PDA

View Full Version : Which plane disappointed you most?



blakduk
04-25-2006, 09:03 PM
Just thought i'd get others opinions on this.
Some of the planes in this sim have been real eye-openers for me. Some of the planes have been as awesome as i expected, such as the Spitfires (they need more power and more ammo though) and 109's (which i have come to really like).
I also hadnt known much about planes such as the F6F and how brilliant they were at just about everything.
The biggest dispointment for me however is the F4U! As i kid i made models of these planes and i loved the cool angles it created. As a fighter though it sucks!
Too slow in acceleration, a pig to get off a carrier let alone get back on one, climbs too slowly, can't turn without slowing to a crawl, easy to spin, not enough firepower to make a bnz worthwhile, and it can't carry enough ordinance.
The only worthwhile thing it does is set you up nicely for something like the Hellcat.
It's still a great looking plane, but i hate flying it.

The_Gog
04-25-2006, 10:59 PM
I have found the carrier borne torpedo bombers to be the most dissapointing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AFJ_Locust
04-25-2006, 11:07 PM
P51D

All of the Corsairs

All of the cats

Wobblie bobblie & still not fast enough

GR142_Astro
04-25-2006, 11:52 PM
All Corsairs.

All Hellcats.

All P51's (Handling and accel)

zoinks_
04-26-2006, 01:22 AM
I have found the carrier borne torpedo bombers to be the most dissapointing!

All of the Corsairs

All of the cats

[echo on]and anything from 1946[/echo on and on]

lowfighter
04-26-2006, 03:08 AM
I find the corsair a very interesting and rewarding AC to fly, and the wobblines it exhibits actually gives me a sensation of reality, which I don't find in most other AC which feel to docile. To fly it in the game requires to be a bit more carefull especially with the rudder, and this adds to immersion too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
By the way the corsair (and in fact all AC) wobbliness in 4.04 is much reduced relative to 4.03.

And for dissapointing AC, I can't find one which really disappoints me, I have a tendency to like an AC for both his strengths and weak spots. But there's AC which I don't understand very well, or don't feel very well, like the P51...it's an AC full of secrets (at least in my brain http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

ploughman
04-26-2006, 03:15 AM
I quite like the F4-U. It's wobbly, and that snap wing stall's a bummer but it's got a great sight and PoV relative to some other aircraft. My current inability to input any meaningful rudder is going to be corrected in the next day or two, depending on the post, so I'll see what that giant control surface on the vertical stabliser's all about.

Most disapointing? Is it just me or does the Mossie feel like a sack of spuds?

strewth
04-26-2006, 03:28 AM
Most disapointing? Is it just me or does the Mossie feel like a sack of spuds?

I don't like to bag Maddox's work, but the mozzie was somewhat an anticlimax for me. The sim still rocks though.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-26-2006, 03:34 AM
It's not just you, Ploughman, the Mossie just don't feel right to me., I'd rather take an A-20 up.

I like the Corsair, but think the long nose extending beyond the cockpit could have been rendered better.

To put my expert opinion into context all this comes from the bloke who only discovered that the B-25 was flyable last night.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ploughman
04-26-2006, 03:39 AM
Oh, you Dorset lads. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WOLFMondo
04-26-2006, 03:53 AM
The Tempest we got was extremely disappointing. An extremely rare example of a batch 1 series II. I was hoping for your average 2nd TAF winter 1944/45 Tempest V series II.

I like the Corsair. Getting rid of the wobbles is all about good trim management. I think its rewarding, tough to fly and difficult to master, as it was IRL. Its performance at altitude is also stellar. One of my current favorites.

