"nerfed" is a term that does not apply in a realism driven simulation, it would only apply if balance were being sought at the expense of historical accuracy - which is not the case
but then again - since this is about the 109, let us hear from a USAF col. who got around testing it out - these are his opinions on the type (a lengthy read, but worthwhile)
It's a Load of Bullshit. He's basing his Assessment of the entire 109 family on the Emil mostly, and then contiues Speculating from the Perspective of Fighting an offensive War. And then he just makes some stupid Points only an American could make.
-Every Fighter in WWII went through changes, becoming more and less clean all the time. The Spitfires grew Bumps and Lumps, Tailwheel Retraction was on and off depending on Model and thus comparing the Cleanest Spit (Mk.Ia) with the least clean 109E doesn't really tell us anything. I could take a Mk.Vc with Desert Stuff Oil Cooler and Filter and Compare it to an F-2 and come to the opposite Conclusion.
-I think it was Stigler, but it may not have been, who in a Comparison Mustang v 109 remarked that as a General Aviation Aircraft he would prefer the P-51 as it was more comfortable, but that the Snug Fit, Aerobatic, almost lying down Seating Position, Simplicity, Panel Layout and Controls would place the 109 ahead of it since it would allow him to Manouver much more sharply and precisely without being thrown around in the Cockpit.
He also felt that the Amount of Levers and identical Switches in the Cockpit and Chaotic Panel were a definite Disadvantage of the American Fighters. And being used to the 109 he also felt as if he wouldn't be able to reach all the Levers on the Quadrant in sharp Manouvering.
He also made the Point that in a 51 you had to actively Lean Over to the Side you wanted to look down to, whereeas in the 109 you only ever had to turn your head, and also had much better View of your Lower Six.
The Simplicity and Small Size of the 109 Cockpit and the more Ergonomic Panel were a definite Upshot. It was much more clearly visible, the Instruments were in better View and you could read them from the Corner of your Eyes.
Having had the same Opportunity in the Laatzen 109 and 190 and a Museum P-51 in the States I feel much the same. The 109 virtually "falls into your hands", every Control is easy and comfortable to reach, read and control. It's a tight fit around the Shoulders, like a Racing Seat in a Sports Car.
-The 109s main Opponents in the West were B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, B-26s, Lancasters etc. I hope you get the Point. And the Fighter Opposition were P-38s, P-40s, P-47s and Spit Mk.IXs, and later P-51B which still had tons of teething Problems.
-The 109 went through different Engines and the difference in Weight was adjusted with Trim Weights, and 25kg are virtually nothing in a 2.5 ton plane. And who is that American berating anyone about adding weight to a fighter anyways? The Fitting of Cockpit Armor reduced the need for Weights drastically.
The 109A-D all had weights fitted in the Spinners, and since the DB601 was heavier than the originally intended DB600 they added a bit of Weight in the Tail.
This is such a trivial and normal thing to do in Aviation that I don't get the Point he's trying to make at all. Trim Weights are a normal Fact of Life for any Aerobatic or Performance Oriented Aircraft.
On the F and later the heavier Rudder/Elevator/Tailband/Rear Fuselage Assembly negated the Need for these Weights altogether anyways.
-The Emil Wings weren't perfect as he explains, and I won't mention the Aileron Reversal Issues of early Spitfire Marks as well.
-Considering the Control Forces: I think it was mentioned by the Test Pilot of the recently finished 109G who actually explained that there is a huge Difference between 109G and E in Aileron Force and Effectiveness. Same for the Elevator.
The Aerodynamics were completely Reworked between 109E and F. The Wings were a completely new Design, and by Completely I mean they didn't share a single Bolt, Rivet or Nut.
The New Wings worked significantly better at High Speeds with Reduced Control Force and more Control.
-WTF? Why would an Interceptor need more than an hours worth of Endurance? "The 109 wasn't a P-51, that's the Problem". Seriously?
-A shiny, bare Metal Front Line Fighter in a Defensive War? That's gonna be easy to hide.
-He's never seen the Erla Haube apparently.
-"I'm American, I don't understand Slats, make them go away hurr durr"
-But we already have Slats that also increase Lift and actually reduce Stall Speed, something Washout doesn't do.
-He's never actually Looked at a 109F or G Radiator
-He's never actually Left the American Desert and Asphalt Landing Strips. Dirt and Mud apparently don't exist in his World. The Complete Wheel Coverings of the G-10 and K-4 were more often than not removed.
-He has never actually seen a 109F or G. Repeat Point made above.