PDA

View Full Version : Why was the Bf-109 more popular than the FW-190 ?



ViktorViktor
05-27-2008, 10:46 AM
As far as I can see, it seems that this forum favors the FW-190 over the Bf-109 as the more effective fighter and fighter-bomber.

Yet I have read several times how several Luftwaffe aces preferred the 109 over the 190, some of them even refusing to switch when their squadron later converted to 190s. Don't remember hearing any stories about 190 pilots refusing to convert to the 109,though.

So why was the Bf-109 more popular in real life than the Fw-190, while on this forum the opposite opinion is true ?

SeaFireLIV
05-27-2008, 10:56 AM
Probably cos from the comfort of the living room chair, manouevering a 190 is almost as easy as manouevring a 109, but with additional firepower.

I dunno. Is the 190 really more popular here than the 109? has their been a poll?

Jaws2002
05-27-2008, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:

Don't remember hearing any stories about 190 pilots refusing to convert to the 109,though.



Usually units that couldn't get 190's anymore were converted back to 109's. If the 190's were not available you just couldn't refuse the only thing left, the 109, could you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain32
05-27-2008, 11:15 AM
Actually 109 used to be quite popular in this game, unfortunetly some people most of which don't even have this game installed decided to change that and now any 109 past G2 is a worthless piece of poop that is a rarity to see online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
05-27-2008, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Actually 109 used to be quite popular in this game, unfortunetly some people most of which don't even have this game installed decided to change that and now any 109 past G2 is a worthless piece of poop that is a rarity to see online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Was that back when the 109 was a UFO? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-27-2008, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
..............So why was the Bf-109 more popular in real life than the Fw-190,.................

the LW fighter arm had to share the available Fw190s with the fighterbomber arm.
and than less 190s were produced than 109s.

at the western front /homedefence the Fw190s had the additional proplem that the BMW801 engine had its proplem at higher altitudes , the DB605 of the 109s was there superiour.

Kurfurst__
05-27-2008, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:

So why was the Bf-109 more popular in real life than the Fw-190, while on this forum the opposite opinion is true ?

Because real pilots never met Oleg`s early impression of the G-6 which was modelled with something like 30 tons.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

cawimmer430
05-27-2008, 11:47 AM
Why did most German pilots prefer the 109 over the 190?

Simple.

The 109 was a Mercedes-Benz, the 190 a BMW. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Give me the Benz anyday. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

T_O_A_D
05-27-2008, 12:08 PM
I'll fly a 109 over a 190 anyday, rulling out the Dora of couse, its my favorite German Flyer, if it had bigger teeth, I'd fly it exclusivly.

Windchilly
05-27-2008, 12:43 PM
I recall reading an interview with Adolf Galland in which he was asked the same question. He replied something like this: "The FW-190 was a better preforming machine, but you really had to work to fly it. The 109 wasn't so much a machine you got into as a glove you put on, you became one with the machine. Flying it was therefore more instinctive."

If I got the quote wrong, I'll apologize in advance, but this is what one old man recalls!

Dustysquareback
05-27-2008, 01:08 PM
For me, the 190 is a better fighter. It does all the things you need for mid-late war combat. Strong as hell, fast, dives like the dickens.

But the 109 is a real bird. It's just so darn nice to fly. Whenever I get a F model online, I just spend minutes horsing around the base with teamates. You can throttle that thing up, take it to the end of the runway, raise gear, and do a freakin loop at 50% fuel. Lovely craft imo, for just messin around.

Xiolablu3
05-27-2008, 01:35 PM
The Bf109 was not more popular in WW2, it was just built in larger numbers.

There were never enough Fw190's to go around, nor was there a replacement which could be built in large numbers for the Bf109s.

It WAS the intention to phase out the Bf109 mid-war, but changing over and retooling for other tyupes would mean a gap in fighters produced, so they kept producing the Bf109 in large numbers.

Many different varients were supposed to replace it like the 209 and 309, however retooling was just not an option. Fighters were need NOW not in 3 months time.

Adolf Galland talks about it in the First and the Last. He wanted the Bf109 phased out in 1943to make room for the 209, 309 and FW190, or even better the Me262.

He talks about how the Me109 airframe was unsuited to all the additions and extra weight which came with the 109G model. You have to remember that top tier fighters were now being built with 4x20mm cannon (SPitfire/Typhoon/Fw190), the Bf109's armament of 1 cannon and mg's was very light for the 2nd half of the war. Gunpods were an attempt to bring the Bf109 up to spec with 3 cannons, but this made the fighter almost useless for fighter vs fighter work according to Galland.

The Fw190 was such a versitile plane, it could carry a large bomb load for a fighter and had a longer range than the Bf109. The Fw190 was also much better in control at higher speeds whereas the Bf109's controls stiffened very early at the higher speeds the later marks were acheiving.

I have seen RAF pilots stating that they never feared taking on a Bf109 in a SPitfire MkV, whatever mark of 109 it was, but the Fw190 was a different 'kettle of fish' and was definitley superior, until they receieved the Spitfire IX.

The USSAF and the RAF certainly regarded the Fw190 as the far superior design, they were massively impressed with it. They didnt think too much of the Bf109. Many lessons learned from the captured Fw190 were used in the Grumman Bearcat and the Hawker Sea Fury.

K_Freddie
05-27-2008, 01:49 PM
One must take into account of the politiking of the day where Willie was the preferred bidder to Kurt.
I vaguely remember that Milch (I think his name was), The Luftwaffe's armaments minister went out of his way to shelve the FW190, and this superb aircraft nearly didn't see the light of day.

A similar story to the P51 - if the Brits did not take/order it, it would have just been a drawing and a prototype.

DKoor
05-27-2008, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
As far as I can see, it seems that this forum favors the FW-190 over the Bf-109 as the more effective fighter and fighter-bomber. Disagree 100%
Not with you, but with that general view.


Yet I have read several times how several Luftwaffe aces preferred the 109 over the 190, some of them even refusing to switch when their squadron later converted to 190s. I have read some of those too.
And it makes a perfect sense to me... some of those pilots amassed 100+ kills on the type, they knew it inside out, so why change?
Because FW was supposed to be superior? Eh...
It matters mostly in IL2, while IRL a good pilot made all the difference (good reflexes, endurance, outstanding eyesight -usually best in unit-, with ton of experience on the type... & brave - going for a kill, not fearing to engage).


Don't remember hearing any stories about 190 pilots refusing to convert to the 109,though. Some actually loved the 190.
And I'm sure they'd refuse to fly 109 if they could do that (and vice versa w/ 109)... but I'm afraid that was a privilege of minority in WW2.


So why was the Bf-109 more popular in real life than the Fw-190, while on this forum the opposite opinion is true ? In the sim (unlike WW2) flying a FW vs Bf makes night/day difference in your K/D.

That would be about it.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-27-2008, 02:11 PM
From the comments I heard and read, the 109 was more popular amongst fighter-pilots, because it was very agile and deadly against fighters.
Opposed to Xiolablu3's post, I just read a book on the 109 and it stated that thanks to upgrades the 109 was always recognized as a dangerous enemy for fighters, especially at higher altitudes, but much less from bombers, who feared the firepower of the 190.

The 190 was a flying tank compared to that, extremely useful in delivering firepower against bombers and ground-units.

I'm not an expert on the 109, but I always liked the design and the agility of this plane. Well, at least in IL2...
In FB you have to fly the 109 like a 190, but you lack the acceleration, firepower and maneuverability at speed. I also doubt that the 109 really was that explosive in RL. In 1946 a hit in the engine means you have to bail, because the 109 will explode in a matter of seconds, no matter if you are out of fuel, your engine is switched off or you ditched into water. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Xiolablu3
05-27-2008, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:

Opposed to Xiolablu3's post, I just read a book on the 109 and it stated that thanks to upgrades the 109 was always recognized as a dangerous enemy for fighters, especially at higher altitudes


You are not opposed to my post, I absolutely agree with your comments.

The ME109 WAS a very good fighter and dangerous to other enemy fighters, however the Fw190 was recognised as a more dangerous opponent, in teh West at least.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-27-2008, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:

Opposed to Xiolablu3's post, I just read a book on the 109 and it stated that thanks to upgrades the 109 was always recognized as a dangerous enemy for fighters, especially at higher altitudes


You are not opposed to my post, I absolutely agree with your comments.

The ME109 WAS a very good fighter and dangerous to other enemy fighters, however the Fw190 was recognised as a more dangerous opponent, in teh West at least. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that.

It wasn't that clear, as you posted this uncommented:
"I have seen RAF pilots stating that they never feared taking on a Bf109 in a SPitfire MkV, whatever mark of 109 it was"

I never saw these remarks, so it made me wonder.

Schwarz.13
05-27-2008, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
As far as I can see, it seems that this forum favors the FW-190 over the Bf-109 as the more effective fighter and fighter-bomber.

I don't know about the forum but it seems to me the occasions where i've gone online (UK-Ded2/3, Spits Vs, 109s) that most people seem to favour 109s, unless they are going on Jabo missions. As i've taxied/taken off in a FW it got me thinking "Do they know something i don't?!"

Anyway, despite my avatar/sig i am now having a love affair with the 109 - just not sure how to fly it tactically after all this time (a year or something) in the FW! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

DKoor
05-27-2008, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
I also doubt that the 109 really was that explosive in RL. In 1946 a hit in the engine means you have to bail, because the 109 will explode in a matter of seconds, no matter if you are out of fuel, your engine is switched off or you ditched into water. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif That's not a bug, that's a feature!

Bf-109, P-51 and some others are bestowed with this nice feature, you don't suffer much! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
05-27-2008, 02:50 PM
Maybe it's your server-choice?

When I fly online, only a few people fly 109s even less fly it on a regular basis. At least that is the situation on warclouds and most FullReal servers I fly on.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-27-2008, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
I also doubt that the 109 really was that explosive in RL. In 1946 a hit in the engine means you have to bail, because the 109 will explode in a matter of seconds, no matter if you are out of fuel, your engine is switched off or you ditched into water. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif That's not a bug, that's a feature!

Bf-109, P-51 and some others are bestowed with this nice feature, you don't suffer much! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well, I fly the P51 mostly and I know it starts smoking if a cow farts near Moscow, but in most cases I can land the P51 with radiators fully opened and low engine-rpm. But I only landed a few smoking 109s, even if it only got hit by a single .303 - most of the time I just get a firewarning when my plane explodes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

F0_Dark_P
05-27-2008, 03:06 PM
This is what i say, i quote Günther Rall..

"I liked the 109 most because I was familiar with it.

http://www.historynet.com/aviation-history-interview-wi...ace-gunther-rall.htm (http://www.historynet.com/aviation-history-interview-with-world-war-ii-luftwaffe-ace-gunther-rall.htm)

JG14_Josf
05-27-2008, 03:14 PM
Don't remember hearing any stories about 190 pilots refusing to convert to the 109,though.

In this book (http://www.amazon.com/Messerschmitt-Bf-109-Action-Part/dp/0897471385)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516RQGDKP5L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

On page 21


The first unit to receive the new machine [109G-2] was JG 2 Richtofen when Stab and 1/JG 2 began to covert from the Fw 190A during late April 1942. Walter Oesau, Kommodore of JG 2 again declined to fly the new Messerschmitt design, preferring to retain his FW 190.

In that book linked above there is a photo of one Fw190A in front of a row of 109s. The caption reads:



Leading the Bf 109G-2 aircraft of JG 2 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. Eventually, pressure from USAAF and RAF raids forced the Luftwaffe to bring other units back to help defend France and Germany.

Walter Oesau (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/oesau.html)

stalkervision
05-27-2008, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by cawimmer430:
Why did most German pilots prefer the 109 over the 190?

Simple.

The 109 was a Mercedes-Benz, the 190 a BMW. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Give me the Benz anyday. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tell the truth. You just love those weed-wacker engined Mitsubishi zeros.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2d/Man_weedeating.jpg/180px-Man_weedeating.jpg

Xiolablu3
05-27-2008, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:

Opposed to Xiolablu3's post, I just read a book on the 109 and it stated that thanks to upgrades the 109 was always recognized as a dangerous enemy for fighters, especially at higher altitudes


You are not opposed to my post, I absolutely agree with your comments.

The ME109 WAS a very good fighter and dangerous to other enemy fighters, however the Fw190 was recognised as a more dangerous opponent, in teh West at least. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that.

