Author Topic: 190 superior to 109? (Read 1272 times)

Urchin · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2002, 12:36:09 AM »

You make valid points Admrose... but if a 109 and a 190 get in a fight, the 109 will win 90% of the time, regardless of how 'little' firepower it has.

Part of firepower is being able to put those guns on the target.

That said, the 190 is a pretty potent energy fighter, but energy fighting is a lot tougher to do than angles fighting.

Karnak · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2002, 12:42:20 AM »

The Fw 190D-9 has 8579 kills and has been killed 5349 times. 1.60 kills per death.
The Bf 109G-10 has 9808 kills and has been killed 7723 times. 1.27 kills per death.

'Nuff said.

Urchin · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2002, 02:37:29 AM »

Not really.

urchin has 31 kills and has been killed 2 times in the Bf 109F-4.

K/D of 15.5.

urchin has 16 kills and has been killed 4 times in the Fw 190D-9.

K/D of 4.0.

Does that mean the 109F4 is 4 times more effective than the 190D9 is?

Naudet · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2002, 05:43:57 AM »

That the AH Bf109er is usually superior to the AH FW190 has a couple of reasons, that are computer simulation related.

In WW2 the FW190 had the following advantages over the Bf109 that don't come into play with AH.

1. Low stick forces. In AH you won't get worne out from throwing your 109 around in wild turns and rolls, in WW2 you got it. And cause the FW190 had lower stickforces it was easier to fly, especially at high speeds.

2. FW190 needs no trimming. The FW190 was known for it's lack of trim changes. If the fixed trim tabs (on aileron+ruder) were correctly positioned the plane flew wihout any retriming in all circumstances. The Bf109 on the other hand needed a lot of triming, and cause it also had fixed trim tabs on aileron+rudders, it needed constant stickpressure to stay trimed.

3. Ease of landing and sturdy undercarriage. The FW190 was easy to land an taxi on the ground.

Points 1.-3. can also be sumed up as ease of handling. As many german pilots say, the FW190 were a pure joy to fly, the plane was stable and follows the control inputs at once.

4. View. FW190 has an exellent all around view. And in wild multiple plane melees it is a great advantage if you have a better overview.

5. Ease of maintance. The FW190 fuselage layout made it very easy to access all parts of the plane. Therefor maintance was simplified.

6. Much sturdier. Compared to the Bf109 the FW190 could really take bad punishment and could withstand much higher G-Loads than the Bf109 airframe.

7. Multirole weapons sets called Rüstsätze that let the FW190 fullfil a wide varity of combat roles.

The most important points are 1.-3. They are somewhat offset in AH, cause if you use the standard stick settings the FW190 in AH is one of the nastiest planes to fly. Also the Bf109 can use combat trim and full three axis trim, negating the rudder inputs needed in WW2 to hold it on course in dives and climbs.
Also you won't get tired from the high stick forces a 109er needs compared to a FW190, and so you can yank on the stick forever and keep pulling those bonebreaking forces.

Edit: And about turning circles there a still many sources that state that the FW190D turned tighter than both the FW190A(guess late series A7-A9) and Bf109G&K. Also the later G&K Series 109ers must have had real bad handling. The Bf109er was far beyond its development peek. G10-K14 were just Bf109er that got faster and heavier armed, increasing weight and trim problems due to the torque of high power engines.
The Bf109F4 was a real great fighter, but from the G6 on every new Bf109 version had more and more penalties to handling and turning.
And why still many german Aces stuck to their trusty 109er? It's easy, longtime experience.
It's as with every exellent pilot. He considers his personal ride the best, but what most of them forget is that their skill made em survive (in combination with a good portion of luck) not the plane they flew.

Hristo · « **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2002, 07:08:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The Fw 190D-9 has 8579 kills and has been killed 5349 times. 1.60 kills per death.
The Bf 109G-10 has 9808 kills and has been killed 7723 times. 1.27 kills per death.

'Nuff said.

This sums it up. The numbers are big enough that any pilot skill factor or coincidence can be left out.

If you had a duel among those two, G-10 would beat the hell out of D-9 every time. But these are arena stats and show which plane is better suited for arena.

HFMudd · « **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2002, 10:54:58 AM »

Quote

If you had a duel among those two, G-10 would beat the hell out of D-9 every time.

