None of you have even adressed the meaning of the report's quote: (Turns and handling at 250 MPH +) "The 190 displays a TENDENCY to black-out the pilot", as OPPOSED to the P-47D-4, which doesn't apparently share quite the same trait, despite being VERY light on the elevators at high speeds itself, and quite capable of blacking out the pilot... Why not both?
If it doesn't fit into your theories, it doesn't exist, right?
Murdr states the FW-190's superiority during turns in the test at low speeds (-250 MPH) is based on better acceleration in sustained turning ONLY; Yet the low speed test is titled; Turning AND handling, with NO mention of the word "sustained" anywhere... All the report actually says is that all the lower speeds, turns were made so tightly it was impossible to accelerate, which does not EXCLUDE unsustained turns. Better yet, a few words later, its states the FW-190 WAS able to accelerate SUDDENLY to gain a better position, so the speed WAS allowed to deteriorate SUBSTANTIALLY for both, and in fact a whole range of maximum-rate turning IS implied by this, because it would be stupid to limit turn tests to SUSTAINED turns, without prominently saying so, and then say broadly the 190 "hanging on the prop" "very evidently" out-turns the P-47, if it did NOT apply ALSO to unsustained turns... This is a turn AND handling test... Read the title...
The high speed turns (250 MPH+) are described as being held "as tightly as possible", and are put next to the low-speed turns without any special mention of the conclusion being any different in nature as to the relative turning merits of the two aircrafts. This describes an increasingly crushing superiority of the P-47D-4 over the FW-190A-5 in turns, which statement is not qualified in any way (just as it was not at low speeds, except for the oblique turn "trick")...
Then they mention "the FW-190 had a tendency to black-out the pilot", which ALSO doesn't fit ANY of your handling theories...
So you ignore it.
Then we have the words, on this very forum, of an actual FW-190A-8 Western ace who describes DOWNTHROTTLING prior to medium/low-altitude combat (with P-51Ds!), and honing his ride mightily for LOWER speed combat (popping flaps, extended-chord ailerons etc..), and using ONLY lower speed turn-fighting combat to gain his victories. But that doesn't fit neatly into your FW-190A-8 handling theories, now does it?
So you ignore it.
There's also the numerous accounts of Western Front Luftwaffe officers admonising "new" Eastern Front pilots to ALWAYS turn with American aircrafts, and NEVER use the vertical like they could do with the Russians. Doesn't quite fit with the Boom and Zooming German hordes now does it?
But that doesn't fit either, so you ignore it.
Then there is the issue of "hanging on the prop", which does imply in its very description something beyond what your sustained turn/ lift-only/wingloading theories can provide, but that doesn't fit neatly either, so it can be ignored also. As can most pilot accounts, while you are at it...
Oh and I almost forgot: The MAJOR advance that the 190A-8 represented in MANEUVERABILITY, over ANY earlier mark, by the words of its own pilots? Well, what do these handsomehunkes know anyway? Don't they know the wingloading was worse?
They turned all the time with it, and survived, but they didn't know the low-speed handling of the A-8 was BAD...
It's just not scientific guys... We're simmers, we know they're wrong...
Gaston.
P.S. The ballasted FW-190G-3 used in the test is NOT equivalent to an A-3, but to an A-5, and is referred to as such in another version I saw of this test. Get your facts straight before poking fun at the expertise of someone else...
G.
