Just Started Flying the Freidrich - Wow!!!

[Weegie]

So I've tried a few of the aircraft out from time to time but mainly have been flying the 190. When I say flying I can taxi, takeoff and land in expert mode in the A3 (most of the time), as well as do basic aircraft maneuvers. I'm more interested in learning to fly them proficiently than just blow [Edited] up.

 

So over the last couple of days I've been hopping in and out of the 109F4 and what a lovely aircraft I'm finding this compared with the A3. I love the A3 but it can be a bit of handful to put get into the air and put back on the ground, and its got a rather nasty snap stall.

 

I'm finding the F4 has none of these things, I took off and landed on first attempts and its power characteristics are much easier to control. I don't like the flap indicators that's a PIA, but I'm just surprised by this aircraft.

 

Anecdotally and from what I've read, although no expert, the 190 was meant to be easier to handle and easier to land than the 109, which figures with the undercarriage configs on both aircraft.

 

I also read that the 190 was a much more formidable opponent than the 109, but this does not appear to be the case, I admit I've not flown it in combat yet, but it feels like its got more power and cleaner aerodynamics. I'm not saying the models are wrong, I don't know jack, but I am just so surprised. The 109 feels like a greyhound, the 190 more like slugger.

 

I love both but I just had to comment on the pleasant surprise the 109 was/is.

 

Big thanks to 6./ZG1=SPEKTRE76 for his Wolfdieter Huy skin absolutely awesome and of course the brilliant guides produced by Chuck, I just follow his takeoff and landing instructions to the letter and it all works

Edited June 23, 2015 by Bearcat
Language

[Finkeren]

There is nothing wrong with your perception, this is precisely how the Bf 109 F is, and part of the reason it was so tremendously succesful.

 

The Fw 190 is also a very good and powerful aircraft, but it's a completely different beast to the elegant rocketship that the 109 is.

 

Keep in mind, that the Fw 190 was not introduced to replace the 190. When the Würger first entered service the 109 was arguably the best performing fighter in the world. The Fw 190 was designed in order to create a heavier, better armed and armoured fighter that could utilize the powerful BMW 801 engine to be produced alongside the Bf 109.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Finkeren

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I think that the ground handling of both is very different but once you are used to them they are equally as manageable. The f4 can have troubles keeping straight down the runway at first if you don't apply rudder straight away or if you use max power. Also the F4 is a lot more likely to break if you muck up the landing

[Elem]

Anecdotally and from what I've read, although no expert, the 190 was meant to be easier to handle and easier to land than the 109, which figures with the undercarriage configs on both aircraft.

 

I also read that the 190 was a much more formidable opponent than the 109, but this does not appear to be the case, I admit I've not flown it in combat yet, but it feels like its got more power and cleaner aerodynamics. I'm not saying the models are wrong, I don't know jack, but I am just so surprised. The 109 feels like a greyhound, the 190 more like slugger.

 

These are exactly my findings of the 190! Very surprised to hear others don't find it so?

[Finkeren]

Part of the reason why we find the Fw 190 to be more 'difficult' to handle than the Bf 109 has to do with the fact that we are not real life pilots but computer gamers playing at flying. The way most of us, myself included, fly these planes would be considered bat **** insane  IRL. We constantly fly outsiude of our planes' flight envelopes and push them in ways a real pilot would never do, not even in combat.  

 

The Bf 109 with its very effective automatic slats, lower wing loading and slightly less effective controls is much, much more forgiving to this kind of handling than the much heavier loaded Fw 190 (the Fw 190 has the highest wing loading of any plane in BoS by a large margin) which will react much more violent when pushed beyond its limits and will burn energy like crazy if you pull the stick too hard.

 

Point is: Real life Luftwaffe pilots did not fly the Würger this way, at most they would have to push their machines to the limit a couple of times in their careers to escape a life-threatening situation. The rest of the time they would've flown much more deliberately and carefully than we do (and the same would be the case for all the other fighters in BoS)

 

If you only fly safely within the flight envelope, you'll notice, that the Fw 190 actually is a lot more pleasant to fly than the Bf 109, requiring much less work to keep steady and having very pleasant, responsive controls.

