Messerschmitt Bf 109 | Better than the Spitfire?

This Bf 109 fought in the Battle of Britain, crash landed in 1940, and ended up on display. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 was matched only by the Supermarine Spitfire. It was the Luftwaffe’s only single seat fighter for the first few years of the Second World War and the RAF’s nemesis during the Battle of Britain. Duxford’s Bf 109 is an E-3/E-4 variant. It was attacked by Spitfires in late 1940 and crash-landed in a field in relatively good condition. Because of this smooth crash landing, the aircraft ended up touring North America before going on display at IWM - the tourists’ graffiti from these tours can still be seen on its wings. In this video, Curator Adrian Kerrison shows us how much we can learn from looking closely this Battle of Britain icon. Take a look into the cockpit, watch it take off, and hear from those who flew the Bf 109 during World War Two.
Plan your visit to IWM Duxford: bit.ly/visit-duxford
See the full list of archive films used in this video, available for licensing and downloading: film.iwmcollections.org.uk/c/...
War in the Air book: shop.iwm.org.uk/p/26905/War-I...
00:00 Intro
01:01 Introduction to the E series
02:06 RAF pilot oral history
02:38 Comparison to Spitfire
03:44 German pilot oral history
04:34 This Bf 109's early history
05:44 Markings of the aircraft
06:49 This Bf 109 is upgraded and gets a new pilot
07:25 It crash lands
08:36 Look inside the cockpit
10:50 Later life of the Bf 109
CREDITS
Ebbighausen photo: Image courtesy of James Crow via Donald L Caldwell
Perez photo: Image courtesy of Josef Buerschgens via Donald L Caldwell
Royal Canadian Air Force Personnel and captured of aircraft BF-109. Credit: Library and Archives Canada/PA-148364
BF 109 in flight photograph © blueviking63, Flickr
Call to Adventure by Kevin MacLeod are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/

[@sn00pgreen]

i've still got the cannon round that went clean through my mums' roof during the battle of britain, she found it in the basement under the cheese rack

[@robertcook2572]

That was a terrible shot...

[@clarkhull7546]

very interesting

[@robertthomas5906]

Hope you had it de-milled. They become more unstable as the years go by. Whatever you do don't de-mill it yourself unless you know what you're doing. There was even an expert in Virginia that blew himself up de-milling a civil war cannonball.

[@TheSulross]

as in the explosive charge of the round failed to detonate? if that's the case it could be dangerous

[@neilwilson5785]

Dude

[@gailcrowe727]

My father was a spitfire pilot in WW2. He and my mother went on holiday in the sixties to Majorca and met a German couple. He was a messerschmitt pilot and used to make a beeline for my father every time he saw him and they would have arguments about which was the better plane, much to the annoyance of my mother!

[@lloydgraves6701]

I really like this story. It's amazing that old enemies can forgive and move on and make light of what was really quite a dire situation.

[@Chuked]

Haha that’s hilarious, I’m glad your father survived considering RAF pilots didn’t have the biggest chance of survival

[@gailcrowe727]

@@Chuked Yes, he came down in the Channel once but was rescued. He was also on search and rescue missions and once flew an agent into France and flew one out.

[@christophercollins868]

I wonder what that was like for them. Knowing they would have likely been fighting for their lives against eachother then, but years later being able to have a (freindly) heated debate over whos weapons were better. That would make for a hell of a memoir.

[@avrracer4175]

Messerschmitt ist und bleibt das Flugzeug... Die Amis bekommen ja nicht mal mit wenn die Japaner angreifen siehe Pearl Habor... 🤣 🤣 🤣

[@Nerthos]

Respect for not censoring the thumbnail or video despite KZbin's usual toddler tantrums

[@veikkakarvonen831]

I hate how these symbols supposedly could not be showed in historical planes etc. There's a comment higher up demanding it be removed. 🤦‍♂️

[@ron9320]

I would like to express my gratitude to the Imperial War Museum! It is highly appreciated how respectfully our common history is dealt with here. A few years ago I visited Duxford and was able to admire the "Flying Legends". An unforgettable experience. Greetings from Germany!

[@chrisnnh]

Hearing the name of the men who flew it, and the actions it was involved in really brought it to life for me, it wasn’t just a bucket of bolts and wires it was part of world history to be remembered as such. No name calling, no propaganda, no agenda, just the facts; that’s how history needs to be taught.

[@KIW3Y]

If you like that sort of presentation, I recommend checking out Mark Felton.

[@thethirdman225]

@@KIW3Y Mark Felton is wrong on so many things. Much of what he presents is just myth.

[@thethirdman225]

“Just facts” is not a good way to teach anything. Facts are only useful in context and when given appropriate weighting.

[@nerdomatic2489]

@@thethirdman225 Elaborate?

[@thethirdman225]

@@nerdomatic2489 Elaborate what?

[@privatehudson516]

German air force: we have an actually alll-around good vehicle that we are able to mass produce! German tank engineers: is it possible to learn this power?

[@nauticalmandems]

Panzer IV maybe? Including all the StuG varients, but then there's no such thing as an all around tank, just a good base. Problem with German tanks was Hitler demanding the wrong things and doctrinal issues fighting the Russians l. Going even further the problem was fighting the Russians, meaning that you had to develop tanks for two different fronts so I don't think even sorting their tank issues out would have helped them too much...

[@eliask2179]

Not from a Porsche Henschel & Daimler

[@noobster4779]

@@nauticalmandems actually Hitler was the biggest supporter of making the Panzer 4 germanies main tank 1942 obwards and giving them the long at barrels. He was also a big supporter of turning the Stug 3 from an assault canon into its now infamous tank destroyer role. Hitler did a lot of wrong decisions but blaming him for all the mistakes and then not giving credit when Hitler was actually right is just bad history. Also all late war german tanks except maybe the Tiger I. tank were designed with the soviet front in mind. For example 3/4 Panzer 4s were destroyed by the soviets so the eastern front had absolut priority. The Panther tanks were direct responses to T34s and most german heavy armored fighting vehicles were designed for long range combat in eastern europe with the idea of quality against soviet t34 quantity.

[@Xyzabc998]

STUG, Panzer III and IV. The BF109 stood still unlike the spitfire. No heavy bomber, failed attempts to copy the Mosquito. They weren't that great.

[@vaclav_fejt]

@@Xyzabc998 Bf 109 was radically reworked twice (D->E, E->F), constantly up-engined. What held it back was the low-quality fuel, but that was partly offset by MW50 and GM1 systems. Aircraft was fine, it was the logistics, pilot training doctrine and the grand strategy that were shit.

[@d00mch1ld]

Crew comfort is one the last things engineers think about during war. I watched a BBC interview of a German and British pilot. Both acknowledge the BF109 was a deadly weapon, but the Spitfire was more comfortable, consequently "bailing out" before ejection seats was harder in a BF109. Best example of this is at 8:40, look at how the presenter opens the cockpit.

[@Helperbot-2000]

a bit ironic as crew comfort is an important part of vehicles, possibly the greatest strength of the tiger for example was its crew comfort and ease of use, it was a tank that worked TOGETHER with its crew, and not against it, with well designed features like having a simple steering wheel, well marked hatches and gas masks and such for if theres smoke inside, and cruise controll for instance

[@csh5414]

All non ejection seat planes are hard to bail out of. The 109 had an Emergency canopy release mechanism which detached the whole canopy less the windscreen, arguably easier to bail out of then a Spit. So no it didn’t open to side in an emergency.

[@I.JG7.Frenchie]

No man, there is a handle to eject the canopy on 109's so not an issue and even better than spit cause they didn't have this feature

[@dennischi4598]

When Gunther Rall brought up that he flew for 5 and a half years, I have nothing but my respect to him. Imagine serving the entirety of WW2 and surviving! What a legend!

[@bmon4095]

I used to work in a retirement village. There were a lot of World War II pilots still there at that time. And this is what I learned… Regardless of who they fought or flew for…. The best plane on the planet was the one that saved their lives. German, Canadian, British, American all said the same thing. And that made perfect sense to me.

[@robertdiamond2830]

Very well said and true in every way

[@theothertonydutch]

You could argue that the best plane was the one who did that in the largest numbers. So probably a P-40 or something.

[@johncox2865]

The best camera is the one you have in your hands.

[@stephenryder1995]

Its also the training and the ground crew that make it possible for a good plane to bring you home.

[@theothertonydutch]

@@johncox2865 "Lomography"

[@modulfleirfall]

That "give me a Spitfite" was actually based on the flawed tactic that H. Göring insisted on: to escort the bombers close. He demanded this when the bomber losses started to rise. This made the room to manouvre much less for the German pilots, and was the oposite of the "freie jagd" (free hunt) tactic that was very succsessful for the Jagdwaffe. It ruined the advantage the 109 had in fighting vertically; to bounce from above and zoom up again. The Spitfire was much better suited to fight in the horisontal plane.

[@TibGabinius]

Yap, the worst enemy of the Luftwaffe was Göring. He sacrificed production potential when he insisted in the BF 110 and he sacrificed pilots when he insisted that they stick in the battle when it was clear, they are shitty planes that cant protect their own behindes - even after he ordered them to cover each other instead of the bombers when attacked... that guy was a burden of a man.... a weight on their heart, to say.

