![]() |
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Didn't the unresolved problem of the ply wood coming off at high speed stop it from being a " truly excellent plane".
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was it really an unresolved problem? I got the impression that the Soviet way was to rush badly needed planes out and iron out the kinks in later production batches. So the first few hundred planes would have problems like the one you mentioned, then the next few hundred would have them improved, then the next few hundred would be perfected, then the next major model of the plane would appear and the cycle would be repeated.
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47? A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! (Gunther Rall's lecture. June 2003, Finland) |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And I''m sure those are only a few examples of many. And we should not forget that the Russians had neither the time nor the labour nor the resources to afford quality products early on - and the heavy influence of politics on production did not help IMHO. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Of course, introducing any sort of unreliability or performance reduction into the the game might be self-defeating. For campaign or stand-alone missions, most players will just hit "quit" and refly the mission if they experience an equipment failure. It might be better to factor in unreliability into number of planes flyable for a particular squadron in a campaign. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, the He-177 actually got MORE reliable over time
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|