Um, Kurfurst, you've reposted the chart that shows exactly what I said. Apart from the Spitfire at 30 lbs stick force that you've drawn in, that is.
NACA 868 shows roll rates at 50 lbs stick force for all aircraft apart from the Zero, where the force limits are unknown. The 50 lbs line for the 109 falls below all the other aircraft I can see.
Actually it's well above the Spitfire V test done by the NACA, and also the Spitfire V roll tests done by RAE, which states 71 lbs is required for a steady rate of 45 deg/sec roll at 400mph. The 3 year old 109F can manage that with 66 lbs.. As for the Zero, there's not even a roll rate curve for 400 mph.
Of course here we're comparing an. apprx. IAS conversion for the roll rate tested on a 3 year old Bf 109F without the reinforced Bf 109G wings, against tests done on new planes, probably, and no later improvements present on the Bf 109 like aileron Flettner tabs either.
No, as we have been over ad nauseum, they are tested results for the Spitfire V, given along with the Mustang and Typhoon figures by the RAE as a comparison with the Fw 190.
Brilliant, we know now that the NACA graph above is based on a RAE test of a MkV, which MkV's roll rate results are far above any other Spitfire's roll rate.
Four problems with the Naca roll figures for the Spitfire.
Like :
1, It's made by an impartial organisation
2, In a professional manner
3, It isn't high enough
4, It isn't high enough again
First, it was a very worn aircraft.
Robert Standford Tuck:
Dear Hop, you put forward a Bf 109F-2 roll rate test as gospel, and aircraft that was produced somewhere in 1940 or 1941, and was tested after 3 years of use, in the end of the 1944. And you say it's represenetative for the type.
Yet, when it comes to a Spitfire, you argue that a plane that was freshly produced in April 1941, and was immidiately delivered afterwards to the US and tested in December 1941 is not representative because the aircraft was 'worn out' for which you give us a quote from a pilot which doesn't tell if it's the same plane at all, if the comment refer to the state before or after the test, and I'd really like to see the quote in it's full context, not just a snippet. The report would have surely noted if the results would have been effected by this alleged wear, but it does not.
In any case, it's a cheapo excuse for the tested results which you don't like.
Second, it was a Spitfire Va. That's the last of the machine gun armed variants, and so didn't have the wing strengthening applied to the cannon armed aircraft.
Neither did the 109F had the 109G's wing strenghtening applied, yet somehow such considerations only apply to the Spitifre...
Dear Hop, can you answer us why do you dismiss an American test on
a brand new Spitfire on the basis that it was 'worn out', and that it didn't have the wing strenghtening of later types, whereas you hold as gospel a test done a 3 year old Bf 109F that neither had the wing strenghtening of later types?
What do you think was 'worn out' more, a 109F in the end of 1944 or a Mk V in the end of 1941 ?
Va's also came from the factory with fabric ailerons, so we don't even know if the "metal ailerons" fitted were the standard production items.
..We don't...? I am sorry but this is a cheapo trick, as it's written there and you've already admited it was discussed before, so you must know it.
Again :
Desription of the the Supermarine Spitfire airplane
Name and Type : Supermarine Spitfire VA (Air Mininstry No. W3119).
Engine : R-R Merlin XLV
Weight, empty : 4960 lbs
Normal gross weight : 6237 lbs
Weight as flown for tests : 6184 lbs
Ailerons (metal-covered)
Lenght (each) : 6 feet, 10 1/2 inches
Area (total area, each) : 9.45 sq. feet
Balance area (each) : 2.45 square feet
Third, Naca published the report containing the 868 graph post war. They chose to use the RAE's figures for the Spitfire, rather than their own.
Of course but what does it prove? Nothing apart from NACA used a RAE graph in one of it's reports. NACA didn't test roll rate up to 400 mph, though I doubt RAE would, but in any case, they took their data because it covered a larger speed range.
Besides it's interesting that RAE later commented the NACA test results and considered NACA's findings regarding the rate of roll at high speeds
optimistic and in no way objected the results obtained with regards of roll, neither there's a comment either that the aircraft would be worn out at all. RAE on the NACA report :
RAE seems to have actually tested the effect of clipping of wings on the Spitfire, and the findings are quite different than what the Spit cliiped/unclipped roll rates displayed on the NACA chart suggest, ie. that there would be a linear huge rate of roll increase at all speeds. Quite the contrary, ie.
Or let's see the aspect that the clipped winged Spit V on the NACA 868, if the results are true, should roll quite easily with the FW 190A. Compare it with the pilot interviews done with Spitfire pilots when clipped wings were introduced :
Or compare another RAE trial with a Spit V with the Spit V on the NACA 868 :
Ie. the NACA 868's Spit V roll rate seems to be around 40 degrees/sec with 50 lbs stick force. However, the other RAE Spit V roll rate data shows that for 45 degrees rate of roll, 50% higher stickforce is required.
To put the long story short, the NACA 868 Spitfire roll rate curves are in conflict with every other roll rate test made for the Spitfire, either by the British, Americans.
That means either the tested aircraft was an exceptionally good example of it's type, or perhaps a testbed with some experimental aileron fitting.
Fourth, the RAE tested the roll rates of the Spitfire against other aircraft. We'll leave out the fact they said it rolled much better than the 109s, because you will just come out with excuses that they couldn't fly the 109 properly.
The RAE, Hop? Are you sure you're not making this up?
Hop, pilots who flew actual examples of the 109G and Spitfire have to say this:
Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres.
Ie. Dave Southwoods words, the full one can be read at the 109lair.
Hop we all understand that in your eyes, the Spitfire did everything better than any other aircraft, it had greater mileage than the Mustang, dived to greater speed than the P-47, rolled with the FW 190, not to mention your latest theory I've read that the RAF was doing a lot more combat against the Luftwaffe than the USAAF in the late 1943, and above it did everything better than those pesky Bf 109 that still shot it down in rows for some odd reason!
But please, try to stick to reality.
But they also tested against a range of American aircraft, which they used extensively, and with manufacturers support.
This is quite irrelevant to the subject I think.
You're desperate AV8, really desperate ! 
