Spitfire Hurricane V the BF109e

[Jon]

At the risk of causing a heated debate what are your thoughts on the question below.

During the Battle of Britain we are constantly informed that Hurricane and Spitfire variants used in the battle could, when all things were equal out turn the BF 109e every time. Then.. last year i saw a documentary that said the BF109e could on paper out turn both RAF types and, the only reason they did not was the Luftwaffe pilots fear of breaking the wings off in super tight turns.
I have talked with several Battle of Britain RAF pilots and they all said that their aircraft could out turn the others, but i agree that if i spoke to a Luftwaffe veteran he would probably say the complete opposite to the RAF veterans.
Yes i know a lot was down to the pilot and each aircraft flew slightly better or worse than the next on the production line but, with all things equal speed , height etc... could the 109e really if pushed, out turn the Spitfire and Hurricane.
I still feel the Spitfire had the edge and even the Hurricane could manage it..!! do you agree ?

[Jim P.]

One man's opinion for what its worth - and the old adage applies - opinions are like a certain part of one's anatomy - everyone has one - and you mentioned it yourself - it all depends on the pilot. Yes, there are recorded losses for the LW fighters of wings comimg off in hard combat or dives, but the fact remains, if any particular pilot, from either side, was willing to push his machine to its limits, then he might be successful. There were certainly a lot of other factors that came into play - altitude advantage, coming out of the sun, tactics (and the RAF during the early BoB was probably behind the curve here as to formations and whatever), but the bottom line is probably pilot skill. Over the years we've seen a lot of 'what ifs' of machine type versus machine type, generally with no consideration as to pilot aptitude, but to me these questions are pointless. Sure, one type of machine may have had it all over its opponent technically or tactically in battle, but, all things being equal, the skill of the opposing pilots more times than not determines the outcome.

[George Hopp]

The RAF asked this same question in 1940, and found that both sides of the debate were correct to an extent. To clarify myself I will quote from the air testing of Bf 109 E-3, W.Nr. 1304, by the RAE in May and June 1940. This report is in "The Captive Luftwaffe" by Kenneth S. West, pp127-135:

"Mock dog-fights were staged between the Bf 109 and a Spitfire, both flown by pilots of the RAE. In addition, a number of fighter pilots, all of whom had recent operational flying experience, visited the RAE with their Spitfires and Hurricanes in order to obtain further combat practice. During these flights AE479 (W.Nr. 1304) was flown by RAE pilot, Flying Officer J.E. Pebody, who had completed the handling tests and was thoroughly familiar with it, and could thus be expected to get the best out of it. ...

"When the Bf 109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that the British aircraft turned inside the German machine without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Bf 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because their pilots would not tighten up the turns sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning. ...

"During the dog-fights against the Hurricane and Spitfire it became apparent that these fighters could out-turn the Bf 109 with ease when flown by determined pilots. Since the minimum radius of turn without height loss depends largely on stalling speed, and hence on wing loading, the poor turning performance of the Bf 109 may be ascribed to its high wing loading, 32.2 lb/sq ft compared with 24.8 lb/sq ft on the Spitfire. The minimum radius of turn without height loss was obtained by flying as near to the stall as possible at comparatively little g; this radius was about 696 ft on the Spitfire as against 885 ft on the Bf 109."

I hope this helps,
George

[Juha]

A point to add to George Hopp's informative post. In Bf 109E the pilot could use flaps to better its turning ability. IIRC 8 degree flap was usually used. By doing so one got better lift, the price been more drag. In British fighters of 1940 that was not possible, their flaps had only 2 positions, fully open or closed. And I thing the British test pilots who tested the Bf 109E didn't figure out that possibility of using flaps to enchance the turning ability. Also the slats in Bf 109 allowed a competent pilot to fly the Bf 109 to the limits in low speed turning fight even if their popping open and close again upset many less experienced ones.

Juha

[Jon]

Interesting stuff, and it all points to the difference always being the man in the cockpit and how far he wanted to push the aircraft.

Thanks.

[Ruy Horta]

The Bf 109E had a more inclined seating position for the pilot, which would reduce the effects of high-G combat manouvres compared to the Spitfire and Hurricane with their more traditional seating.

So its not only a matter of a/c performance, nor pilot quality.

Also there is a difference between instantaneous and sustained, and high or low speed turning, even right or left hand turning.

The British types were clearly superior when it comes to sustained low speed turning, and IIRC left hand side.

Plenty of reports to be read on the subject both in print and online.

[Tony Williams]

Slightly OT, but there were also interesting differences in armament effectiveness. Read all about it in 'The Battle of Britain: Armament of the Competing Fighters' on my website.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum