It's pretty rare to have a fighter that's objectively better than one of its counterparts in all aspects. It's more about identifying its strengths and weaknesses relative to each counterpart and then working out and widely adopting tactics that try to maximize your identified advantages and mitigate your known weaknesses vs that other aircraft.

I read a great book by an RAF Spitfire pilot. He flew at Dunkirk the Battle of Britain. He states how at the beginning of the war it was hard because of the experience of the German pilots then towards the end it was a lot easier because the Germans were only sending boys across to fight. He was killed in 1944 aged 26, it really puts a perspective on how young and brave all the airmen were from both sides.

I am old enough to have met a few Battle of Britain fighter pilots who were friends of my father. I think the biggest advantage the RAF had was fighting over home territory so they could engage for longer and have a better chance of fighting another day if they were shot down. Thanks for an interesting video.

A further point regarding the Spitfire's effect on the populace. My parents were teenagers during the war.. and not only did the Spitfire have this incredibly beautiful aesthetic but, its engine had an absolutely incredible sound unlike anything else.. a deep roar that exuded power, fortitude and a fighting spirit. This, married with its beauty proved not only an inspiring harmony but also a motivating and lifting of morale. My father was in the airforce too. Even to this day, the unmistakable sound of a Spitfire is remarkable, so one can only surmise its effect in its day.

I remember my father's friend, who had been a Mosquito pilot in the European war theatre, had extremely fast reflexs and spatial awareness when playing tennis. He was never shot down and very rarely lost a tennis game. So I would say it depends on the pilot providing he is flying a good machine.

Both the Spitfire and 109 were amazing and iconic machines.

An important consideration is that there was no single “Spitfire” but rather a very large variety of them. The performance of a Mk-IV was significantly different than that of a Mk-IX for example. So it is no surprise that there were a range of evaluation scores over the course of the war. The same can be said if the Me-109, it too evolved greatly from 1939 to 1944. This wasn’t mentioned in the video, but regardless I thoroughly enjoyed it!

My father was a bomber pilot in that awful conflict. He grew up in London. During a conversation he said prior to WW2 he went to an air show and was "dazzled" by the Hurricane and I think a Wellington. They were a quantum leap forward in design compared to previous RAF types.

It's interesting that 303 squadron equipped with 'inferior' Hurricanes was the highest scoring unit in the Battle of Britain because of it's highly skilled and ferocious Poles and Czechs.

In WWI and WWII, given a competitive fighter, it's pilot skill, doctrine, and other factors that will be important. Part of this is knowing the both your plane as well as the enemy's planes. The Spitfire and BF109 were competitive with each other.

An Englishman here, I love the superb content and the objectivity as well as respect shown. Kudos to you!

2:28 There was a fairly simple fix credited to Ms Beatrice Shilling who devised a restrictor plate to solve this problem. It was a brass thimble with a hole in the middle (later further simplified to a flat washer), which could be fitted into the engine's carburettor without taking the aircraft out of service. She was know as Tilly Shilling and her device was know as Miss Shilling's Orifice. There's a pub in Farnborough named after her.

There was an "ebb & flow" to the Spitfire vs BF 109 rivalry. The 109E had some clear advantages vs the Spit Mk.I in the Battle of Brittan but the limited range of the 109 and fighting over enemy territory was a major handicap. Then the Spit V had the advantage until the 109 F/G models were introduced with upgraded engines & aerodynamics. Once the Spit IX was introduced the upper hand was secured until the end of the war for the Spitfire in a dogfight scenario especially in higher altitude engagements. You also have to factor in the aircraft design priorities as the war progressed... once bombs started falling on the Reich it was far more important to the war effort to shoot down a bomber than a fighter.

In the early 2000's I knew Gunter Rall, I asked him one day about the Bf109E vs Hurricane Mk. 1. Without hesitation he answered " came down to the pilot " One of my Grandfather's flew Hurri I's in the B.o.B. That summer he spanked two 109E's!

