Manoeuvre rating for WW2 aircraft

[eWildcat]

Any of the WWII simns are just games, with flight models usually tweaked from some earlier sim. I seriously doubt if an average person with no flight training could get a P-51D off the ground. But EVERYONE can do it in a PC sim. What does that say for accuracy? People with no tailwheel training would also very likely never get one down and stopped without a groundloop but, again, everyone in a PC simulator can do it.
Get a WWII fighter at 250 mph, bank to ... say ...75°, and pull has hard as you can. Think you'll get a turn or a whip-stall / spin after a wind-up? The sims all get a pretty decent turn from that maneuver.

"Any of the WWII sims" is now a little exaggerated. Though what you describe certainly stands true for most "older" sims, if you play, say, DCS-51 you'll certainly find that landing is no longer an easy task, and you will stall and spin as soon as you try to pull the stick with no regard to basic airmanship. Though sims still have innate limits (fied of view and no G-load, for example) the "hardcore" ones have improved a lot in the last years.

 

[Gixxerman]

I'm gently dipping my toe into the Il 2 world with the PS3 game....just wondering if I should buy the flight-stick for it or go the whole hog get the PC version stick etc.
Great game tho

 

[Garyt]

The 109,190 and Mustang were ok up to the ultimate 0.8 range, with the Spit being the king in 0.85+ range.

One thing that it is important to remember is that compressibility effects may start to be noticeable earlier but it is still possible to control (and even fight) the aircraft up to the ultimate limit. The Mustang was a good example, you could start to notice effects (in its case porpoising) before its maximum allowable limit, but it was still controllable (interestingly in certain flight regimes the Mustang could nose up, rather than the usual nose down). So there was a large margin for the pilot to work with.

So these effects are seperate from compression?

This "not excede speed", is this when the plane cannot handle effectively anymore, or is it only an issue for diving?

And any idea what the Japanese planes mach limits were?

 

[bobbysocks]

I'm gently dipping my toe into the Il 2 world with the PS3 game....just wondering if I should buy the flight-stick for it or go the whole hog get the PC version stick etc.
Great game tho

i gather you are playing birds of steel on your ps3? you are way better off with PC and a stick ( and rudder pedals). you will have way more options...diffferent games...you can create games....etc. i played BoS on xbox and its predecessor birds of prey. flight models for us planes are horrible.

 

[drgondog]

When the P-38 was "fixed," the P-51 had begun to appear in the ETO and there was no reason to continue two supply lines for fighters to do the same job. So the P-38's were largely released to the MTO and PTO.

The generally-quoted tally for the P-51 usually includes about 50% or so ground kills. The P-38 was no slouch at ANY time during the war and really didn't need to dive at very high speed all that often, especially if they were staying with the bombers as escort. That from some pilots who flew it in the war and have spoken at the Planes of Fame Museum.

Ah, depends on what you quote as the 'generally quoted tally for the P-51. Based on the USAF VC tally, current and up to date the air to air tally is still higher than F6F.. 5921 (USAF tally) to 5168 (USN tally) - both far higher than P-38(3785) and P-47 (3661) USAF. Throw in 8th AF (only) air to ground scores of 3199.75 (P-51), 161(P-38 ) and 740 (P-47)

The reason the P-38 needed to be able to dive is that the pesky German fighters knew they COULDN'T dive and easily evaded P-38 combat if at disadvantage. Didn't get a partial solution until the J-25 which came just before D-Day and only the 479th FG got to really fight with them before all the P-38s were shipped to 9th AF.

We tend to speak in absoultes in here and the war wasn't very absolute. Many times an older, slower aircraft flown by a good pilot fought quite well against a newer, supposdely better-performing aircraft flown by an average pilot.

Greg - if you haven't already taken the time to research a.) the conversion dates from P-38 to P-51 (ETO), P-47 to P-51 (ETO/MTO) as well as 31st FG Spitfire to P-51 it will be hard for you to extract much from the Study 73 and 85 official VC's into the desired stacks. I'm still working on MTO but nearly finished cross checking. PTO a little more sketchy so I depend on USAFHRC and assume correct.

