I live in Sweden but I have visited the raf museum in cosford once in my life and it was the best day of my life. Really hope I can go back to an raf museum :)
One of the bad points which is often missed in comparing the weaponry of the RAF fighters to that of the Luftwaffe fighters, is that whilst it is true that cannons are generally more destructive than bullets, the Luftwaffe had to compromise quite a bit in order to fit them to the 109. Specifically, in order to reduce the combined weight of the weapons and the ammunition, they had to modify their cannons so they had a lighter barrel, and they had to also reduce the muzzle velocity of the shells by making them a bit smaller, lighter, consequently with less explosive warhead and less propellant than they would have preferred too. This was in order to keep the gun cool when it fired and to reduce the overall weight and size of the weapon system. What this resulted in, was cannon shells which flew much slower than would be the ideal choice and this created a problem with how much damage the shells dealt out. Since a cannon shell explodes on impact, in an ideal world, you would want that to occur with a cannon shell which was travelling fast enough to penetrate the metal skin of the aircraft, then explode as it traveled through the aeroplane, damaging critical components inside the aeroplane, or dealing out injuries the pilot of the enemy aeroplane. But since the cannon shells of the 109 were travelling at a reduced muzzle velocity, and the shells themselves were reduced in size somewhat, this meant two things... The shells would invariably explode on impact on the exterior of the aeroplane, rather than when inside the aeroplane, and the explosion was smaller than the Luftwaffe would have liked too, since the shells had been made smaller. Cannon hits would therefore quite often damage the skin of an RAF fighter, but the damage was in large part frequently cosmetic rather than crippling, and even if it did manage to cripple the aeroplane so that the pilot had to bail out or make a forced landing, in the Battle of Britain, this meant for RAF pilots, they were over home territory when this occurred,. Furthermore, if the damaged aeroplane managed to return to base, whilst having to fix it does impact your enemy's workload, the Luftwaffe would obviously have preferred to destroy the aeroplane and possibly kill or injure its pilot, since what they were trying to achieve, was air superiority over the UK so that they could make an invasion landing with little to no aerial opposition,. This they failed to do, and part of the reason was that their cannon armament were not as effective as they would have liked it to be.
it is a very interesting technical analysis, on the other hand they could not do much with mg ff which was an inefficient fallback waiting for a better product. will be better with the 151/20 mg. regards
@@sonoitalianoful True enough. It's worth noting though that if you look at the later P51 Mustang - which was after all a UK Ministry-specced aeroplane design in spite of being ordered from a US manufacturer - it featured a similar design philosophy to that of the Hurricane's MG armament placement, eschewing cannon armament in favour of closely-grouped MGs, to concentrate a large amount of lead which relied purely on the damage imparted by the kinetic energy of lots of bullet impacts, and there is a good deal of gun-camera footage of this weaponry arrangement severely damaging bf-109s and Fw-190s, some even blowing the wings off Luftwaffe aeroplanes, so it is clearly an effective choice.
@@ChockHolocaustI hope that google translator won't make me look bad...... yes, the average calibres from 12.5 to 15 mm (the so-called '50 calibers to put it in inches) were the most effective against fighters, these calibres represent an excellent compromise in the clash between fighters or medium bombers for the reasons you have mentioned but towards large four-engine bombers it was necessary to have large calibres for the possibility of exploding, that is, of carrying explosives considerably once the surface of the aircraft had penetrated. these cannons, see the 30 mm on the bf109, with a low rate of fire did not have a great chance of hitting a fighter albeit to a devastating extent. The Germans in the four-engine had noticed that 25 shots of 20 mm or 3/4 shots of 30 were needed mm but no consideration of the average calibers was made or taken into consideration. compromises tactical studies chosen. many times means designed for a purpose have been used and then used in the opposite way. good evening
@@ChockHolocaust The original Mustangs built to Brit spec. had 8 machine guns. Four 0.50s (two in the nose under the spinner, and one in each wing), and four 0.303s (two in each wing, mounted either side of the lone 0.50). The first version produced for the USAAF (in very limited numbers) had four 20 mm cannon (two in each wing). The US didn't continue with the cannon because the US-built version of the Hispano MkII was hopelessly unreliable. Subsequent versions replaced the four cannon with four 0.50s, which was inadequate. The D series (May 1944) introduced the six-gun configuration.
Issue is not the cannon but its ammo. Shells exploding on impact are easily solved by making fuse slower, i am not expert but germans put a lot of faith into low velocity big boom autocannons so i assume it was fixed quickly.
Yeah I was going to say the same. Your English is perfect. Also, you explained the differences, good and bad, with fairness and in a scholarly way. Excellent vid!
@@dias_se ..or for people with spouses that for some reason (obviously medical) actually prefer sleep over being riveted by this brilliant gentleman's discourse.
Excellent and very informative, explained with crystal clear clarity. And I too wouldve said ''it was the pilots skill & ability to cope etc that counted when looking for a winner between these two?" I'll second that
Yes but they will be in their 80s nowadays. Still a few but let's be honest they won't be around forever and we will be left with only the memories of their bravery.
I'd recommend you to watch the 2018 "Spitfire" documentary, there's plenty of interviews with Spitfire pilots, unfortunately many of them have already passed away since the movie was released, one BoB veteran didn't make it to the very premiere of the movie. Also the overall camera work and music are great there, so I'd still recommend.
As an American, Ive been to the Smithsonian Air and Space, but I really would love the opportunity to go and visit the RAF Musuem. Absolutely INCREDIBLE collections of aircraft in both, and VERY knowledgable and VERY friendly Museum operators and guides at both. Lovely video, keep it up guys. From America with Love
1:25 There are 390 comments at the time of writing (10th Aug 21) and I'm not reading through them all to see if this has been mentioned already. The aircraft pictured is a Supermarine Seafire: the naval version of the Spitfire which definitely didn't participate in the Battle of Britain (first flight in 1942).
That Spit MkI has a few parts on it from later models. The oil cooler under the port wing has the circular section introduced on the MkV. The windshield is also from a later model with the integral bullet resistant windscreen and flat quarter panels. MkIs and IIs had the bullet resistant 'glass' mounted on the outside. It's very neatly repainted. Is it a static display only?
you miss one important part of the argument; The Spitfire frame is made from spars of gradually reducing size fitted one into the next. Damage to a wing for instance resulted in the wing being stripped down, the damaged spar/s removed, then the whole wing reassembled The Messerschmitt 109 was modular, so areas damaged in battle could be cut away and a whole new section bolted in then the skin replaced. The turn around of damaged aircraft back to battle ready was shorter for the German plane. As to which one is better, it was a constant leapfrogging exercise during the war, one gaining the upper hand for a few weeks or months, then the other nullifying it with an improvement. i.e. the advance from three blade to four and then five blade props. Interesting video thanks.
That picture at 10:10 is the Spanish made 109 with ironically a Rolls Royce Merlin Engine you can tell by looking at the engine block. This one was used in two movies the Battle of Britain and Dunkirk.
11:15 not sure what 109's cockpit that is, but it doesn't look like an E-series cockpit. There's definitely an engine-cannon installed (its housing is clearly visible between the pedals) plus the more modern "strip" type ammo counter to the left of the gunsight. There's also the more modern gear up/down buttons installed on the lower left of the dash - earlier 109s (up to F-series IIRC) would've had a handle type lever installed in the lower right part of the dash. Also missing are the handles for manual operation of the water- and oil-radiator shutters - which would've been present on E-series 109s. Also some of the instruments look out of period for an E-series and some shouldn't even be on an E-series (like the artificial horizon which only became standard on G-series models. If I would have to guess, I'd say the cockpit shown is a G-series aircraft (not 100% sure which sub-variant), which means it would've been built at least two years after the BoB.
Some errors in putting this over one wouldn't expect from the RAF Museum! !000 yards convergence? The default was 400, the "Dowding Spread" that was erroneously adopted to compensate for the average pilot's gunnery ability. In the field this was much shortened as stated. The engine didn't 'seize' in a dive out missed and spluttered or even cut out due to fuel starvation, that 'Tilly's orifice' reduced to a manageable degree. And the mirror wasn't installed 'in' the cockpit but above the armoured windscreen to enable the pilot to keep an eye on his 'six'. I may be wrong, but were not the cowling guns 7.92 and the cannons in the wing on 1940 Bf109s? Poor old Hurricane that accounted for more LW aircraft in the Battle of Britain, ignored again! But one doesn't read of a 'Hurricane Fund' in being does one? Apologies for being a smart-arse nerd in advance.
@@Explorer982 not the E variants which fought in the Battle of Britain, F variants and onward had the nose mounted 20mm, and late G variant and the K4 had to the option to put a 30mm cannon in the nose
In the Battle of Britain the biggest difference was how much fuel you had left. The Germans had to have one eye on the Spitfires and one eye on the needle nudging empty.
And the British were able to collect their downed pilots that managed to safely bail out, while the German pilots would be captured. To be able to press those experienced pilots back into service was critical as time went on and attrition became more of a factor.
The ME109 only had 10 minutes over Britain before it had to turn back. This was hampered still further by Goering who insisted that the 109 flew alongside the much slower Dornier and Heinkel bombers. The 109 - built for speed, wasted precious fuel zig-zagging back and forth trying to slow down.
Love the museum, visited in 2012 on a trip to the UK. Wish they had a shuttle bus from Colindale tube station though, it's a fair walk. Can't wait to get back when we are allowed to travel out of Australia.
While the general consensus tends to be that the Spitfire had the better airframe and the Messerschmitt had the better engine ; there was one specific case where a Spitfire made an emergency landing on German occupied Jersey and was captured almost intact . The Germans shipped the aircraft back to Germany , where it was fitted with a DB 605A engine , and with a few other modifications , was test flown . Everyone who flew it declared the so called 'MesserSpit' the best aircraft of the day , combining all the best virtues of the two opposing types . Sadly , the one of its kind aircraft was destroyed in an allied bombing raid .
After decades of delving into both aircraft I've come to my own personal conclusion about which aircraft was superior: This is my own personal opinion and as such can in no way be definitive but in essence the Spitfire converted an average pilot into an above average pilot almost instantly while in the 109 an average pilot remained average until he'd accrued many more hours flight time. This was because the Spitfire was so damn easy to fly and so forgiving that pilots could quite quickly forget about actually flying it and start concentrating on why he's flying it ,ie , spotting the enemy and intercepting him, many Spitfire pilots described flying it as 'simply thinking about wanting to be in that particular piece of sky and lo and behold there you were' ,just as when walking down a street they didn't actually will their legs to step out one after another they didn't consciously manipulate the Spitfire controls. A good pilot could pull his Spitfire into a tight turn and keep it on the point of stall because it gave a judder when that was reached and if you kept it on that 'juddering point' no 109 could stay with you for long before the leading edge slat of it's slower moving turn innermost wing deployed and caused it to go into a flick roll in the opposite direction. The 109 was different and had a much steeper learning curve, it wasn't at all forgiving and until a pilot became intimately acquainted with its foibles like rolling off onto one wing while on final approach to landing due to enormous engine torque and tiny airframe to stabilise it he always had to consciously fly the aircraft. However an experienced pilot in his 109 formed a combination that was supreme. There's obviously much more to it than just flight characteristics but they are corollary and don't really alter the balance. It's my opinion that if both aircraft are flown by novice pilots the Spitfire MkI/II has the advantage. If both are flown by experienced pilots then the 109E has the advantage.
The exceptional, Eric Hartmann mostly used a 109 fighter for his absurd number of 352 confirmed planes shot down! And many German pilots passed 200 planes, probably because they had no one to take over, so the very best continued to fly and fight till shot down.
@@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188 Yes indeed Finn, only the top maybe 5% became aces in all air forces whatever the nationality, the remainder eventually became just another potential kill sooner or later.
@@antonrudenham3259 And, as during "The Battle of Britain", waiting for your enemy to come to You, gives an advantage, as the enemy has to go back at one time, even if they have an enemy fighter at their tail.
ANTON RUDENHAM “rolling on to one wing on final approach due to high engine torque” - are you sure about that? I always thought it was on take-off that this happened. That’s when there is high engine torque, not when landing. When rotating at take-off the precession could be very Angelou’s. correct me if I’m wrong but that’s what I thought.
