Yes, like that.

Ok, it's available HERE to download.

It's a 40 page PDF scan of the original. 14mb ish.

It's Dropbox so dunno how fast it is...

Maybe I should say what it is! It's the 109 vs Spitfire combat/performance trials report.

Thanks for that winny - seeing the full report cf the abbreviated version so often cited is interesting.

Yes thank you Winny.

No problem, I'll leave it in my dropbox for a week or so in case anyone else wants it.

Isn't that the report which was full of utter BS as they didn't fly the 109 properly?

What do you mean ? I mean whats the background to that idea ?

The problem with the evaluation in this report is imo, that it seems that the british fighters had to come out as the better ones and so the ability to turn was the priority.
The other tactics, which might have favored the 109, weren't evaluated.
Other than that this test even proves that it took experienced pilots to outturn a 109 in a Spitfire because of the sensible high speed stall characteristics.

It highlights the many non-advantages of the 109 which the axis big lie has told through persistent compliant to 1C for the past 10 years. The question to ask is really, if the report is not to be believed then why would the authorities publish it to their side? This would only lead to inaccuracy and death of their own pilots - not a good idea if you're fighting for life and death.

Meanwhile robtek claims that only experienced Spitfire pilots could out turn the 109. Laughable.

Harsh evaluation, some truth in it though. Depends which side of the fence you are on. They didn't test above 18,500 feet because the 109 didn't have oxygen. The 109 is also a little suspect performance wise, it's the same machine they did the Hurricane performance trials with, if you look at the results from that report the 109 performed better. The Spitfire comparison was done 6 months after the Hurri one and there were 2 forced landings in between.

To dismiss it as BS is harsh, it's far from a " The Spitfire is wonderful the 109 is rubbish" report.

Read it. It is slightly biased in some sections, particularly the pilot's thoughts, but the actual data is sound, and I didn't see a problem with the method, accepting the altitude issue, in my opinion if they'd have tested the 109 at it's peak fighting altitude then it would have thrown up some interesting results, and probably wouldn't be subjected to being called BS.

It is what it is, performance trials upto 18,500, because that's what they did.

If you read it there's a description of the combat tests they performed, maybe you could highlight where you think they were 'flying it wrong'.

For me none of these discussions come down to Spit vs 109. The history is there anyone can make their own judgement/ preference. I don't care which was 'better' I simply posted it because it was relevant.