It was no more so than a bunch of other planes with similar or close characteristics with their own little twist. Really, when it came to dying in WW2 fighters (or even Bombers for that matter, some of them were killers) when learning there was no shortage of candidates. How about the ME210? The ME262 only took the best of the best (of the ones that were left) and even they had issues.
I think you’ll find that all air forces had similar issues, it was the nature of the beasts.
How much power are you using when this happens? Wing touch means you are either applying too much power (greater than 1.1 ata before the tail comes up) or not applying right aileron, or both.
Had a good laugh when reading that part. Sadly, so true for many novice pilots.
I dunno dude, it seems that even amongst high powered WW2 taildraggers with difficult ground handling characteristics the Bf 109 had a reputation for being extra painful. I mean just look at how angled the gear struts are and there’s a ton of negative camber on those tyres. Looks to me like when forces are pushing the plane down the angled gear will wanna splay out even further compared to say a Spit with straight down gear, and that doesn’t scream ‘stability’ to me. And I dunno about planes but negative camber on your car is good for high speed cornering and drifting but ain’t so good for straight line stability. 
Seems FlyingIron have captured this all quite well as the ground handling of this simulated version will very happily bite you in the rear if you’re not careful, a lot more than their other warbirds in my opinion. I think it’s great!
They all had to be managed quite carefully, most of them (if not all) could bite you quickly and kill you in flash if you didn’t pay attention, and they did. Let alone combat or flak.
I don’t understand the need to label which one was “most difficult” when the training accident stats were pretty horrific all over the shop for both allied and axis forces. Reports of the so called “109 is harder than x” also varied a lot, and allied pilots who flew them didn’t seem to think it was any harder than the Spit etc. Difficult is difficult when you don’t know anything, if you have the right teacher and tools, perhaps it’s not so diffcult if the machine has to be managed in a certain way. A lot of the German training issues were exacerbated by lack of this I’m pretty sure, especially as the war went on and they lost their veteran pilots as trainers. The Finns (and other nations) also flew them a lot, and didn’t appear to have too many issues with them.
Even a Stearman could kill you, it was designed to be diffifcult in order to prepare them for fighter visibility issues.
The fact is the 109 enjoyed a stellar reputation amongst the pilots who got through the training, which tells you it wasn’t quite as bad as it’s made out to be. That may well have been a matter of the devil you know etc, especially after you’ve got 10’s or 100’s of victories, but there’s merit to that in wartime.
Not like some other planes, of which there’s more than a few that pilots couldn’t wait to ditch.
Eg:
From 1940 through 1945, according to statistics gathered by Anthony J. Mireles, the U.S. Army Air Corps/Air Force suffered 6,351 fatal accidents, with more than 13,600 fatalities and the loss of more than 7,000 aircraft. Most of the fatal accidents (2,101) occurred in primary, basic, and advanced trainers, while 2,796 aviators died in the 490 fatal B-24 accidents, followed by 1,757 who died in 284 B-17 crashes.
Of the fighter plane accidents, 455 pilots died in 404 crashes involving P-47 Thunderbolts, while 369 and 337 lost their lives in P-39 and P-38 accidents, respectively.
The U.S. Eighth Air Force in Europe suffered more than 26,000 men killed due to enemy action, mechanical problems, and accidents during the war. But training, as we have seen, was just as hazardous, with more than 15,500 losing their lives in service to their country before they were ever able to face the enemy.
WWII's Tragic Aviation Accidents - Warfare History Network.
“The accident rate for the Corsair was deplorable. Only 189 F4Us were lost in air-to-air combat, while 349 fell to ground fire, but 692 were lost in nonoperational accidents. Operational losses (accidents during combat) claimed 230 of the bent-wing birds.”
They built ~12000 Corsairs in total. Do the math.
~15,686 P-47’s were built, for “455 pilots died in 404 crashes involving P-47 Thunderbolts” and that was with a solid training regime!
It’s the ratios of specfic aircraft to accident vs combat for versions production runs that need to be compared, not the raw accident figures. eg if the ~1000 accident loss rate of 109’s mentioned above is true, that sounds a lot, but not so when you take into account they produced ~34000 of them. Even if you stretch it to the 10% figure FI quote on the loading screen (source?), that ratio is likely in the same ballpark as other “difficult planes” I would wager.
Car tyres are flat. Therefore with added camber the surface area in contact with the road is reduced and you get some negative effects on braking and acceleration. Don’t know about stability. Can’t confirm that from my own experience
The tyres of the 109 are round - more like motor cycle tyres - and will most likely always give you the same surface on the ground no matter if they are at an angle of not. Like a motor bike in a tight turn.
So in my opinion the camber alone shouldn’t matter. However the landing struts might affect stability negatively.
The only thing missing from Flying Iron now is proper engine cooling off sounds. I am kind of at a loss how nobody notices this but again I guess most don’t sit in their planes listening to them cool or use the sim in that fashion? Anyways lets hope engine cooling sounds gets added to the entire roster of warbirds. Already some of the best sounding planes in the sim and still room for some improvement!
What an amazing airplane though. After some practice I have finally put some flights together without breaking stuff 
LOVE IT! That rating on the Marketplace should be a very solid 5/5
One of the greatest articles I’ve ever read on the Bf 109 is this one:
https://vintageaviationecho.com/bf109e/
It is particularly concerned with the E model not the G model represented here but definitely goes to show the peculiarities and challenges of operating the Bf 109E.
Can you all please just stop…
Making me want to buy another plane 
This looks fantastic, I’m going to buy it.
of course you will! (enjoy her!)
that’s a good read… I want to leave work early and go fly now 
See you at the end of the runway 
She’s a really great aircraft, highly recommend buying.
Too me, the E was always the prettiest of the bunch. The F a close second. I dunno, just something about the lines of the E. Maybe also because it is associated with the BOB, and was an early hi-perf monoplane.
G looks like a frog 
.
But I’m still gonna fly it
I have to say I much prefer the G! Maybe it’s the rounded nose, I just think it suits it better or maybe my love of it comes from seeing Black 6 displaying as a kid.
The Stearman has this and I enjoy it every single time.
Fly the Hellcat… There are tons of missing sounds… its a big pet peeve of mine.
What sounds are missing?
Just curious
Another update this morning:
Changelog 1.0.2
Thank you FI.
