Comparing both WW2 Warbird Fighters. Messerschmitt Bf-109 vs. Supermarine Spitfire. Video taken at the same Airshow (Hangar 10/ Usedom) and comparing all revisions of Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Supermarine Spitfire.
The griffinspit sounds nice and all, but man that 109, that thing can sing! Holy shit! Absolutely beautiful sounds and a striking figure. What a beautiful machine.
The Merlin engined Spitfires since as well, they sound better than the griffons. The spitfire has beautiful, sleek lines. The 109 is very brutish, like a bull dog. Looks angry.
BF109 has that ugly droop nose on account of that inverted engine, and a disgusting birdcage canopy, and why, for the love of god, did they never retract the tail gear? It's so off-putting, this random wheel hanging off the back as if it were still in the 30s.
Practically everything the Germans engineered during the WWll era was superior to British equipment and the U.S. The Messershmidt was far better looking than the Spitfire. Not too mention their tanks were so good compared to allied forces it was an embarrassment. If it were not for the sheer numbers of armor and aircraft the allied forces never could have won.
@@toddzehr203 Let's see, the Spitfire was such a well engineered piece of machinery that not only is it loved by the pilots, public, propaganda department, the Prime Minister, and her ground crew, she's now a symbol of British determination and pride. The BF109 was legendary for it's terrible ground handling, losing a third simply to accidents on the ground. Pilots hated it for it's terrible view on account of that ugly birdcage canopy, and losing control on takeoff made it the ultimate ground-level roll experience. The Spitfire was such a wonderful plane that all it took was a basic rated pilot to handle her-a more experienced pilot would brief you on what you could and couldn't do, and you were off! There are no official training variants of the Spitfire. Why? It's such a good plane IT DIDNT NEED ONE. And then there's the Yak-3. It was a plane so feared by the Germans on the Eastern Front that German High Command issued an order to "Engage with any Yakelov fighter under 5000 meters lacking the oil cooler under the nose." Not only could this machine climb and turn at the same time, there was this time when 8 Yak-3s found over 60 German planes and shot down 3 stukas and 4 of your vaunted Messerschmitts without the loss of a single Yak. And the P-51- Dropping a Merlin engine (the best inline engine of the war, it powered the Cromwell tank as well) into the thing- it properly incorperated the Meredith effect and was one of the first planes to do so and a low-drag laminar wing, making it insanely fast. The only claim to fame the BF109 ever had was being the first all-metal low-wing monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear and an enclosed cockpit. It was built as a propaganda tool-it's lineage comes from the earlier BF108 Taifun, a sport and touring aircraft that looks like a lost Piper Cherokee on a mission to find it's landing gear. The Spitfire's lineage comes from the Schneider racing trophy, in which the S6B won the trophy for Britain, beating out Italy in three consecutive races. Racehorse heritage vs flying aimlessly around showing off points of interest...there really is no contest. As for the tanks, well, they could take on several allied tanks at once, except once they got hit they became absolutely useless. Their maintenance was a nightmare, and the Allies adapted quickly to the new threat such as the Sherman Firefly. The introduction of the Panther was an absolute disaster as well. The final drives were designed for a tank half as heavy, and needed to be replaced once ever 150 km it drove. In order to get to these final drives, the entire track assembly had to be disassembled, which takes over a day to complete, and IT HAD TWO OF THEM. And the engine and transmission was shit and had to be replaced after 1500 km but who cares, you've already replaced 20 final drives! The Panther also had a sealed hull, meaning that any oil leakage from the engine would remain inside the hull, and when it climbed a hill, that oil would touch the hot exhaust and burst into flames. The first deployed units lost 2 Panthers getting them off the trains driving down the ramps, talk about a baptism by fire! What a pile of shit...and people like you call Shermans the Ronson Ligher...HAHAAH And finally, the Bf109 is in no way better looking than the Spitfire. It has ugly, straight lined wings, disgusting support struts under the elevator, its tail gear doesn't retract in ANY of the models, it has an old birdcage canopy, it's got a horrifying inverted inline engine, and it's landing gear is too thin and it's tires look like they belong on a bicycle. Later models grew bumps across it's skin to fit bigger guns, and its so ugly flies flew around it. The Spitfire is sleek all around, it has an up-angled nose giving it a perky apperance, it has rounded, beautiful wings and stabilizers, she was in tune with the times, a work of art. RJ Mitchell created an immortal design and Messerschmitt's 109 will always be remembered as the Spitfire's target practice.
We should be grateful to all those people who directly or indirectly contribute to keeping all these wonders of aviation history in flight. I love airplanes since I used diapers and I heard Mirage III pass over my house to land at the air base near home. But I have never had the chance to see live and up close any of the famous World War II warbirds. If I had the chance, I don't know if I would start crying with emotion, or I would run to hug the fuselage or kiss the cowl, or all at once. So it is also grateful to all these people who create these videos for the delight of aviation lovers and for them to remain forever when none are left in flight. This video in particular is amazing, for the quality of the video and for the sound so brutal and without stupid sounds or background music. Thank you very much for taking the time to share it…
You described very well the passion and the feeling that surrounds the world of aviation. And that's why I hate people like Greta Turdberg so much: they want to deprive us people from such a beautiful thing!!
I like the Bf more because it seems way tougher to destroy. I feel like the Spit seems fragile, idk why. They are both good looking btw, just I would feel safer flying in the Bf
For me the Bf 109 is the most beautiful fighter plane ever built. Of all the single engine WW2 fighters, those are the most beautiful. In descending order : 1st : Messerschmitt Bf 109 G14 2nd : Supermarine Spitfire MK XVIII 3rd : Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-5 4th : Hawker Sea Fury 5th : Fiat G.55 Centauro 6th : Vought F4U Corsair
Both are beautiful machines... Built for war... Virtually equal in every respect. It just came down to pilot experience in the end. Great to see these might war birds together. Wow has that b109 got a awesome sound, love it.
I still cant believe that most of the pilots had almost no experience in the RAF and most of them had their first proper flight fighting the Luftwaffe and most of the people in the Luftwaffe had over a decade of air to air combat and the RAF still came out on top. A truly amazing feat.
You forget to put it in proper perspective: Imagine you turn sides... Now the Spitfire has to fly a much greater distance and thus, has much less combat time. Battle of Britain needs to be analyzed in its whole context to be understood, Both planes, the 109 and Spitfire were almost matched at that time. In a single combat, one against the other, Pilot experience, initial altitude, Sun position and who sees the other first, are the deciding factor, not the airplane.