[@manilajohn0182]

Free hunts weren't very successful. The RAF consciously avoided German fighter sweeps.

[@ScoopDogg]

During the air battle with the British, Hermann Goering asked his top flight leader and fighter ace what he needed to defeat the RAF? Luftwaffe Lt. Gen. Adolf Galland replied: “Sir, give me a squadron of Spitfires.” Goring was not amused.

[@davegeisler7802]

Just think how many more fighters and bombers the Brits could have brought down if they had used 20 mm Hispanos or M3 50s in 1940 , instead on many occasions the Luftwaffe made it back over the Channel to airbases in occupied France all due to those anemic .303 rounds. Pathetic !

[@Jim-Tuner]

The big overall problem was fuel and range in those bombing raids. What the Germans needed at the time were drop tanks for extra fuel. The only way to make make "freie jagd" work was to increase the amount the fighters had over the target.

[@thewaywardgrape3838]

I really like that these videos highlight the Engineers, Technicians, Crew and Pilots that were involved with the planes; they weren't just planes being shot down. Shows great respect towards to young men that lost during the war.

[@Degenevesting]

Never ask: A woman her weight A man his salary A German company what they were doing between the years of 1930-1945.

[@jt95124]

When Galland said he wanted spitfires, he was actually complaining that the 109 was less suited to bomber close escort because it could turn better. He was not saying the 109 was worse, he was giving a reason why they should not be forced to stay close to the bombers but rather go after the fighters. Many liked the 109s, some preferred them to fw 190.

[@pumelo1]

It is well known that the 109 in mid 30s was from the initial type worse than the aircraft from Heinkel his 112. But Messerschmitt had contacts with the people who arranged the production for him

[@flax1955]

Finalmente qualcuno che conosce la storia. Anche io ho letto i libri di Galland.

[@jd190d]

Only if you were a really small person. They have a really tiny cockpit.

[@triibustevonkass9100]

@@jd190d Tiny cockpit of 109 was feature, not a design error. In 1930ties Germans figured out, that short and strong bodied people tolerate the g-force overload much better than tall people. That plane was built specially with exramly small cockpit considering, that tall people will never sit in the 109 pilot's seat. This helped to reduce the size of the aircraft, which in turn reduces the unladen weight.

[@jd190d]

@@triibustevonkass9100 I never said it was a design error, I was just making a factual statement that limits who could fly the airplane effectively. To construe anything else is your conjecture.

[@lakeeyre8740]

I've always admired the bf109's "attitude", it looks like something built to deliberatley kill, the angular windscreen, functional cockpit and generally aggressive Teutonic style The spitfire looks more like it is ready for a Sunday stroll, and everything elses was "oh, we may need some of these, in case a killer looking BF109 shows up" James bond vs jaws

[@andrewbartczak5941]

I agree. I think you said it very well. The Spit could be a lady, but the 109 looks like a thug.

[@jaybee9269]

I love the 109 too but the FW-190 gets my nod for brutish Teutonic awesomeness in the fit-for-purpose category. I built a 109 as a little boy (it didn’t look half-bad either!) but I don’t think I’d heard of the FW-190 at that point. I also remember building a Douglas Dauntless dive bomber…at least 44 years ago now.

[@panzerfast5000]

Like a Jag vs Aston Marton

[@factorylad5071]

@@jaybee9269 Oh I was going to ask then.. You had the little 1/72 aircraft models so you could enact dog fights by holding one in each hand for all the different planes? I did I went completely mad on them I even had cockpit voice communications 0k I that's goodbye the hans is it? Such a pity I don't suppose I will see any more fokkers like you today!

[@factorylad5071]

@@jaybee9269 If you were a bit older , after the war you would have been able to get a three wheeler bubble car with your favorite German aircraft perspex canopy cover I can remember them now there were mescherschmit and Heinkel at the very least I remember them like yesterday but for my stulted taste the typhoon tempest type aircraft with rockets is the most teutonic of piston aircraft and what I would give to fire a couple of rockets off on moving and stationary targets is beyond reckoning. Beats FW-190 anyday.....

[@peterd8037]

I know I am a year late to this game, but I had to comment on this riveting presentation. Thank you... The inclusion of the voices of the amazing veterans from both sides in this was particularly poignant. I've shared this video with many of my modern veteran friends and it has been universally acclaimed by them; and we are all reminded of how grateful we should be for not having been obliged to fight in that horrific high intensity conflict eighty years ago. History absolutely needs to be preserved...and the Imperial War Museum is obviously succeeding in that mission.

[@NarrowboatLiberty]

Thanks for this superb video. Amazing reconstruction and preservation job on the 109. They are such iconic aircraft.

[@thatswhatyouthink1042]

I think it's a brilliant restoration, the way they left half as is, graffiti and all, and the other half restored to shoot-down-day condition.

[@angry_zergling]

I'm really glad they left it with the markings intact. You know the markings I mean - the one most countries either remove completely or replace with a black 'X'. I think it's silly to do that - not just because it's destroying history, but the claim of the people who deface the planes like that say 'well, it's glorifying such and such' to leave it on there so we must take it off. Problem with that argument is the presence of that symbol only glorifies the group represented by that symbol to the people who think what that group did was glorious. When most people see that symbol, they think and remember and are reminded how horrible an average human being can be twisted against their fellows and know that such things can and do **actually happen**, and remember how bad war can get and maybe the next time people are clamoring for the next war they'll think back to that plane and that symbol and say 'this is how it started then, and look at how it ended. No one came out a winner like they thought they would; instead everyone lost. No, we must have peace, not war'. The big reason we keep these machines around is to remember history, and that symbol is a BIG part of that history and what happened during the war. If we remove that symbol, we're starting to remove the history associated with it and if we keep scrubbing away at everything associated with it then eventually no one will remember. But if the symbol is there, then most people who see that plane at the museum will see that symbol and cannot help to think back to the horrors of the war and will be reminded not to let it happen again. If the symbol is gone and it's an 'X' instead, well...an 'X' has no meaning and for most people that plane is just another plane like any other. They won't have any strong associations one way or the other and it won't make them think and reflect and remember. So I agree - it is a brilliant restoration and I hope others follow suit and start restoring these machines back to the way they actually existed in reality during the actual, real war, and that they undo their deletion of history.

[@tissapathiratna7761]

Not much about Daimler Benz inverted engine.

[@rolandhunter]

"Me 109 was hard/dangerous plane to take off." - The standard takeoff procedure for 109 was to use rudder to keep the plane straight. There was basically to ways to take off the plane. Either you throttled up fairly fast and gave full right rudder, easing it off as speed increased, or you throttled up slowly so there was minimal torque effect. In practise that was similar to anybody who had flown other types before and it took usually just one flight to know how to do it. The myth that there was something hard in taking off in 109 stems mostly from highly exaggerated claims - or the fact that for new pilots converting to 109 from various trainers had not flown such highly powerful aircraft before. With proper teaching - no problems. In Germany that was rare thing in the last years of war though. The Finnish Air Force chief instructor colonel Väinö Pokela told, that one of his key points in teaching new pilots to 109s was to instruct them very carefully - and told them to forget any horror stories they've been told. He said, that many pilots were already scared from the horror stories other pilots and non pilots had been telling, and after showing how easy 109 was to handle there was seldom any problems. - Colonel Pokela also told that most 109 crashed he had seen resulted because the pilot had forgotten to lock the tailwheel before applying takeoff power. If that happened then the pilot couldn't keep the plane straight when accelerating. Take notice that you need to push rudder in all other planes as well - for example Spitfire requires similarly full right pedal while accelerating. - Torque can indeed send a plane off the runway during a takeoff, especially if there's a crosswind to start it off. But 109 is no different from a P-40 or a Spitfire in this situation. The bad reputation most likely comes from pilots flying it for the first and perhaps only time, and that the veteran pilot would instinctively make the adjustments needed to keep it straight while rolling on the ground. "109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents." - 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents. "11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat potential!" (direct quote) "Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany." (usual internet claim) - Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine - The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service. "The specific problem with the Bf 109 was the very narrow / weak undercarriage track." - Narrow landing gear was not that uncommon at the time - all biplanes also had narrow landing gear. Me 109's undercarriage was connected to the fuselage rather than the wings. This had several reasons. Most importantly the wings were easily and quickly changed if needed, without special preparations or tools. Wings were also one single structure, which made it possible to make them very strong. Because this the plane needed some care when operating. The claim that the narrow undercarriage was a problem is a myth, though. In comparison the undercarriage of Supermarine Spitfire was even narrower - it had its own share of problems from this. Imagine what it was to takeoff and land the Spitfire's carrier version to carriers for example? Especially later marks of Spitfire with enormous amount of installed power were quite a handful to operate. But that is conveniently usually ignored. - The width of undercarriage in Me 109 E is 1,97 meters; 109 G 2,06 meters and 109 K 2,1 meters. However - Spitifre's undercarriage width was 1,68 meters. - The real problem was the center of gravity behind the undercarriage. This made it possible to brake unusually hard in landings, but it also required the pilot to keep the plane straight in takeoff and landing. Because this it was easier for a small sideswing to develop into a groundloop or the plane might drift off the runway, if the pilot was not awake. Of course, if the tailwheel was not locked, the tendency would be pronounced and more difficult to counter. As with any plane. - Contrary to the popular myth, the landing gear could take the plane 'dropping' in from about 8-10 feet. "The 109 was flown down to the runway at relatively high speed and "wheel" landed: it was to make sure the leading edge slats did not deploy. Because of the high speed at touchdown, there was more time for something to go wrong during the rollout, and it often did." - Now that is some science fiction. For example the Finnish Me 109s always did stall landings, because the airfields were mostly very smal. The landings were almost similar to carrier landings - the plane approached field in shallow descending turn, aligning to the runway just seconds before touchdown. By "hanging" in the air at stall speed, with slats open, the plane touched down at minimum speed at three points and the pilot could apply full brakes immediately. 109 had very good brakes and the gear was so forward, that the was no worries about nosing over with full braking. Landing could be made with higher speeds, slats not open, or they could intentionally be "popped" out even in higher speed approach (take notice: pilot did not have direct control on the slats, but he could still force them out by creating right flight condition). "Stall landing" to three points with slats open was the favoured method in Finland though. And don't forget, there was even a carrier version of the Messerchmitt, and you just don't land to carrier at high speeds. Of course these planes didn't actually operate from carrier, they they were built and operated by normal squadrons. - As a side note, Finnish pilots who visited Germany on war time and saw some of the German training or how the German combat pilots took off and landed their planes, they were quite horrified. German training in '44 seemed very rough and no 3 points landings was taught to the pilots, who approached with high speeds and came down on two wheels. At that time Germans put as many pilots through the training as possible, and didn't bother to teach the finer things about piloting to the green pilots. The runways were paved and long, so the finesse of "good" landings could be ignored. www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

