Why I dislike IL-2 games..

[Jack Morris]

To tell you the truth, IL-2 Is a beautifully engineered sim, but the problem is all Russian aircraft fly beautifully and the Rest are terrible. I think this is some sort of political thing, the game being Russian and all,trying to say Russia has the best military equipment (I agree they do now, along with the USA, but certainly not in the 1940's!) When a shitty little La-7 (Flying barrel with wings, and a cockpit that looks like it has been ripped out of a tractor!) can out turn a Spitfire, and the Mustang (reckoned to be one of the best fighters of WWII) when looped goes into a spin automatically unless the stick is pulled back very lightly, and can be out looped by an IL-4, a two engined bomber the same size as a B-17! you know something is up. If the KGB come and kill me because I wrote this, at least I got my point across, Just remember:

In Soviet Russia plane pilot you!

Jack

[FOZ_1983]

Its all about changing your settings, and also about who your flying against ;)

The Russian planes were good. A bit poor on the weapons front, but once you've mastered that then you have a great plane in your hands. Its about what you feel comfortable in and how you manage it. I can fly the Hurricane rather well (well i could when i used to fly) but struggled with the LA7, does that mean the Hurricane is better?

No.

Just means im used to the Hurricane and i know how to use it.

I do agree about the other things you mention though, such as the P51 being erm... crap to be honest. But we all know this. The only thing its good for is free flight and air shows.

[winny]

This always makes me smile..

LA-7 could out turn, out climb and was faster than the FW190 (which out classed all spitfires up till the IX).

Because it's largley overlooked in the west people assume that because it's Russian it can't be any good. For some reason most Russian technology seems to have an 'agricultural' feel when it comes to design but you can't tell how a plane will fly by just looking into it's cockpit..

The Yak-3 was also a very ggod dogfighter and was the subject of a luftwaffe warning to it's pilots not to engage in low level combat 'with Yakovlev fighters lacking an air cooler under the nose' (a reference to the Yak-1 which was slower and less agile).

Free french pilot Marcel Ablert (top french ace) Flew Dewotine d520's, Spitfires with 340 Sqn and Yak-3s in the USSR. He reckoned that the Yak-3 was superior to both the Spitfire and the P51-D.

The russians had their fair share of poor aircraft.. Like the LaGG-3 which was know as the (La)kirovanny (g)arantirovanny (g)rob or Varnished guaranteed coffin by VVS pilots.
But they also had a couple of really good aircraft.

The P-51 in game is broken, sadly.

[Robotic Pope]

I can sense a long post from Soviet Ace on its way. lol

[FOZ_1983]

I can sense a long post from Soviet Ace on its way. lol

Yup! Thats what i'm waiting for haha. He prob started writing the reply hours ago, he's still doing it now.

[PantherAttack2]

The russians had their fair share of poor aircraft.. Like the LaGG-3 which was know as the (La)kirovanny (g)arantirovanny (g)rob or Varnished guaranteed coffin by VVS pilots.

Really? I would have never have guessed.

In IL-2 1946 the LaGG-3 is one of my favorite aircraft.

[Balderz002]

It how things go. For another example, when Sony brought out Gran Turismo, the Jap cars were the best, and on Forza 3 from Microsoft, the best car (modded) is the Dodge Viper ACR.

Personally, I love flying the Hurricane, very manouvrable and very forgiving, and with 12 .303's, puts alot of lead in the air at once!

I also have a guilty pleasure of the MC.202, but sssshh, dont tell anyone!

[Soviet Ace]

I can sense a long post from Soviet Ace on its way. lol

Yup! Thats what i'm waiting for haha. He prob started writing the reply hours ago, he's still doing it now.

Strong are these two... screw it, I'll just go on my rant now... saves time and stuff.

1. Both the Spitfire and P-51D could be out turned by a La-7. Reason behind that, is because of a little thing called wing loading and roll... that's why Russian planes have the guns in the nose; because when you load up your wings with guns and ammo, you're not going to be able to turn and roll as easy or as fast as a plane without guns and ammo in the wings.

2. The P-51D is only recognized as the WESTERN Power's best WW2 fighter, while the Yak-3 is recognized as Russia (Eastern) Power's best WW2 fighter. And like Winy said, German, Romanian, Hungarian, etc. pilots were told not to do combat against Yak-3s any lower than 5,000 feet or they'd be chewed up and spit out... which was said because of a little air battle that took place between 9 Yak-3s and 60 German planes (including some Ju-87s.) The ensuing fight ended up with only one Yak-3 being forced down because of engine problems, and twenty+ confirmed and more probables of German 109s, 190s, and all Ju-87s being downed. (You won't find any sort of situation like that on the Western Front.)

3. Considering that La's and Yak's were made out of light materials, and had somewhat loose fittings (for flexibility and stress factors) they could take more Gs at lower altitudes (which they're made to dogfight under, unlike the high altitude P-51, and medium-high altitude Spitfire.)

4. I'm not sure what you're settings are at, but unless it's something like Arcade, I'm not sure how you could be out turned by an Il-4 that would have to stall out and drop out of the sky, by doing too tight of a turn or doing combat with a fighter at all.

5. Russian planes are FAR superior, than any German, British, American, or Italian fighter planes at low altitudes. The Japanese, are the closest country during WW2 to get near how well the Russian planes were at maneuvering. And even by just looking at some of their planes, a Japanese Zero A6M2-21 or A6M3 could easily combat a Yak-3 in combat and probably take it out without much problem... except for the larger wings, those'd probably give the Zero some trouble... not much though.

6. HI GUYS!!!! :D

EDIT: Also, play some '46. The planes on there are highly accurate, and I've played countless times against Japanese planes in Russian planes. I usually break 50/50, so that should tell you something about Japanese planes, while other nation planes, I usually clobber them.

[FOZ_1983]

Strong are these two... screw it, I'll just go on my rant now... saves time and stuff.

1. Both the Spitfire and P-51D could be out turned by a La-7. Reason behind that, is because of a little thing called wing loading and roll... that's why Russian planes have the guns in the nose; because when you load up your wings with guns and ammo, you're not going to be able to turn and roll as easy or as fast as a plane without guns and ammo in the wings.

