Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

The Enlightenment wrote in message ...

snip

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/jazzitoria/aspit-2.htm

MANOEUVRABILITY
SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING
DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.

Speed, altitude, weights being used? Oh sorry that is right it is
on the web and the preferred answer therefore it is right. We will
just ignore the turning circle diagrams in the books previously
mentioned, since they give figures of less than half the above,
which means if the above figures are correct we are talking high
speed, where the Bf109 had more aileron problems than the Spitfire,
making them even less believable.

snip

While thoroughly enjoying the spanking you have so professionally administered, I'll just clarify one minor point: the turning
_diameters_ quoted above appear to be very close to twice the turn _radii_ @ 12,000 ft. quoted in the Spit I/Me-109E-3 test, and most
other sources. The odd thing is that, if I'm reading the Spit I chart here

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea...pit109turn.gif

correctly, by seeing where the straight climb line crosses the stall boundary, the turn radii should be about 692-693 feet rather than
the 696 given in the report. Using this method on the Me-109E-3chart gives the quoted turn radius of 885 feet. Maybe the 696' was a
typo in the original report. In any case, a few feet either way isn't significant -- the Spit I has a far better turn radius than the
109E.

Guy