[taildraggernut]

He stated that it was an excellent fighter, he did not say it was totally uncontrollable.

He said it was an excellent fighter and the rest of his thread was a big 'BUT it was totally uncontrollable and broke up in spins' and many other variations on an attempt to discredit the Spitfire.

That's the problem? I can't talk for him (as I disagree that Spitfires were prohibited from spinning) but he only stated it has an issue who usually is not remembered because "it was easy to fly".

only he and a few merry followers say it had an 'issue', history does not reflect those oppinions, for some reason he clings to a NACA report on the wrong variant as his proof and wants to make it stick to the entire Spitfire family.

See, I'm not an Anti-Spitfire (or worser, Anti-British... pure crap and shame on who states that)... but I can really say that I'm an Anti-"Easy to fly = Tie Fighter" as many here think.

Yes I can agree that you are not the Anti British type and I thank you for that rare quality, but I would add that labeling anyone who defends the Spitfire as having a 'tie fighter' agenda is ignorant.

It's probably that many other airplane had similar issues, and there's no wrong in focusing on those. But why many need to be so defensive about this plane? Why can't they separates the RL plane from the Myth?

Sadly there is a need to be defensive on this issue because there are an element that seek to fabricate alternate myths and are of the anti british nature, but I'd like to know exactly what the real Myths are about the Spitfire, it's got to be famous for a reason better than 'it was British and we were on the winning side in the war', personally I believe it was famous because it was one of the best fighters, to be in that category it had to have qualities above others, this thread is an attempt to take away any redeeming qualities.

Easy to fly... sure it was easy to takeoff/land easy in turning, climbing and diving... nowhere it's written it was easy to push at limits. Or why should be RAF pilots be outturned by a poor 109?

Now youre being ridiculous, most aircraft were easy to fly in that sense, the Hurricane was even easier in that sense, it has to be it's qualities in combat that made it famous, nowhere is it written that it was difficult to push to it's limits.

why should be RAF pilots be outturned by a poor 109

Not sure what you mean, but the Spitfire was generally better at turning than the 109....not 100% that really depended on who was flying, but certainly for the most part, which includes while in the hands of some of the less skilled RAF pilots.

I did already some pages behind: but "the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so"...

Really? you think that because those RAAF pilots underestimated the turning capabilities of the Jap planes and ended up in spins because they got caught in turning engagements was proof the Spitfire was prone? almost any aircraft would have spun out if it was turning with a zero.

So why should lose time in doing it?

I don't understand what you mean here?

Just answer me: how can a 109 outturns a Spitfire like it happened in those tests?

are there no tests showing the Spitfire out turning the 109?