PDA

View Full Version : Fw190 Vs Bf109=no country bias



XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:43 AM
Attention, Ready, Go!

The Fw190 us much better and more versatile than the 109, especially with the D version that also good at high altitude:

Fw190=
More firepower
Ease of flight (noob friendlier, which is no small advantage for late war LW)
Better high speed manoeuvrability
Takes more damage
Excellent visibility (except, some say, in forward view...)
Better dive (and probably zoom) capabilities.
Versatility... (better suited for ground attack or bomber attack thanks to it's toughness and armament)

Bf109=
Climbrate
Fast
sexy (but still not as sexy as a D9).

Nic



http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:43 AM
Attention, Ready, Go!

The Fw190 us much better and more versatile than the 109, especially with the D version that also good at high altitude:

Fw190=
More firepower
Ease of flight (noob friendlier, which is no small advantage for late war LW)
Better high speed manoeuvrability
Takes more damage
Excellent visibility (except, some say, in forward view...)
Better dive (and probably zoom) capabilities.
Versatility... (better suited for ground attack or bomber attack thanks to it's toughness and armament)

Bf109=
Climbrate
Fast
sexy (but still not as sexy as a D9).

Nic



http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:54 AM
But it's twitchy and heavy. The 109 simply feels better.


http://sivusto.servepics.com/~lahnat/werre2s.jpg

veiting foor p¤ts

fluke39
07-21-2003, 10:56 AM
nicolas10 wrote:
- Attention, Ready, Go!
-
- The Fw190 us much better and more versatile than the
- 109, especially with the D version that also good at
- high altitude:

- Ease of flight (noob friendlier, which is no small
- advantage for late war LW)

-
- Nic


i find that the 109 is much easier to fly than the 190 - with the 190 i find i stall far too often


<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:59 AM
109 as class ,108, speed and looks good ,hey what more should i say lol

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 12:12 PM
Actually I would believe 190 was easier to fly in real life.. 190 was a noob plane and 109 for hardcores /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Atleast that was the way in some older simulations.. Except for turning rate, where 109 might be bit better.. But still superb highspeed handling in 190 should make 190 the n00b plane..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 01:36 PM
Hmm...


109 Pro: Fastest plane in the game (according to object viewer), Excellent climb rate & acceleration, better vision than the 190, looks sexy 8) If you kill a LA or a YAK with it, you can feel good about yourself (see cons ^_^)

Con: Fragile, bad turn rate (but better than the 190), less firepower than the 190 (but the 30mm should do the job). Inferior to the latest soviet planes on all fronts except speed, and maybe climb rate.


190 Pro: TOUGH. Like, megatough. Good roll rate, which makes it easy to evade enemies (though they will get you eventually if they're on your six), LOTS of firepower. Looks menacing ^_^. If you kill a LA or a YAK with it, you can feel good about yourself (see cons ^_^)

Con: BAD vision. No, it's NOT good, bad acceleration, climb rate, less speed than the 109k (though still quite fast), bad turn rate, bleeds lots of speed. Inferior to all soviet planes on all fronts.

All hail the underdogs XD



<center>http://www.habwusifu.com/pics/fw.jpeg
</center>
-On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

Message Edited on 07/21/0312:36PM by teccie

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 02:28 PM
I believe in real life the d9 was superior to the 109's.
And what I've been reading about the patch there is a good chance the final version will reflect that.
The 109 will have the awesome mk108,but the 190 will make up for that with more rounds on target and more time to fire.
I also believe the d9 was superior to both the la7 and the yak3 in real life,the question to me is how will the yak9u perform after the patch.Its very limited amount of ammo will will be cause for frustration I expect.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 03:27 PM
I'm not talking about the planes in game doods. I'm talking real life. I know that so far the 109 is way easier than the 190 in the game, and IMO it should be the opposite. At least it should be easier to fly.

For some odd reason I have a harder time landing the 190 while it's quite easy with a 109, and for real I think the 109 was real tricky to land.

Anyway I'm disappointed that most of those who usually argue plane's value snob this thread. It quite shows they like to talk crap on the stuff made by other countries rather than really compare planes objectively /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 03:40 PM
Ask former Me109 pilots why didn`t they switch to FW190 and you`ll get pretty the same answer as mine.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 03:44 PM
Because they knew it by heart maybe? which gives them a heck of an advantage compared to learning a while new plane, depsite it's advantages.