Gwalker70
04-26-2006, 04:36 AM
TA 152 ,,,, since high alt isnt really programed into the FM, cant take advantage of the top speed to gain on other planes.. I.E P47,, spit 9 HF,, and a few others.. hell, even the Mustang III is a better FB 'high alt' plane. top speed on the TA off by around 40 KPH as well.. and when you do get near the games top speed you pretty much burn the motor anyways... zoom climb is not accurate in the game as well.. good luck shaking anything that has a little speed going even though you are screaming faster than him becuase when you when you go back up from a boom,,, the TA falls flat on its face,, 25# spits are going to shoot you down,, and even if they are just out of gun range, they will follow you up and torture the hell out of you becuase once again, high alt isnt accurate in this game.. ah well.

mynameisroland
04-26-2006, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
All Corsairs.

All Hellcats.

All P51's (Handling and accel)

To add a bit of perspective here I find the P51 and the Corsair to be excellent aircraft especially against Japanese fighters. The P51 is untouchable and the Corsair is fast enough to keep out of trouble too.

As for the P51's acceleration nothing wrong there in my opinion. We got a heavy aircraft with a smallish engine - its never going to keep up with a Bf 109 or even a Fw 190 in the acceleration stakes. On the otherhand just close the radiator and shallow dive it goes like a rocket if you do that.

Vuco1
04-26-2006, 05:13 AM
It seams that pretty much we all agree the hellcats got the ****ty part of the stick.

Or maybe it just because of overmodeled Japanese planes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

WTE_Ibis
04-26-2006, 05:19 AM
The Mossie, biggest disappoinment for me, where's the speed???

JG53Frankyboy
04-26-2006, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
The Mossie, biggest disappoinment for me, where's the speed???

what do you expect ??
btw its a 1943 version

shotdownski
04-26-2006, 07:25 AM
The Mossie feels much more sluggish than I had expected...but upon reading the pilot manual and some actual pilot accounts, the FM is probably pretty accurate. I can't wait to try the Pe-2.

R_Target
04-26-2006, 07:31 AM
Hellcat-it's just too slow. As for bobbing or wobbling, I'm not seeing much that can't be trimmed out; it's the bizarre-o asymmetric recoil kick on the USN planes that bothers me.

ForkTailedDevil
04-26-2006, 07:40 AM
Yeah the Hellcats and Corsair were for me very dissapointing. I grew up reading how great these planes are so I naturally figured that they were UBER rides and then when I get a chance to fly one they are the suck unless you practice enough I guess. I am also bummed about the Italian Macchi series.

edgflyer
04-26-2006, 07:49 AM
P51 All Varients
FW190
Neither seem to perform like they were quoted to do so.

ImpStarDuece
04-26-2006, 07:52 AM
I got to disagree about the Hellcat and Corsair, with the exception of the weird asymetric recoil thing. Maybe I have a slightly less jaundiced view of them, not really being that interested in the Pacific War.

I flew the P-47D for about 12 months non-stop before PF came out. The I went to the Hellcat. It was a revelation. Suddenly I had an aircraft that not only B'n'Z well, but could even turn when it needed too, snap is nose around like a snake and was happy low and slow. The Corsair was more of the P-47 stakes, stay fast and fly high, but I still spent many happy hours behind the controls flying fictional FAA missions against 190s and 109s. The rear view sucks though.

Greatest disappointment for me is the P-38. I can't do ANYTHING in that bird except ground attack or auger in smoking and wingless. I've been shot down enough by it while in 190s or 109s to know its a very dangerous opponent, but I can't make it dance like some others can.

R_Target
04-26-2006, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I got to disagree about the Hellcat and Corsair, with the exception of the weird asymetric recoil thing. Maybe I have a slightly less jaundiced view of them, not really being that interested in the Pacific War.

I flew the P-47D for about 12 months non-stop before PF came out. The I went to the Hellcat. It was a revelation. Suddenly I had an aircraft that not only B'n'Z well, but could even turn when it needed too, snap is nose around like a snake and was happy low and slow.


Heh, maybe I should have qualified my answer a little bit. All the things you just listed about the Hellcat are all the things I like about it. For such a big plane, you can really throw it around the sky. I'll add very benign stall and excellent forward visibility to the list. Top speed is just off.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
04-26-2006, 10:08 AM
WW2 jet engines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

ForkTailedDevil
04-26-2006, 10:27 AM
My biggest issue with the '38 is that if you throw a piece of paper at the tail it falls off. I had always thought they were pretty rugged.