 

However, in a combat flight sim most people will always percieve those planes that are most forgiving to mishandling as "the best" dogfighters.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The 190 was arguably far better than the 109E-s it was meant to supplement and replace, however at the same point in time it came, the F-model 109 came out too. It was almost a new Aircraft with a new wing, radiators, tail and cowling, sharing only parts of the fuselage with the 109E. It too was more automatized compared to the E-model with Automatic Radiator Management by the engine Computer and all the usual stuff, ultimately making it an easier handling aircraft. The New Wing and tail Section made landings and takeoffs a lot easier, and according to finnish accounts none of the 109s was particularly hard to takeoff and land given the right technique. In fact the finnish laughed at the way Luftwaffe Pilots often tried two wheel landings when the more appropiate way is a carrier style landing as used by the finnish. In fact the finnish had almost no losses on T/O and Landing on their very badly maintained Airfields.

In fact the 109s are easier to handle especially at low speeds due to the conventional flaps and slats giving it a very gentle and easy to control stall.

There are a lot of myths about the 109, spread mainly by the british, but few are true.

Another fact is that german training wasn't sufficient to prepare many german pilots for takeoffs and landings in such an immensly powerful aircraft. It was almost a self fulfilling prophecy in that many inexperienced german pilots crashed their machines simply out of fear.

None of the Allied ot German or any for that matter test pilots found it particularly hard to fly under any circumstances.

 

The 190 came out together with the F-model, and both were very similar in their performance, same top speed and climb, however the 190 had a better rate of roll and dive acceleration than the 109 which had a far smaller turn radius and and better altitude performance and all the benefits of a higher powerloading.

Armor and Armament however were, where the 190 really could shine. It was virtually invulnerable to early .30 cals used by the british and could decide the rules of engagement. The 109 could too however but wasn't recognized as much. It's firepower enabled it to take out Spitifres from almost any angle and the pittyfull rate of roll of the Spitifre allowed the 190 to get away in a split S.

The 109F was still immensly successful in the hands of men like Marseille.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Part of why it feels so easy to take off and land is due to the plain flat runways we have in BoS. Try to land it somewhere in the outskirts of Stalingrad on an open field and you'll surely notice the difficulty in landing wiht a narrow landing gear.

 

In the air it's pretty easy to handle. I also find it's tendency to roll to the left quite low and easy to counter, which is in contary to what real 109 pilots recalled in their flight reports (the 109 required constant counter rudder at nearly any speed).

 

Although it's turning better than the 190 don't just assume it is a turnfighter, else you end up giving up your main advantage. Also mind to use flaps carefully in combat as they take a long time to extend and might slow you down too much is used wrong (usually 20° is the max you should use).

 

The g-2 is similar but feels quite different from the F-4. After flying the F-4 you'll find it less enjoyable probably although it does handle quite fine once you got used to it (would be better if it's bugs could be fixed).

[Dakpilot]

Part of the reason why we find the Fw 190 to be more 'difficult' to handle than the Bf 109 has to do with the fact that we are not real life pilots but computer gamers playing at flying. The way most of us, myself included, fly these planes would be considered bat **** insane  IRL. We constantly fly outsiude of our planes' flight envelopes and push them in ways a real pilot would never do, not even in combat.  

 

The Bf 109 with its very effective automatic slats, lower wing loading and slightly less effective controls is much, much more forgiving to this kind of handling than the much heavier loaded Fw 190 (the Fw 190 has the highest wing loading of any plane in BoS by a large margin) which will react much more violent when pushed beyond its limits and will burn energy like crazy if you pull the stick too hard.

 

Point is: Real life Luftwaffe pilots did not fly the Würger this way, at most they would have to push their machines to the limit a couple of times in their careers to escape a life-threatening situation. The rest of the time they would've flown much more deliberately and carefully than we do (and the same would be the case for all the other fighters in BoS)

 

If you only fly safely within the flight envelope, you'll notice, that the Fw 190 actually is a lot more pleasant to fly than the Bf 109, requiring much less work to keep steady and having very pleasant, responsive controls.

 

However, in a combat flight sim most people will always percieve those planes that are most forgiving to mishandling as "the best" dogfighters.

