There can be no doubt that the much more lightly loaded 109s would be superior in a sustained turn than a 190, BUT, one wonders if our A-5 should turn better than it does. The wingloading is not all that different from that of a P-47 D-11. And then there is the issue of the our 190s speed at low alt, coupled with the issue of control stiffness in the 109s...if the control stiffness in AHII for the 109s at high speed were modeled more like it is in IL2, then that alone would be a huge edge to the 190s.
I'm not sure I follow. When you say control stiffness, I'm thinking input/output or the reciprocal.
I note for comparison that the 109 gets very "stiff" at his speed, which is to say the ratio of input to output goes up radically (the Zeke seems to do the same).
I'm not sure if this is a function of control surface movement as a ratio of stick movement (seems like, given the mechanical linkage, it should have sufficient compliance to change MUCH, though cables do stretch under load, etc) or if, e.g. the 109's case, it's because you lose decent flow over the surfaces - i.e., is it a mechanical or aero effect or, if both, how much of each?
I can only deduce that you're saying that we'd get much more control authority at speed in the 190 by adopting the IL2 model, at least w/r the 109. But this seems counterintuitive since we currently get Passed-out Barbie at anything nearing 500 IAS in the 109. I still have a modicum of control in the 190s at those speeds.