[@tellyonthewall8751]

Thanks Roland for a very clear and factual piece on the Me109 .. has been needed for some time here ... but it's always like "the winner that writes the true history" so the limey and the yank could tell, what they want the world to know ... like the 'triple ace's' in the USAAF .. 15 planes down .. that makes 'Bubbi' Hartmann (352 kills), Gerhard Barkhorn (301 kills) and 'Jochen" Marseille (158 kills) what??? Bubbi and Jochen only flying the Me109, Bubbi attending the Me262 conversion program under Bähr but got back to JG52 and his Me109.

[@vumba1331]

A question I have based on a comment made to me by a German pilot. He said that the wheel alignment on the Bf109 was slightly toe out and that fact made it just that more difficult to control, toe out on a car is bad enough, but an aircraft, even worse. The 'P' effect on those small aircraft with very powerful engines was incredible and those that ignored it on takeoff, or perhaps a go-around on landing, did so at their own peril. Good post, thanks. Edit - 'too out' changed to 'toe out' which is what it should have been.

[@hajoos.8360]

The aircraft-carrier-version of the BF-109 had wider (or longer) wings.

[@chiselcheswick5673]

Telly Onthewall I think we are long past the winner writes the history phase. Even us limey's who are interested in ww2 aviation would much rather find out and tell the truth on a subject than rely on a handed down narrative. I cant think of an aviation subject given more attention than the WW2 Luftwaffe so lets no get to paranoid about the truth as we are all fighting on the same team.

[@damienmaynard8892]

@@hajoos.8360 Yes, the Bf-109T was found to be very useful, with the longer span, operating from Norwegian airfields with strong cross-winds. I read that T-0 and T-1 were fully navalised but the T-2 was more standard with just the extended wings.

[@hangie65]

Excellent video on a remarkable piece of history, a time capsule, which I had the privilege to see while visiting IWM Duxford.

[@sblack48]

Eric Brown flew ALL of the Ww2 airplanes - english, german, yank and russian. He said the fw190 was superb. He said the 109 was not very good at all. Hard to think of a more qualified pilot in terms of expert at objectively assessing an airplane

[@Hibernicus1968]

It must have been good enough. Erich Hartmann shot down 352 enemy planes in one, and several other German aces racked up incredibly high scores as well. It had its faults, but unlike, say the Japanese Zero, the Bf109 stayed at least competitive with the best Allied fighters, right up to the end of the war. It's pretty much incontrovertible that the Fw190 was the superior German fighter, especially the later D variants, which had V-12 engines and good high altitude performance. But the Messerschmidt remained a deadly opponent in the hands of a skilled pilot who understood how to use its strengths and compensate for its shortcomings.

[@michaelbatson1879]

The German Daimler Benz engine had direct fuel injection. The Rolls Royce Merlin at the time was what was called a floating carburetter.

[@allangibson2408]

Try float carburettor (all Merlins had float carburettors)… (it tended to flood when inverted until a restriction orifice was fitted to the fuel line - look up Miss Tilly Shillings Orifice).

[@Rose.Of.Hizaki]

mo powa bebe

[@ConjointVR]

If during the Battle of Britain, Germany had introduced the F (Friedrich) Variants like the F-1 instead of later, I would very much believe the tide of battle would have been in Germany’s favour.

[@tonkerdog1]

@@ConjointVR You could say that about later Spitfires too. Anyway, nothing sounds as good as a Spitfire so I’m biased..

[@marypetrie930]

@@ConjointVR If this...if that...if only!

[@alexrobertson1472]

Man this is guy has my dream job, nerding out at duxford.

[@load714]

I live near the United States Air Force Museum, in Dayton, Ohio. They have one of each also on display, including many other planes of that era. My uncle used to be a mechanic in the Army Air Corps and worked on P-51 Mustangs. All of them are beautiful planes, even though they are built for war.

[@MysticalDragon73]

Nice video. Im fortunate enough to have the National museum of the USAF a couple hours away. The history there is AMAZING. I got the privilege of going with a friend who as a little girl was in london during the blitz. It was an honor to share it with her. The terror she displayed when she saw german planes was very telling, even 60 years later. Then the she joy when she saw the spitfire. She was suddenly a little girl again with excitement as she saw the symbol of freedom to her. It was amazing to experience. Last summer i got to spend a minute inside the B36 bomber. They weren't expecting the crowds they had. It was another amazing experience. I'd love to see the museums across the pond and yalls perspective.

[@stevenmccart5455]

I've been to practically all of the war museums in and around London and one of the things that surprised me was ,the size of the 109 and even the spitfire. I thought where is the room for all the armaments ,ammunition and ,the fuel? Both planes were incredibly designed.

[@timhaley3459]

Both the German Messerschmitt BF 109 and the British Spitfire were weapons designed to destroy people. Nationalism is the force behind designing weapons that kill, with engineers creating evermore deadly weapons, destroyers, battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers, tanks, guns, etc. Many political leaders speak of "peace", but makes sure that their military arsenals are always "full", with the latest in destructive capability, and in which the United States defense budget for 2021 was approximately $705.39 billion. Here is what is to happen in the near future to the political system with its weapons of death: "Come and witness the activities of Jehovah (God's name, see Isa 12:2, KJV), how he has done astonishing things on the earth. He is bringing an end to wars throughout the earth. He breaks the bow and shatters the spear; He burns the military wagons with fire."(Ps 46:8, 9) At that time, which is called "the war of the great day of God the Almighty", Armageddon (Rev 16:14, 16), the entire political system will be "crushed" out of existence.(see Dan 2:44, 45) Then, there will be no more military museums, no more weapons created to disrupt or destroy people's lives by the "wild beast" (Rev 13:1, 2), the symbolic name given to the political system by Jehovah God because it is like a vicious wild beast, tearing apart any whom it feels is a challenge to its sovereignty. Then, genuine peace will now settle down over the earth, for Daniel 2:35 states: "At that time the iron, the clay, the copper, the silver, and the gold (or world powers that had a direct impact on Jehovah's people, represented by the different metals as part of an "immense image" of a man) were, all together, crushed and became like the chaff from the summer threshing floor, and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone (or heavenly government called God's Kingdom, see Matt 6:10) that struck the image (or political system, with the United States being the final world power as pictured by the iron mixed with clay) became a large mountain, and it filled the whole earth."

[@guycroxford8192]

They looked bigger in person for me

[@stevenmccart5455]

@@guycroxford8192 I'll tell what I was really impressed with was the B17 ! I live in Long Beach California in the states where a great deal of aircraft construction went on ,and in the early 90s an annual air show did a flyover of the city with a couple of the remaining flyable B17s escorted by several fighter escorts like mustangs and and lightnings. I stood and stared as they majestically past over the city ,circled around and returned to the airfield. I was in awe !! Then an older gentleman walking by asked me what on earth they were? I was kind of surprised to realize he didn't know such an important part of this city's recent history ,and proceed to give him a brief history lesson and Inform him that was a sight he'll likely never see again as there are only a very few left that actually fly. I then went home and immediately penned a letter to the editor of our city newspape stating my experience and that not all of the citizens and children of those aircraft workers and WW2 veterans have forgotten. To my utter suprise my letter was printed in full on the front page!! ..I had a bit of pride in the fact and also a bit of embarrassment that I might have sounded a bit full of myself. I soon got over that being the history nut that I am. Our public schools have taught such a distorted view of history over the years that it's becoming lost over the years.

[@phantom4E2]

wait until you see an arado 234 or the dornier 335

[@muskepticsometimes9133]

Compare to P47 !

