LW aircraft in game have been proven time and time again that in capable hands they are very competitive with allied rides, just like in real life.
Which, never was a part of the subject in this discussion. Cut the speed on the La-7 and some people still will be able to manage multiple kill sorties in it - which, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the plane is modelled right or wrong. Mind you, that many of the people in favor of the opinion that something is wrong with the 109 or the 190, are decent and competitive pilots.
The problem in question is the amount of the so-called "competitiveness" required to match certain planes in a low-speed fight - in which case historically many sources are in favor of a handy advantage to the plane in question. To put it in simple words, it is TOUGH, and DAMN TOUGH to fight a P-47 or a P-51 in a 109, especially if the fight starts out without any kind of decisive advantage to one side and both pilots are forced into a low and slow turn contest where losing ground during turning immediately relates to being shot down.
Please, hear me out.
I can honestly say that my opinion is many of the P-47 or P-51 pilots above average will not hesitate to engage a 109 in a low and slow fight. Those same pilots, on the other hand, will NEVER engage a Spitfire for example, in a low and slow fight. The contrast in maneuverability between a Spitfire and a P-51/P-47 is so much clear in most cases that unless a very skilled pilot has much confidence that his opponent is relatively n00b, he will not willingly engage a Spitfire in such manner.
Now, a 109 certainly does not turn as good as a Spitifre. However, my own turn tests prove that most of the 109s do have a much smaller turn radius than P-47s or P-51s - small enough to make Pony or Jug pilots thinks twice before engaging it in such speeds. And yet, most of the 109 pilots will wince at the thought of having to fight against a P-51 or a P-47 with a pilot about simular in skill as he himself, while in contrast the P-51/P-47 will not.
Why is that?
I've once engaged a good P-47 pilot with a 109. I've decided to engage him in an all out maneuvering contest and soon regretted I've ever done so.
He utilized a series of classic maneuvers entering into a typical rolling scissors - and as the situation goes, to follow him in I was forced into a situation where it required me to kick the rudders hard and pull high AoA during low speeds - which the P-47 managed pretty clean and admirable fashion, while me and my 109 had to struggle the whole way through to keep it under control.
I am well aware of what happens in the 109 in such cases - I'm probably the one who posts most about it. And yet, being careful and more careful, the inevitable destabilization still comes. The 'edge of the envelope' draws near, my plane destabilizes, rocks hard to the left, and I lose ground. The Jug crawls behind me and takes a decisive advantage.
The only way I survived that fight was I gave up maneuvering as soon as that moment came, since I expected the Jug pilot to still be at low throttle since he would probably be thinking that I'd try more maneuvers. I successfully outaccelerate the P-47, taking hits from 400~600 yards but no big parts damaged, until a friendly nearby joins the fight and finally shoots him down from my six.
Now, I know that the Jug pilot was good. He was probably better than me for sure. But I was in a G-14. He was in a P-47D.
P-47D-40
- 24 seconds (159mph), 271.6m
- 22 seconds (151mph), 236.4m
- 23 seconds (124mph), 203.0m
Bf109G-14
- 18 seconds (168mph), 214.0m
- 18 seconds (158mph), 202.7m
- 20 seconds (135mph), 191.5m
My plane has a radius shorter by over 50m during normal flight. 30m with first notch of flaps engaged, and 10m when full flaps are reached. His plane is almost twice as heavier as mine. And yet, the probelm with the stability knocked all of that advantage away from my hand, and gave it to a plane in normal cases that should not be trying to fight a 109 low and slow.
The big irony is the Jug pilot congratulated me for a good fight. I answered that I got almost killed. He responds that most 109s don't try to fight anyway, so he's satisfied as it is. Right - most 109s won't even want to fight a P-47 - how can I blame them? I've just experienced what happens to most 109s when they do try to fight.
Normally, that much of advantage in maneuvering is enough to equalize the difference in skill and give an advantage to the lesser pilot. 50m of advantage in turn radius is equivalent to that of the difference between the A6M5 and the La-5FN.
How "competitive" does a A6M5 pilot need to be, to outturn a La-5FN in a low and slow stall/turn/maneuvers fight? Is it supposed to be that difficult to outturn a La-5FN in a A6M5?
If we have an A6M5 in AH that is plagued with stability problems so harsh that it takes so much skill and competitiveness to outturn a La-5FN in it at an area which it is supposed to excel more than any other plane, would people still go claiming that there's nothing wrong with it?
Or, if my own skill level or prowess isn't enough to convice you, ask for some opinions of the much better pilots in this thread. Bruno or Wilbuz is both much better pilot than me. I know gatt is way over my head in pilot skill. They'll thell you the exact same story - 109s have stability problems.
I can very well accept the fact if indeed the 109s or 190s are supposed to be this difficult to manage. If in that case, then something is wrong with other planes. The P-51s or P-47s. Whatever kind of special flaps they use, or whatever the secret to their amazing stability, the kind of effect the P-38 pilots would beg for to maintain even over speed limits set in the game... the 109 does not have it. If it nears its own envelope it stalls, and stalls violently and prematurely. Correction is difficult. "Riding the stall" to "mush" through maneuvers is frustratingly difficult.
Do I really need to be that much competitive, to outturn a P-51 or a P-47 in a 109?
