[Lo0n]

that's it though, a lot of it comes down to feelings or with reference to what has been read. not meaning any offence, but the manouvers described could have been beyond a lot of wartime pilots abilities. so pulling them off, for us average pilots, could be something we simply aren't capable of. i'm just recounting a lot of what has been said on this, and remembering a lot of the lengthier discussions relating to performance. one that comes to mind is kurfursts insistence that the k4 climbs slower than it should, and that spits are overmodelled with regard to overheating. the findings were that the in game k4 outperformed it's most optimistic test results, the spits overheating was about right, and the k4 was in fact overmodelled, despite kurfys insistence it was undermodelled and an example of red bias. the fm debates are long, painful and ultimately down to feelings (tagart should tm that particular phrase) as opposed to reference to detailed, hard to come by testing results. there are also the test results based on clapped out, incorrectly reassembled captured examples that can skew expectations, as well as the problem that some of these dodgier test results could have been used for the fm data (for the simple reason that no other extensive testing data was available). also there is the issue that we have certain models of aircraft that aren't particularly representative of the actual models used in wartime - i'm particularly thinking of the tempest we have in game, 9lbs boost model and the most common wartime version was 11lbs or 13lbs boost. which again could cause some of the "this isn't performing as described" issues.
one thing worth noting is that the undermodelled US planes issue is apparently a western only gripe. a lot of russian players complain of a US bias, almost as much as people here complain of a perceived russian bias! if all sides of the issue are complaining of inaccuracies or bias in equal measure then the middle ground of reality can't be far off.