Your favourite aircraft in Cliffs of Dover?

[Rattlehead]

Just curious to know who likes what aircraft.

I've always been a 109 guy...since a child I've loved that plane, but I tell you what, that Spitfire is one sweet bird. (All versions) I get a real buzz out of flying it, maybe more than the 109 actually.
I didn't really like the Spits in the older series, but now I really have a new-found respect for the plane.
Maybe the cem has a lot to do with it...I can get a better feel for the aircraft as opposed to the older game.

The 110 is also impressing me, I love the way those big 'ol engines seem to spool up (I can't think of a better term) when you increase the revs. Lovely bird, and quite capable as well...

Last but not least, I have a soft spot for the Br.20. It's slow, takes an age to warm up those engines and it just seems underpowered, but I love it's quirkiness. Everyone has a 'crap' plane that they like, and this is mine. :)

PS-please no complaints about the cem or fm...we know the score by now. Just let's take each plane as is for now.

[skouras]

Bf 109:-)

[addman]

Stuka's growing on me, too bad it's got the "after take-off shakes" bug. It really is a precision tool, hit a ship on my second attempt. Great explosion/disintegration effects.

[Rattlehead]

Stuka's growing on me,

Really? I've always hated that damned thing. Mainly because I can't dive-bomb if my life depended on it.

[Strike]

For looks and outmanouvering, I'd say the spitfire.

For firepower and accuracy, I'd say the 109.

But my favouritest plane as of now is actually the hurricane because I've been flying it in the early campaign missions :) Great and stable bird, more concentrated gunfire, not spread out the guns like on the spit all over the wing.

[Lololopoulos]

i have yet to play this game. i'm waiting for the american release and hope by then more bugs will be fixed. :grin:

[Fliegenpilz]

Well I like the Bf 109 the most, mainly because it was the only bird I could fly in CEM-Mode since I bought this sim - without the motor giving up after half an hour of flying like in most other planes I tried (no bug, only mismanagement on my side :)).

Other than that I really enjoy the He 111 and the Tiger Moth. Not fighting, but admiring the beautiful landscape and simply exploring :D

[whatnot]

109 all the way I'd say. I'm planning to get a hold of RAF figthers one day, but I've been waffe and usaf man since FB.

Once I get comfortable with 109 it's +1 on the model number, 110 here I come.

[1337Avi80R]

I am a 109 fanboy, too. But I must say that I'm starting to like the hurricane. A really nice tool to spread some catridges and paste someone. :grin:

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

Yeah,mine's the trusty old Hurricane,I just love the rugged old bugger.:grin:

[Rattlehead]

and the Tiger Moth.

That's a really good pick. I had totally forgotten about the Tiger Moth...
For just flying around and enjoying the scenery, it's probably impossible to beat.

[2fast4u]

Hurricane and all bombers, they are just awesome ;]

[Heinz Laube]

1. Ju 88,
2. H 111,
3. Bf 109

[ElAurens]

Hurricane, best plane in the sim so far.

I want to like the G.50, but methinks she is pretty porked FM wise currently.

[Strike]

Hurricane, best plane in the sim so far.

I want to like the G.50, but methinks she is pretty porked FM wise currently.

yeah that thing is nothing like it was in IL-2 FB

[Ze-Jamz]

Hurricane is modeled the best in this sim imo but for me im not sure...i guess i like to fly both the spit and the 109 depending on my mood or the map/players etc..

Im not a 'Im Axis/Allies and the other side suxxors' guy.. just try and have fun

[Blackdog_kt]

They are all so much more detailed than in the previous series that i can't really decide, i enjoy all of them a lot.

I generally used to fly 190s because i liked the approach of it (harder to get a shot, but once you do the target disintegrates) and i always found bombers of all kinds cool, but i was never a 109 guy. In a similar fashion, i hated the Spit in IL2 because it felt as if it could do too much with too little effort, which in turn led to me making stupid decisions and getting shot down in one of the easiest handling aircraft in IL2 :-P


Well, with the improved DM even rifle caliber MGs are not useless anymore and i can now truly appreciate the 109. I recently started setting the cowl MGs to default convergence (i thinks it's 300m or so) and the cannons to 100-150m. I use the MGs for tracking shots, long range snapshots and forcing them to turn, the cannons i keep only for close in work and only in split-second bursts (i don't fire more than 3-6 shells from each gun on each target until i observe the results).