2. The P-51D is only recognized as the WESTERN Power's best WW2 fighter, while the Yak-3 is recognized as Russia (Eastern) Power's best WW2 fighter. And like Winy said, German, Romanian, Hungarian, etc. pilots were told not to do combat against Yak-3s any lower than 5,000 feet or they'd be chewed up and spit out... which was said because of a little air battle that took place between 9 Yak-3s and 60 German planes (including some Ju-87s.) The ensuing fight ended up with only one Yak-3 being forced down because of engine problems, and twenty+ confirmed and more probables of German 109s, 190s, and all Ju-87s being downed. (You won't find any sort of situation like that on the Western Front.)

3. Considering that La's and Yak's were made out of light materials, and had somewhat loose fittings (for flexibility and stress factors) they could take more Gs at lower altitudes (which they're made to dogfight under, unlike the high altitude P-51, and medium-high altitude Spitfire.)

4. I'm not sure what you're settings are at, but unless it's something like Arcade, I'm not sure how you could be out turned by an Il-4 that would have to stall out and drop out of the sky, by doing too tight of a turn or doing combat with a fighter at all.

5. Russian planes are FAR superior, than any German, British, American, or Italian fighter planes at low altitudes. The Japanese, are the closest country during WW2 to get near how well the Russian planes were at maneuvering. And even by just looking at some of their planes, a Japanese Zero A6M2-21 or A6M3 could easily combat a Yak-3 in combat and probably take it out without much problem... except for the larger wings, those'd probably give the Zero some trouble... not much though.

6. HI GUYS!!!! :D

EDIT: Also, play some '46. The planes on there are highly accurate, and I've played countless times against Japanese planes in Russian planes. I usually break 50/50, so that should tell you something about Japanese planes, while other nation planes, I usually clobber them.

And their you have it!! :D

1 - Agree
2 - Debatable (some argue for the P51 as the greatest fighter, others the Spit)

3 - Agree
4 - Definately agree
5 - Would be a nice fight to see, cant comment though because i have not flown a zero :D

6 - Alright mate!! :D

7 - Lagg, Yak, Shitfire, Zero, P-Shitty1, All inferior to the Hurricane.

8 - Maybe 7 is a lie.

[Soviet Ace]

And their you have it!! :D

1 - Agree
2 - Debatable (some argue for the P51 as the greatest fighter, others the Spit)

3 - Agree
4 - Definately agree
5 - Would be a nice fight to see, cant comment though because i have not flown a zero :D

6 - Alright mate!! :D

7 - Lagg, Yak, Shitfire, Zero, P-Shitty1, All inferior to the Hurricane.

8 - Maybe 7 is a lie.

You know, realistically, a Hawker Hurricane Mk II against a LaGG-3 Series 4 or Series 35, probably wouldn't be that bad of a match up. Both have obvious faults, that would be equal to each other, and their HP is about the same, along with some other things by just looking at their stats. So that would make for an interesting dogfight... I'll have to try that on '46 and see how the outcome is. :cool:

[FOZ_1983]

You know, realistically, a Hawker Hurricane Mk II against a LaGG-3 Series 4 or Series 35, probably wouldn't be that bad of a match up. Both have obvious faults, that would be equal to each other, and their HP is about the same, along with some other things by just looking at their stats. So that would make for an interesting dogfight... I'll have to try that on '46 and see how the outcome is. :cool:

Would be good one one of those "dogfight" kind of programmes.

Hurricane is a big target (for a fighter) and slower than most. But packs a punch, has a good turn radius.

LaGG is much the same, just a smaller target!!

Would like to see that fight!!

[Jack Morris]

I think number 5. Just about explains it all, AT LOW ALTITUDE, I have never seen any dogfights on IL-2 that take place at about more that 5000ft. But why is also the Spitfire so Spinny? Maybe the Western planes are not as good but they certainly knocked down their performance a bit, I have the same problem with 1946, Get the flight 1 P-51 for FSX (Thats how a pony Handles!) Then fly the one on 46'.
Until you do that you will not see I am getting at, and don't call the Flight 1 addons Innacurate, they had access to two Real FLYING P-51's, that I had the fortune to sit in...
Regards,

Jack

[Soviet Ace]

I think number 5. Just about explains it all, AT LOW ALTITUDE, I have never seen any dogfights on IL-2 that take place at about more that 5000ft. But why is also the Spitfire so Spinny? Maybe the Western planes are not as good but they certainly knocked down their performance a bit, I have the same problem with 1946, Get the flight 1 P-51 for FSX (Thats how a pony Handles!) Then fly the one on 46'.
Until you do that you will not see I am getting at, and don't call the Flight 1 addons Innacurate, they had access to two Real FLYING P-51's, that I had the fortune to sit in...
Regards,

Jack

It's already known that in BoP, the P-51s and other planes are screwed up, but it seems you're following more of the legend and myth of the P-51 than actual statistics. In reality, the P-51 was not a low altitude fighter, and wasn't all the hype that it's given like on the History Channel and in books. If you fly it at high altitudes in 1946, you'll see that it handles like a gem and terrible slug at lower altitudes. I've never had any problems with '46 and the P-51s capabilities at high altitudes.

In the past, when I've played online, the people do seem to know at what altitudes their planes fly; and if they don't they get chewed up by everyone else. Specially since on '46, you do realize how bad your plane handles at the wrong altitudes.

And if you really have a problem with Russian planes, you should just do like you're supposed to do in a P-51, and that is to boom and zoom. Hit and Run tactics, are what make up the P-51s high kill rate. Turning and Burning, are what make up Russian tactics and fighters.

And for the matter of sitting in planes. I've had the honor at the last Planes of Fame Air Show to sit in both a P-47D, P-51D, Yak-3 (which was AWESOME!) and plenty of other planes. So it's not a matter of sitting in a plane, to suddenly understand how it handles. You have to read deep into the planes.

[SEE]

Soviet Ace, Whats your user name on 1946? I will keep an eye out for you.....

[Balderz002]

I dont want to get burned here, but would I be right in saying one area the Western Allies had an advantage over Russian a/c were the radio comms in the cockpits (early war anyways)?

[bobbysocks]

And if you really have a problem with Russian planes, you should just do like you're supposed to do in a P-51, and that is to boom and zoom. Hit and Run tactics, are what make up the P-51s high kill rate. Turning and Burning, are what make up Russian tactics and fighters.

in a word..NO! P 51s were not zoom and boomers. they were never designed as such but as long range bomber escorts and down and dirty dogfighters. how do i know this? 2 sources. #1 my father flew one in the war. have the films, have the combat reports, have the stories. none of his 7.5 victories were zoom and boom. #2 this link...all 51 jocks reports..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

read through these and tell me how many were Z&B? very, very few. latching onto targets of opportunity...a 190/109 crossing in front of them at the right moment...hell yes. but i would guarantee the same situation was available to russian and LW pilots in the heat of battle. hit and run was used by every country for the initial attack. to ambush...use the element surprise was everyone's tactic....it was after that where the real fighting began. some dove way, some mixed it up. LW pilots adopted this tactic because their main objective was the bombers....fighters werent going to wreak havoc on the motherland...why waste time or risk lives on them?
i will not dispute anything you say about soviet ac but this i will challenge you on and back it up by pilot accounts. the 51 was a mid/high long range altitude bomber escort. but was on par with just about everything at lower levels....again read those reports. the main strategy of LW pilots ( if they didnt bail) was to dive for the deck. a vast number of dogfights ended up well below 5k feet ( actually well below 1k). they might have started at 25 or 30k where the bombers were....but i would say more than half ended up in lower altitudes. the 51 held its own at the lower levels. as for turning....the 51 and all allied pilots knew and were schooled which turn to get the lw ac in. 109s sucked in a left hand turns...probably due to engine torgue, etc. so they tried to coax them into that kind of battle. you will see the term "luftberry"...that is a turning battle where ac are lined up like spokes on a wheel...you will also read where the 51 pilots closed the gap in turning battles with in 1 or 2 cycles. they did this dropping 10 degrees of flaps or slamming the elevator trim wheel to get the edge or flying the ac to the point of a stall. it was stated here where lw pilots were told never to dogfight with yaks below 5k... 'stang pilots were never told not to engage lw ac at any altitude. it was go and get'em... and they did to great success. 51s influence spread across continents as they flew missions from england to land in russia. did any yaks or soviet ac go from the the ussr to england? no, why? the eastern airwar and the western airwar were 2 complete different animals and you can not begin to equate the two. had germany adopted a high altitude ( 25k and above) bomber tactic/strategy russian planes and tactics would have evolved much differently. the ussr was able to use the P 39 to great success where in the western airwar it would have never been a real factor in battle. i will never say the 51 was the best fighter of ww2....i will say for the specific role it played it was. every plane designed had a specific task and arena in which it was intended to compete. its all apple and oranges...the roles of ac...the types of battles...and never shall the twaint meet. nor should they. yaks were yaks and 'stangs were 'stangs and the both did what they were designed to.....

[winny]

I'm not a Russian-o-phile by any means (that's Sov Ace's job!)

My favourite aircraft of that era is the Spit (boring choice I know!)

However I'm happy to accept that the P51-D was the best WWII fighter. The weight of evidence seems to be overwhelming. It was also a very effective fighter bomber in Korea (51-H)

It was half a generation in front of the rest of the WWII aircraft (except at the end when the jets arrived) and it showed.

Will someone hurry up and invent time travel so we can go and get the aces and thier mounts and settle this once and for all!

[olife]

hello

i play il2 since it came out and during a long time i think the russians planes of il 2 game were outclassed but now i think it is not exactly right...
i go in my ww2 planes books and i read the la and yak series are very manoeuvrable and can outturn the best germans planes of the east front
the i 153 (hate by a lot of players,lol!!)can turn a loop in 13 or 15 seconds(the bf109e can do the same in 20 seconds).a finish pilots said the 153 is better than the i 16 in dogfight...the i 153 performances in the game seems to be close to his real performances
and all the russians planes of the game too
the only thing which was outclassed in my opinion is the fire power of the rear guns of a bombers and u can open fire with it in the dead angles!!!!not realistic

i think it is not only a question of planes but also a question of tacticals...to exploit the feeblenesses of the ennemies before the ennemies exploit your feeblenesses...not easy and sure easier to say than to do!!!but good for the fun!!!!

have a nice day
good hunting

[SEE]

I took the P51-D for a quick blast in IL1946 and definitley not my choice for T&B so the fact that it also performs poorly in BOP isn't a great suprise. What it was really like is another matter but I guess we are stuck with flight modelling as dictated by the devs.

[Zeroptimus]

It's already known that in BoP, the P-51s and other planes are screwed up, but it seems you're following more of the legend and myth of the P-51 than actual statistics. In reality, the P-51 was not a low altitude fighter, and wasn't all the hype that it's given like on the History Channel and in books. If you fly it at high altitudes in 1946, you'll see that it handles like a gem and terrible slug at lower altitudes. I've never had any problems with '46 and the P-51s capabilities at high altitudes.

In the past, when I've played online, the people do seem to know at what altitudes their planes fly; and if they don't they get chewed up by everyone else. Specially since on '46, you do realize how bad your plane handles at the wrong altitudes.

And if you really have a problem with Russian planes, you should just do like you're supposed to do in a P-51, and that is to boom and zoom. Hit and Run tactics, are what make up the P-51s high kill rate. Turning and Burning, are what make up Russian tactics and fighters.

And for the matter of sitting in planes. I've had the honor at the last Planes of Fame Air Show to sit in both a P-47D, P-51D, Yak-3 (which was AWESOME!) and plenty of other planes. So it's not a matter of sitting in a plane, to suddenly understand how it handles. You have to read deep into the planes.

Soviet Ace, you do know that they've recently started producing Yak-3's with Allison engines for commercial sale, right? You know, just so you know...there's an air museum in Seattle about to purchase one, and I've been contemplating selling any firstborns I have for one. :cool:

[Soviet Ace]

I dont want to get burned here, but would I be right in saying one area the Western Allies had an advantage over Russian a/c were the radio comms in the cockpits (early war anyways)?

