To answer Noir; The Zero's turn margin narrowed or disapeared above 250 MPH...
And yes the Ki-61 would use the zoom to get away from the F6F-3 AND the F4U-1, as a rare actual Ki-61 pilot account described; "I could use the zoom climb to get away from the F6F and EVEN the F4U, but against the P-38 this tactic did not work at all. Never had I found myself in such a predicament."
Quote-"This links to an image of an acceleration test."
-You didn't use the LATER posted DOUBLE link (My fault for the omission of the second page!); ARC's S&C 1718 of April 24 1944 is NOT just an acceleration test. Your answer does not address the VASTLY decreasing FW-190A higher speed turn rate above 250 MPH that is apparently news to people here, and a supposed FW-190A strong point (roll eyes)... Such a strong point an experienced German ace, fighting for his life, will LOWER his speed and pop the flaps before engaging P-51s... (Not a wild idea this, but an actual quote from this forum from an experienced 190A-8 ace with a demonstrable track record of shooting down P-51s...)
In addition, the ARC report clearly mentions the turn disparity KEEPS increasing with speed past 250 MPH, starting from immediately severe to increasingly severe. In other words, the transition is sufficiently harsh it does not really even flatten out or much less narrow down with speed, this despite the FW-190's ability to to pull 7 Gs, after a looong pull, which is probably equal to the P-47's best Gs, but is apparently not impressive enough to get mention in the report as tightening the disparity at some point... Now that probably means the G's in the 190 are not as useful trajectory-wise as G's in the P-47D's more gradual control response...
Quote-"If you can pull back on the stick to deflect the elevators (below compressability speeds), they WILL create the forces that change pitch, and thus AoA. It is that simple."
-Stick forces are one thing, elevator effectiveness another, and pitch effectiveness yet another...
You don't address the multiple reports of poor 190A pull-out behaviour. You don't address this report's "tendency to black-out the pilot", which is HIGHLY significant. You would say, according to your above quote, that the P-47D ALSO has a tendency to black-out the pilot if he pulls hard enough. But note that THEY RESERVED the negative to the 190A. Why? Because the 190's high-speed elevator response DOES NOT follow your progressive response theory, and THAT is the only explanation for this comment; the 190A has a tendency to not respond (either in stick force, in pitch, or in lift, or a combination of all three) for a LONG while, and THEN it responds abruptly BEFORE the pilot can alleviate the response. And this NON-gradual response obviously makes the possibility of a smooth gradual pull-out unlikely, and instead it causes a brutal level attitude sinking that would indeed be HARDER on the pilot and at the same time create a mediocre angle of pull-out. No other WWII prop aircraft that I know of has its poor high speed handling described so precisely and consistently in this particular way. You seem happy to ignore that I have quoted this peculiar behaviour from E. Brown, Russian "perfect hanging target" combat, several "pancaking" quotes from U.S. pilots, the Dec. 2 '44 Murrel combat report, and last, but not least, the Aeronautical Reseach Committee's S&C. 1718's fly-off between the P-47D-4 and a 190A-5, a report which, by the way, makes the Farnborough's vaguely-worded fly-offs look like they are intended for the schoolyard...
Quote-" If you had any actual time in a good prop combat sim, these factors would not be so confusing to you."
Quote-"An airplane diving straight for the ground at 460mph TAS would be descending at a rate of 40,480fpm! That is 5000 feet to *splat* in 7.4 seconds, assuming the local terrain is at sea level. If you are possibly dealing with heavy elevator forces, (possibly having to fool with the trim to reduce them) then yeah, you are quite probably going to lawn-dart. Nothing surprising here. Oh yeah, and if you've caught a stray .50 cal in the head, you are probably going to lawn dart."
-I didn't say straight down, I said around 500 MPH, which could easily mean over 10-15 seconds at 45° from 8000 ft., with several observed ineffective nose pull ups (which were probably in my opinion more like several ineffective tail push-downs), until finally an abrubt nose-up flattening out, followed sometimes(often?) by an even more abrupt pancaking...
