second burst. I saw this A/C hit the sea in flames... My Spitfire easily outdistanced Me 109's at 10 lbs boost 2800 r.p.m. 24
P/O James Morton, with No 603 at Hornchurch, wrote in his diary for 28 August 1940:
We were now 3/4 way over the Channel, so I turned for home and dived to sea level. On the way down I noticed I was being followed so pressed the tit and kept very close to the water. The chap was 6-800' behind and I was slowly gaining. I kept on at sea level to the bottom of the cliffs near Hawkinge and came up and did a tight circuit of the old airship hanger, but the chap had gone. I felt rather relieved in the Channel as I thought most of my rounds were gone. Actually I had about 100 rounds left per gun. 'Tigger' (Morton's Spitfire) with the tit pressed and the dive from 4,000' was doing a steady 320 with a great long trail of smoke. I wonder if the Hun claimed anything. 25
P/O Ronald Berry of 603 Squadron shot down Oberleutnant Helmut Rau I/JG3 flying a Me 109 E-4 on 31 August, recording in his Combat Report:
As I had no oxygen, I had to leave the squadron at 22,000 feet and waited below in the sun for straggling enemy aircraft. After patrolling for 30 minutes, I saw a Me109 proceeding very fast. To overhaul him I had to press the emergency boost-indicated speed-345. I caught the enemy aircraft off Shoeburyness. I opened fire at close range and fired all my ammunition until the enemy aircraft streamed with smoke and pancaked on the mud at Shoeburyness. 26
Sgt Jack Stokoe of 603 Squadron claimed a 109 destroyed, probably that of Oberleutnat Bauer of III/JG53, recording on his Combat Report of 1 September 1940:
At about 16.30 we were patrolling Manston at 12,000' when control informed us Canterbury was being bombed. About five miles south of the town when at about 3,000' a Me 109, silver with black crosses, dived past my nose flattened out about 50 feet up and headed south. I executed a steep turn, pushed in boost override, and sat on his tail. At about 50 yards, I gave him one small burst with little effect, closed to 30 yards, and gave a slightly longer burst. Black smoke poured from him as I overshot him. The a/c crashed in a field, turned over two or three times and burst into flames in a clump of trees. 70 bullets were fired from each gun. 27
F/O Robert Oxspring (later Group Captain) of No. 66 Squadron, based at Kenley, wrote of a 6 September 1940 combat:
Still turning toward the bombers, I saw another 109 crossing ahead at my level. I throttled up to max power to reduce the distance and get my sights on. Just getting to firing range, I suddenly thought of Ken's 'watch your tail' warning. I looked back over my left shoulder and sure enough, another 109 was below my tail pulling bead and about to let go. There was no point in sticking around to see if he could shoot straight and my reactions were unbelievably fast. I parked everything in the left hand corner. Cranking on full left aileron and rudder, at the same time I shoved the throttle through the gate for emergency power.
Hauling back on the stick, I reefed into a blacked-out turn... I held the turn for a number of seconds which I judged had completed about 270 degrees... Then with the pressure relaxed my eyesight returned and I peered rearwards to seek my aggressor. He was nowhere in sight, but then nor was the rest of my flight.28
F/O Brian Macnamara of 603 Squadron recorded on his Combat Report of 27 September 1940:
I was Guard section leader when the squadron was proceeding north near Dungeness. I saw a 109 flying very low going south. I peeled off and chased it, firing continuously. I could see my incindiaries bursting on the machine and black smoke began to come from the engine and the enemy began to slow down and turn as if to land on the water. However two Me109's suddenly appeared 200 yards ahead of me out of the haze and shooting at me. I was forced to turn and run. The enemy chased me till I had crossed the English coast. I flew about 20 feet off the water, taking violent evasive action and the enemy's bursts missed mostly through insufficient deflection. In fine pitch, with full throttle and the red lever pressed, I appeared to be drawing away from the 109's as their fire slackened for the last mile of two and when I turned, they were further behind me than at the start of the action. 29
P/O Bob Doe described his usual routine after being scrambled, whilst flying Spitfires with No. 234 Squadron out of Middle Wallop, 10 Group:
Once we were in the vicinity of the enemy, I would 'pull the plug', which was the release so that we could get extra boost, but I wouldn't use it, and would start my search. 30
He had occasion to use emergency boost during a couple of low altitude tail chases of Me-109s, most notably whilst shooting down Hauptmann Rolf Pingell of I./JG26 on 18 August.