Testing on single player, i can generally run down the AI easily despite its perfect use of trim , give them sufficient damage with the MGs to force them to disengage, zoom back up and roll over down again and once i'm about to rear end them i just give them a quick burst of cannon to finish them off.

The 110 is something i'll probably delve more into, because i like the firepower, range and versatility of all twin-engined, multi-role aircraft of WWII (i can't wait for later series Ju88s and some mosquitoes and beaufighters in some future expansion).
Flown to its strengths (strictly boom and zoom with an alt advantage and wingmen) i bet the 110 will be a real killer, since it's actually quite fast for the current planeset and it might become even faster (some people presented references that more powerful engines were used by most units during the BoB than the ones our in-game 110 has).
I'm just waiting until the FMs are fine-tuned and we know for sure if the "snaking"/flutter above 500km/h and the auto-mixture induced shaking at higher altitudes are realistic and how to avoid them, or get corrected in a patch if they are not.

Also, with the CEM and the variety of systems the bombers are a joy to fly, even if a bit frustrating some times (oh the Blenheim :-P ). The only ones i haven't spent much time in are the Tiger Moth (the controller logic with throttle and mixture is currently bugged in a similar way to the DH-prop Hurricane and since i fly with full CEM it gives me a lot of trouble having the sliders reset when i try to start it up) and the Br.20.

I can't get the G.50 to fly better than a dog to put it mildly (some defiants were out-running me today :grin:) and it seems to lack its war emergency power setting (it seems like we're running down-graded/restricted engines that only go up to one atmosphere of manifold pressure), something that further complicates things is that we also completely lack any kind of documentation on what power settings to use, but it's a downright blast for fighting Gladiators and those Bredas are very cool guns with useful ammunition options.

Most of all, the CEM has actually made it worthwhile for me to fly Spits, it's not an "instant i-win button that makes me get cocky and fly silly" situation anymore :grin:

Big thumbs up for the Hurricane too, it might not be a top performer but it's a solid, dependable aircraft that just makes you feel comfortable in it.
I generally prefer the menacing looks of luftwaffe aircraft and i highly value their single-pass capabilities, but i can't deny the charm of wading through a formation of bombers, expending my ammo in 4-6 passes and scampering home down low through the mist with a feeling of nakedness and my head on a swivel looking for any bouncing 109s. :-P

If/when we get later marks it's going to be one of my favorites for Rhubarb/Ranger type missions, for example a Mk.IIC with the cannons and a couple of bombs under the wings. That's also why i want to get to grips with the Blenheim, there's much involved in how you plan things out to overcome the performance deficiencies and there were some pretty bold and daring (and even suicidal) missions flown at low level over occupied Europe by Hurris and Blens. If nothing else, it will be good practice for when we have a Hawker Typhoon and a Mosquito in the future.

Sorry for the long post, but the fact that the new title simulates more of each aircraft's systems gives off a more authentic air of the quirks and subtler nuances of each one and that makes all of them very pleasing to fly.

[baronWastelan]

1. Hurricane
2. bf 110c-4

[timholt]

Rotol Hurricane for me

[wilburnator]

109... it's been my favorite for ten years. In earlier editions of the game I probably spent more time flying 109s than all other types combined.

[TeeJay82]

109, but as soon as the 190 hits the game, im switching :P

[Rickusty]

Gotta be the Hurricane for me, both the DH and Rotol versions.
I don't know exactly why, but I feel at home in it: very stable, all those guns packed close together , excellent visibility all around.
It's not very speedy, but I love it.

Also love all the bombers, each one of them, but God I hate the defensive armaments of the Luftwaffe warplanes... Why did they chose to have those magazine-fed mgs back there ? Every time I've finally set my convergence on a coming fighter, the gun runs out of ammo.
They're fast firing but...

