"I don't know what Spitfire data they used but I suspect it was for an improved high altitude version as we saw before in a similar report previously posted on these forums in which you were involved in the discussion.
All that can be said is we don't know the details and the ones we do know, do not fit any existing service model at the time."
"Normal B.H.P 950/990 at Rated Altitude 12,250 ft '
Garbage ! you are confusing rated power at 2600RPM with maximum power at 3000RPM. Here are 2 inspection test certificates for 2 different Spitfire MKI's one with a Merlin II the other with Merkin III. As you can see Max power is 1030hp at
16,250ft. at 6.25lbs boost 3000RPM.
The RAE chart references 1050hp at 6.25lbs Boost 3000RPM at 12,000ft.
You are again trying to change history. You cover up your case by a smokescreen of Mathematical verbiage. RAE calculated that the Spitfire MKI had better sustained turn performance than the BF109E3. Pretty much every other report technical and general from either side of the conflict say the same. You on the other hand construct a graph that clearly shows the opposite.
Find another single independent reference that proves the BF109E3/4 had better sustained turn performance than a Spitfire MKI.
Whilst you are at it show us what this Mythical improved high altitude version that I supposedly referred to in another report and how
this is supposedly used in the RAE turn chart