Not at all, I used the figures posted on Wiki, which are at Max Continous power, not WEP!  

No, it is you who are dishonest. You are the one not comp'ing like with like! Also, the figure you post is post war where the Mk-XIV had 2,350-2,450 HP availible, not the 2,030 of the war time Griffon engine!
So you tell me where did the correct figures come from and what are they?

 

The Spit failed in Burma, too.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/w4076.pdf" target="_blank">link
This is extreamly important! Note that in one of the links, there is a test, (see the exact address above), of the same plane in four different conditions and that the results vari by up to 26 MPH because of the type of paint finish used! 26MPH and you all think I am crazy when I do not pick nits about a few MPH!

maybe you do a bit of reading about those operations, maybe just maybe the loses were more about the way the operations were conducted rather than the aircraft? This is absolutely true! The BoB and the Sweeps over France were both different and exactly the same, depending on your point of view! why should we do your digging it you that is making the claime yet you now say that you cannot be bothered to actaul reasearch your posts then why should we bother taking you seriously?Because when I make factual but unsupported, of thinly supported claims, no-one believed me are dismissed them out of hand!

  Noone dissmisses them out of hand initially, it is only when you have been prooved wrong so many times that people end to think - oh no shooter spouting crap again and demand that you provide evidence of your claims (which you usually fail to do)

2. Over France, the exact same conditions applied to the RAF!

Not quite, over England the RAF was FORCED to engage, over France the LW could pick and choose, over England the RAF barely had time to get to the same atitude as the incoming bombers (and very raely had hieght over the 109s
Over France the LW virtually never engaged unless they had height advantage , In the BoB the RAF was always out numberd but ove France the LW was Rarely (if they were they usually avoided combat)

3. Because it was very hard at the time to go from cruise speed to WEP .....

Rearly and just how do you figure that, on a Spit in the BoB it was a case of pushing the throttle open its not like you had to set the radiator, adjust the intake , change the fuel feed etc
 

4. Because the defender is at larger throttle pos, he is going faster and has more energy to play with.

not when he is climbing to meet an openent, there he is bleeding energy in the climb, then its the guy with height that has the advantage, more potential energy , and usually a ice view of the climbing fighter (oh even more so if he is "in the sun"
 

5. When bounced the attacker has to advance the throttle and dogfight. The Defender is already at full throttle.

but the attack would be against the bombers in the BoB at which point the top cover 109s would have all the advantages you name
 

6. The statistical average of very many thousdands of encounters shows the deffender gets the best of it most of the time, given planes of equal, or nearly equal performance.

no the aircraft with the height advantage has the advantage
   

PS. As a seperate factiod, most people here on this board do not believe that a fighter plane engine can destroy itself in such short order. Two things to think on;
 

1. The Merlin/DB601 made more power for longer than any modern passenger car engine! If you do not belive it take one to the track like Boniville, or Daytona and run it flat out for five minutes at a wack! I have done both and have watched so many fast cars blow up you would not believe it. It only takes 90 seconds to make a pass at the salt flats, read the results to see how many "Door Slammers" blow up in just that time. I mean Ferrari's, Turbo Porsche's and all the others too! If it's not built for the test, it blows up and that is using modern technology far in advance of anything in WW-II.
 

Think on this, a modern car engine is designed to run from zero to 100mph+ often in traffic always in stop start conditions and is only expected to run consistantly at a fraction of its power ad it does this amazingly well, if you design a motor to run at peak power for long periods then they tend to do that, a F1 engine is a better example of an engine designed to run at high power, they have only 8 engines to run a full season including practice, qualifying and testing as well as the race, and these engines are designed to be far more flexable than an aircraft engine yet rarely do they blow.

Agian you use a bad example

While many ancedotal examples can be found and in this instance, I only want to point out a single instance of the P-40's performance that greatly exceeded that of the Mk-V Spitfire! The zoom climb! So you can not take one plane, of any type and say it is better in all cases than the other plane of some other type. There are good, better and best parts of the envelope in EVERY plane AND they are ALL different. The trick is to know which parts are the most important and which parts have the largest advantage over the target! I do not want to get into another p'ing contest so I will not mention the other three areas where the P-40 was vastly superior to the Mk-V Spitfire! Just know that for an absolute fact that those other areas do exist and they are significant!

