"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters of
the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
weaknesses were?

Their performance was affected by which weapons it carried, but in
general it
was considered a classic dogfighter. About half of production was
devoted to
ground attack variants, but most people think of them as fighters -
the reason
they were used as ground attack is they could take incredible
punishment that a
109 simply could not. Some of the Luftwaffe Experten shot down dozens
of
Allied fighters in the FW 190, so I would say its the game out of
true, not
some inherent weakness in the fighter of WWII.

I saw something (I think) in here not too long ago, where someone had
asked the
late Adolf Galland about the fact that (on paper) the FW190 was superior
to the
109. Galland gained most of his victories in the latter, and IIRC, his
comment was
that the 109 was much more 'comfortable' to fly, whereas the FW190
needed more
attention from the pilot to just flying the aeroplane. I have always
understood that
manouvreability and stability in a fighter aircraft was a balancing act,
too stable and
it lacked agility, too agile and it was 'twitchy' and could be
unpleasant to fly. Perhaps
the 190 was on the edge of that envelope?
ISTR the F16 would be rather unstable if it wasn't for the computerised
flight control
system?

The CO