[@TheIronArmenianakaGIHaigs]

Tigor decal :D

[@chrisjason1263]

Yaaas it's tigor

[@guccidog254]

Please stop commenting on every video

[@chilliobones5348]

​@@guccidog254 he can comment wherever he wants duh

[@romanempireconscript7691]

Oh hello iron

[@yayeetmeoffacliff4708]

Les go tigor decal

[@lessainsbury8508]

Excellent presentation. Thank you for taking the time to produce this important piece of history.

[@IronWarrior86]

Both planes had strengths and weaknesses. I will try to lay them out in very simple terms, and these pertain to the first production models. To start off, the 109 had a more effective and simple, yet more reliable engine for high-altitude. A direct injection mechanism allowed it to work much more efficiently above 4500m in addition to having a better climb rate from Sea level owing to its lighter airframe and lower wing loading. As for firepower, the 109's MGs had higher rate of fire, and had mixture of light MGs and heavy cannons, 2 x 7.92mm + 2 x 20mm (the cannons fired powerful incendiary and high-explosive ammo). The spitfire had more MGs (8 x 7,7mm), mounted in the wings, giving the bullets wider spread, thus greater chance of hitting a target taking evasive maneuvers. As for maneuverability and speed, the 109 had quicker response due to being unstable and could point nose on target quicker, which is most useful in a merge where two aircraft are flying towards each other at approx. a 180 degree angle. The spitfire on the other hand had much better sustained turn rate, which is a great advantage in a prolonged dogfight. Also the Spitfire had much higher top speed. The Spitfire's Merlin engine was equipped with a more advanced supercharger and used higher refined fuel which produced a lot more HP which in combination with its wing-design, gave it a better climb rate and higher lift above 4500m. All of the 109s control surfaces would become less responsive at high speeds. Conversely the spitfire's ailerons would freeze up at high speeds, causing significant decrease in roll rate. As long as an engagement took place under 4500 meters the Spitfire was the superior aircraft. Above that altitude the 109s could easily dominate thanks to its better designed engine. Lastly, the spitfire had armored bullet-proof frontal glass, which the 109 lacked.

[@raypurchase801]

Nice to see a fellow nerd here. 1940: Spitfire & 109 were broadly equivalent. 1945: Different story.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@raypurchase801 General Chuck Yeager put it best. All things being pretty much equal as far as the airplanes are concerned the man who wins in a dogfight is the man who's a better pilot and tactician. Even to the end of the war a 109 in competant hands could be a dangerous opponent and not to be underestimated.

[@dekipet]

One says 109 had a better climb rate, the other says it is Spit. And for bulletproof glass... is it 20mm shellproof? Gustav had a 30mm canon. And what about the gas tank in front of a pilot? Yes, it was leak-sealed. You say later in the war things changed. It did, but because of bombing raids on German industry. If that was the same in British industry, things would be the opposite. The main problem with Germans was, that they didn't have to fight with the whole world. After France, they should press the UK. U-boots, air raids, and eventually land on the mainland. Churchill said the UK was doomed at the beginning of 1940. They should never attack USSR for sure. Stalin would be pleased to see the UK down. Maybe he would help. The USA was far from war. My grandfather was KIA in WWII. Fighting some 60km from home against Germans. My father was 2 months old. And here we are, talking about war... It is a little bit strange. Every time I visit his grave, never think about war, but here we talk about it... This day, tomorrow will be history.

[@raypurchase801]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 You are damned right there.

[@5000mahmud]

@@dekipet Operation Sea Lion was completely unfeasible, even the Germans thought so.

[@ethanrandall7538]

This very much reminds me of the small arms comparisons on the eastern front between the Ppsh-41 and the MP-40. We have dozens of veteran accounts praising the opposite sides sub machine gun and desiring to acquire one instead of what they had. Really goes to show how much you feared your enemies technology, and how much the features of these weapons outweighed their faults in the eyes of your foe. Everyone wants what they don’t have.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

It seems to be common that the grunts on the ground always seem to think the enemy's got better gear than they themselves do. In most cases it's not true, in fact most military weapons are all pretty good, no matter what country they come from.

[@jonwinfield9193]

I'll be honest, I've never heard of German troops praising the PPSh. Most accounts I've found stated that German troops didn't like them and found them to be quite unreliable. They much preferred their own Mp38 or Mp40. One account I read was of specifically German infantry NCOs and lower officers hoarding any Mp41s they could get their hands on due to them being so smooth shooting.

[@brucetucker4847]

@@jonwinfield9193 If they had to use it at 40 below zero, they'd become PPSh fans pretty quick.

[@skyhook3495]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 L85 has left the chat

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@skyhook3495 Honestly after two months I don't remember him at all.

[@andrewhoward7200]

Interesting, and very glad to see this one preserved. One shot my grandfather in the leg, he was a fireman. He said the Germans had been trying to kill him since 1914 in Flanders.

[@bobshenix]

Most Germans, even in high command positions all the way up to Hitler himself, actually didn't want anything to do with hurting your father. That is just a product of the propaganda he lived his life exposed to.

[@Nordsee33]

I can only imagine how jarring that must have been!

[@generalripper7528]

When my grandfather returned from the war, he found that his home had been looted and a P-51 round had hit through the roof of the house and impacted in his bed. And his wife to be was almost killed by a P-38 strafing run when she was riding her bicycle on a country road. She only saved herself by jumping into a ditch.

[@geegeeuk7]

What an outstanding piece of public history. Well done great job and an incredible example of material culture. I especially love the how its half restored, half decayed it really brings the age of the machine to life.

[@zzzjsbzzz]

That was absolutely brilliant, thank you for sharing

[@C4nn15]

The South African War museum has a crashed ME109 from the desert campaign, the astounding thing when seeing it in real life is how small it actually is. Compared to say the FW190 which is huge, that massive front, the FW190 is a brute, the ME109 is like a ballerina.

[@jackgirote9132]

I love the thought that went into the exhibit. Most of the plane restored, with the one wing displaying the fundraising aspect of its history. I also love that the plane is displayed how it was ditched.

[@dennisleighton2812]

2:09 Actually, the 109 looked far more like a hurricane than a spitfire! 3:22 The Bf 109 was equipped with fuel injection, not carburetors. 4:30 The testimony of a German senior pilot is the one I'll listen to! By and large the two planes were good opponents - each plane had its own particular quirks, strengths and weaknesses, so it's hard to answer the question definitively. Suffice to say they were both iconic aircraft, and of the best of the day.

[@Kennymac8251]

I was well aware of the Bf 109s reputation but I was shocked upon seeing my first one, many years ago, in person as part of a static display at an airshow. It was unbelievably tiny in comparison to the well deserved reputation it earned as a feared fighter aircraft. Great video BTW.

[@dessullivan668]

That nasty cannon firing thru the spinner was a winner until the Spits put a couple on the wings.

[@jeremyfdavies]

Good video, really informative and well put together story. The comments from pilots was an added bonus, especially the Germans. Congrats!

[@ImperialWarMuseums]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@hubristicmystic]

The 109 is so little!

[@nor0845]

One advantage the Spitfire had which is seldom mentioned is the visibility afforded by the Bubble canopy, the Malcolm Hood. This (or versions of it) were also fitted to early B model Mustangs and also Corsairs. That said I love the lines of the 109 but sadly spoiled by later engines fitted. At the end of the day the 109 and Spitfire were two thoroughbreds; As is often said the biggest engine squeezed into the smallest plane. Good vid thanks for posting.

[@scammelljones6545]

The RAF had a ‘109( think it landed in U.K. after becoming lost) and did comparison tests the visibility as you say was far inferior to the Spitfire and also the cockpit was much more cramped space wis to allow pilots to turn and look around

[@n.o6889]

@@gr-s2143 But, as my experience of simer, the first versions had a good visibility, compared to bf-109 or other plane with similar cockpit, like the swidish j-22

[@allangibson2408]

Both sides agreed that the Spitfire was the better fighter aerodynamically but the Bf-109 had a better engine in the early war period.

[@nor0845]

@@gr-s2143 Hi. By ‘Bubble’ canopy I mean the Malcolm Hood. This is the sliding part of the canopy fitted to most versions of the Spitfire, not the full bubble as fitted to later Spits etc. Cheers

[@kennethpope4311]

One of the best insights I got was from a documentary on the 109 where they got some spitfire veterans to sit in the 109. The one said he was amazed by how poor the general visibility is. If he had known that back in the war he would have been much more aggressive in combat.

[@johnqpublic2013]

Shout out to the narrator, thanks for all you do. My grandfather went up against the Bf 109. He was in the 15th AF.

[@billballbuster7186]

The rivalry between Spitfire an Me109 was legendary but which one was better depended on the model. The Me109F when it first entered service was outstanding. But the later G models were markedly inferior to the Spitfire MkIX flying at the same time. Later Me109s were bomber destroyers rather than fighters, weighed down by armour and armament.

[@dane3424]

Exactly what I was thinking! You see all these videos asking what fighter aircraft is better out of the Spit and 109, but it depends on the model.

[@viper2148]

That centerline 20mm cannon though. Good shots like Hans-Joachim Marseille were known to be able to take down a Spit with one round.

