The following conclusions are sketchy at best. Just because it has a higher wing loading does not guarantee any of these things you state. It is entirely possible for it to climb quicker, turn tighter and for longer because of it's reduced induced drag due to higher Aspect Ratio and will probably have a longer take off and landing roll, as you state. But I am certainly willing to do that IF the landing gear is up to the task. Also bomb load and maneuver power are both functions of drag/power, or Specific Excess Thrust. So it is absolutely possible to use that SET to hold a larger AoA at a greater load or to pull more Gs than a plane with more wing area, but less SET!

A theoretical 10% speed advantage would be telling, but that advantage alone would not be enough to guarantee victory, or even an overall positive kill to loss ratio against the slower ‘twin’ aircraft. It needs to be alloyed with other characteristics if one aircraft is to be decisively superior to another. Otherwise, you may end up with an aircraft that is worse in combat than the original design.

 

Ceritus paribus, if you cut the wing area back, you've got reduction in drag and an increase in speed and make the aircraft somewhat less sensitive to atmospheric buffeting (mostly only a concern at low level).

 

However, as noted, you'll lower overall manoeuvrability, particularly sustained manoeuvring. Wing loading is higher and you have a higher aspect ratio. This will reduce sustained turning, climbing and rolling performance, but improved instantaneous turn performance, initial dive acceleration and zoom climb.

 

For an aircraft with higher wing loading and higher aspect ratio wings, stalling speed will be raised and sustained rates of turn will be negatively affected, across the envelope. Instantaneous turn rate, on the other hand, will be improved, as the aircraft will be able to turn more before it bleeds off significant speed.

 

Rate of climb will be reduced. Overall controllability, particularly during hard manoeuvring will also suffer.

 

In addition, as you gain in altitude, you’ll lose controllability and possibly overall speed. At high altitudes, a smaller wing with higher wing loading can actually result in higher drag due to the effects of induced drag. When Cessna fitted a new wing (high aspect/reduced wing area) to a Cardinal, the resulting aircraft was slower at altitude than a stock Cardinal and its rate of climb was much reduced.

 

Higher wing loading will also reduce the ability of the aircraft to be developed and to carry external loads. The onset of the stall will also be more violent and stall recovery will also be more difficult.

 

The classic WW2 examples are the FW-190 vs the Spitfire Mk V and the F6F/F4U vs the Zero. In both cases, the larger, heavier aircraft had higher wingloading and much more powerful engines, producing speed advantages of about 10-12% (roughly 30-40 mph).

 

This was enough that they could dominate their opposition.

 

However, the Spitfire was developed enough, via the introduction of more powerful engines, that it matched and eventually surpassed the FW 190 in terms of speed (at least at some altitudes), allowing it to claw back the advantage ceded to the German fighter.

 

The Japanese couldn’t do the same for the Zero, although they narrowed the gap a little, meaning that the F6F/F4U generally retained their advantages over the aircraft through the war.

You are an idiot.