Most Russian planes through out WW2 didn't have radios. Just like the Japanese didn't. Why? Because they added weight as well, and they wanted to be as maneuverable as possible down at low levels.

in a word..NO! P 51s were not zoom and boomers. they were never designed as such but as long range bomber escorts and down and dirty dogfighters. how do i know this? 2 sources. #1 my father flew one in the war. have the films, have the combat reports, have the stories. none of his 7.5 victories were zoom and boom. #2 this link...all 51 jocks reports..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

read through these and tell me how many were Z&B? very, very few. latching onto targets of opportunity...a 190/109 crossing in front of them at the right moment...hell yes. but i would guarantee the same situation was available to russian and LW pilots in the heat of battle. hit and run was used by every country for the initial attack. to ambush...use the element surprise was everyone's tactic....it was after that where the real fighting began. some dove way, some mixed it up. LW pilots adopted this tactic because their main objective was the bombers....fighters werent going to wreak havoc on the motherland...why waste time or risk lives on them?
i will not dispute anything you say about soviet ac but this i will challenge you on and back it up by pilot accounts. the 51 was a mid/high long range altitude bomber escort. but was on par with just about everything at lower levels....again read those reports. the main strategy of LW pilots ( if they didnt bail) was to dive for the deck. a vast number of dogfights ended up well below 5k feet ( actually well below 1k). they might have started at 25 or 30k where the bombers were....but i would say more than half ended up in lower altitudes. the 51 held its own at the lower levels. as for turning....the 51 and all allied pilots knew and were schooled which turn to get the lw ac in. 109s sucked in a left hand turns...probably due to engine torgue, etc. so they tried to coax them into that kind of battle. you will see the term "luftberry"...that is a turning battle where ac are lined up like spokes on a wheel...you will also read where the 51 pilots closed the gap in turning battles with in 1 or 2 cycles. they did this dropping 10 degrees of flaps or slamming the elevator trim wheel to get the edge or flying the ac to the point of a stall. it was stated here where lw pilots were told never to dogfight with yaks below 5k... 'stang pilots were never told not to engage lw ac at any altitude. it was go and get'em... and they did to great success. 51s influence spread across continents as they flew missions from england to land in russia. did any yaks or soviet ac go from the the ussr to england? no, why? the eastern airwar and the western airwar were 2 complete different animals and you can not begin to equate the two. had germany adopted a high altitude ( 25k and above) bomber tactic/strategy russian planes and tactics would have evolved much differently. the ussr was able to use the P 39 to great success where in the western airwar it would have never been a real factor in battle. i will never say the 51 was the best fighter of ww2....i will say for the specific role it played it was. every plane designed had a specific task and arena in which it was intended to compete. its all apple and oranges...the roles of ac...the types of battles...and never shall the twaint meet. nor should they. yaks were yaks and 'stangs were 'stangs and the both did what they were designed to.....

You are absolutely correct for the most part, but I merely meant that against low altitude fighters like a Yak or La, the P-51 would be a hit and run plane because there's no way a plane like the P-51 could turn or roll with a Yak or La at their altitudes. There was no way a Mustang could dogfight a Yak or La at low altitudes, and there's not way a Yak or La could dogfight a Mustang at high altitudes. That's all I meant. Up high where the bombers were, yes the P-51 was a turn and burn fighter, but would have to use hit and run tactics against lower level fighters because they couldn't turn as sharp or roll as well as the lower level fighters. A P-51 against a FW-190A or a 109 would have a much better chance against the FW or 109 at lower altitudes because none of those planes are meant for low altitude combat; except for the 190As which early version were quite good against Yaks and La's. And it's not all just about rolling and turning, but also speed. The Yak and La were slower than the P-51; not by much actualy, but they were. They were also lighter than the Mustang, so at lower altitudes, the Mustang would be chewed up by a Yak or La if it didn't do a hit and run tactic. Same goes for the 109s, and that's why German and Axis powers on the Eastern front were told in later '44, not to combat Russian planes under 5-9,000 feet because their planes were so good at the lower altitudes.


Soviet Ace, you do know that they've recently started producing Yak-3's with Allison engines for commercial sale, right? You know, just so you know...there's an air museum in Seattle about to purchase one, and I've been contemplating selling any firstborns I have for one. :cool:

Yeah, they've been producing Allison powered Yak-3 for awhile now actually. The one I sat in at Chino this year was Allison powered. But besides the engine, everything looked to be authentic. It's because Yak-11s are really just Yak-3s with a radial engine, and some people grabbed the Yak-11s and started putting Allison engines in them. Also, the reason why they're Allison engines, is because Klimov hasn't built a VK-105PF-2 engine since 1953! Also, don't just sell those firstborns for the plane, I'll help you contact Klimov in Russia, and we'll have them dig out the old VK-105 blueprints and build us one. It'd sound so sweet.

[bobbysocks]

My favourite aircraft of that era is the Spit (boring choice I know!)
there is nothing boring about a spit. when i had my business back in the 90s i had a customer who make ultralites from scratch. mot just any ultralite..he would build down sized versions of real ac. he did a j3 cub that looked beautiful. i asked him how he did it and told me he used the plans from gillows models and resized (and obviously modded them to aluminum tubing). he told me if i wanted to build something he would show me how. this got me all hot and bothered and i went out and selected a kit...you would think my selection would be obvious...but i picked an old spit. my only concern was the narrow landing gear set up. life and kids and little league all got in the way and i was never able to pursue this...and still kick myself. to me nothing romanticizes dueling in the skies like an older spit...save for maybe a sopwith camel or fokker d vii.

as for the time machine...we kind of have that. a newer member arekci has yet to play the game but has flown a 51d in real life. will be interesting to get his view on how things translate.

[Balderz002]

I tried a La-5FN last night on realistic. My god I love that plane! Easy to handle, more forgiving stall characteristics, and in my opinion........ Alot better looking than the Yaks! lol oooooh contraversial!

[Soviet Ace]

I tried a La-5FN last night on realistic. My god I love that plane! Easy to handle, more forgiving stall characteristics, and in my opinion........ Alot better looking than the Yaks! lol oooooh contraversial!

I think they're both good looking planes. But in reality, you can see better forward in a Yak-3, than a La-5FN. ;)

[David603]

I think number 5. Just about explains it all, AT LOW ALTITUDE, I have never seen any dogfights on IL-2 that take place at about more that 5000ft. But why is also the Spitfire so Spinny? Maybe the Western planes are not as good but they certainly knocked down their performance a bit, I have the same problem with 1946, Get the flight 1 P-51 for FSX (Thats how a pony Handles!) Then fly the one on 46'.
Until you do that you will not see I am getting at, and don't call the Flight 1 addons Innacurate, they had access to two Real FLYING P-51's, that I had the fortune to sit in...
Regards,

Jack
I'm not sure how accurate Flight 1 P51 is (not into FSX), but its worth pointing out that taking flight characteristics from real P51's flying today can be rather misleading.