@@milespostlethwaite1154 You are of course quite correct my friend, the 109 was a bit of a beast to ride but especially when slow and accelerating just as the pilot cleans up the ac after take off and maybe opens the throttle a tad too much. But also on landing when the ac has everything extended it flew a razor thin flight envelope and would punish any pilot that injudiciously gave it a burst of power. The 109 was an excellent ac but to extract that excellence the pilot must be well acquainted with her deadly traits. She was an unforgiving mistress but once you'd mastered her...............What a ride!
The 109 canons only had 60 rounds per canon. Or 120 in total. The BoB 109s did not use the centrefire canon because of vibration. There was also a very real question as to whether the slats actually worked reliably and the negative impact they had at medium and high speeds was something that was noticed by RAF test pilots when comparing captured 109s with allied fighters. The 109 also offered very little feedback and with its heavy nose had a habit of falling away nose first and the end of a roll or a turning fight with high angles of attack. On the other hand, the spitfires ‘bunderbuss’ 8 x .303 machine guns proved more effective than anticipated by the Germans when they tested a captured Mk1 in June 1940 before the BoB. However, the biggest differences occurred by two simultaneous advances that were added to all combat spitfires before the BoB really got underway: 100 octane fuel and the Rotol constant speed propellor. While the June 1940 Luftwaffe test comparison between the new 109E and the captured Mk1 (that had a 2 speed De Haviland prop) - completed with both aircraft using 87 octane german fuel demonstrated that the performance of both to be roughly comparable - depending on the altitude, the change to 100 octane fuel (which allowed pilots to run 12 pounds of boost through the supercharger) and the constant speed prop was a game changer. The spitfire Mk1 thus configured had superior performance at all altitudes over the 109E. Its maximum rate of climb increased by 750ft per minute, as but one example. This performance gap widened further with the introduction of the MkII in fairly large numbers for the second half of the BoB.
Not quite correct. The earliest 109's didn't have any cannons, just machine guns, and then year after year they were constantly getting upgraded and some variants had up to six cannons; some had 20mm ones, other 30mm ones and some had a mix of both 20mm and 30mm cannons alongside some 8mm or 13mm machine guns. The Spitfires were evolving in the same way but they always had quite a bit less armament that was also less effective because of its placement. Other than that the two were very similar. They both had excellent climb rates(unlike most US fighters) and once airborne were very easy to fly, with the Spitfire being superior in dogfights because of its larger wings with a lot more surface area.
There are a few Pilots that flew both aircrafts and each stated that the Me109 is the better aircraft. But who knows, they are both very iconic and beautiful designs.
Danke für die Erinnerung, wie gerne deutsche Ingenieure die besten Tötungsmaschinen bauen und Kriege beginnen. Ich nehme an, Sie beziehen sich auf Eric Brown.
@@powerjets3512 Nur die Dummen glauben immer noch, dass Deutschland einen der großen Kriege begonnen hat. Die traurige Bilanz der Anzettelung eines Krieges ist GB.
@@KBauer-cs1rh Reading Eric Brown's (the most experienced test pilot in history) book "duels in the sky" and he says the joint overall best fighter aircraft in WW2 were the Spitfire & Fw190. The Bf-109 doesn't even make the top 6. 1. Supermarine Spitfire / FW-190. 2. Grumman Hellcat. 3. North American Mustang IV. 4. Mitsubishi Zeke. 5. Hawker Tempest V. 6. Kawanishi N1K2 Shinden-Kai.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Also possible. I did not pilot either one. But there are other testimonies out there that say other things and praise the Me 109 G to the highest level. The only thing I can say for sure is that they are all beautiful designs.
German fighter ace, Walter Krupinski: "Everybody, every German fighter who had fought against the Spitfire was thinking, that it is a much better aircraft than our 109." th-cam.com/video/KY_AUdtvhY8/w-d-xo.html
The differences in the handling characteristics meant that the pilots used completely different tactics. THe BF 109's would avoid turning fights with Spitfires but " boom and zoom " using their speed advantage to gain the upper hand. Rather than diving to avoid an enemy on their tail, as was suggested in the video, an experienced 109 pilot would climb in a slight turn, which the slower Spitfires could not follow without risking a stall. A diving Spitfire could attain it's maximum speed more quickly than a 109 in fact. I expected better from this video...ps, the engines didn't " seize " but simply conked out due to fuel starvation.
DON'T TALK SUCH A LOAD OF FUCKING CRAP ,YOU KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT WW2 AIRCRAFT ESPECIALLY THE SPIT , I OWN A SPIT MK 5B AND KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT , I HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT MY SPIT ,SO AS TO MAINTAIN IT IN FLYING CONDITION . AS WELL AS FLY IT.
The museum is fantastic, over in Hendon. Of these two planes, I prefer the ME-109 on aesthetics alone (I'm a designer). As a kid I was always drawing war materiel, and I was obsessed with the Germans' stylish uniforms, better tanks and planes. And I'd take the Focke-Wulf 190 over these two: a gorgeous aircraft.
The Germans didn't have better tanks! Sure, the panzers had thicker armament and a bigger gun, but they were very complex, with a gearbox designed by Ferdinand Porche that used 15 gears. They were much heavier than the Sherman tanks that had the same gears as a car. Being heavier, they couldn't use certain bridges. Also, if they broke down, the Panzers had to be hauled onto trains and shipped back to Germany. The Allies had mobile repair units near the front lines. The damaged Shermans could be repaired quickly and easily by comparison and put back into service.
According to Bruce Dickinson and Iron Maiden the Spitfires used in the Battle of Britain had 4 blade propellers not 3, I'm building a 50% scale (18.5 foot wingspan) display for a huge game coming up, does anyone know which is correct?
From all I've read the conclusion that the Bf109E and the Spitfire II were overall evenly matched is correct although each had unique advantages. Things that might also have been mentioned... The Merlin was a 27 litre V12 while the DB-601 was a 34 litre inverted V12. Both offered similar power to weight ratio, but why did the Merlin do with 27 litres what it took the DB 601 34 litres to do? In part at least it may have been that the Germans were stuck with 87 octane fuel (i.e. regular gas/petrol with which you fuel your car) while the Merlin was usually powered by 110 octane+ imported by convoys from the US. So although they produced similar power outputs the Bf-109 used its lower fuel at a faster rate than the Spitfire. It had not been intended for use as a long range escort fighter and this put it at a severe disadvantage having to cross France and the channel, limiting combat time before being forced to turn back to minutes against freshly fueled Hurricanes and Spitfires. Many Bf-109s which were lost during the BoB simply ran out of fuel and were lost in the channel. The DB-601 not only used Bosch direct fuel injection that enabled uninterrupted performance unaffected by an G force, it also included a variable ratio supercharger automatically controlled by altitude to offer the optimal charge to the engine up to the supercharger ceiling without pilot intervention (leaving them to focus on combat and staying alive!). The Daimler Benz engines also could accommodate a cannon firing through the propeller hub on the exact aircraft centre line although this would be seen more on the Bf-109F after the BoB. (The only Allied engine I know of that could do this was the Soviet Klimov license produced Hispano-Suiza V12). Having machine guns over the engine and a cannon inside it offered excellent ballistics without the issue of parallax crossover issue of wing guns. The downside was the engine cannon breech sat between the pilot's feet, had different ballistics to the machine guns and there wasn't room for many rounds. Nevertheless a hit with one of those cannon shells could blow the tail off of an enemy fighter. The licensed produced Handley-Page leading edge wing slats in the Bf-109 reduced landing speed for an aircraft with a very low wing area and high wing loading. I've heard claims that some Jagdwaffe pilots found ways to use them in turning fights in combat, but as a rule most of them avoided this kind of combat with the RAF especially owing to the Spitfire's smaller turning radius and superior maneuverability at the low speeds of thius kind of combat. The Germans instead preferred "boom and zoom" dogfights which better exploited the advantages of the Bf-109 over the Spitfire. The leading edge slats deployed automatically - the pilot had no control over them, which usually meant one would deploy before the other, each with a loud disorienting "bang". That didn't make for a stable gun platform, but some pilots said they used it to out-turn Spitfires. I doubt it was common practice though. Evidently Willi Messerschmitt and Robert Lusser weren't too concerned about pilot comfort. The cockpit of the Bf-109 was smaller than that of the Spitfire and together with the smaller wing area made extreme, violent maneuvers more physically demanding for German pilots than their British adversaries. The heavy, framed Bf-109 canopy could be ejected using explosive bolts for bail out, but the elevator struts meant the recommended bailout procedure required the aircraft be inverted before the pilot bailed. Many pilots preferred to ride their crippled Bf-109s to belly landings rather than face this. Hans-Joachim Marseille (top Jagdwaffe ace in North Africa) was killed when an elevator strut broke his neck while bailing out from a BF-109. Like the Hurricane and Mustang, the Spitfire's main fuel tank was behind the engine and in front of the pilot. In the Bf-109, the pilot sat on an L-shaped tank that held fuel below and behind them. (The FW-190 pilot also sat their their main tank) While the latter sounds pretty dangerous, if a Bf-109 were hit in the self-sealing tank and it caught fire, the flames were below and behind the pilot, offering some hope of survival. If the Spitfire were hit in the main self sealing fuel tank and it ignited, the slipstream blasted the flames directly into the pilot's face. Many Fighter Command pilots suffered severe facial burns and permanent disfigurement as a result. The engine of the BF-109 could be swapped in 30 mins (they impressed Charles Lindbergh with this in 1937). The wings could be removed and replaced quickly as well because the Bf-109's undercarriage was actually attached to the engine firewall in the fuselage, not the wings. This was the upside of that tricky narrow track undercarriage. The aircraft was excellent for fast combat repairs and long distance rail transport. Oddly, the elliptical shape of the Spitfire wings had a German origin. German aerodynamicists had theorized this was an optimal wing shape around WW1, but it was thought impractically difficult to make. Siegfried and Walther Gunther designed the Heinkel He-70 Blitz - an all metal flush riveted mail plane with symmetrical elliptical wings which first flew in 1932 and was intended for a Lufthansa fast mail European service. The legend goes that Beverley Shenstone, a junior Canadian aerodynamicist working for the Supermarine company saw one of these at Croydon airport and was quite impressed. When Supermarine were subsequently invited by the Air Ministry to join a competition to develop a new generation British fighter, he tried to get his boss Reginald Mitchell to include it but he declined. The result was an odd gull winged open cockpit aircraft that lost out to Sydney Camm's superior Hawker Hurricane. However, given his sensational successes in the Schneider Trophy races, Mitchell was invited by the Air Ministry to try again. This time the result included perfectly elliptical wings. Then the Air Ministry required them to be fitted with machine guns and the elliptical shape was skewed forward for ballistic reasons. When the Air Ministry named his superb new creation "Spitfire" Mitchell allegedly commented to the effect that "was exactly the sort of stupid name I would have expected from them". Mitchell never see his remarkable aircraft in service. He died in 1937. It has been said the Bf-109 wing delivered "90 percent of the performance" of the Spitfire wing at a fraction of the cost. Messerschmitt not only designed a very competitive fighter, they developed a class of production engineering that enabled them to mass produce them at a phenomenal rate. It was been said the Bf-109 cost a third to a half that of a Spitfire air-frame. This was vital for Germany building a 1940s air force starting from nothing in 1935. somewhere between 33,000 and 35,000 Bf-109s were produced - only the Ilyushin Il-2 was made in larger numbers in WW2. The Messerschmitt Bf-109 flew before the Hurricane or the Spitfire. It saw combat before them starting in the Spanish civil War and fought in the Western, North African and Eastern fronts. It was produced from 1937 until 1953 when CASA ceased production of licensed versions in Spain, well after Spitfire, Hurricane and Mustang production had ceased. (The Bf-109v1 - the first to fly - fly flew in 1935 with a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine and the last Spanish version flew with a Rolls Royce Merlin). These Merlin powered Spanish aircraft were used to film the 1969 film "Battle of Britain". A scene in that film shows a Goering berating fighter pilot commanders as cowards for failing to protect his bombers, then asking them what they needed to do better. One asked for a squadron of Spitfires. This is based on an actual event and that smart remark was delivered by Oberst. Adolf Galland. The film takes it out of context, suggesting Galland believed the Spitfire superior to the Bf-109 when he did not. Galland wrote that Goering's demand that the Bf-109s slow down to the bomber speed so they could be seen by demoralized bomber crews robbed the fighters of their "boom and zoom" speed advantage, causing more bomber losses and reduced them to RAF targets. Angry at this self-defeating policy and the unfair suggestions of Jagdwaffe cowardice he quipped to the Reichsmarschall to get him a staffel of Spitfires. Many Bf-109 aces refused to switch to the the newer and arguably superior Focke-Wulf FW-190 when offered - so much did they like the Bf-109, despite its quirks. More fighter aces were produced by Germany during WW2 than any other country. Staring with Erich Hartmann (the highest scoring ace in history with 352 mostly confirmed victories) I have seen online rankings where you have to go down 150 - 200 aces before you find a non-Jagdwaffe ace. Nearly all of these men learned their trade and built up their kills in the Messerschmitt Bf-109. This venerable little aeroplane may thus have shot down more enemy aircraft and made more aces than any other in history. Consequently while it was arguably obsolete when the war ended, I would propose that the Messerschmitt Bf-109 may be the most successful fighter aircraft in history.