Am I to undestand that flight simming experience beats quotes from actual WW II combat pilots? Why don't you find me a combat quote of great 190A high speed handling for FAST dive pull-outs and anything not related to the ailerons? I'd be curious to see that... There are hundreds of actual U.S. combat reports if you google the "WW II aircraft performance" site...
Quote-"Hogwash. "Gs" (in the sense normally used) occur when the airplane's wings develop lift, period. Once again, sometimes the lift developed may not be enough to alter the course of the aircraft enough to avoid the big splat, but so what?"
-Well, if the lift comes too late, and ALL AT ONCE, not giving a chance for a trajectory change, that's not "so what". And that's why the 190 "has a tendency to black-out its pilot", while they stay mum on this about the P-47, despite the heavy jug being also capable of some sinking, just not as abruptly...
Quote-"Every real pilot is familiar with recovering from a stall by easing forward on the stick to reduce AoA. Every pilot familiar with high-torque single engine jobs either in reality or a sim is familiar with doing this plus using some aileron input to "catch" a dropping wing."
-Oh yeah? When have you last heard an experienced P-51 pilot selecting longer-chord ailerons, made specially for the purpose, to catch his stall? Note that longer-chord ailerons implies sacrificing high-speed roll, which high-speed performance the German ace did not apparently care much about, since he made his high-speed leverage even WORSE by adding SPACERS on the hinges. When was the last time you heard a P-51 driver do that?
Quote-" However, this speculation of making an aircraft turn better by INCREASING the weight...hogwash, if this were the case they'd have armor plated an airplane to create the uber-fighter."
-Oh, I was expecting this one... Note that I said weight CAN improve the LOW-speed turn UP TO A POINT. Although most German low-altitude tests agree the 190A OUT-TURNED the 109G, it probably wasn't by a wide margin for the earlier models, since Gunther Rall said "Yes they told us the new 190 would out-turn the 109, but(insert smirk here) for ME at least, I could out-turn it..." This is a reference to earlier FW-190As, and ALL 190 pilots agree the HEAVIER 190A-8 was a MAJOR advance in turning agility, but IN the 190A's strong areas, not high-speed/high-altitudes where the 109G was vastly superior, as a late '44 high-altitude test demonstrated with AS gustavs against the even more powerful 190A-9. (The 109s basically made fun of them...)
What I really said was that at LOW speeds, higher weight was not in PRACTICE the absolute penalty it is assumed to be, and I speculated that the top-heaviness of higher weight allowed more readily a slanting off-center of the thrust axis into slower relative airflow. Hence "Hanging on the prop". This would explain German pilot enthusiasm for the A-8; the only real difference with previous models was the significantly higher standard power of 1.58 ata, combined with perhaps essential cg alterations...
Listen to ANY U.S. veteran pilots of summer/late '44, when most of the combat shifted to low altitude; ALL agree the 190A of that time frame turned better than the 109G; that was the heavier A-8. As 1944 progressed, the FW-190A's presence grew to represent 70% of Western Luftwaffe fighter strenght, the 109G being apparently still better suited to the Eastern Front (still having a high altitude advantage against Soviet types).
I will post again the link to the second page of the ARC S&C 1718 report, since some have missed it.
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg first page;
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/9568/pag17bm.jpg
The above is perhaps among the best-written, most informative WW II side-by-side tests I have seen. I wish they were all this good...
The Zero 52 evaluations versus the P-51D/P-47D-25/P-38J were also unusually good (On the "WWII aircraft Performance" site this time)
And again for good measure, in case you missed it, this Murrel combat report, at the FW-190-friendly altitudes of 20-10 000 fts. Note the complete inability to turn at high speed, the elongated loop, and the 400 MPH speed at the end.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20-murrell-2dec44.jpg Thanks Charge, for explaining why the leading edge washout was more important on pointier elliptical wings...
As for everyone else who still clings to the notion of a happy handling high speed FW-190A-8, that is DISADVANTAGED by low-speed turning(roll eyes...), I would like to see some anecdotal evidence other than Kurt Tank's 7 G "pull-outs", as the above test, AND Eric Brown, AND the Russians, AND others so numerous I forget don't seem so optimistic...
If all else fails, some pancaking Me-109s would do...
Gaston.