Why I dislike IL-2 games..

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by 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)?

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.

Originally Posted by bobbysocks

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.o...t-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.

Originally Posted by Zeroptimus

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.

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]

Originally Posted by winny

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by David603

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]

Originally Posted by Robotic Pope

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]

Originally Posted by Robotic Pope

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]

Originally Posted by David603

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]

Originally Posted by Balderz002

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.

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.