@@alfredomarquez9777 in perspective the UK were fighting for their lives and their independence from the prospect of being invaded. They did EVERYTHING right and the Germans couldn’t match them. Many German pilots had huge respect for the British and their ingenuity and skill as well as the Spitfire which they hugely respected. There was a definite difference in the two planes at the point of the BOB. Most of Britain’s pilots were young and there was a core of experienced pilots too. The Spitfire during the BOB was unmatched for manoeuvrability but had its weaknesses at that point. If the British needed to invade Germany outright they would of made the changes needed to the Spitfire or found a way. It’s all down to requirements so it’s not a fair comparison if you flipped over requirements.
Two iconic planes sharing the same skies in peace is a sight to see. I appreciate the Spitfire and Messerschmitt for different reasons but the sound of the Bf 109 is something else!
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 is a beautiful aircraft. I've seen it first time at the RAF Museum in London and it stroked me by its small dimensions, it is very small! However the best, most dangerous for the enemy WW 2 aircraft!
@@mann536 lol biased British person detected. Do you even know how many spits pilots in bf-109s shot down? Bf-109 was probably the best low altitude fighter. While the spits had an advantage at higher altitudes.
Different roles. During the battle of britain, the bf 109s were forced down to the bomber heights, where even the hurricane could out dog fight them. The 109 was an assassin aircraft...drop down onto an unsuspecting prey and kill it, climb and repeat. It was never intended to dogfight. The spitfire was, the relevant important brits in the spitfire story knowing full well they'd be facing bombers.
Best, most accurate comment here. Me109 training was the hunter mode - use speed to manouver for best tactical position, then come down off the perch to peck and zoom. Deflection shooting was an advanced skill, learned by many LW pilots because of that tactic.
I have read many accounts by German pilots of flying the 109 More than one mentioned that it frequently had a problem of the automatic slats causing problems when only one opened in a turn causing a sudden change to the aerodynamics and units frequently pinned them closed. They claimed the slats caused more problems than they solved.
The British actually stole the elliptical wing design from the Germans. But I doubt they'd ever admit it.. Haha. Keep up the GREAT work my friend. I love seeing these two magnificent aircraft in the air where they belong. 👍👍
LOL, not even close. Don't believe the pseudo documentaries on Netflix or BBC that sell controversy and hyperbole. RJ Mitchell had been using elliptical wings for years prior to that. The English aerodynamicist Fredrick Lanchester first proposed the benefits of the elliptical wing in 1907. Prandtl then cribbed his ideas and produced a paper on it in 1918.
Overall, a very informative video. It should be noted that the performance characteristics of the Spitfire were due in part to the fact that Britain's Fighter Command began receiving 100 Octane aviation fuel just as the Battle of Britain got underway- while the Luftwaffe used 87 octane fuel for the duration of the conflict. Just how well a Spitfire using 87 octane fuel would have measured up against a 109 is a an interesting "what-if". The fact remains however, that both aircraft were very comparable overall- with pilot experience being the decisive factor. Taken in all, these two aircraft are among the great warplanes in aviation history.
The RAF had 100 octane fuel in 1938 and by 1940 enough for fighter command for the whole year. the German fuel ratings were different so their 87 octane was actually higher than that and they used synthetic fuel during the war so it is a myth that they only ever used 87 octane fuel.
But the DB engine is almost 30% larger displacement, compensating for a more even match. Latter, the addition of Methanol-water made Octane less critical.
Shame Mark and Ray Hannah aren't flying these two birds. They were known for occasionally putting the engine through its paces, "letting go of the reigns" so to speak. Saw Ray do this with a MkIX Spit. Unbelievable sound and speed. RIP
In some ways similar to the Meteor and the 262, the German aircraft was technically ahead, but the British plane allowed for far more development further on. Almost like a different ethos: ' you can have it all now, or wait for a lot more if you are prepared to be patient!' To this end it fits in with each countries needs and desires. Hitler wanted to win a quick war, Churchill & co wanted to hold out and hold out in order to build strength up and 'till help came.......He was right, but it must of been a heck of a ride, especially at times.......All that whisky, stress and cigars.....lived until he was 90, must have been one strong, tough son of a gun.......The free world owes him everything. (faults and all) Remember that.
@@viniciusmagnoni6492 if your refering to the Spitfire and 109 there isn't much in it overall. As far the early jets are concerned then the 262 was superior in terms of design, being that it was much faster and more heavily armed. However the Meteor offered more in the way of development potential, again it was similar to the Spitfire. Having said that I do admire the Germans engineering prowess and ingenuity, being that they were short of materials. The Mosquito was another example of overcoming wartime shortages to produce an outstanding aircraft.
@@rob5944 I wouldn’t say much faster, it’s top speed was relatively close to the meteors and in practice it handled and accelerated like a bus as the pilot had to the baby the absolutely awful jumo engines. On the subject of the 30 mms I think that is the easiest way to see that the 262 was designed for bomber hunting, as they had an absolutely anemic 500 m/s muzzle velocity and limited ammo reserves. In a fight the meteor would almost always win, as it could out-accelerate and out-turn the 262 as well as have a better chance at hitting anything. Plus a year and a bit and the meteor would get its upgraded engines, pushing the top speed way above the 262’s.
@@BeaufighterGaming granted, I've always admired Germany's achievements (purely on the technical front I hasten to add) under enormous pressure and with severely limited natural resources. However it was around 100 mph faster than the Meteor according to what I've ever read. Yes later models were a lot quicker as you say, but a year or two is an eternity in wartime, I think you'll agree?
I have a friend who had restore a Spitfire Mk is and a bf 109d found off the coast of Dunkirk. The planes were crashed in the ocean but relatively intact. They are now in their former flying glory.
@@viniciusmagnoni6492 Thanks, not sure about the 14, either way, the paint job is atrocious and the black band is wrong too. What Mk is the Spitfire, IX or IVX?
Sorry, by the time the Spit IX and Spit XIV came along, the Me109s were outclassed, regardless of G-14 or otherwise. Brits started using 150 Octane in early 1944 and by Dec 150 octane was in use by most of 2 Tactical Air Force which increased performance further.