It wasn't that clear, as you posted this uncommented:
"I have seen RAF pilots stating that they never feared taking on a Bf109 in a SPitfire MkV, whatever mark of 109 it was"

I never saw these remarks, so it made me wonder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I will try and find the film for you tomorrow mate. It compares the 109 and the Spitfire cockpit and has an interview with a RAF veteran who talks about the Spit, 109 and Fw190.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-27-2008, 03:54 PM
That would be cool, thanks in advance.

Brain32
05-27-2008, 04:44 PM
Actually they said how great 109F was but that they weren't afraid of going on any version, however in that period as they said in the movie, they could either meet an "E" or an "F".
I also don't see what that quote tells us, I'm pretty sure the Russian I-16 pilots would say they weren't afraid going at anything either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
However as is typical for this forum all and any opportunities to make 109 look like total poop just have to be tried, it's not important how bad or even funny they are.

The funniest thing is when I hear weeps because of lack of 109's online, too little too late boys, you can't expect people to fly what is nowdays by far the worst "flyable" late war aircraft in game...

luftluuver
05-27-2008, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
However as is typical for this forum all and any opportunities to make 109 look like total poop just have to be tried, it's not important how bad or even funny they are.
Well something had to be done to counter the propaganda spewed by those wearing rose colored glasses suffering from myopic tunnel vision that the 109 was the greatest fighter ever produced. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bremspropeller
05-27-2008, 05:02 PM
Luft, could you please shut the feck up and carry your agenda elsewehere?

This thread is about 190 vs. 109, not about your boring personal disagreements with others.

And there were only FEW pilots that chose the 109 over a 190.
Barkhorn propably being the most "popular" of them.

luftluuver
05-27-2008, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Luft, could you please shut the feck up and carry your agenda elsewehere?
Sure Brem when the agenda of the perfect 109 fanatics shut the feck up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Was the 109 perfect? NO!
Was any other a/c perfect? NO!

The 109 fanatics can't accept that the 109 had deficiencies.

Ratsack
05-27-2008, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
...

Yet I have read several times how several Luftwaffe aces preferred the 109 over the 190, some of them even refusing to switch when their squadron later converted to 190s. Don't remember hearing any stories about 190 pilots refusing to convert to the 109,though...

Page 21, Squadron Signal 57, 109 in Action, part 2. Photo of Walter Oesau sitting in his Fw 190 A-4, next to the line up of Me 109 G-2s he's about to lead. Refused to switch back to the 109.



So why was the Bf-109 more popular in real life than the Fw-190

Don't know that it was. Willi Heilmannn in his book refers to the 'hated' Me 109s, and he doesn't mean the Allied opinion. He clearly thought it not much chop.

I have read German pilots' accounts saying they preferred the Fw 190, and I have read Trautloft's comments saying the Me 109 was better at some things. I don't think I've ever read that the Me 109 was more popular in the Jagdflieger than the Focke-Wulf.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
05-27-2008, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
1. The Bf109 was not more popular in WW2, it was just built in larger numbers.

2. There were never enough Fw190's to go around,

3. nor was there a replacement which could be built in large numbers for the Bf109s.

4. It WAS the intention to phase out the Bf109 mid-war...

Yep. I think you've got it wrapped up nicely right there in those four points.

cheers,
Ratsack

PS - sorry to edit your text: just wanted to be absolutely clear which four points I meant.

fordfan25
05-27-2008, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Actually 109 used to be quite popular in this game, unfortunetly some people most of which don't even have this game installed decided to change that and now any 109 past G2 is a worthless piece of poop that is a rarity to see online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Was that back when the 109 was a UFO? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Na the 109 didnt get porked the 190 just got uberd up

Ratsack
05-27-2008, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
...
I vaguely remember that Milch (I think his name was), The Luftwaffe's armaments minister went out of his way to shelve the FW190, and this superb aircraft nearly didn't see the light of day.
....

Other way round. Milch hated Messerschmitt's guts and planned to reverse the ratio of 109s:190s. However, the near-failure of the 190 in 1941 put an end to that idea.

cheers,
Ratsack

fordfan25
05-27-2008, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Actually they said how great 109F was but that they weren't afraid of going on any version, however in that period as they said in the movie, they could either meet an "E" or an "F".
I also don't see what that quote tells us, I'm pretty sure the Russian I-16 pilots would say they weren't afraid going at anything either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
However as is typical for this forum all and any opportunities to make 109 look like total poop just have to be tried, it's not important how bad or even funny they are.

The funniest thing is when I hear weeps because of lack of 109's online, too little too late boys, you can't expect people to fly what is nowdays by far the worst "flyable" late war aircraft in game... i have to disagree with you ...again lol. while im do like the 190 the 109s are far from useless. i normaly do pretty well in the K4 in WC. only problem with those are the high speed elovator problems. wich even once you are used to them it still makes high speed high angle B&Z a problem. but if you get into a dog fight with a stang,47 even a 38 you just have got to keep the fight in the vert as much as posable till speeds slow down then you will in most case's walk all over them. and it does not take many loops to get the fight slow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. again i normaly fly the dora as its close in handling ect to other planes i fly but the 109's arnt bad. IMHO what makes them seem so useless is every Fudger and his mother wants to fly spits lol. :P

DKoor
05-27-2008, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I also don't see what that quote tells us, I'm pretty sure the Russian I-16 pilots would say they weren't afraid going at anything either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif . They are commies, no one here would believe them anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
Otherwise I have to agree with that statement... in waste majority of pilot accounts they mostly were confident in their machines. They were subjects to a no small amount of general propaganda day after day (regardless of airforce), so that is understandable.


However as is typical for this forum all and any opportunities to make 109 look like total poop just have to be tried, it's not important how bad or even funny they are. A long time ago I have spotted such things... and TBH makes me laugh.
A constant unfounded belittling and underestimating a machine that some of the <span class="ev_code_RED">average</span> German aces (heck, there are tons of such pilots in the Luftwaffe) used to claim waste number of their kills vs some of the best planes/pilots the rest of the world could offer at those days is plain stupid.
No other explanation really.
Even a biased man must recognize the obvious.