@@garyseeseverything8615 I've recently learned there is much more to this. Check out this discussion by Calum Douglas ... th-cam.com/video/ImEpk1s-Vk0/w-d-xo.html
To compare the 109 and the spitfire, General Adolf Galland said it best, the 109 was the better offensive fighter, and the spitfire was the better defensive fighter.
There where 24 versions or the Spitfire. The even more powerful Griffon engine replaced the Merlin to counter the FW 190 threat. Galland’s remark was in 1940, comparing a captured Spitfire with a ME 109. One aircraft made a step up then the other but the ME 109 was an earlier design and got to a point where it could not keep up. The FW 190 became the biggest threat. At the end of WW2 the Spitfire was the best air superiority fighter. The Mustang was the best escort fighter it had the Merlin engine the Spitfire (later marks) had the more powerful Griffin. The later marks of the Mustang adopted the bubble canopy developed for the Spitfire they are still used in modern fighter. You need to see what’s going on.. the Famous Spit and Hurricane fuel problem (nose dive the SU carburettor due to hi G miss-fuels) was initially fixed by a simple drilled washer that limited the max amount of fuel preventing over-fuelling in a sudden dive, invented by Tilly Shilling an Engineer she also an avid motor cycle racer. Later developments solved the problem fully. The Spit started with machine guns and then adopted cannons as well.
@@anthonywilson4873 i know i'm gunna hear it but....during circus, rhubarb and ramrod missions after the bob, raf spitfire numbers against outdated 109s are bad. the luftwaffe 109 pilots on the other hand, did extremely well against newer raf spitfire marks even before the 190s arrived. this is as well under the condition that most 109 pilots and planes were sent to prepare for the eastern offensive leaving the luftwaffe at a huge numerical disadvantage during kanalkampf late 1940-1941. even as late as the dieppe raid, the few outdated 109 f and even e models did very well against newer mk V and IX. then again, these were not average 109 pilots, these were some of the luftwaffe's best. one experienced luftwaffe pilot in an outdated 109 could hold his own against one or even more of the raf's best pilots with newer, spitfire marks.
@@Ettrick8 My limited understanding is the zero was good up to 15 maybe 20000'. (Ceiling was just over 30000'). Strength was in turning fights. Engine hp started at approx 850 and was developed up to around 1100hp. (Nakajima NK1F SAKAE 21 ENGINE. A6M3 22 & A6M5 52). Great range. Rabaul to Guadalcanal 900kms each way plus aircombat. No armour or self sealing fuel tanks till end of 43. An elegant advanced design at the beginning of WW2, but one that didnt lend itself to airframe and powerplant development. Like...say the Spitfire or P51. Bf109 airframe didnt really advance greatly after the "f". If anything, towards the end of ww2, tail plane assemblies started to be made of wood, because of materials shortages. But the DB605 DM inverted vee 12 engine were ataining 1850hp with MW injection. Engines started to overpower airframes. Check out YT'er "Gregs Airplanes", he does a fantastic job of exploring why different nations used different engines. Radial v Inline, liquid cooled v aircooled. Mechanical driven supercharging v exhaust gas supercharging.
The Yellow Nose meant the plane was from JG 26. During violent low speed maneuvering the slats would bang in and out making the plane less stable. The view from the 109's cramped cockpit was so limited that a Mustang pilot sitting in one after the war said " If knew this I would have been more aggressive". The lack of visibility was probably why the Germans invented the Finger Four Formation. Martin C Windrow, Fighters Volume One, Published by Hylton Lacy, half of all 109 losses occurred during landing or take off.
I think you are both right. First the engine stopped due to the negative g-forces, because no more fuel was mixed in. Meanwhile, the flow chamber was flooded with fuel. As soon as the positive G-forces came back, too much fuel was mixed in because the flow chamber was too full. The problem was not that the engine stopped, but that in the worst case it could not be started again.
One picture of a ME is definitely a Spanish version, with a Rolls Royce engine, as they had bought the plane-type in Spain at the end of the war, but didn't get a sample of the DB engine before the war had ended! So they managed to rebuilt the frames to use a Merlin! You may see it from its propeller, which is on top! They used these planes in the later "Battle of Britain" film, and the picture is most likely from that?
Yes, one of the pictures is of a Hispano HA1112 Buchon, which is a Spanish built derivative of the 109 and it is indeed powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin. The picture does show one of the Buchons used in the film "Battle of Britain" but the picture is much more recent than 1968, the year the film was made. A few of these Buchons are still airworthy and at least two are often to be seen flying at Duxford airshows.
The Spanish CASA-built 109s were first re-engined (and possibly built to accept) with Spanish-made Hispano-Suiza engines (as seen in the film 'The Star of Africa') and then with Merlins later.
Good informative basic comparison. Yes it wouldnt matter if the Germans had spitfires and the RAF had Messerschmitts , it depended on pilot skills. The outcome of BoB would have been the same. Two points missed were that the me109 was easier to produce and transport not as complicated as the spitfire. Also the me109 had a cannon firing thru the prop hub which was a very handy weapon.
#9:17; 1000 genades/minute? As first, the single MG FF/M shoot 540 grenades/minute. And don't forget, the MG FF (later MG FF/M) drums can only hold 60 grenades. ;) #11:25; the shown middle part of the canopy is not the correct one for the Bf 109 Emil-series. The museum has replaced the missing original canopy part with a one of the later Bf 109 Gustav-series. The this frames are a bit bigger. Some of the Emils at the Battle of Britain fights got also the early canopy with a bit better view, but less protection for the pilot and it was more complicated in the production. So it was replaced during the year 1940. A last notice... the MG FF/M is not build in at the museums aircraft. Here is looks like the Bf 109 E-1/E-8 series with two MG 17 in the wings. It was produced at the same time as the cannon versions. One was the "Cannon bird" and the other one was the "MG bird". ;-)
Thank you for your excellent comments. As said, both cannons fired a total combined of 1,000 grenades (Minen) per minute. The Bf 109E in the Museum is used as an example for the Bf 109s in the Battle of Britain, it is not meant as the specific example.
Very good narrative in simple language...well done RAF museum! It would have been interesting to know more about how the carburettor issue in the RR Merlin was eventually sorted and why fuel injection wasn't thought of earlier in such a fine aero engine.
Power. The carb engine delivered more power per litre displacement than the injected engine. The Merlin went from 990hp up to about 1700hp on 27 litres displacement. The dB series engines displaced much more for broadly similar power output.
I would love to sit in one to see how the feeling is, I remember growing up playing Battlefield 1942 video game as a teenager in junior high, controlling a spitfire in cockpit view
I remember a WWII pilot, who flew both aircraft, commented that the Spitfire was superior, simply because any competent pilot could fly the Spitfire very well, but it took an expert to get the best from the 109.
Exactly! You can prove it when You fligh both warbirds in a realistic flight simulator, I recommend the il2 series, last edition acts above Tobruk. Greatings!
The Daimler Benz engine was mounted upside down, worth a mention. Also the link between the spitfire and the high speed racers of the 20s and 30s that RJ Mitchell also developed.
Interesting engineering choice there The inverted V was far easier to maintain...most of the working bits were accessible from the ground And that configuration meant that the thin part of the engine was in front of the pilot allowing better sight lines as you dropped off the perch...fired...then regained altitude...when your target broke to a side you could see it and start to line up your next run I understand (told by old pilot) that having the 2 oil sumps and 2 pumps in the heads provided a redundancy...a single leak was not (as) catastrophic Maybe... However the Merlin/Packard V12 got put in everything because the heads were on top From AFV to MTB's it was an "all arms" engine...by the end of the war it was ubiquitous in manufacture and application So manufacture, logistics and training was (relatively) compatible
Thank you for this video, which gives many informations. In 1976 (+/-) I visited London for a week and wanted to visit a RAF museum, but the taxi-driver didn't know this, I had to show him on a London-Map. One Question: You explained the PR F signs, there is some more: X4590. Is that a kind of serial number?
Gosh, basic mistake, the 20mm MGFF in the wing of the Bf109E did not have 1,000 round per minute firing rate with explosive charges.. that was the rate of the MG17 guns on top of the cowling.. The cannons had about half that rate 520-540 rounds per minute
Reading Eric Brown's (the most experienced test pilot in history) book "Duels in the sky" and in his opinion (one definitely worth taking into consideration) he says the joint overall best fighter aircraft in WW2 were the Spitfire & Fw190. The Bf-109 doesn't even make the top 6. 1. Supermarine Spitfire / FW-190. 2. Grumman Hellcat. 3. North American Mustang IV. 4. Mitsubishi Zeke. 5. Hawker Tempest V. 6. Kawanishi N1K2 Shinden-Kai.
That is to be expected: consider 2 points: 1. Bf.109 quickly became outdated past 1942, as the construction had barely any modification reserves left. For example: 109G-6 (the most mass-produced) had bulges before there wasn't enough room neither for 13mm machineguns, nor for the stronger landing gear. Engine improvements didn't make the landing problem easier too, as the cruising and stalling speeds increased because of both the horse power and aircraft mass kept rising, so the pilots had to maintain higher speed when landing. 2. Personal bias: Eric Brown (like every other pilot) rated what he witnessed and got to handle, as you can notice the lack of soviet or italian fighters, which were both great for their own requirements. He also rated the fighters in a certain scenario, because Fw.190 proved to be worse than Bf.109 on the Eastern front due to battles being usually short-range and low-altitude, where 190s performed closer to a flying brick as they had no time to gain altitude or speed.
@@MDzmitry Hence why I said "in his opinion" Dmitriy, which I then qualified with his being an opinion worth taking into consideration, as he had flown more aircraft types than any other individiual in history, which I think is still the case.
It would have been nice if you added that you are compairing a Mk1 Spitfire vs a BF 109 E. I would have loved to have seen a Mk V vs a BF 109 E over Britan. It would not have been a contest,
Not as common as people think until the later models, especially the Friedrich and Gustav. Most Battle of Britain 109s (E-3 and E-4) _look_ like they have the hub cannon fitted but in reality didn't.
To eventually win the war outright yes and it did? But in these individual conflicts at various times of the war, it was certain magnificent men in their flying machines?
Well in that case the Hurricane would have won... I think if you account for loss rate of pilots (one of the factors of which are the aircraft being flown) to the replacement rate then the Hurricane doesn't look as good.
If an RAF pilot bails he gets in another plane. If a German pilot bails he is getting locked up. Also UK really ramped up production and even made planes from bits of broken ones put back together again.
the nose guns of the bf109 E-3 in the video arent cannons they are 7.62 mm machine guns. in the E model it had two 20mm cannons in the wings. it wasnt until the F series 109 that the front of the plane was elongated and a new cowl was fitted. this new set-up allowed for the 109 to have a single 20mm cannon firing out of the propeller hub, making it deadly accurate. this single cannon replaced the 2 cannons previously mounted within the wings.
I was lucky enough to sit in a real 109. The cockpit is very cramped and the view very limited. For me it felt like the Spitfire has a better cockpit view.
I get that this was about the BoB, so this features the BoB display only, but disappointed you didn't show or mention Black 6 in Hendon there - it has a fascinating war and post-war history.