80% of the time they only talked about the Emil and Mk1 variant of each plane even though both the F/G 109s and Mk 5+ planes saw more actions from the Deserts in Africa to the mountains and in the sights over europe the Emil and Mk1 literally only fought in britain , it also says the bf 109 only had 4xMGs and only in the "late war" variants had 2xMg17s 2xMg151 FF/M even though those were armaments used on the emils , the Friedrichs and the Gustavs however were different they had 2x7mm mgs to 13mm they had cannons from 15mm to 30mm and these arent late war variants these are the variants that saw combat in africa and in france as early as 1941/2 with dogfights between Spitfire MkvBs and Bf109fs with nose cannons
They are both amazing planes and I am a German history addict and the lfmk9 is still my 2nd fav ever. Don’t ever let anyone tell u that the mustang won the war because that shit kinda sucked. I have all the dcs warbirds and 109 is complicated and rugged with high speed and low safety, whilst the spit is a bit simpler with lower top speed but beautiful design and awesome turn and climb. The mustang can’t turn or climb for shit compared to 109 and mk9 but has a long ass range
I totally agree, the US exceptionalism makes them think that everything that is US made is better, they think the p-51 was better, even though it was a flying pig; they think Henry Ford created the car, even though Karl Benz did it 20 years before; they think the Wright brothers flew in 1903, even though they only proved it by 1908. They don't give up on making a fool of themselves.
Come on guys, get into the spirit, we want to see a proper dogfight. Bite the bullet, Spitfire: "Shoot him down!" "Rolling, turning, diving," "doing it again." "Rolling, turning, diveeeeeee" Live to fly, fly to live - aces high!
The Messer sounds more aggresive and better in balance. The Spit sounds greasy and growls more. Two iconic fighter planes each with their own minorities and advantages... and the pilots had to figure out what was best to survive the battle...
Love how plenty of people comment on the me109 being superior at the start of world war 2 it was certainly the best , towards the end of the war the later Griffin powered spits simply outclassed the me109 the air frame was just better for development
In ww2 the bf109 was faster heavier and packed more fire power but would be out turned by the spitfire in some cases ie when it came too the griffon spitfire it could be out speeded but the bf109 would often win engagements if the had the altitude advantage or could com in with more speed from behind
But that is tripe isn't it? The MkXIV was far superior in all aspects. to the late marks of 109s and no MkXIV was shot down by any enemy fighter. Oh, the Spitfire was faster than the 109 in most cases, especially the later marks. It could climb faster, and fly higher and turn quicker.
No point comparing planes, compare doctrines. That said, 109's and with slightly lesser ease, 190's would get alt over your hellcats and energy fight, boom & zoom the crap out of them.
@@w3dnesd4y57 Against Hellcats, that's a real possibility since the Hellcat was specifically designed to defeat the A6M Zero. Corsairs are another matter entirely. The only fighter capable of staying with a Corsair in a dive was the Thunderbolt. The 109 would have had a real problem against Corsairs at low and medium altitudes, although 190s were a good match against them at those levels. As usual, the pilot would have been the deciding factor.
Royal Navy actually used Hellcats against Luftwaffe and they even managed to get some victories against Bf 109s and Fw 190s. USN did also shot down few German bombers during operation Overlord (I think those were Ju 88 and maybe some other type)
It depends at what altitude and at what time of the war. US Navy fighters had 3 speed, two stage inter cooled super chargers and good altitude performance. Me 109s unique DB605 engine due to its fuel injection and the fact that it didn’t have the usual 4 bolts to pull down the head (it used a cylinder liner as a kind of giant bolt) that gave it very large swept volume in a small body so it didn’t need two stages. Fw 190 only had two speed single stage but improved fluid dynamics from the Fw 190A9 when the BMW 801 TS, TH engines came in. The Fw 190D13 EB was expected to be capable of 488 mph but on,y the plain Fw 190D13 was capable of 455moh. The Me 109 and Fw 190 were end of life replaced by Me 262, Ta 152C/H and He 162. The final Me 109 May have been the Me 109K14 with 2 stage supercharger, 4 bladed prop. Ta 152 was 60% a Fw 190.
Why can't people just enjoy the sight and sound of these lovely war birds that took millions of dollars and thousands of man hours of sweat and toil (and no doubt a lot of frustration) to bring these aircraft into airworthy condition once again so that good people such as Alleswasspassmacht can make videos available to you at the touch of a keyboard .....and yet there are those that act like children who are still trying to fight a war 75 years on. Let alone pick fault with minor and petty issues. Shameful. Thank you for the lovely quality Alleswasspassmacht once again. Your effort making these videos for the free minded enthusiasts is very much appreciated.
One of the main reasons the Spitfire was a better plane overall was the fuel it used. The Germans had low octane fuel for most of the war compared to the Brits and Americans. Had the German BF 109s had the same fuel it would have been more equal. Both planes were continuously developed as the war progressed. Each new variant was a little better than the other plane and this continued constantly until the war was over. If I were asked which plane I wanted to fly between these two it would be the Spitfire. The turn radius in a dog fight is a very important part of being able to obtain a better position on your enemy. Speed was also a good quality to have as well. The Spitfire was a little faster and turned tighter than the 109. However, as anyone who experienced a dog fight will tell you the pilot makes up at least half of the equation. The real reason Germany and Japan lost the war was because of the Manufacturing might of the USA! The US churned out ships, planes, weapons, tanks, and any war supplies needed in greater numbers than Germany and Japan could. We also had more raw materials and we were separated by almost 5000 miles of the open ocean. We didn't have any country raining bombs down on our cities, plants, and oil and gas supplies. The other countries in WWII were constantly being bombarded.
at 6:15: I think the Spitfire not only had to roll 90 degrees but 180 degrees (that means it had to go to inverted flight) to go into a dive without cuting off the fuel flow - am I right?
That applied to early spits in Battle of Britain. By early 1941 the problem was adressed with a fuel restrictor and stand pipes in the carb and other solutions. By 1942 (when the US finally decided to play) the Spit IX had a pressure carb.
The Germans did capture a Spitfire when it was forced to land on German occupied island of Jersey IN 1942. What the Germans did is that they incorporated the head of a ME109 and installed the more powerful fuel injected Daimler-Benz engine creating a hybrid known as Messer-Spit. During flight tests, it was revealed that the hybrid fighter was faster, higher rate of climb and more maneuverable than either ME109 or Spifire. Fortunately production never took place as the Germans did not know how to build Spitfires but uses the data to develop and improve future fighters. If the Germans were able to figure out how to reproduce them, it could effect the outcome of WW2.