But overall, I like all the planes in the game; each one of them really have something unique about them, you can feel it. Each one is one kind of an animal.

I hope the others unflyables will become flyable one day, all of them.

Cheers
Rick

[wannabetheace]

1.Spitfire
2.bf109

[JG53Frankyboy]

yeah that thing is nothing like it was in IL-2 FB

espacially the flyables with radial engines, Blenheim/Br20/G50, seems to have a lot of proplems with their ingame CEM programcode :(

as favorites: Ju88 and He111H

[Pluto]

1. BF109
2. Hurricane
(like in the old IL2 1946)

the others I have not yet tried.
:)

[pupaxx]

I want to like the G.50, but methinks she is pretty porked FM wise currently.

@ElAurens,
the real G50 had a porked FM...I hope you enjoy some memories on 'Gigetto' so nicknamed by R.A. pilots:

The G50 was a fighter who tried to make their way through the ranks of biplanes whom were so adherent to the aerobatic tradition of Regia Aeronautica.
Was a plane with a strong tendency to spin even in level formation flight (as occurred to 2°Lt Mancini) because a wing design error.
The dangerousness of G50 was accentuated by a fuel tank behind the pilot and by an heavy armour, it not allowed the pilot to abandon the control stick for a single instant, the plane needed a continuous correction.
At that time Italian pilots were used to 'sit down' the plane at landing with the cloche pulled at the 'belly', G50 simply not allowed this without the risk of left wing drop.
Fiat had solved the drawback making the wing tip replaceable!
More skilled pilots used to push under the instrument dash the stick at the first touch with terrain.
How many well-executed 'tailslide' looked from ground were effectively attemped 'loopings'!!! And how many offset 'tonneaux' turned into violent spins with the nose towards the ground...

Tullio De Prato (chief-test pilot at Caproni-Reggiane Industries, rank of Major in R.A., 1 tour of duty Albania, 2 ToD North Africa, Reggiane 2005 test pilot) wrote in a letter: ''...talking about 'flight charateristics'
is a blasphemy, for sure these are optimistically obtained from 'naked' prototype...I sustained a close combat against an Hurricane (and i was regularly shot down) and I assure you the velocity gap was well above 10% in difference in my disadvantage.
With the weightened tail the plane impose an high-drag flight assett. Not to mention the armaments, the air intake (so low that sucked more sand than air), the constant feeling of walking on ice upset the more experienced pilot and made him regret the maneuvrable and quiet Cr42.
The engine...after 2 days in Lybia eated more oil than petrol and required endless takeoff before disconnecting, with anguish, the wheels off the ground...''

G50 in Battle of Britain
In September 1940, 20° Gruppo (Squadriglie 351/352/353), commanded by Maggiore Mario Bonzano, equipped with Fiat G.50 was part of the 56° Stormo formed to operate during the Battle of Britain as part of the Corpo Aereo Italiano based in Belgium, with 18° Gruppo (Fiat CR.42). Their use was hampered by their slow speed, open cockpits and short range. At the beginning of 1941, the C.A.I. came back in Italy, except for two G.50 Squadriglie that stayed in Belgium with Luftflotte 2, until April. While with the C.A.I. the Fiats flew 429 missions, 34 escorts and 26 scrambles but could not manage to engage enemy aircraft.
One aircraft was lost and seven more were damaged. While with Luftflotte 2, 20° Gruppo lost four additional fighters and two pilots were killed (Roncali (13 February 1941) and Meneghini (3 April), both of 352a Squadriglia), while two G.50s were damaged by German fighters and flak.
The experiences of the early series G.50s over Britain showed the inadequacies of the type. Its operations were almost useless in the campaign because they were too short-ranged and stationed too away from England. The G.50s had limited endurance, with missions rarely exceeding one hour.
The G.50bis with larger fuel tanks was already in production, but it was not sent to 20° Gruppo in time. Performance was also lacking; when 22 Fiat G.50s intercepted several Hawker Hurricanes on 5 November 1940, the RAF fighters easily escaped.
On 21 November, when a Bristol Blenheim attacked the Medgelem airfield two G.50s scrambled, but lost the bomber in the clouds. On 23 November, G.50s followed four Hurricanes, but were unable to close on them. Another fruitless intercept took place on 31 January, when G.50s lost a Blenheim that escaped into the clouds. The last sighting of enemy aircraft occurred on 8 April 1941, when, once again, the elusive targets were not intercepted.
The G.50s were early models with an open canopy, useful in Mediterranean climes, but the pilots suffered heavily in the bad weather of northern Europe. The aircraft was also under-equipped, with a mediocre radio set (powered by batteries, prone to freeze at altitude) and lacking any armour protection.
In Belgium, 20° Gruppo had the opportunity to see the Bf 109 in action with several G.50 pilots trained top fly the type with two Bf 109Es sent to the Gruppo in mid-January 1941.

