Spitfire v Messerschmitt 109: 11 Things You Need To Know

How did the two iconic fighters of the Second World War—the British Supermarine Spitfire and the German Messerschmitt Bf 109—compare?

Was either plane demonstrably better? We examine the two based on 10 vital parameters, roughly limited to the period between 1939 and 1941 when these aircraft fought each other on almost equal terms. Strap in:

11: Performance

The Bf 109, in its initial versions, was generally regarded as marginally superior to contemporaneous variants of the Spitfire. At low to medium altitudes, where much of the air combat in the early war occurred, the Bf 109 had the upper hand. However, the Spitfire was superior at higher altitudes.

This was chiefly because the British Spitfire's Rolls-Royce Merlin V12 engine had a higher critical altitude (the altitude at which the supercharger is operating at full capacity and beyond which engine power rapidly decreases) than the Bf 109's Daimler-Benz DB 601 V12.

The Spitfire's advantages, a tighter turning circle and faster turn rate allowed it to outmanoeuvre the Bf 109 in the horizontal plane. A 1941 memo to Air Marshal Sholto Douglas noted, "When it comes to fighter vs. fighter and the struggle for…altitude, we must expect…to be at a disadvantage … with the improved Me-109 [the Bf 109F compared to the Spitfire V] we are now meeting."

But the Messerschmitt Bf 109, owing to its higher climb rate, could sustain climbing turns that the Spitfire was unable to keep up with. This gave German pilots more freedom to engage and disengage from dogfights with British fighters.

10: Advanced tech & the Spitfire’s deadly flaw

The Bf 109 employed several advanced technologies that gave it an edge. Its DB 601 engine was equipped with an automatic variable-speed supercharger, ensuring better power delivery from the engine. The Bf 109E-3's supercharger, for instance, gave it a 200 hp advantage over the Spitfire 1A at low altitude.

The engine also used fuel-injection technology, which allowed the aircraft to pitch forward into a dive; the Merlin's carburettor would stall the engine if this were attempted in a Spitfire. The Spitfire, therefore, had to roll over and dive, which cost precious seconds in combat.

10: Advanced tech & the Spitfire's deadly flaw

Yet another example would be automatic leading-edge slats that prevented the Bf 109 from going into a stall at low speeds or in high-G turns.

The Bf 109F-3 and F-4 models, introduced around mid-1941, improved on the E models with the help of the more powerful DB-601E engine.

9: Range

Combat ranges were comparable. Both designs were initially designed to defend airbases against enemy bombing, and that was reflected in their range figures on internal fuel—420 miles (680 km) for the Spitfire I A/B and about 410 miles (660 km) for the Bf 109E.

The Bf 109 was the first to be forced into an offensive role: first as a fighter that would provide top cover to an advancing German Army and later as an escort for Luftwaffe bombers attacking Britain. The lack of range proved to be a major constraint in the second instance.

It is well known by now that a Bf 109 taking off from Northern France had about 10 minutes of flying time over London, not nearly enough to battle it out with the RAF’s Spitfires and Hurricanes. What isn't so well known is that this was when the planes undertook independent fighter sweeps.

As bomber escorts, the need to fly at sub-optimal altitudes and speeds often increased fuel consumption to the point where the 109s were forced to return to France before the bombers had reached their objectives. Spitfires tasked with carrying out offensive fighter sweeps and raids over northern France in 1941 faced the same issue.

8: Armament issues

The initial RAF's requirements for two machine guns were soon revised. It came to believe that two machine guns were inadequate to shoot down modern metal-skinned fighters, and in 1935, the RAF specified that it wanted eight machine guns on all new fighters.

It was also asserted that this was an interim requirement. Follow-on designs would have to be armed with cannon. This was easy enough to accommodate in the Hurricane's thick wings. But the Type-300's thin, tapering wings had to be abandoned in favour of elliptical wings to house the increased armament.

The Spitfire's machine guns tended to freeze solid from the cold at high altitudes. Initially, Spitfires had adhesive tape covering the gunports to prevent the icing of gun barrels. Later, engine exhaust was ducted into the wing to heat the guns. This system proved complex and unreliable.

It wasn't until electric heating was introduced that the issue was entirely resolved. Integrating 20mm cannon was also a significant challenge. The belt that fed rounds to the weapon would frequently jam. The technical issues plaguing the Spitfire 1B proved so problematic that the type was withdrawn from service and replaced by the 1A.

7: 109 Cannon

Following feedback from pilots of the Condor Legion in the Spanish Civil War, Messerschmitt also modified the Bf 109 prototypes by mounting a 20mm cannon between the engine cylinder banks, firing through the propeller hub. However, the vibration from the cannon was so severe that it proved to be unworkable.

This problem was resolved much later in the war. In the meantime, several alternatives were trialled. The Bf 109B (pictured) utilised an engine-mounted machine gun in place of the cannon. This, too, proved to be problematic.

The Bf 109C featured a redesigned wing to accommodate two 7.92 mm machine guns, with ammunition boxes stored in the fuselage. The system performed well in tests but failed under the strain of air combat. The Bf 109D carried four guns – two in the nose and two under the wings.

Bf 109E-1s carried the same armament. The E-3 models, though, were equipped with a 20mm cannon under each wing, installed in two streamlined blisters along with a 60-round ammunition drum. Finally, the issues with the engine-mounted cannon were resolved in the F-4 model, which featured a 20mm cannon that proved to be highly accurate.

6: Cockpit

In terms of ease of operation, both designs had their advantages and shortcomings. The Spitfire's bubble canopy and large mirrors provided excellent views and enhanced situational awareness for the pilot. The Bf 109s angular canopy, with its thick frame, fell short.

