Read the forum code of contact
By: - 22nd August 2004 at 12:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spitfire Mk IX
followed by
P51 series
109 G2 (with black 6 skin)
Gladiator
By: - 22nd August 2004 at 14:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mine would be
P-38L - power
P-38J - power
P-51D - nice handling
J-8 - Always fun
By: - 22nd August 2004 at 22:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I find it offensive that alot of people complain about lack of certain fighters in Il-2. The russians made the best fighters in WW2, no doubt. And the russian theater of war was by far the most hard fought of that war, as well as the ultimate match of mass produced technology. So their really should be a sim devoted to just that part of the war. I love flying the Yaks and La-5s and their couterpart Me-109 and Fw-190. I was dissappointed at the distribution of types in original IL-2 with like about 12 different types of IL-2s and other obscure russian models, and only 1 La-5 and a couple of Yaks. But that has been straightened out for the most part with FB.
By: - 7th September 2004 at 13:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J-8 is always good fun- closely followed by the Brewster Buffalo (is the B and then sum numbers i cant remember!) fantastic game, for sure!
By: - 7th September 2004 at 14:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I find it offensive that alot of people complain about lack of certain fighters in Il-2. The russians made the best fighters in WW2, no doubt. And the russian theater of war was by far the most hard fought of that war, as well as the ultimate match of mass produced technology. So their really should be a sim devoted to just that part of the war. I love flying the Yaks and La-5s and their couterpart Me-109 and Fw-190. I was dissappointed at the distribution of types in original IL-2 with like about 12 different types of IL-2s and other obscure russian models, and only 1 La-5 and a couple of Yaks. But that has been straightened out for the most part with FB.
Well I know this is going to start some kind of argument but it isn't meant to. Yes the Russians made some of the best fighters of WW2 but THE best? That is open to debate. I think that the original IL2 was intended by Oleg and the team to highlight the war on the Eastern Front and that it did so to such a large degree should give him and the mob a fair degree of recognition by no lesser organisation than the Russian state! By saying that the Russian theatre was the hardest fought should not take away from other theatres of war at that time either. Later additions such as the Western theatre, I think is intended to keep the money coming in because if it doesn't then 1C might go under and that would be a worse kind of tragedy. On the whole though I can't argue with your sentiment. :)
By: - 9th September 2004 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The russians made the best fighters in WW2, no doubt.
Meaningless statement.
'Best' means absolutely nothing in this context.
Moggy
By: - 9th September 2004 at 17:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Meaningless statement.'Best' means absolutely nothing in this context.
Moggy
Could you clarify exactly what youre trying to say. This thread is about favorite planes in Il-2. My favorites are the russian fighters which I think have been overlooked by sims for a long time. There are no American, German, British or Japaneese fighters that could match their climb and their maneuverability. A few of the late war powerhouses like the Sea Fury, Ta-152, Mustang could out do them with speed, but not by much. They were better than any WW2 fighter in all around dogfighting, especially the Yak-3 which german pilots were ordered to avoid engaging, and run from. Its a well deserved honor for these fighters to be in such a high quality sim, and its a previlage to be able to fly them with such realistic flight physics.
I suppose youre going to go on about how this is "hearsay" because I havent actually flown these planes.
By: - 9th September 2004 at 20:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LaGG 3 35 series with a 23mm cannon.
Good all-round fighter with a gun that kicks serious butt.
By: - 9th September 2004 at 22:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spitfire V
By: - 10th September 2004 at 07:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Could you clarify exactly what youre trying to say.I suppose youre going to go on about how this is "hearsay" because I havent actually flown these planes.
Your supposition is wrong.
The word 'best' is an absolute.
The concept that any aircraft is the 'best fighter' has no meaning. 'Heaviest' is easy to assess, 'Fastest' is more difficult since this will vary with altitude. 'Most heavily armed' is a matter of fact, but 'best' means nothing. It always depends on the circumstances of an individual combat.
Whilst for most BoB situations I would have always opted for a Spitfire, in the case of having an engine shot-out over the North Sea, a Blenheim rapidly promotes itself to the top of the list.
Moggy
By: - 10th September 2004 at 08:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The I-16 is probably my favourite plane to fly now, as ive started the campaign in one! nice handling, even if the armourment leaves a lil to be desired! Any1 have any texture files for it?
By: - 10th September 2004 at 13:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Could you clarify exactly what youre trying to say. This thread is about favorite planes in Il-2. My favorites are the russian fighters which I think have been overlooked by sims for a long time. There are no American, German, British or Japaneese fighters that could match their climb and their maneuverability. A few of the late war powerhouses like the Sea Fury, Ta-152, Mustang could out do them with speed, but not by much. They were better than any WW2 fighter in all around dogfighting, especially the Yak-3 which german pilots were ordered to avoid engaging, and run from. Its a well deserved honor for these fighters to be in such a high quality sim, and its a previlage to be able to fly them with such realistic flight physics.
I suppose youre going to go on about how this is "hearsay" because I havent actually flown these planes.
Yak 3 is contemporary to other late war aircraft as it entered service in 1944. Lets have climb rate/dive rate/top speed/turn rate/etc comparisons rather than the rather confusing 'best' moniker. Most of the 'best' Russian birds were 'possibly' late war while many of the aircraft you compare them to and dismiss 'might' be an earlier war vintage. Take the Mk14 Spit (1944). In my opinion it will, in the right hands, win against most of your Russian types but thats just my opinion it doesn't make it true. On the other hand I might be right. Your argument is presented as fact that cannot be argued against which it quite obviously can be.