The opinion of a few dozen pilot doesn't make the plane better. They have their (good) reasons to stick to it, but it doesn't necessarily mean the plane is better. They just spent hundreds of missions using the plane's advantages, so they're just too good at it that it'd be stupid to change. Especially since the war was going to end quite soon.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 03:49 PM
The Dora 9 was not a high altitude a/c. Its critical engine altitude was 6.5km(21,325ft). That altitude is a medium altitude.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 03:57 PM
a statemente from General Galland (25.mai,1943) to Gneralfeldmarshall Milch about the future fighter equipement for the LW :

1. stop Me209
2. all piston fighters should be Fw190 with BMW801 (espacially for Groundattack), DB603(the later Ta152) and Jumo213.
3. all free resources to build the Me262


the Bf109 is not mentioned- it is already "dead" for him.



my personell opinion:
i think the Fw190D was the better fighter.
it has a very good engine with lot of power and very good performance.
good weapons
good visibility (in real /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )
very good flight caracteristics
easier to land- not unimportant if you want to start again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif - and remember how many 109s got lost because of landing accidents !

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 04:33 PM
In the book Messerschmitt BF109 in Action part 2

page 21

Upper right corner

A picture of an FW190-A, behind the FW is a line of BF109G-2s.

The caption reads:

"Leading the Bf109G-2 aircraft of JG2 in his FW 190A-4, Walter Oesau begins another mission. JG 2, along with JG 26, held the "Channel Front" alone for many months in 1942..."

The text on the same page includes:

"Walter Oesau, Kommodore of JG 2 again declined to fly the new Messerschmitt design, preferring to retain his FW 190."





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 05:00 PM
- "Walter Oesau, Kommodore of JG 2 again declined to
- fly the new Messerschmitt design, preferring to
- retain his FW 190."


In fact, Oesau died in a Bf109G-6AS "black 13" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


My opinion is that the 190 is superrior to the 109.

It's much easier to fly which is a large advantage for the pilot who flies: he can fight with the enemy and has not to fight with his own a/c /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As Milo said, the Dora actually was no high-alt a/c (maybe the D-12 was due to it's Jumo213 E/F engine).

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 05:23 PM
I don't care how much your used to a plane. Why wouldn't you switch to a better plane? Especially if it's supposed to be easier to fly.

I don't believe those stories. I think they stayed in the 109, because they thought it was a better plane.

I also think the 108 on the late 109's is more deadly than the two 20mm's on the D9. In real life, and the game.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:29 AM
BuzzU wrote:

"I don't believe those stories. I think..."

Helmut Lipfert wrote:

"On the way home I waved over one of the Focke Wulfs and gestured to the pilot that I wanted to race.
We started out at the same speed, then opened the throttles simultaneously and slowly but surely the "190"
pulled ahead. I could't keep up, even though the aircraft I was flying certainly wasn't a poor one. But this was no fighter which left me behind, but a close-support aircraft for which we "faster" fighters were supposed to be flying escort. But it was not only in level speed that this bird was superior to us. Its main strength lay in its enourmous firepower and diving speed. I discussed my experience with the Kommandeur of the close-support Gruppe, Hptm. Mrkva, and as a result he dispensed with our fighter erscort in future."

From The War Diary of Helmut Lipfert.

There are many more stories of pilots comments concerning the relative differences between the 109 and 190. The picture of Oesau in his prefered ride is, as pictures tend to be, worth a thousand words.

People will believe what they want to believe.

JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:35 AM
JG14_Josf

What does that have to do with what I said? It's just another story from a pilot.

My point is >----> Maybe the pilots who didn't want to switch to the Fw190 from the 109, didn't think the Fw190 was better.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:50 AM
If they get the elevator fixed, the 190 should be a BnZ animal. I think its a lot of personal preference. Both planes had pluses and minuses, but the 190 being a newer design had more of a future. This seems to me a lot like the P51 vs. P47 arguement. P47 has better firepower, nicer cockpit, better dive. P51 is nimbler, etc.


"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:54 AM
I think the reason they kept the 109 is because it worked. They needed a flying machine with speed and big guns to knock down the Eighth Air Force. The 109 did the job well enough to continue production (introducing a newer design would be costly and time consuming) and only having one type as your primary fighter/interceptor is a bit "eggs in one basket"

Lixma,

Blitzpig.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 02:02 AM
There seemed to be a consensus in books I have read by mostly western pilots that the 109 was outperformed by 190 and P-51 especially at medium and high speeds where the control forces became way too heavy to be considered maneuverable.