So far, as I understand it, the Spitfire did undergo several updates (same with the 109). So, we cant talk about "THE" Spitfire or "THE" 109. Early in the war, it seems, German aircraft were superior. However, later in the war, the aircraft were equally matched or even outperforming German planes. The Griffon Spits were a different beast then the early ones with the Merlin engine.

the guest speakers were much appreciated for their alacrity and clarity

Thanks to Dr Wehner and Mr Holland for their expert perspectives - I hope that you'll show up on MAH again soon.

It is also interesting to know if the Spitfire from the first example was evaluated with 100 octane fuel and a constant or variable speed propeller. Gregs airplanes and automobiles channel mentioned the Germans evaluated a Spitfire captured in France before the BOB. It had a variable speed propeller and they used I believe 90 octane fuel. According to Greg they didn’t rate it very high. They were apparently unpleasantly surprised when they encountered the versions with constant speed propellers and 100 octane fuel later in 1940.

There is another important factor. It can be easy to get hung up on superior turn performance. While this may indeed provide a huge advantage in an isolated 1-on-1 encounter with no one else around, that is not what frequently happened. Quite often you'd find yourself in a furball with many other friendlies and hostiles, and getting bogged down in a slow turn fight would expose you to the risk of getting shot to pieces by someone you just didn't even see while you were fully focused on the plane you were turning with. I believe most pilots shot down never even saw the plane that got them.

I had a friend, now dead, who was a Pilot in 19 Sdr from just after the Battle of Britain until the end of the war. Although he liked the Spitfire he rated the Mustang as a better aircraft. But that is probably a matter of 'horses for courses', the Mustang of course not being available earlier. He did praise the Mustang for its ability to always get him home even with a few holes in it.

I have this recollection, that what really made the Hurricane actually more valuable than Spitfire in the overall battle, was it's faster, turnaround, I suppose. Something like, it took a landed Spitfire an hour to get rearmed and refueled, but only half of that for a Hurricane. The best plane is the one you have flying....

So much like Sherman vs Panzer IV vs T-34 or Gewehr 98 vs SMLE: You get close enough that other factors are overwhelmingly more important than the marginal advatanges inherent in them.

Thank you Christoph, Jens and James. Good video.

A key difference between Spitfire and Hurricane was that the latter did not have a self-sealing fuel tank. A large proportion of the RAF fighter pilots who were badly burned flew Hurricanes. I think that many of the experienced pilots in the Battle of Britain knew this - though they might not have emphasised it to less experienced pilots, who already had enough to worry about.

I always felt like Hollywood central casting was involved in the battle of Britain, the 109's look angular and the grey villain, and the spitfire curves and earthly colors represent the good guys.

I have to agree, one pilot's comments are an anecdote, multiple pilot's comments, taken together, make a more realistic assessment. I appreciated both of your guests. I have seen Jens multiple times on MHV and it is always a pleasure to hear his thoughts and revelations.

I’m certainly not an expert by any means but if this makes sense to anyone who has a greater understanding and knowledge of the subject - a Spitfire was an aircraft that pretty much every pilot was able to get the best performance possible from it, but the Messerschmitt 109 had to be piloted by an extremely skilled pilot in order to get the maximum results of that aircrafts capabilities. I hope this is a straightforward and understandable explanation.

Hi Chris. Great video. It was good to hear from your experts. One thing that has also to be taken into account when answering this question is that both the ME Bf109 and Spitfire evolved rapidly, even throughout the Battle of Britain. As they evolved, one marque out-performed its opponent until a newer version was released.

First of all, thank you for your serious and in-depth researches!!! Much needed, especially in these times. IMHO, i think that the overall quality of a system (detection, GCI direction, training plans and logistics to support all this), means that, provided you have on-par equipment, you can withstand any opponent's attacks. The climb-dive-turn-speed capabilities thing becomes secondary.

Would love to know what Spitfire pilots thought of flying a 109.