The Me109 coolant system wasn't as pressurized as the Merlin system which therefore had smaller rads, so the large DB installed in that Spit overheated.
All depends which Mark of Spit. It had to really up its game when the FW 190 came along and got on Par with an upgraded Merlin. When the Griffon came along then after that it had the advantage as an air superiority fighter. All lot also depended on the pilot and chance. But nice to se both flying. ME 109 was a pre war design so getting a bit long in the tooth.
I don't want to say I like neither, I do prefer the P-47 & Fw 190 family.{long live the round motor} Saying that there is nothing better than a Warbird at low level, throttle to the wall{well close to the wall}. That's why I enjoy Reno so much. But since they only race once a year, yeah, your vids fill the gap perfectly.Thanks!
Are these supposed to be the best versions of each respective plane? From what I understand these were not the versions for either plane @ the Battle of Britain
Exactly, both of these models were the apex versions, the Bf 109 was still superior though. The ones used in Battle of Britain were like prototypes, the worst versions of both of the planes.
@@viniciusmagnoni6492 not exactly. The Me109E in the Battle of Britain was superior to its predecessors in the Spanish Civil War and had the better DB engine.
Фанерный Ла-7 с тремя пушками, двигателем воздушного охлаждения 1870 л/с на взлете- 680 км/ч... Такие были в полку дважды героя Советского Союза Лавриненкова В.Д.
Load that spitfire down with enough gas to be effective and the performance would be marginal. The P51 fought those same BF109s and FW 190s over Germany and kicked ass with atleast as much gas or more than a Spitfire and was a lot faster.
7:44 I think you mean air2ground rockets. I mean, if I’m wrong then I’m wrong but bloody hell they must really have been having a hard time with the allies to need to start launching those things at the planes
In the 1969 film battle of Britain when goring asks the German pilots what do they need to beat the British they said spitfires was there any truth to this
![🎤 ไปกันต่อออ! จับฉลากร้องเพลง x P’ #XXSIVK [EP.2] (1/2) เพลงของใครจึ้งสุดน้าา 💓🎤 #MXFRUIT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mLI_K0sAS4o/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the echo of the BF-109 when it is coming from far away
yes !
You love it, polish back in 1939 didn't love it as much..
@@NotNicot yo lmao
I agree, it's a very special whistle. And when its starting reminds of a Harley Davidson ;)
you can hear the compressor - daimler benz schleudergebläse - which is mounted on the left (scoop) - the rolls compressor is pretty much unhearable.
I have built models of both of them. It’s great to see both of them, once former enemies, now flying together in friendly skies! 🇬🇧🇩🇪👏👍
Ww2 was nothing but a tragedy for all concerned
@@scottmcgahey6820 It was glorious for a few
well, I don't think the planes themsselves have any beef!
Bf 109 !!!! Unglaublicher Sound ...
Danke !
The griffinspit sounds nice and all, but man that 109, that thing can sing! Holy shit! Absolutely beautiful sounds and a striking figure. What a beautiful machine.
Beautiful? Are you actually deranged, it’s as ugly as sin. Lumps, bumps, squared off canopy. Jesus, hate to see your wife!
The Merlin engined Spitfires since as well, they sound better than the griffons.
The spitfire has beautiful, sleek lines. The 109 is very brutish, like a bull dog. Looks angry.
BF109 has that ugly droop nose on account of that inverted engine, and a disgusting birdcage canopy, and why, for the love of god, did they never retract the tail gear? It's so off-putting, this random wheel hanging off the back as if it were still in the 30s.
Practically everything the Germans engineered during the WWll era was superior to British equipment and the U.S. The Messershmidt was far better looking than the Spitfire. Not too mention their tanks were so good compared to allied forces it was an embarrassment. If it were not for the sheer numbers of armor and aircraft the allied forces never could have won.
@@toddzehr203 Let's see, the Spitfire was such a well engineered piece of machinery that not only is it loved by the pilots, public, propaganda department, the Prime Minister, and her ground crew, she's now a symbol of British determination and pride. The BF109 was legendary for it's terrible ground handling, losing a third simply to accidents on the ground. Pilots hated it for it's terrible view on account of that ugly birdcage canopy, and losing control on takeoff made it the ultimate ground-level roll experience. The Spitfire was such a wonderful plane that all it took was a basic rated pilot to handle her-a more experienced pilot would brief you on what you could and couldn't do, and you were off! There are no official training variants of the Spitfire. Why? It's such a good plane IT DIDNT NEED ONE. And then there's the Yak-3. It was a plane so feared by the Germans on the Eastern Front that German High Command issued an order to "Engage with any Yakelov fighter under 5000 meters lacking the oil cooler under the nose." Not only could this machine climb and turn at the same time, there was this time when 8 Yak-3s found over 60 German planes and shot down 3 stukas and 4 of your vaunted Messerschmitts without the loss of a single Yak. And the P-51- Dropping a Merlin engine (the best inline engine of the war, it powered the Cromwell tank as well) into the thing- it properly incorperated the Meredith effect and was one of the first planes to do so and a low-drag laminar wing, making it insanely fast. The only claim to fame the BF109 ever had was being the first all-metal low-wing monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear and an enclosed cockpit. It was built as a propaganda tool-it's lineage comes from the earlier BF108 Taifun, a sport and touring aircraft that looks like a lost Piper Cherokee on a mission to find it's landing gear. The Spitfire's lineage comes from the Schneider racing trophy, in which the S6B won the trophy for Britain, beating out Italy in three consecutive races. Racehorse heritage vs flying aimlessly around showing off points of interest...there really is no contest.
As for the tanks, well, they could take on several allied tanks at once, except once they got hit they became absolutely useless. Their maintenance was a nightmare, and the Allies adapted quickly to the new threat such as the Sherman Firefly. The introduction of the Panther was an absolute disaster as well. The final drives were designed for a tank half as heavy, and needed to be replaced once ever 150 km it drove. In order to get to these final drives, the entire track assembly had to be disassembled, which takes over a day to complete, and IT HAD TWO OF THEM. And the engine and transmission was shit and had to be replaced after 1500 km but who cares, you've already replaced 20 final drives! The Panther also had a sealed hull, meaning that any oil leakage from the engine would remain inside the hull, and when it climbed a hill, that oil would touch the hot exhaust and burst into flames. The first deployed units lost 2 Panthers getting them off the trains driving down the ramps, talk about a baptism by fire! What a pile of shit...and people like you call Shermans the Ronson Ligher...HAHAAH
And finally, the Bf109 is in no way better looking than the Spitfire. It has ugly, straight lined wings, disgusting support struts under the elevator, its tail gear doesn't retract in ANY of the models, it has an old birdcage canopy, it's got a horrifying inverted inline engine, and it's landing gear is too thin and it's tires look like they belong on a bicycle. Later models grew bumps across it's skin to fit bigger guns, and its so ugly flies flew around it. The Spitfire is sleek all around, it has an up-angled nose giving it a perky apperance, it has rounded, beautiful wings and stabilizers, she was in tune with the times, a work of art. RJ Mitchell created an immortal design and Messerschmitt's 109 will always be remembered as the Spitfire's target practice.
