Take anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt.

[Angus]

"Yet there are examples of lots of misinformation or zero information about enemy aircraft types. For example RAF pilots believed 109s had weak wings that would snap"

Here is a test pilots report.
"The Bf-109 built speed rapidly in a dive, however the necessity to attend to propeller speed proved a distraction as I closed quickly upon the target.  Pulling out of the dive, I discovered that the Bf-109’s elevators became distressingly heavy at high speed.  I had read wartime accounts of Spitfire pilots taking Bf-109s into steep high-speed dives, knowing that the Bf-109 would be unable to pull out.  This was a convincing demonstration, requiring a two-handed pull to achieve a 3.5 ‘g’ recovery at 450 km/hour."
(From the 109E article on this very board)

The anecdotes and pilots accounts from the RAF's side are:
- "The 109 will pull away from a Spitfire in a dive, but a P-51 will follow it". This is rather true.
- "The 109 will have a harder time recovering from a very high speed dive than a Spitfire". This is also true.
I have seen one account of 2 109's being chased, where one smashed into the sea and the other one pulled the wings off. But true to anecdotes, take it with a grain of salt, I read this almost 30 years ago. Guppy would be able to look it up, I belive he has the book. (Clouds of Fear by Roger "Sammy" Hall)
One anecdote also claims that the 109 (in that case the G, not the E) would recover from just about any dive, given that the pilot used the trim and did not overestimate his altitude. This is probably quite correct as well.
Anecdotes are anecdotes, but sometimes they build up the only data possible. The more, the better

[Have]

Here's a viewpoint from a Finnish fighter pilot Captain Hans Wind
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

I heard one such story from a pilot transitioned into a P-47 from a P-38 in the Pacific and did end up getting into a fight that next day in his P-47 (as well as having a live duck in his cockpit at the time -- it's an interesting story),

Is there any more information available of this incident? The duck sounds pretty hilarious
I've read several biographies of German fighter pilots who had dogs as pets and sometimes had them in cockpit with them. Also if I remember correctly, Gunther Rall had once a wild badger somewhere inside his cockpit instrument panel. One instrument was missing and at some point during a dogfight the badger peeked through the hole of the missing instrument. After seeing Rall it got scared and vanished and was not seen again.

[Angus]

Rall told me about his cockpit "friend" when I met him shortly before his death in September.
It was a mouse he said. Quite startled him by poking it's head out of a gauge-hole in the panel and staring at him. The altitude was quite much, more than 20K!!!
Anyway, there was a paratrooper who had a pet-hen, and took several jumps with her. He would let her go as he approached the ground, so she had some fluttering. It ended sadly, for her last jump was over Arnhem, and in the engagement the hen met her maker....somehow.

[Simba]

Reckon that hen fell into the hands of the Polish Parachute Brigade and they ate her.

 

[Karnak]

"Yet there are examples of lots of misinformation or zero information about enemy aircraft types. For example RAF pilots believed 109s had weak wings that would snap"

Here is a test pilots report.
"The Bf-109 built speed rapidly in a dive, however the necessity to attend to propeller speed proved a distraction as I closed quickly upon the target.  Pulling out of the dive, I discovered that the Bf-109’s elevators became distressingly heavy at high speed.  I had read wartime accounts of Spitfire pilots taking Bf-109s into steep high-speed dives, knowing that the Bf-109 would be unable to pull out.  This was a convincing demonstration, requiring a two-handed pull to achieve a 3.5 ‘g’ recovery at 450 km/hour."
(From the 109E article on this very board)

The anecdotes and pilots accounts from the RAF's side are:
- "The 109 will pull away from a Spitfire in a dive, but a P-51 will follow it". This is rather true.
- "The 109 will have a harder time recovering from a very high speed dive than a Spitfire". This is also true.
I have seen one account of 2 109's being chased, where one smashed into the sea and the other one pulled the wings off. But true to anecdotes, take it with a grain of salt, I read this almost 30 years ago. Guppy would be able to look it up, I belive he has the book. (Clouds of Fear by Roger "Sammy" Hall)
One anecdote also claims that the 109 (in that case the G, not the E) would recover from just about any dive, given that the pilot used the trim and did not overestimate his altitude. This is probably quite correct as well.
Anecdotes are anecdotes, but sometimes they build up the only data possible. The more, the better

That is the kind of data pilots wanted and looked for.  Not the specific types of guns, where they are mounted, how much ammo it carried, the exact top speed (which varied too much within a type anyways), what exact engine it had and so forth.

[thorsim]

That is the kind of data pilots wanted and looked for.  Not the specific types of guns, where they are mounted, how much ammo it carried, the exact top speed (which varied too much within a type anyways), what exact engine it had and so forth.

i suspect that first hand accounts are very accurate about the aircraft the pilot making the account was flying and are very good sources if limited to that. 

however since they had less information about their opponents actual situation i think pilot accounts about more than "what happened" are far more suspect.

i.e. a pilot can report that plane a flew into the ground during an encounter, he however may not be able to offer much accurate information as as to why that plane flew into the ground or whether that result could be "expected" in any other situation. 

so i would not dismiss anecdotal evidence just because it is anecdotal evidence, however i would limit it's scope of  accuracy because it is anecdotal evidence.   

+S+

t

[Angus]

Karnak, I very much agree with you.
Since there were captured aircraft from all sides from early war onwards, there was really some exchange of information.
Mölders flew a captured Spitfire and a Hurricane in 1940. Quill flew a captured 109 in 1940/41. Both had been flying their own types, and even Quill, a seasoned test-pilot did combat sorties in the BoB, so he actuyally jostled with the 109 before trying it for himself.
Their anecdotes actually go in line.
I would always take it for granted that there was an effort of learning from the enemy's aircraft just as well as their tactics. Might not always have gone through all the ranks, and may have been coloured or distorted through bossing, politics, arrogance, inorance and such, but there was always an effort of trying to understand the enemy and what the enmy had and could.