So a Hurricane flown to its strenght should be competitive with a 109 flown to its strenght?
Or a G50 vs a Spitfire?
How would that be possible?

Don't think so, they should perform as they did and if one plane was noticable inferior in overall combat capabilities then it should be that way.
+++++

Don't be daft. If a Hurricane's strength should be it's turning ability and a 109's it's speed then the respective pilots should have two very different fighting styles. The pilot that tries to fight the other man's game will lose. In the current version of the sim the Hurricane is useless as it does nothing well, hence very few people fly it. If the devs were to take the current FM's and simply swap the the turning abilities of the Hurricane and Spitfire & copy the speed/climb info of the Spit II into the Ia I think you would see a much more dynamic and enjoyable experience online.

Who is to say how they did perform? Nobody alive today can say that, certainly nobody playing this game. Instead we have a mountain of conflicting technical information & pilot accounts that prove nothing. What we do have is historical anecdote that says the Spit & 109 were about equal in most aspects (one a little faster, the other turns a bit better) and the Hurricane was a little slower but turned the best. There are going to be rivet counters who will never be pleased but the vast majority would accept FM's that simply were in-line with the accepted lore of the battle.

No no no no no!
Accuracy over all else. Arcade players be darned.

Historically, under 10,000 ft, the Hurricane I was superior to the Me109e due to its better turn radius, and with 12lb boost, better climb rate, and was only slightly slower. At very low altitudes, say under 5000ft the Me109e was at a severe disadvantage as it could no longer dive away to disengage, and it did not have a sufficient, if any, speed advantage when the Hurricane pilot "pulled the plug" and the Hurricane could easily turn inside the 109e.

It would still be able to extend using negative g manoeuvres. Maybe the Hurricane was the superior dogfighter down low, but I don't think it was the superior fighter aircraft.

No, it wasn't the overall equal of the 109E, and at high altitude was at a severe disadvantage, but then the main role of the Hurricane (and Spitfire) was to shoot down Luftwaffe bombers, and engaging the fighter escort was a very secondary task. The 109E had a favourable kill ratio over either RAF fighter because they were trying to engage the bombers while the 109s were, largely, freed to bounce the RAF fighters from above.

And of course the G50 is useless too, hence very few people fly it, so we improve that one to a little bit as well, right?

My vote goes for accuracy as well.
With a performance variable added.

Be sure to tell the rest of us when a level of accuracy has been reached that is acceptable to both red & blue. The real arcade players are the ones who need their plane to have every advantage. The performance variable is the person sitting behind the controls.

That's where the problem starts - people that think 'blue' and 'red'.
It will never be acceptable to them.

Performance variable would a a plus/minus 5% power output from the specs for all planes, or something like that.
That would be realistic in the first place and challenging for the game too - nobody could rely on the performance of their planes.
But that's the last the 'red' and 'blue' thinkers would like.

I think a performance variance included in the sim would be great.

I also think PERSISTANT performance variance for your online aircraft would be great.

Par Examply: I take a Hurricane and it gives me +5% performance over the 'baseline' Hurricane. I'm very happy. I fly this aircraft until I crash it, or bail out of it, or quit the game while in the air. It's gone. Next time I load a Hurricane, it gives me a new aeroplane with a new +/- variance. Maybe this time I get -2.5%.

I guess the only problem would be that people would instantly attempt to crash the bad aircraft to get a better one. :/ Stupid gamers.