I posted this in some other thread, but think it's more relevant here, so will post it here also.
-----------------------------------------
I seem to recall low wing-loading itself does not necessarily mean a better turn.
The values and factors which output a certain result of "turning factor" is - from what I've heard - much more complicated it seems. Having a more powerful engine would mean more weight is added to the aircraft, and to amount up enough lift force for this weight, larger wings would be needed - which in turn, adds up more to weight to the aircraft total because of the larger wings. Wasn't this the case with the Messerschmitt-109 G10 which had sufficiently larger wings than its predecessors?(I think some one can confirm this) And though a plane may be lighter, it might not be able to turn so good due to other complicated reasons as well.. So, the "turning angle", "turning speed", and actual "turning rate" seems to be all different and complicated.. one big mess of math I think
I think I've read that the Ki-84 was faster than all American planes but one exception - it was slower than the P-51s.. but had a great rate of acceleration(thrust:weight ratio of 4:1). The top speed from the data i have says here 427mph at about 20k feet. And it says it's actually lighter than N1K1 here, but I dunno how it compares with the N1K2. In overall I think it's safe to say It was a less maneuverable but lot faster version of the N1K2, but wouldn't be that much of a 'great turner' if it is to be compared with other planes in pure aspect of turning - such as A6M5, N1K2 or Spitfires - but would be fast and would turn good enough to give most American planes fits.
I think we can think of it as an LA-7 that is a lot more slower but turns a bit better