I remember several quotes stating that the 109 was obsolete by 1943! Maybe this is just Western bias, but there was also a healthy respect for 190 as well.

Comparing games I remember that the 109 in WWII fighters and EAW seemed less capable than in IL2 FB.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 02:08 AM
190 was most use as jabo eastfront,because 109 was very bad as jabo

that mean when you switch to 190 must you fly probable jabo

the aces would fight again fighter and not bombing infantry

and they have not problem to downed russia bird with 109,
too 44-45 not,

why change 190 that need time to learn the strong and weaknessc and her handling

the climb advantage from 109 is nice option go away by trouble

think,many has that prefer eastfront

very important eastfront, because same year give is alway russia bird that are faster as german plane at low altitude

dora and a9 could too good climb but came very late


Message Edited on 07/22/0304:35AM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 03:29 AM
Saying the Fw190 turned better is not all right. That applies only at high speeds, where the fw190 turns into a spitfire and the 109 locks up pretty bad.
Although, at low-medium speeds, the Fw190's high wingloading and heavy weight won't let it turn well, not only it turned bad at low speeds but it also had a tendency to stall and spin violently without any warn. Almost all sources of pilots who flew the 109 agree that it was a good low speed turner, without tendency to stall without any warning.

In a combat between those planes, I'd say the 109 would win easily in a classic 1 x 1 . The Fw190 A would only be able to get away and force h2H in the begining, and would slowly have the 109 closing.


In a multiple aircraft engagement, the Fw190 A is probably better suited, since it is faster, hits harder and gets away quicker. But still, only if the 190s arrived, at best, with a slight altitude advantage, and at low-medium level.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 03:34 AM
I prefer the 190d9 but the best pilot got 352 (i think) kills..erich hartmann. Its weird how chuck is so much more famous for being the ace in a day...long live hartmann though he is dead. they were both great with their own advantages and disadvantages...all the LW needed was not to be bombed...fighting on 3 fronts and maybe a dogfighter...oh yea and 4 engined strategic bombers that worked...the grief didnt

Take a look to the sky just before you die. Its the last time you will!
http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/jacktheripper.jpg<br \>Which Evil Criminal are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/)

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:00 AM
Well said Pedro, I have said this until I am blue in the face.

1 vs. 1 I'll take the 109. In multiple plane engagements, which was usually the case, I think the 190 was superior. At very high altitudes, give me the 109, at medium to low altitudes give me the 190. Ground attack and bomber intercept the 190 is superior, it was a more versatile aircraft. I think the main reason I prefer the 190 over the 109 is ease of flying, as someone else said I want to be fighting the enemy, not my aircraft. Also I prefer the 190 because of its survivability and ease of escape. If I ever was alone in a 190 I would make a hastey retreat, something the Focke-Wulf could do very well (quick roll, split-s, dive and outpace).

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Typhooncountry.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:39 AM
nicolas10 wrote:
- Attention, Ready, Go!
-
- The Fw190 us much better and more versatile than the
- 109, especially with the D version that also good at
- high altitude:

The D-9 was better at altitude, but still not as good as late 109s.. even the D-9 wasn`t that much of performer above 6km, 190s were heavy and didn`t have good HA engines.


-
- Fw190=
- More firepower

Yep, no doubt. More than anything else out there I`d add.

- Ease of flight (noob friendlier, which is no small
- advantage for late war LW)

Nay! With those stalls ? Perhaps in real life it`s better control harmony (similiar stick forces in all axes vs. the 109) might ment something to pilot. The Kommandogereat advantage doesn`t stands agaisnt a 109, that`s automated, too. Takeoff was probably easier, though IMHO landing is simplier with the 109.


- Better high speed manoeuvrability

Absolutely true.

- Takes more damage

True. On the whole, the 190 has a lot more rugged structrure, but funnyily enough, as for pilot protection, the 109 is better in this regard.

- Excellent visibility (except, some say, in forward
- view...)

Depends. I`d say Erla canopy 109s are just as good, previous ones were of course much worser. I also like the instrument placing better on the 109 - all important things are up there when you blind fly, ie. in a cloud. It`s better arranged. The 190 has more instruments, but 70% of them I never used.


- Better dive (and probably zoom) capabilities.

