[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

So true, and it seems the data we have from the war period doesn't cover everything we would think of now (i.e. roll rate progression, acceleration are some I've never seen referenced data on, although my research is mainly limited to what you can find on the internet),

True.. the standard acceptant testing consisted of a top speed per altitude test and a rate of climb test.. Which typically also produced a time to climb test.. Very few roll rate tests were done, and even fewer acceleration testing was done. It wasn't until just after the end of WWII that they switched to Ps testing for fighters

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

and funny hand drawn graphs that aren't posted at the Imperial War Museum or the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, leaves too much room for suspicion on accuracy.

Ya lost me there.. ?

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Add to that the somewhat contradictory testimonies of the pilots, and no wonder we have wildly differing opinions on what each of our beloved aircraft should do.

Bingo!

I have an old saying.. For every Spitfire pilot that said he could easily out turn a Bf-109 there is a Bf-109 pilot that says he could easily out turn a Spitfire

Which only proves that combat reports by combat pilots are not something the FM results should be based on.. For many reasons, like they typically are one sided stories, typical preformed under none standard conditions, typically don't contain enough information to recreate the scenario..

In the end combat reports say more about the realitive pilot skills/luck than the planes performance