Actually in every test conducted by both the RAF and Luftwaffe that I've ever read, the 190 turned worse than any Spitfire. In fact, in RAF tests, for some reason, it turned a little better than a 109G.
But that's besides the point. For the record I DO think the 190 should turn better but it CANNOT turn better than a Mk.V given equal pilots with equal energy states.
If you're referring to the article where Johnnie Johnson was out turned by a Fw 190 in his Spitfire Mk.V, you are actually quite mistaken.
Now before you rant and go crazy, let me say it was TRUE that Johnson was out turned by that 190 in his Spitfire V. And I'm not making excuses here when I say that Johnson could have easily been tired or something, a fact we CANNOT simulate in any game with any degree of real accuracy.
In another excerpt from the same article, he states that the Spitfire IX out turned the 190 easily. But how does this make sense at all? A 1941 Spitfire Vb's wing loading is less than 27 lb./sq. ft when fully loaded with fuel and ammo. The Fw 190's is somewhere past 40 lb./sq. ft. The Spitfire IX's is somewhere around 30 lb./sq.ft. Wing loading is not the only factor in turning ability, but with WWII planes, it's generally a good indicator of turning ability. But with the Spitfire IX and Spitfire V having virtually the same airframe with the IX having much better performance, they should turn similarly. In fact, RAF tests say they turn the same.
You must remember all the factors that determine how a plane turns in real life. In the article, there is little to no indication of energy states, pilot condition (i.e. wounds, tiredness, etc.), pilot ability to sustain G's or aircraft condition. No two aircraft ever perform the same whether they both are Spitfire Vb's or Fw 190A-5's.
|