Energy Maneuverability

[JG14_Josf]

When you make unsubstantiated claims based on your opinions and statements such as "double superior spitfire" expect people that actually have experience in this sim to tell you are wrong, and even laugh at you. A DR1 has a better sustained turn than a spitfire.

Anyone,

Aside from the fact that the above contribution to this Topic does not have anything to do with the topic, there is the matter of misrepresentation to deal with as mud is slinging in this form of obvious, measurable, deception.

If I made a claim that the Spitfire was "double superior" then it could be proven with a quote such as:

Which plane is the better plane?

Is the Spitfire Double Superior or Single Superior?

The Spitfire is Superior at Angles Fighting, that is uncontroversial.

So...logically, and reasonably, why would I be asking a question if instead I had made an "unsubstantiated" claim as my forum enemy (why he is targeting me for misrepresentation I can't know, exactly) endeavors to attack my character publicly?

My guess is that the Spitfire will turn out to be Double Superior. I want to be wrong.

That may be as close as I am able to become that which my forum enemy claims me to be in his mind as he publishes these personal attacks upon my character.

Note how a guess on my part is not a claim on my part, and again why would I continue to be asking these questions if instead I were making claims as my forum enemy claims (unsubstantiated).

Did I miss something written by me on this forum, something that could be misinterpreted to be what my forum enemy claims is credited to me as a character flaw?

ON Topic so far:

Spitfire is coded in the game to be Single Superior at least.

Spitfire, at least, has an accurately measurable Sustained Turn Performance Advantage in the order of about 25% better Sustained Turn Performance compared to the 109 in Cliffs of Dover.

How does that fact turn into personal attacks upon me as forum members target me for misrepresentations such as this:

When you make unsubstantiated claims based on your opinions and statements such as "double superior spitfire" expect people that actually have experience in this sim to tell you are wrong, and even laugh at you.

The tactic used here is a flanking maneuver, a diversionary tactic, it is a variation on deception, it is also called a Man of Straw, as somewhere, someone, has made these unsubstantiated claims, but who has done so, where is this person, where are these claims?

I can guess things, and I can even offer up my guesses of things, and even while I guess things, I can state, without room for misinterpretation, that I do not know if the Spitfire is Double Superior, as I ask for the information that could support, or substantiate, any claim from anyone, anywhere, who may claim that the Spitfire is, or is not, Double Superior.

Where is this Man of Straw who has made these unsubstantiated claims?

Look left, and there is vapor.

Look right, more vapor.

Smoke and mirrors?

The Spitfire may yet turn out to have a Corner Speed advantage, which would be another significant Performance Advantage for any fighter plane that may fight any other fighter plane where the significant Performance Advantage might approach the significant measure of a 25% Advantage.

If the Spitfire does have a corner speed advantage, then how much is that advantage?

The 109, as far as my testing goes so far, when loaded with fuel, near the 4 kilometers altitude range, turns at the margin of stall and black out at about 350 km/h.

Where does the Spitfire Corner Speed plot on a Maneuvering Diagram?

Personal attacks, exemplified by my forum enemy, who resorts to deceit as a means of accomplishing some goal of some kind, discredit, whatever, are not welcome, and they are in fact against the rules.

Where does the Spitfire Corner Speed plot on a Maneuvering Diagram?

That question is on topic.

How can anyone claim that any plane is Double Superior or not if Corner Speed isn't even known?

I can't, so I don't make such claims, instead I ask questions, and if someone had something to offer, on topic, then reasonably, the on topic question could be answered accurately.