Kwiatos
04-26-2006, 10:39 AM
P-11

For:
- way too long take off run
- too bad acceleration
- stupid engine broke (overrevive) in dive at 450 km/h ( RL P-11 could dive above up to 690 km/h)
- too simpilicated DM
- engine cut during negative G ( RL P-11 have special fuel tank with upper and down section to prevent such engine cut)

Breeze147
04-26-2006, 12:04 PM
B-17's. Oh.

GR142_Astro
04-26-2006, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Greatest disappointment for me is the P-38. I can't do ANYTHING in that bird except ground attack or auger in smoking and wingless. I've been shot down enough by it while in 190s or 109s to know its a very dangerous opponent, but I can't make it dance like some others can.

Which is so odd, because 90% of the time I feel almost invincible in that thing. When flying the J in a 1943 environment you are almost untouchable. You can stay relatively low and slash at Japanese planes, turn fight with 190s and do a combination with the 109s. I feel 10 times more effective in any P38 than any P51, Hellcat or Corsair.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2006, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by strewth:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most disapointing? Is it just me or does the Mossie feel like a sack of spuds?

I don't like to bag Maddox's work, but the mozzie was somewhat an anticlimax for me. The sim still rocks though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rememebr the Mossie we have is a 1942 aircraft.

In some of online historical maps in 1942, the Mossie is the best fighter out of the whole planeset for me. Hurricane IIb, Tomahawk and Mossie is the planeset vs 109F2,Stuka, He111. If you B&Z in the mossie its cool.

It is a little weak (as in damage model) tho, I think. I think if you take it as a 1942 plane it rocks, but once it can be caught by fighters, its only consideration os as a bomber. Later models should be good in later scenarios.

The biggest disapoinyment for me I think is the Corsair and the p51. Corsair purely because it wobbles and the p51 doesnt feel right. Its very good up high tho (just took it for a spin at 10000m vs 109s and fw190's its damn good up there.

I actually was surprised at how good the Cats are as I had read the eariler ones were oputclassed by the Zero, I find the Hellcat good in the game vs Zeros.

Any planes with wobble syndrome (mainly corsair, not tried the later cats) ruin it for me.

JG5_UnKle
04-26-2006, 02:47 PM
Fw190

at first...

JG53Frankyboy
04-26-2006, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by strewth:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most disapointing? Is it just me or does the Mossie feel like a sack of spuds?

I don't like to bag Maddox's work, but the mozzie was somewhat an anticlimax for me. The sim still rocks though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rememebr the Mossie we have is a 1942 aircraft.

In some of online historical maps in 1942, the Mossie is the best fighter out of the whole planeset for me. Hurricane IIb, Tomahawk and Mossie is the planeset vs 109F2,Stuka, He111. If you B&Z in the mossie its cool.

It is a little weak (as in damage model) tho, I think. I think if you take it as a 1942 plane it rocks, but once it can be caught by fighters, its only consideration os as a bomber. Later models should be good in later scenarios.

The biggest disapoinyment for me I think is the Corsair and the p51. Corsair purely because it wobbles and the p51 doesnt feel right. Its very good up high tho (just took it for a spin at 10000m vs 109s and fw190's its damn good up there.

I actually was surprised at how good the Cats are as I had read the eariler ones were oputclassed by the Zero, I find the Hellcat good in the game vs Zeros.

Any planes with wobble syndrome (mainly corsair, not tried the later cats) ruin it for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK the FB version of the Mosquito came in service spring 1943 ?!
NF and B sure spring 1942.............

MrMojok
04-26-2006, 02:52 PM
The ones with the AI gunners disappoint me, every time I get near them.

Irish_Rogues
04-26-2006, 03:09 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

AFJ_Locust
04-26-2006, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The Tempest we got was extremely disappointing. An extremely rare example of a batch 1 series II. I was hoping for your average 2nd TAF winter 1944/45 Tempest V series II.

