Hoss
I know your background in Military aviation and would like your comments on a couple of planes.
The FW-190 used a fuel injected engine. Should it be able to sustain inverted flight?
Any jet powered plane?
Thanks
Clancy
Clancy, I am definitely NO expert in that field. Most of my information came from those "Old Timers" that I was associated with back in the late '50s until 1962, when I was in the B-47. Many of these guys were fighter and/or bomber pilots in WWII. With the many days we sat on ALERT around the countries, I asked far too many questions, but I did gather a lot of information that much has slipped away.
The FW 190 series were very different airplanes, like many American and British machines. The FW-190 'short nose" series were radial engines however the original design never allowed for adequate cooling venues around the cylinders. They were plagued with overheating and failures. Although superior to any spitfire they had problems. In addition until the FW-190D long nose series came out with the in-line Jumo engine and a fan cooling system along with the liquid, the BMW engine problem on the short-nosed originals was never fully satisfied. In addition there was an attempt to use a Jumo liquid cooled engine in the short nose, but I don't think that was ever operational.
The long nose D and TA 152 were all just a wing forward extension of the FW 190A itself. They did cut the tail section and move it back IIRC some 2 feet. The bulge is just in front of the horizontal stabilizer.
Now to your question: The Jumo had a different oil system and probably could do sustained inverted flight. The BMW 801, I don't know, but it was a radial and radials could sustain considerable damage. My only actual flight experience was with the Pratt and Whitney R-2800. That was some kind of engine, but I never flew a C-123 inverted!
BTW, the P-47D Manual prohibited negative G maneuvers.
Back to your question: When I went through USAF pilot training, there was a Norwegian student in my class. He remembered German occupation. He told me that many German Stuka pilots were dying young from brain problems caused by the technique of pushing straight over into bomb runs with high negative G's.
Somewhere I read that the ME-109 used negative G as a last resort to escape enemy fighters, yet negative G straight (inverted) would not be a challenge. Most Fighter and or Trainer aircraft are not stressed for more than 3G negative. A pilot will 'red-out' (blood in the eyes) if he holds -3 G for much time. Making an inverted turn at 3G would be easy pickings for someone on your tail.
So Clancy, you guys have to make those decisions. I do think the ME-109 could fly inverted straight and level until the pilot became completely nauseated, which may be for something less than 1 minute. 190, I doubt so.