[@steffenrosmus9177]

And he did more than once

[@bondgabebond4907]

One day I have to find out how they fitted a canon to shoot out of the propeller.

[@bondgabebond4907]

@Eclipse538 thanks. It seems so strange that where I expect a solid shaft, there is a hollow tube.

[@razorback20]

Except no 109 E ever had a center cannon, simply because, on that version of the DB 601 engine, the oil reservoir was sitting in the way. The propeller hub (at least on earlier batches) may have been designed in anticipation for that feature, yet it simply never materialized before the F version. And the engineers had first to redesign a horseshoe-shaped oil reservoir which was moved behind the propeller (hence the new rounder nose from F and above) to accomodate this new armament. For decades, that false information about E's central cannon has been widespreaded, mostly by anglo-saxon historians who skipped source-checking and relied a bit too much on... nazi propaganda, actually ! I'm sorry to hear it's still carried on by IAW representatives, despite that myth has been debunked since the 90's, partly due to declassified archives following the USSR demise, and for the other part because a few Emils have since been restored to airworthy condition (thus closely examined, including the power plant).

[@petegarnett7731]

You could not possibly fire just one round with such a weapon, and guaranteeing that you were on target while two planes were jockeying for position is impossible. Yu have to fire a burst. It would still be highly unlikely that one hit would bring the opposition down unless you killed the pilot with it.

[@stevenmccart5455]

One of the best things about the Imperial war museum is the way artifacts are displayed and ,how interactive some are. I was able to get very close to some exhibits and even crawl into some vehicles to get a feel for how it was inside. I highly recommend a visit if you are in the area.

[@brucetucker4847]

At Duxford I was able to climb up on the wing of an airworthy 109 with the canopy open and get a closer look inside the cockpit than I'd ever had before. Sadly, they would not let me climb inside.

[@generalripper7528]

I touched a SR-71 Blackbird at Duxford. A British gentleman told me "oh you are brave enough to do that". Its an incredible museum. Regards from Germany!

[@ThePatrioticTurtle]

The 109 and the spitfire were perfect enemies. They fly and fight different from each other with different offensive and defensive tactics. Truly breathtaking dogfights between the two. Just a shame the circumstances for their mid flight dance many ending in death.

[@benjaminloper2154]

This specific 109 looks so good it almost doesnt look real! Always an amazing thing when history can be preserved like this

[@gusgone4527]

The 109 was small and that contributed greatly to it's success. Light for the engine size and small meaning difficult to hit. It packed one hell of a punch. Little wonder it did so well in the hands of experienced pilots.

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

Eric Hartmann, the most succesful fighterpilot, and most likely ever, with 352 confirmed enemy planes shot down, flew a 109 for most of his time during the War. So it wasn't just the plane but very much also the pilot behind the stick, that matters.

[@argusflugmotor7895]

The design of the bf 109 was to fit the largest engine, at the time the Daimler Benz DB 601 but later the 603 and 605. In the smallest airframe. This gave it great characteristics that not even radials at the time could match. So good was this design that it experienced very few modifications, besides power plants and armament later in the war.

[@petriew2018]

the good thing about the 109 is, ironically, also the bad thing about the 109. It's a great dogfighter in the hands of an experienced pilot, highly maneuverable with good firepower... in the hands of a rookie it's fragile and difficult to control with limited ammunition that forced you to be accurate. It was either great or a disaster depending on the pilot, so attrition was a huge issue as the war dragged on average experience dropped off

[@paulhicks6667]

The resson it didnt get modified was not because it didnt need modifying, it was because that compact design with a dinky airframe with skinny wings left no room to do anything. The development of the 109 is a story of engineers trying to cram a quart into a pint pot. No room for sufficient armament, no room for extra fuel, no room for a bigger engine. Cannon had to go in pods bolted on the wings, extea bits of engine bolted on the fuselage. All creating drag and degrading performance.

[@zaphodbeeblebrox5973]

@@petriew2018 Indeed, Galland (who knew a thing or two about these things in combat) said to me in the hands of experts there was very little to choose between the two, however both in the hands of an average pilot, the spitfire would win easily as it warned you if it was about to bite, the 109 did not and that the Luftwaffe and RAF had far more average pilots than aces!

[@BradBrassman]

How can it have been better? They had numerical superiority, tactical advantage, pilots who had experience in Spain and The Battle of France, and they still got beaten.

[@jonathonasmith]

Just over weight of numbers logistics not pilot experience or mechanical issues with the craft. Highly state of the art and combat effective especially in the east where they shot down Russians in the hundreds

[@5000mahmud]

@@jonathonasmith It went both ways on the eastern front. P-39's, Yaks and La-5s did a number on the Germans just as well.

[@paulisemonger280]

Superb restoration and great documentary.

[@dhawthorne1634]

It always amazes me how detailed the Medal of Honor Series was with their audio. Using barks from the actual breed, sampling audio from the actual firearms being used and now I learned that they sampled an actual Messerschmitt because I instantly had a flashback to the airfield and bridge defense missions at 0:48.

[@robjanssens]

The Dutch roundels are actually Czech. The Dutch used an orange triangle. After the war, the Dutch roundel became like the Czech one, but with an orange bullseye.

[@arnoudagr2171]

And the Dutch roundel is rotated 120 degrees clockwise.

[@wanderschlosser1857]

Given the dates on the marks and that Czech republic was already occupied since 1938 without fighting it is indeed more likely that those marks are for air victories against Dutch planes. Also I wouldn't be so strict on how accurate the marks have been painted (missing orange dot in the middle or correct angles), it was hand painted after all. But if you want to go down that road, the clockwise order of the painted marks is blue-red-white, exactly as the Dutch roundel, whereas the Czech one would be blue-white-red with the blue exactly LH, white top right and red bottom right.

[@dutchthespitfire3204]

The Dutch one looks also better

[@Martinko_Pcik]

@@wanderschlosser1857 I agree, it is very similar to Czech markings but it didn't make historical sense since France and England betrayed Czechoslovakia in Munich 1938 and gave it up for free to please Hitler. I didn't know Duch ones are so similar. I learned something new today. Czechs ended up making me-109s in Prague during the war and after WWII sold 4 to early Israel as its first fighters forming Israeli Airforce. History is crazy Lol

[@blucz883]

@@wanderschlosser1857 Czechoslovakian pilots were in the RAF.. They had customized planes and were part of allied effort

[@duane8620]

Wow, what an amazing piece to be displayed in the museum. I don't think there's another plane in a museum with a history as varied, traveled as far and been seen/touched/graffitied (for lack of a better word) by multigenerational and international spectators before it was even a museum piece as this. What an amazing story, thanks for the video and retelling of this 109's amazing journey to restoration!

[@alexrobertson1472]

Duxford have the best collection in the world tbf not far from this 109 they have a spitfire that was crash landed on the beach at dunkirk.

[@Bass.Player]

This was very well done... I enjoyed it.

[@kosmonautofficial296]

This is so amazing! Great video!

[@onlycompetitions5083]

I visited Duxford in 2013 and was amazed and delighted by the aircraft, vehicles, and the many other items on display there. I spent 2 days exploring the site and thoroughly enjoyed it, but there was no “one-to-one” guide explaining the artefacts, so these videos are really interesting to me.

[@TheNubadak]

Some of the only ones left.

[@rocket3man]

Thanks so much for this documentary, I was recently at Duxford and was able to view the 109 in the wonderful museum that has been created there.

[@Drspoe]

It's hard to say that either was superior. Both designs filled their intended roles very well. The Spitfire was very good in a defensive role, as its airframe and wing design made it very nimble and maneuverable. For most of the war, the 109 was actually faster than the spit, especially with the Friedrich, Gustav, and Kurfurst variants. The max speed, climb, and armament of the subsequent 109 variants usually had a slight advantage on the Spitfires throughout the war, even as the spit was upgraded. The 109 was a fantastic energy fighter and interceptor, as that was it's intended role. The center-lined gunnery and sensitive vertical stabilizer made this thing a beast at boom n' zoom tactics.

[@paulhicks6667]

Where did you get this info? You are wrong on nearly every point. All of the later 109’s personified an aircraft being modified beyond its potential. The only 109 that was clearly superior to the contemporanious mark of Spitfire was the F, which was slightly better all round than the Spit V. As for the G, check out real performance data from flight tests at the time. The Spit IX was slightly better in almost every way. The struggle to make the G competitive is apparent - why did they build TEN versions of it? And with 109 units scattered all over Europe and Russia consider the logistics of getting the right spares to the right units when you have ten versions of the aircraft in service. As for the 109K, one of so many German aircraft designs that looked great on paper. It couldn’t actually be built in worthwhile numbers. Even the G could not be built to a combat ready standard later in the war. Pilots complained that factory fresh aircraft could not top 300 Mph! Meanwhile the RAF got on with the job deploying the Spit XIV to every fighter squadron in 2nd Tactical Airforce. A single version to maintain and train for, and contrary to what you say it spanked the 109G in max speed at any altitude, rate climb (an ourageous 5000ft per minute at low altitude) and any other significant aspect of performance.