Geoffrey Wellum, flying with No. 92 Squadron out of Biggin Hill from early September to the end of the Battle, wrote of his routine when combat was imminent:
Things are starting to get rough. Automatically I have followed my self-imposed drill that I always do at times like this. Reflector sight on; gun button to fire; airscrew pitch to 2,650 revs; better response. Press the emergency boost override. Lower my seat a notch and strap tight. Ok men, I'm all set. Let battle commence. 31
P/O David Crook, with No. 609 Squadron at Middle Wallop, published an interesting account in his book of his most successful day of the Battle of Britain, 30 September 1940:
It was now obviously a matter of moments only before we were in the thick of it. I turned my trigger on to 'Fire', increased the engine revs. to 3000 r.p.m. by slipping the constant speed control fully forward, and 'pulled the plug', i.e. pushed the small handle on the throttle quadrant that cuts out the automatic boost control thus allowing one to use emergency power.
A few seconds later, about six Me. 109s flew across right in front of us. I don't think they saw us till too late as we were coming out of the sun. Michael was leading Blue Section and I was leading Green, and immediately we swung our sections round and turned on to the tails of the enemy. They saw us - too late - and tried to escape by diving.
We all went down after them in one glorious rush and I saw Michael, who was about a hundred yards ahead of me, open fire at the last Messerschmidt in the enemy line. A few seconds later, this machine more or less fell to pieces in mid-air - some very nice shooting on Michael's part. I distinctly remember him saying on the R.T., 'That's got you, you bastard,' though he never recollects it!
The victim that I had selected for myself was about 500 yards ahead of me, and still diving hard at very high speed. God, what a dive that was! I came down on full throttle from 27,000 feet to 1,000 feet in a matter of seconds, and the speed rose with incredible swiftness - 400 m.p.h., 500, 550, 600 m.p.h. I never reached this speed before and probably never shall again. I have a dim recollection of the sea coming up towards me at an incredible rate and also feeling an awful pain in my ears, though I was not really conscious of this in the heat of the moment. I pulled out of the dive as gently as I could, but the strain was terrific and there was a sort of black mist in front of my eyes, though I did not quite 'black out'.
The Messerschmidt was now just ahead of me. I came up behind him and gave him a terrific burst of fire at very close range. The effect of a Spitfire's eight guns has to be seen to be believed. Hundreds of bullets poured into him and he rocked violently, then turned over on his back, burst into flames and dived straight down into the sea a few miles off Swanage. The pilot made no attempt to get out and was obviously dead. I watched him hit the water in a great cloud of white foam, and then turned round to see what else was going on.
A few of our Spitfires were chasing Messerschmidts all over the place and obviously a very nice little massacre was in progress, as a few seconds later I saw another Hun go into the sea. I then saw another Me. 109 going back to France as hard as he could and I chased him, caught him fairly easily, and put a good burst into him. He swerved slightly, his cockpit covering broke off the machine and flew just past my head and he then dived steeply.
I waited to see him hit the water, but he was only shamming, as he flattened out again just above the sea, and continued full speed for home, though his machine was now smoking and obviously badly hit.
For the first time in this war, I felt a certain pity for this German pilot and reluctant to finish him off. From the moment I saw him, he had no chance of escape as my Spitfire was so much faster than his Messerschmidt, and the last few moments must have been absolute hell for him. I could almost feel his desperation as he made this last attempt to get away.