 

There is a lot of truth in that post, how many have complained of the 'unrealistic' snap stall of the 190 and suffered from negative G manoeuvre issues with some A/C, I 'believe' 'feel', 'have an opinion' that this is not an issue with aircraft FM's but the difficulty in feeling correct flight control inputs, if you have ever suffered a hard snap roll with the FW190 in the sim while in combat, you have pushed it too hard...in real life this error would be much harder to make, it is much easier to fly on the limit of the envelope IRL and get the intended full performance of the A/C and not head into areas where you are accidently and senselessly bleeding energy, and potentially putting yourself in  an out of flight limits situation.

LW aircraft are easier to overcontrol in this sim due to there historically correct and more advanced/effective flight controls, however without an exceedingly good FFB stick (and even with) it is very hard to judge those limits.

 

As sim FM's have got more sophisticated, errors of handling are more pronounced, and without 'real life' feedback harder to avoid when pushing to the limit in 'combat'

 

In an ideal world all A/C would be adjusted to 'feel' like there R/L counterparts in inputs, however due to hardware/joystick differences, adjustments that would have to be available would be most likely changed to give a more modern 'aerobatic aircraft' handling feel for advantage in MP

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

In the air it's pretty easy to handle. I also find it's tendency to roll to the left quite low and easy to counter, which is in contary to what real 109 pilots recalled in their flight reports (the 109 required constant counter rudder at nearly any speed).

 

109 needs constant rudder pressure to fly straight?

This is interesting subject, with much disinformation floating around. Take a moment to read there two quotes:

 

Me 109 G:

"The first 30 of the Me 109 G-2s (delivered to Finnish Air Force 1943) were delivered right from the factory production line. After that the delivered planes were more or less used, they were rebuilt. Also the first of the G-6s (delivered in 1944) were new, then later deliveries were rebuilds. The Germans did not make any distinction between new and rebuilt planes, the rebuilds were upgraded with new gear. The used planes were however found to be more awkward in use. They were unfinished. Some individuals could in higher speeds be held in straight course by constant application of vertical rudder. You had to throttle back as your leg began to shake and you were no more able to keep the pedal down. It got the worse the more speed you had. This kind of things. The planes used to veer to the right at takeoff and when airborne to the left. Products of the wartime, I say. Yet some 32000 of them were made after all."

- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

 

Me 109 E:

"Absence of rudder trimmer is a bad feature, although at low speeds the practical consequences are not so alarming as the curves might suggest, since the rudder is fairly light on the climb. At high speeds, however, the pilot is seriously inconvenienced, as above 300 mph about 2 1/2 degrees of port (left) rudder are needed for flight with no sideslip and a very heavy foot load is needed to keep this on. In consequence the pilot's left foot becomes tired, and this affects his ability to put on left rudder in order to assist a turn to port (left). Hence at high speeds the Bf.109E turns far more readily to the right than to the left."

- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.

 

- Take notice: this RAE report seems to be the primary source of all the claims, that 109 needs foot pressure to fly straight. But RAE tested a captured and battle damaged 109 E, which clearly wasn't even trimmed correctly. As the 109 DID have a ground adjustable rudder trim, which was incorrectly aligned, making the plane sideslip.    So far we haven't found a single primary 109 pilot source, which would support the RAE statement in general. On the other hand the Finnish ace Kyösti Karhila mentions the quality problems with the used 109 airframes - some airframes were so bad that they really did require foot pressure. This demonstrates that the problem could have been more about the quality of the airframe - was it re-built, used, poorly put together? - than a design problem.

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#flyingstraight

[Potenz]

Part of the reason why we find the Fw 190 to be more 'difficult' to handle than the Bf 109 has to do with the fact that we are not real life pilots but computer gamers playing at flying. The way most of us, myself included, fly these planes would be considered bat **** insane  IRL. We constantly fly outsiude of our planes' flight envelopes and push them in ways a real pilot would never do, not even in combat.  

 

The Bf 109 with its very effective automatic slats, lower wing loading and slightly less effective controls is much, much more forgiving to this kind of handling than the much heavier loaded Fw 190 (the Fw 190 has the highest wing loading of any plane in BoS by a large margin) which will react much more violent when pushed beyond its limits and will burn energy like crazy if you pull the stick too hard.

