You'd think so.....
(Image removed from quote.)
You know there are other reports on that website that contradict that graphic. Even the report in which it was first presented states this:
"
In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.
For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.
Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.
Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong.
First prize to the Spitfire XIV." ( quoted from
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html )
That graphic is exactly what I was referring to earlier. First, it is far from quantitative test data. It is merely a graphical presentation of the perceived relative turning circles of those aircraft. Like I said before, there is another comparison that states the P-51B and P-47C turning circles are almost equal. The is almost no quantitative test data that measures turn performance. Its a quality quite like roll rate, where comparitive statements dominate the reports instead of degrees of roll/sec.
Finally, you keep bringing up the topic of wingloading, and while it is a useful tool for comparison, it is not the panacea for turning ability you seem to think it is. There are a myriad of other factors that contribute to the turning behavior of an aircraft. If we compute the difference in wing-loading at typical combat weights, you could say that the P-47 possesses 17% higher wing-loading, but it would not be accurate to say that the P-51 turns 17% better, or to make any comparison at all, other than to say the Mustang has lower wing-loading. To say that it is curious that a lower wing-loaded aircraft turns worse or the same as a higher wing-loaded aircraft is rational. But, there are examples of this.
Another factor that I've discussed before is the airfoil difference. Laminar airfoils achieve their highest lift/drag ratios over a very narrow spectrum of angles of attack. Inside of their "buckets", they are very efficient, much more so than turbulent airfoils. Outside of their buckets, they are very inefficient, and profile drag in most cases is worse than turbulent airfoils at the same angles-of-attack. The P-51 airfoil displays much higher profile drag at high angles-of-attack than the P-47 airfoil.
Perhaps this is significant enough to reduce the P-51's turning circle. I don't know--but it could be a factor that retards the Pony's turning performance.
What I do believe is that if HTC thought there was something wrong with the way the P-51 turned, he would tweak the flight model, the aircraft model, or otherwise admit something amiss. Just be careful about how you form opinions based on historical reporting, be it technical or otherwise. Look what happened to Kurfurst