It’s fun to talk about these two planes. Both had their own strengths and weaknesses, and both were very, very good. I really like hearing both sides of the story, because it tells the whole story of the plane and the war. So, we’ll done bringing those perspectives to the presentation. Now, let’s hear about how the Luftwaffe thought of the P-51 Mustang.

The reason for Adolf Galland saying he wanted a squadron of spitfires was that Goering was forcing them to use tactics that a spitfire would be better at than a ME109. Goering was forcing them to fly close escort to the bombers despite the fact that this would allow the british to engage them in dogfights at will where the spitfires superior turning ability was an advantage. A less manuverable but faster plane like the ME109 should be free to come in high and use zoom and boom tactics. Adolf was trying to get across to Goering that he was forcing the Luftwaffe to use tactics that would give the RAF the advantage

Thanks to all the contributors to this vid. Are there any longer video's in the works with Mr. Holland & Dr. Wehner, Chris?

I knew, he's gone now, a guy who was a fighter pilot in 109s and 190s back in the 1970s and early 1980s. He loved the FW 190s, he was mostly a 109 pilot until he was sent to a FW 190 squadron.

That first German report was very soon outdated as all Spitfires were then fitted with a variable pitch propellor and started using 100 octane fuel that greatly improved its performance. The Luftwaffe pilots reading that report had a nasty surprise when they found a Spitfire could suddenly keep with them in a climb. Also the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain was very often at a disadvantage of height, being bounced time and again. One of the best accounts of possibly the first prolonged dogfight between a Sptifire and a Me109 on equal terms, is in Al Deeres book, Nine lives. It happened just before Dunkirk, the two pilots had a extended low level dogfight where Deere managed to fairly easily get on the 109s tail. The German pilot couldn't shake him off, but Deere couldn't quite get his guns to bear for a killing shot, it ended with both breaking off the fight unhurt. A good example of a tactical situation that initially gave neither pilot an advantage. With evenly matched pilots it showed how evenly matched the airplanes were as well.

So first, another video that blew away my expectations. Well done! I personally would break the question into two parts, those being how did the Spitfire's technical characteristics compare to those of the Bf-109, and how did pilot skill impact that performance. It was really gratifying to see both Dr. Wehner and Mr. Holland touch on the second point as a factor that is more difficult to quantify. It was also important that the discussion seemed to focus on the period of the Battle of Britain: Considering how many models of Spitfire were developed, comparing it with the Messerschmidt is something of a moving target. For myslf, I would say the Spitfire was more anesthetically pleasing, but the two aircraft were both very well designed. I would have to ask if other aircraft characteristics were markedly superior to either of these. For example, how did the P-51 compare to the Bf-109? How did the Focke Wulf 190 compare to the Spitfire. You can really go down a rabbit hole with this topic. A very interesting discussion, up there with your best. Thanks for sharing!

I remember watching a documentary years ago, that spoke specifically to Hurricane pilots from the Battle of Britain. They where most indignant that any shot down German pilots would swear it was done by a Spitfire, never a Hurricane!

I remember a British ace of the Battle of Britain got to test fly a Bf109 and his comment comparing it to the Spitfire was any competent pilot could fly a Spitfire well. But to get the best from the 109 you needed to be an expert on that plane.

The Spitfire and Hurricane won the battle of Britain in the minds of those brave young men from all over the world who fought the Luftwaffe [flying circus, to use a matching pejorative]. If they really had inferior equipment, all the more kudos to them; but they humiliated an enemy already drunk with early, easy conquests.

From other reading on comparisons of the Spitfire Mk1 & Bf109 E3/4 it is so interesting that 2 aircraft from 2 different countries fought each other and had such similar performance characteristics in 1940. The major obvious visual difference being the wing profile and corresponding wing loading but having identical, within a few percentage points, performance characteristics of climb rate, turn rate & top speed.