 

Point is: Real life Luftwaffe pilots did not fly the Würger this way, at most they would have to push their machines to the limit a couple of times in their careers to escape a life-threatening situation. The rest of the time they would've flown much more deliberately and carefully than we do (and the same would be the case for all the other fighters in BoS)

 

If you only fly safely within the flight envelope, you'll notice, that the Fw 190 actually is a lot more pleasant to fly than the Bf 109, requiring much less work to keep steady and having very pleasant, responsive controls.

 

However, in a combat flight sim most people will always percieve those planes that are most forgiving to mishandling as "the best" dogfighters.

+1

 

and there is where much of the misconceptions in FM claims come from.

[ZachariasX]

The 109F was still immensly successful in the hands of men like Marseille.

 

The Ju-87 was immensly successful in the hands of Rudel as well...

[=CFC=Conky]

Hello all,

 

When discussing the FW190, I believe a bit more context is needed. A capable fighter in itself, it was introduced to combat on the Channel Front at a time where LW pilot quality and the German air defence network was at it's peak (~late '41-mid-'43). The RAF pilots facing them, at least in late '41 to, say, late '42, were not all that experienced mainly because experienced aircrew had been transferred to other combat theatres. The RAF were still operating Hurricanes and the Spit MkV, while a good aircraft, was not quite up to the task of dealing with the newer German kites.

 

The LW was outnumbered on the Channel Front at this time so they did a lot of 'bouncing' so the heavy armament of the 190 would have made it a monster. Of course as the war went on things turned around for the Germans but I still maintain that online, if you use teamwork intelligently, just like the LW did back in the day, the 190 is a very dangerous kite even if it can't turn very well (actually, if you stay fast i.e. 400+ km/h, it gets 'around the circle' nicely).

 

Good hunting,

CFC_Conky

Edited June 23, 2015 by CFC_Conky

[ZachariasX]

109 needs constant rudder pressure to fly straight?

This is interesting subject, with much disinformation floating around. Take a moment to read there two quotes:

 

Me 109 G:

"The first 30 of the Me 109 G-2s (delivered to Finnish Air Force 1943) were delivered right from the factory production line. After that the delivered planes were more or less used, they were rebuilt. Also the first of the G-6s (delivered in 1944) were new, then later deliveries were rebuilds. The Germans did not make any distinction between new and rebuilt planes, the rebuilds were upgraded with new gear. The used planes were however found to be more awkward in use. They were unfinished. Some individuals could in higher speeds be held in straight course by constant application of vertical rudder. You had to throttle back as your leg began to shake and you were no more able to keep the pedal down. It got the worse the more speed you had. This kind of things. The planes used to veer to the right at takeoff and when airborne to the left. Products of the wartime, I say. Yet some 32000 of them were made after all."

- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

 

Me 109 E:

"Absence of rudder trimmer is a bad feature, although at low speeds the practical consequences are not so alarming as the curves might suggest, since the rudder is fairly light on the climb. At high speeds, however, the pilot is seriously inconvenienced, as above 300 mph about 2 1/2 degrees of port (left) rudder are needed for flight with no sideslip and a very heavy foot load is needed to keep this on. In consequence the pilot's left foot becomes tired, and this affects his ability to put on left rudder in order to assist a turn to port (left). Hence at high speeds the Bf.109E turns far more readily to the right than to the left."

- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.

 

- Take notice: this RAE report seems to be the primary source of all the claims, that 109 needs foot pressure to fly straight. But RAE tested a captured and battle damaged 109 E, which clearly wasn't even trimmed correctly. As the 109 DID have a ground adjustable rudder trim, which was incorrectly aligned, making the plane sideslip.    So far we haven't found a single primary 109 pilot source, which would support the RAE statement in general. On the other hand the Finnish ace Kyösti Karhila mentions the quality problems with the used 109 airframes - some airframes were so bad that they really did require foot pressure. This demonstrates that the problem could have been more about the quality of the airframe - was it re-built, used, poorly put together? - than a design problem.

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#flyingstraight

 

 

Then lets quote someone who knows planes, Eric Brown (yes, from the guys at RAE).

