PDA

View Full Version : IF all planes had same armament (no cannons), what would you fly?



Thaellar
08-19-2006, 10:36 PM
I have been lurking on the boards and it seems that the 190 is the favorite online because it can shred in one pass. Would you 190 pilots still fly it if it didn't have any 20mm?

If every plane had just 2 50 cals, what would you fly?

Crash_Moses
08-19-2006, 10:46 PM
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/Crash_Moses/ErnestSpeaks2.jpg

Siwarrior
08-20-2006, 01:34 AM
Mustang Mk3
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

HotelBushranger
08-20-2006, 01:49 AM
B-239/P-40

JG52Karaya-X
08-20-2006, 01:50 AM
Bf109G10/K4

GAU-8
08-20-2006, 02:02 AM
B-17

slipBall
08-20-2006, 02:09 AM
Mid to late 109's

Brain32
08-20-2006, 03:08 AM
Mustang MkIII(I fly it a lot as it is now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif)
I wouldn't touch FW's or 109's, regular p51 and P38

BiscuitKnight
08-20-2006, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by GAU-8:
B-17

ROL that's probably the way to go. For me, I'd say the He-162 Salamander.

slipBall
08-20-2006, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Mustang MkIII(I fly it a lot as it is now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif)
I wouldn't touch FW's or 109's, regular p51 and P38


You my friend, are good! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Dolemite-
08-20-2006, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Thaellar:
I have been lurking on the boards and it seems that the 190 is the favorite online because it can shred in one pass. Would you 190 pilots still fly it if it didn't have any 20mm?

If every plane had just 2 50 cals, what would you fly?

I'd fly the 190 no matter what armament it had http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Maybe you should fly the plane, instead of lurking and using other people's opinions of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

cawimmer430
08-20-2006, 04:01 AM
Mitsubishi Zero. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Maneuvrability above all else. Always works for me, blew away two Mustangs last night with one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

StG2_Schlachter
08-20-2006, 04:19 AM
Depends on the meaning of THE SAME. If the FW190 still has the same AMOUNT of guns, I would probably still fly it.

JG5_UnKle
08-20-2006, 05:12 AM
Anything with a Russian .50 Cal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
08-20-2006, 06:10 AM
It depends what year it is.

Ingame PLanes ONLY :-

1940 - 109E4
1941 - 109F4
1942 - 109G2
1943 - Spitfire Mk VIII
1944 - Spitfire 25 lbs
1945 - Me 262


FW190's lose out in this wituation for me, as their weight of fire is a big part of why they are so good. I would pick a FW190A4 in 1942 if it was a normal choice of planes, but the 109G2 is a bit more manouvrable if it had the same firepower.

HellToupee
08-20-2006, 06:39 AM
defentially a manoverable plane ki43 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif uld uld need so much time on target with only 2 50s that bnz or fast passes wouldnt work. Or ild take a b25 with 2 rear guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif planes armed with 2 .50s no hope of taking u down unless luck while u pop them off with aimed shots right into their pilot.

p-11.cAce
08-20-2006, 06:45 AM
It depends what year it is.

Ingame PLanes ONLY :-

1940 - 109E4
1941 - 109F4
1942 - 109G2
1943 - Spitfire Mk VIII
1944 - Spitfire 25 lbs
1945 - Me 262
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

DuxCorvan
08-20-2006, 07:18 AM
If all the planes that now have cannons didn't have them, would be much lighter and a different center of gravity, and their flight characteristics would be very different.

Thaellar
08-20-2006, 11:40 AM
Interesting replies. I wasn't trying to dis the 190, one of my favorite planes. You bet I'm going to fly the 190...a LOT! I'm going to try all the planes in the sim. I've picked the 109 to learn in. I was looking for some other ideas to start whittling down the massive list of flyable aircraft and the "best plane" threads seemed to all revolve around the FW.

regards,

Thaellar

Xiolablu3
08-20-2006, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Thaellar:
Interesting replies. I wasn't trying to dis the 190, one of my favorite planes. You bet I'm going to fly the 190...a LOT! I'm going to try all the planes in the sim. I've picked the 109 to learn in. I was looking for some other ideas to start whittling down the massive list of flyable aircraft and the "best plane" threads seemed to all revolve around the FW.

regards,

Thaellar

The FW190A4 is a fantastic plane in 1942, becasue its probably the fastest plane in the game in 1942.