But if I let him go, he would come back to England another day and possibly shoot down some of our pilots. In the few seconds during which all this was happening, I did not consciously make these reflections; my blood was up anyway and I was very excited, but distinctly remember feeling rather reluctant.
However, I caught him up again and made no mistake this time. I fired all my remaining ammunition at very close range, and he crashed into the sea, going at a terrific speed, and disappeared immediately. I circled round the spot, but there was no trace of anything. 32
The DB 601A data charted above comes from the DB 601 A u. B Moteren-Handbuch of May 1942, which added the 1 minute take-off rating. This take-off rating was not mentioned in the Me 109 E Flugzeughandbuch; in fact the engine limits are stated as 1.3 ata, 2400 rpm.
Turning:- The RAE determined in Report No. B.A.1640 that "The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire." and that the cooresponding time to turn through 360 deg is 25 seconds for the Me 109 and 19 seconds for the Spitfire.33 (See also Me 109 and Spitfire. Comparison of Turning Circles and Spitfire and Me 109 Diagrams of Turning). 60 years later Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings. 34
Jeffrey Quill wrote of his combat experience whilst flying with No. 65 Squadron:
Nearly all our engagements with Me 109s took place at around 20,000 - 25,000 ft. The Spitfire had the edge over them in speed and climb, and particularly in turning circle. (...) One engagement with several Me 109s at about 25,000 ft over the Channel sticks in my memory. It all happened very suddenly; in fact we were mildly 'bounced' and soon I found myself behind two 109s in a steep left-hand turn. I was able to turn inside the second one and fired at him from close range. He went on pulling round as sharply as he could. I followed him without any difficulty and went on firing bursts at him. There were puffs of black smoke and then a trail of white vapour streamed from his aircraft. By this time I could no longer see the first 109 and then realized that he was on my tail. As I was by now just shuddering on the verge of a g-stall, I quickly turned inwards and dived. I pulled up again when I was sure I had shaken him off... I was pleased with that little episode – partly because I was damn sure that the first 109 was not going to get home and also because I was now convinced that the Spitfire Mk I could readily out-turn the 109, certainly in the 20,000 ft region and probably at all heights. 35
F/Lt Al Deere, with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, commented:
My experience over Dunkirk had taught me that when attacked the best counter was to go into a right turn. In this manoeuvre, the Spitfire was infinitely superior to the Messerschmitt, and so long as one remained in the turn, the enemy pilot could not bring his guns to bear. And this I did, as the German pilot flashed past, turning as he did so to get behind me. But it was I who finished astern of him. The rest was easy. 36
P/O Art Donahue, an American serving with No 64 Squadron, described his 8 August combat with a Me 109:
Then one got on my tail and gave me a burst just as I saw him, and I laid over into a vertical turn; and as he did likewise, following me, I hauled my Spitfire around as tight as I could. We were going fast and I had to lean foward and hold my breath to keep from blacking out, and I turned this way for several seconds. Then I eased my turn so that I could straighten up and look out my cockpit, and I spotted the other in front of me. I had turned around on his tail now. He apparently became aware of it at the same time, for he abandoned his turn and took to flight; but he was a little late now. 37
S/P Andrew McDowall, flying with No 602 Squadron, recorded his opinion in his combat report for 18-8-40:
In this dogfight I was able to get a long burst at one Me 109 and saw it crash into the sea... In my opinion Me 109's cannot hit Spitfires in tight right hand turn because they can't turn inside you in stern attack. 38
S/L Brian Lane, of No. 19 Squadron, got into a tight turning fight with an Me 109 on 15 September 1940:
That German pilot certainly knew how to a handle a 109 - I have never seen one thrown about as that one was, I felt certain that his wings would come off at any moment. However, they stayed on, and he continued to lead me a hell of a dance as I strove to get my sights on him again. Twice I managed to get in a short burst but I don't think I hit him, then he managed to get round towards my tail. Pulling hard round I started to gain on him, and began to come round towards his tail. He was obviously turning as tightly as his kite could and I could see that his slots were open, showing he was nearly stalled. His ailerons were obviously snatching too, as first one wing and then the other would dip violently. Giving the Spitfire best, he suddenly flung out of the turn and rolled right over on his back passing in front of me inverted. ...he flew on inverted for several seconds, giving me the chance to get in a good burst from the quarter. 39
F/S George Unwin, also of No. 19 Squadron, had a close call on 15 September remarking:
I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling - the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled too tightly. The Spitfire would give a shudder to signal it was close to the edge, so as soon as you felt the shake you eased off the stick pressure.