 

About the G-2 (he flew may of the Bf-109s and differnet types and probably can tell a used-up one fromm a "good" one):

 

"Another shortcoming was the lack of any rudder trimming device. This meant that it was necessary to apply moderate  right rudder during the climb and considerable left rudder during a dive."...

 

The point is, if you set your rudder trim on the gound (which you can by manually bending the little trim rudder in position) you are trimming the aircraft for just one speed. Not the entire range of speeds. So if you know that you fly at say, 350 km/h most of the time, you can set the trim that speed and the plane can then be flown "foot off" at that speed. But in climb or when going faster footwork is required again.

 

The 109 wasn't really comfortable to be flown at high speeds, something the 190 could deliver much better. These constraints however are not part of a sim, so some drawbacks are not really noticed.

 

(*Disclaimer: I do like the planes as they are in BoS and I am not asking for any changes nor do I endorse specific types or whatever*)

Edited June 23, 2015 by ZachariasX

[=CFC=Conky]

Hello all,

 

Further to my last, the 190 was also a very effective ground-attack platform. During the 'Tip and Run' campaign (~mid '41 to July '43), the RAF admitted that it had no effective counter to these high-speed, low-level attacks by the Wurgers.

 

Good hunting,

CFC_Conky

[unreasonable]

To me the main point about the 190 is its armament, which IMHO would have been enough to have made LW units change their tactics even if the handling characteristics were identical to the 109's.

 

Try doing very fast slashing attacks in a 109 - it is incredibly difficult to get any kills because your weight of fire is so low. In an F2 with 15mm cannon  it would have been almost impossible. This is why I think 109s needed to track their targets and turn with them at least for a while to get multiple hits. Of course they used height and speed to gain an advantage: but an advantage in terms of getting into a position for a tracking, low deflection shot. Only the very best pilots could make kills from a high speed, high deflection attack in a 109, and they would still need a lot of luck.

 

Compare that with a 190 putting out 2-4 times the weight of fire (and a large ammo load). High speed, high deflection shots now have a much higher chance of a kill - even if flight performance is identical. (Which it is not - high speed controllability, which is what you want for this style of attack, is better in the 190 in RL and in game.) Add that to an understanding that this required team tactics rather than free rein for WW1 Red Baron style egotists trying to rack up enough kills for the Knight's Cross while escorted by their minions, and you get new style of fighter warfare.

 

IMHO people worry far too much about the FM when they are thinking about tactics, they would be better advised to spend more time thinking about hit probabilities from various positions.

Edited June 23, 2015 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

I'd say, if most people cared just a tiny bit about tactics, we would have way less aired worries about FMs.

[=CFC=Conky]

I'd say, if most people cared just a tiny bit about tactics, we would have way less aired worries about FMs.

 

This^ 

[Weegie]

Please don't get me wrong I'm not questioning the FMs, they were put together meticulously by the team and I don't know enough about the individual aircraft to even comment let alone criticize. As far as I've seen the FMs have only been changed when solid proof has been presented to the Devs and not just hearsay, from the uninformed (me), which is great.

 

I already stated I like the 190, its got great fire power, as has been said, and keep its energy up and its a great aircraft to fly. Its just tricky (for me anyway) when its on or near terra firma i.e. landing takeoff and taxi. I can do all 3 with relative proficiency, but I'm no expert. What I've also learned from the 190 has no doubt been transferred to the 109 so the learning curve is a great deal less.

 

Was there not a Luftwaffe Staffel leader who flew a 190 yet the rest of the staffel was flying 109s? Now I don't know what model of 190 or 109, but that would suggest to me that the 190 was considered the better aircraft at least at some point. Maybe though it needed more expert handling like the Dr1 in WWI (ROF anybody?) to get the best from it.

 

Not saying one is necessarily better they both have their strengths and weaknesses, I just expected the 109 to be trickier especially taking off and landing with that narrow track undercarriage.

[Urra]

Last night I tried landing a 109 in a strong crosswind. Exciting experience to say the least.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Maybe though it needed more expert handling like the Dr1 in WWI (ROF anybody?) to get the best from it.

 

 

That's my take on it as well. Plus a more modern and bigger cockpit, more rugged and an engine that can take some damage and still get you home. Like one of the other posts said since a large proportion of kills were probably bounces the 190 should do this better at high speeds.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Was there not a Luftwaffe Staffel leader who flew a 190 yet the rest of the staffel was flying 109s?