DKoor
05-27-2008, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Actually they said how great 109F was but that they weren't afraid of going on any version, however in that period as they said in the movie, they could either meet an "E" or an "F".
I also don't see what that quote tells us, I'm pretty sure the Russian I-16 pilots would say they weren't afraid going at anything either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
However as is typical for this forum all and any opportunities to make 109 look like total poop just have to be tried, it's not important how bad or even funny they are.

The funniest thing is when I hear weeps because of lack of 109's online, too little too late boys, you can't expect people to fly what is nowdays by far the worst "flyable" late war aircraft in game... i have to disagree with you ...again lol. while im do like the 190 the 109s are far from useless. i normaly do pretty well in the K4 in WC. only problem with those are the high speed elovator problems. wich even once you are used to them it still makes high speed high angle B&Z a problem. but if you get into a dog fight with a stang,47 even a 38 you just have got to keep the fight in the vert as much as posable till speeds slow down then you will in most case's walk all over them. and it does not take many loops to get the fight slow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. again i normaly fly the dora as its close in handling ect to other planes i fly but the 109's arnt bad. IMHO what makes them seem so useless is every Fudger and his mother wants to fly spits lol. :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Problem is FF that while I understand perfectly clear what you are trying to aim at, I cannot but to notice that general 109 fighting style in IL2 favours the lower speed twitching in WF or to put it in a more sane manner - to bleed energy of our opponents (in the process our energy in 109 get screwed up too) and then butcher them after a few brokenly moments of doomed US or RAF machine twitching and evading.

That itself is a winning tactic if employed correctly in 109 (getting a lot of angles) but the only bad part of it are - other enemy aircraft.

On servers like WC where everyone and their mothers flys with headphones mics and all other fancy communication equipment, this tactic is very... un-appropriate. All it takes for attacked bird is to lure one bored Spitfire to the site of mentioned incident and then a 109 pilot may feel just like this:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/coyote_06.jpg

...which is precisely why Bf-109's aren't popular as FW-190 online.
Majority of E/A have an advantage over them at high speeds and their natural fighting style <span class="ev_code_RED">(in IL2)</span> requires them to fly almost at stall speed sometimes which is a big no-no on a servers like WC.

That is precisely why Brain said what he said about 109's. And I agree with his PoW.

M_Gunz
05-27-2008, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
As far as I can see, it seems that this forum favors the FW-190 over the Bf-109 as the more effective fighter and fighter-bomber.

Yet I have read several times how several Luftwaffe aces preferred the 109 over the 190, some of them even refusing to switch when their squadron later converted to 190s. Don't remember hearing any stories about 190 pilots refusing to convert to the 109,though.

So why was the Bf-109 more popular in real life than the Fw-190, while on this forum the opposite opinion is true ?

Key words there are 'some of them'.

Galland and many others preferred the 190.

Freiwillige
05-27-2008, 09:24 PM
Comparing the 190 vs the 109 has alot of simularities to comparing the p-47 vs P-51.

109's had a fenominal climb rate relative to almost all warbirds of her day. They often climbed right out of a fight! That tactic used to work well in IL2 as well just do a spiral climb and watch most aircraft fall away from a stall.

The 190 had a decent climb rate that fell off sharply at altitude with all of the A models which is why the Dora was created. But it could in no way climb with a 109. That may be the messers single most greatest advantage over the 190. 109's turn well maybe not great but well enough for most situations now if you cannot out turn your opponent in the horizontal fight then take it vertical and again the 109 shines because it wins in one or the other everytime.

The 190 has its strong points. For one it really is small. Alot of people assume its a big plane and I used to make the same assumptions but it is freaking tiny next to a spit or a stang. The Dora model has a long nose and a spacer in the fusalage that makes it about the size of a p-51. But the A models are actually Shorter than a 109. So its a hard target to hit and if the speed is kept high its quite menouverable. Its apples and Oranges really and I love em both!

StellarRat
05-27-2008, 10:53 PM
Hmm...let's see...do I want to fly the one that was first flown in 1936 or the one that was first flown in 1941...hmmm...I don't understand anyone that thinks that 109 was a "good" plane. It was outdated by 1941. Even the oldest common designs flown by the US and England were newer than the 109.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-28-2008, 01:26 AM
The production-date of a plane has little to do with it's actual performance. The P-39 was pretty new and revolutionary when it came into service, yet it was gladly given away considering all the problems the new design had. And as a sidenote, these planes were also loved by their pilots on the Russian side as much as they were hated for the technical and aerodynamical flaws in the USAAF.

And of course Brain takes the comment out of my mouth before I could answer it to Xiolablu3 upcoming original quote-link. Really, what does it say? As much as pilots comments on what plane they prefered: Nothing. The pilots were faced with different missions and objectives and they changed rapidly. Wouldn't even make me wonder if we find quotes from pilots, that want the 109 one time and the 190 at another point.

IMHO most advantages of the 109 are not reflected in the sim:
- easy and fast production and assembly
- easy transport and maintenance
- reliable and easy to fly plane, once it was in the air
- very reliable but comparably weak armament
- great range of available modifications and upgrade kits
- better PS to weight ratio (AFAIK - but as I said, I'm not an expert on the 109)

On a quick sidenote, I just realized DKoor thread on the 109K-performance.
http://i26.tinypic.com/2uz9i.jpg
If I got the table right, it's a lot faster with fully opened rads than with closed. Guess that is the only plane in the game that can do this. LOL. On the bright side, though, rads of the 109 don't have the negative effect on handling they should have, especially during dives.

But then Brain is right again. Definitely too late to ask for some adjustments on the 109 in IL2...
When the Spitfire will get cooling-systems that can be damaged in BoB, maybe people will chose again, which a/c they prefer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Ratsack
05-28-2008, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
Hmm...let's see...do I want to fly the one that was first flown in 1936 or the one that was first flown in 1941...hmmm...I don't understand anyone that thinks that 109 was a "good" plane. It was outdated by 1941. Even the oldest common designs flown by the US and England were newer than the 109.

Respective years of first flight for the 109 and 190 are 1935 and 1939 respectively. However, the Me 109 F was nearly a new plane (new nose, new engine, new tail, new wing, new radiators, new gun), and I think that flew for the first time in 1939 or 40.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
05-28-2008, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
...
On a quick sidenote, I just realized DKoor thread on the 109K-performance.
http://i26.tinypic.com/2uz9i.jpg
If I got the table right, it's a lot faster with fully opened rads than with closed...

