I guess it is pretty difficult to find detailed info on these things, especially when you consider pilot accounts. The role in attack vs. defend can make a big difference in how a battle was flown
I think that some planes get a bad rep simply because their pilots were not as experienced or they were always forced into the role at a disadvantage, weather they were outnumbered or forced to defend. Then there is the painful task of sifting through propaganda, which all sides were very guilty of. I guess in times of war this may be a neccecary evil to keep moral up, but now that it is over it is a pain in the arse. I don't know how many times I've picked up a book about the subject that was written here, only to see that it was slaughtered by the U.S anti-iconoclast dweebs. Same goes for the foreign material. I don't see why they felt the need to to lie about the performance of the craft. It seemed that they loved to protect the integrity of the engineers even if it meant that this would downplay the skill of their pilots, and now that alot of the smoke is clear, some of these planes are nearly extinct and the pilots have died of old age.
I love machines, but I will always beleive that pilot skill is a more important factor when considering aircraft within it's perameters. I would not go as far as saying that any plane will do for a great pilot (although there are probably some pilots in here that are good enough to shoot everyone down equipped only with a Jungmeister and a revolver), but I would say that alot of aircraft in that era had alot more potential than they are given credit for.