[@danieleyre8913]

The Bf 109 did not at all fill the role of escort fighter well. Its range was found to be far too short. It was also found to have issues operating from more basic airfield’s used on the eastern front. And the only Bf 109 model that had any marked performance superiority over contemporary Spitfire’s was the Franz series over the Spitfire Mk. V’s. Of course the final Konrad Bf 109’s had incredible climb and top speed. But the Bf 109 airframe and control surfaces had atrocious response at the higher velocities.

[@Tempest-mh7kg]

Today I found your channel and I am impressed and charmed! To hear real voices of Walther Krupinski and Günter Rall is interesting.

[@jasonmorahan7450]

A couple of comparative differences were afforded by the inverted vee engine and placement of the cockpit. The 109 had better view forward and down which is good for diving attacks, the Spitfire had the cockpit further back from the wing leading edge and the cowling was much wider so the view forward and down was much worse. Spitfire had better view upwards and around, since the wide cowling allowed for a wider cockpit with more room to move your shoulders around, the Malcom hood to take advantage of this. So the 109 was well suited to diving attacks and the Spitfire was well suited to climbing intercepts. Another benefit of the narrow cowling and cockpit afforded by the inverted vee, which placed the cylinder banks between the wings in a flying attitude so the combination greatly reduced frontal mass and therefore drag compared to upright vee engines, so this gave the 109 an initial dive acceleration that wasn't really matched by any other aircraft in the war including comparative tests in 1944 against the Hawker Tempest and later version Griffon Spitfires. They could overtake the 109 in power on dive eventually but the initial dive acceleration was always in favour of the 109 and pilots were warned about this. It is completely aside from the routinely cited injection versus carburettor issue with nose over dives. Similarly this low frontal mass allowed for less drag to overcome in the slow climb, which combined with features of the Daimler engine and economical construction gave the 109 a tractor pull climb ability which again remained unmatched by late war types including the Griffon Spitfire and Hawker Tempest. They could easily outclimb the 109 in a zoom climb or a traditional climbing regime, most high powered late war Allied fighters would however none of them could stay with it in the slow climb and would have to dip and gain and use another climb regime, which isn't saying the 109 is outperforming them, it is just saying you couldn't mimic the way it moved and expect the same result because it had some fairly unique characteristics from its fairly unique features. I would say if you were a good pilot and used your own aircraft strengths many contemporary Allied aircraft were equal to or better than the 109, however it would be a huge mistake to try to follow a 109 through manoeuvres that pilot is dictating in a different aircraft type or you could easily run into some serious trouble in almost any fighter type throughout the war, even much newer, more powerful models. I wouldn't say it was better than, but it was certainly very different than and often with performance equivalence, so that alone can be dangerous. Hence there is an emphasis on dissimilar flight training in developing elite fighter pilots, although during the war that was mostly through testing analysis and pilot advisories rather than actual pilot training in flight against captured enemy aircraft.

[@LupusAries]

That is a great analysis! A few things to add, one that the 190 which is always quoted as having better visibility than the 109 has the same problem as the spit only worse. The frontal visibility is bad, due to the low seating position, and the big radial, worse than the 109. The rearward visibility however is much better than the 109 and even the spitfire at the time. As for the Spitfire visibility being optimized for climbing intercepts, might be true, but even in a spit you don't want to be below the enemy. You want to have energy advantage. Although being lower in a Spit vs. a 109 is not as bad as being lower against the Spit in a 109! :D Firepower in the case of a 109 from the E-3 onwards clerarly towards the 109, even more so for the E-4 onwards. Although these cannons are quite hard to aim, compared to the unified armament on the Spitfire. Mgs can be effective in 1940, as evidenced by the surprising effectiveness of the cowling mounted 109 guns, but the spitfire does not make that good use of them. I think the Hurricane gets the most out of the 8x0.303 gun arrangement. So you could argue that the 109 has the most firepower, while the Spit has the more easy to aim armament. While none of them has the most effective armament, the Hurricane being a contender for that. Honestly though, I would say the F-4F Wildcat had that in 1940, with it's 4x0.5 cal guns, relatively easy to shoot, guns close together, so that atleast 2 always hit in roughly the same spot, even if you aren't at convergence +/-50 yards and decent enough effect on target in between a .303 and a 20mm. The Mk. Vb spit makes a big case for the impact of cannons, if you compare their effectiveness on target to the Spit Mk. IIa and Spit Mk. Va models. Which adds up to what the Pilot says. Funnily enough I'd argue that of both of them the 109F had the more effective armament, 2x7,92 and 1x20mm all hitting in the same spot, with pretty similar ballistics and more than twice the firing time for the 20mm, additionally no convergence issues. Your thoughts? P.S. My perfect fighter would be an amalgation of the 109 and the spit, namely the spit's wing and late version cockpit (Bubble Canopy) and rear fuselage with the 109's weapon arrangement, a DB 603 or Griffon (inverted) squeezed into that cowling. And the whole thing lengthened and possibly with a tricycle landing gear like the P-38/P-39. And that all should probably should tell you how possible that would be! :D It wouldn't be a 109 nor would it be a Spitfire, as one of the key problems for the 109 was that it was too small to fit the bigger engines and you can see that it is a bit overtaxed with the final DB605DC variants.

[@MrRugbylane]

Cheers. Great info

[@MrRugbylane]

@@LupusAries love this discussion!

[@UUUU-dn9wz]

All allied aircraft outperforming late 109s in zoom climbing and climbing regime is bs. 109s had the highest Power to weight ratio between late war aircraft and the second best thrust to weight only behind the yak3s (prop efficiency is what caused the issue for the 109). Not to mention that 109s became also extremely fast in the late war, outspeeding anything but the thunderbolts. Remember that for griffon spitfires you can’t use post war ones, the mk24 from 1948 is obviously going to demolish the k4.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@UUUU-dn9wz So in other words late war planes that very few of them were fielded were the best planes? Not by a long shot, real life wasn't one of your video games you guys play, aircraft that flew in limited numbers shouldn't even be counted because they had no effect on the war. You wanna throw a bunch of statistics around? Try this one on for size, the USAAF's 56th Fighter Group flying P47's ended the war with an 8 to 1 kill ratio against the Luftwaffe, nobody in the 56th was shooting down obsolete Russian biplanes being flown by poorly trained pilots or crippled bombers that couldn't keep up with the rest of the formation, they were exclusively shooting down German aces in fighters, even late war with their uprated FW190 Dora's and any other late war German fighters including ME262's didn't stand a chance against the P47, the ME262'S weren't being shot while they were taking off or landing but in aerial combat at altitude and while maneuvering, there's even two documented instances of P47M's from the 56th Fighter Group running down and destroying ME262's that were throttled up and running with a distance advantage. USAAF pilot Robert Johnson scored 27 kills with the bulk of them being FW190's and the remainder being ME109's and just 4 ME110's which were classified as fighters but were certainly no match for a P47, no bombers or biplanes or any other type of outdated fighter, his 3rd or 4th kill was a German ace that had over 200 kills, and he did all of that in P47C's, one of the earliest versions of the P47. For all the hoopla about German pilots and their record setting scores no one's ever been able to explain to me how a bunch of new to combat USAAF pilots could show up when the Luftwaffe was at their height and enjoy an 8 to 1 kill ratio against them, I'll tell you how that happened, they were better pilots in better planes, that's how. The fact is no German planes fielded in any kind of numbers had anywhere near the power that USAAF or RAF planes for that matter had, the DB series of German engines were flops compared to Allied engines, just look at their power per ci and you can see that, none of their aircraft engines had truly high altitude supercharger systems, the FW190 started turning into a dog at 15,000 ft, while a P47 or a P38 with their turbochargers to compound the engines single stage supercharger for high altitude gave their engines a critical altitude rating that was above the aircraft's service ceiling. For all the hype everyone's always thrown around for years about "superior German engineering" the cold hard facts are their aircraft engines were dogs compared to Allied engines, they made far less power per ci and one of the biggest reasons is they had mechanical compression ratios that were way out of wack for a highly boosted engine, long before WW2 a very smart guy named Harry Ricardo ran the numbers and determined that the best compression ratio for a highly boosted engine is between 6:1 and 7:1, look at US aircraft engines of that era, 6.5:1, the Merlin engine had a similar ratio around 6.8:1, even top fuel nitro methane dragster engines have around 6.5:1 compression, the Germans started the war with engines around 7.6:1 and went the wrong way to over 8:1, they just plain had it wrong and that's why they couldn't get anywhere near the specific power rating or the HP per ci that Allied aircraft engines got, they just plain got it wrong, so much for "Superior German engineering". Throw around all the numbers you want even from rare late war planes that very few saw action but there's only one number that really counts, the 8 to 1 kill ratio that the P47's of the 56th Fighter Group ended the war with, at the end of the day that's the only number that matters.

[@pjotrtje0NL]

The unintelligible part at 3:57 is (as I understand it) “Obergeneral Galland”, although that term isn’t official, but it was used to refer to the General der Jagdflieger position in the Luftwaffe.

[@88denji]

The quote is definitely from Galland, I also understand "Obergeneral", didn't know it was a term they actually used though...

[@mikecullen32]

I know Gallandt's nephew, he use to tell me stories about his Uncle.

[@mathishartmann6566]

I think he actually said "our general Galland".