No, I think those figures are time-to-altitude, so the higher the number, the worse the performance.

All we need to complete this discussion is for Tag-wit to come in here blithering about the K-4 climb rate...oh, wait, he's been banned. What a shame.

Ratsack

DKoor
05-28-2008, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
The production-date of a plane has little to do with it's actual performance. +1

Both Spitfire and Bf-109 are dated in the thirties... and both played major role in WW2.
Many other distinguished WW2 aircraft are dated in the thirties too.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-28-2008, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
...
On a quick sidenote, I just realized DKoor thread on the 109K-performance.
http://i26.tinypic.com/2uz9i.jpg
If I got the table right, it's a lot faster with fully opened rads than with closed...

No, I think those figures are time-to-altitude, so the higher the number, the worse the performance.

All we need to complete this discussion is for Tag-wit to come in here blithering about the K-4 climb rate...oh, wait, he's been banned. What a shame.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that.

DKoor just enlightened me - sorry for the misunderstanding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Kurfurst__
05-28-2008, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
All we need to complete this discussion is for Tag-wit to come in here blithering about the K-4 climb rate...oh, wait, he's been banned. What a shame.

Ratsack

Not really. Saves a lot of bandwitdth.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
05-28-2008, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:

Opposed to Xiolablu3's post, I just read a book on the 109 and it stated that thanks to upgrades the 109 was always recognized as a dangerous enemy for fighters, especially at higher altitudes


You are not opposed to my post, I absolutely agree with your comments.

The ME109 WAS a very good fighter and dangerous to other enemy fighters, however the Fw190 was recognised as a more dangerous opponent, in teh West at least. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that.

It wasn't that clear, as you posted this uncommented:
"I have seen RAF pilots stating that they never feared taking on a Bf109 in a SPitfire MkV, whatever mark of 109 it was"

I never saw these remarks, so it made me wonder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I will try and find the film for you tomorrow mate. It compares the 109 and the Spitfire cockpit and has an interview with a RAF veteran who talks about the Spit, 109 and Fw190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCnsjuCExk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgvfklVzYZo&feature=related

Kurfurst__
05-28-2008, 06:33 AM
Note the below scale drawings depict the Malcolm hood, which wasnt introduced until 1942 IIRC. The earlier canopy in use was equal to the inner lines, without the 'bubble' section.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109e_Spit_cpit_malcolm.png
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109e_Spit_cpit_xsection.png

Low_Flyer_MkIX
05-28-2008, 06:38 AM
Now fill the cockpit dimensions with equipment and get back to us.

Xiolablu3
05-28-2008, 06:42 AM
Good info from German pilots on which was 'better'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm5v11KkuPY&NR=1

Kurfurst__
05-28-2008, 06:44 AM
Now fill the cockpit dimensions with equipment and get back to us.

I don`t quite get it - would adding equipment into the Spitfire cocpit make it like... bigger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I guess you just don`t like how it was...

Low_Flyer_MkIX
05-28-2008, 06:56 AM
Now, now. Just want you to tell the whole story. I mean it would be just plain selfish to have such information and not share it with the rest of us. Go on, humour me.

Xiolablu3
05-28-2008, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now fill the cockpit dimensions with equipment and get back to us.

I don`t quite get it - would adding equipment into the Spitfire cocpit make it like... bigger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I guess you just don`t like how it was... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


He means put the equipment in each plane and then show how much space there was.

Its common knowledge that the Spitfire cockpit had enough room whereas the 109's has been described as 'like a straight jacket'


Gunther Rall :-

'You know the 109 is way tight and you have the cannon between your legs and there isn't very much left and visibility to the back is poor. '

'The cockpit, as such, was very narrow, VERY narrow. You have as I mentioned, the cannon between your two legs in rather like in a tunnel, you know? And the visibility in the back was very poor. Later on they made a steel plate to protect the head, backwards. But they cut off the side (view?) through the back. You know? Because we had this steel plate, here.'


Gordon Levvet 101 Israeli squadron :-

'The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket'

The cockpit was cramped and the visibility wasn't good. This was evident when landing in bad conditions, especially with the G-2's cabin. This was evident when landing while it was snowing and the landing field was covered with pure white snow.
- Aulis Rosenlöf, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen



Anyway, I didnt post that film to show the difference between the cockpit, honestly. It was to show that RAF guy saying that he never feared a 109 in his SPitfire mkV, but the FW190 was a different story.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-28-2008, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now fill the cockpit dimensions with equipment and get back to us.

I don`t quite get it - would adding equipment into the Spitfire cocpit make it like... bigger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I guess you just don`t like how it was... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


He means put the equipment in each plane and then show how much space there was.

Its common knowledge that the Spitfire cockpit had enough room whereas the 109's has been described as 'like a straight jacket'


Gunther Rall :-

'You know the 109 is way tight and you have the cannon between your legs and there isn't very much left and visibility to the back is poor. '

'The cockpit, as such, was very narrow, VERY narrow. You have as I mentioned, the cannon between your two legs in rather like in a tunnel, you know? And the visibility in the back was very poor. Later on they made a steel plate to protect the head, backwards. But they cut off the side through the back. You know? Because we had this steel plate, here.'


Gordon Levvet 101 Israeli squadron :-

'The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm glad I'm not a fanboy of either side in this comparison, but the comments are on the canopy, not on the cabin size.
The hood will not get smaller if your ar$e is clamped in a tight seat or you got problems moving the stick with your knees in the way. Also the pilot-comment is just as useful as always in discussions like that, because wearing a 'glove' or a 'straight jacket' really says nothing about your hat-size. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
05-28-2008, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now fill the cockpit dimensions with equipment and get back to us.

I don`t quite get it - would adding equipment into the Spitfire cocpit make it like... bigger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I guess you just don`t like how it was... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


He means put the equipment in each plane and then show how much space there was.

Its common knowledge that the Spitfire cockpit had enough room whereas the 109's has been described as 'like a straight jacket'


Gunther Rall :-

'You know the 109 is way tight and you have the cannon between your legs and there isn't very much left and visibility to the back is poor. '

'The cockpit, as such, was very narrow, VERY narrow. You have as I mentioned, the cannon between your two legs in rather like in a tunnel, you know? And the visibility in the back was very poor. Later on they made a steel plate to protect the head, backwards. But they cut off the side through the back. You know? Because we had this steel plate, here.'