Howver, later the FW190 suffers when it meets a plane which is as fast as it, because its turning circle isnt very good and it doesnt make a great dogfighter.

If there is a faster plane in the game then it is forced to dogfight when it is caught, and then its at a disadvantage.

I would say that if you are going to put all your eggs in one basket in relation to plane design like the FW190 (All emphasis on SPeed and firepower) then you had better make sure that its the fastest plane so that it doesnt have to use its turning circle (most dogfights rely on turning circle). Once it meets a faster plane it HAS to dogfight, and its at an immediate disadvantage.

Height advantage is crucial to the FW190A if its not the fastest plane on the map, you dont want to have to dogfight SPitfire IX's or La5FN's.

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-20-2006, 12:34 PM
I'll take an SU-26M and would pwn...

http://www.russianaeros.com/ForSale.htm

Snyde-Dastardly
08-20-2006, 01:33 PM
47 all the way!!

fighter_966
08-20-2006, 02:57 PM
Zero

x6BL_Brando
08-20-2006, 03:06 PM
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/Crash_Moses/ErnestSpeaks2.jpg

Aw heck, another good man caught by the soot on the goggles trick! Funny how they all shout "Some Bl**dy D1ckhead....!"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif B.

wayno7777
08-20-2006, 07:08 PM
FW-190D-13 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif....

ImpStarDuece
08-20-2006, 07:55 PM
Ki-43-I:

Two .50s would be an IMPROVEMENT!

Jaws2002
08-20-2006, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Howver, later the FW190 suffers when it meets a plane which is as fast as it, because its turning circle isnt very good and it doesnt make a great dogfighter.



Is not the poor turning that makes it a poor dogfighter. Is the stupid way it's Comandogerate is modeled. The FW turns ok as long as the engine produce power ( above 330km/h), But below that it loses half of it's thrust for some funny reason.

That's what kills the FW as a "Dogfighter". Power can many times place you in a better position during a fight.
That's what the FW had over it's adversaries in 1942. Unlike in this game.
No power at low speed = no climb, no acceleration and no turn at low speed.

Feathered_IV
08-21-2006, 03:57 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Mitsubishi A5M4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Xiolablu3
08-21-2006, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Howver, later the FW190 suffers when it meets a plane which is as fast as it, because its turning circle isnt very good and it doesnt make a great dogfighter.



Is not the poor turning that makes it a poor dogfighter. Is the stupid way it's Comandogerate is modeled. The FW turns ok as long as the engine produce power ( above 330km/h), But below that it loses half of it's thrust for some funny reason.

That's what kills the FW as a "Dogfighter". Power can many times place you in a better position during a fight.
That's what the FW had over it's adversaries in 1942. Unlike in this game.
No power at low speed = no climb, no acceleration and no turn at low speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, I am not sure. Had not thought about this.

Worse turning circle usually means worse close in dogfighter. The FW190 had a good climb rate as long as you climbed at high speed, so are you sure this is not historical?

The FW190 didnt have a good turn at low speeds, so what is exactly wrong with this aspect of the FM?

Brain32
08-21-2006, 05:13 AM
I believe JAWS is reffering to low speed acceleration(250-350Kmh) where FW's feel like they have a 2-cylinder VW Beetle engine installed.
About FW's turn time, I think I posted numbers enough times by now, proper turn times would change the overall picture of FW190A as a fighter nicely http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
08-21-2006, 07:09 AM
I think Jaws is refering to the Fw 190 lacking its acceleration or its power advantage at low speeds straight through to high speeds. In IL" its acceleration kicks in at 400 km/h region but it wheezes below that. In reality it had a lot of HP in a small clean airframe. It could 'power' through turns bleeding off energy then using its power advantage to regain speed quickly. Likewise its HP advantage should let it climb more agressively at slower speeds.