Courage alone!
:grin::grin:

[addman]

@ElAurens,
the real G50 had a porked FM...I hope you enjoy some memories on 'Gigetto' so nicknamed by R.A. pilots:

The G50 was a fighter who tried to make their way through the ranks of biplanes whom were so adherent to the aerobatic tradition of Regia Aeronautica.
Was a plane with a strong tendency to spin even in level formation flight (as occurred to 2°Lt Mancini) because a wing design error.
The dangerousness of G50 was accentuated by a fuel tank behind the pilot and by an heavy armour, it not allowed the pilot to abandon the control stick for a single instant, the plane needed a continuous correction.
At that time Italian pilots were used to 'sit down' the plane at landing with the cloche pulled at the 'belly', G50 simply not allowed this without the risk of left wing drop.
Fiat had solved the drawback making the wing tip replaceable!
More skilled pilots used to push under the instrument dash the stick at the first touch with terrain.
How many well-executed 'tailslide' looked from ground were effectively attemped 'loopings'!!! And how many offset 'tonneaux' turned into violent spins with the nose towards the ground...

Tullio De Prato (chief-test pilot at Caproni-Reggiane Industries, rank of Major in R.A., 1 tour of duty Albania, 2 ToD North Africa, Reggiane 2005 test pilot) wrote in a letter: ''...talking about 'flight charateristics'
is a blasphemy, for sure these are optimistically obtained from 'naked' prototype...I sustained a close combat against an Hurricane (and i was regularly shot down) and I assure you the velocity gap was well above 10% in difference in my disadvantage.
With the weightened tail the plane impose an high-drag flight assett. Not to mention the armaments, the air intake (so low that sucked more sand than air), the constant feeling of walking on ice upset the more experienced pilot and made him regret the maneuvrable and quiet Cr42.
The engine...after 2 days in Lybia eated more oil than petrol and required endless takeoff before disconnecting, with anguish, the wheels off the ground...''

G50 in Battle of Britain
In September 1940, 20° Gruppo (Squadriglie 351/352/353), commanded by Maggiore Mario Bonzano, equipped with Fiat G.50 was part of the 56° Stormo formed to operate during the Battle of Britain as part of the Corpo Aereo Italiano based in Belgium, with 18° Gruppo (Fiat CR.42). Their use was hampered by their slow speed, open cockpits and short range. At the beginning of 1941, the C.A.I. came back in Italy, except for two G.50 Squadriglie that stayed in Belgium with Luftflotte 2, until April. While with the C.A.I. the Fiats flew 429 missions, 34 escorts and 26 scrambles but could not manage to engage enemy aircraft.
One aircraft was lost and seven more were damaged. While with Luftflotte 2, 20° Gruppo lost four additional fighters and two pilots were killed (Roncali (13 February 1941) and Meneghini (3 April), both of 352a Squadriglia), while two G.50s were damaged by German fighters and flak.
The experiences of the early series G.50s over Britain showed the inadequacies of the type. Its operations were almost useless in the campaign because they were too short-ranged and stationed too away from England. The G.50s had limited endurance, with missions rarely exceeding one hour.
The G.50bis with larger fuel tanks was already in production, but it was not sent to 20° Gruppo in time. Performance was also lacking; when 22 Fiat G.50s intercepted several Hawker Hurricanes on 5 November 1940, the RAF fighters easily escaped.
On 21 November, when a Bristol Blenheim attacked the Medgelem airfield two G.50s scrambled, but lost the bomber in the clouds. On 23 November, G.50s followed four Hurricanes, but were unable to close on them. Another fruitless intercept took place on 31 January, when G.50s lost a Blenheim that escaped into the clouds. The last sighting of enemy aircraft occurred on 8 April 1941, when, once again, the elusive targets were not intercepted.
The G.50s were early models with an open canopy, useful in Mediterranean climes, but the pilots suffered heavily in the bad weather of northern Europe. The aircraft was also under-equipped, with a mediocre radio set (powered by batteries, prone to freeze at altitude) and lacking any armour protection.
In Belgium, 20° Gruppo had the opportunity to see the Bf 109 in action with several G.50 pilots trained top fly the type with two Bf 109Es sent to the Gruppo in mid-January 1941.

