Everything I've read, and heard (from interviews - we got to interview a LW pilot with decent Fw 190D-9 time for SSIs 'LW Commander' - yeah the game sucked but some of the interviews were really interesting) stated that the Fw 190D-9 was superior in handling to the Fw 190A-8, etc.
Too many guys in WB treated the D-9 like a 'really fast Fw 190A'. That's not the case. I've never had a problem getting a tracking gun solution on a Fw 190A, in WB or in AH, when I was in a Fw 190D-9.
No gun weight in the wings, more power, far, far less frontal area (about 1/10 of 1 square foot more effective frontal area than a P-51D), etc.
From:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html#RTFToC1"At first, Luftwaffe pilots were somewhat suspicious of their new fighter, since the Jumo 213 was thought to be only a "bomber" engine. However, it soon became apparent that they had a winner on their hands. The "Dora" could out-climb and out-dive its BMW 801-powered predecessor with ease, and it possessed an excellent turning rate at speed. An experienced pilot could pull a tighter turn in a D-9 than he could with the BMW-powered FW-190A. The general opinion of the pilots who flew the FW 190D-9 was that it was the finest propeller-driven fighter available to the Luftwaffe during the entire war. In fact, many of its pilots considered it more than a match for the redoubtable P-51D Mustang."
(Note the comment about how an 'experienced' pilot could out turn a Fw 190A in a Fw 190D...much like the P-47, P-51, etc. of AH - an experienced stick can get more alot more out of certain aircraft...also plays into my comment about people flying/treating/thinking of the Fw 190D as a 'Fw 190A with more HP, 2 cannon, and better high altitude performace', as opposed to an entirely different aircraft).
I don't know where some would get the idea that the Fw 190D-9 wasn't more agile than most of it's opponents.
It had noticably better power to weight ratio than the P-51D at all altitudes (look at the power curve vs. altitude for the P-51D's engine, then look at the engine for the Fw 190D-9, boosted and unboosted, to see what I mean), which more than made up for the 10% wing area advantage the P-51D had. A laminar flow wing like that on the P-51D is great for speed, much less efficient than a normal wing (in terms of energy retention) in medium-high AoA situations.
It had better power to weight and wing loading when compared to the P-47 (any 'C' or 'D' model, I don't know the #s on the post 'D' models very well) - the P-47 was a great aircraft no doubt. It was also heavy as my sch-, well, you get the idea I think.
The Spitfire XIV could out sustained turn it. People seem to forget that that higher wing loading often means better instantaneous turn (which is likely why the P-47 was more feared by LW pilots than the P-51...great diving speed, great performance at altitude, great inst. turn, 8 x .50 BMG to use on the deflection shots the inst. turn gave the P-47, etc.).
I was ME/AE in college. Back in the WB days I 'built' NACA 'simulation models' of most of these aircraft. The Fw 190D-9 is one of the most underrated/misunderstood aircraft of WW2.
DISCLAIMER: I am biased. The Fw 190D-9 has been my favorite aircraft since age 4 or so. Don't forget this means that I've spent more time learning about it than most.
Mike/wulfie
(edit: clarified that P-47/Fw 190D-9 comparison applied to 'C' and 'D' P-47s)
