PDA

View Full Version : I'm still amazed with IL2 even after 6 years...



MB_Avro_UK
07-09-2007, 01:32 PM
Hi all,

It's incredible that even after 6 years I today found something to amaze me with IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Today I created a co-op mission. The mission related to the winter Stalingrad map. Me 109-G2s were to escort Ju 52 transports.

Interception involved Mig 3s,Hurricanes and IL2-I fighters.

I had also listed IL2-Type-3M aircraft taking off as 'eye candy'.

Well...I was somewhat surprised... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Whilst the Ju 52 escorts were busy....the IL2-3Ms attacked the Ju 52s. The IL2-3M is a ground attack aircraft and specialises in tank busting. It's twin cannons are similar in calibre to the Bismark's 'Y' turret..

But, they climbed above the Ju 52s....half rolled ...and dived in to attack.

After about 5 minutes, all Ju 52s were destroyed.

But..a couple of IL2-3Ms were destroyed whilst trying to perform fighter tactics and hitting mother earth !

The Moral is...Eye-candy can be Deadly...

If anyone wants a copy of the mission please PM me.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
07-09-2007, 01:32 PM
Hi all,

It's incredible that even after 6 years I today found something to amaze me with IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Today I created a co-op mission. The mission related to the winter Stalingrad map. Me 109-G2s were to escort Ju 52 transports.

Interception involved Mig 3s,Hurricanes and IL2-I fighters.

I had also listed IL2-Type-3M aircraft taking off as 'eye candy'.

Well...I was somewhat surprised... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Whilst the Ju 52 escorts were busy....the IL2-3Ms attacked the Ju 52s. The IL2-3M is a ground attack aircraft and specialises in tank busting. It's twin cannons are similar in calibre to the Bismark's 'Y' turret..

But, they climbed above the Ju 52s....half rolled ...and dived in to attack.

After about 5 minutes, all Ju 52s were destroyed.

But..a couple of IL2-3Ms were destroyed whilst trying to perform fighter tactics and hitting mother earth !

The Moral is...Eye-candy can be Deadly...

If anyone wants a copy of the mission please PM me.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

-HH-Quazi
07-09-2007, 01:37 PM
That would whiz allot of mission builders off. I am glad you took it in stride & looked at it as a positive.

Btw, did the remaining IL-2 Type 3M's go to their intended ground ponding target once the 52's were desimated? If so then that would really be awesome.

ytareh
07-09-2007, 01:41 PM
Ive seen A20s/B25s and even Me323s perform some pretty 'aggressive ' aerobatic maneuvers in this game that might put an I16 Rata to shame!I think this has varied with the patches ....Wow 6 years old.....

Jaws2002
07-09-2007, 02:23 PM
We flew a Coop few days ago.
I was flying ground attack in Il2-3M with Crazy Ivan.
After the initial succesful pass on the armored column we were setup by the The german G2's and 190A4's. I managed another pass on the column before someone shot my wing clean off and put me out of my misery.
Now I was watching in outside view how Ivan was dogfighting few 109's. Wasn't long before he got behind a 109. Ivan nicely pulled the plane around after him and started pooring a devastating burst of 23mm cannons into it when......

........out of the blue, this sucker shows up:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/6009050712203255g.jpg

A Hs-129B armed with that Big MK-101 atitank cannon.
It couldn't miss the oportunity to bounce the slow turning IL2. It pulled away from his job to attack our tanks and shot Ivan's Il-2 in half with that bear gun. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

We laughed so hard. That's the last plane you would expect to pull such a trick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Jediteo
07-09-2007, 07:16 PM
I know the feeling, Everytime I start this game I learn something new. I played the game on a LAN with the help of the program hamachi. Well anyways I made a quick coop mission with a couple of p80 vs MiG9swith me and my buddy in the 80s. Anyways after a few minutes into the dogfight, I hear over our TS server, that my buddy cries out "The are friggin sparks flying of the MiGs", actually the first time I noticed that effect other than on the IL2s (they are actually ricochets bouncing off the armor right?)

