Also, you might want to consider the conversation up to this point. Nobody's been saying "The 109 was uber!" or "it's way undermodeled!" or "it should turn 3x (5x?) tighter than it does in AH!!!". Nobody said that, leaving me wondering why you brought this up in the first place.
He's just repeating what's been already said and over, Krusty, with most resident P-38 experts of AH agreeing to the premise that the P-38 can not match a contemporary 109 in pure turn performance. It's basically a heap of clever warps and strategical omissions in regards to various facts to bring up the P-38 into levels which it was not at.
For instance;
"Using just these figures, the sustained turn rates the sustained turn rates should be similar but the Me-109 should have a somewhat smaller turning circle because there is less inertia to overcome."
.. except, when you use
"just those figures", there's no way the two planes should be
"similar".
[b]Question[/b]: How could it be [i]"similar"[/i] when [i]"just those figures"[/i] state a clear advantage to the 109?
[b]Answer[/b]: He warped [i]"those figures"[/i] in a vague generalization that fits his taste.
He "generalizes" the engine thrusts of both planes to 2,000hp... which clearly is a problem. Both planes are 'overrated' to 2,000hp for 'simplicity', but considering the official boost levels for both engines the Allisons on the P-38 get a strange advantage in this '2,000hp simplification'. Pretty clever.
Another strategical omission of vital data; understating the typical combat load of the P-38 by about 2,500 pounds, whereas he overstates the combat load of the Bf109 by almost 1,000 pounds. The 109 takes the clear advantage in accelertion rate, climb performance, and powerloading with these factors. The 109 also has a much smaller wing loading. Yet, he reduces all the meaning of this by generalizing everything.
Therefore, to him, the two planes, using
"just those figures", start from a equal point in turn performance... which means he can prove the superiority of the sustained turn by a P-38 by dragging in the drag and aspect ratio, and the flaps. Since both planes are about 'equal' in the turn performance with
"just those figures" alone, an advantage in the drag, aspect ratio, and flap efficiency should prove that the P-38 is a clear winner.
Unfortunately, none of what he wishes being true, using the powerloading and wingloading alone the 109 is
already at an considerable advantage. Whatever additional, critical factors that work towards the P-38's favor can only work as a means to make up for its loss, not a means to prove its overall superiority when it comes to turn performance.
The rest of his post is basically the same thing sort of thing all over. A lot of more fiddlin' around with numbers and concepts to uphold the 38 and downtrod the 109 in his statement. For example, he doesn't take into consideration that there were significant efforts to improve the drag characteristics of the 109s. Covering up the "warts and bumps" was already a common practice by 1944, not to mention that many 109s had its tail wheels retracting.
Or how about his inconsiderate use of the aspect ratio? The Spitfire has an aspect ratio of about 5.6, lower than both the P-38 and the 109, and yet it outturns both the 109 and the P-38 (unless he starts claiming the P-38 outturned Spits, too). This is due to the fact that the effect of the planform of the wing to a plane's perfromance is a much more complicated matter than just a comparison of general numbers, and yet he doesn't mention them. He just says the P-38 is an "8", and a 109 is a "6", so it means the P-38 is better. However, whatever the advantage the P-38 holds over the 109 in drag/lift relationship is more like to merely equalize its initial disadvantages of the pure physical. The advantage in overall excess thrust the 109 has is already enough to overcome the disadvantages in drag characteristics.
Or the flaps? A flap with 30% efficiency is a flap that generates 30% more lift than the amont of
additional lift provided by a normal flap. It doesn't mean overall 30% advantage to the entire profile of the plane turning. While not as efficient as the fowlers the 109s had their own flaps, and pilots were prone to use it when deemed necessary - to increase camber, increase lift, containing the overall stall, and tightening the turn radius - during a slow speed engagement. So is a slab of metal sticking out the back of the wing enough to push a 17,000 lbs plane ahead of something half its weight during a turn? I don't think so.
Another factor which he is either forgetting or not mentioning, is the 109 has its own ace-in-the-hole when it comes to turning. If the P-38 has the fowlers, then the 109 has the slats. A significantly helpful device to the pilot in moments that required him to "ride along the stall", sufficiently increasing the CLmax and delaying the limits of the turn.
So if I were you Krusty, I wouldn't give it a serious glance. Like someone already mentioned, he's the mirror version of Isegrim to WW2 aviation boards, nothing more.
