The B never saw service, but I did note the earlier Razorback Ds or Cs did better in sustained turning combat than the later Paddle-Blade equipped Razorbacks, and more so the Bubbletops.
Unlike the shorter B, here the nose length from Razorbacks to Bubbletops was the same, but the prop was now always a paddle-blade prop on the Bubbletop, and the Bubbletop was also heavier with more power.
On this point, it should be noted some P-47D pilots are on the record stating the Paddle-blade prop and the extra power of water-injection did improve their relative turn rate vs the Me-109G, but the actual combat reports generally leave me sceptical on this point, as they were doing quite a bit better in combat doing sustained turns in late 43 and early 44 than in early 45...
One aspect that might give them this perception is if you have more climb rate and acceleration, you can then climb higher easier, to then make a prop-unloading descending turn, or you can reach a higher speed in shorter straight lines, which then allows you to pull more Gs while burning more speed.
For sustained speed level turns, however, the less powerful needle-tip prop Razorback seemed to offer a more significant advantage margin: An underpowered Razorback P-47D with needle-tip prop was tested by the Germans of KG 200, and their conclusion was unequivocal: "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G" (Source: "On Special Missions, KG 200")
In paralell to this, on the issue of nose length, I have a link to a 1946 test of a "long-nose" FW-190D-9, and the results are surprising considering the reputation of this aircraft:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...d-fw190d-9.pdf
Quote: "1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."
Any advantage this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW-190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics."
By contrast, notice the huge and seemingly unexpected jump in handling performance of shortening the nose in the two following types:
LaGG-3 to La-5 and Ki-61 to Ki-100...
Contrary to popular lore, the shorter-nose radial conversions were in both cases
heavier than the longer nose type they replaced, by 200 lbs and 100 lbs respectively...
Yet it was widely acknowledged there was no comparison in handling performance... The Ki-100 was considered so highly performant (by the Japanese), in turning and climbing combat, that it could take on up to three Ki-84s and still have a chance of winning in a mock dogfight...
The longer-nosed Spitfire Mk IX vs the similar shorter-nosed Spitfire Mk V is a bit more difficult to pin down: Wartime RAE tests have them as identical in sustained turn rates at all altitudes, with the Mk IX exhibiting only a very large advantage in climbing and diving attacks, this advantage increasing with altitude.
However, I have from first-hand knowledge from Warbird operator "Planes of Fame", who have compared both over a long period of time, that the Spitfire Mk IX cannot turn with the Spitfire Mk V in sustained turns, although how large the difference is was not specified.
Gaston