Originally posted by Krusty
Only, benny, you're forgetting that "close" was good enough in WW2. Even though spits might have turned "tighter" the 190s still turned awfully damn "tight".
The reports are that when the spits encountered 190s, the 190s weren't afraid to turnfight like the 109s were. And normally folks think of 109s as better turners. The 190s turned with spits and kept up in many cases.
So it was pretty damn close at first.
Krusty, this is ridiculous. The P-38 turned with Zekes and kept up in many cases, yet you'd be all over me if I tried using that argument. The British said that the Spitifire was much better at turning circles than the Focke-Wulf, and you're the only person I've ever heard question that. Anyway, you seem to have missed the point of my post. The point was that,
although considerably inferior in turning circles, the early FW-190s were able to dogfight Spitfires because of superiority in all other aspects of maneuverability."Close was good enough in World War II" - that's why, with greater maneuverability in areas other than turn, the P-47 was able to dogfight Me-109s, and win. Anyone who says that American ships were unmaneuverable is full of beans. The P-47 was the least maneuverable of the United States fighters, and it was roughly equal to the FW-190. Fighters like the P-51 and P-38 were superior to the FW-190 in maneuverabilty, and were as good as or better than the Me-109. I say again,
turning ability does not equal maneuverability - and in any case, the only United States fighter with a lack of turning ability was the P-47.
The British, in fact, considered the P-51B to be equal to some Spitfire models in turning circles. Of course, those P-51s were running at much higher manifold pressures than the P-51 in Aces High. You'll find, if you do research, that the reason that the American fighters were maneuverable even though they were heavy was because of their greater power.
