Shemp, i lost the line somewhere, but if the 152 has a better Lift/Drag ratio, it means that the airframe was more effective/clean design than the f4u's.
Assuming L/D is fixed for an airplane couldn't be further from the truth. L/D varies greatly & non-linearly with Cl and airspeed, thus extrapolating L/D comparisons between airplanes for one Cl & airspeed for all other Cl's & airspeeds is folly.
The hog can still produce more lift than the 152, but its drag will be much more. Its WAY more powerful engine could pull that more draggy airframe just as fast (or faster) than the aerodinamically more advanced 152.
Projecting sustained turn performance requires solving a set of partial differential equations simultaneously. People making sustained turn performance statements from generalities are X-Men mutants able to run numerical solutions for simultaneous PDE's in their brains, or they are making wild assertions based on pseudo-physics and don't know it.
Constraining sustained turn analysis for a turn when thrust exactly balances out drag solves the PDE problem. This reduces it to specific cl, cd, weight, thrust, & velocity satisfying the condition for a turn where thrust=drag. Though more simplified, because of non-linearity's, making turn performance conclusions from generalities is simply fanciful speculation without knowing the cl, cd, weight, thrust, & velocity that satisfy thrust=drag in a turn.
Please repeat after me. Aero-DY-NAM-ICS.