 

[drgondog]

I only have the USAAF Statistical Digest numbers for the ETO for the P-51 and the USAAF acknowledged 4,950 air kills and 4,131 ground kills for a total of 9,081. That is from the USAAF itself, not my opinion. I have absolutely no stake in the numbers whether they be larger or smaller. I have 5,163 for the F6F. When I entered the data from US Navy Opnav-P-23V No. A129, dated 17 June 1946 into Excel, I found after many checks that the Navy had made a slight math error in the table, Excel doesn't usually come up with an error when adding numbers.

The USAAF Statistical Digest was superseded by the much more thorough USAF Victory Credits studies and published results

For the P-47 in the ETO the USAAF has 3,082 air kills and 3,202 ground kills. For the P-38 in the ETO the USAAF has 1,771 air kills and 749 ground kills. Given the fact that it wasn't operating in the ETO for half of the US involvement, that isn't too bad.

It isn't too bad because it is grossly overstated with respect to ETO air to air tally for both the P-47 and P-38. 2658 and 458 for P-38 and P-47 respectively is for ETO theatres.. 1771 is close to my current P-38/PTO total of 1726 preliminary roll up using USAFHRC tables. but preliminary only as I haven't crosschecked with USAF 85.

I tend to shy away from USAAF Staistical Digest because so far they are far out of synch with USAF studies just for air to air. 8th AF VCB was the sole foundation source for USAAF ground scores in fact because neither the 9th, 12th or 15th truly documented ground scores. So, the question arises - what is your source for ground scores other than 8th AF?

And as far as the dive limits are concerned, I believe the number of times a fighter wound up in a near vertical dive up to or near the critical Mach number was VERY low, whether or not they were fightiing a Bf 109 or Fw 190 of any sort. If you dive away, you exit the fight in pursuit of your target, leave your assigned unit, and take yourself out of the action by separation from the rest. I'm sure it happened, but am just as sure it was reasonably infrequent. If I were flying a plane with known issues in steep dives, I might just decide to let the diving bugger go and pursue other targets that were sticking around to fight my unit.

Curious - while probably correct, what is your metric for 'low' per say for published Encounter reports? In ETO the 'normal' modus operandi for LW fighters was to attack and dive away to escape... there were many pursuits in foces ranging from single to element to flight strength.. define 'many' you say? I would be guessing but from Encounter Reports for P-51 and P-47 perhaps 10 or more percent, for P-38 1-2%.

I've been listening to fighter pilots give talks once a month at the Planes of Fame for more than 8 years, usually 2 - 3 per event, and the number of times they describe vertical dives in combat has been 2 - 3 in all that time. Each one talks for anywhere from 25 minutes to an hour and describes many aspects of WWII air combat. Dives just aren't mentioned much. So, you might be right when saying the dive limits were a severe handicap in WWII combat, but I wouldn't know it to listen to the guys who were there and did it.

In every one of my father's 7 air to air victory credits save one, a diving chase ensued some from high to middle and some from high to low. The exception was the Stuka on the deck on D-Day that was at 500 feet. Take a random walk through Mike Williams published collection and see for yourself. His experience was not atypical for Mustang and Thunderbolt drivers. Take a look at Old's P-38 encounter reports... to name one Lightning pilot's experiences in ETO, Ditto John Landers..

Anyone who thinks the Japanese were less combat worthy than the German might remember that when Spitfires came up against Zeros, they didn't fare too well. Like all air forces (and Navy air arms), the Japanese had their expert pilots along with average pilots and raw recruits just out of flight school. Right to the end of the war the experts were a significant threat to anyone they encountered. There seems to a feeling in here that the Japanese pilots were meat on the table for the last two years of the war, but the guys who were there aren't the people saying it. To a man they respected the Japanese pilots and considered them worthy foes.

Like you, Bill, I'd LOVE to come across Soviet combat data for anything including P-39 / P-63's. If anyone knows where it can be found, please sing out.

Haven't seen any Soviet individual breakouts in form of Encounter reports. Someone a lot more knowledgeable than me will have to raise their hand and direct us.

 

[GregP]

Hi Bill,

When I try to access the Maxwell AFB files, I get an error that the Air University is down and they are working on it. The message has been the same for more than 6 months. I wish I had saved the raw data when I accessed it a couple of years back, but I expected it to continue to be available.

I'm working on getting USAF Victory Credits data into Excel and am about 50% through it. I saved the pdf, unlocked it, and put the text into Excel. I then used Excel formulas to break it out, but you have to go through it and ensure the records are consistent before you do any analysis. For instance, some records do not show a rank for the person, so the data moves one column to the left since the rank is missing. There are also a few mis-scanned lines ... enough to require pretty thorough checking.

