PDA

View Full Version : Is IL2 more superior to A-10



XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 01:23 AM
if IL2 were jet powered?
or if A-10 prop powered?
if you can imagine that, use your imagination before posting.

i'd like to know what your opinion on this subject..




The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 01:23 AM
if IL2 were jet powered?
or if A-10 prop powered?
if you can imagine that, use your imagination before posting.

i'd like to know what your opinion on this subject..




The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:03 AM
The IL-2 would have to be completely rebuilt to accomodate a jet engine, and therefore there would be no 'jet version' of the IL-2. The airframe would not allow the addition of a jet, a new one would have to be designed.

Likewise, the A-10 could not be converted to props, the plane was designed to use jets, and there is no place on the aircraft to 'bolt on' a few prop engines. Moreover, the A-10 would need a prop as powerful as its jets to get aloft with any payload, and I doubt that there exists a piston engine with the same or better power to weight ratio as the jet engines on the A-10.


That said, the A-10 is better for several reasons.

1- the insane cannon. The IL-2 has nothing that can even touch that minigun.

2- IL-2 was heavily armoured, but nothing compared to A-10

3- A-10 has RADAR. and advanced targeting, IFF, pathfinding, GPS, secure communications, HUD, the works. The IL-2 has a gunsight and some gauges.


Probably the biggest difference and deciding factor between the two would be the advanced electronics package. You could forget the differences of speed, armor, and firepower, but the diff of modern targeting, IFF, pathfinding, etc. more than makes up for any adcantages the IL-2 wold gain by putting some junos on the wing instead of bombs or gunpods.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:07 AM
OK, lets say IL2 has today Russian tech!!
how its gonna turn out?



The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light

The_Blue_Devil
07-01-2003, 02:13 AM
The A-10 owes some design attributes to the pilots experiences in WWII in the Sturmovik. But the IL2 has a glass jaw in the Ventral Radiator..the A-10 can take a direct SAM hit and come home.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:16 AM
ok i found out the modern IL2 is SU-25
now lets compare SU-25 to A-10 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:17 AM
here's your jet powered IL-2 Dave /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

http://www.vectorsite.net/avsu25_1.jpg


<center>http://www.churchofthegrey.com/coolferret/hal9000/hal2.jpg <marquee>Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before and it has always been due to human error.</marquee></center>

The_Blue_Devil
07-01-2003, 02:19 AM
Hmmm..lets see that thing go nose to nose with a Warthog? The Hog is so good tthey were gonna retire her but brought her back..just like the SR-71

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:21 AM
oh yea? well yo momma is so fat that....


Well you get the picture.. :/

----------------------------------
=38=Backfire
Starshii Leytenant - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:21 AM
Aflak wrote:
-
- 3- A-10 has RADAR. and advanced targeting, IFF,
- pathfinding, GPS, secure communications, HUD, the
- works. The IL-2 has a gunsight and some gauges.
-
-


No radar on an A-10. No IFF either.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:25 AM
Backfire_22 wrote:
- oh yea? well yo momma is so fat that....
-
-
- Well you get the picture.. :/
nope. sorry i dont get the picture you talking about /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
but i got the picture of your mommy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif



The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:26 AM
Just poking fun at the_blue_devils comment starting with the A-10 is so good... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

----------------------------------
=38=Backfire
Starshii Leytenant - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:27 AM
Updated Su-25T Dave /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/images/su25_7.jpg


<center>http://www.churchofthegrey.com/coolferret/hal9000/hal2.jpg <marquee>Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before and it has always been due to human error.</marquee></center>


Message Edited on 07/01/0301:27AM by Heuristic_ALgor

ShadowHawk__
07-01-2003, 05:20 AM
The SU-25 is significantly faster than the A-10, however the A-10 is a heaver aircraft, and the GAU-8/A definitely gives it some respect in my opinion. Neither aircraft has radar though there are advanced variants of the SU-25 with radar, ie: the SU-39. For shear payload and time over target (though I'd imagine the SU-25 is similar, I'm unfamiliar with its range) I'd have to pick the A-10, however both are excellent planes for what they do.