Anyways after 6 year, I still love this game. Thank you Oleg and your team for brining us this magnificent product.

leitmotiv
07-09-2007, 07:38 PM
I set up a QMB about two years ago. I had a meeting of IL-2s and Hs 129s at Kursk as the theme. The object was for fighters to protect the ground attack aircraft. Unfortunately, when the Hs 129s "saw" the IL-2s and Sov fighters, they tore into them like crazed wolverines, and savagely mauled the IL-2s. I had a very hard time tracking the wildly maneuvering Henschels---once they were soundly thrashed they were not hard to bring down, but they were behaving like Nieuport 11s. Of course this was utter rubbish. Henschels would not engage IL-2s, and certainly they, with their abysmal power-to-weight ratio, and unreliable engines, were not capable of being interceptors. This is just another example of one of IL-2's "howlers" (of which there are many). A solid argument for fewer aircraft and more quality control.

MB_Avro_UK
07-10-2007, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I set up a QMB about two years ago. I had a meeting of IL-2s and Hs 129s at Kursk as the theme. The object was for fighters to protect the ground attack aircraft. Unfortunately, when the Hs 129s "saw" the IL-2s and Sov fighters, they tore into them like crazed wolverines, and savagely mauled the IL-2s. I had a very hard time tracking the wildly maneuvering Henschels---once they were soundly thrashed they were not hard to bring down, but they were behaving like Nieuport 11s. Of course this was utter rubbish. Henschels would not engage IL-2s, and certainly they, with their abysmal power-to-weight ratio, and unreliable engines, were not capable of being interceptors. This is just another example of one of IL-2's "howlers" (of which there are many). A solid argument for fewer aircraft and more quality control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair point...

But in my example, I would imagine that in real life IL2s would have attacked Ju 52s if the opportunity was there.

And they did !!

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Polyperhon
07-10-2007, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I set up a QMB about two years ago. I had a meeting of IL-2s and Hs 129s at Kursk as the theme. The object was for fighters to protect the ground attack aircraft. Unfortunately, when the Hs 129s "saw" the IL-2s and Sov fighters, they tore into them like crazed wolverines, and savagely mauled the IL-2s. I had a very hard time tracking the wildly maneuvering Henschels---once they were soundly thrashed they were not hard to bring down, but they were behaving like Nieuport 11s. Of course this was utter rubbish. Henschels would not engage IL-2s, and certainly they, with their abysmal power-to-weight ratio, and unreliable engines, were not capable of being interceptors. This is just another example of one of IL-2's "howlers" (of which there are many). A solid argument for fewer aircraft and more quality control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but I disagree.You don't tell us the whole story here.We don't know the exact numbers of Hs 129s and IL-2s. We don't know which formation had the height advantage.But we know that german pilots were agressive and would attack in every oppurtunity. We know that many pilots with Ju-87s and Ju-88s scored kills, so why not with Hs 129s? Hs 129s didn't have a rear gunner.Standing in a formation would mean certain death. Why not then?
Most of all, we don't have a first-hand "experience" of how the Hs 129 behaved in flight...If you compare Hs 129 with a single engined fighter you 'll notice that it had comparable weight and dimensions but instead of one had two high-drag radial engines on the wings.Its narrow fuselage (=the good fitness ratio), and shape of the aerofoil(my speculation from photos) and the tail design (rudder,elevators) were non ground-breaking but well-shorted.
My conclusion is that because of these factors had a narrow area of performance (stalling in higher speeds in certain manoeuvres, being slow in every aspect of performance), but in any case fully aerobatic and possibly a rather efficient one.In any case, what you describe is not so bizarre are you think.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-10-2007, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I set up a QMB about two years ago. I had a meeting of IL-2s and Hs 129s at Kursk as the theme. The object was for fighters to protect the ground attack aircraft. Unfortunately, when the Hs 129s "saw" the IL-2s and Sov fighters, they tore into them like crazed wolverines, and savagely mauled the IL-2s. I had a very hard time tracking the wildly maneuvering Henschels---once they were soundly thrashed they were not hard to bring down, but they were behaving like Nieuport 11s. Of course this was utter rubbish. Henschels would not engage IL-2s, and certainly they, with their abysmal power-to-weight ratio, and unreliable engines, were not capable of being interceptors. This is just another example of one of IL-2's "howlers" (of which there are many). A solid argument for fewer aircraft and more quality control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but I disagree.You don't tell us the whole story here.We don't know the exact numbers of Hs 129s and IL-2s. We don't know which formation had the height advantage.But we know that german pilots were agressive and would attack in every oppurtunity. We know that many pilots with Ju-87s and Ju-88s scored kills, so why not with Hs 129s? Hs 129s didn't have a rear gunner.Standing in a formation would mean certain death. Why not then?
Most of all, we don't have a first-hand "experience" of how the Hs 129 behaved in flight...If you compare Hs 129 with a single engined fighter you 'll notice that it had comparable weight and dimensions but instead of one had two high-drag radial engines on the wings.Its narrow fuselage (=the good fitness ratio), and shape of the aerofoil(my speculation from photos) and the tail design (rudder,elevators) were non ground-breaking but well-shorted.
My conclusion is that because of these factors had a narrow area of performance (stalling in higher speeds in certain manoeuvres, being slow in every aspect of performance), but in any case fully aerobatic and possibly a rather efficient one.In any case, what you describe is not so bizarre are you think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you talking about?

