Spitfire vs Me-109

Fuel in Bf109

The effect of German fighters having drop tanks or longer range on internal fuel on the outcome of the battle of Britain is quite often discussed.

In his book ‘The Most Dangerous Enemy – a history of the Battle of Britain’ Stephen Bungay makes an interesting argument, what do you think of it?

‘Suppose the Bf109 had the range of the Mustang. What would the Luftwaffe have done with it? Similar endurance would have enabled the Germans to send escorted bombers to John O’Groats. Why would they have wanted to do that? Given the goal of establishing local air superiority, there was no point in attacking any target north of London. A bit more endurance would have helped in raiding Hornchurch, North Weald and Debden, but unless the RAF could be caught on the ground, attacking airfields was not in itself going to win the battle. The key aircraft factories (at the time) were at Kingston-upon-Thames and Southampton, which were within range. The range of the fighter escorts was only critical if the plan was to conduct economic warfare as part of a long-term siege. It was not critical to gaining air-superiority over the invasion beaches.

Had they had an extra margin of 15 – 20 minutes, the 109 pilots would probably have been able to do a bit more damage and somewhat reduced their losses. They would certainly have been more relaxed. However, their cannon only had seven seconds worth of ammunition and although they had sixty seconds worth machine gun rounds, their two machine guns alone would have greatly reduced their effectiveness. So if their fuel had not been used up, their ammunition would have been. Any pilot who spent more than five minutes in a dogfight would have been exhausted anyway. When the Mustangs went to Berlin they spent most of their time in getting there and back, not dogfighting. When RAF Fighter Command took the offensive in 1941, the pilots carrying out sweeps over Northern France in order to draw up the Luftwaffe complained about many things, but not the range of the Spitfire. It was only when the target was further away that range became critical’

Note he is making a difference between the Luftwaffe goals (air-superiority over the invasion beaches) and the later Allied goals (economic warfare as part of a long-term siege).

 

Re: Fuel in Bf109

According to Cajus Bekker, the Germans did put auxiliary fuel tanks on their Me 110s (their designated escort type), but I'm not sure if they did on the 109s. I do know that the tanks on the 110 gave them a lot of trouble, as they had a tendency to not release when empty. They not only cut down the 110s performance, but also made a handy (and highly inflammable) target for RAf fighters.

 

What matters is that if the Spitfire and ME-109 had met each other on equal terms, then the result would be somewhat "fifty fifty" but the Spitfire might have a small extra margin pointing its direction though, wich is because of its much better designed canopy.

If the Spitfire is on the 109's tail, then the only thing the 109 can do, is to make a narrow turn in wich the Spitfire cant follow, nomatter what model the Spitfire is "MK-4 or MK-5" it wont matter because the only improvement on the MK5 from the MK4, is that the MK5 has a better rolerate..

If the ME-109 is on the Spitfire's tail then the only thing the Spitfire can do is to dive, and take advantage of its rolerate, so that it can confuse the 109 behind it.

I see it as kind of a "fifty fifty" between the two.

KBO

 

Actually that is completely innaccurate. Especially if we are talking Battle of Britain types.

If a Bf109 (Note Bf, not ME, the early aircraft designed by Messerschmitt where done before he took ownership of Bayerisch Flugzeug, hence Bf) were to attempt to out turn a Spitfire the latter would be able to use his superior roll rate to get into a high-G turn and follow the Bf109, at least long enough to be able to get in a burst of fire or two.

If a Spitfire pilot attempted to dive away from a tailing Bf109 then his Merlin engine would be starved of fuel due to the Negative G forces and cut out, allowing the Messerchmitt pilot to catch him and probably destroy him before he could escape.

Overall I agree with Len Deighton's assessment that the Bf109E probably could out-turn a Spitfire MkI, however that the German pilots, fighting at least 25 miles from friendly land where generally less willing to push their aircraft to the limits as any weakness or error would potentially land them in a POW camp, or being lynched by Kentish farmers.

Interestingly most counts also agree that the Hurricane had a slightly tighter turning circle than either of the other types.

The MkIV Spitfires were only made in tiny numbers, the main combat types in the early years were the MkI, MkII and MkV. The MkV was produced in special Low altitude versions (suffixed LF) with clipped wing tips to improve roll at low altitudes but was also available in standard wing, all MkVs however had an uprated Merlin, faster top speed and better climb, not to mention the more common option of the "B" wings of 2 cannon and 4 Mgs per plane.