Almost all are substantially lighter than a WWII spec P51, which is a natural result of taking out the guns, armour, unwanted fuel tanks, and bulky WWII spec radio equipment. A number don't even have the original Packard Merlin engines, being fitted with the lighter Allison V-1720.

Several WWII test pilots noted that the P51 lost most of its original pleasant flying characteristics when the change was made from the lighter Allison engined P51A to the heavier Merlin engined P51B-D, so it follows that if you remove this added weight then you will get a plane with much improved handling.

That said, I am not defending how the P51D in Birds of Prey flies, because by the devs own admission they made a mistake with the fuel loads for the P51D when the game first came out, although this was fixed for the PS3 version with a patch.

[Robotic Pope]

I'm not sure how accurate Flight 1 P51 is (not into FSX), but its worth pointing out that taking flight characteristics from real P51's flying today can be rather misleading.

Almost all are substantially lighter than a WWII spec P51, which is a natural result of taking out the guns, armour, unwanted fuel tanks, and bulky WWII spec radio equipment. A number don't even have the original Packard Merlin engines, being fitted with the lighter Allison V-1720.

Several WWII test pilots noted that the P51 lost most of its original pleasant flying characteristics when the change was made from the lighter Allison engined P51A to the heavier Merlin engined P51B-D, so it follows that if you remove this added weight then you will get a plane with much improved handling.

That said, I am not defending how the P51D in Birds of Prey flies, because by the devs own admission they made a mistake with the fuel loads for the P51D when the game first came out, although this was fixed for the PS3 version with a patch.

A P-51B/C/D with an Allison engine? Ive never seen one. I'd need a photo to believe that one.

I'm sure you are right about the weight though, that armour plate behind the pilot alone must weigh a ton.

[Soviet Ace]

A P-51B/C/D with an Allison engine? Ive never seen one. I'd need a photo to believe that one.

I'm sure you are right about the weight though, that armour plate behind the pilot alone must weigh a ton.

I'm pretty sure, that if you've ever seen a P-51 flying today, it's powered by an Allison... similar (if not the same) to the Allison that powers the Yak-3s of today.

[David603]

A P-51B/C/D with an Allison engine? Ive never seen one. I'd need a photo to believe that one.

I'm sure you are right about the weight though, that armour plate behind the pilot alone must weigh a ton.
Using Allison V-1710s to substitute for rarer engines like the Merlin isn't just limited to Mustangs. Apart from the Yak-3's Soviet Ace mentioned, they have also been used in at least one Spitfire replica (new build but accurate apart from engine) and one of the Flug-Werke new build FW190D9's.

The V-1710 is relatively cheap and widely available, which makes maintenance and finding spare parts easier so it makes a good substitute.

[Balderz002]

although this was fixed for the PS3 version with a patch.

Not that bloody PS patch again! lol

But in reality, you can see better forward in a Yak-3, than a La-5FN

I play with the 3rd person external view, so I see plenty! lol

I wouldnt worry too much about using authentic engines in these warbirds, as the 262's flying around now dont exactly have period powerplants!

[Soviet Ace]

I play with the 3rd person external view, so I see plenty! lol

I wouldnt worry too much about using authentic engines in these warbirds, as the 262's flying around now dont exactly have period powerplants!

Ugh, I dunno how people fly in 3rd person view, I get so disoriented and just can't seem to aim right when I try flying in that. So it's all cockpit for me. :D

And on another note, I checked last night on the Yak-3s and Yak-9s that they make, and they do share the same Allison engine as the P-51s and Spitfires flown today.

[olife]

the real dogfights between "west"propeller fighters and "east"propeller fighters:
june 1950-the f82g twin mustang " bucket o' bolt" destroy a north korean yak7u and 3 others f82 pilots destroy 3 north korean fighter(probably a yaks)

june 29th 1950-2 f-51mustang destroy 3 north korean il10

june 30th 1950-1 f51 mustang destroy 1 la7

april 21st 1951-4 north korean yak9 attack 2 f4u-4 corsair of vma 312:3 yak were destroy by us pilots and the last was damaged

in fact ,i think the qualities of the pilots are as primordial as the fly qualities of the planes...even if the north korean rookies pilots must be courageous and fly in the good planes ,they had not one chance to survive against the exelent us pilots(veterans of ww2)...who had a good planes too

[Soviet Ace]

the real dogfights between "west"propeller fighters and "east"propeller fighters:
june 1950-the f82g twin mustang " bucket o' bolt" destroy a north korean yak7u and 3 others f82 pilots destroy 3 north korean fighter(probably a yaks)

june 29th 1950-2 f-51mustang destroy 3 north korean il10

june 30th 1950-1 f51 mustang destroy 1 la7

april 21st 1951-4 north korean yak9 attack 2 f4u-4 corsair of vma 312:3 yak were destroy by us pilots and the last was damaged

in fact ,i think the qualities of the pilots are as primordial as the fly qualities of the planes...even if the north korean rookies pilots must be courageous and fly in the good planes ,they had not one chance to survive against the exelent us pilots(veterans of ww2)...who had a good planes too

No doubt pilot knowledge is important, but just going on statistics of the planes, a P-51 against a Yak-3 or others wouldn't stand a chance at low altitudes; and we're talking the VK-105PF-2 Klimov engine. Not the VK-107 or 108 which had terrible problems; and even the engines powering the Yaks in Korea had terrible engines as well.

Anyway, that's weird they had Yak-7s and La-7s in Korea. Most were just basic Yak-9s and La-9s that were just another varient. (And it was always, even through WW2, known that Yak-9s had engine problems like none other.) But more to the point, I thought the only Yak-7s were the UTI variants that were just trainers, not actual Yak-7s like from WW2.

Plus, just to add something more to this. The Yak's and La's used in Korea, actually had significant armor upgrades which slowed them down, they added radios, and other things that Western Front planes in WW2 had. So they were nothing like the Yaks and Las of WW2... just thought I'd also point that out to anyone.

Thanks for the info though Olife, do you mind linking us to the site you got that info from. I'd like to look into that. :)

[olife]

No doubt pilot knowledge is important, but just going on statistics of the planes, a P-51 against a Yak-3 or others wouldn't stand a chance at low altitudes; and we're talking the VK-105PF-2 Klimov engine. Not the VK-107 or 108 which had terrible problems; and even the engines powering the Yaks in Korea had terrible engines as well.

