I just wanted to add some corrective information that has come to light in further research in the year since I have put out the "definitive" version of my "Air Force" variant online:
I have in the last year re-read hundreds of WWII air combat accounts and combat reports which I had already used to determine relative aircraft performance. This with particular attention to the (very) murky area of turn rate... New information has put new light on two types: The P-47D Thunderbolt and the A6M5 Zero.
For the P-47D, I am more and more convinced the earlier Razorback version I choose to depict had, in real-life, a better sustained turn rate than the later Bubbletop P-47D, and this even with the needle-tip prop. This comes from noting the obvious crushing superiority in sustained horizontal turns that the earlier P-47D displays at ALL altitudes vs the Me-109G in late 1943 to early 1944. This is very consistent in hundreds of original pilot combat reports, and I more recently noted how this superiority was gradually disapearing in the later 1944 period, especially when compared to the largely unchanged FW-190A-8.
This was in the last year correlated by a Luftwaffe evaluation of an early, slightly underpowered, needle-tip P-47D Razorback that the Germans captured and tested, which report I had not seen before. Their conclusion?: An unqualified "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G". (Source: "On Special Missions". KG 200) This puts the early P-47D Razorback in the rough sustained turn area of a late Spitfire, or close to the FW-190A at low speeds (at least when turning to the left). Contrary to popular belief, the FW-190A, unlike the FW-190D, matched or usually slightly out-turned all Marks of Spitfires in prolonged sustained horizontal turns (more closely represented as Turn in the game, as opposed to unsustained turns: Slip in the game)...
I feel my Data Card, as depicted, is still very accurate for the later Bubbletop P-47D, but if you want to really depict an accurate earlier P-47D Razorback, I would recommend the following changes:
1-Reduce all Maneuver Speed (Green) Slip/Turn values by -1, using the Pink number only as a starting point.
2-On top of that, the -1 Turn value still applies, but now it is applied only to LEFT. (Result: Turn (NOT Slip) Maneuver Requirement to LEFT at 4.9: 1)
3-Use Orange Power Factors even with the Needle-tip prop (but no changes to the available Max. Climb Rates depending on prop).
The changes for the A6M5 Zero are due to a better understanding that Power Factors should reflect more the drag in turns than actual engine power:
1-Add +1 Power Factor (2 total at 4.9) if a Slip/Turn is made, this only up to 24.9.
2-Add +2 Power Factors (3 total at 4.9) if a Slip/Turn is made to LEFT, this only up to 14.9.
Otherwise the A6M5 could not sustain prolonged turns with US fighters despite a Slip/Turn requirement of 0... (I neglected extensively test-playing this type...)
P.S.: I know there are US and UK tests of the early P-47D that are at odds with the above, but for reasons too long to explain here, I think a large number of combat reports is more reliable. In addition to this, the German tests mentioned sealed the case in my view... They knew their own Me-109G much better than the Allies did...
See over 600 P-47D combat reports here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-r...
I am bumping this in case it is of interest to Air Force fans not aware of my "Advanced" variant...
Follow me for wargames!
Maybe you should post this in the forums dedicated to Air Force?
Or at least in the Wargames subforums?