That Rechlin assesment is but one of hundreds of references of the FW-190A out-turning the Me-109G... Did you notice the Russian combat evaluation and the British RAE also said the same thing? Rechlin DID say much later that a MW-50 109G out-turns an unspecified FW-190A...
Note the video's Rechlin quote says "The FW-190 out-turns and out-rolls the Me-109 at ANY speed", which I think is a better high-speed turn performance than later FW-190As are capable when the engine was moved forward 6 inches, changing the center of gravity significantly: Note how terrible is the turn performance above 250 MPH for this 6" longer-nosed A-5:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg Note also how this evaluation emphasises the FW-190A's low-speed turning, just like the Russian combat evaluation "The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed" etc...:
http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html Note also that unlike RAE and US Navy evaluations, that absurdly emphasize the FW-190A's "interceptor" or "vertical fighting" nature (despite a poor climb rate and terrible, speed-wasting "sinking" dive pull-out!), these above two evaluations were done by front-line FIGHTER pilots, including the P-47 comparison done in Italy by front-line FIGHTER pilots, NOT test pilots, and THEIR opinion offers a stark contrast to TEST pilot opinions: Which one would you rather pick? There is NO reconciling these two views... Guess whose side Johnny Johnson falls on, with the hindsight of the whole war being over? ("vertical turn" here is actually a "wings vertical turn" in the era's pilot lingo; please don't go down that path, ok?):
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg Quote, BnZs: "Did you see Gaston's hilarious twisting of language and commons sense where he took the quote from a German pilot "The 190 was a broadsword, the 109 was a rapier" and twisted it around somewhere in the dank crevices of his mind to mean that since a "broadsword" is swung in circles (he asssumes), and a rapier is used in linear thrusts, that must mean the 190 was the turner and the 109 was the bnz'er...completely ignoring the obvious original intent and common usage of that "broadsword vs. rapier" comparison of course, but entertaining in its very dementia."
-The pilot was Gunther Rall, who also said the Me-109F could barely out-turn the FW-190A, and usually didn't, at 900 lbs less than a Gustav...
I am told he actually said, actual quote: "The Me-109 was a floret, the FW-190 was a sabre", which inevitably leads to a VERY interesting question by Ack-Ack, quote:
"What part of a plane's flight model would a Saber represent?"
Now THAT's an interesting question. Hint: The sabre always has a blade shaped in a curve.... It can stab, but is in priority designed for hacking in a curve in confined spaces, or from a horse, the curve facilitating both the draw and the pulling, slicing motion to deepen the cut after the CURVING stroke has bit flesh... Hmmmm... Now what could THAT possibly mean compared to a floret?
The floret, on the other hand, has a straight blade with nearly or absolutely no edge, intended for straight strokes only... This is a floret:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Foil-2004-A.jpg/505px-Foil-2004-A.jpg This is a sabre:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Sabre_mg_7029.jpg/600px- Some had less curve, but were still clearly hacking weapons more than straight-line thrusting:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/French_Navy_sabre_img_3012b.jpg/600px Another Saber:
http://england.prm.ox.ac.uk/englishness-british-cavalry-sabre.html I tell you, denial is truly indestructible...
Quote, Anaxogoras: "Gaston, you seem to place a lot of weight on testing and combat reports, but it's clear you haven't read VVS evaluations of the Bf 109 and Fw 190. Russian pilots held the Bf 109 in higher esteem than the Fw 190 and confidently claimed that it was the better dogfighter of the two.
Not long ago, a rebuilt 109G-10 was compared to a P-51D in a flying magazine (I forget which one), and the author was scandalized to report that the 109G-10 out-turned the P-51D."
-As far as the Me-109G-10 out-turning the P-51D, I actually think this is could be true at the most common medium speeds, even maybe for the G-6, since same-side turning combat with the P-51D can last an incredible 15 minutes in combat reports, which indicates they are very close, except for the Me-109G-6's speed-bleeding in level turns that really needs a downward spiral or MW-50 to even things up, despite a likely tighter radius that could lead some pilots to conclude it "out-turns" the P-51D easily.
Above 300 or 350 MPH I think the P-51D will display an increasing superiority with speed, inevitably decelerating into the Me-109G's better speeds, but below 200 MPH the P-51 can also downthrottle and increase prop pitch with flaps down, what I call the low-speed "trick":
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg Barring that, they can be described as very close depending on pilot knowledge, and both are inferior at low speed to the FW-190A, which is itself not far behind the Spitfire (see Johnny Johnson Spitfire link above).
As far as Russian opinion, also see link above...
Maybe what you are refering to as "Russian opinion" are a large series of 360° turn times, 18 sec., 21 sec., etc, that cover a wild variety of aircrafts, with many minute variations among an intricate number of variants... To my eyes, there are strong clues that these are not actual data from actual flight tests, but some calculated figures that were trusted by test pilots and put in a report somewhere...
Remember what I said about test pilots versus FIGHTER pilots?. For hundreds of Russian FIGHTER pilots opinions, condensed over months of actual combat with actual German FIGHTER pilots, see the "Russian experience" link above...
All these Russian ultra "precise" "turn times" are likely calculated, which was often not mentionned at the time, and the best indication is the sheer NUMBER of test aircrafts that would have to be involved on the same day for these tests to be valid (temperature, humidity etc... can cause HUGE turn performance variations, but probably affected all aircrafts roughly the same...). Just imagine: Three or four variants of Spitfires? Three or four variants of Me-109s and FW-190s? Have you ever seen a REAL flight test that looked like that? Of course not: You don't even have the time in a day to test all that... Plus the data I am told matches calculated data very consistently, which is another huge red flag...
The total absence of directly linked pilot comments is also very telling... Turn rate has many aspects that require more than just ONE number: Control feel, response, speeds and weight anyone?
Finally, I have already asked in the past about these turn-time tests some simple questions, like, on what DATE they were done, and what serial # of aircrafts were involved(???)... I'd be REALLY curious to see the answers to that... Don't hold your breath... I haven't so far.
If no answer comes up, then you'll have your answer: Such tests would be the most exhaustive turn-rate tests of WWII, and not a single DATE can be put to them? What does this suggest?
It would be nice to know the speed ranges and the use of flaps too, while we're at it...
Quote, Anaxogoras: " Russian pilots held the Bf 109 in higher esteem than the Fw 190 and confidently claimed that it was the better dogfighter of the two."
-They did hold it in high esteeem, because it could perform at higher altitudes than their aircraft, and it could use dive and zoom tactics much better than the FW-190A. Up to the Me-109F, it could also compete in turns, but listen to Gunther rall's complaints when the Me-109G came along... "The weight went too far" he said... Still, the Me-109G had a superb climb rate and could therefore make excellent use of the vertical plane ("floret" anyone?), unlike the FW-190A, as the "Russian Experience" evaluation points out: "The FW-190 does not like to do vertical maneuvers"- "Keep speeds as high as possible against the FW-190"- "pulling OUT[of a 45° dive], it will fall an extra 200 m."- "The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed (sabre, anyone?)" etc ad nauseam...
In the Western Front, the Me-109G-6 no longer had the higher altitude, or the better zoom, or the better dive speed, or the better tail-heavy trim pull-out (not by much at least), or even the better steady climb rate against a 72" P-51, or any kind vertical maneuver advantage. This is why a Luftwaffe officer said: "All those aces that came to me from the Eastern Front got shot down on the Western front."
By late 1944, 70% of Luftwaffe Western Front fighter strenght was FW-190A-equipped... Not so the Eastern Front I would guess.
Gaston
