Also doesn't mention they used the radiator flap as an airbrake, but they did.
Everything comes down to how HTC chooses to represent/depict the 'reality' of aerial combat. I've mentioned this in some of my older posts (going back many years, I'm afraid) through the term I've coined as a case between
"Technical Reality" vs
"Situational Reality".
Once again, the useful comparison in the form of 1C:Maddox's IL-2 series.
IL-2 is a classic example of reality represented in the form of "Technical Reality" - they pay attention to the details in how a plane can technically be handled, as directly opposed to the HTC/AH approach, in which an arbitrary standard is sometimes used to limit how one handles the plane, so to preserve the integrity of the "Situational Reality".
For example, in IL-2 the prop pitch governing the engine RPM of the Bf-109 series can be manually handled, as it could be done with the real plane. The pilot may disengage the CSU-type of prop management, and by means of manually altering the prop pitch to allow higher engine RPMs than standard/automatically-governed settings, in effect he can push the plane into a temporary - and
ABNORMAL - WEP effect. Such use of manual prop pitch augmentation is also documented in history, in which 109s seeing service in the Northern Europe sometimes used this method in take-off runs from short and small airfields.
Ofcourse, in any case such use was exceptional and rare, and certainly most pilots would not dream of increasing the management workload during the heat of combat. It is a "technical possibility", but remains an adamant "situational improbability". However, the casual and comfy combat environment of the game pilot, has allowed this technical possibility to become a SOP during combat. The 109s fighting in IL-2 multiplayer sessions, are piloted by gamers who use this
abnormal WEP to the extremes - which resulted in 109s outperforming many of the planes in may areas which it normally shouldn't. This gave rise to a huge debate on the "gaminess" in the IL-2 boards, and was thoroughly discussed. However, since the game itself was designed that way, the countermeasures introduced in later versions of IL-2 were relatively ineffective in preventing how people played the game.
On the other hand, despite the fact that the 109s technically do have the ability to disengage the CSU, in AH it is not allowed. The prop pitch angles, and how they effect the RPM is strictly locked to basic RPM changes according to the factory setting. The end result, is that in a broad sense the 109s in AH fly and fight more realistically than in IL-2. In a twist of irony the 'unrealistical' limit more or less enforces the game pilot to fly 109s under conditions which would be more representative of WW2 era combat tendencies.
And, the above applies exactly same to flaps.
Anecdotes may tell a story in which a talented pilot would deploy flaps well over the standard limits, but just how representative is that, when you consider the gross average of pilots flying the plane?
