I think the pilot's review was unbiased, right up until the point where he said "i wouldn't want to go to war in this, especially against a Spit". It's funny because he had plenty of bad things to say about the Spit too and then in one fell swoop he's making it out to be vastly superior, which is i guess why people called him biased.
His technical appraisal on both planes was very good, he just proceeded to unfortunately destroy the entire presentation by being unable to resist putting a slight jab in at the end
Also, i agree that the guy is obviously judging both fighters with the mindset of a modern-trained combat pilot and things are much better in today's aircraft, so any comparison to older ones will make them look bad somehow.
Finally, i guess he is a bit on the large side as well. I don't think that the RAF of Luftwaffe pilots of the day were much taller than 1.70-1.75m, with a few notable exceptions.
Heck, even in our airforce there was an upper limit up until we got Mirage 2000s and a lot of F16s with that recliner chair in the cockpit which makes everything comfortable and roomy
Until that point our air force mostly operated F-4s, Mirage F-1s, F-104s, F-5s, etc, from the 60s-70s up until the early 90s. During those years, any person in the military flight school was disqualified from flying fighters if he was taller than 1.80-1.85m and we're talking a mere 15-20 years ago.
If you think about how people were generally shorter back in WWII and that it was possible the shortest guys were being preferred for fighter duty, i guess that neither the Spit nor the 109 was terribly cramped for their standards. Maybe they would describe it as a snug or tight fit (depending on whether they liked it or not), but even from pilots who criticized an aspect of their own aircraft what we usually hear are complaints about ergonomics, performance or visibility. They would obviously compare different types and say that "A is roomy and more comfortable than B", but i can't recall ever reading a comment from a wartime pilot stating that a certain cockpit was downright impossible to sit in for any length of time necessitated by the type's operational duties.
Heavies like the B-17 flew with open side windows for much of the war in freezing temperatures and totally lacked any kind of pressurization equipment. I'm sure if we took a B-52 crew to give an appraisal, the tail gunner would say it's impossible to sit in that ball turret and everyone else would talk about how "lack of pressurization makes your ears bleed in altitude changes", but the guys who flew the 17 back in the time loved it.
Making comparisons is the art of comprehending relevance and dependency between things, so the context of the time a machine was fielded in combat and the background of the guy making the comparisons is important too
