Yes that is true Milo, but it CHANGED sides when the aircraft was in a flaps-down landing configuration.
With the flaps up, the LEFT wing dropped with little warning, which then prevented the weaker right wing; ie; the higher, outside-of-the-turn wing, from "flicking down outside" in left turns; this thus gave a better turn radius to the LEFT, flaps up.
With the flaps down it was the opposite; the RIGHT wing dropped down equally hard, but this time with significant warning. This could have been due to the gear being out, but I would think it is more likely the flap down position was the main culprit.(See the Eric Brown stall descriptions)
Given the lesser engine reserve power at higher speeds, making efficient speed-retaining turns at high speeds would not allow the flaps to be deployed for very long, so above say 250 MPH IAS, I would say the FW-190A turned poorly, but significantly better to the LEFT, flaps up.
Below 250 MPH IAS, the reserve engine power left for acceleration was greater, so the extra drag of flaps-down was acceptable, thus the FW-190A was especially competitive in RIGHT turns at these speeds, but the right/left difference seems less pronounced than at high speed... This flaps-down for low speed only is based on an actual FW-190A-8 Western Front ace's descriptions. (He also described deliberately, and successfully, using low-speed turn-fighting against p-51Ds)
The achievable tightness in 190A low-speed turns depended on at least four different basic 190A configurations; aileron chord types; short, medium, long. The presence or absence of the weighty outboard Mg 151s made a big difference from the A-6 up. The A-8's wide blade wood prop represented one of the biggest advance, and very likely made late A-8s and A-9s competitive at low speed turning with Spitfire IXs, or at least Mk XIVs...
Finally, a significant advance was the extra power of the A-8, when 1.58 ATA became standard.
It could be short chord ailerons improved turn performance at higher speeds by allowing a better high speed "stall catch". I still think the FW-190A at high level speeds could not turn with most allied fighters, and did worse than the Me-109G...
If you pit a 190A-6 with say 1.42 ATA, four cannons, narrow chord ailerons and a narrow metal prop, against an early Spitfire Mk IX, the result will probably be a significant gain by the Mk IX in low speed turning. (Note that Johnny Johnson says early 190As were better turning than the 109F! Probably at low speeds only, and Gunther Rall for his part has them pegged as very, very close. Note Rall did not like the 109G, which might have completed a larger circle faster, so the closeness he mentions is likely regarding the F...)
If, on the other hand, you pit a 190A-8 with 1.58 ATA, two cannons, long chord ailerons AND a broad-blade wood prop, I wouldn't be surprised if even a Spitfire Mk IX at +25lbs had a hard time matching low-speed turns with it... At high speeds the Spitfire IX turning superiority would be in evidence, especially in right turns, because the FW-190A would need to keep its flaps up...
This shows the wide range of possible conflicting anecdotes. However, the notion that the FW-190A can do prolonged turns well at high speeds, especially to the right, is not backed up by anecdotal evidence I have read in U.S. combat reports, except one probably involving speeds starting near 500 MPH at low altitude in a left turn, and even then the P-47D could keep inside the turn. It seems probable that above 400 MPH turn disparities narrow down between many types;
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/353-field-22april44.jpg I think it is very clear from the Johnny Johnson article that the situation in his Spitfire Mk V was getting progressively worse in continuous turning at slow speed against a FW-190A. The "greying out" reference rather than "blacking out" indicates lower rather than higher speeds, as at very high speed you can at least start with a brief black-out... "It was only a matter of time" he said, before diving towards friendly flak. His description of the superiority of the Spitfire Mk IX is also very plausible, as the Mk IX would be superior in turns to early 190As at both high and low speeds. It is even possible the better high speed turn and climbing of the Me-109G made it more suited to fighting the Spitfire IX... (The 109G retained some superiority in roll, dive acceleration and zooms compared to the Spit IX; unlike 190As tales of woes, Gustav pilots of JG 52 in Italy did not seem to fear the Mk IX as much as American types...) The J. Johnson quote "The 190 seems faster in a zoom climb than the 109" sounds highly unlikely to me, and could indicate such maneuvers were undertaken in the 190A ONLY with the advantage of high speed, exactly as the Russians describe here;
http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html Note, zoom issue excepted, the striking similitude of opinion with the J. Johnson article.
Gaston.
P.S. For those who missed this P-47D vs FW-190A report;
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
Note that in "On Special Missions; Kg 200", it is clearly stated that German tests of a captured needle-prop P-47D led to the conclusion that it "out-turns the Me-109G".
I would moderate that by saying it would not amount to any kind of large margin at lower speeds or right turns, and even less in climbing right turns... Note also that the later bubbletop P-47D is clearly not as good as the razorback in turning, for reasons unknown to me... I think it could be for more reasons than just the extra 1000 pounds of weight I heard separated them.
G.