Ahh, but the stats board lets you select model vs. model...

Tour 30:
Bf 109G-10 has 179 Kills of Fw 190D-9
Fw 190D-9 has 218 Kills of Bf 109G-10

But, and here is the rub, you can't draw any conclusions from this at this or any other number. The arenas are not controlled tests where we know enough about the conditions under which these encouters occured to draw any useful info from the stats.

For me, it is easier to get kills in a FW190A-8 (I'm not very good but am 22 and 10 this tour in the A-8 so far) than in the Bf109G-10. The 190A-8 has a simple set of rules I can fly and live by:

1) Don't furball.
2) "Extend" if you run into something higher.
3) Pick your target and stay with that one target.
4) Lead turns and snap shots are your friend.
5) A good speed to engage is 400+!
6) Use the 190's roll to turn with the target until you drop to 300. If you don't have the shot by then go to a gentle left turn and climb.
7) Try to keep enough altitude that a snap roll to inverted and then an inverted 1/2 loop will get some distance between you and the inevitable P-51 or LA-7.
8) When to enter the fight, you should already be pointing in the direction you will "extend" to.

The 109 has troubles with 4, 6 and 7 which, since my ACM is very poor, makes its enhanced ability to do 1 moot.

My $.02 worth.

Widewing · « **Reply #21 on:** July 25, 2002, 12:16:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
Not really.

urchin has 31 kills and has been killed 2 times in the Bf 109F-4.

K/D of 15.5.

urchin has 16 kills and has been killed 4 times in the Fw 190D-9.

K/D of 4.0.

Does that mean the 109F4 is 4 times more effective than the 190D9 is?

Likewise:

widewing has 67 kills and has been killed 3 times in the Bf 109G-10.

K/D of 22.33/1

widewing has 34 kills and has been killed 3 times in the Fw 190D-9.

K/D of 11.33/1

Does this mean that 109G-10 is twice as effective as the Dora? No, in my case it means that I attack ground targets more with the Dora than the G-10. Hence, more losses per kill.

Either is an excellent platform, but I give the edge to the 109G-10 simply because of its superior climb rate. I can get to altitude faster, meaning I seldom find myself with the enemy above me. Also, that climb rate allows me to disengage by hitting alt X and the WEP button on my throttle. While an La-7 can run down a Dora, it cannot run down the G-10, because I can climb away with relative ease. Once I have enough altitude, its a simple task to make the Lavochkin driver sweat a river.

If I had to select an all-around fighter, it would be the F4U-4 or P-51D (leaning towards the Mustang, 'cause it's free).

widewing has 45 kills and has been killed 5 times in the P-51D.
K/D of 9.0/1, three of those losses to ground fire (some proxy awards to aircraft).

My regards,

Widewing

Hristo · « **Reply #22 on:** July 25, 2002, 01:11:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by HFMudd

Ahh, but the stats board lets you select model vs. model...

Tour 30:
Bf 109G-10 has 179 Kills of Fw 190D-9
Fw 190D-9 has 218 Kills of Bf 109G-10

Duel, I said duel.

Duel is something what starts from same E state and there is no option to disengage. G-10 would win a duel vs D-9.

What you came up with are arena stats. Arena has very little dueling.

Kevin14 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 25, 2002, 01:50:56 PM »

How about we have an unofficial match in the H2H, 3v3 or 4v4 maybe? I'll take up a 190D-9 and whip anyone's prettythang (Not really, but I do average about 4.5 K/Sortie, which is in the H2H where you mostly fight perk aircraft, cause they free in here)

moot · « **Reply #24 on:** July 25, 2002, 02:55:48 PM »

You may beat anyone in a D9 vs 109 duel, but the idea is after enough duels of KevinD9 vs KevinG10 there will be more G10 wins then D9, this assuming you fly both to the max of their performance. The G10 is a better 1Vs1 plane then the Dora.

Nath[BDP] · « **Reply #25 on:** July 25, 2002, 04:09:15 PM »

Energy fighting more difficult that angles fighting?

I don't think so.

Urchin · « **Reply #26 on:** July 25, 2002, 05:03:49 PM »

Oh, I do.

humble · « **Reply #27 on:** July 25, 2002, 05:12:41 PM »

I think you need to factor in a few factors in which plane is "better".