Geoffrey Wellum of No 92 Squadron found himself in quite a fix after expending all his ammunition shooting down an HE-111:
I've behaved like a beginner, bounced from behind. My own fault, shouldn't have relaxed after I'd finished with that bloody Heinkel. Elementary rule number one: never relax vigilance. I asked for it and got caught napping, well and truly bounced...
Looking back over my shoulder, an Me 109 is sitting on my tail not thirty yards away, or so it seems, and turning with me. I see the flash from his cannons and puffs of greyish smoke as he tries a quick burst. Not a bad one either as I hear more hits somewhere behind the fuselage.
The German pilot is trying to tighten his turn still more to keep up with me and I'm sure I see the 109 flick. You won't do it, mate, we're on the limit as it is. I can see his head quite clearly and even the dark shape of his oxygen mask. Yet again I imagine that the 109 gives a distinct flick, on the point of a high speed stall. He has to ease his turn a fraction. The Spitfire gains slowly. I exalt and yell at him. Sweat starts to get into my eyes...
The 109 finally comes out of his turn and pulls up, trying to gain height on me. As he climbs he goes into another steep turn, very steep, well over the vertical. I look up at him but he has made his effort and failed. I've gained too much and now I'm more behind him than he is behind me...
If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control. However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you. 40
P/O George Bennions, of No 41 Squadron, demonstrated that the Spitfire was especially effective against the Me 109 when the turn was combined with a steep climb:
As Mitor Red 2 in line astern of Red 1 while acting as rear guard to blue and green sections, I noticed 2 ME 109's above and to the right diving to attack Red 1. I warned Red 1 and we turned right to evade them. We then turned left behind them to engage them. Half way around the turn I noticed another ME 109 about 800 yards astern and to the left. I immediately went into a steep right hand climbing turn at full throttle. The ME 109 tried to follow but after about 2 turns he fell out of the turn completely stalled, and I turned down on his tail. He carried out a left hand climbing turn and he ded S.E. at full throttle. I immediately closed astern but slightly left and opened fire at approx 100 yards. After two very short bursts I observed coolant pouring from the radiator... 41
Leading Blue Section I was attacked by ME 109. After a steep right hand climbing turn the ME 109 with a Yellow nose fell out of the turn and I turned on to his tail. He rolled over and went vertically downwards and pulled out heading south east as soon as he straightened up. I gave him three short bursts. He burst into flames and after knocking off his roof bailed out. 42
Evidently Bennions was well schooled in tactics arising from the RAE's comparitive trials, where it was determined that:
Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent. 43
P/O Colin Gray (later Group Captain) of No. 54 Squadron reflected:
The problem of manoeuvrability was of prime importance in enabling one to turn inside the enemy, certainly in fighter versus fighter combats, and thus to get a shot in when on attack, or avoid being shot down when on the defensive - and here the British aircraft had a decided advantage in my experience. 44
F/O Hugh Dundas, with No. 616 during the Battle, wrote:
In one vital aspect the ME109 was at a disadvantage against the British airplanes. It could be out-turned both by the Spitfire and the Hurricane. This was a serious handicap to the Luftwaffe pilots allotted the duty of providing close escort for the bombers. Their freedom of action was curtailed. They could not pursue the tactic, best suited to their planes, of a high-speed attack followed by dive and zoom. They had to stick around and fight it out; and that involved the matching of turning circles. They never found a way round that problem and their difficulties were made all the greater when Goering, infuriated by the losses inflicted on his bombers, ordered the fighter squadrons to cling ever closer to the bombers they were escorting. 45
