Try reading "Fighter" by Len Deighton. His "factual" version of events.
I know a lot is personal opinion, but it is well researched and poses some interesting ideas.
It is along time since I read it, but he made two interesting points I still remember:
Firstly, the Germans made very poor use of the Me 110. Used as a close escort it could not make use of its powerful armament and good endurance. It had a top speed just below that of the Hurricane but was slow to accelerate when bounced. Its main benefit to the bombers was that it diverted some of the ammunition away from them.
The 110 crews wanted to use them in two ways. The first was as high level independent formations ahead of the main stream. This way they would trade hight for speed, and use their superior fire power to obtain first pass kills against more nimble single engined Brit fighters. A bit like the Americans achieved with the P38 a couple of years later.
Its second use would have been low level attack agaist the fighter bases.
Secondly, When Albert Speer was asked why the RAF had won the Battle of Britain. His answer was, in order:
1. Beaverbrook
2. Dowding and Park
3. The RAF fighter pilots
Beaverbrooks concentration on new build, rather than repair, meant that throughout the Battle loses of Spits and Hurries were replaced daily one for one. Around 7 Sep loses became critical, but the Germans changed tactics and lost the advantage. Lots more information on this in the book.
At the start of the battle the Germans fighter pilots had far more experience and superior tactics (which we quickly copied). The 11 Gp small number ambush kept our loses down while experience was gained.
If Leigh Mallory and Bader had been listened to and we had, in the early stages, thrown "big wings" over eastern Kent, where the 109 endurance was treble, our loses would have been unsustainable.
Final point. He thought our pilots were skilled, brave and learned quickly