Author Topic: 190 superior to 109?  (Read 1361 times)

Offline Duedel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1787
190 superior to 109?
« on: July 24, 2002, 07:17:59 AM »
Many sources state that the 190 was superior to the 109 (example http://frhewww.physik.uni-freiburg.de/~jaensch/109/s109g.htm).

I'm asking me why?
Let's compare the 109G2 and the 190A5. I fly both of them very often in the MA and have to say that in a 1 vs 1 dogfight the 109G2 is the better one or gives ME a better feeling.
It accelerates, climbes (even with gondolas) and holds its E better than the 190.
OTOH the 190 rolls better and has a better high speed handling (great for B&Z).

So historically seen why does so many german pilots say, that the 109 is inferior to the 190?

Offline KG45

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2002, 07:27:22 AM »
as a simmer, the 190s guns are alot better.

from my reading, the 190 had a much roomier cockpit and better visibility, wide track landing gear, (the 109 was always an adventure to land), more rugged construction, accelerated quickly in a dive.
all you fascists, you're bound to lose...

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2002, 07:45:03 AM »
190 is gay and the 109 is for popsicle pilots (private joke for DD ;))


190 is superior in handling to the 109 has a cockpit more spacious and "user" friendly there is less work charge for the pilot (with commando gerrat (spelling ?))

But for a vet the advantage in climb/acceleration of the 109 are more useable in a knife fight than the roll rate of the 190 that make the 109 more survivable for me :)

Offline Hristo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2002, 08:51:07 AM »
the keywords are : 1 vs 1 and many vs many

In 1 vs 1, 190 is hopeless, while 109 excels.

In many vs many 190 rules, while 109 loses it.

Offline Duedel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1787
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2002, 09:24:48 AM »
>In many vs many 190 rules, while 109 loses it.

Not wo offend u Hristo but that's only a sentence without proof. Why does the 190 rules in many vs many?

Offline Blank

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2002, 10:00:19 AM »
so not the way I fly 190's I can make them suck in all areas of flight :D

When i started AH, I started with yaks, went on to 109's. G-10 first then the mighty and f-4 when I got better, then I tried to move into the 190's. First  flight in one I got 4 kills i think, but since that very successful first flight I have sucked in them. I've read all the how to fly 190 posts but I suppose they just dont suit my way of thinking.

I do like to take a 152 into outer space and annoy space core buff pilots though :D

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2002, 10:25:19 AM »
There are many reasons why the FockeWulf 190s were considered superior to the Bf109s.

 For one thing, the Fw190, when it was introduced, was an ultra-modern fighter with about every sort of latest technology in aerodynamics, electronical systems and etc etc implemented. I believe the Fw190 was actually the only fighter that had the "Kommandogerat"(a primitive computer which was incorporated for automatic adjustment of fuel mixture, propeller pitch, and supercharger shifting all in one touch of the throttle lever) style of automatic controls during the time of its introduction. The Americans admitted the innovative usefulness of this technology and commented: "The 'Kommandogerat' or 'master control' units functioned well throughout testing and point up the need for further American development along the automatic control idea." When you look at the layouts of the cockpit, you will notice it has an amazingly "modern touch" when compared to the Bf109, which feels "vintage".

 Another thing was, the flight characteristics were simple and easy to understand. Though it was prone to "snap roll" type of stalls, overall it was much easier to fly and control than the Bf109. Also, the control authority was excellent when in high speed maneuvering. There was no "signature quirks" - certain characteristic problems only that type of aircraft has.. for example, the P-51s being unstable with full fuel load, the 109s needing constant rudder input and etc.. - the 190 was as clear as it gets in flight.

 The structural integrity was excellent, too. It was a tough and rigid fighter compared to the Bf109s which were usually considered 'fragile'. The landing gears were wide and sturdy. The engines were air-cooled radials and could sustain more damage than liquid-cooled engines on the 109s.

 The fire power was about the most powerful amongst fighters when it was introduced. Formiddable armament of four 20mm cannons in the models after the A-1.

 It also boasted incredible rate of roll, perhaps the best among all WWII fighters. Only a handfull few could outroll the 190s, and even that was limited to certain conditions(such as extreme high speeds. The boosted ailerons on the P-38 gives a better roll rate than the Fw190s in those speeds).

 The only major weakness was that the low-speed maneuverability was severely lacking when compared to even Bf109s, much less a Spitfire. The overall turn rates were poor.

 Also, after the introduction of Merlin-engined Spitfires in 1942, the Fw190s were hard pressed in most situations and the condition changed to "at least equal", which was previously "totally superior" when there were SpitVs around.

 Compared to the Bf109, the climbing rates were generally inferior throughout most of the series, and it also lacked high alt performance and climb rates fell harshly once over 20000 feet.

 ....

  The 109s are not really "BnZ" type of fighters. Its high speed performance and armament is severely limited for pure BnZ attacks. However, the 109s generally had excellent maneuverability and responded quickly to the pilots wishes. Also the acceleration was marvelous and the great climb rates enabled a pilot to climb away, when other fighters would dive and run. Therefore, the Bf109s have their own "hybrid" style of "semi-BnZ".

 Generally, the 109 would dive in with alt advantage and speed in BnZ fashion, then when the enemy maneuvers away, it would track him down instead of going straight up like a P-51. It would tackle the enemy utilizing the built up speed advantage in various maneuvers in a turn fight, and when the advantage in speed and alt is about to dry up, it would disengage and climb away.

