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?

Lots of folks flew both and comparisons between the two are all over the board.
For some like Novotny, a 109 was an antiquated and poorly laid out has-been; he
felt the 190's brilliantly thought out "T"-shaped instrument panel made his job
far more instinctual than in the more labor intensive Messerschmitt cockpit.
Others like Rall and Barkhorn felt that the small size of the 109 led one to
feel as if they were "wearing" the Me, so movements were practically reflexive
and coordinated between pilot and airframe. I think the demarcation between
factions is frequently set at when that particular pilot began to fly German
fighters -- 1942 and earlier, the pilots generally preferred the nimble 109,
even after fighters of a better class were introduced. Conversely, the "young
lions" that came along after the 109's heyday felt no great affinity for it
when offered the technologically advanced Focke Wulf fighter. I guess once
they survived into 1944 and 45, each group were entitled to latch onto whatever
superstition had kept them alive when so many of their comrades had fallen.
Look at Rudel - that frickin' Nazi started the war in a flight of Stukas, at
one point transitioned to CAS FW-190s, then ended the war back in a flight of
Stukas - at a time in the war when daylight operations in the Ju 87 were
considered absolute suicide by Allied and most German airmen alike. Go figure.

v/r
Gordon