Okay Gents, here is my rough opinion on the four aircraft comparison (Spit, Me-109, P-51 Fw-190 + variants). I will say the time frame is the last 6 months of the war.
From my perspective aircraft can be sliced and diced in several different methods in the BFM / dogfighting arena, which is not definitive nor all inclusive (this is called leaving myself an out).
The different methods involve:
1. speed (entire envelope from slow flight, thru acceleration, to top speed both at low and high altitudes) and this is directly related to power output at a given altitude
2. turn (max g load, turn circle size both at low and higher altitudes, and energy sustainability or bleed rate)
3. weapons and the ability to employ them (mostly via gun sights or TLAR in WW2)
4. flying qualities
On the speed part of the equation some airplanes are fast up high, others are fast down low, and few dominate at all altitudes and it depends on how the motor was optimised.
As for turn, the same rules apply, and as it's been previously stated and reiterated here, planes are compromises. Some turn better higher up, some down low, and at that time of the war I don't think one dominated all others to such a degree to make a difference.
One aspect of aero which is not well understood is the discussion of AoA related profile drag - i.e. what is the contribution of adverse pressure gradients of separation of flow over wings and fuselage at high AoA related to High CL in high G maneuver... the P-51 was pretty good here but there is no indication that I could turn or climb with a Spit XIV.. but equally it would turn with 109G and K and should turn well with 152 and 190D.
My favorite weapon of them all, the gun, was in WW2 a very good weapon limited by gun sights or skill. There have been many comments by aces about letting the enemy fill your windscreen before you shoot (E. Hartmann) which takes gun sights and TLAR our of the equation. Also it means more rounds on target with a shorter trigger pull.
The K-14 computing gunsight was a game changer for guys that did not understand 3D lead concepts.
Lastly flying qualities. I say this with a grain of salt. Of the four aircraft in this comparison (I'm sure there will be spears on this), from what I have read by guys who are flying them today, the Me-109 was the most difficult of them all to fly. Cramped cockpit with so so visibility, slats that didn't employ together, poor flight control harmonization and that narrow gear for take offs and, after a taxing sortie, for landings. Having said that I also know that the top two scoring aces of all time got their kills in the 109 (and they had the lead by a huge margin). More on this later. The Spit (MkXIV) is the plane I've read the least about but shows tremendous promise due to it's engine and the airframe mod's built around that. From what I've read it was an easy plane to fly, outstanding rate of climb, and with the "blown" canopy outstanding visibility. The Mustang has had so much written about it (to the victor go the spoils and the writting of history...). I have an Eagle bud who is flying one now, and he has said that it flies great but an accelerated stall can be very tricky.
Any accelerated stall in high speed - high G for a 51 or 190 is a tricky departure - most often experienced by one not acquainted with the warning signatures.. an F-100 made both docile by comparison
Blown canopy means great vis, well harmonized flight controls means it's easy to fly, great gun sight and weapons, not the best on top speed but close, not the best on turning but close, not the best but good at everything. Lastly the Fw-190 / Ta-152H. I will use the H as my point of view. Optimised for high altitude means it will suffer at lower altitudes, well harmonized flight controls (from what I've read) meaning easy to fly, and a single lever for throttle prop and mixture means the pilot doesn't have to use brain cells to run the motor, just push it forward to go faster, pull it back to go slower. Good to excellent weapons and good visibility (not quite on par with the blown canopies, but way better than the Me-109).
Works that way with 51. Push the throttle - go fast, retard it - lots of drag
The Spit and 109 are what today could be called point defense fighters. They have big motors, small airframes, and small fuel tanks. Race cars, meant to perform well but not go far from home. The Mustang and the Ta-152 were both designed around longer flights and higher altitudes (edge here goes to the Ta-152). So if you have to go deep, the latter two are better rides, if you are staying close to the airpatch, the first two are very good choices.
With the 152 and great wing loading at high altitude - it was wonderful.. could get up there and fly well, equivalent to P-51H or slightly better - but in ETO the 152 had to be judged at 30K to 15K where several advantages at 40 K disappear. It then becomes a battle of skill and experience
Now to the point. We have seen that guys could rack up huge kill scores in planes that had what I would call bigger drawbacks, however they flew the plane in combat for years. YEARS. This means the pilot was able to overcome the deficienies in his aircraft through skill and tactics. We have also seen guys do terrible in planes (using German gun footage of guys getting hammered in Mustangs, Lightings, Spits, and Jugs) which means to me that a great handling plane can be shot down as well. I will boil my two cents down to this. The guy who was best at using his airplane in the environment it was in (high or low, fast or slow) is the winner.
On a one on one basis, IMO, this worked the same way from 1939 through Sept 2, 1945
The planes all are fairly close, but still think it comes down to who could use it the best. If you put four very new fighter pilots in these four aircraft, it would be a roll of the dice on any given day who would win. No one plane is so outstanding performance wise that it would make for a consistent winner with young guys. If you put four very experienced fighter pilots in them, one would eventually win more than the others and it would be due to him using his tool/ weapon/plane better than the other guys.
For what it is worth we are in violent agreement
If I had to pick one, I would probably go with the Ta-152 as my first choice in a pure 1 v 1 scenario. If it was many versus many, would take either the Mustang or the Spit 14 in that order, and if I had to go deep, then the Mustang alone (long legs, lots of friends / other Mustangs).
Remember, this is my OPINION only.
Let the spear chucking begin!
Cheers,
Biff