Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

[plan_D]

I thought the Spanairds only used the HA-112 Buchon ? They actually still used Bf-109Gs !? I know the Czechs and Israelis had the 109 , but the Israelis also had the Spitfire !

[loomaluftwaffe]

you can have both, world war II was gone by then

[plan_D]

Really? World War II was over by then !? I did not know - I thought World War II was still going on in 1949 !! My god, you're stupid .

Obviously you're not so much into aviation as to appreciate the oddness surrounding Spitfires and Bf-109s surrounding side by side ! Just like the people who didn't find anything strange about a MiG landing at RAF Finningley while my dad stood in shock ... why !? Because he was in the freakin' Cold War - and that'd have been unheard of only ten years before !

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I don't know how long the Bf-109 was serving for after the war, but the Spitfire was still in service with the RAF in 1954. Unless we count the HA-112 , the Spitfire served longer.

I was thinking that the 109 flew combat in Spain in the late 30's and can't recall the Spit OR 109 flying combat after the 1948 Israeli war of independence maybe in Malaysia but i have no knowledge of that

[the lancaster kicks ass]

spitfire, reasons later on

[The Demon of Razgriz]

Spitfire, hands down! :-p

[plan_D]

The Bf-109 came into combat in 1938 with the Kondor Legion. But the last operational sortie of a Spitfire was in 1954, on a PR mission in South-East Asia.

[loomaluftwaffe]

Originally Posted by The Demon of Razgriz

Spitfire, hands down! :-p

If that's so then this poll is useless! and besides, my vote goes with the 109 cause it's my favorite plane, it looks mean and i think nose armament would do better, and besides, it shot down hella lot of planes, JG52 (Erich Hartmann's wing) shot down more than 11,000 planes, and it was a crack unit (like JG301) in 1939

[Smokey]

Which Series of Craft Wins the Fight.... Bf-109 or the Spitfire???

Whoever had the advantage of surprise, ideally with a height advantage and with the sun behind them, would stand a good chance of winning

Didn't some versions of the Me109 have an excellent climb rate?

[Jabberwocky]

All versions of the 109 had an excellent climb rate.

Most particularly against the Spitfire the 109E4/7, 109F4 and 109G2 had advantages usually by 200-300 feet a second peak climb rate over the Spitfire I/II, Spitfire V and Spitfire F. IX. However, once over 20,000 feet the situations changed and the Spitfire climbed a little better. With the arrival of the Merlin 63 and Merlin 66 in the nose of the Spitfire and MW 50 in the 109, the situation was reversed. The Spitfire climbed better to about 25,000 feet and then the 109 was better above that with alcohol injection and about 15 mph faster to boot.

[loomaluftwaffe]

depends on the pilot and situational advantage, i think they're quite even

[Soren]

Jab, you wouldn't happen to be a fan of Mike Williams would you ?

The Bf-109K-4 out-climbed any Spit from 0 to eternity.

It took 2.3min for the Spitfire Mk.XIV to reach 10,000ft, 5.1min to reach 20,000ft and 8.35min to reach 30,000ft. By comparison it took the Bf-109K-4 3min to reach 16,400ft, and 6.7min to reach 32,800ft.

Back to the title of the topic;

The Bf-109 vs Spitfire question is a tough one, as throughout their different versions they were always very close competitors, with the balance of superiority shifting on nearly a monthly basis. The maneuverability of the these two fighters was roughly the same throughout the war, however early in the war the Spitfire had a distinct advantage in aerobatic agility, as the Me-109E's leading edge slats weren't very reliable and would malfunction quite often if not kept almost clinically clean, and this malfunctioning would cause the plane to "Snatch" in any wild maneuvers. The problems with the 109's slats were solved with the introduction of "F" series, which additionally had greatly improved aerodynamics, this greatly improved maneuverability and the 109 was now just as maneuverable as the Spitfire, however a with speed and climb advantage going to the 109, however this balance of superiority would shift many times throughout the rest of the war.(The Spitfire was always easier to maneuver at high speed though)

So with the average pilot I would choose the Spitfire no doubt, as it was simply an easier airplane to fly when your not a very experienced pilot or an expert. With an Expert behind the controls however, I would choose the Bf-109, as the 109 would then IMO transform into the deadliest fighter to hit the skies in WW2, and its service record certainly seems to back that up. The 109 proved to be 'the' single highest scoring fighter of all time, giving birth to an unrivaled number of aces from various nations, 3 of which are the highest scoring aces of all time. Out of the 20 top aces, of any conflict, 12 flew 109's exclusively.

However it wouldn't take a very experienced pilot to fly the Spitfire to its limits, something it usually took in the 109. And since average skilled pilots were by far the norm, I think in the end the Spitfire had the advantage, as there are always going to be far more average pilots than experts.

So my verdict is = A draw.(Tipping slightly towards the Spitfire's favor)


Regarding the post-war versions of the 109:

The Buchon is still a 109, and so is the Israeli "Avia S" series. The reason the Buchon and the S-199 etc etc models were build instead of the original DB engine models, was because there were nearly no DB engines to be had after the war, so the Spanish and Israeli airforce had to come up with something else. The Spanish went for the Roll's engine, while the Israeli's went for left over Junkers engines. Both these designs however were vastly inferior to the latest of the original 109 series, as both drag and weight had increased while power had decreased.

So the 109 actually stayed in service until 1967.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

So the 109 actually stayed in service until 1967

if you want to be padantic the spitfire's still in RAF service with the BBMF

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by The Demon of Razgriz

Spitfire, hands down! :-p

Wow great first post! Good job!

[Vassili Zaitzev]

The 109 and the spitfire had their ups and downs. The spitfire could turn better than the 109 below 15,000 feet because of its thicker wings, it also had a little longer range than the 109. The problem with the spitfire is that the engine has a cars carbourater. It you threw the spit in a dive you could stall the plane for a few precious seconds. The .303 machine guns weren't has hard hitting as the M2 .50 cals the americans used. The 109 had a direct fuel injection system so it could dive better than the spitfire. The 109 suffered from a lack of range and thin wings so It couldn't turn as well as the spit below 15,000 feet.