Anyway, that's weird they had Yak-7s and La-7s in Korea. Most were just basic Yak-9s and La-9s that were just another varient. (And it was always, even through WW2, known that Yak-9s had engine problems like none other.) But more to the point, I thought the only Yak-7s were the UTI variants that were just trainers, not actual Yak-7s like from WW2.

Plus, just to add something more to this. The Yak's and La's used in Korea, actually had significant armor upgrades which slowed them down, they added radios, and other things that Western Front planes in WW2 had. So they were nothing like the Yaks and Las of WW2... just thought I'd also point that out to anyone.

Thanks for the info though Olife, do you mind linking us to the site you got that info from. I'd like to look into that. :)

hello bud

totaly agree with u,soviet ace,and yes the yak7 shoot down by the first f82 was a trainer.i think if the pilots of the yaks and las in korea were all soviet veterans ,the work for the us pilots was not easy(the aces of aces of korea war is the russian colonel yevgeni pepelyaev 23 kills).it is right too that the unofficial results of many us jet pilots is korea can be more important that the official results because they go in the forbidden area (jump the yalu river)
to fight and the air kills of the "forbidden area" were not confirm.
to speak again about the russians ww2 planes,the best germans aces said that the la and yak series can outturn the fw190s and me109s.the soviets know how to built a good planes.

source about korea war dogfights:a book called KOREAN WAR ACES by osprey publishing (it is a serie of good books and i have the collecting of the french version:60 books of 60 pages,the english version is better with more pages and more color profiles)
u must find it on internet i think

good hunting bud

[Soviet Ace]

hello bud

totaly agree with u,soviet ace,and yes the yak7 shoot down by the first f82 was a trainer.i think if the pilots of the yaks and las in korea were all soviet veterans ,the work for the us pilots was not easy(the aces of aces of korea war is the russian colonel yevgeni pepelyaev 23 kills).it is right too that the unofficial results of many us jet pilots is korea can be more important that the official results because they go in the forbidden area (jump the yalu river)
to fight and the air kills of the "forbidden area" were not confirm.
to speak again about the russians ww2 planes,the best germans aces said that the la and yak series can outturn the fw190s and me109s.the soviets know how to built a good planes.

source about korea war dogfights:a book called KOREAN WAR ACES by osprey publishing (it is a serie of good books and i have the collecting of the french version:60 books of 60 pages,the english version is better with more pages and more color profiles)
u must find it on internet i think

good hunting bud

Yeah, I know the site. The link in my sig, goes to Osprey. They've got some great books on planes, and just different wars in general. I actually have the Korean War book you're talking about and the MiG-15 and F-86 one as well. I didn't see that in the Korean War Aces though, so I'll have to take a look at it more thoroughly.

[Robotic Pope]

I'm pretty sure, that if you've ever seen a P-51 flying today, it's powered by an Allison... similar (if not the same) to the Allison that powers the Yak-3s of today.

Well I know the Allison engine needs an air intake above the engine as you can see on this Yak3 and P-51A. I have never seen a P-51D with this intake. Find me a photo of this, only then will I believe it. I can't find any info on the internet of a P-51D ever being "downgraded" in this way either. I'll add that all the P-51D's that I have heard have clearly sounded like Merlins.

http://www.legendaryaircraft.hu/gallery/for_sale/white-100/yak_3_top.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1286/947924389_a1a1b7d995.jpg

[Crosshair14]

Here's some P-51 and other plane vids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdCm5z2RpI8


This one is epic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZmnVqkKapI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lW2nU4vRWM&feature=related

[David603]

Well I know the Allison engine needs an air intake above the engine as you can see on this Yak3 and P-51A. I have never seen a P-51D with this intake. Find me a photo of this, only then will I believe it. I can't find any info on the internet of a P-51D ever being "downgraded" in this way either. I'll add that all the P-51D's that I have heard have clearly sounded like Merlins.
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3057/mj100.jpg (http://img508.imageshack.us/i/mj100.jpg/)
This is one of the Spitfire replicas powered by an Allison V-1710, and as you can see, there is no air intake above the engine.

I'll try to find a picture of an Allison engined P51D for you.

[Soviet Ace]

I believe the P-51D at Wanaka in New Zealand, is Allison powered.

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/57344943.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FD3D6E8E24F8AD364C 88D41CF22C6DC5CEBCB38BBA2E4E9C78688C6CDC44E04CDD

[olife]

Yeah, I know the site. The link in my sig, goes to Osprey. They've got some great books on planes, and just different wars in general. I actually have the Korean War book you're talking about and the MiG-15 and F-86 one as well. I didn't see that in the Korean War Aces though, so I'll have to take a look at it more thoroughly.

hehe !!lol and great!!
i know the french version is different of english version,but try to look the page 7,9 and 20 but not sure it is the same pages in your book!!
the color profiles of those books are very very good!!!

good hunting bud ace

[Robotic Pope]

Well there you go. I learned something new lol.

Did a bit of searching and reading. Can't find any mention on why the allison engine suddenly didn't need to have then airscoop on top rather than underneith the engine. It seems to me to be part of the modification that gave the allison a two stage supercharger though. I now know that most the Twin Mustangs went back to using Allisons (even though they were weaker) for political reasons. I expect these fake engined Mustangs are from old F-82's and are all in the US then and why Ive never come across one.

One thing I can't understand. I still count 6 exausts in the photos?

Production F-82Es were slow in arriving. The problem was the updated Allison V-1710 engine. The Allison was selected because Packard had to pay Rolls-Royce a $6,000 USD royalty for every V-1650 the company produced. During the war, Rolls Royce had been lenient about license fees, but after the end of the conflict Britain's economy was in the dumps and the royalty fee skyrocketed. There was also the fact that General Motors, which owned Allison, had a 40% share in NAA. GM had not been happy with the Mustang's switch to Merlin power during the war, but demand for Allisons by other aircraft such as the P-38 Lightning was strong and GM had not been in a position to protest. With the war over, aircraft production took a dive and GM wanted to sell more Allisons. There were few other reasons to use the Allison engine, since even the two-stage supercharged Allison V-1710 was inferior in power-to-weight ratio to the Merlin.