I like the Corsair. Getting rid of the wobbles is all about good trim management. I think its rewarding, tough to fly and difficult to master, as it was IRL. Its performance at altitude is also stellar. One of my current favorites.

Thats **** I have that bird trimed up tight Its a wobbeling pieca crapola, same with the cats. I honestaly cant belive the ac was that unstable.

The tempest is somewhat of a disapointment Ill agree with you on that.

AFJ_Locust
04-26-2006, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Greatest disappointment for me is the P-38. I can't do ANYTHING in that bird except ground attack or auger in smoking and wingless. I've been shot down enough by it while in 190s or 109s to know its a very dangerous opponent, but I can't make it dance like some others can.

Which is so odd, because 90% of the time I feel almost invincible in that thing. When flying the J in a 1943 environment you are almost untouchable. You can stay relatively low and slash at Japanese planes, turn fight with 190s and do a combination with the 109s. I feel 10 times more effective in any P38 than any P51, Hellcat or Corsair. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HAHAH Astro I was just going to say the same thing, The P38 is awsome Its stable,fast,acceleration,climb and view are great, Diveing is its weekness but that can be delt with, Flying the P38 is a DREAM compared to the cats & the corsair.

To the TA guy, I know for a fact that the TA is next too untouchable at Proper altitude. With a good wingman at altitude its a killing machien.

Too the Mossie Fans.......
Just wait the Pe2 will be UBER, Ill bet money on it!!!

CaptJodan
04-26-2006, 06:17 PM
P-51
Mossie

As others have said, the P-51 just doesn't feel right. I'd echo the comments about the Hellcat at least in terms of speed, but it wasn't high on the list of planes I was disappointed with.

I was expecting something special in the Mossie that never came about. I guess with all the hype on the boards I began to believe a lot of it. Just wasn't the performer I thought it'd be.

ImpStarDuece
04-26-2006, 07:18 PM
I think the problem with the Mosquito is the simple facts that most people A) don't actually know much about the difference between the various Mosquito marks B) don't actually know much about the Fighter Bomber Mk VI model we have in particular.

Performance is right on the money for an early 1943 F/B model. Most people unrealistically expected it to just walk away from enemy fighters in a 1944/1945 scenario, which is wrong.

The Mosquito IS pretty uber, used in the right way in the right time period. 4 Hispanos, 2000lbs of bombs and the ability to do 340mph on the deck is blistering for an aircraft that is essentially a light bomber.

Later marks were VERY fast. RAF tests of a NF. XXX have it doing 377mph on the deck, (or 394 mph with N20 injection for chasing down V1s). What we have is the most representative example of an early F/B Mossie. A 1944 version would be nice, and a few mph faster, but its never going to be a heavy fighter like some people want it to be.

EiZ0N
04-26-2006, 07:30 PM
I was slightly disappointed with the performance of the Tempest, but to be frank I didn't think it was quite so heavy, so it was more down to my lack of knowledge of the aircraft.

I still love it though and I'm not complaining.

WTE_Galway
04-26-2006, 07:32 PM
do remember with both the mossie and more particularly the p38 that steep turns in real life were often assisted by asymetrical engine settings

as for the tempest .. having seen a sea fury up close (tempest on steroids really) i can only say the tempest/typhoon/sea fury line are awesomely huge aircraft in real life .. much more imposing than a 109 or spit up close

GR142-Pipper
04-26-2006, 08:23 PM
P-51, F4U, P-47, P-38 (they finally got this aircraft right in 4.02 but pooched it again in 4.03/4.04), F4F, F6F.

All the above suffer from poor acceleration, poor energy retention and are equipped with very weak 50's. American mid/late war fighters are the most underperforming in the game...not so in real life.

GR142-Pipper

Rammjaeger
04-27-2006, 11:42 AM
I always enjoyed flying Corsairs in PF. I especially like the gunsight and the cockpit view. And unlike the Seafire, it has flaps that work properly.

