Just want to point out that this poll closes on Feb 4, 2010.
Thus far it's approx 62% of opinion that the Spitfire wing was stronger.
It's unfortunate that advocates of either plane often feel the need to 'prove' that their favorite was better in any and every respect to it's principal opponent, or failing that must find some insignifficant but fatal flaw in the other that 'proves' it was a useless hunk of tin.
The fact is, when comparing two types of fighter aircraft, both will have performance advantages over the other, which may or may not be advantages over other types.
In the case of wing strength/weakness of the Spitfire and 109, we can't prove which was stronger, and in any case the difference was probably not that great.
But we have been shown two different approaches to corecting the reported problem. The Luftwaffe reduced diving speed limitations, which would not have improved pilot confidence in the plane. A mistake IMO.
The RAF found fault in a technical glitch, (arguably at squadron level) which was easily solved. So... 'problem solved', 'carry on lads', 'nothing to worry about!'.
Consequently we have a perception, that is still evident to this day judging by this polls results, that the Spitfire wing was stronger. That's a huge phsycological advantage for the pilot of the Spitfire.
On the subject of use of 100 octane fuel, interesting as it is academically, IF the RAF was using primarily 87 octane during BoB (which I do not believe was the case), and the use of 100 octane was not a significant contributor to winning the battle, then what was?
109 pundits have argued that the Hurricane and Spitfire did not have a turn advantage.
They argue that RAF fighters did not have a performance advantage from use of higher octane fuel.
They argue that 109 pilots were more experienced and better trained.
They argue that the 109 gun system was superior.
They argue that Hurricane and Spitfire fuel tanks were more vulnerable to fire.
They argue that accidents due to landing gear were no different for the 109 than the Spitfire.
109s were easier to produce, easier to repair, had fuel injection instead of carburators, cannon vs mgs, used better tactics, enjoyed numerical superiority, etc, etc, etc.
This plane was completely successful against every nation and plane it went up against (including the USSR in 1941), as well as Hurricanes in France.
Yet when they went up against Spitfires during BoB, they were ultimately unsuccessful.
The old Spitty must have been able to do something better.