[@88denji]

@@mathishartmann6566 I have listened to it a few times now, I think you're right ;-)

[@Novotny72]

I Heard 'Galland' right away and came to the comments to see if anyone else picked it up.

[@michaelmccotter4293]

Very well done documentary. Thanks for sharing.

[@jackiechan5263]

Love the tigor decal.

[@leokimvideo]

At least the germans were smart enough to use a cross as air force identification Vs the British using what looks like a shooting target

[@hydey1916]

Didn't really matter in the end did it? LMAO

[@thesupersonicstig]

Yeah, way worse than what looks like a crossheir…

[@hydey1916]

@lukas manfred could have sworn it was the RAF that won the battle of Britain. So... no... it didn't really matter in the end

[@kozureokami8553]

Obviously not smart enough not to get a...kicked

[@gehtdichnixan3200]

@@thesupersonicstig this is why i would have painted it on the most rugget part of the plane ... hit here does not matter ;)

[@Zerbey]

Fascinating to hear from German pilots too, thanks for keeping this plane for future generations to learn from.

[@AlbertDongler]

Fascinating. Thank you! :)

[@russellstone9056]

Spitfire was a better defensive fighter, the BF 109 a better offensive fighter. Adolf Galland's comment to Hermann Goering about wanting a squadron of spitfires was a comment criticizing the tactics of the luftwaffe commanders and their decision to use the fighter escorts in a defensive capacity. A tactic which far better suited the Spitfire. It was a great honor to meet General Galland at a cocktail party and fighter symposium in DC in the 90s. For me all of the other pilots such as Johnny Johnson faded into the background given the fact that General Galland was there.

[@youtubemodsaresnowflakelef7692]

Not to mention that the 109 was a far older platform. It debuted in 36 and first saw service in 37. And there's only so much you can upgrade an airframe. Shows what a good design it was, that it could hang for as long as it did.

[@russellstone9056]

@@youtubemodsaresnowflakelef7692 good comment and the Spitfire was similar in upgrades to the 109 from it's original design in the '30s by RJ Mitchell to the more advanced versions. I used to design and produce Spitfire conversion kits and it was easy to make many different versions by changing the nose, tail and a few other details such as armament, landing gear, propeller, etc. A beautiful bird. Erich Hartman, the highest scoring Ace in history flew the 109 almost the entire war including the G-6 , G-14AS & penultimate K-4, which was very capable against the P-51, Spit Mk IX, etc.

[@danieleyre8913]

“Better defensive fighter”? “Better offensive fighter”? What word salad. Sticking close too to the bombers was a bad idea for any fighter.

[@danieleyre8913]

@@russellstone9056 The “Konrad” Bf 109s were not very competitive at all. They were a desperation measure (as the Germans had failed to replace the Bf 109) and they were dreadful to fly and grossly overpowered for their airframe. The airframe and control surfaces of the Bf 109 were designed for far lower velocity ranges, and their control response at the higher velocities was terrible. An absolute deathtrap. The Gustav Bf 109s were the zenith of the Bf 109, not the Konrad’s.

[@russellstone9056]

@@danieleyre8913 Not "word salad" at all, as you say. This was the terminology used to describe the planes and tactics. The Spitfire could turn tight, making it excellent in defence. "Don't climb, don't dive, just turn." Offensive advantages of the 109 were in dive capabilities and speed. The DB601 was fuel injected and much better for negative G. The early Spits had a carburetor, well known to cause problems in negative G maneuvers. These were the things to which Galland was referring when he made his famous "give me a squadron of Spitfires" comment to Göring.

[@christopherhughes8402]

The 109's had fuel injection, not upside down carburetors as claimed. That is why they could dive away from spitfires effortlessly.

[@stijnvandamme76]

Not all of them, Bf109D with Jumo 210Da had inverted carburettors.

[@stephenryder1995]

So 'effortlessly' they LOST the freakin' air war, even with 35,000 of these Nazi garbage cans - there weren't 35,000 left in 1945, were there? I wonder who shot them all down, and what kind of planes did it.

[@ihaveaextremelysmallpenisa4629]

@@stephenryder1995 A spitfire pilots life expectancy was about 4 weeks. The plane was massive ass, especially the older it got. The only good British vehicles came post-war, like the centurion.

[@hugocromwell-morgan773]

@@ihaveaextremelysmallpenisa4629 germany still lost😂

[@ihaveaextremelysmallpenisa4629]

@@hugocromwell-morgan773 And the british military still sucks 🤣

[@hydorah]

Great restoration, really balanced , keeping all that post crash history - and a great video! They had the 109, thankfully, we had Miss Shilling...

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@EverydayWorkshop]

Great video. I’ve always loved theses aircraft, there is something about the way they look, typical German functionality, nothing unnecessary but very charismatic and lethal. Thank you for producing this video.

[@williamb2854]

I am old school and love history. I cringe when I see pics of history way back then..when these air crafts were being cut up for scrap. Makes me sad...we need to save what we can find. History in the making !!!

[@dorkangel1076]

I watched a video on the Mosquito. I was very sad to learn a lot of them ended up being painted yellow and used as target practice for the new jet planes.

[@notreallydavid]

One aircraft, two aircraft, three aircraft, William - like sheep or deer. Please kill me. All best. (As you say, the scrappings are often tragic. We couldn't keep 'em all, but it's a great pity that we have no airworthy example of many WWII aircraft - or in some instances, no example at all.)

[@JohnGaltAustria]

What an insightful video. Thank you very much.

[@acynecki]

I've been to that museum in Duxford and seen that 109. Fantastic exhibit.

[@HB-vi3om]

"Amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics" I've read that the 109 took something like 6k hours to build bs 10k or 11k hours for a Spitfire. It ran on 87 octane fuel vs 100+ for the Merlin, and the goofy gear made it simpler to transport by rail. It was a better tool for the Axis than the Spitfire would have been, as was the Spitfire for the English, IMO.

[@paintedblue1791]

But the Germans had no on site repair organisation. A damaged plane was disassembled crated up and sent back to Germany to be rebuilt! The RAF had air frame mechanics that would rebuild and caniblise on the airfield so had a far grater return to service time than the Germans!

[@riazhassan6570]

@@paintedblue1791 Just a little intrigued by your comment, though no criticism is intended. BOB was fought in British skies, so no ground service was possible for damaged German planes. I assume you are talking about other theatres of the war. If memory serves, the Germans had patch up jobs available at their frontline airfields. Of course, planes with major damage were shipped back to the factories, as elsewhere

[@mobius7089]

Your comment on the octane is partially correct. The Germans quoted the lowest octane at a lean mixture, where as the allies quoted the highest octane at a rich mixture. In reality, both contemporary fuels were similar.

[@startingbark0356]

@@mobius7089 technically tho later Merlin engines would get damaged if they ran lower then 100 octane fuel, 87 octane fuel is cheaper thats why the USSR used it too, the USSR used 87 octan fuel in spitfires the spitfires did indeed get fast engine damage

[@KIM-JONG-UN-84]

The hours are not concurrent. Multiple people all working separately on parts means its produced MUCH faster that. So calm down.

[@Otter-Destruction]

Its pretty awesome that adversaries each considered their opponents aircraft to be the better aircraft.

[@youwelirka1737]

Даже в таком виде этот великий самолёт не выглядит как поверженным. Классный и смертоносный.

[@adamdarmstaedter1256]

The allies also had much higher grade fuel than the Germans and that made a difference in performance as well. The German gas was in the 80 octane range while the allies had over 100 octane.

[@billsanders5067]

The allies can thank Jimmy Doolittle for insisting on the use of 100 octane fuel.

[@jacktattis]

@@billsanders5067 I think the Brits were using 100 octane before the US was even in the war. It came from the US but I doubt Doolittle had anything to do with it.

[@billsanders5067]

@jacktattis Col. Doolittle had everything to do with convincing the War Dept. to use 100 octane gasoline instead of 80 octane. I do not rember if I read about his lobbing for 100 octane in "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" or a biography I read about him, but he was responsible.

[@strangemachines_]

Beautiful plane, stunning livery so iconic to the war and mesmerisingly effective in the air. Did a lot of damage. My nana from London used to tell me the noise they made from a far distance was the scariest sound she ever remembered in her life.

[@LeopardIL2]

Non synchronized engine. The whistle of the supercompressor was intimidating.

[@direktorpresident]

@@LeopardIL2 How do you suggest they could synchronise a single engine?

[@LeopardIL2]

@@direktorpresident I referred to the 110s scream.

[@michaellawrence5492]

These planes matched equal to a fair degree. Each pilot's skill level in the moment and luck as to who had the best advantage by approach of the match factored most.

[@johnaldred6864]

Excellent video....very interesting & informative 👍

[@roymorley119]

Brilliant, really informative and interesting.

[@maco5093]

5:50 The first look more like Czechoslovakian airforce rather than Dutch

[@Pouncer9000]

7:56 Defiant goes "Heeellooooo!"

[@takasu9246]

Someone had to pick the thumbnail. Legend

[@warriordragonify]

A few years ago I visited Evergreen Museum. They had a Spitfire and a '109 nose to nose about thirty feet apart. My dominant impression was: They were TINY...