The type I found the most disappointing is the Ki-100. I've seen sources claiming it was the best IJAAF fighter of the war. Everyone agrees that it was an excellent plane but in this sim I don't think it's an equal to the Ki-61c or the Ki-84, not to mention late-war USN fighters. Low top speed, not agile enough, armament is too unusual (cannons above the engine and machine guns in the wings? What the hell? Cannons and their ammunition always fit better in the wings. And yet again I won't properly see the target due to muzzle flash)

Bf-109Z is also disappointing. Even compared to the P-47 it's totally a brick. And I don't really see the point in an armament THAT heavy. If you can't finish a bomber off with one Mk 108, you won't achieve miracles with more. I don't really understand why it is in the game considering that it never took off the ground, let alone see any combat.

Texan...
04-27-2006, 01:52 PM
109z isn't disappointing, it's just plain stupid. Along with the Go229 and I-185. What IS disappointing is the time that was wasted even assigning FMs to these dork mobiles while mainstream fighters like the P51 still don't have correct DMs or FMs.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

carguy_
04-27-2006, 02:24 PM
All FW190 Antons besides A9.

faustnik
04-27-2006, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
All FW190 Antons besides A9.

I don't understand that at all. With the exception of the Fw190A4 power levels, the Fw190As are really good.

???????????????

blindpugh
04-27-2006, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by blakduk:
Just thought i'd get others opinions on this.
Some of the planes in this sim have been real eye-openers for me. Some of the planes have been as awesome as i expected, such as the Spitfires (they need more power and more ammo though) and 109's (which i have come to really like).
I also hadnt known much about planes such as the F6F and how brilliant they were at just about everything.
The biggest dispointment for me however is the F4U! As i kid i made models of these planes and i loved the cool angles it created. As a fighter though it sucks!
Too slow in acceleration, a pig to get off a carrier let alone get back on one, climbs too slowly, can't turn without slowing to a crawl, easy to spin, not enough firepower to make a bnz worthwhile, and it can't carry enough ordinance.
The only worthwhile thing it does is set you up nicely for something like the Hellcat.
It's still a great looking plane, but i hate flying it. p40 series in sim too slow-firepower weak.

LBR_Rommel
04-27-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
All FW190 Antons besides A9.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

GR142-Pipper
04-27-2006, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
109z isn't disappointing, it's just plain stupid. Along with the Go229 and I-185. What IS disappointing is the time that was wasted even assigning FMs to these dork mobiles while mainstream fighters like the P51 still don't have correct DMs or FMs.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Indeed. And let's not forget the flying water heater, the Russian BI.

GR142-Pipper

Treetop64
04-27-2006, 03:57 PM
> Haven't flown the P-51s enough to have any input on those.

> Obviously, the F-6 Hellcats since 4.01 are just Poo Poo. These feel worse to fly and fight in than the F-4 Wildcats. I have no confidence in flying the Hellcat. The 3.04 versions rocked, though - except for the dung all over the canopy...

> I DO like the current F-4 Wildcats, though! Especially if you're starting high and at speed. It's just nimble, fast, and tough enough to keep you alive. They feel right, are easy to manage within the "envelope", and are just plain fun to use!

> I also like the F4-Us. However, they took me long, long time to learn how to fly them correctly in a tactical situation, but once you learn how to use the airplane's strengths (her speed, dive, and zoom climb capabilities, and amazing high speed maneuverability) I become virtually untouchable - against the AI at least!

Yep, gotta say the Hellcat is one of the worst to fly in the sim. Totally uninspiring...

...Looks great, though... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LStarosta
04-27-2006, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
P-11

For:
- way too long take off run
- too bad acceleration
- stupid engine broke (overrevive) in dive at 450 km/h ( RL P-11 could dive above up to 690 km/h)
- too simpilicated DM
- engine cut during negative G ( RL P-11 have special fuel tank with upper and down section to prevent such engine cut)

+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

danjama
04-27-2006, 04:11 PM
P51

idahosniper
04-27-2006, 04:34 PM
I was pretty disappointed with most of the American fighters, in particular the P-47. I thought that thing got at least as many kills as the P-51 but it stinks in any kind of close turning dogfight.