The HS 129 was one of the slowest front line aircraft in the Luftwaffe and it had enough armour to make a light tank blush. Add to that the heavy cannon armament the thing carried and you have a flying brick. It was restricted to use on the Eastern front because of its low speed and poor handling. Although production versions were better, all models had handling issues above 250mph. I think a luftwaffe pilot would have been lucky to get away in one piece much less mix it up with enemy aircraft.

leitmotiv
07-10-2007, 04:27 PM
I can't add anything to the above. The very idea that it was rational for an underpowered, unmaneuverable tank buster to be able to dance around the sky like a WWI French biplane fighter is absurd. It is not tactics we are discussing but accurate modeling of the aircraft. The Hs 129 was a pig, not a fighter. It is another of IL-2's anomalies. Oh yes, the 129's massively armored, coffin-like cockpit, so narrow and cramped the gunsight had to be placed outside the heavily-armored windscreen, absolutely militated against fighter tactics.

Polyperhon
07-10-2007, 05:24 PM
Yeah ok.If you look at the figures the Hs 129 had similar wing loading with the P-47. If you study it a bit, it is fair to say that it should had been slow in roll but faster on pitch and yaw.Its controls should had been rather poorly harmonised with a tendency to trim up. Nose should had been heavy with a violent wing drop but relatively easy recovery.So possibly this is the reason why is described like a pig.This doesnt' mean that it was not aerobatic (of course I am not reffering to the 75mm gun version)Diving should have been also good for this type of plane.Strong frame, all-metal surfaces , small ailerons,low-aspect tail surfaces...everything here says that it should be good.So don't be so fast to judge.If you look at IL compare you 'll notice that Hs 129 has its peak performance at 4.700m which is high for a plane of this kind.That's why I asked for any height advantage.It might sound bizzare that its engine was tuned for such high performance but nobody noticed that this engine was installed in the Potez 630 twin-engined fighter.So this makes sense.The graph explains also why Hs 129 was considered so slow, because 425 km/h max speed is not slow for that type of aircraft but 395 km/h at 3.000m (approx) is really slow...The same with the dive speed, which is given as 700 km/h and for me is entirely believable (IL-2M has a depressing 580km/h).So study something before you write an opinion.I want to discuss subjects with open minded people.I didn't see that in your answers.If you think that IL 2 has so many anomalies then go and run CFS3 to find the perfect AI enemy and the perfect flight models.Come on be serious.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-10-2007, 05:47 PM
I know quite abit about this A/C my friend so maybe its you who is jumping to conclusions.