Was it not only the mark 1 spitfire that had only machine guns, didn't every mark after that have some variant of hispano 20mm auto cannons. It seems like you were focusing on the battle of Britain , but if you were just wanting to make a comparison of the two i think it would be more fair to use a larger bracket/spread over time for both aircraft.
Pains me to say it, but I think the Bf109e was better than the Spitfire I, owing to its better armament and the Merlin's carburetor problem. That said, 109 pilots often had more combat experience and better tactics.
@chris younts This was due to the sudden change of tactics of the 109's escorting the bombers instead of free hunting. This negated their strenghts of extremly fast climbing and diving and instead made them have to get jumped by the Spits while going slow to match the speed of the bombers. At this slow speed combat often ended in turning fights in the horizontal, where the Spitfire has an advantage. Hence Gallands comment, that for this new job, he rather have a Spitfire.
wish to visit, as I knew some of RAF pilots and my grandmom served as WAAF during the war. On my top list. And what´s better? To me, for many reasons, probably Bf109 (but it is 50,001/49,999). Because it´s the key disadvantage I see, small range, was not a fault, it was designed for a different way of war and even german pilots knew it´s not a fighter designed to fly across the channel. But Spit, it is a true beauty. It is probably the nicest airplane ever. Anyway, my personal preferred airplane of the era is Fw 190. Very durable, very flexible (fighter, flying tank, bomber...) very adjustable (like D9 or Ta 152). My friend was Josef Vopalecky, a fighter of 68. squadron, my grandmom served at 311. (Czechoslovak) bomber/coastal sq. Her name is Truda Ziemlich, later Popper/Peter (my grandpa changed his name from German-sounding Popper to Slavic-sounding Peter, he was a member of Czechoslovakia Armored regiment in Dunkerque (44-45) and also served (before) in North Africa in Tobruk. I still own his solder book, so I found even the flat they were in London... So yes, wish to visit the museum a lot. Take care...
The Spifire has the letters of 609 Aux squadron. There is a 50% chance my father worked on it either at Drem or Middle Wallop, just depending on the flight it was assigned too.
@@garyseeseverything8615 The Luftwaffe would have used its superior DB engine in Spitfire airframes you ignoramus. The Bf109E airframe had weak wings and tail so fragile it needed struts. The Bf109 was so small Willy Messerschmitt had to drop all wing armament from the F variant onwards to get optimum performance. Stop pretending the Spit was crap because it clearly wasn't.
@@RoyalAirForceMuseum I'm not sure, but I think Galland was trying to shake Goering out of his hubris into a realisation that the Luftwaffe were most likely to lose the BoB unless something dramatic happened to tilt the scales away from the RAF. The German pilots were obsessed with the Spitfire because the Bf109 didn't have a significant performance edge over it. (Also, Hurricane pilots benefited from being underestimated, especially the Polish ones!)
No comparison. The P51D Mustang solved alot of the short comings of the Spitfire. The Mustang had the range speed and better firepower over the Spitfire. The Spitfire won the battle but the Mustang won the war.😊
@@garrisonnichols7372 thank you!! 😀 . You are the first person whom I heard brave enough to say clearly and directly that the Mustang is better than the Spitfire. A lot of people will try to avoid answering by going round and round.... Now could I then ask, why does the Mustang has a much longer range than the Spitfire fire, given that both use the same engine?
@@michaelwong4303 drop tanks on the mustang gave it the range to protect the bombers all the way to Berlin Germany and still get back to the UK airfields. The Mustang was designed as an escort fighter while the Spitfire was only a interceptor aircraft designed to protect the British homeland. The British did make drop tanks for the Spitfire to give it longer range for combat duties but the British had other planes to fill that role. Still the Mustang was in a class of it's own. It's altitude advantage speed great maneuverability and range with 6 x 50. Caliber machine guns made for a great long range escort fighter.
Really the only other fighting aircraft that I can think off the top of my head that checked alot of the same boxes as the Mustang is the Mitsubishi Zero. Only problem is well it was the preferred aircraft of the enemy. Which means the Allies didn't use it. The Americans did get their hands on a few Zeros and studying it's advantages gave us the ability to make better planes to fight it.
Another problem with Spitfires early on was they had carburetors that when going into a steep dive wouldn't get enough fuel to the engine but that was later fixed. Also the Spitfire was designed with 8x 30 caliber machine guns but as the war continued these guns couldn't penetrate the thicker armor of German planes so the British switched to 20mm cannons but these also had problems because the cannons could jam. That's why most American aircraft had 50 BMG guns because they were more reliable.
Well, when i look at the Spit i'm brought to think "how can it possibly be so beautiful?" Reg Mitchell notoriously used to say "if it looks good, it's good"...well, it's the whole point! Just the A6m5 and the early versions of the FW 190 share with it the same sound, i should say "healthy" proportions...just like an athlete's body!
@@RoyalAirForceMuseum Maybe. As a matter of fact, i heard it from an engineer who used to work in his team in those years. Of course, it seems to be a somewhat common motto for aircaft designers all over the world, and i couldn't say who said it first. It could have been Mr. Bloch for sure!
The purpose of the red white and blue circle was to identify it as a British plane. When attacking in large numbers it was important to know who was who. Some times if Spitfire pilots saw another squadron of British planes coming down to join the fight they would roll the plane so the British pilots could see 1. the elliptical wing and 2 the red white and blue circle markings it was known as flashing the colours.The rear view mirror was not inside the cockpit it was on the outside above the windshield.The 8 machine guns were latter swapped for 2= 20 mm canons and 4 =303 machine guns or 8= 303 machine guns and 4= 20mm cannons.
Interesting stuff, thanks. A couple of points regarding the weapon comparison: The critique of the Spits armoury is a bit unbalanced imho - although its true that the 109's cannons could fire at about 1,000 rounds per min (but there were only 120 cannon rounds in total) by the same token the spit could fire almost 10,000 rounds per min (and it had about 2,500) much smaller and not explosive of course, but for a liquid cooled IC engine, one bullet in the cooling system and its "goodnight Vienna" and a 109 pilot did not have the "comfort" of any armour protection like a Spit pilot did (although not much use against cannon). Also the criticism of the positioning and aiming of the guns in the Spit presumes that every pilot is a perfect marksman - in the real world a bit of spread is probably an advantage, rather like using a shotgun in certain situations rather than a snipers rifle. There's an interesting point made by Len Deighton in his book "Fighter" when he writes that although bombers in general were pretty robust and quite difficult to bring down with machine gun fire, the effect on the aircrew of 8 machine guns for the full 15 seconds was such that when it limped back to base the effect on morale was pretty devastating. And finally, some account should be taken of the end result of the BoB which would suggest that any material advantage the 109 had in armoury was on paper only.
I disagree with you Dave Robert regarding the comparison of the Brownings vs the 109 being about the same. In Greg’s you tube channel comparing the 109 vs P51 there are two pictures of a Spitfire fuselage after a ground firing experiment using 20mm Bf109 cannon. A single 109 cannon shell in the fuselage broke off the entire fuselage aft of the cockpit. Another single shot in the wing tore a hole so big that it would have downed the spit.
@@andrewstewart5721 you think the RAF dominated the Luftwaffe throughout the war? Both sides made advances, at certain times one was ahead of the other, but they were always quite well matched. If there was any kind of dominance the war would not have lasted 6 years.
Is the narrator German by any chance as he certainly seems to have a slight bias for the 109? :-) Pilots who have flown both tend to agree that the Spit is easier to fly, which must have been an advantage for inexperienced pilots. Later Spit models adopted cannon.
I live in Sweden but I have visited the raf museum in cosford once in my life and it was the best day of my life. Really hope I can go back to an raf museum :)
We hope so too :)
Go to Duxford next time
The museum is free but that’s not your problem if coming from Sweden 🇸🇪
One small correction: the pink Spitfire was for LOW altitude, especially dusk and dawn missions.
The pink spits were photo recon planes. Stripped of guns and armour, it made them lighter in all up weight for high altitude use.
@@conradboykoii1170 exactly what i thought.
If you're interested in photo recon Spitfires, may I recommend "Malta Story" (1953) staring Alec Guinnes. th-cam.com/video/xuXvnXHL3Go/w-d-xo.html
Why did the pink spits have pressurised cockpits?
@@yimmeistaryimmeistar7239 Because they were high altitude, same reason airliners have pressuried cabins
One of the bad points which is often missed in comparing the weaponry of the RAF fighters to that of the Luftwaffe fighters, is that whilst it is true that cannons are generally more destructive than bullets, the Luftwaffe had to compromise quite a bit in order to fit them to the 109. Specifically, in order to reduce the combined weight of the weapons and the ammunition, they had to modify their cannons so they had a lighter barrel, and they had to also reduce the muzzle velocity of the shells by making them a bit smaller, lighter, consequently with less explosive warhead and less propellant than they would have preferred too. This was in order to keep the gun cool when it fired and to reduce the overall weight and size of the weapon system.
What this resulted in, was cannon shells which flew much slower than would be the ideal choice and this created a problem with how much damage the shells dealt out. Since a cannon shell explodes on impact, in an ideal world, you would want that to occur with a cannon shell which was travelling fast enough to penetrate the metal skin of the aircraft, then explode as it traveled through the aeroplane, damaging critical components inside the aeroplane, or dealing out injuries the pilot of the enemy aeroplane. But since the cannon shells of the 109 were travelling at a reduced muzzle velocity, and the shells themselves were reduced in size somewhat, this meant two things...
The shells would invariably explode on impact on the exterior of the aeroplane, rather than when inside the aeroplane, and the explosion was smaller than the Luftwaffe would have liked too, since the shells had been made smaller. Cannon hits would therefore quite often damage the skin of an RAF fighter, but the damage was in large part frequently cosmetic rather than crippling, and even if it did manage to cripple the aeroplane so that the pilot had to bail out or make a forced landing, in the Battle of Britain, this meant for RAF pilots, they were over home territory when this occurred,. Furthermore, if the damaged aeroplane managed to return to base, whilst having to fix it does impact your enemy's workload, the Luftwaffe would obviously have preferred to destroy the aeroplane and possibly kill or injure its pilot, since what they were trying to achieve, was air superiority over the UK so that they could make an invasion landing with little to no aerial opposition,. This they failed to do, and part of the reason was that their cannon armament were not as effective as they would have liked it to be.
it is a very interesting technical analysis, on the other hand they could not do much with mg ff which was an inefficient fallback waiting for a better product. will be better with the 151/20 mg.
regards
@@sonoitalianoful True enough. It's worth noting though that if you look at the later P51 Mustang - which was after all a UK Ministry-specced aeroplane design in spite of being ordered from a US manufacturer - it featured a similar design philosophy to that of the Hurricane's MG armament placement, eschewing cannon armament in favour of closely-grouped MGs, to concentrate a large amount of lead which relied purely on the damage imparted by the kinetic energy of lots of bullet impacts, and there is a good deal of gun-camera footage of this weaponry arrangement severely damaging bf-109s and Fw-190s, some even blowing the wings off Luftwaffe aeroplanes, so it is clearly an effective choice.
@@ChockHolocaustI hope that google translator won't make me look bad...... yes, the average calibres from 12.5 to 15 mm (the so-called '50 calibers to put it in inches) were the most effective against fighters, these calibres represent an excellent compromise in the clash between fighters or medium bombers for the reasons you have mentioned but towards large four-engine bombers it was necessary to have large calibres for the possibility of exploding, that is, of carrying explosives considerably once the surface of the aircraft had penetrated. these cannons, see the 30 mm on the bf109, with a low rate of fire did not have a great chance of hitting a fighter albeit to a devastating extent. The Germans in the four-engine had noticed that 25 shots of 20 mm or 3/4 shots of 30 were needed mm but no consideration of the average calibers was made or taken into consideration.
compromises tactical studies chosen. many times means designed for a purpose have been used and then used in the opposite way.
good evening
@@ChockHolocaust The original Mustangs built to Brit spec. had 8 machine guns. Four 0.50s (two in the nose under the spinner, and one in each wing), and four 0.303s (two in each wing, mounted either side of the lone 0.50). The first version produced for the USAAF (in very limited numbers) had four 20 mm cannon (two in each wing). The US didn't continue with the cannon because the US-built version of the Hispano MkII was hopelessly unreliable. Subsequent versions replaced the four cannon with four 0.50s, which was inadequate. The D series (May 1944) introduced the six-gun configuration.