It might have been a one trick pony, but that one trick was defeating the Luftwaffe, so of course they're not going to like it

A very enlightening presentation on the German side of the classic "Spitfire vs Bf 109" comparison. The segments with Mr. Holland and Dr. Wehner show they know their stuff, making their contribution to the video very helpful.

fantastic intro! I wasn't even planning on watching this at present, for while i enjoy a good plane vs plane discussion, I just wasn't in the mood. Then I heard your hilarious reading of the German assessment of the Spitfire. Well done :)

As an observer, I appreciate the strengths of the 109. I imagine as a fighter pilot I would be very wary of being bounced by the German fighter as a burst from that cannon could be lethal before you even know the fighter is there. I am aware that experienced Spitfire pilots would have their guns set to shorter ranges to enable better concentration of fire. As you say though, pilot skill makes a big difference and experienced pilots lasted longer.

Perfect timing Chris! I'll be watching them mixing it next month at the Battle of Britain Airshow at Duxford. 😁

I like the comparison of the Hurricane/Spit as the latter just looking more sleek and modern. I think that may be why the Corsair is so much more popular than the Hellcat. The Corsair just looks better while the Hellcat appears sort of old and stumpy and looks not much different than the crusty Wildcat to the average onlooker.

The key point about pilot skills being the determining factor is shown by devastating success of 303 (Polish) Squadron when only equipped with Hurricanes. An often-forgotten factor is the poor performance of the Me109 in landing and take-off. Once the Luftwaffe advanced to the French coast and had to use grass airstrips, they lost 10% of their planes in ground accidents due to the 109s narrow wheelbase and poor rudder authority at low speeds. The situation grew worse when many of the experienced pilots had to be replaced with newbies. By the time the war started the 109 was already a mature design but the Spitfire was only just coming out of prototype phase. From the first to the last Spitfire mark, it's power and rate of climb doubled.

Thank you, really well researched and produced, and indeed thank you to the experts consulted. Really interesting!

Something thing to consider regarding the Germans perspective on the RAF, is that the US did not start supplying 100 octane aviation fuel to Britain until 1938. It took until just before the BoB that the testing, and associated modifications to the Merlin engine, were completed. This meant that the Hurricanes and Spitfires that the Germans met earlier over France had poorer overall performance than the ones they met over Britain. Another issue with the 109 was its armament. The two 20mm MGFF had a relatively poor muzzle velocity compared to its two 7.9mm machine guns. So bullet spread could lead to fewer rounds impacting on a maneuvering target (there’s a video of a Bf110 shooting at a Hurricane, where the 7.9 machine guns are hitting, but the 20mm shells track harmlessly below). The Spitfire and Hurricane with their eight .303 machine guns, while of a rifle caliber, could be tracked on target more consistently.

One thing about the Hurricane, it wasn't as advanced as the Spitfire or 109, BUT - it was still very capable & available in large numbers exactly when it was needed the most. One veteran pilot even preferred it to a Spitfire due to it being tougher, & most importantly, the nose tapered down, which gave better visibility, which was crucial in air combat.

Not forgetting the first generation Spitfire was fighting the 5th generation 109E. Not bad for starters.

One thing regarding agility and manouverability and the Spitfire, was the semi eleptical wing; where part of the wing would stall in advance to the rest of it. This enables a new or mediocre pilot to fly at the edge of the turn envelope with ease while Me 109 pilots needed more experience and ability if the were not to spin out. Even if it were the case at optimum speed and leading edge slats a Messerschmitt might be as agile, a Spitfire pilot had stick shake indicating when his aircraft was close to the edge of the flight envelope and so could maintain control with confidence (Hurricane pilots just chucked the aircraft around and relied on the sturdiness of the airframe, which neither the Spit or Me109 could).

Eric “Winkle” Brown did a great interview on this, he flew both Spitfire, 109 and the FW190 (and many many more aircraft types). He rated the Spitfire and the FW190, however did not rate the 109 at all. Great video as always and very informative, keep up the fantastic work 👍🏻

What I found notable was that when aces from both sides got to examine / fly their enemy's aircraft then & now, they always said they preferred their own .. even while acknowledging the strengths of the other aircraft. These included Bob, Tuck, Galland, Bader ... they all liked what they knew best :)

Thank you for this comprehensive analysis. I greatly appreciate what must be a considerable effort to create this and then include others knowledgeable in this as well.