Roll Rate:- The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness." 46
Elevator:- The BF 109E flight handbook states: "Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß." 47 (The elevator forces and fin loads become very large during high speed). The RAE also found the 109's elevators to be heavy: "Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that manoeurvability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough "g" to black himself out if trimmed in the dive."48 It was found that the Spitfire pilots were able to evade Me 109's by "doing a flick roll and then quickly pulling out of the subsequent dive", and "if a Me.109 pilot can be tempted to do this at low altitude a crash is almost inevitable". 49 F/Sgt. Tew, of No 54 Squadron, put this tactic to good use, being credited with 1 Me. 109 destroyed without firing a shot:
During Patrol at approximately 1300 hours on 18/8/40 I was attacked by one Me 109 when I was at 2,000 feet. I turned towards enemy aircraft in a diving turn. Enemy aircraft half-rolled and followed me. I pulled out of dive at low altitude but enemy aircraft continued his dive and struck the ground bursting into flames. 50
The Spitfire on the other hand was known to have a sensitive elevator control, perhaps a bit too sensitive.
Aerobatics:- The RAE's view on the Me 109E's aerobatic capablity:
Aerobatics are not easy on this aeroplane. Loops must be started from 280 m.p.h. when the elevator is unduly heavy; there is a marked tendency for the slots to open near the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatching and loss of direction, and in consequence accurate looping is almost impossible.
At speeds below 250 m.p.h, when the ailerons are light and very effective, the aeroplane can be rolled very quickly, but there is a strong tendency for the nose to fall in the final stages of the roll, and the stick must be moved well back in order to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls are difficult; the elevator is so heavy at high speed that only a gentle pull-out from the preliminary dive is possible, and a considerable loss of speed is thus inevitable before the upward rolls can be started. 51
The Spitfire I's Pilot's Notes states:
This aeroplane is exceptionally good for aerobatics. Owing to its high performance and sensitive elevator control, care must be taken not to impose excessive loads either on the aeroplane or on the pilot and not to induce a high-speed stall. Many aerobatics may be done at much less than full throttle. Cruising r.p.m. should be used, because if reduced below this, detonation might occur if the throttle is opened up to climbing boost for any reason. 52
Leutnant Hans-Otto Lessing of II.JG/51 observed in a letter to home written 17 August 1940:
During the last few days the British have been getting weaker, though individuals continue to fight well. Often the Spitfires give beautiful displays of aerobatics. Recently I had to watch in admiration as one of them played a game with thirty Messerschmitts, without itself ever getting into danger; but such individuals are few. 53
Leutnant Max-Hellmuth Ostermann of 7./JG 54 wrote in his diary for 31 August 1940:
Utter exhaustion from the English operations has set in. Once more I lost contact with my squadron. The Spitfires showed themselves wonderfully manoeuvrable. Their aerobatics display - looping and rolling, opening fire in a climbing roll - filled us with amazement. I did no shooting but kept trying to get into position, meanwhile keeping a sharp watch on my tail. 54
S/Ldr. Leathart of No 54 Squadron put the Spit's capabilities, as well as his own, to use on 2/9/40 when he "played a game" with the Me 109s:
I was caught at a disadvantage about 4/5,000 feet below two squadrons of Me 109's. I decided that the best thing to do would be to act as a decoy. I harassed them and weaved among them and ended up getting them about 20 miles away from the aerodrome and North of Rochford.
Conclusions:- Major Werner Mölders, JG 51, compared the British fighters to his own prior to the Battle:
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.
