It is your problem that you can't wrap your mind around it. You are too fixated on the "Uber Luftwaffe and their uber machines" to give a fair shake to anything else.
Karnak,
You are saying that I am fixated on Luftwaffa A/C? Not hardly, I have much more issue with Russian and Allied A/C performance that is out of wack. The La-7, NIK2, Spit V, IX and XIV especially in the area of fuel consumption. I am satisfied with the 109G10 now that I have real data.
The issue I am most interested in is
relative maneuverability of different A/C and their individual characteristics.
I have always felt that the stall speeds of most AH FM's fell to close together. The reccomended looping speed is a great example. Yes the Spit will win a looping contest with the F4U, but will the F4U win the contest with the Tempest? Maybe but not by the same margin as defined in the flight manual. The Spit IX is 20MPH superior in it's minimum entry speed to the F4U. But the F4U is 30MPH superior to the Tempest and Typhoon.
My question is how is this reflected in AH?
Hazed,
I know what you mean, I have interviews with modern pilots that say the same things about the ease of looping and maneuvers. It really shows the relative lack of experiance of most WW2 pilots.
I was at an Airshow a couple years ago where it was a cloudy day with a low ceiling. They were going to fly a P-51D, P-47D, F4U-1D and P-40. I spoke to the pilot (Dan Demeo I think his name was) he told me that they could not fly the P-51 or P-47 because of the low clouds and the minumum altitude required to loop those planes or do virtical maneuvers. The F4U and P-40 had no such problem.
I actually listen to the AFDU data where is says that X plane should be able to get on the tail of Y plane in 3 turn etc. When this does not work I try the math. If the math agrees then I try AH and If AH does not agree then I try the message boards.