Issue is not the cannon but its ammo. Shells exploding on impact are easily solved by making fuse slower, i am not expert but germans put a lot of faith into low velocity big boom autocannons so i assume it was fixed quickly.
Yeah I was going to say the same. Your English is perfect. Also, you explained the differences, good and bad, with fairness and in a scholarly way. Excellent vid!
Subtitles? Your English is perfectly understandable.
For people with hearing disabilities (also for cognitive disabilities). 😊
Also for people whose first language isn’t English
@@marktaylor2087 that's It! (Eso es!)
@@dias_se ..or for people with spouses that for some reason (obviously medical) actually prefer sleep over being riveted by this brilliant gentleman's discourse.
You can turn them off in the settings.
Two very lethal and beautiful pieces of engineering,great explanation and insight,,really enjoyed this thank you,can’t wait to visit the museum..
Excellent and very informative, explained with crystal clear clarity. And I too wouldve said ''it was the pilots skill & ability to cope etc that counted when looking for a winner between these two?" I'll second that
Can you imagine these aircraft were mounted by heroes at one time some 80 years ago. I wonder if there are any spitfire/109 pilots alive today.
Yep 100 percent there are quite a few 109 and spitfire pilots.
Yes but they will be in their 80s nowadays. Still a few but let's be honest they won't be around forever and we will be left with only the memories of their bravery.
@@garrisonnichols7372 They will be in their mid nineties if they were 18 in 1945.
I'd recommend you to watch the 2018 "Spitfire" documentary, there's plenty of interviews with Spitfire pilots, unfortunately many of them have already passed away since the movie was released, one BoB veteran didn't make it to the very premiere of the movie.
Also the overall camera work and music are great there, so I'd still recommend.
As an American, Ive been to the Smithsonian Air and Space, but I really would love the opportunity to go and visit the RAF Musuem.
Absolutely INCREDIBLE collections of aircraft in both, and VERY knowledgable and VERY friendly Museum operators and guides at both.
Lovely video, keep it up guys.
From America with Love
As another American, I agree with this 110%
1:25 There are 390 comments at the time of writing (10th Aug 21) and I'm not reading through them all to see if this has been mentioned already. The aircraft pictured is a Supermarine Seafire: the naval version of the Spitfire which definitely didn't participate in the Battle of Britain (first flight in 1942).
Best breakdown I’ve ever listened to. Thanks.
That Spit MkI has a few parts on it from later models. The oil cooler under the port wing has the circular section introduced on the MkV. The windshield is also from a later model with the integral bullet resistant windscreen and flat quarter panels. MkIs and IIs had the bullet resistant 'glass' mounted on the outside. It's very neatly repainted. Is it a static display only?
well spotted, Sir. Yes, all our aircraft are static display only.
you miss one important part of the argument; The Spitfire frame is made from spars of gradually reducing size fitted one into the next. Damage to a wing for instance resulted in the wing being stripped down, the damaged spar/s removed, then the whole wing reassembled The Messerschmitt 109 was modular, so areas damaged in battle could be cut away and a whole new section bolted in then the skin replaced. The turn around of damaged aircraft back to battle ready was shorter for the German plane.
As to which one is better, it was a constant leapfrogging exercise during the war, one gaining the upper hand for a few weeks or months, then the other nullifying it with an improvement. i.e. the advance from three blade to four and then five blade props.
Interesting video thanks.
That picture at 10:10 is the Spanish made 109 with ironically a Rolls Royce Merlin Engine you can tell by looking at the engine block.
This one was used in two movies the Battle of Britain and Dunkirk.
You should also have shown the latest version of the 109 (Bf 109 K4)
Wow! What a museum! Thanks for the tour!!!
Excellent video. Thanks
11:15 not sure what 109's cockpit that is, but it doesn't look like an E-series cockpit. There's definitely an engine-cannon installed (its housing is clearly visible between the pedals) plus the more modern "strip" type ammo counter to the left of the gunsight. There's also the more modern gear up/down buttons installed on the lower left of the dash - earlier 109s (up to F-series IIRC) would've had a handle type lever installed in the lower right part of the dash. Also missing are the handles for manual operation of the water- and oil-radiator shutters - which would've been present on E-series 109s. Also some of the instruments look out of period for an E-series and some shouldn't even be on an E-series (like the artificial horizon which only became standard on G-series models. If I would have to guess, I'd say the cockpit shown is a G-series aircraft (not 100% sure which sub-variant), which means it would've been built at least two years after the BoB.
Great video loved it great watch.
Some errors in putting this over one wouldn't expect from the RAF Museum!
!000 yards convergence? The default was 400, the "Dowding Spread" that was erroneously adopted to compensate for the average pilot's gunnery ability. In the field this was much shortened as stated.
The engine didn't 'seize' in a dive out missed and spluttered or even cut out due to fuel starvation, that 'Tilly's orifice' reduced to a manageable degree. And the mirror wasn't installed 'in' the cockpit but above the armoured windscreen to enable the pilot to keep an eye on his 'six'.
I may be wrong, but were not the cowling guns 7.92 and the cannons in the wing on 1940 Bf109s?
Poor old Hurricane that accounted for more LW aircraft in the Battle of Britain, ignored again! But one doesn't read of a 'Hurricane Fund' in being does one?
Apologies for being a smart-arse nerd in advance.
Thank you for your comments. Have a look here for our video on the Hurricane: th-cam.com/video/RLE4_-LP6hM/w-d-xo.html
Bf109s had 20mm cannon in the nose.
@@Explorer982 not the E variants which fought in the Battle of Britain, F variants and onward had the nose mounted 20mm, and late G variant and the K4 had to the option to put a 30mm cannon in the nose
@@elrjames7799 im not from the UK. So i find it difficult to understand his "east end, cockney accent".
@@yimmeistaryimmeistar7239 cockney? he sounds Dutch
Thats it! Im off to the Museum in London!!!
EXCELLENT VIDEO thank you 👍👍👍👍
Great comparison and contrast. Loved this.
In the Battle of Britain the biggest difference was how much fuel you had left. The Germans had to have one eye on the Spitfires and one eye on the needle nudging empty.
well said
And the British were able to collect their downed pilots that managed to safely bail out, while the German pilots would be captured. To be able to press those experienced pilots back into service was critical as time went on and attrition became more of a factor.
The ME109 only had 10 minutes over Britain before it had to turn back. This was hampered still further by Goering who insisted that the 109 flew alongside the much slower Dornier and Heinkel bombers. The 109 - built for speed, wasted precious fuel zig-zagging back and forth trying to slow down.
Thank you Sir, very informative video 👍
RAF Air Ministry: "We'd like to increase squadron sizes to 30 aircraft."
Dowding: "Sorry, 26 is the limit. " 6:23
Love the museum, visited in 2012 on a trip to the UK. Wish they had a shuttle bus from Colindale tube station though, it's a fair walk. Can't wait to get back when we are allowed to travel out of Australia.
RAF Cosford (in the W Midlands ) and Duxford (nr Cambridge) are also well worth visiting.
I love objective description... well done...
While the general consensus tends to be that the Spitfire had the better airframe and the Messerschmitt had the better engine ; there was one specific case where a Spitfire made an emergency landing on German occupied Jersey and was captured almost intact . The Germans shipped the aircraft back to Germany , where it was fitted with a DB 605A engine , and with a few other modifications , was test flown . Everyone who flew it declared the so called 'MesserSpit' the best aircraft of the day , combining all the best virtues of the two opposing types . Sadly , the one of its kind aircraft was destroyed in an allied bombing raid .
and it looked good too!
After decades of delving into both aircraft I've come to my own personal conclusion about which aircraft was superior:
This is my own personal opinion and as such can in no way be definitive but in essence the Spitfire converted an average pilot into an above average pilot almost instantly while in the 109 an average pilot remained average until he'd accrued many more hours flight time.
This was because the Spitfire was so damn easy to fly and so forgiving that pilots could quite quickly forget about actually flying it and start concentrating on why he's flying it ,ie , spotting the enemy and intercepting him, many Spitfire pilots described flying it as 'simply thinking about wanting to be in that particular piece of sky and lo and behold there you were' ,just as when walking down a street they didn't actually will their legs to step out one after another they didn't consciously manipulate the Spitfire controls.
A good pilot could pull his Spitfire into a tight turn and keep it on the point of stall because it gave a judder when that was reached and if you kept it on that 'juddering point' no 109 could stay with you for long before the leading edge slat of it's slower moving turn innermost wing deployed and caused it to go into a flick roll in the opposite direction.
The 109 was different and had a much steeper learning curve, it wasn't at all forgiving and until a pilot became intimately acquainted with its foibles like rolling off onto one wing while on final approach to landing due to enormous engine torque and tiny airframe to stabilise it he always had to consciously fly the aircraft.
However an experienced pilot in his 109 formed a combination that was supreme.
There's obviously much more to it than just flight characteristics but they are corollary and don't really alter the balance.
It's my opinion that if both aircraft are flown by novice pilots the Spitfire MkI/II has the advantage.
If both are flown by experienced pilots then the 109E has the advantage.
The exceptional, Eric Hartmann mostly used a 109 fighter for his absurd number of 352 confirmed planes shot down! And many German pilots passed 200 planes, probably because they had no one to take over, so the very best continued to fly and fight till shot down.
@@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188
Yes indeed Finn, only the top maybe 5% became aces in all air forces whatever the nationality, the remainder eventually became just another potential kill sooner or later.
@@antonrudenham3259 And, as during "The Battle of Britain", waiting for your enemy to come to You, gives an advantage, as the enemy has to go back at one time, even if they have an enemy fighter at their tail.
ANTON RUDENHAM “rolling on to one wing on final approach due to high engine torque” - are you sure about that? I always thought it was on take-off that this happened. That’s when there is high engine torque, not when landing. When rotating at take-off the precession could be very Angelou’s. correct me if I’m wrong but that’s what I thought.
@@milespostlethwaite1154
You are of course quite correct my friend, the 109 was a bit of a beast to ride but especially when slow and accelerating just as the pilot cleans up the ac after take off and maybe opens the throttle a tad too much.
But also on landing when the ac has everything extended it flew a razor thin flight envelope and would punish any pilot that injudiciously gave it a burst of power.
The 109 was an excellent ac but to extract that excellence the pilot must be well acquainted with her deadly traits.
She was an unforgiving mistress but once you'd mastered her...............What a ride!
The 109 canons only had 60 rounds per canon. Or 120 in total. The BoB 109s did not use the centrefire canon because of vibration. There was also a very real question as to whether the slats actually worked reliably and the negative impact they had at medium and high speeds was something that was noticed by RAF test pilots when comparing captured 109s with allied fighters. The 109 also offered very little feedback and with its heavy nose had a habit of falling away nose first and the end of a roll or a turning fight with high angles of attack.
On the other hand, the spitfires ‘bunderbuss’ 8 x .303 machine guns proved more effective than anticipated by the Germans when they tested a captured Mk1 in June 1940 before the BoB. However, the biggest differences occurred by two simultaneous advances that were added to all combat spitfires before the BoB really got underway: 100 octane fuel and the Rotol constant speed propellor. While the June 1940 Luftwaffe test comparison between the new 109E and the captured Mk1 (that had a 2 speed De Haviland prop) - completed with both aircraft using 87 octane german fuel demonstrated that the performance of both to be roughly comparable - depending on the altitude, the change to 100 octane fuel (which allowed pilots to run 12 pounds of boost through the supercharger) and the constant speed prop was a game changer. The spitfire Mk1 thus configured had superior performance at all altitudes over the 109E. Its maximum rate of climb increased by 750ft per minute, as but one example. This performance gap widened further with the introduction of the MkII in fairly large numbers for the second half of the BoB.
Not quite correct. The earliest 109's didn't have any cannons, just machine guns, and then year after year they were constantly getting upgraded and some variants had up to six cannons; some had 20mm ones, other 30mm ones and some had a mix of both 20mm and 30mm cannons alongside some 8mm or 13mm machine guns. The Spitfires were evolving in the same way but they always had quite a bit less armament that was also less effective because of its placement. Other than that the two were very similar. They both had excellent climb rates(unlike most US fighters) and once airborne were very easy to fly, with the Spitfire being superior in dogfights because of its larger wings with a lot more surface area.
