i get a kick out of these kinds of mathematical evaluations. its like quoting the statistics... you can make them work for you in just about any instance and prove what ever point you wish to contend. most of the times the planes they evaluate were not armored, fully armed for combat as designed, and carrying combat loads ( ammo, fuel, etc ) or were prototypes. when it comes down to matching things up on paper vs reality...shortly after that came the birth of the cliche "looked good on paper". many ac impressed engineers, designers, and buyers in blueprint from. but when the wheels came up and air went over the wings for the first time, the other famous cliche was spawned, " back to the drawing board". no one ever in their right mind tried to design an aircraft that was a dismal failure. but if you do a little research you will see where a vast amount never met the specs their designs boasted they would . some were salvaged by mods and upgrades others were scraped completely. i read one gentlemen's argument about turn radius and blah blah blah....all based on the 109s slats....of course if never dawned on him that pony jocks would dump 10 or 20 degrees of flaps at that speed...and all things were equal again ( and this data is missing in most of those graphs). i pretty much go with the "they who were there" evidence that many dismiss as biased. but these guys learned how to get the most out of their ac and found a few tricks ( designers and engineers never thought of ) to get a tad more and give them the edge when they needed it. here's a link to a ton of 51 pilot reports. scroll down thru the different headings...first is General Interest...then comments pertaining to: engine boost, dives, turns, use of combat flaps and finally the k-14 gunsite. i am sure somewhere someone will find ( and wish i could...i have looked) 109 pilots saying the same thing in reverse...but i have yet to see as many as this.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-reports.html