The Spitfire was most definitely decisive for one very good reason. Up to that point in the war the Germans had not encountered an organised force with an aircraft equivalent or better to the 109. You need good ground control, good pilots and good aircraft. Its a team game, if you like.

To compare two aircraft we should be in the same time frame as you did. We should note that in the first report the propeller had a fixed pitch maybe the early wooden two blade Watts propeller. This was before the Battle of Britain for sure. Then the technical stuff like aircraft performance at different altitudes, firepower, tactics in use, etc. Due to the understanding of limitations, both the Spitfire and Bf-109 had new improved versions until the end and after the war. One of the main decisives factors in the Battle of Britan was that the downed pilots, could rejoined fight.

As an Englishman I may be biased but the spitfire was the most beautiful plane ever built , the shape and sound of that Merlin engine was like no other plane built . Was it better than the me109 , probably not as James Holland said of its known deficiencies but it was good enough to give us a chance to hold out. A good spitfire pilot though would always beat a bad me109 pilot . Britain has produced some truly iconic planes like the Lightning , Vulcan , Harrier and Concorde which are all a credit to us as a nation.

As someone who has ridden horses nearly my whole life, their is a term. "A good horse is never a bad colour". You take what you get and use it to it's strengths.

As always you have the ability to get to the point - the problem is of course that pilot skills matter a lot - and as the war progressed the number af Bf 109 versions grew, just as the spitfires versions - this makes it increasingly difficult to make comparisons just between aircrafts - many times the pilots would not be able to se the subtle differences of enemy airplane versions in a dog fight - after all, the speeds and the time they had to judge the enemy, was usually very short. German tank crews where very scared of the rocket armed Typhoons - yet post battle and post war analysis have shown that their kill ratio was quite lousy. A pilots assessment is colored by so much more than just the airplane. My father flew in 331 and 19 squadron (MK V and Mk IX - and P51s) He loved the spitfire Mk IX - it was his choice - if he had to be in a dog fight - But the war changed from 1942 when he flew the Mk V to 44 with the MK 9 and 45 with the P51 - in the beginning the odds were much more equal in numbers. At the end - the odds were heavily stacked against the Luftwaffe. The moral was if they outnumbered the enemy - they attacked, if not, they turned tail and ran - its bette to live and fight another day - the Germans, very often did not have that luxury ! Airplane/experience/numbers/restitution/tactics and situation - how do you separate these factors ??As you asked - I don't know !

The excellent and almost Transonic Supermarine Spitfire wing format was Beverley Shenstone's baby. Beverley Shenstone was a highly rated Canadian aircraft engineer who worked with Junkers Aviation inside the peacetime German aircraft industry just before the war. He specialised in developing advanced aerofoils and worked for Supermarine and Vickers to pass his advanced knowledge onto the wartime Vickers Aircraft technologists .

Really enjoyed the effort in making this clip 👏

It is sad that there are so few people who spoke to Vet's of the wars these days always glad to hear from experts who have. I was lucky to talk to vet's of both world wars as a kid, asked them questions when they allowed. it was a pleasure, and a memory that i will always cherish.

For the last 20 or so years I have come to realise that pilot skill is the decisive factor when aircraft are relatively similar. And of course the situation the opposing pilots are in when they are shooting at each other. Very closely matched aircraft the 109 and Spitfire.

I remeber reading that with regard to turn rate, yes, the 109E was perfectly capable of turning with the Spitfire 1 and II, but that whereas the Spitfires manouverability came from its physical shape, the 109's was partly due to mechanisms, ie: the leading edge slats. When the slats operated they caused a banging noise that tended to worry inexperienced pilots, so they didnt push as hard in turns as their more experienced colleagues. It sounds a credible explanation to me, anyway! :-}

Really enjoyed this thoughtful presentation and the interesting comments from both guests - thank you!

