Albatros D.III:………….24.5 kg/sq.m. (PL: 4.92 kg/hp)
Sopwith Camel:…………..28.7 kg/sq.m. (PL: 5.19 kg/hp)
The above should give a pretty good idea of which fighters prevailed in an angles fight as-well as their climb performance.
I think those two examples alone would discredit that simplistic method of comparison.
not really, since "manouverabilty" has several properties. In the case of the Camel, the key aspekt is mass distribution (and precesion + torque effects) which together with the wing profile also lead to the more challenging flightenvelope. A low wingloading is more important in continous turning (and low speed handling) and not necessarily in "changing direction". The camel swings around its tightly centered mass. And we are not even talking control surfaces here, were 4 ailerons mean more induced drag and negative turn momentum but high initial banking change rates…
The albatross on the other hand has quite "modern" wingtips and relative high aspekt ratio, so it must have some benefits in the induced drag area, but drawbacks in maneuverability. While its mass distribution gives gentler, but far less "agressive" maneuverabilty and easier stall behavior.
I think that is more or less consistent with the data above
so we can conclude an albie would probably been able to turn with a camel in sustained turning, but not so much any more once the direction changes start.
Don't know about all this technical stuff but I do know the D.VII top wing is quite heavily tapered. You can't just apply a single airfoil on it.
It is not "tapered" if you refering to the view cut-out. A tapered wing is one with slender tips like on an albatross (the bird even more then the plane)