When I am done, you are welcome to a copy if you want one. I have not researched the ETO units to seen when they converted between combat mounts, but that information would come in very handy. I want the information, but many of the scanned documents are just scans and cannot be converted into text. I decline to hand enter tens of thousands of records myself. As you know, I am not the world's best typist.

Want to share any data files? I can email up to several Gb.

When I went back and checked, my kills numbers seem to have come from "America's Hundred Thousand" by Francis Dean, which I picked up actually upon your recommendation. Good book, but the numbers are somewhat at odds with other respected numbers. I am almost at a loss when there are three or more sets of numbers, all of whom come from respected sources, and none agree with one another. It's tough for me to decide which source to pick as the best.

Perhaps we could share data source recommendations.

For the US Navy I lean toward OPNAV-P-23V NO. A129, dated 17 June 1946. The title is "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, World War II." It is available in pdf format online or I can send a copy to anyone who wants it. It is 2.6 Mb in size, so I can email it as an attachment. It is scanned and not text, but the individual tables of interest aren't too big to enter by hand most of the time.

If this forum had a place to store data files, I'd put it there for anyone to download.

Right now I am at odds with myself over which USAAF source to use, but would love to see the USAF Victory Credits file. Maybe then we'd have some apples-to-apples conversations. I have a feeling that many of our exchanges are due to using numbers from different sources. You throw around numbers for air and ground kills for the P-51 (and others) ... and I can't seem to find a single good sopurce that breaks it out. The Statistical Digest only breaks out general types (fighters, heavy bomber, etc.) and does not have anything for P-51. P-47. etc. I am not in the habit of posting numbers from thin air (and I know you aren't, either) ... they come from somewhere, but maybe not from the same place as you get them. Common sources might help everyone in here.

 

[Gixxerman]

i gather you are playing birds of steel on your ps3? you are way better off with PC and a stick ( and rudder pedals). you will have way more options...diffferent games...you can create games....etc.

Yes, that's the one.
I'm really just starting off on it (haven't tried on-line or anything outside of 'arcade' mode.
It's a fun game but being arcade mode means it is pretty far from any kind of accuracy/reality.

I had a look at pedals (my initial thought was a flight stick but saw people saying your really want the pedals), then I looked at the prices, phew!
Another expensive hobby lol

 

[OldSkeptic]

So these effects are seperate from compression?

This "not excede speed", is this when the plane cannot handle effectively anymore, or is it only an issue for diving?

And any idea what the Japanese planes mach limits were?

'Compression' is what used to be called mach limit. Compression was an early term because they really had no idea what was going on. As the impacts of close to mach 1 effects became more understood then they changed terms.

 

[bobbysocks]

Yes, that's the one.
I'm really just starting off on it (haven't tried on-line or anything outside of 'arcade' mode.
It's a fun game but being arcade mode means it is pretty far from any kind of accuracy/reality.

I had a look at pedals (my initial thought was a flight stick but saw people saying your really want the pedals), then I looked at the prices, phew!
Another expensive hobby lol

sent you a PM. you will only be able to unlock skins for your planes in versus matches...and you earn more points that way too to buy planes. if you get shot up you can pay to fix your plane or let it sit overnight ( 7 hours and the magic ground crew fixes it ). make the leap to both online play because that is where it gets fun. the kills are harder to get even against AI.... also go to realistic or sim...or custom. it places more limitations on the planes...in arcade they fly like jets. there is a good group of guys who play regularly and can help you out. german planes fly like a dream...same with the most of the russian. us planes fly like bricks....p40 and p39 are ok. p51 and p47 are huge dissapointments.

 

[Kryten]

I would recommend IL2 Cliffs of Dover on a PC, the original game was diabolical with glitches galore, but since it being dropped by the producer, a group of talented programmers have been working on it and have rectified the glitches, they have spent hours working on flight models and game physics to bring them in line with published documentation and have improved the graphic quality and stability, it really is a night and day transformation!

It's also a work in progress as they are introducing more and more adjustments which improve graphics and effects, terrain is being improved (originally very good anyway, now stunning) and all the little bits of code that slowed the game up and ruined it is re written , end result is it now works, very well, without doubt the most detailed ww2 flight sim available, and to boot cheap as chips right now as it's no longer supported by the producers (hurrah for that)

 

[GregP]

Exactly how did they find the flight models?