By: - 10th September 2004 at 18:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok Phil, I dont have access data like max rate of turn, max radius of turn, rate of climb, etc, for WW2 fighters. If you can provide that info, Id like to see it. But much of this information is provided in passing in books on the subject of these planes, so Ill mention some stuff I know to put this into perspective. The Spitfire that you mentioned you like, was said to have turning ability slightly better than the Me-109 during the Battle of Britain. The aerodymamic shape of that fighter never changed in that figher, only engine power, so we can say that it wasnt much of a dogfigher as its known the Me-109 was very stiff. The Me-109 though not capable of high AOA maneuver, was able to out turn the Mustang. It was mostly known for its good climb and stable manuervering. The Fw-190 though not maneuverable aerodynamically, was able to power its way through a tight turn with the brute force of its engine. It was also known for its good climb and roll rate. Now the Yak-9 and La-5 both had superior climb and manuerability to to the Me-109 and Fw-190, and was equal in speed and roll rate in the case of the Fw-190. The only other fighers worth mentioning are the Zeke and Thunderbolt. The Zeke, though very maneverable, would stiffen up at high speed due to its large control surfaces. American fighter pilots took advantage of this weakness, nulifying its effectivness as a fighter. The Thunderbolt was just a heavy powerhouse. And although experienced pilots were able to use the weight of the engine to rock the plane back and forth, it overall was not an aerobatically capable planes. None of these are quesses on my part, these are well known and substantiated flying characteristics.
By: - 10th September 2004 at 21:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Like I said it is debateable and just because you say it is true doesn't make it so. The argument bores me.
By: - 10th September 2004 at 21:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Like I said it is debateable and just because you say it is true doesn't make it so. The argument bores me.
Yeah, it bores me too. But you brought it up, so I thought Id be nice and respond rather than ignore you.
By: - 11th September 2004 at 02:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Snakeman brought up the thread I replied and I never mentioned the Spitfire you are attempting to put thoughts in my head. There is nothing 'well known' about your 'facts' because my 'facts' appear to differ in some respects to yours. Am I supposed to beleive the books I have read or yours? In any case I don't understand your point about the Spitfire.
By: - 11th September 2004 at 02:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LOL I see the Spit is a touchy subject here Phil, as well as T4T :D:D
By: - 14th September 2004 at 12:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LOL I see the Spit is a touchy subject here Phil, as well as T4T :D:D
Yes mate I know. You don't even have to mention it and people are accusing you of something or another. I don't think there is any point arguing when people resort to making up stories and putting thoughts in you head and words in your mouth.
"I know. I want to make a political point and make somebody feel small. How do I do it? Of course! I make something up. I make out they said something they did not actually say (whether or not it stands up to scrutiny)and use examples that I do not actually have. If I can't win an argument fairly I shall lie through my arse and make all sorts of unfounded claims even though I have no proof of what I say and what I say contradicts reality itself". :rolleyes:
Thats what I get bored of.
You going Duxford on the 10th October?
By: - 14th September 2004 at 15:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"I know. I want to make a political point and make somebody feel small. How do I do it? Of course! I make something up. I make out they said something they did not actually say (whether or not it stands up to scrutiny)and use examples that I do not actually have. If I can't win an argument fairly I shall lie through my arse and make all sorts of unfounded claims even though I have no proof of what I say and what I say contradicts reality itself". :rolleyes:Thats what I get bored of.
Fine Phil, I think this discussian is getting blown out of perportion, and I dont want to drag it out. But I do just want to say that I want to be a good sport about this and say that I find what you say amusing and not offensive. How on earth what I say about WW2 fighter capabilitys is making a political point Ill never know, nor how it would make anyone feel small. And as for lies and unfounded claims and whatnot, I dont see how my sources are any less credible than anything else brought up on these discussian boards, unless youre like Moggy who thinks that only those who have flown the planes first hand can make any accurate statement, and anything else is hearsay. So yes youre right, I never flew as a fighter pilot in WW2, so niether I or you can actually know what these planes were capable of. You win, OK?
By: - 15th September 2004 at 12:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fine Phil, I think this discussian is getting blown out of perportion, and I dont want to drag it out. But I do just want to say that I want to be a good sport about this and say that I find what you say amusing and not offensive. How on earth what I say about WW2 fighter capabilitys is making a political point Ill never know, nor how it would make anyone feel small. And as for lies and unfounded claims and whatnot, I dont see how my sources are any less credible than anything else brought up on these discussian boards, unless youre like Moggy who thinks that only those who have flown the planes first hand can make any accurate statement, and anything else is hearsay. So yes youre right, I never flew as a fighter pilot in WW2, so niether I or you can actually know what these planes were capable of. You win, OK?
.......because you started banging on about the Spitfire before I had even mentioned it. What makes you think I am such a fan of the Spitfire? I didn't say anything about it you simply assume that because I am British I will automatically favour it above everything else. Now that is a political preconception and wether or not you are correct about my views is immaterial. I hope that qualifies my statement. As to what Moggy might or might not think I would have to agree that the person who has flown the aircraft is in a far better position than you or I to comment accurately upon its capabilities. It would be a great conceit for an armchair historian to beleive otherwise.
Posts: 249
By: snakeman - 22nd August 2004 at 12:25
IL2 FB AEP - Surely the best WW2 sim ever ! :D
What is your fav plane to fly ?