PDA

View Full Version : Despite all of the kvetching about the Bf-109 series. . .



XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:26 AM
Is anyone else still a fan of them or fly them almost exclusively?

I'm no expert (yet) but I find that I like the 109 better than any of the VVS planes or any flavor of the 190. The only plane that I find nearly as fun to fly is the Yak series. Sure there is almost something else in the game that will out-climb it, out-turn it, out-dive it, is tougher, faster, or better armed, but there are not any that are all of those at once if the 109 is flown competently. I think the strength of the design, and not just production desperation, saw the Bf-109 series produced from the days of the Spanish Civil War to the bitter end. Fools like Hartmann even seemed to prefer the 109 over the "more advanced" designs. It was a good plane in RL and it is competitive against most anything in FB

Am I stupid or something that I don't really have many complaints about the 109s in 1.11 and just go and fly them, FM & DM "flaws" and all, come hell or high water, (much like many of their RL pilots did I suppose?)

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:26 AM
Is anyone else still a fan of them or fly them almost exclusively?

I'm no expert (yet) but I find that I like the 109 better than any of the VVS planes or any flavor of the 190. The only plane that I find nearly as fun to fly is the Yak series. Sure there is almost something else in the game that will out-climb it, out-turn it, out-dive it, is tougher, faster, or better armed, but there are not any that are all of those at once if the 109 is flown competently. I think the strength of the design, and not just production desperation, saw the Bf-109 series produced from the days of the Spanish Civil War to the bitter end. Fools like Hartmann even seemed to prefer the 109 over the "more advanced" designs. It was a good plane in RL and it is competitive against most anything in FB

Am I stupid or something that I don't really have many complaints about the 109s in 1.11 and just go and fly them, FM & DM "flaws" and all, come hell or high water, (much like many of their RL pilots did I suppose?)

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:00 AM
the 109s are great & that climb rate is just what the doctor ordered. It allows you to get in the position from which to launch an attack.
Many folks who complain are disappointed about its performance relative to VVS planes in a relatively even dogfight. Those rarely happened, most kills were thru bounces & the 109 is great at that.

I think that the 109 was spent by the late war years in many ways. From what I've read in real life it was a very difficult plane to fly -esp take off & landing. So while great pilots could do great things with it mediocre pilots would have been better off with FW190s (La s Yaks, Spits, Stangs, or Hellcats....)

I read an account by a P51 pilot where he said the scariest part of a mission for him wasn't combat but landing! Trying to land that poweful plane with no view over the nose & often in bad weather was nerve racking. I suspect many 109 pilots felt the same.

So i agree it was a great design, but with some serious reservations. The number one mystery to me is why the landing gear was never improved ? ? That slant to the wheels was not needed & just made landing more difficult as far as I know.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:02 AM
G6as rulez



say no more



<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>