Gordon Levvet 101 Israeli squadron :-

'The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm glad I'm not a fanboy of either side in this comparison, but the comments are on the canopy, not on the cabin size.
The hood will not get smaller if your ar$e is clamped in a tight seat or you got problems moving the stick with your knees in the way. Also the pilot-comment is just as useful as always in discussions like that, because wearing a 'glove' or a 'straight jacket' really says nothing about your hat-size. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I too am trying to be impartial, obviously I have in-built love for the Spitfire as I am from England, but I seriously love the 109 too.

What I am saying is total common sense to me, I have NEVER seen a real pilot say that the Spitfire cockpit was worse overall than the 109 cockpit. Every 'qualified' quote/documentary/book I have ever read states that the 109 cockpit was terribly narrow and cramped, whereas the SPitfire had a nice cockpit.

It makes perfect sense to me to believe the pilots and those qualified to answer, and not some drawing from Kurfy who is a massive Bf109 fan/Spit Hater on Ubi forums.

I understand what you are saying about the canopy having nothing to do with the space in the cockpit CaptLoneRanger, but Kurfy is using it to imply that the 109 cockpit and SPitfire cockpit were almost the same.

I dont believe that was the case from all the reading I have done.

Btw Kurfy, you dont have to avoid me just cos I got the 'moderator' tag. I am not going to use my mod powers to make sure I 'win'. I enjoy the debates as I often learn a lot.

The only way we can find the truth is by thrashing it out.

Xiolablu3
05-28-2008, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Xiolablu3 upcoming original quote-link. Really, what does it say? As much as pilots comments on what plane they prefered: Nothing. The pilots were faced with different missions and objectives and they changed rapidly. Wouldn't even make me wonder if we find quotes from pilots, that want the 109 one time and the 190 at another point.

:

So who else can answer in a qualified manner if not the pilots themselves?

In some cases pilots opinons/quotes are the best source we have. You can try and dismiss them if you want, but they ARE important when finding the different merits of aircraft. They are certainly more qualified than we are to answer the various question we have.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-28-2008, 07:35 AM
Well, I've seen both from very close, a 109G2 and a Spit. I found that the only major disadvantage of the 109 were the beams that ran to the upper left and right overhead. The front-restrictions in visibility were pretty similar in both aircraft.

I also think this is very nicely visible in Dark Blue World and Pearl Harbor.

Looking at the schematics, I'd say the Spit had an advantage, though, as the bubble-design makes it possible to move the head further sideways to minimize that problem.

But again, that has little to do with the instrument panel and the fact that the Spit-Pit was slightly wider.

And the "glove"-remark, well, look a few posts up and you see a similar statement about the 109.

Kurfurst__
05-28-2008, 08:40 AM
INTERVIEW WITH FRANZ STIEGLER

How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The Spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Stigler.html

Kurfurst__
05-28-2008, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
He means put the equipment in each plane and then show how much space there was.

Its common knowledge that the Spitfire cockpit had enough room whereas the 109's has been described as 'like a straight jacket'

'common knowledge' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The Russians referred to the Spitfire cocpit that it was 'tight as a kaftan'.

I too am trying to be impartial, obviously I have in-built love for the Spitfire as I am from England, but I seriously love the 109 too.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
What I am saying is total common sense to me, I have NEVER seen a real pilot say that the Spitfire cockpit was worse overall than the 109 cockpit.

Well, though you claim you`re not a fanboy, you only deal in absolutes...

Every 'qualified' quote/documentary/book I have ever read states that the 109 cockpit was terribly narrow and cramped, whereas the SPitfire had a nice cockpit.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It makes perfect sense to me to believe the pilots and those qualified to answer, and not some drawing from Kurfy who is a massive Bf109 fan/Spit Hater on Ubi forums.

Aha. So scaled drawings prepeared by Rechlin on the Spit IX canopy and Soviet drawings prepeared by TsAGI on the 109E canopy are 'some unqualified drawings'. imagine


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I understand what you are saying about the canopy having nothing to do with the space in the cockpit CaptLoneRanger, but Kurfy is using it to imply that the 109 cockpit and SPitfire cockpit were almost the same.

Well because that is a bloody fact, regardless what wishful thinking you have about the enormously bigger Spitfire cocpit.

You see the difference... I say they are both sized the same, I have scaled drawings prepeared by professionals to show, with no subjectiveness involved. Milimeters are milimeters everywhere...

You on the other claim the Spitfire was much, much bigger. It HAS TO BE bigger, after all.

See? Who`s the fanboy here..?

INTERVIEW WITH FRANZ STIEGLER

How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The Spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Stigler.html

luftluuver
05-28-2008, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
INTERVIEW WITH FRANZ STIEGLER

How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The Spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either.

So Stiegler says the 109 pit was small and the Spit pit was bigger.

mortoma
05-28-2008, 08:50 AM
In a rare online appearance the other night, I got in a coop and the scenario was 109G2s defending their airfield. The enemy of course bombers but the P-40E escorts flew ahead to "soften us up". Well, it didn't work, the guys in the P-40s got slaughtered. Out of about six P-40s, only about 3 of them had human pilots though. Whilst all of the 109s had real people in them, so this was bit of a factor I think.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-28-2008, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
INTERVIEW WITH FRANZ STIEGLER

How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The Spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either.

So Stiegler says the 109 pit was small and the Spit pit was bigger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the addition of "LITTLE" bigger, that is a correct interpretation. It still says nothing about the canopy-size, though. SoW:BoB is also a little bit closer today than it was yesterday - doesn't mean it's close, though.