The souped-up Allison engine was also temperamental and unreliable, and Allison couldn't deliver product in quantity. NAA had completed the 100 F-82E airframes by April 1948, but wasn't able to deliver them all for another year due to engine shortages. In service, the Allison-powered F-82Es were marginally slower than the Merlin-powered F-82Bs and the reliability problems persisted. The V-1710 became known as the "Allison time bomb" due to engine failures. Spark plug fouling from backfiring was particularly acute, and spark plugs were often swapped after a single flight.

NAA engineers modified some Allison engines with Merlin components and fixed most of the problems, but Allison took a "not invented here" attitude and insisted on applying their own fixes, which never quite worked. Given the small production run of the Twin Mustang, even the steep license fee Rolls Royce was demanding for the Merlin was a bargain compared to all the troubles the USAF had with the Allisons.

The F-82Es were externally indistinguishable from the F-82As except for minor details. One of the giveaways was the engine exhaust stacks. On the Merlin-powered aircraft, there were six exhaust stacks on each side. On the Allison-powered aircraft, there were duplicate exhaust stacks for each cylinder, for a total of 12 exhaust stacks on each side.

[Robotic Pope]

Haha found it. I was right. Page 13 http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2009/Presentations/SuperchargingAllison.pdf

The post war, two stage supercharged allison engine doesn't have a carburetor and so doesn't need the air intake. Well that was fun detective work, gave me something to do while watching Le Mans 24h lol

[Balderz002]

Why I dislike IL-2 games..

Because I just got beaten by some bloke flying an A-20 on a realistic dogfight with my useless ass sat in an La-5FN.............. boo hoo. He beat me 5-4.......

[Crosshair14]

Why I dislike IL-2 games..

Because I just got beaten by some bloke flying an A-20 on a realistic dogfight with my useless ass sat in an La-5FN.............. boo hoo. He beat me 5-4.......

There's somlething called rear gunner. Thye protect the ass of the bomber so thats part of the reason y he got u. The last part is that the A-20 is very Manueverable and swung in head on or behind u and blasted your plane to hell with its powerful front guns.

P.S. I feel another long post by Soviet Ace.

[Soviet Ace]

Why I dislike IL-2 games..

Because I just got beaten by some bloke flying an A-20 on a realistic dogfight with my useless ass sat in an La-5FN.............. boo hoo. He beat me 5-4.......

There's somlething called rear gunner. Thye protect the ass of the bomber so thats part of the reason y he got u. The last part is that the A-20 is very Manueverable and swung in head on or behind u and blasted your plane to hell with its powerful front guns.

P.S. I feel another long post by Soviet Ace.

Damn my inability to be somewhat discreet....:cool:

Anyway, to fix that Balderz, just sort of use hit and run tactics on the guy. Or better yet, come across him from his left or right, and just open up on him freely. You should get some vital hits that way, and then when you're away, punch the throttle and climb. Another way, is to come across him from ten or two o' clock. If he sees this, he'll probably start heading straight onto you and you'll have a little game a chicken... just hope that you've already opened up on him as he's turning to meet you, and when you've either downed him or he starts opening up, once again punch the throttle and climb. You always want altitude advantage when you're plane is not a heavily armed plane like the La-5 or Yaks, and you can use speed to your advantage.

It's what I do on bombers in '46, and I've toyed around with it on BoP before I stopped playing. It works if you've got a fare player, and if he's flying a Havoc, you shouldn't have to worry.

[FOZ_1983]

As appealing as it may look, getting on the 6 of a big target, DONT DO IT!!

Do as suggested and attack from angles, thus avoiding being in a direct line of sight for gunners for a prolongued period of time. Speed is your friend ;)

[Crosshair14]

As appealing as it may look, getting on the 6 of a big target, DONT DO IT!!

Do as suggested and attack from angles, thus avoiding being in a direct line of sight for gunners for a prolongued period of time. Speed is your friend ;)

but what happens if the plane has a ball turret and side gunners? Attack from the above and attack below.

[olife]

Why I dislike IL-2 games..

Because I just got beaten by some bloke flying an A-20 on a realistic dogfight with my useless ass sat in an La-5FN.............. boo hoo. He beat me 5-4.......

hello,

i think the light(example:il10)or the heavies(example:a20)are really outclassed in this game:impossible to attack it behind cause the rear gunner can open the fire in the dead angles!!!!totaly not realistic!!if during ww2 the bombers were as dangerous as in il2 game i think all the countries in war stopped to built fighters and built only a bombers!!
...in the front attack many bombers have a great fire power too and equal to the fire power of the fighter or same better(il10 with guns and rockets!!!)!!!!lo!!!crazy
but i think it is a question of tacticals and the player in the fighter must find a way to destroy the bomber...it is not easy but a good challenge and a good way to progress...
during the game i do versus the bombers i try to do a boom and zoom attack
and i must say i use rockets versus the bombers,only for one reason:i find that the bombers are outclassed in this game...but it is just my opinion...

[bobbysocks]

....and i must say i use rockets versus the bombers,only for one reason:i find that the bombers are outclassed in this game...but it is just my opinion...

watch out doing that, my friend.

[FOZ_1983]

but what happens if the plane has a ball turret and side gunners? Attack from the above and attack below.

I didnt fancy writing a long reply, so just used "angles" so that it meant attack from everywhere, high and low haha. Sorry for not making it clear.

hello,


during the game i do versus the bombers i try to do a boom and zoom attack
and i must say i use rockets versus the bombers,only for one reason:i find that the bombers are outclassed in this game...but it is just my opinion...

Can see a post from Branko coming ;) haha.

[Crosshair14]

I didnt fancy writing a long reply, so just used "angles" so that it meant attack from everywhere, high and low haha. Sorry for not making it clear.



Can see a post from Branko coming ;) haha.

Do u see the future or something? O NO I feel that feeling too.O.O

[Shadowcorp]

The solution is simple and would add a level of realism sadly missing on the bombers,
Killable gun positions, you can shoot out an engine why not the man operating gun position on a bomber?
Hopefully it will be included on the next game.
I always found and i'm sure a few people will agree the me 262 is the most effective way to deal with bombers though they do take a little time to get used to

[Cap'n Crunch]

Soviet planes had major problems during the war. Read Sebag Montefiore's "Stalin The Court of Red Tsar". Although it's not specifically about the Red Air Force, it contains some stunning revelations about it's war time record and leadership. His sources are the politburos own papers opened for examination after 91.