"The pilot made the difference." Indeed. Two gorgeous aircraft that were excellent at what they were designed for. Thank you.
And the Altitude, and sighting the other before it sighted you...
We should be grateful to all those people who directly or indirectly contribute to keeping all these wonders of aviation history in flight. I love airplanes since I used diapers and I heard Mirage III pass over my house to land at the air base near home. But I have never had the chance to see live and up close any of the famous World War II warbirds. If I had the chance, I don't know if I would start crying with emotion, or I would run to hug the fuselage or kiss the cowl, or all at once. So it is also grateful to all these people who create these videos for the delight of aviation lovers and for them to remain forever when none are left in flight. This video in particular is amazing, for the quality of the video and for the sound so brutal and without stupid sounds or background music. Thank you very much for taking the time to share it…
Thanks watching and commenting
The Mirage 3 and Mirage 2000 are the best modern fighters.
Also the pilots who originally flew these in the war to defend the skies from the enemy
You described very well the passion and the feeling that surrounds the world of aviation. And that's why I hate people like Greta Turdberg so much: they want to deprive us people from such a beautiful thing!!
I wish to see (and hear) a Junker Ju-87 one day.
What if it had bombs equipped and starts diving on you? :P
It might come sooner than you think....
Me too
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that they were all destroyed after the war.
@@Tarquin21723 not all. Two are still intact in a museum but there damaged and can't fly.
These planes are both amazing. People should stop comparing them and just appreciate the difference they made in the modern world.
Bf 109 is better
@@anotherstylemore4199 Both these aircraft are magnificent and sure made a name for themselves.
@@anotherstylemore4199 bruh...
@@anotherstylemore4199German Power 🇩🇪⚡🦅
@@anotherstylemore4199 Hahahaha that’s why it lost the BOB then??
I have to say, the choice of music is sublime in this video! Though the track could be longer...
As an American the P51 was awesome but as far as grace and beauty on the ground and in the air Spitfire rules the day.
*sad german noises*
I personally preferred the FW-190 A-8 well spitfire is my favorite but FW for beauty and firepower
Wonderful video, beautiful engines roar without typical loud background music.
For me, whatever it's mark or designation, the Spitfire is one of the most beautiful planes ever built!
True ! But so is the ME 109 !
For me personally, Me 109 and Fw190 are tools, but the Spit is a beauty. I say that as a german.
I like the Bf more because it seems way tougher to destroy. I feel like the Spit seems fragile, idk why. They are both good looking btw, just I would feel safer flying in the Bf
For me the Bf 109 is the most beautiful fighter plane ever built.
Of all the single engine WW2 fighters, those are the most beautiful. In descending order :
1st : Messerschmitt Bf 109 G14
2nd : Supermarine Spitfire MK XVIII
3rd : Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-5
4th : Hawker Sea Fury
5th : Fiat G.55 Centauro
6th : Vought F4U Corsair
@@viniciusmagnoni6492 i like ki 61 tony
The messerschimitt's bad face is terrifying, and that sound is a declaration of war 5:10
Die bf-109 hast ein wunderbar sound
Both are beautiful machines... Built for war... Virtually equal in every respect. It just came down to pilot experience in the end. Great to see these might war birds together. Wow has that b109 got a awesome sound, love it.
I still cant believe that most of the pilots had almost no experience in the RAF and most of them had their first proper flight fighting the Luftwaffe and most of the people in the Luftwaffe had over a decade of air to air combat and the RAF still came out on top. A truly amazing feat.
You forget to put it in proper perspective: Imagine you turn sides... Now the Spitfire has to fly a much greater distance and thus, has much less combat time.
Battle of Britain needs to be analyzed in its whole context to be understood, Both planes, the 109 and Spitfire were almost matched at that time. In a single combat, one against the other, Pilot experience, initial altitude, Sun position and who sees the other first, are the deciding factor, not the airplane.
@@alfredomarquez9777 in perspective the UK were fighting for their lives and their independence from the prospect of being invaded. They did EVERYTHING right and the Germans couldn’t match them. Many German pilots had huge respect for the British and their ingenuity and skill as well as the Spitfire which they hugely respected. There was a definite difference in the two planes at the point of the BOB.
Most of Britain’s pilots were young and there was a core of experienced pilots too. The Spitfire during the BOB was unmatched for manoeuvrability but had its weaknesses at that point.
If the British needed to invade Germany outright they would of made the changes needed to the Spitfire or found a way. It’s all down to requirements so it’s not a fair comparison if you flipped over requirements.
Two iconic planes sharing the same skies in peace is a sight to see. I appreciate the Spitfire and Messerschmitt for different reasons but the sound of the Bf 109 is something else!
Friend and foe, the legends, meet again in peace.
True
I think this mark of spitfire would maul that 109 depends on pilot but this spit is more than a match for any 109
Yes griffon spitfires and p51 d p47 n and m's would slap the bf109 s
@@identitydixie1061 Never have heard such BS.
@BekGrou PRIMUS source?
Messerschmitt BF 109 was far superior
@@identitydixie1061 Messerschmitt BF 109 was far superior
couple gorgeous flights, indeed. Pure energy and commitment towards flying and making the difference.
Love both machines
🇩🇪🇬🇧
Damn you’re pfp is the definition of a wehraboo…
@@luke5442And your a definition of someone getting hurt by a simple profile picture
The best plane always depends on pilots who fly them
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 is a beautiful aircraft. I've seen it first time at the RAF Museum in London and it stroked me by its small dimensions, it is very small! However the best, most dangerous for the enemy WW 2 aircraft!
Swastikas: *Are now split in 4*
IL2 Sturmovoik: "Write that down write that down!"