That is an intersting question because various flight test reports wildly disagree with one another depending on manifold pressure used, fuel used, rpm used, and whether or not the aircraft used for the test was typical of combat planes in the theater of operations being looked at. A p-40 with tropical filters was not going to fly like an ETO P-40 with no air filter. The same can be said for various types and various conditions including finish, cleanlinesss, prop condition, mud on the airframe, bugs, dun port covers, etc.

Guys in China used 75 inches of MAP on some of their P-40's (that from General John R. "Davey" Allison) ... not related to the Allison engine company. The Air Corps approved 57 inches. The difference in performance was astounding. That also from Allison, in person in 2010 . He passed away in 2011.

The usual sims don't tell you how they got their data ... it is just a game that must be dumb enough for most players to be able to win, or it doesn't sell very well. And that is the end objective ... to sell games.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with realism. It is all marketing and the playability. They KNOW which fighters should win, and allow for player ability, not for realistic responses.

Get real.

Commerecial WWII sims are games, not representative of flight characteristics of WWII aircraft or people would crash often. Name ONE sim where they do. You can't. All sims available in the gaming world are very flyable by people who have never flown anything.

How real can that BE?

Answer ... go put a non-pilot into a Cessna or Piper, let him or her take off and then try to land. 97% would be dead or injured.

The percent in sims is WAY less, and the "skill" to survive is EASY to acquire within the games.

Not so in real Cessnas or Pipers, which are EASY to fly in real life. P-51's are NOT easy to fly unless you have proper training in a suitable aircraft. Mostly the AT-6. Find a sim where the AT-6 is well modeled and tell us.

If you have 250 hours in an AT-6 in the front seat, you can probably fly a Mustang without killing yourself.

Anyone can fly a typical WWII combat sim, wheter or not they can really fly anything.

Realistic? I think not. I have NEVER taken a SINGLE passenger aloft who could trim the plane on his or her first flight, much less find an airport and land without crashing. EVERYBODY can in a WWII combat sim.

 

[eWildcat]

The usual sims don't tell you how they got their data ... it is just a game that must be dumb enough for most players to be able to win, or it doesn't sell very well. And that is the end objective ... to sell games.

I'm sorry to insist, but you generalize a bit too much again. Some flight simulations are not that easy, though most are indeed, for the obvious reasons you quoted. I agree that the difficult simulations don't sell much however, compared to the easier ones, be they jet or prop sims btw.

 

[drgondog]

'Compression' is what used to be called mach limit. Compression was an early term because they really had no idea what was going on. As the impacts of close to mach 1 effects became more understood then they changed terms.

Strictly speaking there are perhaps three distinct discussions:
Compressible - air is treated as incompressible fluid up to ~ M=.30 at which point the change in density with respect to increased velocity is > 0.

Compressible flow below Mcr is the region between .3 and approximately .6-.65 Mach (for WWII fighters) in which the local density at these velocity ranges approach critical Mach, particularly between leading edge and the region on the airfoil which is greatest thickness to Chord ratio. Except for P-51 and P-63 with laminar flow airfoils and T/Cmax ~ .45 all other airfoils were t
'thickest' at .24 to .26 Chord. This is pre shock wave formation but transient 'burbles' begin to form at which local velocity approaches M=1

Mach Critical is the point where the local flow has attained M=1 and formed a shock wave at that point, but beyond the shock wave the flow subsides below M=1 until the flow over the entire airfoil has attained the local speed of sound (varies with free stream temperature which is a function of altitude). Additionally, in the Mcrit speed region the shock wave usually causes severe wake turbulence downstream.

In the case of most aircraft with t/C at 25% chord, the nose down pitching moment increases - which cause greater stick forces on the elevator to offset the pitch down effect.

This was the Primary issue with the P-38. It had a fat wing, thus local flow reached Mcrit ~ .68M (contrast to Mustang/Thunderbolt at ~ .82-.85M)

 

[bobbysocks]

Exactly how did they find the flight models?

That is an intersting question because various flight test reports wildly disagree with one another depending on manifold pressure used, fuel used, rpm used, and whether or not the aircraft used for the test was typical of combat planes in the theater of operations being looked at. A p-40 with tropical filters was not going to fly like an ETO P-40 with no air filter. The same can be said for various types and various conditions including finish, cleanlinesss, prop condition, mud on the airframe, bugs, dun port covers, etc.