No, not really. 109s were a bit better divers, see the La-5FN comparision. Probably has to do something with the less drag. Altough if you add better controls in dives, 190s could be called better, even if slower in them.


- Versatility... (better suited for ground attack or
- bomber attack thanks to it's toughness and armament)

Yep. The 109 remained a pure fighter all the time. The 190 was a true jack of all trades - and master of many!


- Bf109=
- Climbrate
- Fast
- sexy (but still not as sexy as a D9).
-
- Nic

And handling, handling, handling! No matter what stupid moves you make, this plane forgives them all. That`s why I like to fly it at most. WTF wants to bother with those stalls all the time...


[A converted ex-190 fan.]


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 07/22/0310:42AM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:48 AM
It's pretty simple for me. I don't really care about the techincal details. When I think of the concept "WW2 airplane", the 109 is the first thing I see.



Be seeing you.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:58 AM
HELLO!

U guys have too many opinions of your own!
Stick to the facts!
This is what it says on a historical research of the matter
between the 109 and 190.

http://www.aviation-history.com/focke-wulf/fw190.html

read first and judge later..

have fun ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 11:21 AM
Western Front- the relationship between FW and Me are very similar to Spit-Hurrican in BoB.

The 190 with Radialeninge was real bad, if you have to fight vs P47/51 at high alt...
Starting and landing in 190 was much easier than in 109, but once in air the 109 was... a racehorse, like Galland said, while the FW was more a workinghorse.


ucanfly wrote:
- There seemed to be a consensus in books I have read
- by mostly western pilots that the 109 was
- outperformed by 190 and P-51 especially at medium
- and high speeds where the control forces became way
- too heavy to be considered maneuverable.

Heavyness of controllforces makes a plane outperformed? Yes it´s a disatvantage, no doubt, but... P51/190 had good highspeedhandling vs 109 with good low speed handling.
It´s like allways, the pilot who force his oponent to fight his way, will win the fight!

- I remember several quotes stating that the 109 was
- obsolete by 1943! Maybe this is just Western bias,
- but there was also a healthy respect for 190 as
- well.

I read this sometimes, but why?!?!? What makes a plane obsolete?? Yes, a G6 in 43/44 was outperformed by some/many of its oponents, but for Lagg3 it was the same, and we all know the Lagg3 is the presessor of the great La5/7 familiy, so the Lagg3 was obsolete?
Take a look at the G10/K4 or even the G14(nothing more than a G6 with MW50!!!) obsolete planes?? Can a plane be obsolete in 43, and a match for other planes in 44/45? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


If you compare the FW to the Me, the FW was the newer design, with more room for further improvements! - Ta152.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
At high alt the 109 clearly outperformd a 190 with BMW eninge. At the end both planes had their advantages and disatvanteges... late 190s shared many of them with the P51, and where very compareable to them. One of the few late war aces flew a D9 (forgot his name) he called his Dora a lifeinsurence!! He shot down 24 planes in this plane. On the other side even the late 109 were a match for the P47/51.
So the 109 and 190 are very diffent planes but very good fighters! If a 190 try to fly like a 109 its toasted..
it´s the same in 109! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif


Message Edited on 07/22/0312:55PM by Abbuzze

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 11:35 AM
I recall one comment in the SWotL manual by a German experten on the 190 to the effect of, it was clearly a superior airplane, but "once you have flown over a hundred missions in the 109, you didn't like it [the 190] much."

Aircraft are very complex pieces of machinery, and have many quirks and intracacies to master. When one considers how many pilots did not want to fly a even different aircraft of the same type, then it becomes a little clearer why switching to an entirely new type would be unthinkable for most pilots, unless it offered signifigant immediate benefits. As good as the 190 was, it did not utterly and completely out class the 109. It was merely a better plane. If the 109 can still be compeditive, then better doesn't cut it.

Most of the reasons the 109 was new pilot hostile do not stem from its main handling characteristics; most of them are strange quirks the aircraft has, that really can't be modelled in Il-2's flightmodel.

Just as one example I have read about, test pilots have reported there was a semi-deadzone in the roll responce, where it felt as if the stick was not connected to the ailerons, and this dead zone moved depending on whether the leading edge slats were out or not. Once pushed past this point, the pilot could feel the surfaces grabbing air.

If one was not careful in quickly turning their head, one could smash one's face into the canopy glazing (watch the AI in Il-2).

