Along with the Tempest, Typhoon, Mosquito, Meteor, among the mix.

 

You know, Stewie, this is what people dislike to read along with the trollish lying. Pure ignorance can be cured when the subject is willing, but this nonsense is just stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong at the most basic level, which is stupid,  even for you. 

 

The Spitfire about 950 km/h in a dive (590 mph)

The Lightning about 880 km/h in a dive (546) in a dive and that with powered controls.

 

Easily checked and verified. But then you would still LIE about that, wouldn't you, Stewie?

 

 

 

aeroelasticity of the Spitfire's wing; at high speeds the relatively light structure behind the strong leading edge torsion box would flex, changing the airflow and limiting the maximum safe diving speed to 480 mph (772 km/h) IAS^{[nb 1]}. The aeroelasticity of the wing also limited the roll performance of previous models of Spitfire.

I might add that the P-38 had a "Safe" diving speed of 505 MPH, or 25 MPH faster than the Early Spitfires mentioned above!
how do you reckon that as the P38 had DIVE BRAKES added to cure diving issues something never considered on spits, also the Spit was the aircraft choose to investigate high mach numbers in a dive why was that?
They added dive breaks to the P-38 because it could so easily exceed that 505 MPH limit! They used the Spitfire because that is all the RAF had!   

 

what tosh, the limit stated was placed on the Spit as that was the max revs of the Merlin - it was engine overspeed that was the critical factor (and why the P40 and P51 had the same limits)

 

but that wouldn't enable you to rubbish the spit would it!

Looks like our friend shooter has finialy realised that his arguments have no basis in fact and has resorted to posting then as reviews to books he has bought.

 

 

ps Have recieed that book on boddenplatte and working my way through it, one thing I find strange is the way they have assumed a 60% under count in allied losses, now there may be justification of this in the chapters I havent read yet, but so far I cannot actually see how they justify increasing from 120 confirmed losses to 400+ now I can see that the number is low based on the fact that USAAF bomber losses do not seem to be included (although from other sources it looks like a lot of these "losses" that wernt reported were due to the aircraft already being classed as a total loss before the raid occured ie the majority of B17 as these were all aircraft that landed in Europe due to damage)

 

yet by the same argument the Luftwaffe figures are pretty much accepted as being correct

 

now as I say maybe they do justify these number in the bits I havent read yet but they certainly dont in the appendix where they quote the numbers