Brilliant channel and episode. Huge respect to both sides.

I’m British so I will always be biased towards the Spitfire. It was a thing of beauty and deadly in the hands of a skilled pilot. Overall, the Spitfire and 109 were very comparable with minor strengths and weaknesses. They both lasted the duration of the war and were heavily updated to out preformed each other.

Another aspect of the aircraft is the unobstructed (or otherwise) view it provides the pilot. It would be interesting to hear the experts' opinions on the importance of this, and which aircraft it favours - those I have heard before felt the British aircraft were better in this respect. Good video!

wie fking cool, dass du James Holland am Hörer hattest. Props Chis!

Great video and most interesting, telling me stuff I didn't know before. Thansk!

I can remember an analogy about the Spitfire vs The Mustang and the 109. If you are fighting in the Neighbors back yard you want to be in the Mustang, It will get you there fight and get you home, If however you are fighting in your backyard you want to be in a Spitfire, and Vs the 109 He who sees the Enemy first normally has the advantage and the Spitfires had way better visibility, compared to the cramped confines of the 109, sure the higher rudder pedals on the 109 let's you pull more G but it restricted the joysticks movement, a trade off, of course I would say if We are talking FW-190, all bets are off as at the time of its introduction it was a far superior aircraft, At the beginning when Spitfires came into contact with the 109, German Tactics were far better than the British, We still flew in close formation , The Germans in contrast had polished their tactics and skills in places like Spain. I appreciate the Experts analysis, What was the best fighter out of the Two, I can't say, But it does come down to the Guy in the cockpit at the Time having the faith and Trust in His aircraft to get the job done and get Him home safe, and Both sides pilots had that I think in equal measures of their respective Aircraft

A kind word for both suplementary experts now follows: Both were interesting & informative German audio technology seems superior to British 🤔 Another great video, thanks Chris

Your 'quick disclaimer' timing gave me the best laugh I have had in days. Thank you!

Just came across this and really don’t know much but I do seam to recall that one of the things of note was when an enemy pilot sat in a spitfire and realised just how much better the cockpit was in terms of visibility and easy of use.

I met a few old Luftwaffe pilots when I was stationed in Bavaria. They seemed very happy to have flown the FW190 instead. And two had flown the Me262, being ecstatic in their praise! (it helps to speak Deutsch at times!)

I think it's fair to say that both planes were extremely well made and will remain iconic till the end of time.

Great video! 👍 Thank you. I find it fascinating to read direct comparison reports between aircraft: Spitfire versus Bf109 or FW190, for example. Roll rate, turn rate, climb performance, speed, etc. should all be viewed in context. Paul 😎

I'm very surprised nobody mentioned the tactics of the battle. Even to go back to Galland's auto biography, the 109s were handicapped when they were forced to close escort the bombers rather than free roam over the battle of britain. After the battle, when the RAF tried to raid france (before the arrival of the 8th Air Force) the reverse of the BoB happened and Spitfires flying escort or raids back across the channel were regulary shot down by 109s.

The 'Spitfire' was a military-fighter-aircraft of undeniable beauty - and also British-engineering, which captured the hearts of Britain and its allied-forces during their hour of need. The Spitfire is also tinged with sadness, for although the fighter has a definite romance about it, we will never forget the brave-pilots who lost their lives or were cruelly-disfigured during the battle of Britain. Lest We Forget.💐

There is a line that I think came from James Holland's Battle of Britain book that stuck for me. "An experienced 109 pilot can get much more out of their aircraft than a novice pilot, using fine tuning controls over the engine. But in the Spitfire, the novice pilot could get just as much out of the aircraft as the experienced pilot."

