No. A free-falling object is said to experience zero gravity, or 0 G. Do you know how astronauts practice weightlessness? Zero gees in an atmospheric aircraft which is descending at free-fall velocity. If an airplane is held in a symmetric stall, the gee indicator will read 0.



Yes. But the reason why the P-38 still can't symmetrically stall with power on has to do with poor stall modelling, not torque. As I said earlier, the only reason that it is able in IL-2 to symmetrically stall with power off is because the programmers artificially reduced elevator authority so that it can't reach the critical angle of attack unless the propwash increases the elevator effectiveness. With power off, the elevator is unable to exceed real-world maximum wing alpha. With power on, the propwash increases the elevator effectiveness so that the wing can exceed maximum A.o.A. So it's not poor torque modelling that's the problem; it's poor stall modelling.

There were, in reality, plenty of other World War Two fighters besides the P-38 which were able to stall without dropping a wing. The P-38 was simply the most docile because of the counter-rotating propellers; other aircraft required heavy rudder use to make them stall straight forward.

Reading U.S.A.A.F. training manuals and watching U.S.A.A.F. training films will confirm what I have said about many World War Two aircraft being able to stall symmetrically. "World War Two fighters couldn't stall symmetrically" is an IL-2 community myth.