And yet it would be a very foolhardy pilot who would Choose a P40 to fight a Spitfire as the advantages of a Spit far outway the advantages of a P40

No you just like to p on the Spit dont you, you consistantly misrepresent the spits performance and yet think you are being clever, the zoom climb is only advantagous for a short period in certain circumstances, as the spit had better substained climb and better altitude performance I know which a proper fighter pilot would choose 

 

History of the Chirchill wing  54, 452 457 squadrons
Out of a total flying complement of 95 pilots initially assigned to No.1 Wing
only 33 pilots had been on active Ops, with fourteen actually having been
involved in air combat. Of that fourteen five were aces; Clive Caldwell with
20.5, Adrian Goldsmith with 12.5, Ray Thorold-Smith with 7, John Bisley with 6
and Bob Foster with 4.5.

 

On the 6th Feb '43 they drew first blood, shooting down a Ki-46 Dinah recce
bomber, but it was to be the 2nd Mar that they first faced Zeros. 21 A6Ms of the
202nd Kokutai escorted 9 G4M Bettys of the 753rd on a raid against Darwin. 20
miles off the coast, low on fuel, a flight of 6, 54 squadron Mk Vc Spitfires
caught the raiders. A swift, confused, 8 minute dogfight ensued. Both sides
claimed to have shot down several enemys, but in fact only one Spitfire and two
Zeros were damaged.
Wg Cdr Caldwell noted that in tight, 160 mph turns, the
Zero didn't get dangerously close until after the Spitfires' speed had begun to
wash off after the second turn. He "easily evaded" the Zero with a downward
break.

On the 15th Mar '43, returning from night ops and with their
oxygen supply depleted, 452 sqn attacked a force of 50 Japanese aircraft, split
evenly between fighters and bombers. Four Spitfires were lost, but four Zeros
were shot down, three of the bombers destroyed and a further seven Japanese
aircraft were damaged. It was a cold comfort, two of the Spitfire pilots downed
were killed, including seven 'kill' ace Sqn Ldr Thorold-Smith, 452s
CO.

Worse was to come. On the 2nd May'43 another 50 'plane Japanese raid
was met by all 33 of the Wings operational fighters. In a gruelling twenty five
minute running battle the Spitfires had five of their number shot down, but took
ten enemy aircraft in return, with many more damaged. However, a further
ten Spitfires were lost to fuel shortages and mechanical failures! The press
release from Gen. MacArthurs office stated they had suffered a "severe reverse".
With no way of knowing how many of their damaged foes made it back to base there
was no way to refute the report. Mud sticks. When the air war over Darwin is
mentioned today, the loss of 15 Spitfires for just 10 enemy aircraft inevitably
surfaces. Usually with a snide comment about the accuracy of the 10 claimed by
the Australians. http://warbirdsforum.com/images/smilies/frown.gif" />

On 9th May '43 Spitfires operating out of
a satelite field destroyed two Zeros and damaged a third. The victory was mared
when they lost a Spitfire in a landing accident.

28 May '43 six
Spitfires met thirteen Japanese aircraft. They lost two fighters, but shot down
two bombers and damaged a third.

20th June '43 the JAAF decided to try
their luck. 30 bombers and 22 Ki-43 Oscars were met by 46 Spitfires. 9 bombers
were destroyed, 8 more damaged, 5 fighters were shot down, 2 damaged without the
Wing losing a single Spitfire.

28 June '43 a mixed bag of 18 Zeros and
Bettys were bounced by 457 sqn. 3 Zeros were destroyed, 2 bombers probably
joined them, for no Australian loss.

30 June '43 Fenton, the base of the
USAAF 380th BG, was attacked by 27 Bettys and 20 Zeros. 4 bombers were
destroyed, 4 more probably destroyed, 3 Zeros were destroyed with 6 probables,
for no Spitfires lost.

6 July '43 saw 26 bombers and 21 fighters being
engaged by the Wing. 9 Japanese aircraft were destroyed, 2 Spitfires were shot
down, but 6 more were lost to mechanical defects.