However as this clip amply explains pilot perceptions could often be a deciding factor. One example that comes to mind is a story my partners Grandad told me about a brief encounter with a Me 262 over Germany. Cliff was escorting a bombing raid in his P51D Mustang when he spotted the 262 coming straight towards him at a higher altitude and an even higher velocity. His overwhelming thought in the moment was simply keep going mate, keep going… And of course certain pilot perceptions of enemy aircraft characteristics come into play in situations such as this. They were often accurate. Despite the 262 having many undeniable deficiencies, high speed and devastating firepower were not among them.

Great video. Thoughtful and very well presented!

Is it even possible to judge ? I mean considering the huge amount of development stages would require a date stamp which versions were discussed cause both improved a lot but in different ways and I can remember some claims of german BF109 pilots (I guess in africa) that suddelny the Spitfire was outperforming their BF109 significantly. And that also changed over time from one side to the other side - again recogniced by the pilots. Of cause pilots impression but I guess that you know the difference if you feel your plane falling behind cause it will scare you. You would need a 1940 comparison based on mark and Ausführung to get that once right. Regarding sources I would assume that after 1955 and the new foundation of the Luftwaffe the german industry could have asked the fighter aces about their war experiences. Of cause 10 years after the war and with the meanwhile happened introduction of jets and rockets it might not make much sense from our 2023 point of view, but if you are Messerschmidt Management and the government might ask for a next fighter you would prepare the best for that case , but obviously you could not got to the british or american manufacturers and ask what is needed for a nowadays fighter. Therefore I would bet they might have asked and gathered all data from the pilots in the last 2 years 1944 and 1945 regarding performance and what a manufacturer had to look for. There should be some manufacturers reviews in the archives of these companies cause they were benefitting the most from these impressions and reports. Why should they have not tried to get all the Waffenamt reports into their hand and even more to judge better about future developements and priorities. These companies were still independent regarding research, each one keen to get more contracts than before and always competing against each other. So I would try to get in contact with the german manufacturer especially since the german companies nowadays have bigger historian departments focussing on WW developements and slave labor. There might be some treasures to find. But of cause tough work and it always depends how well they are prepared and what focus they have had in the past. Some tend to ignore the progrees achieved by the company during the war and might not have a clue while other can show you documents of early considerations. An awfull lot of work, but I guess the Messerschmidt archive has a strong connection to their history, even though now part of airbus and much harder to find.

A while ago there was a BBC documentary about this, and they decided it was about equal performance. However, the Spitfires ergonomics, visibility and pilot protection were superior.

I'm speaking from my own personal experience, growing up in the South East of England with grand parents (now deceased) who were present at the time with both my grandfathers in the RAF in WW2 (though non flying). The Spitfire is such a symbol of resistance and victory for us against overwhelming odds, which is now almost bread through the generations in our DNA in Britain. It's very hard to be truly objective when a machine is so beloved by a group of people.

Certainly getting comments from a lot of fighter pilots with a mixture of new pilots, veteran pilots, and aces is going to give the best picture. Your comment about slow speed turning with gear down and front slats extended (front slats automatically come forward at slow speeds) to out turn a spitfire is particularly telling because it speaks of great skill of the pilot, which most pilots couldn't manage. You are turning at speeds very close to stall speed then and it's really easy just to slip into the ground while trying to do that. Skill and tactical experience, flying to your plane's strengths and avoiding as much as possible conditions that speak to its weaknesses will always be a major consideration. Doesn't help much if one outperforms the other if most of the pilots who fly it can't successfully get to that performance. One other thing that was not taken into account were all the various models of 109's and spitfires. All the spitfire video was either Mk-I, Mk-II, or Mk-Vb as you can see by the single radiator hanging under the right wing. The Mk-Vb was the last one to use that. The Mk-IX and later versions all had two radiators, one under each wing. The Mk-Vb had a bigger engine shoe-horned into it with more power and much better armament. Instead of four 303's in each wing, it had two 303's and a Hispano 20mm canon. with those small .30 caliber machine guns, you really had to be right on your target to chew him up with those 303's. When the two 20MM cannons were added to four 303's it was a much more effective armament taking far fewer shots to be effective and from a longer distance. Cannons were not longer distance but 2 or 3 hits with them could put a plane down. Some versions, most notably the Mk-XVI used two .50 cal machine guns with two 20mm cannon and one version of it used clipped wings specifically to improve the roll rate at lower altitudes. The Mk-IX ended up being the workhorse of the war after the Battle of Britain. One of your experts, James Holland, did remark on the BF-109E though about it's better climb, cornering, and armament. But there were lots of changes throughout the 109 too. So that all confuses comparisons. It's probably good that you restricted the Spitfire to the Battle of Britain where it had some shortcomings that were fixed after the Battle of Britain. Everything changed so quickly throughout the war as constant improvements were made to both platforms.

