Hmm, there must be a measurable picture around somewhere to check this out.Maybe someone will post something more accurate.
Anyway, I seem to recall that the Spit IX should be indistinguishable from the Spit V. Maybe that appeals to fast combat and not scrutiny, I do not know.
However, from my point of view, the Spit nose looks similar or longer than the 109's. Just my eyes

Gunther Rall mentions the taxiing/landing characteristics of allied planes vs the 109. He seems to favour ALL of them to the 109, including the Spitfire! There I shall not be the judge, never seen the 109 flying

(However, I have seen the 108. Delightful little plane I belive)
Now, about the desert spits,,,,,,peww...
They had the dreadful Vokes filter,decreasing speed.
Their climb was less hampered by this though, and generally their performance was better than any other's allied plane around, until the P38 arrived, but note that by then there were Mk IX's around as well. (I'll look it up if you like, this (hemm) is from memory, but I have read some 3-5 autobiographies that include the N-African campaign, i.e. from the Allied side.)
The Hurricane would have been very much better in rough cirkumstances like that, very much better than either the Spit or the 109. After all, unmodified Hurricanes even landed on a relatively small aircraft carrier without an accident already in 1940
However, when the mud period of the Tunisian fields started, ANY plane had a bad time. Even tanks and infantry did.
Then finally...about the nose-heaviness.
This is something I am curious about. I always believed that the 109 was rather more nose heavy. Why? Lighter airframe with a heavier engine, and a more backward wing, hence center of lift.
One source states that 5 % of 109's were lost in landing accidents, but as the war presented so different circumstances, there must be more accurate data around about this.
I even have a picture of a beautifully "nosed in" 109 !
(on a concrete runway)
Well, keep it alive
Angus