I'm not sure if its the ability to use flaps itself that would make a difference. The perceived problem in 109s or 190 is that these planes are inherently unstable. Their basic handling at speeds is pretty much expected and would easily be on par with any other fighter, but in most cases the MA environment forces the pilot to push his plane often into low speed combat, and this is where the perceived problem becomes often so serious.
I have tested the turn performances of every fighter classified plane in the game, and the conclusion I have reached is that the relative figures for theoretical maneuvering performances are quite good, or perhaps, as expected.
However, the problem is that while some planes can easily use certain test settings, the 109 and 190 cannot. Much heavier planes like the P-51, or even the P-47 which is more than twice the weight of a 109, can be pushed upto 0.05 degrees before the AoA limit and retain full controllability. It is perfecrtly stable and does not show any signs of impending stall. However, the 109 and 190 has its hands full at more than 1 degrees before the absolute threshold.
To explain a bit further, my turn testings used a stall-limiter to minimize the possibility of human error. The stall limiter is an in-game device that limits the controls of the plane so the maximum elevator input stops before the absolute limit of the plane's angle of attack, at which point the plane will stall out. Thus, by using the smallest stall limiter setting possible (0.05 degrees before stall AoA), all planes would be tested with an equal amount of human control and ultimately, the pure mechanical performance of the plane would be shown.
The problem is, of the 56 fighter planes available in AH, 20 planes cannot retain enough controllability to use a 0.05 setting. Of those 20, six are 109s, and five are 190s(including the Ta as a 190 type). In short, none of the German fighter planes can use the minimum stall limiter setting. All of these planes need to use a larger stall setting to retain controllability required to test a steady turn maneuvering.
Simply put, the stall limiter is a loose indicator to as how stable the plane will perform before it reaches the stall threshold. The 109 and the 190, cannot go up to the 0.05 setting at all, and even at a setting of 1.0 degrees (the 190s often needed to use 1.2~1.5 degrees) before stall, a minimal amount of human control (continuous stick adjustment movement) is required to stop the plane from falling out of flight path and ruining the turn test.
In comparison, the P-38s, P-51s, P-47s - all of them significantly heavier than any 190 or 109, are perfectly stable and show no signs of troubled control upto 0.05 degrees before stall. They did not require any kind of control at all - all I had to do was set the limiter setting, and just pull the stick back max deflection, and the limiter will automatically stop the plane from stalling out. The plane will turn wonderfully, and I take the measurements and make out a turn radius.
With 109s or 190s, I had to use different stall limiter settings, changing it with increments of 0.02 at the first try until I reached 1.0 degrees before stall - where the planes were finally stable enough to control - and still sometimes the plane would falter and destabilize, attempts to correct flightpath would avalanche it into a succession of overcontrol, and the plane would get out of flightpath and I would have to start the whole thing all over again.
In a word, flaps are not gonna help.
The 109s and 190s, for some reason, are inherently unstable. Either that, or the competition the 109/190s are facing is inherently overmodelled.
The P-38, as I said before, I can understand. The turn testings showed that the P-38 has quite a large turn radius in fact, and the only reason the P-38 seems to turn so good is it can progress through its turns and speed reduction in a very short time due to its torqueless nature. This is truly a case of HTC's excellent plane modelling.
However, the P-47. This plane is almost twice heavier than the Bf109s, and at least 3,000lbs heavier than the Fw190s. Some have suggested that the heavy weight will allow a plane to 'mush' through the stalls more stably - but the 'mush' factor so forgiving to the plane as to outmaneuver planes half its weight? Or retain total stability right upto the stall AoA?
What about the P-51? IIRC the P-51 wasn't such a forgiving plane. Had weight related CG issues with certain fuel tanks, and often commented as having a vicious stall and heavily influenced by torque. Yet, this plane is also very comfortable right up to the stalling AoA.
The 109s and 190s, wobble.
When speed is reduced the torque changes so drastically that it wobbles. When it nears stall, it becomes super sensitive, and heavy flight control input with start a chain reaction of destabilization, with the attitude of the plane changing so violently that even slight inputs to correct plane attitude will make the situation even more worse - commonly referred to as 'overcontrol'.
If this, is something normal to expect in prop fighters, then at least, up to an extent, it should exist with the P-51s or P-51s, or any kind of fighter planes we have - except it doesn't.
The reason people want 109 flaps deployed at higher speeds, IMO, is because they expect it to act like the P-51 or P-47 flaps. Cutting down E in high speeds, assisting maneuverability by stabilizing the plane at low speeds.... except, 109 flaps don't help at all.
So the chances are, even if we get the 109 flaps deployed at higher speeds, the plane will still wobble, and we'll be forced to back down stick pressure, and the P-51 or P-47 we're fighting will merrily 'mush' through the turns and rolls in a perfectly stable attitude, and march down to our rear end and shoot us down.
Flaps are not the problem.
It's the whoopeeed wobbling around that's the problem... The turn radius I've measured and tested suggests that if only we didn't have to go through such a stinkin' insanely difficult time just trying to keep the plane from rocking around left and right, we'd be able to perform a lot better against the planes that have a turn radius 150 feet wider and weight 4,000 lbs heavier, than our planes.
But as it is, currently, we're routinely outmaneuvered by planes with 150 feet wider turn radius and 4,000 lbs more fat. Its such a common sense for P-51/P-47 pilots to just drop speed, lower flaps, and dance around at 500 ft. over the ground with 109s and 190s - without the slightest hesitation or fear. These are planes they know they can beat in a slow-speed fight.
A crock of bullshi*, if you ask me.