The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Me 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full. 55
Fortunately for Spitfire pilots, the two-pitch propeller was not representative of the condition of their aircraft during the Battle of Britain. New production Spitfires were delivered with constant speed propellers beginning in December 1939 and those older Spitfires with two pitch propellers underwent a crash program in June 1940 to have constant speed units retrofitted. 56 57 Another modification to the Spitfires undertaken just prior to the Battle which proved to be of immense value to its pilots was the addition of armour plating behind the pilot's seat. 58 Without doubt the Daimler-Benz performed better than the Merlin under negative 'g', however, it was not without its own limitations: Motor und Triebwerksanlage des Flugzeuges sind nicht zur Durchführung von rückenflügen geeignet. Hingegen ist Motor und Triebwerksanlage geeignet für Kunstflug in jeder anderen Form, wo nur ganz kurzzeitige Rückenlagen in Verbindung mit anderen Flugfiguren verkommen. Had the Rechlin test used the 100 octane fuel available to the British and had the tested Spitfire incorporated the latest improvements, Mölders would have seen the British fighters to be much more formidable opponents than those faced during the Battle for France. Given that Mölders was injured when his 109 was shot up by a Spitfire on 28 July 1940, and his plea to Göring in August for "a series of ME-109s with more powerful engines", 59 its likely he held revised views of the Spitfire after the Battle of Britain.
Leutnant Erich Bodendiek, II/JG 53 engaged in a 18 September combat which demonstrated that the Me 109's propeller could be troublesome:
I was not flying my usual plane but, as I was the Technischer Offizier, I had to fly a plane with a new automatic propeller just to test it. That was my bad luck, having that bloody plane on that day for the first time because that 'automatic thing' turned that angle of the propeller so that an average speed was always maintained and not a kmh more! That meant trouble when starting and trouble at high altitude as the plane was nearly always unmanoeuvrable and swaggered through the air like a pregnant duck.
It was fine weather with clouds at an altitude of about 8,300m and out of this swung the RAF fighters when we were at 8,000m. They were obviously directed by radar but just missed us as they came out of clouds about a kilometre to the right of us. The Gruppen Kommandeur, Hpt von Maltzahn, did the best he could by climbing and trying to hide in the clouds. Everybody succeeded but me, thanks to my excellent propeller. My aircraft could not climb like the others had and therefore all the RAF fighters turned on me and I had no chance of escaping by diving as that wonderful propeller would ensure that I would travel at just 300 to 350kmh. Therefore I decided to fly straight ahead trying to gain altitude a metre at at time, perhaps reaching cloud without being shot down. I saw the Spitfires flying around me and shooting and my plane was hit several times... He then hit my my fuel tank which caught fire immediately. Within a second, my cabin was full of smoke and fire and I had to get out. 60
Oberleutnant Jochen Schypek, 5/JG 54, reiterated Mölders' view of the Spitfires' negative 'g' problems:
We were attacked when the bombers had reached the London Docks and I yelled an alarm "Indians at six o'clock!" ...With them, we had developed a standard and often successful procedure - our Daimler Benz engines were fuel injection ones whilst the Spitfires had carburettor engines. This meant once we put our noses down vertically and quick enough, our engines would continue to function without interruption whilst the Spitfires - and Hurricanes - attempting to stick to our tails would slow down long enough for us to put a safer distance between them and ourselves. The slowing down was the consequence of the float in the carburettor getting stuck due the the sudden change in position.
