Have to disagree 100%. Any P47 (with the exception of the 'N') at low altitude is a poor performer compared with most 190's but at 25,000ft a P47D completely out performs all the 190's, even the Dora 9. 190's have quite poor high altitude turbo chargers and extremely high wing loading so they stall allot in the thin air.

Some 109's have excellent low speed turning circles due to the wing slats, low wing loading and high power to weight ratio. I would never try to out turn a 109, probably with the exception of the K4. 190's also at high speed can have quite a good instantaneous turn for about 90 degrees. At 400mph a Dora can out turn quite a few good low speed turners.

in the total absence of any counter-argument I do declare the mosquito the winner on planet blighty. If anyone disagrees they are obviously a shandy drinking la-la...

now bring on the wooden wonder in DLC or in true British tradition I will stand around looking cross whilst tutting and shaking my head. You've been warned:mad:
________
BUY SILVER SURFER VAPORIZER

Best fighters are

Germany: 109Gs, FW190... Actually there are no bad planes at their times in Luftwaff

Soviet: Yak-3s, Lavochkin planes. others are shits..Migs, LaGGs, Ishaks

US: P47, P51D ( only late versions not allison engine P51s ther are shits too) I don't know pacific air war all I know is that that is not as big as Eastern Front Air wars

GB: Spitfires . Others are shits Hurricane...etc

Jap: Mzeros, Ki47

If u fight like Hartmann style u prefer more fast P51D merline engine or MS109K
If u fight like Turn fighters u prefer Yak-3P or Zeros.

how is your goose stepping coming along...?

I think if you listen to the remaining pilots of the many planes you describe as "shits" they'd have a very different view...not many "bad workmen" there...

And ironically enough most of the "shits" were on the winning side...

oh well, at least there's hope of dismissiveness becoming an olympic sport.
________
Xt225

u think the zero is a good plane? dont make me laugh it was only successful because the american aircraft were F4F wildcats which r terible and they lost big time when corsair and hellcat were introduced

The A6M was a good plane. It was probably the best thing in the pacific until 1943. The F4F wasn't bad either, just the tactics employed when using them was bad. The USN then listened to Chenault on tactics that works on a slower but superior turning aircraft.

Perhaps that is because I tend to fly lower down, in the 5-15,000ft range, and my experience is based on that. This is where the 190s perform best, especially the BMW 801 engined variants.

Some 109's do indeed have quite good turning circles, especially the F and early G models, but I have never heard anyone say the 109 had a low wing loading. The E has a high wing loading for its period, the F, my favourite 109, has a fairly typical wing loading compared to its contemporaries and from the G onwards the wing loading is average to high. The 109 can turn well at low speed but is a poor high speed turner and has a poor instantaneous turn, while the 190 is good because it loses less of its turning ability as speed increases than most other fighters.

The F has typical wing loading (if has a different wing to the E but it was still a good turner) but as I say, a very good power to weight ratio. The G's are still good knife fighters and the G2 is pretty hot.

Probably the most comprehensive details anywhere, net, book or otherwise on the 109 are here: http://www.kurfurst.org/

The 190's ability to turn tight in the first 90 degrees at high speed is the reason why the 109's can't, the stick force needed to move the elevators at those speeds.

true but the A6M's slow roll cut away half its advantage plus if it did a vertical dive the wings were at risk of coming off

bigger picture really- the zeros major plus point was its big range for such a small plane (in it's day)- that and the japs stripped it bare to save weight-including safety features- good for maneouvres-bad for keeping your good pilots alive...
________
EPILEPSY ADVICE