People keep saying it's the pilot and not the plane: but what if both the pilots are experten? What if a pilot use Hurries or Spitfires the way WW2 warbirds has to be flown?
BnZ and energy fighting is not a prerogative of the 109's pilot... above all during the BoB, when Spitfire and 109 were quite similar.
Because many problems come when the FMs can't reproduce the RL advantages and some notable tactics do not work as the pilot is expecting (what about IL2 1946 and his Fw190 Anton's acceleration?). There is a long time cadet in my squad that I often pick up because he tries to reproduce the manouvres he read on the aviation books, dying of course: after many hours finally he has learned to not trust the ingame planes since they are not flying like the real ones.
And of course there are actually many more aces online than during the real BoB! After all we have died so many times, learning something at every own mistake: I still remember the first time Jaws owned me in his Fw during my first days.
But of course in RL the "it's the pilot, not the plane" is clearly valid. During the BoB there were not some irrealistic aspects we have in the game: alarming sound radar, poor target visibility, missing fatigue, rubbery pilot's heads, complex EM and of course, fear of death.
In real life I would fly with the the better pilots, ingame give me the better planes instead. Of course experience can make the difference, but not if it's an "experten vs experten" things.
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
Last edited by 6S.Manu; 11-28-2011 at 09:01 AM.
|