Until the Spit got cannons to complement the machine guns it really was at a damage-caused disadvantage to the 109. It is interesting also to note that Gunther Rall in fact removed his wing armament on his 109 in favor of just the cowl and engine weapons to better increase his roll rate.

Fighter aircraft can be rated in two ways: in terms of capability (objectively) and greatness (subjectively). Climb speed, dive speed, straight line speed, kill-to-loss ratios, altitude performance, visibility firepower, maneuverability, and even ruggedness are capabilities that can be objectively measured and compared. Greatness is a subjective measure of impact in the battle space and the overall impression the aircraft made, especially in context with its assigned mission. Both can be used to rate aircraft.

What a well crafted piece. Thanks. Good use of other experts

Appreciate the well balanced approach adopted in this analysis

109s for early war for sure but they couldn’t keep up by late war

I think the difference between the 109 and the Spitfire is marginal and other factors (like pilot skill, tactics, numbers, morale) would play a more determining role. Even in the case of a more unequal fight, like F4F vs Zero, didn't a change in tactics turn the tide? In fact, this video makes me wonder: what cases are there in military history where we can say for sure that superior equipment was the deciding factor? Also, a good follow-up to a future video would be the British opinion on the 109. It would be interesting to compare it with the German view on the Spitfire.

Fascinating and insightful video. Great to hear the views of the experts.

The one thing not mentioned that I've heard with several comparisons between the Spitfire and the 109 is that the Spitfire was more forgiving to fly. It needed a very good pilot to get the best out of the 109 whereas a relatively inexperienced pilot could fly the Spitfire. This was really important for the UK during the Battle of Britain.

There wasn't just one Spitfire model though, Just as the 109E was replaced by the F, G and even K, the various Griffon engined and 20mm cannon armed Spitfires were very different beasts.

Thank you so much for an extremely thorough & above all, fair and unbiased comparison of the two planes. I have read a lot about WW2 air combat, & l think it was an excellent, common sense aspect for the German & British experts to concede that it was largely the skill of the PILOT that determines the outcome. I think the one advantage of the Spitfire that wasn't mentioned, was that for a recently trained pilot the Spitfire was easier to learn to fly ( outside of take-off & landing, due to the narrow landing gear) l have read several accounts of newly trained pilots nervous about their first Spitfire fight, but to their pleasant surprise they were able to fly the plane all over the sky, feeling ecstatic when they landed! The ME 109, however, could only be flown well by an EXPERIENCED pilot. In the hands of an pilot experienced with it the ME 109 was a serious contender! Taking in an ME 109 could be quite dangerous, with a tendency to flip over to one side sometimes, killing l believe some 1500 beginner pilots. The experience required to fly an Me109 became a vicious circle for the Luftwaffe towards the end of WW2, as they were unable to train new pilots well enough to fly the ME109 effectively, & they got shot down faster & faster by the better trained Allied pilots flying planes that were generally easier to fly.

Was interesting to hear from the experts who in turn have interviewed actual pilots from that era! Thankyou !

A brief but thorough analysis. Excellent, bite-sized, and comprehensively informative. Thank you!

There were over 9 Marks of the Spitfire, so any comparison has to take in this and the pilots experience.