Quite crazy that this technology was created almost 70 years ago or so. Very impressive
80 years ago
The Hurricane gets too little love
Very nice presentation ! I love it, and the Spitfire is my out most preference since I was 5 years old! I'm 70 now and still love it😂
There are a few Pilots that flew both aircrafts and each stated that the Me109 is the better aircraft. But who knows, they are both very iconic and beautiful designs.
Danke für die Erinnerung, wie gerne deutsche Ingenieure die besten Tötungsmaschinen bauen und Kriege beginnen. Ich nehme an, Sie beziehen sich auf Eric Brown.
@@powerjets3512 Nur die Dummen glauben immer noch, dass Deutschland einen der großen Kriege begonnen hat. Die traurige Bilanz der Anzettelung eines Krieges ist GB.
@@KBauer-cs1rh Reading Eric Brown's (the most experienced test pilot in history) book "duels in the sky" and he says the joint overall best fighter aircraft in WW2 were the Spitfire & Fw190. The Bf-109 doesn't even make the top 6.
1. Supermarine Spitfire / FW-190.
2. Grumman Hellcat.
3. North American Mustang IV.
4. Mitsubishi Zeke.
5. Hawker Tempest V.
6. Kawanishi N1K2 Shinden-Kai.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Also possible. I did not pilot either one. But there are other testimonies out there that say other things and praise the Me 109 G to the highest level. The only thing I can say for sure is that they are all beautiful designs.
German fighter ace, Walter Krupinski: "Everybody, every German fighter who had fought against the Spitfire was thinking, that it is a much better aircraft than our 109." th-cam.com/video/KY_AUdtvhY8/w-d-xo.html
The differences in the handling characteristics meant that the pilots used completely different tactics. THe BF 109's would avoid turning fights with Spitfires but " boom and zoom " using their speed advantage to gain the upper hand. Rather than diving to avoid an enemy on their tail, as was suggested in the video, an experienced 109 pilot would climb in a slight turn, which the slower Spitfires could not follow without risking a stall. A diving Spitfire could attain it's maximum speed more quickly than a 109 in fact. I expected better from this video...ps, the engines didn't " seize " but simply conked out due to fuel starvation.
@ ... you can't have a woman teaching men about men's stuff so the jobs yours. But yeah.... it's pretty lame.
@@louisavondart9178 If you're a woman who knows about these things, you're one of the sexiest women on the planet.
@ ... and one of the nastiest. Or so my wife tells me...
@ ..no-one does. All you can do is keep an eye on your 6 oclock. Cheers...
DON'T TALK SUCH A LOAD OF FUCKING CRAP ,YOU KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT WW2 AIRCRAFT ESPECIALLY THE SPIT , I OWN A SPIT MK 5B AND KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT , I HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT MY SPIT ,SO AS TO MAINTAIN IT IN FLYING CONDITION . AS WELL AS FLY IT.
The museum is fantastic, over in Hendon. Of these two planes, I prefer the ME-109 on aesthetics alone (I'm a designer). As a kid I was always drawing war materiel, and I was obsessed with the Germans' stylish uniforms, better tanks and planes. And I'd take the Focke-Wulf 190 over these two: a gorgeous aircraft.
Me too!
The Germans didn't have better tanks! Sure, the panzers had thicker armament and a bigger gun, but they were very complex, with a gearbox designed by Ferdinand Porche that used 15 gears. They were much heavier than the Sherman tanks that had the same gears as a car. Being heavier, they couldn't use certain bridges. Also, if they broke down, the Panzers had to be hauled onto trains and shipped back to Germany. The Allies had mobile repair units near the front lines. The damaged Shermans could be repaired quickly and easily by comparison and put back into service.
100% i agree, their uniforms were nuts.....and the Focke-Wulf 190 is also amazingly gracious aircraft
According to Bruce Dickinson and Iron Maiden the Spitfires used in the Battle of Britain had 4 blade propellers not 3, I'm building a 50% scale (18.5 foot wingspan) display for a huge game coming up, does anyone know which is correct?
From all I've read the conclusion that the Bf109E and the Spitfire II were overall evenly matched is correct although each had unique advantages.
Things that might also have been mentioned...
The Merlin was a 27 litre V12 while the DB-601 was a 34 litre inverted V12. Both offered similar power to weight ratio, but why did the Merlin do with 27 litres what it took the DB 601 34 litres to do? In part at least it may have been that the Germans were stuck with 87 octane fuel (i.e. regular gas/petrol with which you fuel your car) while the Merlin was usually powered by 110 octane+ imported by convoys from the US. So although they produced similar power outputs the Bf-109 used its lower fuel at a faster rate than the Spitfire. It had not been intended for use as a long range escort fighter and this put it at a severe disadvantage having to cross France and the channel, limiting combat time before being forced to turn back to minutes against freshly fueled Hurricanes and Spitfires. Many Bf-109s which were lost during the BoB simply ran out of fuel and were lost in the channel.
The DB-601 not only used Bosch direct fuel injection that enabled uninterrupted performance unaffected by an G force, it also included a variable ratio supercharger automatically controlled by altitude to offer the optimal charge to the engine up to the supercharger ceiling without pilot intervention (leaving them to focus on combat and staying alive!).
The Daimler Benz engines also could accommodate a cannon firing through the propeller hub on the exact aircraft centre line although this would be seen more on the Bf-109F after the BoB. (The only Allied engine I know of that could do this was the Soviet Klimov license produced Hispano-Suiza V12). Having machine guns over the engine and a cannon inside it offered excellent ballistics without the issue of parallax crossover issue of wing guns. The downside was the engine cannon breech sat between the pilot's feet, had different ballistics to the machine guns and there wasn't room for many rounds. Nevertheless a hit with one of those cannon shells could blow the tail off of an enemy fighter.
The licensed produced Handley-Page leading edge wing slats in the Bf-109 reduced landing speed for an aircraft with a very low wing area and high wing loading. I've heard claims that some Jagdwaffe pilots found ways to use them in turning fights in combat, but as a rule most of them avoided this kind of combat with the RAF especially owing to the Spitfire's smaller turning radius and superior maneuverability at the low speeds of thius kind of combat. The Germans instead preferred "boom and zoom" dogfights which better exploited the advantages of the Bf-109 over the Spitfire. The leading edge slats deployed automatically - the pilot had no control over them, which usually meant one would deploy before the other, each with a loud disorienting "bang". That didn't make for a stable gun platform, but some pilots said they used it to out-turn Spitfires. I doubt it was common practice though.
Evidently Willi Messerschmitt and Robert Lusser weren't too concerned about pilot comfort. The cockpit of the Bf-109 was smaller than that of the Spitfire and together with the smaller wing area made extreme, violent maneuvers more physically demanding for German pilots than their British adversaries. The heavy, framed Bf-109 canopy could be ejected using explosive bolts for bail out, but the elevator struts meant the recommended bailout procedure required the aircraft be inverted before the pilot bailed. Many pilots preferred to ride their crippled Bf-109s to belly landings rather than face this. Hans-Joachim Marseille (top Jagdwaffe ace in North Africa) was killed when an elevator strut broke his neck while bailing out from a BF-109.
Like the Hurricane and Mustang, the Spitfire's main fuel tank was behind the engine and in front of the pilot. In the Bf-109, the pilot sat on an L-shaped tank that held fuel below and behind them. (The FW-190 pilot also sat their their main tank) While the latter sounds pretty dangerous, if a Bf-109 were hit in the self-sealing tank and it caught fire, the flames were below and behind the pilot, offering some hope of survival. If the Spitfire were hit in the main self sealing fuel tank and it ignited, the slipstream blasted the flames directly into the pilot's face. Many Fighter Command pilots suffered severe facial burns and permanent disfigurement as a result.
The engine of the BF-109 could be swapped in 30 mins (they impressed Charles Lindbergh with this in 1937). The wings could be removed and replaced quickly as well because the Bf-109's undercarriage was actually attached to the engine firewall in the fuselage, not the wings. This was the upside of that tricky narrow track undercarriage. The aircraft was excellent for fast combat repairs and long distance rail transport.
Oddly, the elliptical shape of the Spitfire wings had a German origin. German aerodynamicists had theorized this was an optimal wing shape around WW1, but it was thought impractically difficult to make. Siegfried and Walther Gunther designed the Heinkel He-70 Blitz - an all metal flush riveted mail plane with symmetrical elliptical wings which first flew in 1932 and was intended for a Lufthansa fast mail European service. The legend goes that Beverley Shenstone, a junior Canadian aerodynamicist working for the Supermarine company saw one of these at Croydon airport and was quite impressed. When Supermarine were subsequently invited by the Air Ministry to join a competition to develop a new generation British fighter, he tried to get his boss Reginald Mitchell to include it but he declined. The result was an odd gull winged open cockpit aircraft that lost out to Sydney Camm's superior Hawker Hurricane. However, given his sensational successes in the Schneider Trophy races, Mitchell was invited by the Air Ministry to try again. This time the result included perfectly elliptical wings. Then the Air Ministry required them to be fitted with machine guns and the elliptical shape was skewed forward for ballistic reasons. When the Air Ministry named his superb new creation "Spitfire" Mitchell allegedly commented to the effect that "was exactly the sort of stupid name I would have expected from them". Mitchell never see his remarkable aircraft in service. He died in 1937.
It has been said the Bf-109 wing delivered "90 percent of the performance" of the Spitfire wing at a fraction of the cost. Messerschmitt not only designed a very competitive fighter, they developed a class of production engineering that enabled them to mass produce them at a phenomenal rate. It was been said the Bf-109 cost a third to a half that of a Spitfire air-frame. This was vital for Germany building a 1940s air force starting from nothing in 1935. somewhere between 33,000 and 35,000 Bf-109s were produced - only the Ilyushin Il-2 was made in larger numbers in WW2.
The Messerschmitt Bf-109 flew before the Hurricane or the Spitfire. It saw combat before them starting in the Spanish civil War and fought in the Western, North African and Eastern fronts.
It was produced from 1937 until 1953 when CASA ceased production of licensed versions in Spain, well after Spitfire, Hurricane and Mustang production had ceased. (The Bf-109v1 - the first to fly - fly flew in 1935 with a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine and the last Spanish version flew with a Rolls Royce Merlin).
These Merlin powered Spanish aircraft were used to film the 1969 film "Battle of Britain". A scene in that film shows a Goering berating fighter pilot commanders as cowards for failing to protect his bombers, then asking them what they needed to do better. One asked for a squadron of Spitfires. This is based on an actual event and that smart remark was delivered by Oberst. Adolf Galland. The film takes it out of context, suggesting Galland believed the Spitfire superior to the Bf-109 when he did not. Galland wrote that Goering's demand that the Bf-109s slow down to the bomber speed so they could be seen by demoralized bomber crews robbed the fighters of their "boom and zoom" speed advantage, causing more bomber losses and reduced them to RAF targets. Angry at this self-defeating policy and the unfair suggestions of Jagdwaffe cowardice he quipped to the Reichsmarschall to get him a staffel of Spitfires.
Many Bf-109 aces refused to switch to the the newer and arguably superior Focke-Wulf FW-190 when offered - so much did they like the Bf-109, despite its quirks.
More fighter aces were produced by Germany during WW2 than any other country. Staring with Erich Hartmann (the highest scoring ace in history with 352 mostly confirmed victories) I have seen online rankings where you have to go down 150 - 200 aces before you find a non-Jagdwaffe ace. Nearly all of these men learned their trade and built up their kills in the Messerschmitt Bf-109. This venerable little aeroplane may thus have shot down more enemy aircraft and made more aces than any other in history.
Consequently while it was arguably obsolete when the war ended, I would propose that the Messerschmitt Bf-109 may be the most successful fighter aircraft in history.
Yikes your comment is historically accurate and well said. You words are worth more than this entire educational video bravo!
@@garyseeseverything8615
I've recently learned there is much more to this. Check out this discussion by Calum Douglas ...
th-cam.com/video/ImEpk1s-Vk0/w-d-xo.html
Excellent analysis and comments.