No, there wasn't. Flying 2 types of aircraft with different performance within the same Rotte is too ineffective to manage tacticly.

 

The closest you can get is looking for reports from pilots transferred form the 109 to the 190, though that happened on smaller scale.

[Weegie]

No, there wasn't. Flying 2 types of aircraft with different performance within the same Rotte is too ineffective to manage tacticly.

 

The closest you can get is looking for reports from pilots transferred form the 109 to the 190, though that happened on smaller scale.

 

Ok, I definitely read it somewhere, I think it was a British pilot's account of his war, but I've read so many I could not say which one.

 

It was probably simply wrong info in the book.

[JG13_opcode]

So I've tried a few of the aircraft out from time to time but mainly have been flying the 190. When I say flying I can taxi, takeoff and land in expert mode in the A3 (most of the time), as well as do basic aircraft maneuvers. I'm more interested in learning to fly them proficiently than just blow shit up.

 

So over the last couple of days I've been hopping in and out of the 109F4 and what a lovely aircraft I'm finding this compared with the A3. I love the A3 but it can be a bit of handful to put get into the air and put back on the ground, and its got a rather nasty snap stall.

 

I'm finding the F4 has none of these things, I took off and landed on first attempts and its power characteristics are much easier to control. I don't like the flap indicators that's a PIA, but I'm just surprised by this aircraft.

 

Anecdotally and from what I've read, although no expert, the 190 was meant to be easier to handle and easier to land than the 109, which figures with the undercarriage configs on both aircraft.

 

I also read that the 190 was a much more formidable opponent than the 109, but this does not appear to be the case, I admit I've not flown it in combat yet, but it feels like its got more power and cleaner aerodynamics. I'm not saying the models are wrong, I don't know jack, but I am just so surprised. The 109 feels like a greyhound, the 190 more like slugger.

 

I love both but I just had to comment on the pleasant surprise the 109 was/is.

 

Big thanks to 6./ZG1=SPEKTRE76 for his Wolfdieter Huy skin absolutely awesome and of course the brilliant guides produced by Chuck, I just follow his takeoff and landing instructions to the letter and it all works

:D another convert away from the 190 cult.

 

The 109 is the true mount of the experten. The 109 is love, the 109 is life. Sure the 190 has more weapons, but if that single 20mm was enough for Hartmann, it's good enough for me.

Edited June 23, 2015 by 13GIAP_opcode

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Sure the 190 has more weapons, but if that single 20mm was enough for Hartmann, it's good enough for me.

 

So you think that if there's people that prefer Fw 190s, it's because of weapons..?

 

Must be why i never take outboard cannons. 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

So you think that if there's people that prefer Fw 190s, it's because of weapons..?

 

Must be why i never take outboard cannons. 

 

Superior maneuverability at high speed and packs a massive punch....that's generally why people fly it.

[mb339pan]

109F4 is much easier at low speed end low altitude, 190 much more stable and responsive to high speed

[JG13_opcode]

So you think that if there's people that prefer Fw 190s, it's because of weapons..?

 

Must be why i never take outboard cannons. 

I recognize that there are some individuals who have strayed from the flock and need to be re-educated that the Bf 109 is the one true fighter and that the 190 is a false prophet.

[unreasonable]

I recognize that there are some individuals who have strayed from the flock and need to be re-educated that the Bf 109 is the one true fighter and that the 190 is a false prophet.

 

You would only know that if someone created a server in which equal numbers of 109s and 190s fought one another. My bet is that properly flown by each side, the 190s would win easily, carrying outboard cannon or not.

 

The firepower difference is just so big. This is war, not some scoring competition.  

[JG13_opcode]

I'm mostly being facetious/kidding around.

 

I like them both, and the 190 is an awesome aircraft.  But I like the 109 better because reasons.

[Y-29.Silky]

I also read that the 190 was a much more formidable opponent than the 109, 

In the early years in the Western Front of course, but not on the Eastern Front. The Soviets thought the 109 was a more formidable opponent.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

You would only know that if someone created a server in which equal numbers of 109s and 190s fought one another. My bet is that properly flown by each side, the 190s would win easily, carrying outboard cannon or not.