Also the .50 caliber machine guns are really lame, you have to pump the enemy full of lead to make him hurt at all. They just seem so...weak.

carguy_
04-27-2006, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I don't understand that at all. With the exception of the Fw190A4 power levels, the Fw190As are really good.

???????????????

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

faustnik
04-27-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I don't understand that at all. With the exception of the Fw190A4 power levels, the Fw190As are really good.

???????????????

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?

GR142_Astro
04-27-2006, 05:49 PM
!

J_Weaver
04-27-2006, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by idahosniper:
I was pretty disappointed with most of the American fighters, in particular the P-47. I thought that thing got at least as many kills as the P-51 but it stinks in any kind of close turning dogfight.

Also the .50 caliber machine guns are really lame, you have to pump the enemy full of lead to make him hurt at all. They just seem so...weak.

M8, the problems your having with the Jug is that your flying it wrong. Its not a turn fighter. You have to keep your steed up and boom and zoom.

It takes time to learn how to fly it properly. I remember a few years ago think that the P-47 and Fw-190 were junk. But now that I've learned how to fly them I prefer them over most if not all of their contemporaries.

Brain32
04-27-2006, 06:26 PM
@Faustnik I don't know why but I have to agree with the guys, A9 rocks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif others just don't feel good I would best describe it like slugish maybe it's the engine power I don't know... A4 totally dissapointed me... When I rant about FW's front view is killing me...

As for my other dissapointments Tempest with it's rear view, boost rating and zoom climb.
I've expected P47 to be more manouverable(not for TnB just a bit more manouverable(roll), somewhat Corsair(I thought it was a faster plane). Also late 109's(I thought they were even with the Spit but I just did not know...)

BigKahuna_GS
04-27-2006, 06:42 PM
S!


All Corsairs---too slow, wobble, gun recoil, low take off power

All Hellcats---too slow, wobble, gun recoil, low take off power, turn rate, nasty stall vs very LOW wing loading---hmmm. This was the best handeling and most stable Navy fighter.

All P51's (stall and accel) drops a wing hard with little manuevering

Tempest--speed, acceleration, dive, torque (most torque in sim)

No F4U-4 & P47N in Pacific Fighters

----

Very happy and thankful for the P47D with grade 150 fuel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Need a P51D over-boosted like this.

_

DIRTY-MAC
04-27-2006, 07:13 PM
the Hellcat and the macchis and the PLZ11

Treetop64
04-27-2006, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by idahosniper:
I was pretty disappointed with most of the American fighters, in particular the P-47. I thought that thing got at least as many kills as the P-51 but it stinks in any kind of close turning dogfight.

Well, yeah...

The P-47 always stunk at close-in fights because it was never designed for that type of tactical flying in the first place. It was a foolish pilot that got involved in a turn-fight while flying a P-47. It was, however, a master of BnZ and mud-moving!

MarkGos
04-27-2006, 08:58 PM
http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images/001/139/817_ce019b5abfe74bbfe00c9104e567382b.jpg

I'm disapointed she's not my crew chief http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
All FW190 Antons besides A9.

I don't understand that at all. With the exception of the Fw190A4 power levels, the Fw190As are really good.

??????????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed Faust. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

FW190A's are Fantastic planes in historical scenarios.

Arguabley the best planes available in the whole game 1942-43.

I know La5FN and Spitfire 8/9 could be argued as 'better' if they suit your style better, but they were not available in truly proper numbers until very late '43 early 1944, on a historical map they should not be there until very late '43 at least and it should be La5 (non-FN) and Spitfire MkVc instead.

In 1942 FW190A is untouchable.

Carguy come and fly Channel '42 on UKdedicated or some of the 1942-43 maps on Winds of War with us sometime, FW190 is amazing vs its proper opposition. The only thing that annoys me is the forward view. I am sure if it really was that bad then the German pilots would have highered the sight a bit in the cockpit to make deflection shooting easier.