ME109 vs Spitfire in WWII?

Actually they were not that much different in size.

The 109 wings were about 4 feet less and the length was almost identical to within 7"

Yes a smaller target was an advantage but the most important thing in a dogfight is turning ability.

You will hear differing opinions about whether a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire. I, from speaking to several men who flew both, think it is a close thing with a slight edge to the 109 but with one vital proviso.

When turning at high speed in a fighter you get close to a high speed stall, where the airflow over the wings breaks up and you lose control.

In the 109 there was little to no warning of this. One second you are banked over and pulling hard, the next, with just a little extra pressure on the stick you are tumbling, out of control and a target for anyone who wants you.

In a Spitfire, due to "washout" (a slight twist on the wing which meant that there was a difference of 2.5 degrees in the attack angle between the wing root and the wingtip) the wing root would stall first, making the stick judder whilst there was still plenty of control from the ailerons out by the wing tip.

This meant you could haul the Spit round right on the edge of a stall and know about it and hold it there.

As a result you could usually turn inside a 109 whose pilot was worried of a High speed stall.

The genius, R.J. Mitchell, who designed this factor into his aircraft saved more RAF pilots lives than most.

Ray

Smaller targets by their very nature are an advantage, yes - but quickly defeated by the skill and experience of the pilot.

One Canadian Spitfire pilot over Malta [George Frederick "Buzz" Beurling DSO, DFC, DFM & Bar] when making a claim for a kill told the Intelligence officer his Me-109 kill should have six cannon rounds in the cockpit area [even some Marks of Spitfires during the Battle of Britain had their .303s replaced by 20mm cannon] and giving the approximate location - sure enough a downed Me-109 was discovered with half a dozen cannon rounds penetrating the cockpit - the Luftwaffe pilot badly injurged but able to pull offf a belly landing in a field.

The more experienced pilots prefered to aim for the engine keeping in mind be it a Me-109 or Spitfire one round to the radiator is all it takes to down an aircraft.

The ellipical wings apparently offered the Spitfire better manouverability over the Me-109E variant during the Battle of Britain however Me-109 pilots like Adolf Galland discovered if they reduced manifold pressure and deployed the wings leading edge they could actually turn inside a Spitfires turning radius.

Smaller targets are a definite asset, but experience is the telling advantage.

"do know that the small wings could not hold much fuel making the ME109 notoriously short ranged."

As was the Spitfire, a problem remedied by the addition of drop tanks.

The Me-109s bigger flaw was it's narrow landing gear making it tricky to land; more Me-109s were lost in accidents than combat during some points in the war.

You could be right about the smaller target.

Two other things that gave the ME-109 advantages were their fuel injection let them out dive the carb equipped Spitfires.

Also their armor against the Spits puny .303 rounds.

In dog fight both were just equal,but whose pilot is more trained he will win.But Me 109 lacks range,while Spitfire has enough.It's the only advantage of Spitfire,other wise both are equal.

It's possible.