Here's a more complete version from niklas's site,showing stick forces as well, it's not quite even playing field.. I wonder if anyone
There are some comments of 109E roll rate in the August 1940 Luftwaffe tactical comparison on my site :
http://www.kurfurst.bravehost.com/
I've seen an article on a recently restored 109E test flight, the pilot said the ailerons were very impressive, and he compared them to the spit w metal ailerons, but 50% higher roll rate, but nothing more specific. I suppose because of the square wingtips of the 109E..?
Speaking of clipping, I always wondered about that clipped/Unclipped Spit roll rate graph. It seems to originate to RAE, but the trouble with it is that half a dozon reports I have on the same things is just showing it's something alien.
I have ww2 pilot queries, in which they were asked wheter they could compete the 190 in roll - the vast majority said not a chance, ask back for normal wings. I have pilots on restored warbirds, they say the metal ailrons were pretty much the same as the 109s (ie. 80-90 degrees peak), and the clipped at 3 secs for a 360 degree roll. The NACA tests specifically says they can't obtain full deflection over 140 mph ias with 40 lbs, and RAE in comparison with the Mustang notes 45 deg/sec roll rate at 400 mph ias would require 72 lbs stick force on the Spit.
Then there's the British tests on wheter clipping worths it or not, and they say...
Finally here's some timed roll rate tests on two spit 12s, one was considered having 'poor' ailerons, the other good ones, decribed in the rest of the report. Linked via M williams site :
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mk12roll.gif It agrees well with the findings of RAE posted above.
Compare with the trend on NACA roll chart posted. It just don't agree at all, and I wonder why is this, I tend to b inclined that this is probably showing some MkV experimental aileron type testing, there were quite a few such tests in 1943. Does anyone have a detailed report that the NACA roll chart is originated from?