Interesting info about Warthunder handling some aspects of flight mechanics better. I did not know that. And since I care more about FM's than if the graphics models are in 4K, and if all the rivets are in the right place, maybe I should check it out. Because unfortunately, some of the other flight sims seem more concerned with engine starting sequences, or liveries etc. rather than first order flight model effects like getting speed, climb and turn rates correct.
I have all 3 of the major combat flight sims. WarThunder is the one that is mostly a game and not trying to capture the aesthetics of historical combat. A lot of people that are historically inclined find this jarring; for instance planes are balanced based on basically the average player capability in them and not based on year of introduction or anything like that. A very long time ago they had more historically based events but typically people would congregate to whatever side had the best stuff and was likely to win.
Flight model wise between Il-2 (which I have played a lot of recently) and WarThunder, I think that War Thunder overall has better flight modeling in regards to low speed flight control and how turning is modeling. There is some stuff that you can do on Il-2 at very low speed with full flaps and rudder deflection that just doesn't seem realistic like being able to do controlled tail slide in P-38 from pure vertical.
There are other aspects that WarThunder doesn't model the same. G limitations and G forces are more like G suggestions for the pilot. This only really has an affect on early part of a fight and doesn't really change anything compared to Il-2 IMO. Roll rate compression in WarThunder is also significantly less than most people think it should be; especially for Japanese planes. However those tests cited are usually limited to 50lb stick force and full fuel.
However the way that G limits are modeled means stuff like A6M2 and Swedish Buffalo can pull 12-14g turn at high speed. So there is no free lunch here.
Another problem is that the flight models in all of the current flight simulators I've flown so far are all far too wobbly and oscillate all over the place. I've flown both the two-seat Spitfire Mk IX and P-51 D Mustang at Sywell, and both are rock solid. The aircraft's movement IRL is crisp and precise. And the aircraft moves and stops in conjunction with stick movement. There is no lag, oscillations or wobbliness whatsoever. Even on the Spitfire. So paradoxically, the old often derided "on rails" flight models are actually much more realistic. But I suspect such a change back to a more realistic FM would not go down with some flight sim "purists", some of whom seem to equate difficulty to control and lag and wobbliness with realism. The DCS Spitfire Mk IX being a prime example.
Interesting video with the P-51 and Fw 190 turn fight in Warthunder you posted. And even without having seen any "telemetry" data from how speed and altitude varies in that fight, to me it still seems much more believable that you cycle the flaps and don't just keep them out all the time IL-2 style. And in my simulation they are even closer in performance: Only slightly less than 2 deg/s advantage to the P-51 D at 75" boost. And that's with the caveat that the P-51 D has only the same fuel load as the Fw 190 D-9. So a P-51D with more fuel in its tanks will have a hard time out-turning a Fw 190 D-9 at Erhörte Notleistung.
The Spitfire in War Thunder is modeled to be somewhat unstable. Basically the developers have tried to duplicate the idea that you use the stick to set the angle of attack and then neutralize it for the Spitfire. This causes a lot of issues for people because you basically have far more stick movement available than what you want at most speeds.
There's some nuance because generally speaking I think Il-2 and DCS are really mushy at low stick deflections whereas the WarThunder Spitfire is just very sensitive but responsive. It's more common to see people get to aggressive in the Spitfire and spin it in War Thunder than Il-2. Same goes for the FW-190.
An interesting point about flaps is that while one would guess that split flaps are pretty bad from a drag standpoint, there is actually very little to choose between the type of plain flaps found on the P-51 and Bf 109, and the split flaps on the Spitfire, when you get flap deflections above around 20-30 degrees. Below that then the plain flaps are slightly better, but paradoxically, above that then split flaps produce more lift with less drag! And at flap angles of 25 deg like in my video, then if the Spitfire could have deployed them to this angle as well, they would actually have done a better job than on the Bf 109!
So had the Spitfire Mk I had the possibility to drop its flaps (even though they were of the split type) either in steps or seamlessly like on the Bf 109 E, then there would have been no material for me on which to do the video, since the Spitfire would have been superior in all aspects of turns. However, as it was, due to the two-position nature of the flap control on the Spitfire, the Bf 109 actually had this one ace up its sleeve.
Flaps in WarThunder differ based on the plane and flaps on the Spitfire will increase the turn rate when fully deployed but they also rip off at very low speeds; so the limits of using them is basically getting over the top of a loop at very low speed or in stalls.
FW-190 flaps will increase sustained turn rate by a bit and reduce the turning speed in the takeoff position. In the landing position they will reduce radius by a lot while lowering the turn rate by a slight amount. However during the transition between the high turning speed and the lower turning speed it will turn better; so the advantage to landing flaps is much better turn rate for a short timespan and then the new lower speed actually hurts you.
View: https://youtu.be/1Eim1oDKB_M
This is an older video of mine that compares the maneuvering characteristics of the P-51D-30 (75") vs Bf.109 G-6 (1.8 ATA) and showcases how close this match up is in the game. This matchup though ends up being very similar in Il-2 with the caveat that Il-2s flight modeling makes longer term energy type tactic in turn less viable since it is easier to stand on the landing flaps.