Courage alone!
:grin::grin:

Interesting read there, thanks! Also, yes! the G.50 has a porked FM because it was a rather porked plane, quite under-powered. I still love it though, who doesn't love crappy planes?:grin: On 23 November, G.50s followed four Hurricanes, but were unable to close on them
Pretty much says it all.

[JG53Frankyboy]

"The dangerousness of G50 was accentuated by a fuel tank behind the pilot and by an heavy armour,......"
at least these two things should not harm the CoD G.50 - as they were not existend in the BoB G.50 version :D

[reflected]

Spitfire, Hurricane and 109. I can't really decide, all 3 have their own charms.

The Spitfire is so beautiful, even the name. The Hurricane is so ugly, that it's kind of attractive, and it's also a legend - a dependable friend. The 109 is badass, it looks like a fighter, a machine built to kill, plus it needs a lot of brains to fight in it.

So I fly all of them! Well...I will when this game will be playable - hopefully soon ;)

[pupaxx]

"The dangerousness of G50 was accentuated by a fuel tank behind the pilot and by an heavy armour,......"
at least these two things should not harm the CoD G.50 - as they were not existend in the BoB G.50 version :D

..my mistake, additional fuel tank and armour referred to G50bis :rolleyes:

[JG53Frankyboy]

anyway, the behaviour of its engine is, well........................... i guess we have to wait for the big "FM and CEM 'overhaul' patch" :D .
All radials have a questionable behaviour , espacially with its temperatures.

i personally would have made the Cr.42 flyable instead of the G.50. These had at least aircombat with the RAF. But that is like beating a dead horse ;)

[Rattlehead]

Sorry for the long post

Not at all.
I enjoyed reading it.

[jf1981]

I love the spit, I must say I need a bit of training on the onther ones.

[Rickusty]

@ElAurens,
the real G50 had a porked FM...I hope you enjoy some memories on 'Gigetto' so nicknamed by R.A. pilots:

The G50 was a fighter who tried to make their way through the ranks of biplanes whom were so adherent to the aerobatic tradition of Regia Aeronautica.
Was a plane with a strong tendency to spin even in level formation flight (as occurred to 2°Lt Mancini) because a wing design error.
The dangerousness of G50 was accentuated by a fuel tank behind the pilot and by an heavy armour, it not allowed the pilot to abandon the control stick for a single instant, the plane needed a continuous correction.
At that time Italian pilots were used to 'sit down' the plane at landing with the cloche pulled at the 'belly', G50 simply not allowed this without the risk of left wing drop.
Fiat had solved the drawback making the wing tip replaceable!
More skilled pilots used to push under the instrument dash the stick at the first touch with terrain.
How many well-executed 'tailslide' looked from ground were effectively attemped 'loopings'!!! And how many offset 'tonneaux' turned into violent spins with the nose towards the ground...