Thank you guys for awesome air shows featuring your beautiful war birdies. Danke. 🤠🇺🇸👍🏴
Once enemy’s now a symbol of friendship flying together
Spitfire: *accidentallt shoots at the messerchmits*
Messerchmits: *huhu Game time*
In War Thunder. Not in real life.
Lol GaMe TiMe proceed to get humiliated by spitfire in bob
Depends on the pilot.
@@mann536 who tf cares. And it depends on the pilot
@@mann536 lol biased British person detected. Do you even know how many spits pilots in bf-109s shot down? Bf-109 was probably the best low altitude fighter. While the spits had an advantage at higher altitudes.
I imagine till the end of the ww2 soldiers on the ground were able to recognize witch fighter had approach by sound trough the night...
Thank you for this. Besides the useful information, I could listen to this all day.
When the Spitfire MkIX appeared it was goodbye Bf109s parity
I'd love to be at the controls of that 109, marvelous machine.
That BF engine gets me wet every time tbh
Different roles. During the battle of britain, the bf 109s were forced down to the bomber heights, where even the hurricane could out dog fight them. The 109 was an assassin aircraft...drop down onto an unsuspecting prey and kill it, climb and repeat. It was never intended to dogfight. The spitfire was, the relevant important brits in the spitfire story knowing full well they'd be facing bombers.
Best, most accurate comment here. Me109 training was the hunter mode - use speed to manouver for best tactical position, then come down off the perch to peck and zoom. Deflection shooting was an advanced skill, learned by many LW pilots because of that tactic.
Hearing Bf-109 approaching a low fly-by gives me goosebumps
I have read many accounts by German pilots of flying the 109 More than one mentioned that it frequently had a problem of the automatic slats causing problems when only one opened in a turn causing a sudden change to the aerodynamics and units frequently pinned them closed. They claimed the slats caused more problems than they solved.
The British actually stole the elliptical wing design from the Germans. But I doubt they'd ever admit it.. Haha. Keep up the GREAT work my friend. I love seeing these two magnificent aircraft in the air where they belong. 👍👍
@ryan moeller even the engine was copied from the british.
Stole from the plane he112.
The British were very clever, they stole the wing from a German aircraft that they never saw.
That "elliptical" wing was ONLY similar in planform... But totally different in airfoils and overall behaviour. Simply not comparable.
LOL, not even close. Don't believe the pseudo documentaries on Netflix or BBC that sell controversy and hyperbole. RJ Mitchell had been using elliptical wings for years prior to that. The English aerodynamicist Fredrick Lanchester first proposed the benefits of the elliptical wing in 1907. Prandtl then cribbed his ideas and produced a paper on it in 1918.
Overall, a very informative video. It should be noted that the performance characteristics of the Spitfire were due in part to the fact that Britain's Fighter Command began receiving 100 Octane aviation fuel just as the Battle of Britain got underway- while the Luftwaffe used 87 octane fuel for the duration of the conflict. Just how well a Spitfire using 87 octane fuel would have measured up against a 109 is a an interesting "what-if". The fact remains however, that both aircraft were very comparable overall- with pilot experience being the decisive factor. Taken in all, these two aircraft are among the great warplanes in aviation history.
The RAF had 100 octane fuel in 1938 and by 1940 enough for fighter command for the whole year. the German fuel ratings were different so their 87 octane was actually higher than that and they used synthetic fuel during the war so it is a myth that they only ever used 87 octane fuel.
But the DB engine is almost 30% larger displacement, compensating for a more even match. Latter, the addition of Methanol-water made Octane less critical.
Even with all the chemical disadvantages, the Bf 109s were superior. Imagine if it were a even-matched comparison, in chemical terms.
Shame Mark and Ray Hannah aren't flying these two birds. They were known for occasionally putting the engine through its paces, "letting go of the reigns" so to speak.
Saw Ray do this with a MkIX Spit. Unbelievable sound and speed.
RIP
Spitfire Mk. 18, TP280, post war service. Rolled off the production line March 20., 1945. Went to various maintainace units.
I love the sound of the spitfires Merlin rolls Royce engines and its unique design
American fighters and European Fighters feared Messerschmitt Bf 109 during ww2.
In some ways similar to the Meteor and the 262, the German aircraft was technically ahead, but the British plane allowed for far more development further on. Almost like a different ethos: ' you can have it all now, or wait for a lot more if you are prepared to be patient!' To this end it fits in with each countries needs and desires. Hitler wanted to win a quick war, Churchill & co wanted to hold out and hold out in order to build strength up and 'till help came.......He was right, but it must of been a heck of a ride, especially at times.......All that whisky, stress and cigars.....lived until he was 90, must have been one strong, tough son of a gun.......The free world owes him everything. (faults and all) Remember that.
@Hoa Tattis Well most WW2 Australians, or any other Australians for that matter, most likely wouldn't have a say in anything if it wasn't for him.
A soft, Euphemistic way of saying that german models were superior.
@@viniciusmagnoni6492 if your refering to the Spitfire and 109 there isn't much in it overall. As far the early jets are concerned then the 262 was superior in terms of design, being that it was much faster and more heavily armed. However the Meteor offered more in the way of development potential, again it was similar to the Spitfire. Having said that I do admire the Germans engineering prowess and ingenuity, being that they were short of materials. The Mosquito was another example of overcoming wartime shortages to produce an outstanding aircraft.
@@rob5944 I wouldn’t say much faster, it’s top speed was relatively close to the meteors and in practice it handled and accelerated like a bus as the pilot had to the baby the absolutely awful jumo engines.
On the subject of the 30 mms I think that is the easiest way to see that the 262 was designed for bomber hunting, as they had an absolutely anemic 500 m/s muzzle velocity and limited ammo reserves. In a fight the meteor would almost always win, as it could out-accelerate and out-turn the 262 as well as have a better chance at hitting anything. Plus a year and a bit and the meteor would get its upgraded engines, pushing the top speed way above the 262’s.
@@BeaufighterGaming granted, I've always admired Germany's achievements (purely on the technical front I hasten to add) under enormous pressure and with severely limited natural resources. However it was around 100 mph faster than the Meteor according to what I've ever read. Yes later models were a lot quicker as you say, but a year or two is an eternity in wartime, I think you'll agree?
I have a friend who had restore a Spitfire Mk is and a bf 109d found off the coast of Dunkirk. The planes were crashed in the ocean but relatively intact. They are now in their former flying glory.
