Originally posted by Charge
Sorry SOA2. To explain a bit: To me M.Spick uses such expressions in all his writing that gives out his obvious bias.I can see where one could get that opinion. I dont know one way or the other. In his book I have about the Luftwaffe aces, he seems very objective. But then I've only read 4 or 5 of his books, including this one which is as much illustration as it is record.
On subject: Wing loading was not comparable to Spitfire of Hurricane but pretty much higher on 109. There were other qualities that made 109 competitive with those planes.I believe he was only referring to the prototype here. Its not completely clear. His transition from pure prototype discussion to Emil is not completely clear. I'm sure that by the time they reaced the E model 109 the wing loading was much higher than originally.
All those test flight problems could be overcome with careful handling in take-off and landing, but despite that it was a difficult ride for rookies.
I don't know what he means by precision gun-tracking in hard maneuvers? I don't think those words belong in the same sentence. As stated before the transition of flight states COULD cause asymmetrical opening of slats but hard maneuvers certainly forced them open quite evenly. Here, to me, he is saying that if the pilot were to make a harsh maneuver (not just a high G turn or other "normal" fighter plane movements), say in the effort to gain a quick snapshot, the slats could come out asymmetically and throw off the aim. I can see instances where the G load might be different momentarily between the wings and perhaps cause one to have some added impetus to speed it to full deployment. Even if only that way for a second, it could throw your aim off.
An "easy to fly" aircraft is not always the best fighter. I think Mölders referred mostly to their qualities which were possible by their low wing loading ie. very easy to land and take-off. I would agree with that. I am limited in experience to Ultralights, hoping to expand that very soon to Sport class but thats still nowhere near even the complexity of a full size airplane, let alone the complexity of even a WWII technology fighter plane. "Easy to fly" usually means compromise; and while everything has to be a compromise, I would think a fighter design would try to have as few as possible.
I'm not sure if the landing accidents were "horrendous", but surely higher than those of Spit and Hurricane.I have no evidence of that either way, but I have read in more than one source that the narrow landing gear, coupled with the high torque and the relatively light frame could cause inexperienced pilots to flip the plane over on its back during takeoff or landing. It wouldnt surprise me. But then, its just my opinion based on what I've read. If there were inaccuracies or bias in what I read, it would show in my opinions. I dont know how to verify it as I have no access to official records.
Some anecdotal sources state that the F was in fact better turner than the E. Once again it is not simply a matter of wingloading as he likes to bring up (quess why ;-)). AFAIK its turn rate was better than that of E. Plus it was considered the best variant of 109s by many. The G6 was probably the worst model after which more engine power could compensate worsened handling caused by weight escalation.I have read many times how pilots preferred the F-4 over all other models of the plane. Some liked one aspect or another of different models later on, but all pilots who flew the Bf 109 F-4 seem to have had a lasting impression of quality. I believe it was Galland who was quoted as calling it "an artist's" plane.
On aileron drooping: actually the drooping effect changes the profile of the whole wing from tip to root to suite better conditions required by slow flight. Without that droop the 109 would be a potential "tip staller" and that would be very bad as root stall is more controllable and you do not want to tip stall upon landing in low level. (You might want to check the mysterious Buchon accident which happened to Mark Hanna). Anyway, nearly all modern aircraft use similar system nowadays.Now that you have mentioned that, I remember seeing something like that when flying on commercial planes. It didnt connect until you said that. Duh. I find it ironic though, that "tip stall" is exactly what everyone who flys the AH version complains of.
On landing gear: They did change it quite a bit, strengthened and wider track, more forward rake and bigger tyres for bad runways, but they could not change the most crucial thing: they were center line (just as in Spitfire which had even narrower track and even softer tyres...)
Thanks for yor input StaroA2 and I'm sorry for my initial attitude to your writing. 
-C+ No problem, I wasnt in the best of moods myself that day. I didnt realize they did actually upgrade the landing gear. I dont think that was anything I read that made me believe that way, probably just assumption since I have always read about the narrow track being a problem. Thanks for the response, much appreciated.
