WWII warplanes vs combat sim realism

Posted this on a thread but the guys were too busy flaming each other to
notice or give an intelligent answer. Trying again.........

I am having a debate on the subject of whether planes like the BF109 and
FW190 were really as unstable and prone to stalls and spins at the drop of a
hat as modelled in the PC sim IL2 Sturmovik, Forgotten Battles. I am saying
not and that the air war would never have been won if planes of that era
could barely fly. Does anyone know of real stories/reports on this issue or
maybe know some vintage pilots who flew them? I have already read of a
Mustang pilot who says the sim feels about right if the 'stalls and spins'
setting is turned off.

The debate extended into 'blackouts and redouts'. In the sim, a hard pull on
the stick and the screen goes black, very annoying and I believe
unrealistic. How many G's could those WWII planes pull without tearing off
the wings? Should 'blackouts and redouts' even be modelled in a WWII sim?

What was the "real" story?
(I'm not a pilot but I have flown a real plane. I know that PC sims are
unrealistic so nobody has to tell me that........)

I was fortunate enough to be able to afford to charter a Hawker Hunter out
of Thunder City, Cape Town, South Africa, I was very at home on the stick
and was immediately capable of basic flight manouvres, thanks to playing
flight sims. It took only seconds to get over the initial tendency to make
'too big' movements. That's because I got a serious fright when I yanked on
the stick, the Hunter is as agile as a cat!. The pilot only took over for
the seriously rough aerobatics (and of course take off and landing). So,
unrealistic as they may be and although they will never make me a pilot, PC
flight sims do teach you something.

I blacked out at around 5 G's in the Hunter and the pilot reckons he has
bult up a
tolerance quite a bit hight than that (I'm glad, otherwise who would have
been watching where we were going?!)