190 or 109?

BOTH

the 109 is a piece of garbage.

:doh:

This kind of troll comments are so useless. It doesen't matter if you don't like 109 or not, it should be very clear to any warbird fan that 109 was definitely not garbage by any standards. It was, and always will be one of the finest ww2 fighters of all time. And "one of the finest" doesen't mean it was absolute best, wich it wasn't, especially in '44-45 anymore.

:doh:

 

This kind of troll comments are so useless. It doesen't matter if you don't like 109 or not, it should be very clear to any warbird fan that 109 was definitely not garbage by any standards. It was, and always will be one of the finest ww2 fighters of all time.

:thumbup:

:doh:

 

This kind of troll comments are so useless. It doesen't matter if you don't like 109 or not, it should be very clear to any warbird fan that 109 was definitely not garbage by any standards. It was, and always will be one of the finest ww2 fighters of all time. And "one of the finest" doesen't mean it was absolute best, wich it wasn't, especially in '44-45 anymore.

Oh don't mind me, just accruing the largest victory tally in air combat history.

190 because there is a better chance to get it ;)

Oh don't mind me, just accruing the largest victory tally in air combat history.

And the most shot down fighter.:D

I like both and many other Planes

And the most shot down fighter.:D

Maybe if he didn't get so close on those passes.

I love 109's but the Fw is this pilot's dream. That roll rate!

Fw 190D-9; take-off and landing that rugged wide-track undercarriage and better rudder authority: Combat, better all-round view, more dependable, longer range weapons, that roll rate...

Liquid cooled inline engine fighters certainly looked sexier compared to the air cooled counterparts, and that is great if someone else was taking them into battle. I'd go for the earlier version of the 190 with air cooling.

Same for the American planes. A pilot would have to have been nuts to choose a p51 over a p47 if given the option. The engines were so fragile in comparison. Fine if you're not flying into enemy territory and getting shot at....

There was 5,548 heavy bombers lost in the ETO. All were powered by radials.

There was 5,324 fighters lost in the ETO. They were a mix of radial and inline. Of these 5,324 2,449 were lost to AA. The P-47 did most of the ground attack.

Liquid cooled inline engine fighters certainly looked sexier compared to the air cooled counterparts, and that is great if someone else was taking them into battle. I'd go for the earlier version of the 190 with air cooling.

 

Same for the American planes. A pilot would have to have been nuts to choose a p51 over a p47 if given the option. The engines were so fragile in comparison. Fine if you're not flying into enemy territory and getting shot at....

I think it's better to worry about what plane will enable you to not get shot at than to worry about what plane can take more hits, at least in an A-A environment.

You are dead in the water with an early 190 against a D Mustang.

:doh:

 

This kind of troll comments are so useless. It doesen't matter if you don't like 109 or not, it should be very clear to any warbird fan that 109 was definitely not garbage by any standards. It was, and always will be one of the finest ww2 fighters of all time. And "one of the finest" doesen't mean it was absolute best, wich it wasn't, especially in '44-45 anymore.

I'm not trolling. A plane is only good with regard to its relative performance. Simply making the cut as a ww2 fighter doesn't make it a good war machine. The 109 saw its best relative performance in 1942 with regards to its contemporaries. It then proceeded to overstay its welcome. A fighter that cannot adapt sufficiently to remain on top is not a worthwhile investment.

I prefer the 109, so much of the flying back then was of a stalking/surprise nature, and that is how I fly in these sims...the 109 could be very capable for that style and also a pleasure to fly I think. :)

I'm not trolling. A plane is only good with regard to its relative performance. Simply making the cut as a ww2 fighter doesn't make it a good war machine. The 109 saw its best relative performance in 1942 with regards to its contemporaries. It then proceeded to overstay its welcome. A fighter that cannot adapt sufficiently to remain on top is not a worthwhile investment.

Starkey just stop to ignore that the later 109s where more needed to attack Bombers instead of fighters. But this also doesnt mean that it can not attack fighters.

