Oops, sorry for using wrong terminology from my part too.
As turn rate means degrees per second the Th in Th/Ki example does not have higher turn rate than Ki I merely suggested that it's just able to fly a low G circle faster than Ki. But is that true?
I would assume so. P-40 should be faster than a Ki-43, so theoretically it could use a similar technique as what Perv showed in his film. Any near-1G maneuvering will focus on the speed of the aircraft, rather than its turn ability, for example.
What I mean is that if HWL (high wing loaded plane) stays at low G it will produce less parasitic drag while maneuvering compared to LWL at same speed (if we consider thrust and weight to be the same with these a/c)?
When you say HWL, are you assuming that wing area is the same, and its merely weight that's increasing the wing load? Because that makes a huge difference. Also, IN GENERAL, maneuvering doesn't create parasitic drag. That's a constant in almost all cases, unless you drop flaps, drop the gear, or hold your arm out of the cockpit.
Induced drag, on the other hand, and form drag to a certain extent, are the culprits when considering the effects of maneuvering on drag. In a hard turn, the Cdi goes through the roof, and while a HWL aircraft may have a low Cdi at high speed and flying straight and level, its Cdi in a hard turn will be enormous, comparatively speaking, in conditions of hard turning, climbing, or low dynamic pressure conditions (i.e. high altitude anything, or sea level slow speeds).
If that is not the case then there is practically no sense in putting a small wing to an aircraft as it will always be inferior in everything except drag creation at low level flight and at higher altitudes it is worse even in that sense?
Well, I suppose it depends on the mission of the aircraft and the tactics used. Japanese design philosophy of the era concentrated on "furball" type dogfighting ability, and so they made light, lightly wing-loaded aircraft that turned on a dime. In doing so, they accepted the tradeoff that meant their aircraft were slow and practically unarmored. If you're designing an "interceptor" type aircraft, that has design criteria that focus on speed and don't intend for them to maneuver hard, then small wings that reduce drag are logical. Even today, a lot of the newer, high-technology GA airplanes that have hit the scene in the last 10-15 years, like the Lancair aircraft, have high wing-loading so that they can achieve higher cruise speeds. And, our current military fighters, to some extent, use tiny wings matched with enormous amounts of thrust (and complex control surface systems) to achieve both very high speeds and some measure of maneuverability. Remember that the FW-190 series shares similar turning qualities as the most "successful" U.S. fighters like the P-47, P-51, etc. in a clean condition. The biggest difference for the 190 is that it doesn't develop nearly the amount of power at high altitudes as the Jug or Pony. Personally, I see some serious genius in Tank's design, its just that, in my opinion, the powerplants (excepting the 190D to some extent) were underpowered compared to their U.S. peers. If he'd had a 2800 HP powerplant available, like the R-2800 C series, late in the war, the late model FW-190As would be different beasts entirely.
When looking at FW190A8 it seems that 2000HP is not producing same speeds as its allied contemporaries with less HP. What is wrong then, propeller, form drag, too small wing?
It all boils down to power available vs. power required. The P-47, for example, performs so well at altitude, not because of its aerodynamic properties (its still big and heavy), but because its still making sea-level power at 30,000 feet. The Merlin doesn't maintain nearly as much power at the same altitude, but because of the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft, the P-51 still has the excess power necessary to perform at high altitude. Unfortunately for the 190A series, both its aerodynamic properties (small wing) and its powerplant suffer at altitude. And, at sea level, the FW-190 is much more competitive with both aircraft, even though its aerodynamic properties still create issues with respect to turning.
I've glossed over some details here, but in general, this, in my opinion, is both the reason why Tank designed the plane the way he did, and also the reason it performs the way it does.