 

The firepower difference is just so big. This is war, not some scoring competition.  

 

No way would 190s beat 109s...not a chance

[ZachariasX]

On the eastern front, the 109 was well liked and, as some german expert said, "if you had already a 1000 hours in your 109 you didn't like the 190 too much". The 109 seems to be more of a dogfighter and that way it is well suited for the furball kind of action down on the deck as it happened on the eastern front. Also, if you mainly shoot fighters the light armement is not so much of a problem (if you can shoot well). Thus, with the 109 you have a reasonably quick plane that handles well against fighters suiting the eastern front.

 

On the western front things were way different. Germany cound't care too much about fighters, it had to fight heavily armed bombers and their escort at high altitude. For this you don't need a dogfighter, you need an interceptor. Sturdy, quick and heavily armed, the 190 is just that. Also it made some fame when it appeared, it had like 400 hp more than the cometition trashing the SpitV's that were still figuring out what to do on that front, when in fact most business for the RAF tranferred to the Mediterranean. The Spit V could turn tighter, but how can you maintain the initiative when your only advantage against your enemy is a defensive maneuver such as a tight turn radius? The 190 is a very good war horse. and if you are fast at corner speed, you still turn as good as anyone else at that speed. The Germans bringing home the cargo ship Münsterland under the nose of the RAF is a testament of what the 190 could do. It wouldn't have worked that way with the Friedrich that is rather on par with the Spit V.

 

You just have to adjust your style. You like the new stile or tactics, you like the plane. you don't like the new plane, then you won't like the plane. Russians were all about furball. no wonder they were not impressed with the 190. In the same time, 4 guys together in their 190s could rack up 1000 victories against the russians. Not sure if those 1000 thought the 190 was bad. Pips Priller, the #1 Spitfire killer flew 190's. Thus, not being able to win a slow speed turn contest is not necessarily a deal breaker.

[ZachariasX]

No way would 190s beat 109s...not a chance

 

My bet is on the 190. More power, more hitting power. Lots more.

 

One thing that is often forgot in most discussions is that the 109 handles comparably poory at high speeds, controls becoming very stiff. Eric Brown recalls the 109G at 440 mph having almost frozen controls, more stuck than about all other planes he ever flew at that speed. This in contrast to the 190 where he praised the control harmony and especially the ailerons being still light (and maintained their lightness from stall speed up to 400 mph) and that made "incredible aileron turns possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow".

 

If you make it your Quake-style shoot-out around the trees, probably the 109 has some advantage (which one? E, F, G, K, Z?) over the 190 (A-?, D-9?). Very high up, the 109 again shines, especially the later types.

 

Still, as said, I'd bet on the 190.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Thus, not being able to win a slow speed turn contest is not necessarily a deal breaker.

 

Sadly, most people do not see beyond.

 

The proof, almost nobody has talked about roll rate in this thread.

[JG13_opcode]

Everyone seems to talk about "e retention" which is a silly concept.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

My bet is on the 190. More power, more hitting power. Lots more.

 

One thing that is often forgot in most discussions is that the 109 handles comparably poory at high speeds, controls becoming very stiff. Eric Brown recalls the 109G at 440 mph having almost frozen controls, more stuck than about all other planes he ever flew at that speed. This in contrast to the 190 where he praised the control harmony and especially the ailerons being still light (and maintained their lightness from stall speed up to 400 mph) and that made "incredible aileron turns possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow".

 

If you make it your Quake-style shoot-out around the trees, probably the 109 has some advantage (which one? E, F, G, K, Z?) over the 190 (A-?, D-9?). Very high up, the 109 again shines, especially the later types.

 

Still, as said, I'd bet on the 190.

 

Worse climb rate and therefore the FW cannot win

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Worse climb rate and therefore the FW cannot win

 

P-40 worst fighter of the war, well known.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

P-40 worst fighter of the war, well known.

 

In game the FW will have zero chance against the 109 it doesn't matter about real world data.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

In game the FW will have zero chance against the 109 it doesn't matter about real world data.

 

And this is your opinion...

[6./ZG26_Emil]

And this is your opinion...

 

Lets test it then