At the time of the Battle of Britain, Bf109s were not fitted with drop tanks (Strange considering they did use them in Spain!), neither were Bf110s, although the latter did operate using non-jetisonable auxiliary tanks, for which the gunner had to be removed and which seriously degraded the type's manouvrability and speed.

As for the issue of armament. In terms of weight of projectile the two are roughly equal, whereas the Bf109 has a possible edge due to the explosive nature of the cannon shells (Although on the low velocity MG-FF these had a tendancy to explode on contact with the stressed metal skinning of the Spitfire making a mess but not causing structural damage), however after a short period of combat the edge passes to the Spitfire as the Bf109 has only 6 seconds of fire for its cannon, leaving the Messerschmitt with effectively only 2 x 7.92mm Mgs against the Spitfire's 8 x .303 Mgs.

I have posted a response to PMN1's post on another board which I'll either post a link to or cut and paste later.

Oh yes, the Bf109s used by the Israelis were not Bf109s at all but postwar Czech aircraft fitted with an altogether different engine, they were a very different aircraft in all respects to the German built originals.

 

Well actually its not completely inaccurate, because the later Spitfire's carried a modification to their engine, so it didnt starve of fuel when diving or making wild loops. And this modification wasnt brought up late in the war, but early.

And yes the rolerate can attribute to give the Spitfire on or two bursts after a narrow turning Bf109 before it gets away, but it would have to dive to use its rolerate to its advantage, or else it wouldnt help him in catching the Bf109 at all.

And there's "no" question about the Bf109 being able to outturn the Spitfire, because if it wasnt, then it would be running from the laws of physics and aero- dynamics. And its not only Len Deighton who claimes this, the most modern aero-dynamics computer's can actually figure that out just by using the specifications of both aircraft.

But yes i do agree that the luftwaffe boys werent happy about pushing their aircraft to the limit above enemy land, because as you explained the chance of ending up a POW was to great. But the RAF pilots werent affraid of pushing their aircraft to the limit at all, and they did it frequently.

KBO

 

Sorry but I disagree. The engine problem was still an issue with the MkVs which were still in service over the D-Day beaches, so it was definitely not solved that early on and was still a problem by the end of 1941, so was not solved that early on at all.

I assume here we are discussing arguably the definitive types, i.e the Spitfire MkI and Bf109E, in which case the above still definitely applies, in any case the later model Bf109s (Both the G and K) had their performance so badly degraded by a combination of over-powerful engine and Rutstatz conversion kits that their manouevrability was far below their earlier counterparts, although their speed was far above that.

In any case, turnign circle is a relatively minor part of an aircraft's capabilities (As the Japanese and Italians found to their costs!), and roll rate is extremely important when it comes to getting into a high-G turn since the first part of the manouevre is a 1/4 roll. Whoever has the edge there has the edge in the initial stages of the turn, which is crucial. It's no good being able to out-turn your opponent in the long run if you're shot down in the first couple of seconds!

As to having to dive to use this advantage, why?

An aircraft that can just put it's nose down and dive is at a serious advantage over one that has to 1/2 roll first, if I were trying to shake off a persuer I know what I'd rather be able to do.

History is against you on this one, Messerschmitt pilots in the Battle of Britain used this tactic to escape their Merlin engined persuers, Spitfire and Hurricane pilots were at a distinct disadvantage due to having to half roll first, this was not consdiered a plus...

 

Yes the Bf109's did make dives to aviod the Spitfires and hurricanes, but they also made extreem turns if the other didnt work, wich especially was done frequently in 1942-45 by Bf109's, because they couldnt shake off the Spitfire's by diving anymore at that stage.

Im not only talking BOB but the intire war.

And what i ment by having to dive to take advantage of your rolerate was That: you can reduce the turning-circle by doing so, because you just dive and then role towards the direction of the enemy plane, and thereby you can get him on your sights again.

KBO

 

I still believe that the Spitfire was the better plane, if only because it proved so versatile and adaptable during the war, and even after.

 

Well thats because the Spitfire was the better airplane in the end, wich was because of its upgrades, and because the BF109's upgrades just crippled itself...

KBO