Guys in China used 75 inches of MAP on some of their P-40's (that from General John R. "Davey" Allison ... not related to the Allison engine company. The Air Corps approved 57 inches. The difference in performance was astounding. That also from Allison, in person in 2010 . He apssed away in 2011.

The usual sims don't tell you how they got their data ... it is just a game that must be dumb enough for most players to be able to win, or it doesn't sell very well. And that is the end objective ... to sell games.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with realism. It is all marketing and the playability. They KNOW which fighters should win, and allow for player ability, not for realistic responses.

Get real.

Commerecial WWII sims are games, not representative of flight characteristics of WWII aircraft or people would crash often. Name ONE sim where they do. You can't. All sims available in the gaming world are very flyable by people who have never flown anything.

How real can that BE?

Answer ... go put a non-pilot into a Cessna or Piper, let him or her take off and then try to land. 97% would be dead or injured.

The percent in sims is WAY less, and the "skill" to survive is EASY to acquire within the games.

Not so in real Cessnas or Pipers, which are EASY to fly in real life. P-51's are NOT easy to fly unless you have proper training in a suitable aircraft. Mostly the AT-6. Find a sim where the AT-6 is well modeled and tell us.

If you have 250 hours in an AT-6 in the front seat, you can probably fly a Mustang without killing yourself.

Anyone can fly a typical WWII combat sim, wheter or not they can really fly anything.

Realistic? I think not. I have NEVER taken a SINGLE passenger aloft who could trim the plane on his or her first flight, much less find an airport and land without crashing. EVERYBODY can in a WWII combat sim.

some are not as easy as you make out. have you ever sat down and played any of the IL-2 PC games or any of the others in that genre? if not you really cant tell me what they are and what they are not. some are downright technical where you have to go through the start up process by clicking the switches in the cockpit/instrument panel. many you need the original pilots manual to even accomplish this. also many have different "difficulty" modes...where things are dummied down for ease of play. the higher the difficulty the more demanding and techincal the flying gets. in the several i have played landing isnt a piece of cake...and i am a pilot. i have ground looped spits, pranged the gear on several different ac....it wasnt like flying a 150. i can get on x pilot and pull 3 pointers in a cub or old stinson all day long. these will never be at the real difficulty of flying a real warbird but a complete novice cannot get behind the stick of a spit, 51, 47, etc in these games and perform flawlessly at the higher difficulties....they will crash and burn...auger in...stall and spin...etc. if you ram the throttle of the 51 to full power too soon you will skid right off the runway just like in real life. try putting a dropping a corsair on the deck of a carrier and see how easy it is even for a game....only you get to hit a button and start all over again....something not afforded to real pilots. no one is insinuating that if you can jockey one of these planes in the game you could jump in the seat of a ww2 fighter and happily soar off into the wild blue yonder like a pro. but i have known some CFIs who believe it gives a prospective pilot a head start. they at least have a rudimentry understanding of basic ac maneuvers and handling over someone who never never sat behind a stick (virtual or real ). i do know of several gamers who have gone and gotten their single engine certificate and were able to handle the 152s fairly decent right off the bat. no they didnt land but were able to hold a heading and alt...do some basic co-ordinated turns. in these games you will never feel you body pinned back in the seat and how heavy your arms get due to G forces....you will never suffer sinus pain...or black out/red out....never feel the sheer terror of seeing tracers rip through your wing and know the next moment can be your last....that someone is actually trying to kill you...nor will you feel the boredom of flying several hours in formation. but as far as being able to sit at you computer at home and be challenged...its as close at you can get to real life flying. and a lot of ww2 mustang pilots didnt have 250 hours in an AT-6....some had ~300 hours total and that included their time basic and intermediate trainers.

 

[Garyt]

As far as "realism" goes on a flight sim or game, personally I don't think it's important to have 400 "flight hours" before you can fly the thing reasonably efficiently. What would be nice though is to try to mirror some of the problems the planes had with trained pilots.

For example, making a plane very difficult to recover from a dive if it's going to fast. It would be very difficult to make the controller tougher to pull back on, but you could at least make the joystick difficult or close to impossible to control until you reach lower altitude. Or you could try to mirror some of the stall issues the planes had.

