Karnak, I know it is way beyond your ability to imagine, but consider that just dividing the weight by the wing area may not be the only thing that nature does... As far as I know, reality still tells the math what to do, not the other way around... (Something a lot of professional engineers would do well to consider as well)
190A having a better sustained turn than the Spit....what universe?
This universe:
-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and
their superior turning circle. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost eight to their one that day..."
Here is a quote from RCAF Hurricane pilot John Weir (John Weir link is no longer direct):
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/s..._101/SF_101_03 "A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable,
much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't.
A Spit was a higher wing loading..."
"
The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots)
could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know." Note that the guy here speaks of the REAL wingloading, the one he actually observed in real combat, not the theoretical claptrap...
And this guy:
"It was just a matter of time and he would have me in his sights" Love it...
Other pointers: According to wartime RAE tests, the Spitfire Mk V turned the same as the Mk IX at all altitudes... Only on the vertical was the difference in performance hugely in favour of the Mk IX...
According to someone I know at Planes of Fame, who have had both marks in flying condition to compare, the Mk V definitely out turns the Mk IX.
If you want to explore alternate universes be my guest,
but in sustained horizontal turns of more than one circle at low altitude, I've never found a single instance of the Spitfire out-turning the FW-190 in hundreds of air combat... When it does it is always after a huge dive and at high altitudes, as the Spit always boom and zooms and never tries to turn-fight, the exact opposite of the P-47D in over 600 combat reports you can read from one source (Mike William's WWII Aircraft Performance site)...
KG 200: "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G" Source: "On Special Missions: KG 200"
Russian front-line opinion of the Bf-109?:
"Horizontal maneuverability in a Me-109 is not that great."
"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight.
"the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."
In fact, as I said, the Spit was so poor at sustained turn-fighting the Russians tried removing the outer guns... The Tsagi 17.5 seconds numbers are probably calculated or not level turns: Like a lot of WWII data, and even a lot of test data, it never even remotely ressembles the real-life performance.
Find me low-speed accounts of the Spitfire out-turning the FW-190A and I will be deliriously happy
... You'll have to excuse me if I won't be holding my breath though
...
Gaston
