Still not convinced with 4.10 Seafire FM.

[David603]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Please do so for your statement.

Also the Hawk 75 could do the same.

The Hawk 75, 81 and 87 could out roll any British fighter. Only the FW 190 was faster in the roll. Of course the P47 was better at high altitude, but the Hawks could not get there anyway.

I'm not aware of the RAF carrying out comparative trial between the P40 and Spitfire, but I have little doubt the P40 has a higher roll rate. The P40's roll rate is well regarded, while the Spitfire was somewhat poor in this regard, particularly when compared with late war fighters.

On the other hand, the P40 (both Hawk 81 and 87) should not even come close to the Spitfire's turn rate and radius. Wing loading is significantly higher, no Spitfire until the MkXIV exceeds it, and the power to weight ratio is lower than any Spitfire (some of the higher power late model P40s have a slightly higher power to weight ratio than the Spitfire MkI and MkII).

[JtD]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Please do so for your statement.

I consider it a pretty poor response to respond to a question with another question instead of with an answer. But I did not expect anything else from you.

Soviet VVS turning tests show the Spitfire and P-40 turning to be on par, Spitfire models at 17.5 to 18.8 seconds, P-40 models at 18 to 19.2 seconds. Can't provide a link to an actual test report.

NACA 868 roll rate chart has the Spitfire with a higher rate of roll at low speeds.
NACA wartime reports have the Spitfire achieve higher roll rate at low speeds.
Both refer to full span wing, and likely metal ailerons for the Spitfire.
You can download all NACA wartime reports from here.
You can also order this study from the UK National Archives, it has a direct comparison. It's also available here as a pdf. It again shows the Spitfire to achieve a superior rate of roll at low speeds.

And now? You want to back up your claims for once? Or will you be defaulting back to your usual insult and denial routines? I'm expecting no less, please disappoint me.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

I'd be curious to read the definition of "maneuverable" as defined by people in this thread.

Not a condemnation, just wondering if we are all talking about the same thing.

You have touched on the MAIN problem with ALL comments on flight model accuracy

Some folks comments are based on what they read in a book, be it historic or comic
Some folks comments are based on what they saw on TV, be it documentary or Hollywood
Some folks comments are based on what they have heard over the years and is now a miss mashed jumble of info that has no origin

Which is why I always stick with the number.. They may not be perfect, nothing is, but they are a lot closer to the truth than anything someone read in a book or saw in a movie or heard some where

And by numbers I mean real world test documents that were performed by test flight engineers and test pilots

Anything less than that is just opinion and nifty stories