Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Rate of turn has very little to do with rate of climb. The only thing that links rate of climb to turn at all is excess power, which is need to sustain a steep turn. The rate of turn depends in airspeed and bank angle, but you need sufficient lift and excess power to sustain a level turn if that is your aim. So, while the rate of turn depends on arispeed and bank angle, it assumes sufficient lift and power are available. If not, you will descend while turning (insufficient power) or stall (insufficient lift).
Galland was outmaneuvered by Spitfires on at least two occasions causing him to both run out of fuel plus he climbed vertically as steep as he could and fired his guns hoping the smoke from the exhaust and guns plus showering the pursuing Spit in empty casings would persuade it to give up, I don't know his name but one of the leaders of JG26 also mentioned he didn't like it in JG26's biography because of the reasons explained, what you do read about in everything air combat was the split S.
Not at 400+mph in a 109 though
The pilot is well strapped in in a 109, his head can't hit the canopy unless he was rather tall, which would be a rarity. Rall was a good friend, he never mentioned anything that you claim.
This is my opinion so take it as such, I think the 109 pilots did bunt over, a more accurate term but only at the very start before rolling into a split S, from a pursuing Spit/Hurricane it would look like a negative G dive as they shot past, like I said my opinion reading pilots notes/reports.
Watch from 5:40, the British pilots head is level with the top windscreen frame and he is a small man, the German pilot is larger but look at how much room he has in the Spitfire.
It seems that this might have been a key factor in the initial preference for maneuverability that the Japanese had prior to Pearl Harbor, with fast designs such as the Ki-28 rejected in favor of nimbler designs like the Ki-27, a preference bolstered by the experiences of pilots over China. The Japanese just seemed to be 3-5 years, at best, behind the designs of other powers in terms of speed, with the main weakness being engine power. Even the smaller economy of Italy was able to produce the overpoweringly fast Macchi M.C.72 in 1931, with indigenous engine design, albeit with two engines mated together, with a configuration similar to that of the still slower, non-indigenous-engined failure that was the Ki-64, which flew over a decade later. The closest Japanese aircraft with Japanese engines in terms of speed, recorded speed anyways, was the twin-engined Ki-83; I'm unsure about the veracity of the >750km/h speed that has been mentioned on occasion, and of the speeds of late-war aircraft like the Ki-87. On a side note, I've noticed that there is quite a number of Japanese aircraft close to, above, or below 580km/h in terms of maximum airspeed, a bit of an oddity I've noticed (Ki-61-I, Ki-100, Ki-44-I, N1K1-J, Ki-102b, as examples). All this doesn't speak well to Imperial Japan's industrial capacity and self-sufficiency, and calls into question its status as a major power of the time.
Never said everyone nosed over to avoid getting shot down.
He also never claimed that?
What exactly do you mean "performance?"
Gary / Gents,
You can take a look in this forum, there is a lot of topics covering japanese aircraft, and many contemporary docs can be found, as well as Allied flight tests and assessments.
The AM34 (and later versions) were based on the M17, which was a license built BMW V1 V12. Development did remove it from it's origins (just like the Klimov M100s Shevestov radials diverged from the H-S 12Y and Wright Cyclone respectively), but it was still the starting point. Not to mention an AM42 taken from an Il-10 that was being restored showed the supercharger assembly, which looks like it was cribbed directly (design-wise) from a single stage Allison.