Piece of garbage are not really matching words for that.

I think I'd take the Dora.

More stable as a gun platform, easier to takeoff and land, faster roll rate.

Although the 109 just looks better IMO. But you asked which one I'd prefer to fly in combat.

109.. Especially as this last variant is extremely powerful and for sheer performance, it is slightly better the D-9, not to mention handling. As much as I tried being good in 190s, it just doesn't work for me, the harsh departures are big put off for me, and the fantastic roll rate is as Amazing as it makes me dizzy. :D You usually have ruggedness and roll rate with you, but these are more useful traits for defense. And as u have two 2cm Mausers vs one 3 cm Rheinmetall Borsig gun even the firepower question isn't clear cut, as it is with the 190A and in doubt you can still put an extra two Mausers on your late 109. A bit better vision isn't that much of a temptation, as the Erla/Galland combination is quite okay.

Perhaps in a multi plane enviroment, where speed and firepower and vision is the most important, and individual manouveribility not so much, I would pick the Dora, but one on one, the 109K has most of the aces.

I'm not trolling. A plane is only good with regard to its relative performance. Simply making the cut as a ww2 fighter doesn't make it a good war machine. The 109 saw its best relative performance in 1942 with regards to its contemporaries. It then proceeded to overstay its welcome. A fighter that cannot adapt sufficiently to remain on top is not a worthwhile investment.

Then you are ignorant or not willing to believe the facts. G10 and K4 was fully capable to fight against any allied fighter even in '45 and survive/win. Yes, there was better machines available by then and yes, 109 best performance days were over but it was still FAR from garbage, no matter what your personal opinion about it is.

right....I disagree therefore must be ignorant. Just keep telling yourself that. I could just as easily disregard anything you have to say with that logic. We could spend the next 50 years hashing out all the technical data and historical records debating this. Fact is, I know plenty about this plane, as I am sure you do as well, and we don't have the same opinion. That isnt likely going to change. I didnt post that so we cold debate this. I didnt post it to troll you. I posted it because were having a poll here and I was summing up my choice. Dont like that? Tough. You should refrain from calling people ignorant though. I am hardly ignorant regarding WW2 aircraft and I have my own reasons for thinking that the 109 is a piece of garbage. Perhaps you should reflect more on how you treat people when you run to the defense of a inanimate object the better part of century old and start spouting insults. Regardless, it was a offhand remark and wasn't intended to be a expression of scientific analysis. No different than if you said sports team you don't like is a piece of garbage. Just for you though, I'll alter it to a somewhat more specific choice of lexis. Admittedly, something like a early model La-5 or Brewster Buffalo are more quantifiable as garbage. Therefore I reclassify the 109 as a subpar exercise in mediocrity.

Guys, lets not argue here. Everyone is allowed their opinions. Stick to debating the Kurfurst against the Dora, not whether the 109 is a "piece of garbage" (which it probably isn't.)

Depends on the circumstances. In a dog fight I'd take the 109. It simply excels at that sort of fighting. At higher altitudes, again, the 109 is the winner.

For low altitude, high speed combat (which I prefer) the 190 is the clear winner. If the 190 can stick to pure BnZ tactics and resist any temptation to bleed energy to cut corners, the 109 can never touch it.

At higher speeds (400+ km/h) the 190 has better elevator authority, rolls much better, zooms much better, dives much better, and can therefore choose when to engage and disengage at will.

A fighter that cannot adapt sufficiently to remain on top is not a worthwhile investment.

That must be one of the most hilarious things that I have read about Bf-109. A fighter that cannot adapt sufficiently to remain on top - for a fighter that adapted and remained close to the top from Spanish civil war until the end of the WWII.

Was there any other plane from that era that managed to do that?

Near the top would have been a better phrase. Yes, there were other fighters that remained superior or equal to the competition for the duration of their ww2 service lives. We could debate which ones did for eternity.

cant wait to go for a hunt with that piece of garbage :)