I'm a big fan of both full-fidelity and arcade-level flight sims, but there's one piece of confusion that always stuck out to me, that being during interviews with pilots who had flown both the Bf 109 and the Fw 190s before such as this gentleman, the pilots themselves would almost always recount that the Fw 190, especially the long-nosed Dora series were far more maneuverable, even when it comes to turning, when compared to the Bf 109. This however, is the opposite of almost every flight sim I've played before, where low-speed maneuverability of the Fw 190 save for roll rate tend to be quite a bit inferior to the Bf 109.
Could pilots have remembered the true performance of their plane wrong, or has developers consistently modeled the plane wrong? Is there data sheets that adds backing to either claim?
Well maneuverability is very hard to define. let's stick with the roll rate for now. I've made a plot of the roll rate of the BF 109 vs the FW190 based on NACA data (1) and this graph based on data from the DLR (german aviation research centre)(2) In this second source a comparison is made to the performance in game as well. For my own graph:http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m551/Woekmans/Schermafbeelding%202017-04-05%20om%2011.35.44_zpsdhxsxcsm.png I went with the actual roll rates. This shows the FW190 roll rates to be very much superior to the BF-109 at any speed. (X axis = IAS in MPH Y Axis = Roll rate in degrees/second.
Another factor in maneuverability is the turn radius. Various reports state that the FW190 had a slightly poorer turn radius than the 109, but still quite tight, especially when flaps were deployed.(3) The major thing with the FW190 were the much lighter control forces that were necessary to control it. This might give a feeling of higher maneuverability. (4)
(1) http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-report-868.pdf P.166 (2) http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/01/1452023757-bf-109f-2-roll.png (3) http://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/butcherbird.pdf (4)http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-report-868.pdf P.165