[@riazhassan6570]

How do you determine ‘better?’ The 109 was better at this and that at this altitude, the Spitfire was better at that and this at that altitude. It pretty much rested on the pilot and, of course, luck-who saw who first

[@radiofm4265]

Better as in the plane itself, we are not comparing the pilots here but rather the plane and its strentghs compared to its rivals

[@lyndoncmp5751]

And the Spitfire was more user friendly. You had to be very very good to get the best out of the 109.

[@Tankliker]

@@lyndoncmp5751 you always have to be very good to get the best out of anything. Real question is: How good do you have to be to be better than your enemy with your machine. If you can't be good enough than you need a better machine tho.

[@riazhassan6570]

Not much in it either way, and you can’t really take the pilot out of the equation

[@kendodd8734]

@Riaz Hassan at the start of the war the 109 was probably superior to the spit but as different marks came along I think spit became the better fighter with more powerful upgraded engines and such both iconic planes from that period netherless think from what I’ve seen though that there was a much closer match for the spit in the butcher bird the focker 190

[@haubentaucher8382]

I think the inaudible part in 3:34 is "Our general Galland"

[@scarface9478]

I concur, he definitely says “our” and “Galland” the word in between is hard to make out but general with a German pronunciation seems to make the most sense.

[@bugs972]

Interesting to hear that the 109 displayed at the Imperial War Museum was attacked by a pilot from 92 Squadron, which was Geoffrey Wellum’s squadron during the Battle of Britain. I’m sure most on here are very familiar with the book First Light which was written by Mr Wellum, if you are not, it’s a fantastic read about his experiences flying for 92 squadron during the War.

[@Leofwine.]

I just finished reading First Light! An absolutely brilliant and fascinating book. Incredible men and aeroplanes.

[@1958PonyBoy]

Any good German Bf-109 pilot knew that all he had to do to evade Spitfires was to go into a dive. The Bf-109's used fuel injection for their engines, while the Spitfires used float carburetors that would cut flow of fuel to the engine under negative G forces.

[@TheSaturnV]

And later on when Bf109's tried to dive away, it left the pursuing P47 pilot grinning ear to ear.

[@Tony.795]

@@TheSaturnV But allied pilots were advised to never try and follow a Bf109 in a slow climb.

[@ramkedoodle]

That spitfire issue was resolved in later production

[@awatt]

The famous Shilling Orifice solved that problem instantly. Do try and keep up

[@lucasproductions2260]

Everyone remembers Spitfire and BF-109 but nobody remembers FW-190

[@audimanuk]

Oh yes we do, it wasn'tcalled the Butcher Bird for nothing, the amount of ordnance it could carry was legendary and it could take some punishment as well, regarded by many military aviation buffs as being the best all round prop fighter of WW2. Heres why: Spitfire,weight of fire of a 3 second burst of its machine guns = 10lb. FW190 A 4 Weight of fire of a 3 second burst of its machine guns and cannon = 37lb. The B29s were sitting ducks, even when they made it back the ground crew had to hose what was left of the tail gunners out of the turrets.

[@lamdog1490]

Im glad yous even repainted the swatsika, it really marks it as a piece of history

[@neinnein9306]

even in german museums the swastika is repainted ;)

[@superhase3206]

@@neinnein9306 nicht im Deutschen Museum in München

[@superhase3206]

@@neinnein9306 www.deutsches-museum.de/assets/_processed_/8/b/csm_Ausstellung_Historische_Luftfahrt_Messerschmitt_Me_262_CD_L_7847_24_8fbb64c14d.jpg

[@neinnein9306]

@@superhase3206 Da stehen Flugzeuge ohne ein Hknkrz? ... Im Berliner Luftwaffenmuseum und im Berliner Technikmuseum sind die wieder angebracht worden. Komsich.

[@superhase3206]

@@neinnein9306 Ah mein Englisch ist nicht sonderlich gut, habs falschrum verstanden, die in München haben ein Hknkrz drauf, da steht z.B. die Messerschmitt Me 262. Sieht man auch auf der Museums Website wenn es Sie interessiert.

[@anderspedersen7488]

I visited IWM Duxford autumn 2022 and so remember this plane well. I did find it peculiar how short this British world-class museum was of other German WWII airplanes. I came expecting to see the Stuka, the ME-262 and so on, but the only trophy German airplane I remember seing was this 109.

[@jamesg9468]

I think you must have missed a part of the museum, I went there with the opposite reaction. I was surprised that there were so many German planes.

[@anderspedersen7488]

@@jamesg9468 Say it isn’t so. I think my cousin and I went everywhere, even at the American exhibition and the land warfare exhibition at the far end of the airfield. I was REALLY looking forward to seeing those German icons..

[@haseigel7021]

This discussion will go on forever

[@jameswentzkershawn001]

As always, it comes down to training, pilots and experience.

[@StarSwisss]

@Bacon Press the highest scoring aces tend to be the Germans, but a part of that was because they were never recalled. The allies would often pull their high scoring aces to train the newer pilots, meaning that the average allied pilot was better than the average German pilot. This is even pointed out in the book "A Higher Call" by Adam Makos when Franz Stigler, a German ace from the time period, mentioned how the newer pilots were almost fodder. They were not expected to survive, and it was the experienced pilots duty to protect them until they figured it out. Trial by fire.

[@neinnein9306]

@@StarSwisss That's right. But don't forget, the Germans didn't have a safe homeland where the old could train the young. The old pilots always had to go out. The US lived in luxury when it came to security and uninterrupted productivity. In the end, it's just a what-if question. What if allied pilots hadn't had a break either?

[@TotalyRandomUsername]

When i was a child you could buy for one or two Deutsche Mark a small model plane made from styropor with a rotating propeller. This things actually flew quite well. You got a random model of a WW2 fighter plane, but everybody was aiming for the Bf 109. Because this was by far the most beautiful and coolest looking fighterplanes. :)

[@welfarestates8465]

Absolutely LOVE this video

[@jacksonfilm]

Great video. Must visit soon

[@chrisg2739]

I personally think the Hurricane played a bigger part in defending Britain than the spitfire. The spitfire got the glory in the same way the tiger get seen as the menace instead of the panzer4. But I get they are comparing 1:1.

[@StarSwisss]

We've gotten to the point where it's not even an opinion, you're right; the hurricane was more vital to the defense of Britain.

[@rvanleersum]

@@StarSwisss They had different jobs. The question begs, had there been no Spitfire, does the result of 1940 change and, if or if not, what are the numbers?

[@j.osborne4914]

I'm interested but not an expert. During the Battle of Brittain the Spitfire was not very effective because it didn't have cannon at the time time. Don't think the Hurricane did either did it. Things would have been a bit easier had the later variants of plane been available at that time with the heavier armourment. Is this the case?

[@StarSwisss]

@@rvanleersum that's not at all the question. If you removed either one of the planes the result of the battle of Britain would have been different, but you look at the damage put out per plane from hurricane vs the spitfire you'll see how much more vital the hurricane was.

[@RockerWasRight]

Correct on the Hurricane, Brits had many more of them so they took out the most 111's.

[@Jakeonkuningas]

I have read the biography of Günther Rall so it was nice to hear his voice for the first time. I never really bothered to look up if there were any interviews with him. An interesting video that just popped up on my KZbin feed.

[@praetorian3902]

Those boyfriends (as I call them) are beautiful planes actually. I've never seen one so close and I have to say the paint job is really good. Good artistic choice with those different shades of gray plus the yellow.

[@peterplotts1238]

Once on a business trip in the Panhandle of Texas, I happened upon a 109 at a local airport. It was the first time I ever saw one in life and up close. I was immediately struck by what seemed to me to be its small size compared to modern fighter aircraft. For example, the F-4 Phantom and the F-86 Super Sabre are giants by comparison.

[@Reaper-cm4jr]

If you really want to be shocked look at a P-51 parked next to a P-47 Thunderbolt.

[@peterplotts1238]

@@Reaper-cm4jr The P-47 - the largest, heaviest fighter of all combatants in the war. It made everything else look small.

[@Reaper-cm4jr]

@@peterplotts1238 That was my point

[@peterplotts1238]

@@Reaper-cm4jr Yes, of course. The comparison of the Thunderbolt with other fighters of the Second World War is more apt.

[@timgosling6189]

A fascinating survivor, especially as so much is known about it. Not sure about the 'nemesis' bit in the title though. One's nemesis is usually the one who finally brings retribution and defeat whereas the Spitfire not only was not defeated but went on to evolve into a far more potent aircraft.

[@michaelmayo3127]

Spitfire pilots were every very cagey about the FW 190. A fighter aircraft that they absolutely didn't what to lock horns with.

[@nickjohnson710]

@@michaelmayo3127 then a fw 190 wouldn't want to run in to a tempest

[@Hirsutechin]

@@michaelmayo3127 Until the later marks like the Mk.IX and especially the Mk.XIV Spit. What isn't always acknowledged is the Spit was a superb turning fighter, while the Bf109 was a superb dive & climb fighter - flown to each aircraft's strengths in BoB the other aircraft was at a small disadvantage. That lesson was also learned by Allied pilots against the Japanese fighter aircraft when the differences became greater.

[@bigwoody4704]

Not really advances on both sides were impressive but the allies could keep feeding trained pilots into the fight were the Reich couldn't

[@Palimbacchius]

Exactly.