1st this is a sim, I'm sure HT does everything he can to maximize realism in the FE...but we're comparing our FM's not the real planes.

2nd, who we fight. In real life the main opponent was the spit 1 and 5. Here we fight many different plane sets. In real life the 190 series was a brutal shock for the allies. Both the spit 1 and 5 were markedly inferior to the matching 190 releases. The only advantage the spit had historically was in pure "flat turning" ability. This was of little use in the real enviornment of WW2.

3rd Tactics Here we fly in a number of ways for a number of styles. In WW2 the germans flew a consistant "hit and run" style of combat. They fought on their terms and at the time of their choosing. The 190 excelled in this enviornment, it also minimized any real utilization of the spits best features.

4 Pilot quality here we have a variety of "quality" but overall it's much higher than in real life ww2. At that time the germans had both the best pilots and best fighting doctrine in the world for air combat.

All in all, the 190 was the plane of choice for all but a few of the top scorers during 1942-43. It simply wasn't available in large enough numbers during that time. As the war progressed the increasing bomber pressure forced the 190 to evolve into a bomber interceptor (A8)...only later was the D9 introduced. Truth is the 109 was (and is) a pure squeak to fly. The pilot who filmed the air sequences in saving private ryan died in spain landing a 109 in perfect weather. Hundreds of pilots died landing the 109 in ww2 (almost 10% of all combat losses were takeoff/landind related) mostly 109's (early 190 did tend to catch on fire during takeoff).

bozon · « **Reply #28 on:** July 25, 2002, 08:55:49 PM »

there's simply no way of measuring "best" of two planes unless one totaly outclasses the other in every way.

the 190 was feared by the allied because fights in WWII were no epic battles of skill and fancy ACM. most of the pilots that were shot down, never knew what had hit them. planes would fly as fast as they could, creep up on somebody's 6 and if he didn't see them coming he'd be shot down. if he did, he'd dive like hell and scream for help.
at least this is what you read in most of the ace's accounts. very few descriptions of complicated fights.

in this style, 190 is king. it allowed a mediocre pilot to preform well and survive.

the 109 on the other hand was built early in WWII, with an obsolite conception that you actually need to out-fly your opponent and do fancy manuvers. for the very skilled pilot it offered many more options in a fight. for the lesser pilots, it's slow roll and problematic dive, just ment a greater chance of being killed.

same applies to the american birds. why did the p-47 was so successfull? it was fast for it's time, dive-escaped better than anything, and was rugged enough to allow some chanse of survival after being bounced. the brits laughed when they saw it because they too still thought they needed a high ACM plane like the spit to win.

Bozon

DarkglamJG52 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 26, 2002, 04:22:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bozon
there's simply no way of measuring "best" of two planes unless one totaly outclasses the other in every way.

the 190 was feared by the allied because fights in WWII were no epic battles of skill and fancy ACM. most of the pilots that were shot down, never knew what had hit them. planes would fly as fast as they could, creep up on somebody's 6 and if he didn't see them coming he'd be shot down. if he did, he'd dive like hell and scream for help.
at least this is what you read in most of the ace's accounts. very few descriptions of complicated fights.

in this style, 190 is king. it allowed a mediocre pilot to preform well and survive.

the 109 on the other hand was built early in WWII, with an obsolite conception that you actually need to out-fly your opponent and do fancy manuvers. for the very skilled pilot it offered many more options in a fight. for the lesser pilots, it's slow roll and problematic dive, just ment a greater chance of being killed.

same applies to the american birds. why did the p-47 was so successfull? it was fast for it's time, dive-escaped better than anything, and was rugged enough to allow some chanse of survival after being bounced. the brits laughed when they saw it because they too still thought they needed a high ACM plane like the spit to win.

Bozon

I agree with you 95%. But you forget an important thing: the pilot and experience. Aces like Heinz Bar, Krupinski, Walter Nowotny, Georg-Peter Eder...achieved victories with both airplanes and the Me 262, three planes very different. some
Some nachtjägers aces flow Bf-110 and Ju 88, Bf-110 and He-219, Fw 190 and Me 262, Ar 234 and ?...