Due to the positioning of the control stick, and how one must fold oneself unto the aircraft, it seems quite possible to, erm, rack oneself on the control column. Don't know if anyone ever did, but it looks all to easy to me.

Its one of those aircraft that will quite happily take a peice out of you even on the ground, and under normal flying conditions. That's not the sort of thing to inspire confidence in pilots not well aquainted with it. It took pilots some time to learn just how to live in the plane, before they could move on to fighting in it. We get the benefit of already "knowing" how to work with the plane, and function inside its cockpit.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 12:26 PM
When comparing the 109 to the 190, one can make a general comparison. But when comparing dive, speed and climb performance I believe on must adress which version also. The Dora was clearly superior to the BMW powered 190's in every way. According to pilot reports it could turn tighter, had better dive acceleration, was faster, was more manouverable and had better acceleration. As the D-11, D12 and D-13 also was used in combat perhaps these planes performance should be taken into consideration aswell. The D-12 could attain 730km/h at 9150 m and 760km/h at 12500 m. Its gun-less cowling provided for lower drag which would aid it in most preformance perspectives. The Fw190 clearly had more development potential than the 109, but then we should not forget that the 109 flew several years prior to the 190, and it developed very well throughout the war which is very impressive. IMO, the best prop fighter created in Germany, and perhaps even the world was the Ta 152H./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/robban75/Dorarote6.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

Message Edited on 07/22/0312:26PM by robban75

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:15 PM
109



Message Edited on 07/22/0312:16PM by rhett69

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:29 PM
109 was good because it really was smaller, it really was faster... it might not have the best top speed, but it accelerates (or at least it should) well. Not to mention the climb. BF109G pilots say they outclimbed anything the soviets threw at them.. even in 1944! Thus, one Finnish 109 ace was never hit... Sounds strange.. But it's the truth.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:54 PM
in FB 1:1 fight - 109
in real combat - 190...



<center>http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/pictures/sig_il2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:57 PM
Thus, one Finnish 109 ace was never
- hit... Sounds strange..

So is Erich Hartmann /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 04:43 PM
I started to like the 109 very much in these last weeks (don't know got to like the looks more), so I started to fly it in FB. It's incredibly good. It allows you to rack victories at a great pace. I can't believe some people complain about the Mk108. Even with a 20mm gun I think the armament rocks!

In FB it is by far superior to the 190. In real life I feel it should be the opposite.

I'd like to see a dogfight with well modeled Fw190D12 Vs Bf109K4.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 04:51 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- I started to like the 109 very much in these last
- weeks (don't know got to like the looks more), so I
- started to fly it in FB. It's incredibly good. It
- allows you to rack victories at a great pace. I
- can't believe some people complain about the Mk108.
- Even with a 20mm gun I think the armament rocks!
-
- In FB it is by far superior to the 190. In real life
- I feel it should be the opposite.
-
- I'd like to see a dogfight with well modeled
- Fw190D12 Vs Bf109K4.


I like Fw-190 better than Bf-109 but Bf-109 was a much better dogfighter than Bf-109. Performance stats screams about that. What proof do you need?

Fw-190 was more versatile though.



Message Edited on 07/22/0310:53AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 05:03 PM
I'm not so sure the 109 is a better dogfighter. Even if it were, one has to remember the majority of WWII kills were made by surprise.

If a 109 want's to enjoy more manoeuvrability, it has to remain at slow speed. If the 190 wants to enjoy superior manoeuvrability, it has to stay fast. Now two birds in the sky, one fast one slow: who's the sitting duck?

Nothing forces the 190 pilot to slow down and give out his advantage. If he's smart enough he'll just extend and do another slashing pass while the 109 tries to slow things down.

In a real aerial battle, it will be extrememly risky for the 109 to enter a slow dogfight, because there will likely be more than 1 opponent, and he'll be out of energy.

I don't think being the best slow speed dogfighter isn't a big help here.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 05:23 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- I'm not so sure the 109 is a better dogfighter. Even
- if it were, one has to remember the majority of WWII
- kills were made by surprise.

You can kill even with bomber by surprise, that doesn't mean that all fighters should be scraped and squadrons upgraded to TB-3.



- If a 109 want's to enjoy more manoeuvrability, it
- has to remain at slow speed. If the 190 wants to
- enjoy superior manoeuvrability, it has to stay fast.
- Now two birds in the sky, one fast one slow: who's
- the sitting duck?