You can't (and would not want to make it) the exact same as flying the plane - but you want to incorporate the real positive and negative features of every plane.

 

[bobbysocks]

exactly. there is a lot you cant do ( and will never do unless you have a multi-million dollar simulator) but there is a lot you can. you can move CG around to compensate for a full fuse tank or make the plane sluggish and stall quicker under different load outs...etc. the biggest thing is how you make it handle against its contemporaries...the planes it flew against at the time....rate of climb, rate of roll, acceleration, etc. it shouldnt be that difficult but it seems to be. it seems most developers either are biased or only focus on one nations ac.

 

[GregP]

Yes, but it has nothing to do with flying a WWII aircraft ... it is a video game that doesn\ not and cannot include g-forve and the active control sticks cannot mimick the feel of a real WWII aircraft.

I can fly a sim upside down right down the middle of a road inverted at 15 feet altitude between trees (all the WWII sims I have flown). Try that in a real one and you die. They didn't HAVE inverted fuel and oil systems, and were NOT intended for negative maneuvers for the most part.\

The unlimited ammo and fuel I don;t mind since you get to stay engaged but, if you set them off, it is simple ... when you run out, disengage and go home. In all the sims I have tried, I have been mostly able to do that, even with a sjot out engine, but fast-moving when I can.

Sure, its fun. It has nothing to do with real flying though. In some sims, you can't even SEE the airfield and if you land off airport, you crash. That also wasn't real ... the real forward airfields WERE off airport and were farmer's fields.

That one is IL-2, which I see as one of the video games, but not a flight sim. It is fun but would not be a good sim for a real pilot in WWII. Back then you landed off airport sometimes and could SEE the airfield since you were familiar with the area you were stationed in, and it wasn't the same color as the rest of the ground.

I like realism, and most fighters fly pretty well when inside the envelope. I think they should add some shaking when approaching a stall in the sims, and give warning like a real plane does. The Bf 109's didn't always outclimb the opposition in real life and the Spitfire didn't always turn inside the Bf 109's. The enemy wasn't always on his game, no matter which side he was on.

Most importantly, your wingmen weren't always stupid. They are in most sims. Unless you tell them what to do, they just follow in formation and don't help you much. You also don't get ANY info from ground control about what opposition is ahead.

Frustrating.

We need a good sitck, rudder, and throttle system and the view should be able to be moved with the hat switch easily and should NOT be a keystroke.

Many items to consoder, but some of the sims are fun, nonetheless.

 

[Garyt]

not and cannot include g-forve and the active control sticks cannot mimick the feel of a real WWII aircraft.

Yeah, the control sticks would be an issue. I'm sure if you wanted to spend enough to put a cockpit together you could mimic a lot of these factors - but the game would have a very limited market

However, I remember the old F16 game, if you pulled to many G's you would begin to red out, then the plane would continue doing what it was doing but you would have a blank screen til you woke up.

They didn't HAVE inverted fuel and oil systems, and were NOT intended for negative maneuvers for the most part.

That indeed should be fixed IMO

The unlimited ammo and fuel I don;t mind since you get to stay engaged but, if you set them off, it is simple

I'm not a fan of unlimited ammo. It should be in the arcade version in most games IMO, as this was a specific difference between planes. Makes you appreciate the late war 2 .50's instead of 2 7.7mm's to go with a zero's 20mm cannon. You could switch off your main cannon and use the 50's to finish off a wounded bird. The 7.7's really were almost useless. Heck, an occasional gun jam would be a nice touch.

I think they should add some shaking when approaching a stall in the sims, and give warning like a real plane does.

Definitely. And unresponsive control's when approaching to great of speed in a dive. And it should give the Zero, at least the early ones problems on a dive. And planes that historically did not roll well at high speeds - this should be reflected as well. Can't really make the controls stiffer, but can make them far less responsive.

 

[eWildcat]

@GregP : Ill-2 is a thirteen-year-old game. You can't ask Windows 98 to give you everything you get with Windows 7.

Nonetheless, some things you and Garyt seem to ask for are already available when you play Il-2, like shaking before stall, view moved with the hat stick (though "serious" simmers all use a Track-IR instead now), effects of negative G-load or roll rate depending on speed.

Well, enough with this : if you happen to have some time, just have a look at what exists today. As for the rest, Bobbysocks covered it pretty well.