I Disagree, I quoted from a source that you know Closterman that the Tempest should not get invovled in a slow turning match the the Me109 as the 109 could turn better. I also gave you a live example of a low speed turning battle where the Tempest performed better than the Fw190 in a turning fight.So far it is YOU who hasn't addressed directly any of the evaluations I presented, and I have presented far more than you...
The last quote above doesn't square well with your contention that a FOUR minutes turn fight of Tempests with FW-190As would have ended worse with Me-109Gs...This is the only one that I found, I notice that you haven't quoted any despite your belief that they were the bread an butter type of combat
Four minutes by the way means around 10-12 consecutive 360° turns: See, these fights are not that hard to find... Try now and duplicate that on a computer game based on current "theory"...
I don't like saying this but if you have read as much as you seem to by Closterman then you must have forgotten. He flew both extensively, you may also want to read up on Beumount a pilot who knew the Tempest best.The Tempest is not known for its agility? Never heard of anything along those lines,
You must be slipping, quoting flight tests by establishments, those same people you are quick to put down as being out of touch. If you could supply a link to this it would be appreciated. If the tests were undertaken at high speed then I could understand it as the Me109 locked up badly whereas the Fw didn't. If the tests were done at low speed then I admit I would need to think again.but why don't you check the Britsh RAE evaluation of the Me-109G vs the P-51B WITH FULL DROP TANKS? "The P-51B easily out turns the Me-109G even with full drop tanks." Against the FW-190A the same P-51B WITHOUT DROP TANKS: "there is little to choose between them" (Source: Le Fana de L'aviation.)
I totally agree however this tactic applies to any aircraft and is my best estimate as to what happened in the combat with JJ which you quote so frequently.Again, the Me-109G performance in sustained turns benefited from downthrottling: According to Fin Me-109G ace Karhila, the optimal speed to sustain turns (downthrottled) in the Me-109G-6 was... All the way down to 160 MPH (250 km/h)!
Where on earth did you get this from?Against the Me-109G the Tempest was found to be superior turning to the Messeschmitt fighter, but about equal to the FW-190A, which kind of fits well with the 4 minutes 12 X 360° turns example provided by Clostermann, wouldn't you say?
Oh yes, I have and believe that at slow speed the 109 would have a good advantage over the P47Quote, Glider: "As for the P47 I have never said that it could turn inside the Me 109."
My favourite quote all thread! Hohooo... Have you read a SINGLE ONE of the 600 combat accounts on the P-47 "encounter reports" I linked?
P-47 Encounter Reports
Maybe you have never said that because you know nothing of the relative turn performance of the P-47D vs the Me-109G?
On the subject of combat reports I notice that you haven't taken up my offer regarding the subject of slow turning combat being the bread and butter of air combat up to 80%.
I repeat it just in case you missed it.
I suggest that you can pick ANY of those combat reports in the links you gave and I will analyse the ten either side of it. If the result is even 50% of the combat reports involve sustained turning combats then I will apologise. Note that I am not even saying 80% but 50%, and am giving you the option of selecting the start point. You will not get a better chance than this. All the evidence will be in the open and I will not be able to manipulate the information.