"Starting from the Bf 109F and Fw 190A, the Germans tended to increase wing area during the developement, particularly in the case of the high altitude variants."
190 early models came with two wings which the larger one was finally selected (also caused by the change from 139 to 801). With 109 the wing area got smaller after 109E but the proile was altered. With TA152H the 190 series lost what was the best characteristic of the series: high speed maneuverability and G tolerance. Its assets were altitude, and high speed, not maneuverability.
"The Fw 190 is a good example how slightly larger airframe than the Bf 109 can carry considerably more internally without drag of the external load, the G.55 is another good example."
Regarding the gun armament I only know that Galland had a special 109F model with MG FFs in the wings and the gondola attachment still required a big opening in the wing for the clip, so leaving the wing guns out of design was a choice which was not dictated by the structure. But of course 109 was such a small airplane that when the need for bigger armament became issue there simply was not ample of room in the fuselage. But it surely was a brainfart to put a huge bump in the cowling when it could have been done better as was evident in Gallands other F which already had 13mms with a lot smaller, streamlined bump. So he actually had two special models with different armaments which neither of then was produced as such but slightly altered, but not to the better but to the worse.
Again it can be seen that a design is a compromise and surely there are "sweet spots" in design where limitations and demands meet and if we consider, say P51 and Bf109, the difference is clear: P51 is an escort fighter, large enough to carry lots of internal fuel and long low drag wing to enable low fuel consumption on cruising, whereas Bf109 is clearly a short range interceptor.
I can't comment on G55.
-C+