I had managed to break away at least a dozen times by means of this manoeuvre but lo and behold, it did not work this time! The 'Indian' was right on my tail in my steep dive and opened fire. I could see bullets hitting my wings and, from the white trails on both sides, I knew he had hit my radiator... My 'Indian' drew alongside and the aircraft appeared strange to me as I had never been so close to a live Spitfire before. I was rather relieved that he recognised I did not have any chance of getting home and that he did not insist he complete his kill... 61
Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26 wrote of the Me 109 E:
It was superior to the Hurricane and above 6,000 metres, faster than the Spitfire also. I believe that our armament was the better, it was located more centrally which made for more accurate shooting. On the other hand, the British fighters could turn tighter than we could. Also I felt that the Messerschmitt was not so strong as the British fighters and could not take so much punishment. 62
Oblt Hans Schmoller-Haldy of JG 54 commented:
My first impression was that it had a beautiful engine. It purred. The engine of the Messerschmitt 109 was very loud. Also the Spitfire was easier to fly, and to land than the Me 109. The 109 was unforgiving of any inattention. I felt familiar with the Spitfire from the start. That was my first and lasting impression. But with my experience with the 109, I personally would not have traded it for a Spitfire. It gave the impression, though I did not fly the Spitfire long enough to prove it, that the 109 was the faster especially in the dive. Also I think the pilot's view was better from the 109. In the Spitfire one flew further back, a bit more over the wing.
For fighter-versus-fighter combat, I thought the Spitfire was better armed than the Me 109. The cannon fitted to the 109 were not much use against enemy fighters, and the machine guns on top of the engine often suffered stoppages. The cannon were good if they hit; but their rate of fire was very low. The cannon had greater range than the machine guns. But we were always told that in a dogfight one could not hope to hit anything at ranges greater than 50 metres, it was necessary to close in to short range. 63
Günther Rall, who served with III./JG 52 during the Battle of Britain, reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of the adversaries at that time:
The elliptical wings of the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb. On the other hand they could stall during inverted maneuvers, cutting off the fuel because the force of gravity prevented the flow of fuel. But they were still a highly respected enemy. In contrast, our Bf 109s had shortcomings. I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear visability. Fighter pilots need a good all-round field of vision and we didn't have it. 64
Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable" and in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron". 65
The conclusions of the RAF, beginning with the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE):
Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change of directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.
Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.
The Me 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high speeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle. 66
The Aeroplane and Armament Establishment at Boscombe Down reached a similar conclusion:
In general flying qualities the aeroplane is inferior to both the Spitfire and the Hurricane at all speeds and in all conditions of flight. It is much inferior at speeds in excess of 250 m.p.h. and at 400 m.p.h. recovery from a dive is difficult because of the heaviness of the elevator. This heaviness of the elevator makes all manoeuvres in the looping plane above 250 m.p.h. difficult including steep climbing turns. No difference was experienced between climbing turns to the right and left. It does not possess the control which allows of good quality flying and this is particularly noticeable in acrobatics. 67
Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine, compared the Me 109E to the Spitfire I as follows:
My experience in fighting against the BF. 109 E in a Spitfire Mk. I was mostly around or above 20,000 feet and led me to the conclusion that the Spitfire was slightly superior both in speed and rate of climb, that is was a more 'slippery' or lower drag aeroplane, and that it was outstandingly better in turning circle. 68
In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in combat. 69
F/L Robert Stanford Tuck, who had an opportunity to fly a captured Me 109 E3 in May 1940, had a rather more positive view of the 109 stating: "without a doubt a most delightful little airplane - not as maneuverable as the Spit mind you, nor as nice to handle near the ground", giving high marks to the 109's higher rudder pedals and agreeing with Mölders that the the 109 had an advantage in that "our Merlin engines couldn't stand up to negative 'G' whereas the Messerschmitt's Daimler-Benz seemed quite unaffected". 70