I said it one hundred times. This is not true. This affirmation is based on a dubious british report on Bf-109E, not confirmed by anybody who has flown the bird. A week ago somebody posted a story of a british pilot evaluating Bf-109G nowadays. He found that he could pull 4G with a single hand at 525kmh (almost max speed for that plane at sea level) with no problems at all. And Bf-109 manual clearly states that you have to take precautions in pulling out from high speed dives because of the danger of damaging the elevator and stabilizer (which was movable). As you can see stick forces were not a problem, quite the contrary, the danger was too hard dive pull-outs.



- Nothing forces the 190 pilot to slow down and give
- out his advantage. If he's smart enough he'll just
- extend and do another slashing pass while the 109
- tries to slow things down.

Unless Fw-190 hits lethaly by surprise, he doesn't have a second chance against Bf-109.



- In a real aerial battle, it will be extrememly risky
- for the 109 to enter a slow dogfight, because there
- will likely be more than 1 opponent, and he'll be
- out of energy.

Yes turnfighting was dangerous, that's why it was considered outdated as a fighting tactic. But Bf-109 is a much better energy fighter.


- I don't think being the best slow speed dogfighter
- isn't a big help here.

That's I-153 not Bf-109.




Message Edited on 07/22/0304:33PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:16 PM
I read an interview with a German ww2 ace somewhere. (sorry about the lack of infohttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

He said authough the 190 was superior on paper the 109 was easy to fly and "fitted like a glove". The 190 was superior in many respects but was an unrully aircraft to fly.

But I suspect this may come from flying many missions in a 109.

If I was flying a 109 and knew all it's inctracies well enough to feel "reletively" confident in a furball I don't think I would change....especialy when my life depeded on it.



"Do unto others before they do unto you"

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:24 PM
Uberduper wrote:
- I read an interview with a German ww2 ace somewhere.
- (sorry about the lack of info/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- He said authough the 190 was superior on paper the
- 109 was easy to fly and "fitted like a glove". The
- 190 was superior in many respects but was an unrully
- aircraft to fly.
-
- But I suspect this may come from flying many
- missions in a 109.
-
- If I was flying a 109 and knew all it's inctracies
- well enough to feel "reletively" confident in a
- furball I don't think I would change....especialy
- when my life depeded on it.



This ace was Adolf Galland him self /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In my eyes, the 190 is one of the most excellent B&Z fighters.

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 10:16 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- He found
- that he could pull 4G with a single hand at 525kmh
- (almost max speed for that plane at sea level)

If he did it with a single hand he's a master baiter, he should feel at home on this forum /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 10:31 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- He found
-- that he could pull 4G with a single hand at 525kmh
-- (almost max speed for that plane at sea level)
-
- If he did it with a single hand he's a master
- baiter, he should feel at home on this forum

I'm not sure what do you mean by that. Here's the exact quote:


"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch."

You can read the article here:

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/content215.htm


As you can see stick forces at high speed are similar with those in a Mustang.
So there is nothing special with stick forces in Bf-109, just a lot of crap originated in an inaccurate british report.

Message Edited on 07/22/0304:42PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 10:51 PM
Interesting stuff Huck, especially the later comments on the aileron control and forces. 80-90 degree roll rate with only 20lbs stick force at 460 kph, heavy ailerons, eh ?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 11:35 PM
Hartmann said that although on paper the 190 was clearly superior, in the air it was a different story.

He likened getting into a 109 to putting on a glove and that in the air it was almost as though the plane responded directly to the pilot's thoughts, whilst the 190 could be twitchy and clunky to fly.



<center>http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/Hurri3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 01:28 AM
nicolas10 wrote:
- I'm not so sure the 109 is a better dogfighter. Even
- if it were, one has to remember the majority of WWII
- kills were made by surprise.
-
- If a 109 want's to enjoy more manoeuvrability, it
- has to remain at slow speed. If the 190 wants to
- enjoy superior manoeuvrability, it has to stay fast.
- Now two birds in the sky, one fast one slow: who's
- the sitting duck?

Hmm if you surprise a pilot in the air.. you don´t need to to turn or manoever to much, or am I wrong... most of this pilots fly straight when they got hit, so the heavy controlls in the 109 are not real a problem when you lining up with speedadvantage from behind .. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 01:28 AM
Considering Hartmann had 1400 or so combat sorties, one would expect the 109 to 'fit like a glove. How many hours did he have in the 190?