I used to be OBSESSED with these 40s planes when I was little lol 😂
Both Outstanding Planes
Yes Thank you
The bf 109 in video is a g or Gustav version, later model bf 109 produced in large numbers near end of ww2
It is a G-6 or G-14, but the paint job does not match. Those colors seem to be early war found on D or E models.
@@mryhdy6266 It is a G-14, even-matched with this spitfire version.
@@viniciusmagnoni6492
Thanks, not sure about the 14, either way, the paint job is atrocious and the black band is wrong too. What Mk is the Spitfire, IX or IVX?
Sorry, by the time the Spit IX and Spit XIV came along, the Me109s were outclassed, regardless of G-14 or otherwise. Brits started using 150 Octane in early 1944 and by Dec 150 octane was in use by most of 2 Tactical Air Force which increased performance further.
80% of the time they only talked about the Emil and Mk1 variant of each plane even though both the F/G 109s and Mk 5+ planes saw more actions from the Deserts in Africa to the mountains and in the sights over europe the Emil and Mk1 literally only fought in britain , it also says the bf 109 only had 4xMGs and only in the "late war" variants had 2xMg17s 2xMg151 FF/M even though those were armaments used on the emils , the Friedrichs and the Gustavs however were different they had 2x7mm mgs to 13mm they had cannons from 15mm to 30mm and these arent late war variants these are the variants that saw combat in africa and in france as early as 1941/2 with dogfights between Spitfire MkvBs and Bf109fs with nose cannons
They are both amazing planes and I am a German history addict and the lfmk9 is still my 2nd fav ever. Don’t ever let anyone tell u that the mustang won the war because that shit kinda sucked. I have all the dcs warbirds and 109 is complicated and rugged with high speed and low safety, whilst the spit is a bit simpler with lower top speed but beautiful design and awesome turn and climb. The mustang can’t turn or climb for shit compared to 109 and mk9 but has a long ass range
I totally agree, the US exceptionalism makes them think that everything that is US made is better, they think the p-51 was better, even though it was a flying pig; they think Henry Ford created the car, even though Karl Benz did it 20 years before; they think the Wright brothers flew in 1903, even though they only proved it by 1908. They don't give up on making a fool of themselves.
Thanks to the editor for showing spitfire for just ten seconds or not.
Bf 109 you feel like a modern airplane in terms of design
Simply and absolutely superb...!! Thanks so much for sharing...!!
That is a Griffin engined Spitfire. It should be way faster than a 109G.
Come on guys, get into the spirit, we want to see a proper dogfight. Bite the bullet, Spitfire: "Shoot him down!"
"Rolling, turning, diving," "doing it again." "Rolling, turning, diveeeeeee"
Live to fly, fly to live - aces high!
Tx for this amazing comparison.
Glad you liked it
Why would a Spitfire pilot need a tire iron in the cockpit? Landing at airfields behind enemy lines and going to open safes?
It was for breaking the canopy if unable to open it after a forced landing - sea or land.
3:04 scared me
POV: you have an opened top vehicle in war thunder
@@alpha-oi3bf Lol
The Messer sounds more aggresive and better in balance. The Spit sounds greasy and growls more.
Two iconic fighter planes each with their own minorities and advantages... and the pilots had to figure out what was best to survive the battle...
Yeah hate to say it but the 109 gets my vote in the sound department.
I wouldn't ever hate to say it.
One point to winning the War, a little lucky must say, the Germans was better overall to make the best machines for war at the time.👍👊👊
Love how plenty of people comment on the me109 being superior at the start of world war 2 it was certainly the best , towards the end of the war the later Griffin powered spits simply outclassed the me109 the air frame was just better for development
Yeah, like if the Me 109 had not been improved, a late DB605 was even superior than a XIV spitfire.
@@viniciusmagnoni6492 unlikely most aviation experts say the me 109 airframe and design meant that constant upgrading wasnt that easy
Actually it's Rolls Royce vs Daimler-Benz (aircraft engines)
In ww2 the bf109 was faster heavier and packed more fire power but would be out turned by the spitfire in some cases ie when it came too the griffon spitfire it could be out speeded but the bf109 would often win engagements if the had the altitude advantage or could com in with more speed from behind
But that is tripe isn't it? The MkXIV was far superior in all aspects. to the late marks of 109s and no MkXIV was shot down by any enemy fighter. Oh, the Spitfire was faster than the 109 in most cases, especially the later marks. It could climb faster, and fly higher and turn quicker.
@@paulbantick8266 What about the late versions of the Bf 109? G-14 were evenly matched to the Mk XIV.
Bravo!!!! Thank you!
Love the look and sound of all the German planes over the British ones.
Spitfire, the most iconic, graceful and elegant WW2 aircraft of them all ...
Spitfire: female bird
Bf109: male eagle
@Hoa Tattis congrats
So you're saying a male eagle is inferior to a female bird? Ok
@@terryturner4116 nah he's saying they were equal and it depends on the Pilot.
@@jnik_3234 he doesn't know what he's talking about and now I've got you as well 🙄
There is no point comparing two completely different doctrines and the development of fighter and interceptor tactics.
So how would a Hellcat or Corsair handled the FW190 and 109?
Were there any instances of this?
No point comparing planes, compare doctrines. That said, 109's and with slightly lesser ease, 190's would get alt over your hellcats and energy fight, boom & zoom the crap out of them.
@@w3dnesd4y57 Against Hellcats, that's a real possibility since the Hellcat was specifically designed to defeat the A6M Zero. Corsairs are another matter entirely. The only fighter capable of staying with a Corsair in a dive was the Thunderbolt. The 109 would have had a real problem against Corsairs at low and medium altitudes, although 190s were a good match against them at those levels. As usual, the pilot would have been the deciding factor.
Royal Navy actually used Hellcats against Luftwaffe and they even managed to get some victories against Bf 109s and Fw 190s. USN did also shot down few German bombers during operation Overlord (I think those were Ju 88 and maybe some other type)
@@davidkopecky6687 RAF pilots really liked the Hellcat/Martel. Grumman knew how to build planes for the pilots.
It depends at what altitude and at what time of the war. US Navy fighters had 3 speed, two stage inter cooled super chargers and good altitude performance. Me 109s unique DB605 engine due to its fuel injection and the fact that it didn’t have the usual 4 bolts to pull down the head (it used a cylinder liner as a kind of giant bolt) that gave it very large swept volume in a small body so it didn’t need two stages. Fw 190 only had two speed single stage but improved fluid dynamics from the Fw 190A9 when the BMW 801 TS, TH engines came in. The Fw 190D13 EB was expected to be capable of 488 mph but on,y the plain Fw 190D13 was capable of 455moh.
The Me 109 and Fw 190 were end of life replaced by Me 262, Ta 152C/H and He 162.
The final Me 109 May have been the Me 109K14 with 2 stage supercharger, 4 bladed prop. Ta 152 was 60% a Fw 190.
Bf 109 engine sounds like a fucking beast
Oh yes Daimler V12 Power
The rolls Royce griffon engine sounds different than the better sounding Merlin, it has a growl to it, sounds powerful though
Why can't people just enjoy the sight and sound of these lovely war birds that took millions of dollars and thousands of man hours of sweat and toil (and no doubt a lot of frustration) to bring these aircraft into airworthy condition once again so that good people such as Alleswasspassmacht can make videos available to you at the touch of a keyboard .....and yet there are those that act like children who are still trying to fight a war 75 years on. Let alone pick fault with minor and petty issues. Shameful.
Thank you for the lovely quality Alleswasspassmacht once again. Your effort making these videos for the free minded enthusiasts is very much appreciated.
Nice videography 👍
Thank you !
One of the main reasons the Spitfire was a better plane overall was the fuel it used. The Germans had low octane fuel for most of the war compared to the Brits and Americans. Had the German BF 109s had the same fuel it would have been more equal. Both planes were continuously developed as the war progressed. Each new variant was a little better than the other plane and this continued constantly until the war was over. If I were asked which plane I wanted to fly between these two it would be the Spitfire. The turn radius in a dog fight is a very important part of being able to obtain a better position on your enemy. Speed was also a good quality to have as well. The Spitfire was a little faster and turned tighter than the 109. However, as anyone who experienced a dog fight will tell you the pilot makes up at least half of the equation. The real reason Germany and Japan lost the war was because of the Manufacturing might of the USA! The US churned out ships, planes, weapons, tanks, and any war supplies needed in greater numbers than Germany and Japan could. We also had more raw materials and we were separated by almost 5000 miles of the open ocean. We didn't have any country raining bombs down on our cities, plants, and oil and gas supplies. The other countries in WWII were constantly being bombarded.
It still outperformed the Spitfire
Well when Hartman was in it I guess the k4 was the best plane.or the volkswagon he was flying.both works of art
at 6:15: I think the Spitfire not only had to roll 90 degrees but 180 degrees (that means it had to go to inverted flight) to go into a dive without cuting off the fuel flow - am I right?
This is true, however such a manoeuvre (just diving straight down with negative gs) would probably get you killed in a dogfight.
That applied to early spits in Battle of Britain. By early 1941 the problem was adressed with a fuel restrictor and stand pipes in the carb and other solutions. By 1942 (when the US finally decided to play) the Spit IX had a pressure carb.
The Germans did capture a Spitfire when it was forced to land on German occupied island of Jersey IN 1942. What the Germans did is that they incorporated the head of a ME109 and installed the more powerful fuel injected Daimler-Benz engine creating a hybrid known as Messer-Spit. During flight tests, it was revealed that the hybrid fighter was faster, higher rate of climb and more maneuverable than either ME109 or Spifire. Fortunately production never took place as the Germans did not know how to build Spitfires but uses the data to develop and improve future fighters. If the Germans were able to figure out how to reproduce them, it could effect the outcome of WW2.
The Me109 coolant system wasn't as pressurized as the Merlin system which therefore had smaller rads, so the large DB installed in that Spit overheated.
All depends which Mark of Spit. It had to really up its game when the FW 190 came along and got on Par with an upgraded Merlin. When the Griffon came along then after that it had the advantage as an air superiority fighter. All lot also depended on the pilot and chance. But nice to se both flying. ME 109 was a pre war design so getting a bit long in the tooth.
Thanks watching mate
Two Amazing Second world war Plane's Awesome Stuff
I don't want to say I like neither, I do prefer the P-47 & Fw 190 family.{long live the round motor} Saying that there is nothing better than a Warbird at low level, throttle to the wall{well close to the wall}. That's why I enjoy Reno so much. But since they only race once a year, yeah, your vids fill the gap perfectly.Thanks!
great comparison!
i wonder was a griffon ever tested in a mustang.....
Awesome vid , many thanks !
Thank you !
Great video but it didn't answer the most important question, which one sounded better?
That’s up 2 U
Affirmative: up 2 u ... and for me it´s a question of personal taste & fun to debate on it.
Bf 109
LOL. How the priorites are skewed these days.
correction to my last message, I misread the message and thought you were talking about Erich Brunotte!
That Griffon sounds ok, but it can't compare to a Merlin.
I wonder why no one thought of making plans for a turboprop-powered Spitfire.
Both are great I am just a 109 fan.
Fantastic video!
A beautiful and informative video.. Thanks
Are these supposed to be the best versions of each respective plane? From what I understand these were not the versions for either plane @ the Battle of Britain
Exactly, both of these models were the apex versions, the Bf 109 was still superior though. The ones used in Battle of Britain were like prototypes, the worst versions of both of the planes.
@@viniciusmagnoni6492 not exactly. The Me109E in the Battle of Britain was superior to its predecessors in the Spanish Civil War and had the better DB engine.
Фанерный Ла-7 с тремя пушками, двигателем воздушного охлаждения 1870 л/с на взлете- 680 км/ч... Такие были в полку дважды героя Советского Союза Лавриненкова В.Д.
Load that spitfire down with enough gas to be effective and the performance would be marginal. The P51 fought those same BF109s and FW 190s over Germany and kicked ass with atleast as much gas or more than a Spitfire and was a lot faster.
Bit unfair as that Spit was a much later version than the ME109 who fought earlier versions!. Nuff said
funny how the Griffon and the Daimler sound pretty similar owing to their similar displacements
The former foe, now the friends! The Griffon Spitfire is awsome!
But i love the 109.
7:44 I think you mean air2ground rockets. I mean, if I’m wrong then I’m wrong but bloody hell they must really have been having a hard time with the allies to need to start launching those things at the planes
Love to just listen to the engines while making dinner.
The 109 looks and sounds diabolic
In the 1969 film battle of Britain when goring asks the German pilots what do they need to beat the British they said spitfires was there any truth to this