The idea that inspired the concept is the equivalence in thinking between martial artists involved in hand-to-hand combat (including the use of non-ranged weapons...swords and knives and whatever) and pilots involved in air combat. In the heat of battle both rely on training, instinct, and/or experience to determine/execute the specific actions taken (sidestep, wingover, parry, etc...) rather than deliberate, conscious decision-making.
Accepting that as the premise, I'm looking at gaming air combat in the same manner as is usually done in hand-to-hand combat at its (commonly) most detailed level: something equivalent to an rpg's combat system.
The length of a turn could/would be similar to current air combat games...a few seconds at most...but the decisions/challenges faced by players would not revolve around the specific movement/placement of the aircraft model. They would, rather, be concerned with answering tactical questions such as "Where do I want to be?" or "Who should I attack?" - the sort of decisions made, imho, by someone involved in a hand-to-hand brawl.
This sort of system seems to work well for rpgs and such without any great amount of clamoring from gamers demanding that rules should allow for them to decide every specific step and crouch and punch and thrust, and I think the same concept/framework could work in the air as well.
dunno...it's just an idea based on a premise: Testing it could easily show it to be a poor option, but I figure it's worth exploring if only for the chance of providing gamers another road to having fun with toys...