 This sort of fighting capability greatly appealed to experienced pilots - delicate and dynamic. Compared with this, the tactics for the Fw190 was pretty 'straight-forward' and 'stale'. The 190 would excell in simple BnZ attacks, but it would not be able to engage the enemy in a dynamic manner the 109s can. Thus, experienced pilots were known to prefer the 109 over the new 190s.

 ....

  In here, where we manage the throttle with a button and fly all day with maximum prop pitch and fuel mixture, the advantages of the technical marvel "kommandogerat" system does not shine out over all those planes which had manual control systems.

 Flight characteristics of planes are always simple since many people fly with Combat Trim anyway. Landings are super easy, nobody crashes their 109 gears when they touch down at 190mph.

 Firepower and durability? Couple of hispanos can damage things just as much as 4x20mms, and that couple can also knock of 190s in a quick slash - the way damage model is done, it neuters the advantages in 'rigidness' there.

 Roll rates? Probably the best in AH, but the roll rates are neutralized too - connection and lag issues.

 In conclusion, in AH, many of the delicate aspects which compelled people to think so high of the 190s are not modelled.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2002, 10:30:05 AM by Kweassa »

Offline Duedel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1787
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2002, 10:44:42 AM »
Kweassa and thank u very much for this great explanaition!!!

Offline Hristo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2002, 01:09:25 PM »
Many vs many:

In 190 you can stay fast and look for target of opportunity. You have great high speed maneuverability (unlike 109) and enough firepower (unlike 109) to capitalize on even briefest of snapshots.

You have the luxury of making kills and staying fast, something very important in many vs many. In 109, you have to get your hands dirty - you have to slow down and follow for few maneuvers. This leaves you open for other enemies.

This has been tested by 9./JG54 here in AH and it proved. I particularly remember 2 vs 2 with Fw 190A-8s vs Bf 109G-2s of renowned 109 AH squad. 190s kept the initiative, always attacking. 109s were going into defensive turns. Even when 109 got behind 190, all 190 had to do was to dive away and drag for his wingman.

General characteristics like firepower, durability, cockpit visibility, range, dive and deck speed also favor 190. Turning in a crowded arena is a no-no.

Offline Packy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2002, 01:42:00 PM »
The 190 may be superior to the 109 on paper.    Perhaps you guys should read some material by German WW2 pilots on the performance of the 109 and the 190.  I recall reading that many German pilots (hartmann, galland, et al) regarded the 109 as being superior to the 190 b/c they could fly it at the razor's edge of the flight envelope...apparently, to these pilots, the 190 was not as 'predictable.'

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2002, 02:09:55 PM »
Hristo has got it right.


Also don't forget that the ground handling of the 109 killed a lot of pilots.  Fw 190 was much more stable in takeoff/landing/taxi, especially on rough fields.

Offline Hristo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2002, 02:44:07 PM »
109 and 190 are very different, just as Spit and Jug are. They are all good planes, but made to fly differently. Put different skill levels and styles factor in and you have a mess ;).

When I flew 109, my worst opponent was the Spitfire. I believe I had poorest record against it. I never had a problem vs P51s or F4Us.

When I moved to 190, Spits became no problem. However, P51s and F4Us became a threat now.

If I was to stay and fight in a LW plane, I'd pick 109. It would allow me to stay above enemy all day and stick to close BnZ. The margin of error is small though. Roping someone isn't all that easy anymore, since I have seen quite a lot of clever Spit types lately.

If I was to fly laid back and look for someone to bounce on, I'd pick 190. One or two passes and go away, someone else might come by. If there is a low furball, I'd bust thru it and pad my score (almost impossible in 109, you have to slow down and mix it up). If I was on a vulch sortie, it is 190 again. Same for buff hunting.

P.S.
Personal best was about 90:5 in 109G-10 and about 220:16 in Fw 190A-8. If I had a Dora, it would be even better.

Offline senna

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1318
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2002, 03:46:56 PM »
I think that in a game alot of factors are negated so some planes with phenominal performance in certain attributes gain an advatage here and there where others loose some of their advatages naturally. I honestly believe that in real life the 190s would be much more potent than they are now. Also mastering the roll axis to a very fine degree along with managing the pitch and yaw is very difficult to do visually without using your inner ear to help which you cant to on a computer, at least to a fine degree. I very seldomly see a 190 flown to its potential including myself in a dogfight. Too much room for mistake where other planes the allow too much room for a mistake because they are phenominal in another area of axis. The roll axis is not a "steady state" axis but rather a preemptive axis so fine judgment is required as it sets your options up where as the pitch axis is a "steady state" axis. Pull your way through  and judge as you go along the move is what I mean. If done right though the roll axis would be the ultimate killer. Quick, difficult for an enemy to infer what your up to and sets up your options in advance while hiding them as well. I think in real flying the roll axis is better incorporated into a pilots head wheras in a game its more difficult to coordinate with the other two planes all at once.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2002, 03:49:43 PM by senna »

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2002, 10:56:15 PM »
In AH I consider all the 190s to be superior at killing, but the 109s are better for actually fighting.

Offline AdmRose

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
      • http://www.geocities.com/cmdrrose/index.html
190 superior to 109?
« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2002, 11:02:00 PM »
Let's look at it my way:

Me109s:
* Too little firepower w/o gondola cannons
* Can't maneuver worth a damn w/ gondola cannons

Conclusion: Damned if you do, damned if you don't

FW190s:
* Excellent firepower in form of two 13MM MGs with 4 20MM cannons mounted in wings, or 2 30MM cannons and 2 20MM cannons in wings
* Wing cannons have very little effect on maneuverability

Conclusion: Buffs beware, fighters shoot fast and shoot first