Read yet another RAF test comparing the Fw 190 vs the Spitfire IX Merlin 61 and it says the Fw 190 A3 outclimbs the Spitfire until 25,000ft. It is marginal and its not the Spitfire Merlin 66 we have in game but it still shows what the Fw 190 was capable of. It also states that the Fw 190 climbed at a steeper angle - this would be the complete opposite of what happens in game.

mynameisroland
08-21-2006, 07:10 AM
I think Jaws is refering to the Fw 190 lacking its acceleration or its power advantage at low speeds straight through to high speeds. In IL2 its acceleration kicks in at 400 km/h region but it wheezes below that. In reality it had a lot of HP in a small clean airframe. It could 'power' through turns bleeding off energy then using its power advantage to regain speed quickly. Likewise its HP advantage should let it climb more agressively at slower speeds.

Read yet another RAF test comparing the Fw 190 vs the Spitfire IX Merlin 61 and it says the Fw 190 A3 outclimbs the Spitfire until 25,000ft. It is marginal and its not the Spitfire Merlin 66 we have in game but it still shows what the Fw 190 was capable of. It also states that the Fw 190 climbed at a steeper angle - this would be the complete opposite of what happens in game.

JG53Frankyboy
08-21-2006, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Ki-43-I:

Two .50s would be an IMPROVEMENT!

you mean US .50cal Brownings instead of japanese 12,7mm Ho-103 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
08-21-2006, 08:39 AM
A6M2-21
Bf109F4
Mustang Mk III

HellToupee
08-21-2006, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Read yet another RAF test comparing the Fw 190 vs the Spitfire IX Merlin 61 and it says the Fw 190 A3 outclimbs the Spitfire until 25,000ft. It is marginal and its not the Spitfire Merlin 66 we have in game but it still shows what the Fw 190 was capable of. It also states that the Fw 190 climbed at a steeper angle - this would be the complete opposite of what happens in game.

well its not a major achievement outclimbing a merlin61 at low alt, the merlin 66 was quite a bit better at lower alts, faster by almost a minute to 10-20 thousand ft.

Jaws2002
08-22-2006, 11:14 PM
You can do some tests to see what i'm talking about. Fly around on full power and climb or turn to drop the speed below 300-330km/h. You'll see the manifold pressure and rpm drop with the speed. Is not only acceleration, is the same in climb at those speeds.
Why do you think the plane had automatic prop pitch? To keep the rpm steady. Well in our FW-190A it doesn't. You drop the speed, you lost the prop efficiency. Is like going up-hill in too high gear.
This is the only game where FW-190 can't reach it's rated engine setings.
You won't get 1.42ata and 2700rpm, in FW-190A5 for example, until you pass that 300+km/h. The A4 is even more anemic.

In the tests on the A3 Eric Brown said
" The length of the takeoff run was much the same as the Spitfire IX's. Rotation speed was 112mph (180km/h), and after retracting the landing gear, the manifold pressure was reduced to 43 inches (21.3 pounds of boost). At 143mph (230km/h), the flaps were raised, and climb settings of 2,500rpm and 161mph (260km/h) gave a climb rate of 3,150 feet per minute (16 meters per second). "
Try comparing the take of run of the 190 with any spitfire in game. See if you can get anywhere close to the spit in take off run.

Since it can't produce enough thrust at low speeds it can't maintain high AOA in turn.So I think it also turns worse then it should at low speeds.

Another problem with FW-190 is that you can't make any aircraft overshoot. You cut the power and you don't lose speed. Something is way off here too.

HurricaneVictor
08-22-2006, 11:51 PM
I-153, run circles round all of you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JamesBlonde888
08-22-2006, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Thaellar:
I have been lurking on the boards and it seems that the 190 is the favorite online because it can shred in one pass. Would you 190 pilots still fly it if it didn't have any 20mm?

If every plane had just 2 50 cals, what would you fly?

A desk.

Akira_sama
08-22-2006, 11:54 PM
Ki-84; or spitfire.

AH_Gonzo
08-23-2006, 03:46 PM
My choices:

1940 - I-16 with realistic fuel flow and carb.
1941 - P-40E
1942 - Bf-109G-2
1943 - P-47
1944 - Bf-109G-6AS
1945 - No idea!


Another problem with FW-190 is that you can't make any aircraft overshoot. You cut the power and you don't lose speed. Something is way off here too.

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

Really good point about prop drag effects for the 190!!

slo_1_2_3
08-23-2006, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Ki-43-I:

Two .50s would be an IMPROVEMENT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif
I was gonna say the same