On the other hand, the Bf 109's Revi gunsight was far ahead of the early Spitfire's ring-and-bead type sight. It eliminated parallax errors and made deflection shots more accurate. The aircraft's engine and propeller controls were also more automated, which reduced pilot workload.

On the flip side, the Bf 109's small size made the cockpit very cramped. Uncomfortable, it also restricted the force that pilots could apply to the controls, with an impact on flight performance. Post-war testing by the RAF revealed that under certain conditions, the force that pilots could exert on the Bf 109's control column was only 40% of what they could apply in the Spitfire.

In an era when hydraulically boosted controls were not available, this was a severe deficiency. The Spitfire's two-step rudder pedals also allowed the pilot to raise his feet high during high-G manoeuvring, delaying the onset of blackout. The Bf 109 had no such pedals.

5: Spitfire edges ahead, and the formidable F

For the most part, the Bf 109 and Spitfire were both well-matched, with their own unique strengths and shortcomings. In the early part of the war, it could be argued that the Bf 109 (E and F variants) held the upper hand over the Spitfire Mk 1A/B and Mk V.

But as the war wore on, the Spitfire's inherently more advanced design, as well as the infusion of US technology (100-octane fuel, Browning machine guns, TR.5043 VHF radios, and so on) gave it a clear advantage over the simpler and lighter Bf 109 that persisted right up to the end.

Franz Stigler was a Luftwaffe fighter ace during World War II, best known for a remarkable act of mercy. Instead of shooting down a severely damaged B-17 bomber on December 20, 1943, he escorted it back over enemy territory, allowing the crew to survive and return to safety,

Of the 109 variants, he noted, "I preferred the 109F because it flew well at any altitude, was as fast as most, had a superior rate of climb and could dive very well. Most of all, it instilled confidence in its pilot."

4: Bf 109 problems

The Bf 109 also suffered from handling challenges, both in the air and on the ground. The most critical issue was with its undercarriage. There were two major problems with the landing gear design that caused severe losses of Bf 109s on take-off and landing. One was the tendency to ground loop.

The Bf 109's canted undercarriage often caused the aircraft to spin suddenly during landing runs, and it could suffer severe damage if one wheel lost traction. On rough airstrips that were cobbled together in the later stages of the war, this problem was particularly acute.

Secondly, Willy Messerschmitt wanted his aircraft structures to be as light as possible. That structure lacked the strength to endure hard landings. As the Bf 109s received more powerful engines and armament, it got heavier, which led to increased wing loading and higher landing speeds.

That put additional strains on the landing gear. The result was that quite often, even experienced pilots ended up collapsing the undercarriage. In 1939 alone, the Bf 109 fleet suffered 255 landing accidents that resulted in damage to the airframe. The Spitfire, Hurricane, and Fw-190, with their "vertical" landing gear and heavier structures, fared much better.

3: Ability to upgrade

The changing nature of the air war over Europe drove a slew of upgrade programmes for both aircraft. But the Spitfire - with its larger airframe and stronger structure - was better able to support the installation of advanced engines, armour, and heavier armament.

The Spitfire IX (pictured), often seen as the ultimate evolution of the type, was able to outclass the Bf 109G as well as the newer Focke-Wulf Fw 190A in combat. Its superlative Merlin 61 engine (powered by 100-octane fuel of US origin) gave it a 110 hp advantage over the DB 605-powered Bf 109G at sea level.

However, it truly came into its own at high altitude: at 30,000 feet, its two-stage supercharger gave it a substantial 300 hp advantage over its German counterpart. Furthermore, its armament of two 20mm cannons and four .303-inch machine guns packed a formidable punch against not only aircraft but also ground targets.

The Bf 109's simplicity and lightweight proved to be its Achilles' heel. Accommodating a more powerful engine, increased armament, new radios, and armour plate within the Bf-109 G's tiny airframe was a major challenge.

2: Bf 109G versus Spitfire Mk IX

The 109's small cowling was inadequate for heat dissipation, which made the DB 605 engine prone to overheating and catching fire. Its firepower was only about half of what the Spitfire IX carried: two nose-mounted 7.92mm machine guns in the G-1 variant (upgraded to 13mm guns in the G-5) and one 20mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.

With the steady increase in weight, the handling qualities of the Bf-109 G (pictured) suffered. As the wing loading increased, so did the demands on brute muscle power to actuate the controls. Captain Eric Brown, a Royal Navy test pilot who evaluated a captured Bf-109G, commented that "in a dive at 400 mph, the controls felt as though they had seized!"

The addition of a water-methanol tank - whose contents were injected into the engine to provide a short burst of additional power - adversely affected the centre of gravity and made handling unpredictable in some portions of the flight envelope. The uparmed BF-109G-6, often equipped with 20mm or 30mm underwing cannon to attack Allied bombers, proved so sluggish in combat that its pilots nicknamed it the Kanonenboot (Gunboat).

The larger, structurally stronger Spitfire IX suffered no such problems. Indeed, the powerful Merlin 61 and four-bladed propeller allowed it to outrun, out-turn, and out-climb the Bf-109G. The 'quantum leap' in performance that the Spitfire IX achieved over the Bf-109G was never reversed.

1: Ease of manufacture

This is one area where the Bf 109 comes out the clear winner. The Spitfire's complex design, coupled with Supermarine's utter lack of experience with modern production line techniques, made Spitfire production problematic. Its elliptical wing proved to be difficult to fabricate. Delays in transferring knowledge and drawings to various subcontractors slowed down production.

The fine tolerances demanded by the design team—not something British industry was accustomed to—led to quality issues. The company faced significant schedule slippages in delivering the initial batch of 310 fighters, and the RAF considered cancelling the order outright at one point. The Bf 109's transition to production, on the other hand, was very smooth. The Ministry of Aviation was able to have it mass-manufactured without much difficulty.