Basically in a nutshell, more than 50% total war time Russian built aircraft losses were due neither to combat nor pilot error. The Red Air Force literally was falling out of the skies. It's upper leadership was executed immediately after the war, just days after, all before the end of 45.

Also little known among aviation fans, Mikoyan's brother was a senior member of the Politburo and presidium, during the war he was in line to succeed Stalin. They were one of the most politically powerful families in the country, even though not ethnic Russians.

Some other interesting tidbits in the book, Stalin's son Vasily killed a HSU pilot while horsing around using BRS Rockets to fish during the war on one of his outings.

It was Vasily who also brought accusations against the top VVS leadership just prior to the war, helping his father eliminate the top echelon just weeks before the war kicked off.

[olife]

watch out doing that, my friend.

can u explain me "watch out doing that,my friend"

don' t understand my english is bad,sorry

[David603]

Well there you go. I learned something new lol.

Did a bit of searching and reading. Can't find any mention on why the allison engine suddenly didn't need to have then airscoop on top rather than underneith the engine. It seems to me to be part of the modification that gave the allison a two stage supercharger though. I now know that most the Twin Mustangs went back to using Allisons (even though they were weaker) for political reasons. I expect these fake engined Mustangs are from old F-82's and are all in the US then and why Ive never come across one.

One thing I can't understand. I still count 6 exausts in the photos?
Perhaps the exhausts from the Merlin are still being used? It should be possible, since both engines are V12s of a similar configuration. It would also make the V-1710 sound more like a Merlin.

Something else I found out about civilian Mustangs is that removing the military equipment (guns, armor, surplus fuel tanks and WWII vintage radio equipment) shaves off around 2,500 lbs from the Mustangs weight, which is roughly a quarter of the loaded weight of a wartime P51D. If the guys who made the Flight 1 P51 for FSX used one of these Mustangs for their flight characteristics, then no wonder it flies so well ;)

[Soviet Ace]

Perhaps the exhausts from the Merlin are still being used? It should be possible, since both engines are V12s of a similar configuration. It would also make the V-1710 sound more like a Merlin.

Something else I found out about civilian Mustangs is that removing the military equipment (guns, armor, surplus fuel tanks and WWII vintage radio equipment) shaves off around 2,500 lbs from the Mustangs weight, which is roughly a quarter of the loaded weight of a wartime P51D. If the guys who made the Flight 1 P51 for FSX used one of these Mustangs for their flight characteristics, then no wonder it flies so well ;)

For randomness, I still stand that my Yak-3 could chew up your lovely Griffon powered Spitfire any day. :cool:

[Balderz002]

For randomness, I still stand that my Yak-3 could chew up your lovely Griffon powered Spitfire any day. :cool:

That is proper fighting talk I do beleive!

[David603]

For randomness, I still stand that my Yak-3 could chew up your lovely Griffon powered Spitfire any day. :cool:
That is proper fighting talk I do believe!
Fighting talk indeed :grin:

We never did have that match to settle things.......

[Balderz002]

Fighting talk indeed :grin:

We never did have that match to settle things.......

We cant tho, not a Griffon engined Spit. It was obviously too good for the game, so they left it out!

[FOZ_1983]

Do u see the future or something? O NO I feel that feeling too.O.O

Na, i dont predict the future, but i have a gut feeling ;) haha.

[vdomini]

For randomness, I still stand that my Yak-3 could chew up your lovely Griffon powered Spitfire any day. :cool:


Me too! :-P

Lol i'm joking...but, le me say that Yak 3 is a very good plane! I love flying in that.

[Korsakov829]

The solution is simple and would add a level of realism sadly missing on the bombers,
Killable gun positions, you can shoot out an engine why not the man operating gun position on a bomber?
Hopefully it will be included on the next game.
I always found and i'm sure a few people will agree the me 262 is the most effective way to deal with bombers though they do take a little time to get used to

Yeah that would be nice. All bombers could use work on.

Me 262 takes time to get right, but any plane piston or jet powered can take down a bomber. I fly the I-153 and have shot down Me 262 and bombers on simulation.

[bobbysocks]

i actually like the me 163 for bombers. it is totally unreal ..flightwise but lots of fun nonetheless.

[Soviet Ace]

We cant tho, not a Griffon engined Spit. It was obviously too good for the game, so they left it out!

We were actually going to do it on '46.

[Balderz002]

We were actually going to do it on '46.

Whoops! my bad!

[olife]

some russian planes

[olife]

5 others

[McQ59]

Great post and pics olife! The Mig-3 is a beautifull plane.

[olife]

Great post and pics olife! The Mig-3 is a beautifull plane.

thanks a lot

yes i like the white mig 3 with the red nose and wings ,typical russian colors!

[olife]

profiles

[Balderz002]

Great stuff there olife!

I think there is one aircraft in there that Foz will appreciate!

[olife]

Great stuff there olife!

I think there is one aircraft in there that Foz will appreciate!

thanks a lot

yes,for sure i think foz will appreciate this one!!

[Soviet Ace]

Best picture out of them all, is the Yak-3. Though it's disguised as a Yak-9. :P (It's the only Yak there without an oil cooler under the nose.)

[olife]

Best picture out of them all, is the Yak-3. Though it's disguised as a Yak-9. :P (It's the only Yak there without an oil cooler under the nose.)

hello bud

oups,sorry,agree with u,what a stupid mistake from me!!!
exuse me guys for it

[olife]

Best picture out of them all, is the Yak-3. Though it's disguised as a Yak-9. :P (It's the only Yak there without an oil cooler under the nose.)

yak3

[Soviet Ace]

yak3

Nice. It's always nice to see such a great beautiful plane shooting down one of the enemies, trying to take over the Motherland! :coo:

Personally, this one is my favorite of Yak-3 paintings. (Yes I did have it in my sig for a bit. :cool:)

http://www.military-art.com/mall/images/dp13.jpg

[olife]

Nice. It's always nice to see such a great beautiful plane shooting down one of the enemies, trying to take over the Motherland! :coo:

Personally, this one is my favorite of Yak-3 paintings. (Yes I did have it in my sig for a bit. :cool:)

http://www.military-art.com/mall/images/dp13.jpg

very nice pic!!iar80 is down!!