It should also be noted, that the Point of view for the Spit-Pilots in IL2 are pretty much directly in front of the headrest. That's not realistic, though, as the seat was quite a bit in front of that "headrest", so the head was under the highest peak of the bubble-canopy, as pretty nicely shown in these pictures:

http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/imageBank/a/alex_henshaw.jpg

http://www.aeroplaneart.com.au/Images/JSJ_PC_Supermarine_Spitfire_3.jpg
http://www.lancasterdiary.net/images/assets/spitfire33.jpg
http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/spitfire/spitfire3.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Compared to the Spit in IL2:
http://seanorris.googlepages.com/AVRdday.jpg

http://bp3.blogger.com/_n0L0tD8_n_U/RdNK95XL4kI/AAAAAAAAAPE/rN9kjASFZcM/s1600-h/Chapter2_Pic3.jpg


Boy, will people hate the Spitty, when it is modeled correctly in BoB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
05-28-2008, 10:13 AM
I really dont understand your comment 'People will hate the Spitty', the Spitfire was the best fighter in the world with the 109 in 1940, the time when the BOB took place.

The Spitfire was known to be very easy to fly, and a deadly fighter.

The hardest point in the war for the SPitfire was in late 1941-1942 when it took on the Fw190A3 and the 109F, yet even tho the Fw190A4 and Bf109F4 are superior in the game, the SPit V still does OK.

The fact is that if people 'hate the Spitfire' in BOB then it is modelled wrong.

Pilots of the SPitfire, almost without question LOVED the Spitfire. Even today its known as THE most beautiful and easy WW2 aircraft to fly...


http://www.livevideo.com/video/0C14899680E64262A15A0BBB...anna-s-spitfire.aspx (http://www.livevideo.com/video/0C14899680E64262A15A0BBBCB03765B/mh434-mark-hanna-s-spitfire.aspx)

Xiolablu3
05-28-2008, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
He means put the equipment in each plane and then show how much space there was.

Its common knowledge that the Spitfire cockpit had enough room whereas the 109's has been described as 'like a straight jacket'

'common knowledge' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The Russians referred to the Spitfire cocpit that it was 'tight as a kaftan'.

I too am trying to be impartial, obviously I have in-built love for the Spitfire as I am from England, but I seriously love the 109 too.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
What I am saying is total common sense to me, I have NEVER seen a real pilot say that the Spitfire cockpit was worse overall than the 109 cockpit.

Well, though you claim you`re not a fanboy, you only deal in absolutes...

Every 'qualified' quote/documentary/book I have ever read states that the 109 cockpit was terribly narrow and cramped, whereas the SPitfire had a nice cockpit.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It makes perfect sense to me to believe the pilots and those qualified to answer, and not some drawing from Kurfy who is a massive Bf109 fan/Spit Hater on Ubi forums.

Aha. So scaled drawings prepeared by Rechlin on the Spit IX canopy and Soviet drawings prepeared by TsAGI on the 109E canopy are 'some unqualified drawings'. imagine


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I understand what you are saying about the canopy having nothing to do with the space in the cockpit CaptLoneRanger, but Kurfy is using it to imply that the 109 cockpit and SPitfire cockpit were almost the same.

Well because that is a bloody fact, regardless what wishful thinking you have about the enormously bigger Spitfire cocpit.

You see the difference... I say they are both sized the same, I have scaled drawings prepeared by professionals to show, with no subjectiveness involved. Milimeters are milimeters everywhere...

You on the other claim the Spitfire was much, much bigger. It HAS TO BE bigger, after all.

See? Who`s the fanboy here..?

INTERVIEW WITH FRANZ STIEGLER

How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The Spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Stigler.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, Ok maybe I was getting carried away saying the SPitfire cockpit was MUCH bigger. What I meant was that the SPitfire cockpit is often described as quite 'comfortable', whereas the 109 cockpit is very often described as 'Cramped'.

I agree neither were particularly roomy.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-28-2008, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I really dont understand your comment 'People will hate the Spitty', the Spitfire was the best fighter in the world with the 109 in 1940, the time when the BOB took place.

The Spitfire was known to be very easy to fly, and a deadly fighter.

The hardest point in the war for the SPitfire was in late 1941-1942 when it took on the Fw190A3 and the 109F, yet even tho the Fw190A4 and Bf109F4 are superior in the game, the SPit V still does OK.

The fact is that if people 'hate the Spitfire' in BOB then it is modelled wrong.

I like the plane, too, and I think it's one of most beautiful planes ever.

Still, since the field of view is much better in IL2 than it is in RL, anything closer to reality will piss of a lot of people that are used to the extra-wide-field of view from IL2. Same for the Spits cooler that is not modeled with a hitzone, simply leaving out one of the most vulnerable spots of the Spits. So you WILL see loads of complains, but not because the plane is bugged bad then, but because it is bugged good, now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DKoor
05-28-2008, 12:12 PM
Thankfully the devs will introduce thiner pit frames in sow.
Our experience in this regard will definitely be better.

Brain32
05-28-2008, 04:48 PM
Majority of E/A have an advantage over them at high speeds and their natural fighting style (in IL2) requires them to fly almost at stall speed sometimes which is a big no-no on a servers like WC.

That is precisely why Brain said what he said about 109's. And I agree with his PoW.
Yes, exactly right, I really don't give a poop about "Hey wow at 220kmh the 109 can actually outturn P47 and P51, it's t3h uber!" statments coming from no-cockpit 1vs1 servers.

Let's look a bit on tactical values of late 109's(the in-game POS ones)
1. BnZ attacks - possible only if the target has apsolutely no clue you are there that means you are reduced to suprise attacks only which is highly difficult because:
a) 109 is an old model and has a huge dot, at larger distances people are confusing it with Tempest/P47 and sometimes ven ju88!!! This is leveled on the EF as Russian planes are also old models and have same problem
b) common in-game sound radar problem
c) hard to aim mk108 cannon

2. Classic horizontal dogfight;
-don't get me wrong I don't expect to run circles around Spits, but late 109's barely turn with P47 unless at like 350kmh or lower while other planes can even do better and Must3 and Tempest can practically turn with it all the way to the stall, IRL nobody liked to turn with 109's below 300MPH, not KMH for God's sake...

3. Vertical fight - probably the best aspect, you better start with advantage though and I'm not talking about Spits here, spiral climb is out of the question you can't do both, climb and turn like in a Spit, anything can follow you if you do that - highly risky tactics though, wouldn't recommend it to the new guys and I believe many FW aces that think they could handle that would fail miserably...

