You're a 109 fanboy. I expect no more from you.
And you're a typical
rationalizer, who so often attributes the lack of one's own success to a alleged "fault" in the game, without pausing even for a second that it just might be because
you simply suck.
Occam's Razor anyone?
None the less, I am bound to point out for the benefit of others that the key is liftloading. Lift not only determines climbing ability, it also determines turning ability.
Cockamamie heap of bullshi* if you ask me.
Unless you want to rewrite the entire history of aerophysics itself the two prime factors of determining turn performance is wing-loading and powerloading, none other. Turning a plane is essentially climbing function which the plane's lift is redirected to make it possible to initiate and sustain the turn itself, which is what makes the wing-loading in most cases the primary factor in turn performance. However it is also a motion inducing heavy amounts of drag, which is where the power loading becomes so important, since a favorable figure indicates the plane has enough excess thrust to overcome the drag induced by the turn itself.
A good lift loading is at best a supplementary concept which includes in the equation the areas of the plane besides the wing that might be able to produce additional lift.
Here you come so far as to claim a plane that is both severely heavier in mass, and has substantially heavier weight for each square foot of the wing to support during the turning motion, should outturn a plane which both key elements of turing far more favorable.
Simply put, you are claiming that P-38 which its own two wings must bear far more weight, and its engine must work much harder, can turn better than a lighter 109 less than half its own weight with lighter weight to bear on each of the wings, and a more powerful power-to-mass ratio.
In order for that to be possible the areas of the P-38 excluding the engine and the wings must produce either thrust, lift, or both, which is large enough to overcome the clear initial disadvantages. So just how exactly does the torso of the P-38 produce lift or thrust that is powerful to overcome the differences in the two most important factors measured for determining turn performance? Equipped with a anti-grav field generator or something? Kelly Johnson made the P-38 into a "flying wing"?
The P-38 has a fantastic lift loading
for a plane of its size and weight. A plane with two engines, double the number of fuselage, double the weight of its contemporaries, and yet competitive enough to function as a day fighter. However, that's just about it. Other bits and parcels of its 'magic' comes from its torqueles characteristic, efficient flaps, and skill of the pilots which under certain conditions made it possible to outturn planes with potentially better turning capabilities -
not from the plane itself.
The P-38 had a fantastic climb rate of approximately 4,800 feet per minute at war emergency power. Your foolish wingloading argument sort of falls apart there.
You seem to have this
peculiar way of thought that words like
fantastic or
great apply to only one of contendors. For some reason if one plane is "fantastic" in a certain area, you automatically assume that others were not.
Ironically, the simple fact that no P-38 ever outclimbed a contemporary 109 discloses your delusion for what it is. As fantastic as the P-38 was in climbing, there were
better fish in the pool. One of them by chance, turns out to be of German construction, whether you like it or not.