To compare the 109 and the spitfire, General Adolf Galland said it best, the 109 was the better offensive fighter, and the spitfire was the better defensive fighter.
There where 24 versions or the Spitfire. The even more powerful Griffon engine replaced the Merlin to counter the FW 190 threat. Galland’s remark was in 1940, comparing a captured Spitfire with a ME 109. One aircraft made a step up then the other but the ME 109 was an earlier design and got to a point where it could not keep up. The FW 190 became the biggest threat. At the end of WW2 the Spitfire was the best air superiority fighter. The Mustang was the best escort fighter it had the Merlin engine the Spitfire (later marks) had the more powerful Griffin. The later marks of the Mustang adopted the bubble canopy developed for the Spitfire they are still used in modern fighter. You need to see what’s going on.. the Famous Spit and Hurricane fuel problem (nose dive the SU carburettor due to hi G miss-fuels) was initially fixed by a simple drilled washer that limited the max amount of fuel preventing over-fuelling in a sudden dive, invented by Tilly Shilling an Engineer she also an avid motor cycle racer. Later developments solved the problem fully. The Spit started with machine guns and then adopted cannons as well.
@邻居狗 the Zero was fine because it lacked armour and self sealing tanks. If soon became a flying matchstick
@@anthonywilson4873 i know i'm gunna hear it but....during circus, rhubarb and ramrod missions after the bob, raf spitfire numbers against outdated 109s are bad. the luftwaffe 109 pilots on the other hand, did extremely well against newer raf spitfire marks even before the 190s arrived. this is as well under the condition that most 109 pilots and planes were sent to prepare for the eastern offensive leaving the luftwaffe at a huge numerical disadvantage during kanalkampf late 1940-1941. even as late as the dieppe raid, the few outdated 109 f and even e models did very well against newer mk V and IX. then again, these were not average 109 pilots, these were some of the luftwaffe's best. one experienced luftwaffe pilot in an outdated 109 could hold his own against one or even more of the raf's best pilots with newer, spitfire marks.
@goff0103 greens also flew Spitfires as well and experienced pilots also flew hurricanes
@@Ettrick8 My limited understanding is the zero was good up to 15 maybe 20000'. (Ceiling was just over 30000'). Strength was in turning fights. Engine hp started at approx 850 and was developed up to around 1100hp. (Nakajima NK1F SAKAE 21 ENGINE. A6M3 22 & A6M5 52).
Great range. Rabaul to Guadalcanal 900kms each way plus aircombat.
No armour or self sealing fuel tanks till end of 43.
An elegant advanced design at the beginning of WW2, but one that didnt lend itself to airframe and powerplant development. Like...say the Spitfire or P51.
Bf109 airframe didnt really advance greatly after the "f". If anything, towards the end of ww2, tail plane assemblies started to be made of wood, because of materials shortages.
But the DB605 DM inverted vee 12 engine were ataining 1850hp with MW injection. Engines started to overpower airframes. Check out YT'er "Gregs Airplanes", he does a fantastic job of exploring why different nations used different engines. Radial v Inline, liquid cooled v aircooled. Mechanical driven supercharging v exhaust gas supercharging.
The Yellow Nose meant the plane was from JG 26. During violent low speed maneuvering the slats would bang in and out making the plane less stable. The view from the 109's cramped cockpit was so limited that a Mustang pilot sitting in one after the war said " If knew this I would have been more aggressive". The lack of visibility was probably why the Germans invented the Finger Four Formation.
Martin C Windrow, Fighters Volume One, Published by Hylton Lacy, half of all 109 losses occurred during landing or take off.
VERY TECHNICALLY INFORMATIVE THANK YOU A LOT FOR URE GREAT WORK
4:00 The engine didn’t seize! It cut out due to lack of fuel. No idea about engine basics.
It didn't lack fuel. It was flooded. Kind regards, RAFM
@ That's sad. Kind regards, RAFM
@@RoyalAirForceMuseum lol based reply
I think you are both right. First the engine stopped due to the negative g-forces, because no more fuel was mixed in. Meanwhile, the flow chamber was flooded with fuel. As soon as the positive G-forces came back, too much fuel was mixed in because the flow chamber was too full. The problem was not that the engine stopped, but that in the worst case it could not be started again.
They are carbureted engines so expect an engine shutdown
One picture of a ME is definitely a Spanish version, with a Rolls Royce engine, as they had bought the plane-type in Spain at the end of the war, but didn't get a sample of the DB engine before the war had ended! So they managed to rebuilt the frames to use a Merlin! You may see it from its propeller, which is on top! They used these planes in the later "Battle of Britain" film, and the picture is most likely from that?
Finn mate, you are soooo wrong, google both and compare,
Yes, one of the pictures is of a Hispano HA1112 Buchon, which is a Spanish built derivative of the 109 and it is indeed powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin. The picture does show one of the Buchons used in the film "Battle of Britain" but the picture is much more recent than 1968, the year the film was made. A few of these Buchons are still airworthy and at least two are often to be seen flying at Duxford airshows.
The Spanish CASA-built 109s were first re-engined (and possibly built to accept) with Spanish-made Hispano-Suiza engines (as seen in the film 'The Star of Africa') and then with Merlins later.
Nice production, but you really should film/upload at least HD 1080p. It is 2020 after all ;-)
Good informative basic comparison. Yes it wouldnt matter if the Germans had spitfires and the RAF had Messerschmitts , it depended on pilot skills. The outcome of BoB would have been the same. Two points missed were that the me109 was easier to produce and transport not as complicated as the spitfire. Also the me109 had a cannon firing thru the prop hub which was a very handy weapon.
Good point on the production. However, no engine cannon in the Battle of Britain Bf 109. That only came with the F version.
@@krishendrix4924 Yes the F model which was produced from July 1940. It was used in the BoB towards the end.
The F series were introduced in 1941.
@@krishendrix4924 F1 first used by JG 51 in early Oct. 1940. Molders liked it and scored maybe 10 victories late in BoB with it. Look it up.
Yes you are right. Thank you for that. But to be clear, the Messerschmitt here is an E version without the engine gun
Very good presentation..
3:55 ‘the gravity kept the fuel up’ Gravity doesn’t keep things up my friend. That’ll be Gforce
We understood what he meant, negative gravity forces caused the fuel to float upwords
Your english is perfect! Thank you from Germany
#9:17; 1000 genades/minute? As first, the single MG FF/M shoot 540 grenades/minute. And don't forget, the MG FF (later MG FF/M) drums can only hold 60 grenades. ;) #11:25; the shown middle part of the canopy is not the correct one for the Bf 109 Emil-series. The museum has replaced the missing original canopy part with a one of the later Bf 109 Gustav-series. The this frames are a bit bigger. Some of the Emils at the Battle of Britain fights got also the early canopy with a bit better view, but less protection for the pilot and it was more complicated in the production. So it was replaced during the year 1940.
A last notice... the MG FF/M is not build in at the museums aircraft. Here is looks like the Bf 109 E-1/E-8 series with two MG 17 in the wings. It was produced at the same time as the cannon versions. One was the "Cannon bird" and the other one was the "MG bird". ;-)
Thank you for your excellent comments. As said, both cannons fired a total combined of 1,000 grenades (Minen) per minute. The Bf 109E in the Museum is used as an example for the Bf 109s in the Battle of Britain, it is not meant as the specific example.
how do I turn off the subtitles?
I was thinking the same thing I still don't know.
thanks for this interesting video
Ehr is it not sky type s on bottom of the spit?
which variants are we talking about?
Very good narrative in simple language...well done RAF museum! It would have been interesting to know more about how the carburettor
issue in the RR Merlin was eventually sorted and why fuel injection wasn't thought of earlier in such a fine aero engine.
Power. The carb engine delivered more power per litre displacement than the injected engine. The Merlin went from 990hp up to about 1700hp on 27 litres displacement. The dB series engines displaced much more for broadly similar power output.
A female engineer called Beatrice Shilling played a part. Have a read at www.rafmuseum.org.uk/blog/women-and-girls-in-science/
Kind regards, RAFM
Beatrice Shilling must have had some essential skills that made an important difference.
which is better spitfire or hurricane, is it true hurricane shot down more axis planes and the spitfire was more to boost morale
I would love to sit in one to see how the feeling is, I remember growing up playing Battlefield 1942 video game as a teenager in junior high, controlling a spitfire in cockpit view
I remember a WWII pilot, who flew both aircraft, commented that the Spitfire was superior, simply because any competent pilot could fly the Spitfire very well, but it took an expert to get the best from the 109.
Exactly! You can prove it when You fligh both warbirds in a realistic flight simulator, I recommend the il2 series, last edition acts above Tobruk. Greatings!
The Daimler Benz engine was mounted upside down, worth a mention. Also the link between the spitfire and the high speed racers of the 20s and 30s that RJ Mitchell also developed.
Yes DB603 was designed as inverted V12 it was mounter properly.
Interesting engineering choice there
The inverted V was far easier to maintain...most of the working bits were accessible from the ground
And that configuration meant that the thin part of the engine was in front of the pilot allowing better sight lines
as you dropped off the perch...fired...then regained altitude...when your target broke to a side you could see it and start to line up your next run
I understand (told by old pilot) that having the 2 oil sumps and 2 pumps in the heads provided a redundancy...a single leak was not (as) catastrophic
Maybe...
However the Merlin/Packard V12 got put in everything because the heads were on top
From AFV to MTB's it was an "all arms" engine...by the end of the war it was ubiquitous in manufacture and application
So manufacture, logistics and training was (relatively) compatible
Thank you for this video, which gives many informations. In 1976 (+/-) I visited London for a week and wanted to visit a RAF museum, but the taxi-driver didn't know this, I had to show him on a London-Map.
One Question: You explained the PR F signs, there is some more: X4590. Is that a kind of serial number?
Must have been a German taxi driver.
@@philipm06 By any chance did you end up in Poland
Gosh, basic mistake, the 20mm MGFF in the wing of the Bf109E did not have 1,000 round per minute firing rate with explosive charges.. that was the rate of the MG17 guns on top of the cowling.. The cannons had about half that rate 520-540 rounds per minute
two cannons = 1,000 rpm.
Me 109, a great aircraft however, no Spitfire pilots wanted to exchange for a 109 whereas ....
The 109 is so beautiful and i love the sound of it.
You dirty girl.
Reading Eric Brown's (the most experienced test pilot in history) book "Duels in the sky" and in his opinion (one definitely worth taking into consideration) he says the joint overall best fighter aircraft in WW2 were the Spitfire & Fw190. The Bf-109 doesn't even make the top 6.
1. Supermarine Spitfire / FW-190.
2. Grumman Hellcat.
3. North American Mustang IV.
4. Mitsubishi Zeke.
5. Hawker Tempest V.
6. Kawanishi N1K2 Shinden-Kai.
That is to be expected: consider 2 points:
1. Bf.109 quickly became outdated past 1942, as the construction had barely any modification reserves left. For example: 109G-6 (the most mass-produced) had bulges before there wasn't enough room neither for 13mm machineguns, nor for the stronger landing gear. Engine improvements didn't make the landing problem easier too, as the cruising and stalling speeds increased because of both the horse power and aircraft mass kept rising, so the pilots had to maintain higher speed when landing.
2. Personal bias: Eric Brown (like every other pilot) rated what he witnessed and got to handle, as you can notice the lack of soviet or italian fighters, which were both great for their own requirements. He also rated the fighters in a certain scenario, because Fw.190 proved to be worse than Bf.109 on the Eastern front due to battles being usually short-range and low-altitude, where 190s performed closer to a flying brick as they had no time to gain altitude or speed.
@@MDzmitry Hence why I said "in his opinion" Dmitriy, which I then qualified with his being an opinion worth taking into consideration, as he had flown more aircraft types than any other individiual in history, which I think is still the case.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 a fair point, I only wanted to point out some cases in which there can be debates
thats bec it was difficult to fly for him
Vertical or horizontal fight?
the pink colour was for dicing (photo recon at the cloud base ! and that could be at low altitude) -
It would have been nice if you added that you are compairing a Mk1 Spitfire vs a BF 109 E. I would have loved to have seen a Mk V vs a BF 109 E over Britan. It would not have been a contest,
yeah make that a bf109F4 and it will be a contest again. however dont put a fw190 in there then its no contest anymore...