-Death From Above

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:02 AM
hmm, but i more lean toward SU-25 aka today IL2
i heard read somewhere SU-25 can take-off even from heavy mud!!, that is essential when you dont have fancy runway



The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:30 AM
I was just going to comment on that.

Yes the A-10 has no Radar array for several reasons

1. Its a low altitude aircraft and therefore a forward scan radar wouldn't pick up bogies high above it very well and would only serve to give its position away to those aircraft and ground targets.

2. There is no place to mount a traditional nose forward sidesweep Radar array because of the Avenger cannon.

The only decently effective manuever a A-10 has if engaged by a fighter aircraft is referred to as the "Warthog stomp" where the A-10 uses it superior low speed turn rate if it is unable to loose itself in ground clutter, and gets its nose pointed at the enemy aicraft and lets loose a burst with the cannon. Its very demoralizing to the enemy pilot I'm sure.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:41 AM
Didn't they name "A~10" after the IL~10?

Anuway, when will UBI releace IL~3?

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 07:32 AM
What if the Il-2 had the A-10's engines AND its normal engines and the A-10 had only Il-2 engines and the radar from the A-10 was replaced with radar from radar stations from the WWII era and the Il-2 only had cannons and the A-10 had no missiles and the Il-2 had only rockets? What then?

http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/films/fmj/images/fmj.gif


When you get to hell, tell 'em SnowsFoot sent you

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 07:34 AM
SnowsFoot wrote:
- What if the Il-2 had the A-10's engines AND its
- normal engines and the A-10 had only Il-2 engines
- and the radar from the A-10 was replaced with radar
- from radar stations from the WWII era and the Il-2
- only had cannons and the A-10 had no missiles and
- the Il-2 had only rockets? What then?
-
<img
- src="http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/films/fmj
- /images/fmj.gif">
-
-
- When you get to hell, tell 'em SnowsFoot sent you
-


that kinda question must be answered /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif




The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 09:06 AM
SnowsFoot wrote:
- What if the Il-2 had the A-10's engines AND its
- normal engines and the A-10 had only Il-2 engines
- and the radar from the A-10 was replaced with radar
- from radar stations from the WWII era and the Il-2
- only had cannons and the A-10 had no missiles and
- the Il-2 had only rockets? What then?

I suppose we get two very ugly planes on our hands, absolutely unable to do their intended jobs, the Il-2 for being overpowered and ripping apart on take-off and the A-10 not being able to get airborne at all.....
On the other hand, the enemy would probably succumb to cramps from laughing when they spot these "new" innovations... I know I would/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Tully__
07-01-2003, 11:21 AM
Aflak wrote:
- ......... Moreover, the A-10 would need a prop as
- powerful as its jets to get aloft with any payload,
- and I doubt that there exists a piston engine with
- the same or better power to weight ratio.........



Hmmmmmm.........what about gas turbine powered props.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>


Salut
Tully

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 01:07 PM
Make no mistake .......

GAU/8a is NOT A MINIGUN

cc

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:08 PM
More of a BFG2000.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:16 PM
I don't think there will be an IL-3.

<center><b/>I have the fifth freedom.
Watch out here I come.


http://home.earthlink.net/~wabaaj/Aj6627.jpg
<font color=ff0000>
http://dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/Shooter/Tom_Clancy_Games/Splinter_Cell/

Josh Horne a forum legend /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif j/k

<font color=0099FF>Adept of the Thread
Elite Ops
Third Echelon Operative
[b]bold[b] thinker

(happened at 7:18PM EST on June 03/2003)/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <center>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:31 PM
There was an Il-3./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I-3/IL-3 - The Polikarpov I-3 was the standard Soviet Air Force fighter aircraft during the late 1920's and into early 1930's, with some four hundred being produced. The I-3 was powered by an M-17 (BMW liquid cooled engine). 1929.
Modification: DI-2 - Two seat version. One built.


Aj6627 wrote:
- I don't think there will be an IL-3.
-




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 03:12 PM
Aflak wrote:
3- A-10 has RADAR. and advanced targeting, IFF,
- pathfinding, GPS, secure communications, HUD, the
- works. The IL-2 has a gunsight and some gauges...

Radar??
i thought A-10 doesnt have radar. not sure bout it thougt.
-