Ah, wonderful - the tired old "wing loading" argument.
Wonderful for me as well, since I've successfully eliminated the various other absurd accusations from your stock. I know my kind only too well.
The Me-109 did indeed have a considerably lower wingloading than the P-38, but the 38 had massively better flaps and better liftloading (as well as several other factors).
So let's hear just how a plane with 17,500 lbs mass with engines running at 3,200hp, loading of 5.46lb/hp with considerably worse wingloading, is supposed to outturn 7,270lb plane running at 1,800hp with much favorable loading of 4.03 lb/hp with a lower wing loading.
You can "calculate" which should turn better until you're blue in the face, leaving out factors. So did a group of aerodynamics students when they calculated that it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly. But the facts remain that bumblebees can fly, and the P-38 was superior to the Me-109 in a sustained turn.
You stated no facts, just claims. I could go to church and hear zealots stating more facts of divine intervention in earthly realms than any amount of comparable "fact" you've laid out here.
The two things working in favor for the lumbering behemoth of P-38 is its torqueless nature and efficiency of flap usage, both of which AH P-38 adepts
already make good use of. The P-38
already does outturn 109s in AH in many various situations working in favor for their pilots.
But to claim that a plane more than twice in overall mass with both of the two key elements in deciding turn performance faring much worse, can out-right boast a better turning capability than a plane less than half its weight with both powerloading and wing loading in its favor, just because some slabs of metal extending down its trailing edge, is aburd to the max.
As if 109s didn't have flaps of their own.
Your assessment is quite the opposite of reality; the Me-109 was superior in instantaneous turn only. The P-38 would catch up in a few seconds.
Your reality is a strange world indeed.
Me-109 and P-38 aces all agreed that the P-38 turned inside the 109 "with ease," but that if they kept their turns short and reversed direction frequently the American would tire quickly because of heavier controls.
Which P-38 and 109 aces said that?
You'll find dozens of Me-109 pilots who stated that the P-38 was the better turner, and you'll not find a one who said the opposite.
Actually this statement from you clearly makes it possible to categorize you under the classic "anecdote lover". Tall tales of chest thumping quickly becomes 'proof' under your way of logic, does it not?
And please don't give me that crap from Galland (who later admitted that he wasn't speaking from experience); Galland said nothing about turning ability. You can do faulty calculations based on one of many factors, but you're always going to be wrong.
Whatever you say, true-believer.
The earth is flat, and the cosmos rotates with the earth in the center.
- because the saints said so.
