Exactly. Agreed. But what exactly is a fapping session?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fapping
A Spitfire IXA, properly F MkIXA would be one with 8x.303. In the Spitfire the letter is the wing type, not variant, as you certainly know.
Al Deere disagrees with the differences between IXA and IXB. I'm aware that it's generally said that the letter stands for the wing type but he uses it for a difference in engine.
Alan Deere, Biggin Hill, Wing Commander Flying (March 1943):
Alan Deere, Nine Lives, (Crecy Publishing, Manchester, 1999), p. 258.The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire IXBs (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance to the FW 190 below 27,000 ft. Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire IX wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at a lower altitude and the aircraft attained its best performance at 21,000 ft, or at roughly the same altitude as the FW 190. At this height it was approximately 30 mph faster, was better in the climb and vastly more manoeuvrable. As an all-around fighter the Spitfire IXB was supreme, and undoubtedly the best mark of Spitfire produced, despite later and more powerful versions.
When was the Spitfire better than any other fighter? I'd say that for most of the war it was certainly as good as pretty much any other fighter (evolutionary cycles such as the Spitfire V falling behind the FW-190 taken into account). I honestly don't think any fighter during the war ever had a sustained period of being 'better than the rest' though.
As an example - the Zero was much feared in 1941/early 42 because of it's amazing manoeuvrability and quickly established superiority over Allied air forces in the Far East (admittedly mostly equipped with inferior fighters to the latest marks of Spitfire etc then in use in Europe). However, later on the allied pilots learned to use their aircrafts' superior armament and weight to attack the Zeros in fast slashing attacks which often tore the very lightweight Zero apart rather than trying to dogfight with them as they had in 1941/42. Was the Zero massively superior to the equivalent Spitfire (or Bf-109) or was it merely able to take advantage of the RAF/USAAC pilots' relative lack of experience and the lack of intelligence about what they were facing?
That's what I mean - I don't believe there was ever a period of more than a few months at most when any fighter could claim to be the best in the world if you were comparing them 1vs1 in an equal fight, and I think I'm probably being generous with that.