Spitfire vs Messerschmitt

As of 1940. Let's hear the pro's and con's of aviation enthusiasts.
For motivation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Q4r188g6M&feature=related The theme from Battle of Britain

That is possibly one of the toughest questions that one can ask. A simple Google search will reveal a plethora of threads (many of which develop into very aggressive rows), websites and books on the subject.

Here are a couple of interesting ones:

Strictly for "Battle of Britain":
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

In general:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/bf-...tfire-3406.html


Both aircraft underwent a bewildering range of changes as each tried to edge ahead of the other, so it is hard to say who was better than the other. Once one got an advantage, the other was adapted to better that advantage and so on.

One thing is for sure, in the hands of a capable pilot, each was a feared opponent.

Radu

I saw a film on Discovery Channel about the comparing the Bf 109 to spitfire , last year.They have interviewed also german and british pilots wich flied those planes in ww2. One main difference was that the British used the carburettor on Spitfire and the Germans an injection pump for the fuel on Bf 109.
Anyway , the german and british veteran pilots agreed that it was difficult to jump out , when hit , from both planes.
That's all I can remember for the moment , sorry

Yes, the carburettor was an issue. The Rolls Royce Merlin used in the Spitfire used a car-type carburettor and when the plane was inverted or doing negative-G manoeuvers, the fuel supply was cut off. However, the pilots knew what to do to avoid it (basically, avoid "negative-G", no inverted rolls, no "bunts"). This shortcoming was partially sorted out in 1941 with the introduction of "Ms Shillings's orifice" and finally in 1943 with the introduction of the "Bendix Stromberg high pressure carburettor". An injection carburettor was introduced starting with Merlin 100. The Rolls Royce Griffon was never affected by this.
The Daimler Benz DB601 (and later DB605) engine used by the Bf.109 had fuel injection from the begininng and it never had that problem.
As for escaping from the aircraft, I had the opportunity to sit in both a Spitfire (well, a few actually ) and the Bf109 and they are very cramped indeed. Escaping from that kind of a confined space, especially if injured, must have been extremely difficult. Both had "quick release" canopies, but the the Spitfire also had an openable hatch on the port side that helped. Furthermore, the seat harness used by the Spitfire (Sutton A, then Sutton QK) was much easier to disengage than the standard Luftwaffe harness. I think that the Spitfire was easier to escape from.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on March 17, 2009 10:41 am

Of course that the skills of the pilot can make the difference , but in your opinion wich of the planes was better ?
Do we have to compare them in general , or do we have to compare them at precise dates of time to have more accuracy ?
Is it possible that from time to time , during the war , the planes switched position (from first to second ) ?

It is hard to compare them in general. Both types went through massive changes and improvements throughout their lives. It would be better to compare them at particular times, such as "Battle of Britain", etc.

Yes, the two aircraft were engaged in an arms race and each tried to better the other. If one got ahead in one aspect of performance, it stayed there for a short while until the other improved on that "advantage" and so on. They kept switching all the time. However, if we look at the respective "latest type" at the end of the war, at least on paper, the Spitfire 21 was better than the Bf.109-G10, but they never met in battle in as far as I know.

I am biased towards the 109. A large part of my library is dedicated to it and I spent a lot of time crawling over and under 109s in museums and workshops. It is my favourite, but that is based on looks and technical aspects only, nothing to do with its "performance" and "achievements".
On the other hand, I must say that I also love the late-war Spitfires, expecially the Mk.XIV, again for its looks only.

Radu

Thank you very much Radu

How about IAR80 vs FW190 ?

FW 190 wins, hands down. Not in the same class. The FW190 had a much more powerful engine and more powerful weapons.

The IAR 80 may be comparable with the Bf109 E in performance, but even that may be stretching it a bit because only the last series of the IAR80 matched the performance and "punch" of the 109E, but by that stage the E was obsolete.

Radu

Were those two airplanes so similar by look that -for example US pilots - can confuse them?

In the heat of the battle, yes.

Gen. Dénes

Thank you Sir !

Thank you also Radu for yours answers

1-0 for zee germans for having the fuel tank in the back of the pilot.

Iama

And because of this they didn`t have to immerse burned pilots in salt water in order to "repair" them.

I think that Spitfire was better for average pilots, while Messerschmitt was better for experienced ones. Me109 made the biggest air aces in history, ith 300+ kills. But it could be unforgiving for lesser pilots (see landing issue).