Wingloading is probably the single greatest indicator of an aircrafts turning capability unless the flaps are deployable at combat speeds and provide significant lift.
For turn rate, sure. This has become the most important characteristic of a fighter only in computer sims.
Minimum radius of turn is extremely important for a fighter.
Allow me to repost this:
You will see that airspeed is very important. I also think the results will surprise many of you. This is not a “high speed” characteristic but rather a low speed one!
Why is airspeed important in the turn? The slower you go the less your aircraft can trade energy for bank angle. The higher the angle of bank, the smaller turn radius a fighter pulls. A smaller turn radius will beat a faster turn rate.
Surprisingly, wing loading and wing design is not the most important factor in determining turn radius. Turning radius is a function of thrust.
The aircraft that can pull a tighter angle of bank at a given speed will have the smaller turn radius.
This is why a heavier fighter with more power can equal or outturn a lighter fighter with less power to a point.
For example, the Spitfire Mk IVX gained considerable weight over the Mk IX yet matches the turn performance of the lighter Mk IX:
The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).
The turning circles of both aircraft are identical.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.htmlWe can also see this in the following reports:
IMHO, this is not reflected very well in the FW190 series.
The FW190 series gained as much power and less weight than the Spitfire or P 51 series.
Granted:
The RAF report is very little science. We only know that Mustangs were met in the air, they matched speeds and did their best to get on each others tail. Further highlighting the arbitrary nature of the report is the pilot is asked to give his opinion on the FW190 vs Spitfire based solely on this 30-minute familiarization flight. No actual flying against a Spitfire Merlin 66 was conducted.
We also do not know the type of Mustang. Given the timeperiod and area, IMHO, the most likely candidates are RAF Mustang I's.
The USAAF report is much better. It gives us airspeed, altitude, aircraft condition, aircraft configuration, and pilot experience.
That's why the Luftwaffe tasked the 109s to engage allied fighters while the 190s went after the bombers.
The main reason 109's can be found in the escort role is 109 did not have the firepower required to bring down the 4 engine heavy bombers. It was much harder for the average pilot to achieve the minimum number of hits. Adding Gondolawaffen limited the 109's maneuverability.
A clean configuration 109 was hardly an outdated design. IMHO, this myth stems from RAE tests of a Bf-109G6. IIRC, Mtt was surprised with a requirement to increase the firepower of the 109 series in the Bf-109G6. This led to the early version being somewhat underpowered.
The FW190 performance did fall off above 23,000 ft, however it was far from helpless. While the 190's performance fell off at high altitudes, the 109's improved. The two fighters were very complimentary on their performance much like the Tempest and Spitfire. Each fighter weakness was covered by the other fighters strength.
With that said, the FW190 did not require escort unless it was an R7/R8, bomber, or ground attack variant.
The G series was the only FW190 equipped with plumbing to carry wing tanks AFAIK. Its performance was very poor compared to the fighter variant as it had a different engine set up and increased drag. It was considered a bomber and not a fighter-bomber. The fighter-bomber variant was the FW-190A when equipped with the ETC-501 rack and ordinance.
The FW-190 did have a superior range to the 109 but it was hardly greatly superior. Depending on the altitude of the bombers, the FW-190 had about 8-10 minutes more combat time than the Bf-109. The greatly superior range comes from test's of the FW-190 G series during which the motor was run at most economical cruise for the entire flight profile. This is hardly representative of a combat mission.
All the best,
Crumpp
