Just curious, but why do you think the Spit Mk I was better than the Mk IX for example?
No, never
The Me-109 was never the best fighter of the Luftwaffe during WW2 after the Fw-190. There were plans in 1938 to replace the Me-109 as the main fighter force of the Luftwaffe and it was main aircraft designer of Focke-Wulf Dipl-lng Kurt Waldemar Tank who designed the Fw-190 and became operational in 1941 and showed that the British Spitfire Mk1 and later the Spitfire Mk IX were no mach for the Fw-190 that were superior. The Me-109 were not so much loved as the Fw-190 were loved. It was reliable, strongly builded, had great handeling and also had better guns than that of the Me-109.
All in all the Fw-190 kicked ass.
Henk
The Me-109 were not so much loved as the Fw-190 were loved.
I really like the Fw-190 but this is a complicated statement, in the Eastern Front many aces favored the Bf-109, like Erich Bakckhorn and Erich Hartmann. Even the Me-262 was offered to Hartmann…he refuse to fly the new jet fighter and keep his well know BF-109G-14.
Yes, I have read somewhere that he did that. What I meant with my remark was that the later models of the Bf-109 was not so much loved as the early models. I do not know a lot of the Eastern air battles so I can not talk much about them.
Henk
The reason for that are simple, despite the continuing improvement of the russian planes the Bf-109 was not really outmachted by any Soviet desing, in the west the things was diferent.
3D art about the Emil flown by Adolf Galland in the early years of JG-26.
All images extracted from:
Panzerknacker- very nice images! Many of the top aces I’ve talked to felt so accustomed to the 109 that for all its faults they loved it and excelled while flying it.
I like the 109, I feel the Germans got the best out of it during the war continuosly upgrading it as the years went by. It did however suffer from the very great flaw of the narrow undercarriage, so much so that a very high proportion of losses occurred in landings. Its still one of the icons of WW2 though.
Firefly you are right when you say that many Bf-109 was lost during landings. I also read that many aircraft was also lost during training and also a lot of pilots. I read once that the one cadet was taking off and did not pull up in time and was to low and crashed into the feul tanks and was insinarated.
The Emil was a great model of the Bf-109 and was loved by all of the pilots who flew it. When they got the Gustav version they said they rather fly the Emil than the Gustav.
Panzerknacker great pictures thank you.
Henk
Yes, even it wasnt the best fighter, those guys were so familiarizated with the Messer that it can leave it, for example Backhorn flew many mission with the FW-190D but achieved no kills ( even the Dora was by far superior to his old Bf-109 G-5).
A “experte” that had not that problem was Priller with tranfered very sucessfully his Bf-109F-4 to the FW-190, it score 101 kills flying only in the western European teatre.
Anyway when you have to face the Bombers the FW his his superior armament would be my choice.
did however suffer from the very great flaw of the narrow undercarriage
The Spitfire had a even narrow undercarriage…but you dont hear nobody complaining about it.
When compared to the Hurricane’s nice wide track people would’ve complained about the Spitfire’s undercarriage! (the bearings being outboard with the landing gear raising in over - with the Spitfire of course vice-versa and thus narrower)
Perhaps the Bf109 was no worse than the Spitfire, but airfields the Luftwaffe operated from in France (and elsewhere) were more austere and uneven than the home stations of Fighter Command? Don’t know whether that’d be true, but it’s a possibility I suppose!
EDIT: Worth noting that the barely modified “Seafire” did get a reputation for landing problems onto decks due to it’s narrow track.
Perhaps the Bf109 was no worse than the Spitfire, but airfields the Luftwaffe operated from in France (and elsewhere) were more austere and uneven than the home stations of Fighter Command? Don’t know whether that’d be true, but it’s a possibility I suppose!
in France austere ??? you should see one of the in the Russian estepe.
Perhaps the Bf109 was no worse than the Spitfire
My point exactly. The landing in the Spifire was difficult also.
I think that the Mk-XII with his powerful griffon was the first to became superior to the Me-109 especially at low altitudes.
Panzerknacker- you are correct. The French facilities were luxurious compared to the Eastern Front. There was a never ending supply of wine and more than a few nice French girls plus much more moderate weather. You mest remember how it was a well know joke that German personnel who got on the bad side of a commander feared being sent to the Russian Front. 
The Spit did have a wider undercarriage than the ME-109 and Spits worked out of some of the same French Airfields. The ME-109’s undercarriage was so narrow as the wings couldnt take the weight of the aircraft (which in the Spit it did).
This made for a very tricky ground handling aircraft, although I still believe it was one of the most significant fighters of the war.
The Spit was truly one of the most significant planes of all time.
As far as I am aware, the only Spit that was tricky to land was the shortlived Seafire. A navel variant of the Spitfire for carrier use.
The Spit had amazing speed and manouvreabilty because it was actually a racing plane design for the Schneider cup (a pre-war sea plane race). The design being modified to carry weapons and the removal of the floats.
I think in about 1943 the floats were put back on for a short period before being classed as redundant. So that Spits (and Hurricanes) could be catapulted off merchant ships for air defence. They would then fly back to base. The convoys never stopped, not to pick up their air defenders nor to pick up stricken boats sea men.
The floats went back on in about '46 for a Spitfire maritime recce and rescue variant. The plane would land to drop inflatable dingies and rations. (there was a lancaster varient, that had a bomb-bay conversion to drop lifeboats at about the same time).
The Spit XV(?)(can someone confirm) was one of the few prop planes that could persue and shoot down V-1s.
Twitch wrote:
You mest remember how it was a well know joke that German personnel who got on the bad side of a commander feared being sent to the Russian Front.
No joking about it mate!!! A (one way) posting to the Eastern front was often handed out for all manner or reasons. Including being the junior (or least connected) rank in a 3 way tug of love!!!
Also, certainly in the earlier war years, units were posted back west to France for abit of R and R.
My favourite aircraft of the war?.. The Fairey Swordfish (aka the Stringbag).
Sorry Firefly but you are wrong, only check any frontal picture of a Spit and a Me-109 for comparison and you ll see that the Me-109 had a wider undercarriage even not much.
1000ydstare
The Spit XV(?)(can someone confirm) was one of the few prop planes that could persue and shoot down V-1s.
Maybe you are talking about the Mk-XII with 1750 hp Griffon, and the Mk-XIV with 2035 hp Griffon. Very fast aircrafts at low altitude.
Your right Panzerknacker, the later versions of the 109 did have a wider track, however in comparison to a Spitfire the 109’s centre of gravity was farther back, this combined with with the narrow track landing gear made braking and one-wheel landings (thats one wheel touching before the other - not only 1 wheel available) much more of a hazard for the 109. The two elements together made for a much less forgiving landing than on the Spitfire!