Under the RADAR: Spitfire vs Messerschmitt 109 

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.

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 :)

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

The 109 is so beautiful and i love the sound of it.

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!

One small correction: the pink Spitfire was for LOW altitude, especially dusk and dawn missions.

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

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.

RAF Air Ministry: "We'd like to increase squadron sizes to 30 aircraft." Dowding: "Sorry, 26 is the limit. " 6:23

Two very lethal and beautiful pieces of engineering,great explanation and insight,,really enjoyed this thank you,can’t wait to visit the museum..

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.

Subtitles? Your English is perfectly understandable.

Wow! What a museum! Thanks for the tour!!!

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.

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 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.

Great comparison and contrast. Loved this.

Best breakdown I’ve ever listened to. Thanks.

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.

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.

Excellent video. Thanks

Thats it! Im off to the Museum in London!!! EXCELLENT VIDEO thank you 👍👍👍👍

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).

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 .

Thank you Sir, very informative video 👍

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.

VERY TECHNICALLY INFORMATIVE THANK YOU A LOT FOR URE GREAT WORK

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.

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.

Great video loved it great watch.

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.

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?

finally, someone who had the nerve to pick on the Spits narrow undercarriage instead of just beatin up on the 109s.....

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.

thanks for this interesting video

I love objective description... well done...

Quite crazy that this technology was created almost 70 years ago or so. Very impressive

You should also have shown the latest version of the 109 (Bf 109 K4)

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.

Very good presentation..

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your english is perfect! Thank you from Germany

Awesome !

what a fascinating video! Kris does an amazing job! I love the museum with all my heart. I hope to visit again soon.

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?

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.

Thank you for the video, very instructive.

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?

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

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.

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?

the pink colour was for dicing (photo recon at the cloud base ! and that could be at low altitude) -

Pilots found the cockpit hood would not open. No more words needed

Some interesting facts on Two Amazing WW2 Fighter's

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...

Me 109, a great aircraft however, no Spitfire pilots wanted to exchange for a 109 whereas ....

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.

Very interesting facts, both are exeptional Ww2 plane... Thx!!!

Well done.

Nice production, but you really should film/upload at least HD 1080p. It is 2020 after all ;-)

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.

Me 109's small airframe was a big issue in the Battle of Britain. They barely had enough fuel to get to target an back. They had a very short loiter time over the target so the German bombers where left without fighter cover alot of the time. This is why statistically the British scored segnificantly more kills. It was an excellent fighter for hoping across a border but the wrong fighter for long range bomber escorts over the channel.

I agree with the below comment the subtitles were absolutely not needed in actually take away from the video a little bit

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.

Sehr gut und ,,fair"! Herzlichen Dank für diesen Bericht und ,,kameradschaftliche Grüße" aus Deutschland ;-)

It was called, tongue in check, Miss Tilly’s Orifice

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

Always : the quality of the pilots .

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!

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.

I'll just say marks and versions are important, when talking about weapons being superior or not. I'll leave it at that.

History shows us it the men and women that make the difference although quality equipment does play its part

I'll visit it one day It's on my wish list 🙂

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.

Not one single mention about the ease of maintenance of each machine, or how easy or difficult each was to repair.

which is better spitfire or hurricane, is it true hurricane shot down more axis planes and the spitfire was more to boost morale

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,

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.

Interesting thanks. Interestingly the Spitfire was very expensive to manufacture, twice as much of the 109.

Japanese painted their WW2 Nakajima A6M2-N RUFE float planes mauve or faded purple for high altitude flying as well, but also out of superstisous reasons and the reason was is because of a flower call a Mallow flower. Japenese belived the color would have protection from the Enimie. "Stupids!" I learn more about the WW2 Spitfire fighter plane everytime I watch new videos. Love the Spitfires more after sorting out the faults. The Fock Wolf W-109 was a great planes as well. My favorites were the Corsair F4U and P-51 Mustang models. The Spitfire is growing on me.

The Hurricane made up the bulk of the fighter force during the BB. The SF is sexier so it gets more credit.

The Hurricane gets too little love

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.

how do I turn off the subtitles?

3:55 ‘the gravity kept the fuel up’ Gravity doesn’t keep things up my friend. That’ll be Gforce

A great comparison '101' for beginners of probably the two most 'iconic' aircraft of WW2. I think that this narration finished up on an excellent point. These two, mostly, similar aircraft were, indeed, separated by the individual skills, experience and nerve of the pilots flying them. As the war progressed, I think what also made a huge difference was that the RAF stuck to a policy of sending battle experienced pilots back into training or conversion squadrons to impart skills that would be crucial in the compared 'kill ratio' of pilots on both sides. The Luftwaffe, always short of pilots, tended to keep successful flyers on duty in front line squadrons. Pilots were in short supply in the RAF at the outset of the war but these shortages were soon rectified. The Luftwaffe, always behind the 8 ball by losing pilots and factories that built their aircraft, could never replenish lost expert pilots and then had troubles with new aircraft supply. To make matters worse, even fuel began to run short early in '44. Also, due to Goering's ineptitude and disinterest, the Luftwaffe used up huge amounts of precious resources by experimenting with aircraft types that were just a waste of effort and time. What I thought was a little silly was to have a person who speaks excellent, fluent English being supported by English subtitles. It did sound like this gentleman's first language might not have been English, quite some years ago, however, I thought it a little, well, insulting to the narrator to have subtitles when this particular gent speaks better English than a lot of born and bred citizens of the UK. (Of course, if this is for the benefit of the hearing impaired, then it's a good idea.) Cheers, hoping to visit you from Australia when the world gets back to normal. BH (ex-RAAF)

About equal. Toward the end of the war Germany was producing jet and rocket weapons that were truly ahead it their time. WWII started off with biplanes and ended with jet fighters and bombers. The problem toward the end of the war was a lack of skilled pilots and a lack of fuel. Germany had to use synthetic oil derived from their abundant coal fields. Apartheid Era South Africa did the same thing after the Arab oil embargoes and the US was thinking of doing something similar during the late 70's and early 80's. By the mid-80s global oil supply balanced and there was a glut (New Sources and conservation). I digress. Great video.

You forgot to mention the cannon that fired through the propeller hub on early Me109's

Surely in the end it came down to the rate of production of aircraft and number of replacement air crew.

I bet those early Spitfires used SU, or Stromberg carborators? In my early years of driving, I drove, and raced (in SCCA) Triumph Spitfire MKIII, MKIV, and a 1500. The MKIII had SU carbs, the rest had Stromberg carbs. And these are nothing like a 4bbl carb on an American muscle car! They used a thin "metering" needle at the end of a piston, which was dampened by oil. And OMG were these an absolute PITA to tune! And yes, even in a car driving on a flat road, there'd still be float problems! That is also why Webber 2bbl carbs became quite a popular mod for racing these!

To answer which aircraft was best is easy. Both sides captured and repaired their opponents aircraft and flew them to gain knowledge. The German pilot that flew most aircraft types in the war said the Spitfire was the best plane he ever flew.

which variants are we talking about?

Hurricane, the war horse. The Spitfire, the Diva.

Why the subtitles? The fellow is as clear as a bell.

Vertical or horizontal fight?

Why can't I put off the SUBTITLES?! If YOU added that, DROP it!!