Again, none of your quotes offer any quantifiable data. There is nothing there that invalidates the AH FW190 flight model. There is nothing to explain or defend. You don't have an argument.
Sorry, but when the FW-190A is said to out-turn the Spitfire as a matter of a "general common sense statement", with no contradictory combat account, that
is a
general quantitative statement. General, but
quantitative nonetheless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Johnson: "I asked the Spitfire for
all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech.-
It could only be a question of time..."
John Weir:"A Hurricane 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."
"-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."
------------------------------------------------------------------
If concrete real-life value
X is said to be always greater than concrete real life value
Y, then that is not a
quantitative statement?
You are saying because we don't know what value
X is, there is no conclusion that can be drawn from its relationship to value
Y?
Are you sure a scientist would stand behind this statement?
There is another (equally sad) argument that was brought up to muddy the waters of what is a perfectly clear situation:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"-Turning and handling superiority could be related to
high speeds, so that the superiority depicted could have been the result of good response at
high speed."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So for this statement: "-Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer
turning battle at a minimum speed."
What
that really meant, then, is that turning was superior at
high speeds, so that what the text actually refers to is
the minimum of those high speeds...
If that was the intended meaning, "the large range of speeds" earlier in the sentence requires the rest of the sentence to say: "at the minimum of the
higher range of those speeds."
Reading that this sentence, the way it is structured, is meant to say the
higher portion of that "large range of speeds", is a perfect illustration of intellectual dishonesty.
But there is plenty elsewhere to dispel any notion of good high speed FW-190A handling:
-------------------------------------------
-"Pulling out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)." [Meaning after levelling out, continues sinking nose up]
-"Turning
above 250 mph: The P-47 easily out-turned the FW-190 at 10 000 ft., and had to throttle back to avoid overrunning the FW-190."
-Red Fleet La-5 vs FW-190: "Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible."
-Eric Brown ("Duels in the Sky") p. 128: "Care must be taken on dive pull-out
not to kill speed by sinking, or on the dive's exit the FW-190 will be very slow and vulnerable."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I fact there is no indication anywhere (except when Kurt Tank mentions light stick forces per G with no maneuverability information), that the FW-190A has anything but terrible handling at higher speeds.
This alone invalidates any notion that the dozens of quotes I provided could be interpreted as "
good high speed handling". There is no account of good high speed turning for the FW-190A. In fact,
all the battles (and everything else) point to the opposite: The FW-190A-5's "
tendency to black out the pilot" of SC 1718 is very revealing: It shows the FW-190A could inflict
punishing Gs by "sinking" tail-out...
If it was the
turn that made the pilot "black out", then it would be the
turn "tending to punish the pilot": If it is not the
turn punishing the pilot, then it is because it is the
aircraft that is decelerating, tail outward, in a loose turn...
And a loose turn is not good high speed handling.
The deceleration then is the fault of the aircraft, not of the turn, as Eric Brown explains when he says "kill speed by sinking".
And "sinking", by the way, that's
also pretty bad...
"Sinking" is
not good high speed handling: Brrr!
Gaston