The Hs 129 was equipped with two Gnome-Rhone 14M engines. They could produce only 700Hp for takeoff and 665Hp at 4,000M. When compared to contemporary radial engines they were not of poor quality but they had no where near the performance of contemporary combat engine designs. They had no provision for war emergency power and they only had a single stage supercharger.

Just because an engine performs its best at high altitude doesn't make it a high performing engine at that altitude.

The maximum speed for the B-1 and B-2 models was just above 250Mph. While not slow for a ground attack aircraft that was not fast by any means. The Hs 129 matches the Ju 87D and the Il2.

While the Ju87 and the Il2 appear to have had at least decent control authority and harmony the Hs 129 certainly did not. Although many of the causes of the early horror stories about this plane were remedied quickly it was never a "pilot's plane." The plane accelerated slowly and was very heavy on the controls.

Finally, although the plane may have had a wing loading ratio similar to the P-47 that is only half the story. Wing design is also a hugely important factor when determining the overall manueverability of an aircraft. Also, the P-47 2,500Hp engine to drag it around.

leitmotiv
07-10-2007, 06:35 PM
My God, this takes the cake. I have never seen the classic IL-2 forums pseudo science better illustrated. Read a flipping book. Read the accounts of the users of the Hs 129. Read William Green's books on Luftwaffe aircraft or the huge study written on the Hs 129 in the 1990's. The Hs 129 was physically incapable of flying fighter maneuvers. Brainless speculation and pretend science is fruitless, pointless, and absurd. Another blasted newly-minted zealot.

http://stonebooks.com/archives/971012.shtml

Polyperhon
07-10-2007, 08:03 PM
Man, I am mechanical engineer.I graduated with an Msc in Turbomachinery from the university of sussex.I have a PPL licence.Most of all, aviation is my job.And you tell me about "pheudo-science" and "zealot" ? You have no idea who are you talking to, so be careful in your remarks.

CrazySchmidt
07-11-2007, 05:36 AM
Mate, I think I will still be flying this sim for a few years to come yet. Even with the pending release of SoW, IL-2 has that reliable eye candy and flight model that works well right now!! and will only get better with improved future hardware (we can't all afford the latest rigs you know).

The Old girl will be serving us well for a while yet, be sure!!

Cheers, CrazySchmidt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
07-11-2007, 06:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
My God, this takes the cake. I have never seen the classic IL-2 forums pseudo science better illustrated. Read a flipping book. Read the accounts of the users of the Hs 129. Read William Green's books on Luftwaffe aircraft or the huge study written on the Hs 129 in the 1990's. The Hs 129 was physically incapable of flying fighter maneuvers. Brainless speculation and pretend science is fruitless, pointless, and absurd. Another blasted newly-minted zealot.

http://stonebooks.com/archives/971012.shtml </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

excellent info leitmotiv. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Hopefully SOW will take care of many of these FM issues.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bearcat99
07-11-2007, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CrazySchmidt:
Mate, I think I will still be flying this sim for a few years to come yet. Even with the pending release of SoW, IL-2 has that reliable eye candy and flight model that works well right now!! and will only get better with improved future hardware (we can't all afford the latest rigs you know).

The Old girl will be serving us well for a while yet, be sure!!

Cheers, CrazySchmidt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldnt have said it better.... BTW.. how's that update coming... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

