Salute
For whatever reason, this is a pattern which we see again and again on these boards.
With the same protagonist on one side.
I believe Crrump has some valid points, however the insistence on an 'all or nothing' argument is not useful.
For the record, I understand the following. Feel free to correct me.
1) The low wing area, hence high wing loading on the 109 was an attempt by the designer to reduce weight and drag to increase overall speed and climb. This fit with the most important goal listed by the RLM, ie. an interceptor which was light enough to climb to altitude quickly, and fast enough to catch the modern stressed skin monoplane bombers which were beginning to arrive in the early '30's. Turn capability was very much of secondary importance. At the time of the competition, newer bombers were faster than the existing generation of biplane fighters which were common at the time. A secondary preferred requirement of the competition was a fighter which could be easily transported by rail. The removable wings on the 109 were a design feature intended to satisfy this requirement. At the same time, these removable wings created another issue, that being the requirement to attach the undercarriage to the fuselage, with the result being the off camber wheels, with their inherent instability in landing. This instability would be exacerbated in high speed landings.
2) As a result of the small wing area the aircraft, if equipped with standard
slat-less wings, and without the modern flaps which were an innovative part of the 109, would have had a very high stall speed. The stall speed for a 109 without slats and flaps can be estimated as roughly the speed at which the slats on the historical aircraft open without the flaps down. In the case of the 109E3, the RAE test showed with flaps up, the slats opening at 120.5 mph, 25 mph higher speed than the 95.5 mph actual stall speed. With flaps down, slats opened at 100.5, 18.5 mph faster than the 88.5 mph stall speed with flaps down. A landing at 120.5 mph would by the standards of 1934, be unacceptably high. Especially with the wheel instability issue. Messerschmidt obviously understood the issues of high speed stall brought with his high wingloading, hence the installation of the slats and modern design flaps, with their improvements to low speed stall performance.
The primary goal of the slats and the flaps was to reduce stall speed to a manageable low speed, and thus allow safe controllable landings on the off camber undercarriage.
A secondary benefit was the improved low speed maneuverability, and lowered stall speed the slats gave with landing flaps up. This was not the primary goal of the devices, it was welcome additional benefit.
To suggest the primary design goal of the slats was a 'spinless' aircraft is stretching the point considerably, and is not supported by the historical documentation.
At the same time, there is no doubt the slats did give much more benign stall characteristics to the 109 than many other aircraft. Under the control of a pilot who reacted appropriately to a stall, there was very little chance of a spin occurring. Under the control of a pilot who ignored the requirements for stall recovery, the aircraft was undoubtably capable of entering a spin. Spinless?? I don't think so. Easy to recover from a stall? Yes.
Finally, this entire thread has gone so far off track in order to satisfy the viewpoints of posters that it is missing the original point.
Does the game 109 replicate the characteristics of the historical aircraft?
No, it clearly doesn't. Among other mismodelled characteristics, the tendency of the 109 to easily enter, and be difficult to recover from, spins, is clearly wrong.