[ArtieBob]

You will probably get answers to question bordering on the extreme, because of emotion based opinions from individuals that like one or another design. The Bf was nearing the end of it's production life, even if the war had continued. IIRC the Bf 109 prototype first flew in 1935 and the Fw 190 in 1939. So, the Fw 190 was several years newer in a period when aircraft development was moving at a very rapid pace. The Fw 190 probably had more growth potential left in 1945 than the Bf 109.

As a fighter in individal combat, either could be an effective fighter right up to the end of the war. It depended more on the pilot's experience and the parameters of the combat, i.e. altitude, opposing aircraft type, etc. There were pilots who flew 109s throughout the war, who probably wanted to fly no other fighter. And they were correct, for after flying a particular type in combat for several years and hunderds of hours one should know strength, weaknesses and just how far the envelope can be pushed (or not). IMHO, you should fear an experienced opponent in a lesser type more than a better type with a pilot experiencing their first combat.

By late 1944, the worst problem for the Luftwaffe was not availability of aircraft, but pilots with sufficient training and experience. Looking at the number of kills is misleading as some of the highest scores were run up in what can best be described as a "target rich environment".

As is usually the case, when a question about a complex situation is posed, ther are rarely easy, simple answers.

Just take the question of cost, both types were built and assembled in numerous locations and under widely varying conditions. Slave labor is quite cheap, but losing a large percentage of your production to bomb damage, increases the unit cost. The degree of dispersal also affects costs, etc., etc.,. But in general, the Bf 109 was a somewhat simpler basic design, with fewer parts.

Best regards,

Artie Bob