p-11.cAce
07-11-2007, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Man, I am mechanical engineer.I graduated with an Msc in Turbomachinery from the university of sussex.I have a PPL licence.Most of all, aviation is my job.And you tell me about "pheudo-science" and "zealot" ? You have no idea who are you talking to, so be careful in your remarks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Well its good to see we've got some new nuts coming in to replace the old ones! I forgot how entertaining this forum can be.
Your professional qualifications (even if we accept on face value that they are true) mean squat when discussing WWII aircraft and/or tactics.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you study it a bit, it is fair to say that it should had been slow in roll but faster on pitch and yaw.Its controls should had been rather poorly harmonised with a tendency to trim up. Nose should had been heavy with a violent wing drop but relatively easy recovery. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Based on what? Its wing loading?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It might sound bizzare that its engine was tuned for such high performance but nobody noticed that this engine was installed in the Potez 630 twin-engined fighter.So this makes sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The same engine thats used on the EMB-145 sky bus powers the Citation X. Means little.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The same with the dive speed, which is given as 700 km/h and for me is entirely believable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not even on the surface is this believable! 700 km/h!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Thats 435mph! When you post numbers like that people are going to doubt your "MSC from Sussex".
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Come on be serious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I could not agree more. Leitmotiv and I have had our disagreements but he knows this sim and its aircraft back to front and we've watched many other "professionals" pass through this forum looking like an idiot to everyone but themselves. So drop the defensive "holier than though" mindset and try to understand that many of the people here have spent their lives living and breathing this period of history, its equipment, and all of its documentation. You, my friend, are the one with no idea who you are talking to.

leitmotiv
07-11-2007, 11:15 PM
Heh, heh, I have a degree in modern English lit, among other things stashed away, but I have enough brains to know that such expertise does not carry over into Chaucer, or the best kitty litter, for that matter. Maybe our heroic mech eng has a huge defect in his education if he is unable to do a bit of, I know this word is toxic around here, research before postulating one of WWII's biggest wheezers was a fighter. Perhaps science degrees are given for best intuition these days. Brave new world.

CrazySchmidt
07-12-2007, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CrazySchmidt:
Mate, I think I will still be flying this sim for a few years to come yet. Even with the pending release of SoW, IL-2 has that reliable eye candy and flight model that works well right now!! and will only get better with improved future hardware (we can't all afford the latest rigs you know).

The Old girl will be serving us well for a while yet, be sure!!

Cheers, CrazySchmidt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldnt have said it better.... BTW.. how's that update coming... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it's pretty much finished apart from from help file updates. Without going into too much detail, I have run into some of life's more personal challenges over the last few weeks, which have left me a bit thin on time for MM. Another couple of weeks should see me through that stuff and then it's packaging basically.

I'm hoping it won't be too long now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Keep the candle burning buddy.

CS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

K_Freddie
07-12-2007, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
You have no idea who are you talking to... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOW HEAR THIS... NOW HEAR THIS.

Does anybody know who this person is, he does not know who he is. Can someone help identify him please... Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Actually any a/c can do aerobatic moves, I don't know why some of you insist that some a/c cannot. Think 'out the box' for a second or two.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bearcat99
07-12-2007, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CrazySchmidt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CrazySchmidt:
Mate, I think I will still be flying this sim for a few years to come yet. Even with the pending release of SoW, IL-2 has that reliable eye candy and flight model that works well right now!! and will only get better with improved future hardware (we can't all afford the latest rigs you know).

The Old girl will be serving us well for a while yet, be sure!!

Cheers, CrazySchmidt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldnt have said it better.... BTW.. how's that update coming... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it's pretty much finished apart from from help file updates. Without going into too much detail, I have run into some of life's more personal challenges over the last few weeks, which have left me a bit thin on time for MM. Another couple of weeks should see me through that stuff and then it's packaging basically.

I'm hoping it won't be too long now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Keep the candle burning buddy.

CS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO... yeah it will be right in time for 4.09....LOL. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

AussieMossie
07-12-2007, 09:50 AM
I love this sim.
About a month ago I went out and took on 4 He111s in a QM. This is something I do quite often just to keep my eye in. After I got back and taxied to the apron I went to see what was still flying. One of the He111s was still airborne, however one engine (the left) seemed to have its throttle stuck. I watched it enter the circuit, line up and land only to run off the end of the strip as the engine wouldn't throttle down. I couldn't count the number of times I've flown this scenario and I've never seen this before. It is so so cool.
This has to be the sim that just keeps on giving.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif