Maybe he is confused because I have posted an English translation of E-Stelle Rechlin's assessment of the flying qualities of Spitfire, Hurricane, Curtiss and Bf 109/110. Here it is in original.

I am sure whineboy's German fluent and he will take offense that I had translated it:

"Die Rollwendigkeit der Feindjaeger bei hoher Geschwindigkeit is schlechter als der Bf 109."

"The roll rate of the enemy fighters at high speed is worse than the Bf 109."

According to test pilot Jeffrey Quill:
"By this time I was bitterly blaming myself for not having thumped the table much harder about the aileron problem...in May 1938....However production problems at the time made any design changes almost impossible to embody.

The aileron problem was further compounded by what could be described as 'non-repeatibility' or variations in manufacturing accuracy. On first take-off a new production Spitfire would usually be found to be flying severely one wing low, sometimes to the extent that it was almost a two-handed job to hold it. The aircraft would immediately be brought in to land and a trimming strip, comprising a piece of cord sewn inside a length of fabric, would be attached to the upper trailing edge of the aileron on the 'wing low side'....Usually, but not always, if the aircraft had been successfully trimmed at cruising speed it remained in trim at very high diving speed. But sometimes it would develop a strong bias one way or the other. In these circumstances an aileron had to be changed and discarded or tried again on another aeroplane. Thus very small production variations in the hinges, the slotted shrouds in the wing, the profile of the aileron nose balances and the aileron profile aft of the hinge could have a spectacular effect on the lateral handling of each production aircraft.

So the ailerons virtually had to be individually 'tuned' by the test pilot (who had to know what he was about) and it usually took several flights to achieve this. Sometimes if an aileron had been discarded as untrimmable on one aeroplane it could be refitted to another....If, however, after delivery to the Service, an aileron was changed, the whole matching process was destroyed and the aeroplane might fly very badly indeed. There were frequent reports from squadrons of so-called 'rogue' aeroplanes and it usually transpired that an aileron had been changed or that someone had monkeyed about with the trimming arrangements.

The reports which floated into the A & AEE and RAE through HQ Fighter Command on these so-called 'rogue' aircraft did much to confuse the issue during our early efforts to deal with the problem. Provided the ailerons were correctly 'tuned' and the aeroplane correctly flown, there was only one central problem - the ailerons were much too heavy at speed." (Jeffrey Quill Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story John Murray, 1983, pp. 180-181)

The reports shown by Kurfurst in his second and third postings are some those reports of 'rogue' aircraft as described by Jeffrey Quill, and are not representative of a properly trimmed Spitfire with fabric ailerons, so they should not be used to change the flight characteristics for the game.

Spot on - to take these reports as being typical of the flight characteristics of the Spitfire or Hurricane is drawing a very long bow.

Quill went on to write:
"I have mentioned how badly I felt about the ailerons of the Spitfire at the time of the Battle of Britain. In October 1940 I flew a captured ME109E; to my surprise and relief I found the ailerons control of the German fighter every bit as bad, if not worse than, at high speed as the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. It was good at low and medium speed but above 400 mph and above it was almost immovable. I thouught the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading edge slats kept snapping in and out; but it had no rudder trimmer, which gave it a heavy footload at high speed; while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than that in a Spitfire." (183)

That is a rather unusual statement.

The leading edge slats snapping in and out is what gives the Me-109 its very good stall characteristics and virtual immunity to spinning.

You are the king of 'nothing happens' like your mysterious papers on 87 octane and that pretend Aussie paper you put your life on (shame you didn't).

With respect, I'll take Jeffrey Quill's opinion over yours all day long.

Just finished reading 'Spitfire, A Test Pilots Story' by Jeffery Quill, and is is a very good read.

When they snap in and out they snatch the air on the stalling wing and make the aeroplane harder to handle at those border speeds. This is well documented from test aerobatic flights. This at low speeds and heaviness at high speeds meant that the 109 was not good aerobatically, or rather far worse than the Spitfire.

"Immunity to spinning" - brilliant Biff, I guess you learned that type of engineering quote from your records of early 20th century shipbuilding and will stick with it. "She is unsinkable sir" :rolleyes:

So basically Quill stated himself that the ailerons of a standard spit remained heavy. His concern that he expressed was about the spit dropping a wing with a badly manufactured aileron or being badly trimmed. He never mentioned that the bad roll rate at high speed or high aileron forces were reduced by fitting a good aileron to the plane according to your quotes. So Quill does NOT contradict the graphes that were posted.

The report that I referred to in my post also does not dismiss any measured value as wrong but only basically said that at that time (when they wrote the report - without the wisdom of hindsight) they wanted to have confirmation or infirmation by other sources.

There are aircrafts, which more difficult to take a spin, especially the school planes, for example. It is known, if you can maintained the airflow on the wingtip, the aircraft remains stable even near to stall speed, with high angle of attack. Furthermore, very difficult take a spin. The assets of the air flow maintaining the leading edge flap and the mechanical and aerodynamic wing twist...

Of course it was not good aerobatically: anyway in war this skill is the least important aspect of a plane. Speed, climb rate and firepower are some of the important ones.

Slats helped the pilot to understand the limit of the plane, above all at high altitude: 109s were more forgiving if mistreated in this aspect, more than Spitfires and Mustangs that were unforgiving (above all the latter).

Probably only a moron could spin in it...

Finnish pilots said it was still controllable at more than 700km/h: stick was stiff but you could still pull it... I trust them since they knew their planes.

Oh yes of course. Likewise there are ships that are harder to sink than others, but none are unsinkable nor is the 109 immune from spinning.

@Manu, I know what slats are for but regardless of that when they pop out the wing snatches. In a sustained move I suspect that this is useful for an aircraft with such a high wing loading, but in sudden moves I wouldn't expect it to make things smooth and predictable. Don't ask me though, just read pilot accounts and test flights, there are plenty of them. As for the Spitfire, the wing design stalls at the roots before the tips so it is very controllable. The Spitfire is a far superior aerobatic machine to the 109, you'd have to be a fanboy not to realise that. If I picked my moment everytime I'd rather have the 109 characteristics, but you can't. What then? Would you prefer to move better if you cannot run? Ceteris Paribus the Spit has more important advantages, without diving away and not fighting at all that is.