Messerschmitt 109 v Spitfire: Which is really the best?

9: Range

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.

8: Armament issues

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 The technical issues plaguing the Spitfire 1B proved so problematic that the type was withdrawn from service and replaced by the 1A.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.

7: 109 Cannon

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.

6: Cockpit

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.

5: Spitfire edges ahead, and the formidable F

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.

4: Bf 109 problems

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.

3: Ability to upgrade

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!"

2: Bf 109G versus Spitfire Mk IX

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.

1: Ease of manufacture

This disparity is evident when examining the numbers. In January 1940, it took 15,000 person-hours to build a Spitfire 1A and 9000 to construct a Bf 109E. By 1942, that gap had only widened. The Bf 109F needed only 4000 person-hours to build, whereas the Spitfire Mk V required 13,000.

The Bf 109 stood out as a rare example of German engineering that was cheap, reliable, maintainable, and easy to manufacture—all while delivering superb performance on the battlefield. There is a reason that more than 34,000 were built despite the Germans' severe mismanagement of production resources at the strategic level. It remains to this day the third most produced aircraft in the world.