The reason for why you'd want a fighter to handle like that is strange. That is irrefutable.
The logic simply stating that due to a set of hypothetical conditions, the fighter can maneuver like that is not, as you put it, weird logic. It's a mere statement.
To conclude, the whole point with the physics discussion was to point out, as Battuta has said, that spacecraft could handle like that... and be accounted for with realistic physics. Simultaneously, the process needed to maintain such flight is very unreasonable. Unless, of course, you throw in some techno mumbo-jumbo as previously stated as well. I think I added that in the first time I brought up Newtonian physics. In fact, the original point (now very much secondary) was to somehow prove realistic physics in FS wouldn't be so far-fetched.
In that sense, I'd point out that my "hypothetical FS3" would not handle the same as FS2. It would be fun and easy to handle, ideally, but use realistic or "more realistic" flight dynamics. Perhaps you might consider it a graduation from the flight model BtRL used if no other example will suffice.