Mooo_Cow wrote:
- Hartmann said that although on paper the 190 was
- clearly superior, in the air it was a different
- story.
-
- He likened getting into a 109 to putting on a glove
- and that in the air it was almost as though the
- plane responded directly to the pilot's thoughts,
- whilst the 190 could be twitchy and clunky to fly.
-

------------

The 190 did not have the dangerous tendency of ground looping that the 109 had. The 109 was a female dog to land and takeoff compared to the 190. The 109 tended to have a curving TO run. The 190 could "sit on its tail wheel until the moment of TO.

The 190 was not easy to put in a spin.

Spins were very easy to get out of.

At 220kph control could be maintained through all rolling and yaw movements.

When stalling the a/c had no tendency to tip over on either wing. The a/c dropped forward, built up speed and returned control to the pilot. There was no warning, but a pilot with experience would sense the onset of the stall.

The 190 did have a tendency to 'snap roll/stall'(flick) in high G manuevers. It always went to port(left).

from Kurt Tank's bio.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 02:08 AM
One thing I DO value in the 190:
It's extremely good roll rate. You can REALLY drive your would-be assassin mad with scissors, staying alive for a VERY long time, long enough for friends to shoot him off your tail. You can't do that with a 109. And frankly, when you've got a Yak or La on your tail, you're not going anywhere. He'll shoot you down eventually. Outclimbing is one thing, but it doesn't work when your opponent is right on your six.

<center>http://www.habwusifu.com/pics/fw.jpeg
</center>
-On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:36 AM
I found them more or less equals infighter vs. fighter fight, with the 190 being far better againt bombers (tougher and better armed) and for ground attack.

Anyway, the 109 is so cool to fly when you've been used to it that I still favour this one.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:22 PM
Don't confuse this game with reality. In reality, Adolf Galland actively sought to end 109 production in favor of the 190.

The late 109s were fast but had poor high-speed handling.


In this game, however, it's a more a matter of personal preference.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:33 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Considering Hartmann had 1400 or so combat sorties,
- one would expect the 109 to 'fit like a glove. How
- many hours did he have in the 190?

None..he never flew the 190..

As I quoted above, the statement was made by Galland who actually ordered to stop the production of 109ers in order to have more capacity for the 262. The 190 would have been the only left produced single-engine piston fighter.

Some guy got this wrong up there /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif



There were several incidents where 190s dropped their nose on the ground following a serious pilot's misstake. But "breaking" the nose was much easier in the 109.

The 190 dropped one wing when she stalled under high AoA circumstances, but was very stable in a low speed stall @ low AoA's.

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:35 PM
D-Spade wrote:
- Don't confuse this game with reality. In reality,
- Adolf Galland actively sought to end 109 production
- in favor of the 190.
-
- The late 109s were fast but had poor high-speed
- handling.


AGAIN??!! high speed handling? Bf-109 had the same high speed handling with Mustang.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:45 PM
teccie wrote:
- One thing I DO value in the 190:
- It's extremely good roll rate. You can REALLY drive
- your would-be assassin mad with scissors, staying
- alive for a VERY long time, long enough for friends
- to shoot him off your tail. You can't do that with a
- 109. And frankly, when you've got a Yak or La on
- your tail, you're not going anywhere. He'll shoot
- you down eventually. Outclimbing is one thing, but
- it doesn't work when your opponent is right on your
- six.



Besides ground attacks which Me109 wasn`t made for,only an unexperienced Me109 pilot would let someone get on his six.Me109 tactics are 'hit and run'.Although a high roll rate would be welcomed in Me109,it`s not really necessary in this aircraft.



"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:44 PM
- Adolf Galland actively sought to end 109 production
- in favor of the 190.
-

I wonder if Galland would have ordered the halt of 190 production if Focke-Wulf had built the 262? It certainly made sense to get Messerschmidt to halt 109 production in order to make 262's.

Personally in-game, I like the 190, if I'm using "wonder woman" mode, otherwise, give me a 109. That front view out of the 190 is just too restrictive.