P/O H.R. "Dizzy" Allen (later Wing Commander) of No. 66 Squadron, echoing Tuck, wrote of the matchup with an eye on tactical doctrine:
We were better at dogfighting than the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe, but only because both the Spitfire and Hurricane were more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitts 109 and 110. In fact, dog-fighting ability was not all that important during the war. Fighter attacks were hit-or-miss affairs on average. Either you dived with the sun behind you and caught him napping, or he did that to you. I occasionally had to mix it in dog-fights with German fighter pilots, and either I would shoot them down or they would shoot me down, or I would lose sight of them because thier camouflage was better than mine. The reason we were more manoeuvrable than them was because the Me-109 had a higher wing loading than our fighters. This gave us advantages, but they also had certain benefits. We had no idea that the Daimler-Benz engines in the 109s were fuelled by direct-injection methods. Our carburettors were a definate handicap. The Germans could push down the nose of their fighters, scream into a vertical dive, as if beginning a bunt, and accelerate like made away from us. When we tried that tactic, our carburettors would flood under negative gee, and our engines would stall momentarily - as they frequently did - which lost us all-important seconds during the engagments. 71
Alan Deere, who served with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, summed it up:
Undoubtedly, the 109 in the hands of a good pilot was a tough nut to crack. Initially, it was faster in the dive, but slower in the climb; the Spitfire could out-turn, but it was at a disadvantage in manoeuvres that entailed negative G forces. Overall there was little to choose between the two fighters. 72
Hugh Dundas thought the antagonists to be evenly matched:
There is no doubt, that Goering and his commanders overrated the effectiveness of their fighters in relation to our own. In fact the Messerschmitt 109 and the Spitfire were extraordinarily evenly matched. Their duel for supremacy lasted thoughout the war, as each plane was constantly improved and given increased power and performance. At times the Germans, by rushing out a new version before our own next improvement was ready, would get one jump ahead. At other times the advantage would be to the RAF. But on balance the Spitfire was, I believe, slightly the better aircraft. And so it was in 1940. In particular, such advantages as it enjoyed over the ME 109 at the time were enhanced by the circumstances of the battle. 73
The Spitfire I had reached maturity by the outset of the Battle of Britain and began to be replaced by the Spitfire II in August. This improved varient first entered service with No. 611 Squadron, 74 eventually equipping over a third of the Spitfire squadrons by the end of the Battle. Oberleutnant Ulrich Steinhilper of III/JG 52 flew a Me 109 E-1, armed with 4 MG 17 machine guns, until 15 September 1940, whereupon he received a cannon equipped Me 109 E-4. A month later he wrote home:
The British have, in part, a new engine in their Spitfires and our Me can hardly keep up with it. We have also made improvements and have also some new engines, but there is no more talk of absolute superiority. The other day (12 October) we tangled with these newer Spitfires and had three losses against one success. I got into deep trouble myself and my Rottenhund (Sigi Voss) was shot down. I ended up against two Spitfires with all weapons jammed. There was no alternative but to get the hell out of it. 75
Steinhilper and his wingman were shot down by the Spitfire Mk IIs of No. 74 Squadron on 27 October 1940. During the last phase of the Battle a third of the Me 109s were transformed into fighter-bombers, much to the consternation of the fighter pilots that had to fly it. 76 Improved versions of the BF 109 E, with the trouble plagued DB.601N, 77 began to show up in insignificant, penny packet numbers towards the end of the Battle, presaging the advent of the very capable BF 109 F. Thus the stage was set for continuous, performance enhancing improvements to the respective types right through to VE day - and beyond.
Miscellaneous Particulars
Fuel Consumption:-
Spitfire I Me 109 E
Capacity 85 gallons 88 gallons
All-out level 89 gal/hr at 17,000' 5 minute Kurzleistung 69 gal/hr at 14,763'
Climbing 81 gal/hr at 12,000' 30 minute erhöhte Dauerleistung 66 gal/hr at 16,404'
Cruising Rich 68 gal/hr at 14,500' Dauerleistung (Continuous) 59 gal/hr at 16,076'
Cruising Weak 49 gal/hr at 18,500'
Most economical cruising 25 gal/hr at 14,000' Sparsamer Dauerflug (Most economical) 55 gal/hr
Dive speed limitations:- from the Pilot's manuals: Spitfire I - 450 mph IAS., Me 109 E - 466 mph
Service ceiling:- Spitfire I - 34,700 ft.,78 Me 109E - 33,792 ft.79
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1vrs109e.html