You forgot to mention the cannon that fired through the propeller hub on early Me109's
Not as common as people think until the later models, especially the Friedrich and Gustav. Most Battle of Britain 109s (E-3 and E-4) _look_ like they have the hub cannon fitted but in reality didn't.
Not one single mention about the ease of maintenance of each machine, or how easy or difficult each was to repair.
I'll just say marks and versions are important, when talking about weapons being superior or not. I'll leave it at that.
Some interesting facts on Two Amazing WW2 Fighter's
a lot of which are wrong.
@@louisavondart9178 what do you mean? What was wrong?
Surely in the end it came down to the rate of production of aircraft and number of replacement air crew.
To eventually win the war outright yes and it did? But in these individual conflicts at various times of the war, it was certain magnificent men in their flying machines?
Well in that case the Hurricane would have won...
I think if you account for loss rate of pilots (one of the factors of which are the aircraft being flown) to the replacement rate then the Hurricane doesn't look as good.
If an RAF pilot bails he gets in another plane. If a German pilot bails he is getting locked up. Also UK really ramped up production and even made planes from bits of broken ones put back together again.
the nose guns of the bf109 E-3 in the video arent cannons they are 7.62 mm machine guns. in the E model it had two 20mm cannons in the wings. it wasnt until the F series 109 that the front of the plane was elongated and a new cowl was fitted. this new set-up allowed for the 109 to have a single 20mm cannon firing out of the propeller hub, making it deadly accurate. this single cannon replaced the 2 cannons previously mounted within the wings.
Pilots found the cockpit hood would not open. No more words needed
I was lucky enough to sit in a real 109. The cockpit is very cramped and the view very limited. For me it felt like the Spitfire has a better cockpit view.
Thank you for the video, very instructive.
I get that this was about the BoB, so this features the BoB display only, but disappointed you didn't show or mention Black 6 in Hendon there - it has a fascinating war and post-war history.
it is now in Cosford. Kind regards, RAFM
@@RoyalAirForceMuseum Thank you, I did not know that! It's been a few years.
Was it not only the mark 1 spitfire that had only machine guns, didn't every mark after that have some variant of hispano 20mm auto cannons. It seems like you were focusing on the battle of Britain , but if you were just wanting to make a comparison of the two i think it would be more fair to use a larger bracket/spread over time for both aircraft.
Pains me to say it, but I think the Bf109e was better than the Spitfire I, owing to its better armament and the Merlin's carburetor problem. That said, 109 pilots often had more combat experience and better tactics.
@chris younts This was due to the sudden change of tactics of the 109's escorting the bombers instead of free hunting. This negated their strenghts of extremly fast climbing and diving and instead made them have to get jumped by the Spits while going slow to match the speed of the bombers. At this slow speed combat often ended in turning fights in the horizontal, where the Spitfire has an advantage. Hence Gallands comment, that for this new job, he rather have a Spitfire.
Why can't I put off the SUBTITLES?!
If YOU added that, DROP it!!
@andy morris
Unless you are deaf.
wish to visit, as I knew some of RAF pilots and my grandmom served as WAAF during the war. On my top list. And what´s better? To me, for many reasons, probably Bf109 (but it is 50,001/49,999). Because it´s the key disadvantage I see, small range, was not a fault, it was designed for a different way of war and even german pilots knew it´s not a fighter designed to fly across the channel. But Spit, it is a true beauty. It is probably the nicest airplane ever. Anyway, my personal preferred airplane of the era is Fw 190. Very durable, very flexible (fighter, flying tank, bomber...) very adjustable (like D9 or Ta 152). My friend was Josef Vopalecky, a fighter of 68. squadron, my grandmom served at 311. (Czechoslovak) bomber/coastal sq. Her name is Truda Ziemlich, later Popper/Peter (my grandpa changed his name from German-sounding Popper to Slavic-sounding Peter, he was a member of Czechoslovakia Armored regiment in Dunkerque (44-45) and also served (before) in North Africa in Tobruk. I still own his solder book, so I found even the flat they were in London... So yes, wish to visit the museum a lot. Take care...
It was called, tongue in check, Miss Tilly’s Orifice
Very interesting facts, both are exeptional Ww2 plane... Thx!!!
The Spifire has the letters of 609 Aux squadron. There is a 50% chance my father worked on it either at Drem or Middle Wallop, just depending on the flight it was assigned too.
Rifle caliber weapons did ok at the start of the war and only really became a problem when with the introduction of more armour plating.
Self sealing fuel tanks as well. Much better to punch an incendiary cannon round through those things.
Awesome !
Why the E variant they could’ve use the F or the G variants
Perhaps because only Es fought in the battle. By your reasoning why not Mk XIV s?
Newer bf109 were sent to the eastern front Russia!
"Give me a squadron of spitires" Galland said to Goering...
That pretty much gives me the answer.
But what did Galland mean by it? The answer is in his autobiography. Kind regards, RAFM
You're correct, Sky.
That’s a lie he never said that no German wanted a Inferior spitfire which needs american super fuels just to compete.
@@garyseeseverything8615 The Luftwaffe would have used its superior DB engine in Spitfire airframes you ignoramus. The Bf109E airframe had weak wings and tail so fragile it needed struts. The Bf109 was so small Willy Messerschmitt had to drop all wing armament from the F variant onwards to get optimum performance. Stop pretending the Spit was crap because it clearly wasn't.
@@RoyalAirForceMuseum I'm not sure, but I think Galland was trying to shake Goering out of his hubris into a realisation that the Luftwaffe were most likely to lose the BoB unless something dramatic happened to tilt the scales away from the RAF. The German pilots were obsessed with the Spitfire because the Bf109 didn't have a significant performance edge over it.
(Also, Hurricane pilots benefited from being underestimated, especially the Polish ones!)
How does the Spitfire compare to the P51D(Merlin engine version)?
No comparison. The P51D Mustang solved alot of the short comings of the Spitfire. The Mustang had the range speed and better firepower over the Spitfire. The Spitfire won the battle but the Mustang won the war.😊
@@garrisonnichols7372 thank you!! 😀 .
You are the first person whom I heard brave enough to say clearly and directly that the Mustang is better than the Spitfire. A lot of people will try to avoid answering by going round and round....
Now could I then ask, why does the Mustang has a much longer range than the Spitfire fire, given that both use the same engine?
@@michaelwong4303 drop tanks on the mustang gave it the range to protect the bombers all the way to Berlin Germany and still get back to the UK airfields. The Mustang was designed as an escort fighter while the Spitfire was only a interceptor aircraft designed to protect the British homeland. The British did make drop tanks for the Spitfire to give it longer range for combat duties but the British had other planes to fill that role. Still the Mustang was in a class of it's own. It's altitude advantage speed great maneuverability and range with 6 x 50. Caliber machine guns made for a great long range escort fighter.
Really the only other fighting aircraft that I can think off the top of my head that checked alot of the same boxes as the Mustang is the Mitsubishi Zero. Only problem is well it was the preferred aircraft of the enemy. Which means the Allies didn't use it. The Americans did get their hands on a few Zeros and studying it's advantages gave us the ability to make better planes to fight it.
Another problem with Spitfires early on was they had carburetors that when going into a steep dive wouldn't get enough fuel to the engine but that was later fixed. Also the Spitfire was designed with 8x 30 caliber machine guns but as the war continued these guns couldn't penetrate the thicker armor of German planes so the British switched to 20mm cannons but these also had problems because the cannons could jam. That's why most American aircraft had 50 BMG guns because they were more reliable.
What about the Hawker Hurricane?
What do you mean? He’s comparing the Spitfire and the Me109. You might as well say, “what about the Lancaster?”
@@ianprice9563 I could have mentioned a harrier jump jet.... But I didn't
Well, when i look at the Spit i'm brought to think "how can it possibly be so beautiful?" Reg Mitchell notoriously used to say "if it looks good, it's good"...well, it's the whole point! Just the A6m5 and the early versions of the FW 190 share with it the same sound, i should say "healthy" proportions...just like an athlete's body!
Wasn't it Marcel Dassault who said that?
@@RoyalAirForceMuseum Maybe. As a matter of fact, i heard it from an engineer who used to work in his team in those years. Of course, it seems to be a somewhat common motto for aircaft designers all over the world, and i couldn't say who said it first. It could have been Mr. Bloch for sure!
@@Riccardo_Silva well said!
Always : the quality of the pilots .
Please subtitle in italian.. the voice is in english and subtitle also . Thank you
it's for deaf people...
The purpose of the red white and blue circle was to identify it as a British plane. When attacking in large numbers it was important to know who was who. Some times if Spitfire pilots saw another squadron of British planes coming down to join the fight they would roll the plane so the British pilots could see 1. the elliptical wing and 2 the red white and blue circle markings it was known as flashing the colours.The rear view mirror was not inside the cockpit it was on the outside above the windshield.The 8 machine guns were latter swapped for 2= 20 mm canons and 4 =303 machine guns or 8= 303 machine guns and 4= 20mm cannons.
I agree with the below comment the subtitles were absolutely not needed in actually take away from the video a little bit
what a fascinating video! Kris does an amazing job!
I love the museum with all my heart. I hope to visit again soon.
Interesting stuff, thanks.
A couple of points regarding the weapon comparison:
The critique of the Spits armoury is a bit unbalanced imho - although its true that the 109's cannons could fire at about 1,000 rounds per min (but there were only 120 cannon rounds in total) by the same token the spit could fire almost 10,000 rounds per min (and it had about 2,500) much smaller and not explosive of course, but for a liquid cooled IC engine, one bullet in the cooling system and its "goodnight Vienna" and a 109 pilot did not have the "comfort" of any armour protection like a Spit pilot did (although not much use against cannon).
Also the criticism of the positioning and aiming of the guns in the Spit presumes that every pilot is a perfect marksman - in the real world a bit of spread is probably an advantage, rather like using a shotgun in certain situations rather than a snipers rifle.
There's an interesting point made by Len Deighton in his book "Fighter" when he writes that although bombers in general were pretty robust and quite difficult to bring down with machine gun fire, the effect on the aircrew of 8 machine guns for the full 15 seconds was such that when it limped back to base the effect on morale was pretty devastating.
And finally, some account should be taken of the end result of the BoB which would suggest that any material advantage the 109 had in armoury was on paper only.
Thank you for your excellent comments.
@@RoyalAirForceMuseum you're very welcome and thank you
I disagree with you Dave Robert regarding the comparison of the Brownings vs the 109 being about the same. In Greg’s you tube channel comparing the 109 vs P51 there are two pictures of a Spitfire fuselage after a ground firing experiment using 20mm Bf109 cannon. A single 109 cannon shell in the fuselage broke off the entire fuselage aft of the cockpit. Another single shot in the wing tore a hole so big that it would have downed the spit.
Why the subtitles? The fellow is as clear as a bell.
When comparing the Spitfire and Bf109 commentators always use the 1940 versions to compare. From the Mk9 onwards , the Spitfire was the better plane.
Beatles or Rolling Stones?
Later on the Germans had the FW 190 which was a shock to the RAF.
@@NVIK5 and then came the Mk9 and Mk14 to restore superiority
@@andrewstewart5721 you think the RAF dominated the Luftwaffe throughout the war? Both sides made advances, at certain times one was ahead of the other, but they were always quite well matched. If there was any kind of dominance the war would not have lasted 6 years.
@@NVIK5 of course not - but they did after the introduction of the Mk9 and especially the Mk14 - regarded as probably the best dog fighter of WW2
finally, someone who had the nerve to pick on the Spits narrow undercarriage instead of just beatin up on the 109s.....
Ever documentary on the Spitfire talks about the narrow under carriage.
@@stephenconnolly3018 *But they don't mention the Grumman F4F...*
Sehr gut und ,,fair"! Herzlichen Dank für diesen Bericht und ,,kameradschaftliche Grüße" aus Deutschland ;-)
Is the narrator German by any chance as he certainly seems to have a slight bias for the 109? :-) Pilots who have flown both tend to agree that the Spit is easier to fly, which must have been an advantage for inexperienced pilots. Later Spit models adopted cannon.