4. General, controls are bad at any meaningful speed(except the rudder) but atleast they are harmonized, speed and dive is good but anything but the Spit is faster than you anyway while some of them have no power limitations at high alt where you can possibly approach them.
General performance at altitude is very good but manouverbility is practically completely apsent, at speeds at which you can actually do something, up there you will stall. Stalling is mild to even impossible but if you do, a really nasty spin can occur and you don't want that really. Vunerbility is insane, engine can be taken out by anything harder than a cloud, while skin damage ensures huge speed loss, also if at high speed you get wing hit(any kind) you better not be close to ground as it can happen that you can not compensate for it due to bad ailerons and crash. If engine starts burning do not bail, you will not make it, put it out first and then bail!!!



Oh, and also 109K4 has overmodelled sustained climb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WOLFPLAYER2007
05-28-2008, 11:24 PM
Bavarians are stronger, tougher and braver than the regular german, as well as their planes.

the Bf109 was a flying lighter, sorry.

i'll take fw190 anyday..

Capt.LoneRanger
05-29-2008, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
Bavarians are stronger, tougher and braver than the regular german, as well as their planes.

the Bf109 was a flying lighter, sorry.

i'll take fw190 anyday..


ROFLOL - Augsburg, where Bf109s were manufactured is in Bavaria, too, smartass. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WOLFPLAYER2007
05-29-2008, 12:42 AM
Yea, but the Fw190 was powered by BMW, the 109s had the Benz engine.

I was talking about the engines.

Kurfurst__
05-29-2008, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Ok, Ok maybe I was getting carried away saying the SPitfire cockpit was MUCH bigger. What I meant was that the SPitfire cockpit is often described as quite 'comfortable', whereas the 109 cockpit is very often described as 'Cramped'.

I agree neither were particularly roomy.

The Spit probably was more comfortable, but I guess its rather a lot more to do with

a, Seating position. In the Spit you sit in a normal manner, like in an armchair. In the 109 (and 190), your sit with your back laid back a little, and with your legs high in front of you, like in Formula 1 car. But its more practical in terms of resisting G-forces.

b, In the Spit your head is surrounded with a transparent plexiglass, which`s bounderies are hard to perceive, as if nothing would restrict you. In the 109 with the canopy panels its much more easy to perceive how much space you have around you.

Its much more about perception IMHO. Actually, when you get close to these aircraft honestly the first impression is that they are cruedly made cr@p from the '30s.. next thing is how small they are.

IMHO there are only a few actually spacious and roomy cocpit of WW2... Hurricane, P-40, P-47 etc. You`ll also notice that roominess of the cocpit and performance is somewhat contrary terms. Most designers tried to make the smallest cocpit they could still squeeze a pilot in.

zecek51
05-29-2008, 02:21 AM
In terms of performance and firepower, it has to be the Fw190 but for visibility and putting the pilot at ease, I prefer flying the Me109.

M_Gunz
05-29-2008, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
Bavarians are stronger, tougher and braver than the regular german, as well as their planes.

the Bf109 was a flying lighter, sorry.

i'll take fw190 anyday..


ROFLOL - Augsburg, where Bf109s were manufactured is in Bavaria, too, smartass. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had at least offices close to Regensburg too. I have an Aunt who worked there back then.
The place was never hit by bombs either, the ancient walls of the city still stand.

BWaltteri
05-29-2008, 02:44 AM
Back to 109 and 190 comparisons.

For me it's the 109 just because I'm more familiar with it. I don't know if I can use FW in the most effective manner.

BWaltteri
05-29-2008, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by BWaltteri:
Back to 109 and 190 comparisons.

For me it's the 109 just because I'm more familiar with it. I don't know if I can use FW in the most effective manner.

Oh sorry, I messed it up with the other similar topic -lol.

anarchy52
05-29-2008, 03:13 AM
Pilots who started their career on an aircraft and accumulated a lot of flight hours would surely like to stick to the type they are used to. Learning to fight in a new type during the war doesn't increase your chances of survival.

We asked Vladimir Kreš (15/JG52, 6 confirmed) about which aircraft he would choose if he was to fly again in WWII. His answer was - Bf-109 G6. He stated that G6 could out climb and out dive anything the Russians had at the time (1943) (Note: they were facing Yaks and P-39s, possibly La-5s). Just apply full throttle and pull on the stick and you are clear. If you are attacked from above go into a power dive and apply a bit of rudder (to make the aiming harder for the enemy). When asked about the overheating issues with Bf-109 (this was AEP time when 109 were unable to cruise with 100% power with rads open without overheating), he answered that he never had an overheated engine. He thought overheat could happen if cooling system was damaged (he crashlanded once due to battle damage).
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/skins/profiles/Vladimir_Kres.jpg
His comrades and himself considered P-39 to be the best aircraft in VVS inventory (the fact that P-39s were flown by best pilots probably plays a role). They were utterly unimpressed by Yaks once they got to see them up close. Looking good and modern from a distance, up close it was a mess of sloppy craftsmanship and crude design. He told us about the straw pillow the Russian pilot had on his seat because he was too short. Bf-109 had adjustable seat. He also told us about gaps in the panels, sloppy welds and similar features of a Yak they inspected.
We asked him was he afraid of the huge 37mm cannon of the Cobra, he gave us a puzzled look and replied that 20mm will kill you just as the 37mm will. His perception was that cannon was a cannon and that's it. His first kill was a P-39, his description was laconic: I got behind it, fired and it burst into flames.

All in all, he felt quite confident in the abilities of his G6, and his assessment of its performance is quite different from what we see in the game. In reality 109 was a far more formidable fighter then represented in the game, especially against VVS fighters.

P.S. However, Kreš didn't fight against the "western allies", there is a story about this too: In the last months of the war, they finally got G10s and G14s, allied bombers were flying in huge numbers over Croatia heading for the targets in Germany. Croatian pilots would take off and..."fool around", and then land. They had to take off (because of the Germans), but they were strongly discouraged to engage the allies for fear of reprisal bombing of Croatian cities. They would take off and "fool around" at 3k, while the allies were flying at 6/7k. We didn't bother them, they didn't bother us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/skins/profiles/Ljudevit_Bencetic.jpg
There was one incident at April 23rd 1945 when pair Bencetić/Jelak claimed 2 RAF Mustang IVs shot down near Zagreb, but Jelak's plane was also hit and he was forced to crash land.