Tullio De Prato (chief-test pilot at Caproni-Reggiane Industries, rank of Major in R.A., 1 tour of duty Albania, 2 ToD North Africa, Reggiane 2005 test pilot) wrote in a letter: ''...talking about 'flight charateristics'
is a blasphemy, for sure these are optimistically obtained from 'naked' prototype...I sustained a close combat against an Hurricane (and i was regularly shot down) and I assure you the velocity gap was well above 10% in difference in my disadvantage.
With the weightened tail the plane impose an high-drag flight assett. Not to mention the armaments, the air intake (so low that sucked more sand than air), the constant feeling of walking on ice upset the more experienced pilot and made him regret the maneuvrable and quiet Cr42.
The engine...after 2 days in Lybia eated more oil than petrol and required endless takeoff before disconnecting, with anguish, the wheels off the ground...''

G50 in Battle of Britain
In September 1940, 20° Gruppo (Squadriglie 351/352/353), commanded by Maggiore Mario Bonzano, equipped with Fiat G.50 was part of the 56° Stormo formed to operate during the Battle of Britain as part of the Corpo Aereo Italiano based in Belgium, with 18° Gruppo (Fiat CR.42). Their use was hampered by their slow speed, open cockpits and short range. At the beginning of 1941, the C.A.I. came back in Italy, except for two G.50 Squadriglie that stayed in Belgium with Luftflotte 2, until April. While with the C.A.I. the Fiats flew 429 missions, 34 escorts and 26 scrambles but could not manage to engage enemy aircraft.
One aircraft was lost and seven more were damaged. While with Luftflotte 2, 20° Gruppo lost four additional fighters and two pilots were killed (Roncali (13 February 1941) and Meneghini (3 April), both of 352a Squadriglia), while two G.50s were damaged by German fighters and flak.
The experiences of the early series G.50s over Britain showed the inadequacies of the type. Its operations were almost useless in the campaign because they were too short-ranged and stationed too away from England. The G.50s had limited endurance, with missions rarely exceeding one hour.
The G.50bis with larger fuel tanks was already in production, but it was not sent to 20° Gruppo in time. Performance was also lacking; when 22 Fiat G.50s intercepted several Hawker Hurricanes on 5 November 1940, the RAF fighters easily escaped.
On 21 November, when a Bristol Blenheim attacked the Medgelem airfield two G.50s scrambled, but lost the bomber in the clouds. On 23 November, G.50s followed four Hurricanes, but were unable to close on them. Another fruitless intercept took place on 31 January, when G.50s lost a Blenheim that escaped into the clouds. The last sighting of enemy aircraft occurred on 8 April 1941, when, once again, the elusive targets were not intercepted.
The G.50s were early models with an open canopy, useful in Mediterranean climes, but the pilots suffered heavily in the bad weather of northern Europe. The aircraft was also under-equipped, with a mediocre radio set (powered by batteries, prone to freeze at altitude) and lacking any armour protection.
In Belgium, 20° Gruppo had the opportunity to see the Bf 109 in action with several G.50 pilots trained top fly the type with two Bf 109Es sent to the Gruppo in mid-January 1941.

Courage alone!
:grin::grin:

Yeah, the G.50 was a real waste of good metal and aluminium and , to be honest, caused the death of good pilots...

A typical example of all the good bribes and political connections that were keys in deciding to put that crap in production BEFORE evaluating its real potentials, and even after the Macchi C.200 "Saetta" was declared the winner of the "Project R" tender. (justly so)
Its inadequateness just adds up to the bravery and mastery of the Finnish pilots.

But the fact remains that the G.50 in the game has overall wrong characteristics compared to the real one.

I once posted a British pilot's account on when he flew both, a captured Macchi C.200 and a Fiat G.50 in North Africa, and while the first was considered by him "one of the best aircraft" he ever flew, he said the G.50 was a rather useless warbird.

found it

Click HERE (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=7687)

Cheers
Rick

[Rattlehead]

found it

Click HERE (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=7687)

Cheers
Rick

Thanks Rick, very interesting indeed.

[drewpee]

bf109 for me. You have to work harder to down a spit. I tend to stall out in a climb when I was sure I had more E and my inability to take out the enemy with a quick burst leaves me open to wing man attacks. But when I manage to out maneuver a spit that's turning hard to get on your six using more vertical E officiant manovers and a cutting snap shot is totally satisfying.

[Roger Wilco]

the 109