According to Aeronautical Engineer & Scientist Leon Bennett's research & theorising, the S.E. was more manoeuvrable than the Albatros (the D.Va, more specifically)! But, yes, I don't think that this particular example helps in the case of the DM (or any modern mock dogfights, for that matter). Simply put, safety measures in place when putting on such displays will undoubtedly keep these historical planes from performing at the apex of their ability. Unless a pair of mad pilots come along and have an actual tail chase in a D.Va and S.E, as if they were really in a fight for their lives, I doubt we'll learn much from modern displays.
The more I've thought about the DM, the more I've been considering that the wing spar damage might not be the sole issue contributing to the paper mâché wings. I suspect that an extremely significant factor in WW1 aircraft battle damage hasn't been implemented at all - namely, a bullet passing through empty canvas - and that the absence of that as a factor is leading to the perceived 'unrealistic' wing-shedding.
The strongest and weakest scouts (D.VII and Camel), according to AnP's data, take something like 1500 and 200 rounds to sever the wing from a 90 degree angle at close range. Imagine just for talking's sake that all those rounds passed through nothing but canvas, and sailed through the spaces between ribs and spars. I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I suspect both types would require thousands of rounds to sever the wing purely by perforating the fabric. Probably more than 1500, and definitely more than 200.
I could be totally wrong, and 'empty air' hits might be implemented after all, but so far my experiences of FC have been that all wing hits do some degree of damage to the aircraft, and therefore reduce its G-tolerance. To my thinking it stands to reason that, in the same way there is a modifier for chances of hitting spars, there should also be a modifier for "thin air" hits which would only perforate the canvas and cause mere cosmetic damage, with no adverse effects to airframe durability. Naturally, the effect of such a modifier being implemented would be all-round tougher, more survivable aircraft.
Going back to the Spars and how they do affect the DM, I've had a bit of a sneaking suspicion. As far as I know, the game will 'predict' a control surface being disabled in a similar way to how it predicts a spar hit. Now, it's been virtually impossible for the player without any dev tools to figure out when a spar has been hit - but this is a totally different story to being able to ascertain when a control surface has been severed as, well, it's plainly obvious when that happens!
To my thinking, it seems that severing a control wire with a bullet during a dogfight would be pretty damn lucky, and I'd speculate that for every bullet that connected with a wire cleanly, and cut through it, there are hundreds of other rounds that would not hit the wire cleanly. As for surfaces being jammed in place...well, I don't really even know how that would happen with a WW1 airframe.
But, in FC, it seems to be an all-too-common occurrence for a control to be severed, and IMHO it's just simply ridiculous how often a control is shot out. I've flown on occasions where wingmen have gone 2-for-2, 3-for-3 and even 5-for-5 on engagements VS controls being lost. During one sparring session with another of the 3rd PG guys I shot at least one of his controls out something like 17 or 18 times out of 20 fights - and it never took more than one short burst connecting to do the damage.
The point of this probably over-long post is, I can't help but wonder if the probability of a Spar being hit is similarly overdone to that of a control wire being severed.