Just a few observations.
1.Not sure why you felt it important to include the La7 - was much lighter than La5... No German La7 test?
Actually, the La-7 is marginally heavier, but at the same time, it's massively cleaner than the La-5FN (compare speeds, it's same engine. BiG WOW! for Soviet airframe designers!!!)
3. Spit was not at 25lbs boost - at 1690hp it would be 16 or 18lbs), but I am not sure how much that would effect the test (alt dependant). More power would help turn rate.
Hmmm. The 25 Lbs boost Spit IX is really an 1945 thing. As for boost, let's keep in mind that the Russians tested the G-2 at 1.3ata, and 1310 PS, a boost rating that was valid between May 1942 - October 1943. It's contemporary during 1942 was the Spit IXF with the Merlin 61 at +15 lbs boost, and about 1390 HP at SL. The Spitfire the Soviety tested was a later, IXLF low altitude variant with merlin 66, +18 lbs ratings and 1690 HP at SL, that appeared in early 1943, but did not become really widespread until late 1943 or more so 1944. As a matter of fact, until late 1943, Mark Vs were predominant over MkIXs in the RAF. One could say, 1942 and 1943 was 'bleak time' for the RAF, at least for Spitfire Squadrons, going up in a MkV vs. a 109F is bad enough, going up in MkV vs. a Bf 109G is pure horror, especially at altitude.
Obviously, the earlier +15 Spit IXF with the less (by as much as 300 HP less) power would obviously turn worser than the later +18 Spit IXLF, and the G-2 would turn better with it's full 1.42ata boost (1475 PS at SL), cleared in October 1943, than w. the early 1942 boost of 1.3ata.
In fact, I am quite convinced that a fair, early +15/1.3ata, and later +18/1.42ata boost comparisons would show rather similiar turn times than directly comparing a late IXLF with an early G-2.
More power definietely helps turn rate though not at all speeds. At very low speeds, turn time is limited by stall speed, however the best turn time is alway developed at higher speed region than this. Faster planes outturn slower planes near the latters max speed and obviously, beyond.
IMHO, Yak3 @ 17sec might have been large radius and fast turn rate, this might explain why it did well even with higher wingloading (did anyone mention taper angle of wing plan shape?). R value would have been nice to know but russkies left this out. Did Yak3 have as small an R value as XI? We just don't know...
Actually the Yak3 had a large radius of turn, ca 290m (identical to the G-2 in Soviet tests, ie. 285 meters, presumably clean version as they don't say for certain), the Spit IXLF is given at 235 meters.
The whole Yak3 was added on my part to demonstrate how wrong is tunneled vision approach that wingloading is the sole determining factor, the last word on turn rate. Of course he does that because the sole good factor about the Spit is low wingloading, and Hop is a die-hard Spitfire fan who'd argue anything in favour of his beloved plane (I can tell, I know him for what, 5-6 years...? Seen it all already.
)
It isn't, wingloading determines turn radius, and helps a bit turn time, but turn time is far more power and drag sensitive, as the Yak-3s case clearly demonstrates. OTOH, turn time is far more important than radius, as turn time will determine who will get a lead shot on the other first.
btw, slats do deploy one before another on 109 and that unequal deployment WAS disconserting to pilots (and still was pressent on Buchon ie G2 wing).
Appearantly not. I guess it was eliminated either by the wing redesign of the 109F (amongst others, it now used Frise ailerons) or the fact that the 109late-F/G/K used roller bearings instead of roller arms for deploying the slats.
Here's Dave Soutwood on flying 'Black Six' (Bf 109G-2/trop)
The 109 Lair- The Online Source for Messerschmitt 109 information
"One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this."
PS : I very much agree with Twitch about the "usefullness" of turns in combat tactics, still, for me it's somehow still interesting to learn how these factors work and what different designs resulted.. It's also about a bit of myth-debunking. 8)