Spitefire or Me109 which was better in a dogfight and why?

Question

During the 1940 Battle of Britain two predominate fighter aircraft battled for control of the skies. Both were superb aircraft having near equal performance but in your mind which was the better or were they equals. The British Spitfire or the German Me 109 and why?

Answer 1

They were almost equal in every way, so close that only the pilot would make the difference.

The 109 did have cannon, but it had extremely limited amount of shells. Both fighters were very vulnerable to even the 30 cal. shells.

Against each other there isnt much of a difference, but when you compare them in other missions the 109 has a slight advantage, but only because of its external cannon, otherwise the spitfire had almost identical performance.

Answer 2

The spitfire, it has a superior wing design and a better engine. That merlin engine was fitted to the p-51 mustang and made that aircraft an absolute terror to the germans.

Answer 3

The me109 was fuel injected so it could fly  in any attitude without loss of power, the Spitfire had carburettors so it was subject to power loss due to fuel movement if not handled correctly. It was also originally totally lacking in armour. Due to its' fuel system it would not respond rapidly to full throttle, many were damaged on landing by inexperience pilots trying to correct a low approach and opening the throttle too quickly, causing the engine to almost die. The same problem was obviously not good in battle. When you watch film of a Spitfire  diving from formation to attack, you see they always roll almost upside down, this was to create G force on the fuel in the carburettor, forcing it to stay in the bottom of the float chamber. It was considered a more manouverable aircraft, a comment when Goering asked his pilots what they needed to win the Battle of Britain was "We need Spitfires".  Since the pilots at the end of this battle were often doing between 7 and 10 hours training, then being given a plane to deliver into a field and go straight into action, it would appear the Spitfire was superior. I have heard many WW2 pilots say the Hurricane was the better gun platform but even most of these men preferred the spitfire.

Answer 4

Interesting question. Everybody talks about the Battle of Britain when they compare these two aircraft. But what about the Egyptian-Israeli war of 1948? The Egyptians flew later versions of the Spitfire and the Israelis flew the Avia S-199, which was a Czech built version of the Me-109. The Israelis did quite well with the 109.

It all boils down to the individual pilot flying the fighter.

Answer 5

Casio, there is no real clear winner between these two aircraft. The Germans lost the Battle of Britan because the ME109 did not have drop tanks. It never occurred to the Germans to make them and install them on their fighters in this period. They lost many aircraft due to ditching in the channel because of fuel exhaustion.

Regards,

Dan

Answer 6

The 109 had a higher ceiling, fuel-injection and much more importantly a heavier armament.  

This factor is nearly always ignored in popular histories of the "Battle of Britain".

The 109E had 2x 20mm cannon and 2x7.9mm MGs.  The cannon meant a longer range, and more damage per burst; explosive rounds.  Even more importantly in a turning fight, the 20mm guns had  a higher muzzle velocity and greater weight per projectile.  Which gives them a flatter trajectory.  This means I can kill my opponent in a snap shot, whereas the Spit and Hurricane had 8x7.7mm MGs, and required a closer shot and more rounds to impact.

The majority of 109 kills by Spits weren't in dogfights (NO fighter guy wants to get in a dogfight) as the myth would have one believe; the majority were downed when trying to disengage due to fuel issues.  (In the jet era, the vast majority of kills in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East were also due to this issue.)

The Spit was easier to fly by far, did turn better-but turning is strictly a defensive tactic.  Due to its carburettors though, any rapid-G maneuvering would eject fuel, so pilots had to make sure to roll to put the fuel into the cylinders-a limfac.  Had MUCH better visibility, a critical advantage.

Basically most "experts" rate them about equal.  The biggest advantage the Spit had was it could be modified with better guns, engines.  The 109 became obsolescent after 1943...

BTW the "drop tank" theory comes from "First and the Last" a autobiography of Gen Adolf Galland.  Actually the Germans had and used drop tanks in Spain.  However, they were problematic; anyway an extra 15-20 minutes wasn't going to overcome a flawed strategy. The countertactic to tanks?  Engage the fighters earlier to force them to drop them; the RAF would've caught on to this quickly, no doubt.  Finally if the missions were reversed, the Spitfire had the same range issue as the 109.

Answer 7

Spitfire vs 109 combats, 219 Bf 109's were lost vs 180 Spitfires.  Kill ration 6:5.  Sounds like the Spit is superior but as pointed out, the Me's were running out of fuel and needed to get back home.  Makes for good target;

in Hurricane vs 109 combats, 272 Bf 109's were lost vs 153 Hurricanes.  Kill ratio, 9:5, goes to the Hurricane.  While not being as pretty and agile as the Spit, it could take more damage.  (Source;  "Spitfire Special" by Ted Hooton)

That's a win for the Hurricane any way you look at it.

Spitfires were superior to the 109 but took longer to produce and to repair. Hurricanes were available in greater numbers, could be repaired faster, and were a better gun platform, important when a lot of the pilots were relatively green.

My answer to your question is the Hurricane.

This is a pretty good site for factual stuff about WW2 fighters. http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/...

And don't forget to go to the on-line Dogfight games on the History channel.  http://www.history.com/minisite.do?conte...

It's fun and free!

Answer 8

the spitfire of course. it was superior air design

Answer 9

Achtung, gotten Himmel, der Messerschmidt mit der Kombi engine beaten der Scwindhund Englanders mit der bluddy Morris motor en der Spitenfiren,.... I say, Chalkie's bought it... bleeding Hun .... the jolly blighter, back to base for G and T boys...

Answer 10

the BF109 with its fuel injected engine had an advantage in some flight regimes where the carbed engines would tend to sputter a bit. the BF109 also had superior firepower being equiped with cannons as well as heavy machine guns, where as the spitfire had the .303 machine guns.

the spitfire on the other hand had the more efficient wing design, and could turn tighter than the 109.

overall the two aircraft were rather evenly matched, and it came down to the pilot who could take advantage of his aircrafts strengths while exploiting the weaknesses of his opponent.

Answer 11

ME109. It had fuel injection so it didn't lose power in tight turns etc. The reason it was less effective in the Battle of Britain is because it was at the extreme limit of its range and was therefore limited in its time in British Air Space.

Answer 12

This is my take on the whole issue. Both of these planes had advantages and dis-advantages  the 109 had much more fire power, more experienced pilots, fuel injection, better armor etc.

The spite was more agile etc.

The bottom line is when the bombs are landing on your front door step it doesn't matter what you fly in you fight like h**l and that is the real difference. And thats why England still governs itself. Oh and I almost forgot, some of our pilots and of course supplies.