In real life, I'd want a Fw190 for its ability to absorb damage and its relative ease on landing and take off. Survivability is key in my book. Live long enough to learn to fight, then learn the nuances of your aircraft. In FB we have the luxury of dying hundreds of times, learning from our mistakes.


cheers,
Tony
(flying as "wombat" on HL)


< !--image map -->
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~tonybirchill/sig.jpg
<map name="main">
<area shape="rect" coords="0,0,200,54" href="http://www.il2airracing.com/" alt="Il2 online air racing">
<area shape="rect" coords="200,0,400,54" href="http://pub82.ezboard.com/b1ejava" alt="skinners heaven">
</map>


oh yeah, and I'm a Whirlwind whiner too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 12:49 PM
You should't compare the FM of FW-190 with 109s in FB.. since FM of 190 in FB is crap.. Maybe after the patch, if I hear 109 high speed handling is going to get much harder, and FW-190 gets totally new FM.. and when we some day get new forward gunsight in FW-190, then I believe the 190 kicks *** over BF-109..


It did on other sims too.. (SWOTL, EAW, etc..)

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:25 PM
Huckebein_FW
Thanks for the link to the Great 109 site!

The pilots report is really great reading.

A couple of interesting quotes tho>>>


"In summary, the Bf109G is a demanding aircraft to fly. The workload is high maintaining directional control on take-off and landing, although in flight the stalling and pitch characteristics are good. I would advise anyone planning to fly a '109 to get lots of experience and confidence in other large piston-engined taildraggers first. However, if its peculiarities are understood and the take-off and landing limits are strictly adhered to the '109 can be operated perfectly safely. I treat the '109 with greater respect than anything else that I fly, but the challenge of trying to fly it well gives me greater satisfaction and enjoyment than probably any other aircraft. "

"The possibility of drifting on touchdown increases with a crosswind, and so for these two reasons, we are only flying the Gustav off grass and with a 10kt crosswind limit. I have flown the Buchon off the runway, and landed with a 10kt crosswind on concrete, but it is something that I would never do out of choice!"

For young pilots with limited experience a demanding aircraft with a high workload is not my preference. The FW190's multi-role capability also being desirable Ithink the 190 is the superior craft for all but high altitude work. Now I mean that for an airforce as awhole the 190 would be my pick. Teh Eric Hartmann's can fly whatever they want & I believe he would have been jsut as successful if he had only flown 190s.
Teh reason the highest scoring aces flew 109s has more to do with the benefits of learning from the best. Hartmann lays great stress on the pilots who he learned from. Much more than he credits the BF109 for his successes.

S!
P.S. anyone know if a FW pilot report out there ?

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/yak11/autresyaks/df002.jpg

"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this earth." -Roberto Clemente

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 04:59 PM
Huckbean wrote:

"AGAIN??!! high speed handling? Bf-109 had the same high speed handling with Mustang."

Again, you are confusing video games with reality.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 05:07 PM
Saburo_0 wrote:

- For young pilots with limited experience a demanding
- aircraft with a high workload is not my preference.
- The FW190's multi-role capability also being
- desirable Ithink the 190 is the superior craft for
- all but high altitude work. Now I mean that for an
- airforce as awhole the 190 would be my pick. Teh
- Eric Hartmann's can fly whatever they want & I
- believe he would have been jsut as successful if he
- had only flown 190s.
- Teh reason the highest scoring aces flew 109s has
- more to do with the benefits of learning from the
- best. Hartmann lays great stress on the pilots who
- he learned from. Much more than he credits the BF109
- for his successes.


Both Fw-190 and Bf-109 had their role in LW. They complemented each other.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 05:22 PM
D-Spade wrote:
- Huckbean wrote:
-
- "AGAIN??!! high speed handling? Bf-109 had the same
- high speed handling with Mustang."
-
- Again, you are confusing video games with reality.



Hmm, one more kid looking for the spotlight.

High speed handling characteristic were described by those who flew the Bf-109. Not one found such difficulties (except a dubious british report made on 109E at a time of great strain for RAF - during BoB) other than those normally encountered in similar high speed ww2 fighters.


"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch."


Read the article first, kid:

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/content215.htm

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 05:35 PM
Well if Hartmann never flew the Fw190, then I wonder how he can say how it flies besides on paper. I think he was just used to the 109 and prefered to benefit from his perfect knowledge of the AC, than from the advantages of the 190 over the 109.

Also I'm pretty sure some pilots had a snob attitude regarding some planes like the 190 which was considered a noob plane. It's well known that fighter pilots are snobs, who for instance won't do ground pounding because it's "not their job". It's almost like they don't participate in the same war than the infantrymen or something.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]