A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[Crumpp]

Can you explain to me how fitting a bob weight would correct an aerodynamic problem?

The fitting of bob-weights does not fix the stability issue. It compensates for the stability by increasing control.

It artificially increases the stick force gradiant. This makes the rise in stick forces as we get farther away from our trim point steeper.

In short, it makes the stick heavier so that it takes more effort to move it that 3/4 of an inch.

"suffers from quick changes of trajectory along the vertical axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momentum, and significantly disturb aiming"

Right, it is a twitchy airplane under certain conditions and steep turns was one of them.

So was the impact of the inertia weight a double edged sword?

Yes it was a double edge sword especially for veteran pilots who grew accustom to a two finger airplane.

[Crumpp]

First, the Pilot's Notes were deliberately conservative to ensure that most pilots flew well within the limitations of the airframe

Nonsense, as they mention the engineering margins are just too tight in aviation. The Operating Limitations are that margin.

they were easy meat.

They were not "easy meat" by observing the operating limitations. Where do you get this stuff?

The RAF says the exact same thing I told you multiple times...the engineering margins are just too tight in order to even achieve flight. The Operating Limitations are that margin.

Read this a couple of times very carefully to allow it to sink in:

wing which is intended to withstand 4g should not break until 8g is imposed, but there is increasing risk of strain and failure as g rises above 4.

Now, imagine you don't have a reset button and when you skin your knee, it really does hurt.

RAF acknowledged that in combat it was up to the pilot to choose what risks needed to be taken;

Yes, by BALANCING that risk.

That means choose your death.....

1. You will die due to enemy action.

2. You might die if you violate the limits. If you do violate the airworthiness of the aircraft, about 85% of the time it will be a factor in your death in an airplane.

It means just that, balance your risk. It does NOT say contact with the enemy is license to violate the airworthiness of the aircraft. Those limitations are based on physical laws that define the airworthy limitations of the design and just like the RAF tells you, a chance exist's you are going to die if you violate them. You want the ability to throw that airworthiness out the window in order in to have some magical performance in your game shape. It does not work that way in reality. The anecdotes from those who survive having to make such a choice of their death are filled with bent airframes and damaged engines for a reason. Just as the RAF warns their pilots. The did it and got lucky.

In combat and emergencies pilots must take risks with their aircraft, balancing one risk against another; limitations must be strictly observed in so far as there is no sufficient reason to exceed them.

As for spinning, the RAF clearly warns of the danger of violating manuever limitations in an aircraft and why:

The reasons underlying these prohibitions are partly considerations of aircraft strength and partly of control.

[JtD]

If you still have 1946 installed, you could compare the flying qualities of the Spitfire V against the Spitfire IX. Both are very agile, the V being more unstable, more difficult to fly to the limit and easier to break.