PDA

View Full Version : If your life depended on it... which plane would you want to fly?



Noxx0s
04-20-2010, 11:46 PM
Discounting advantages in numbers of the allies that is...

From a purely performance standpoint.

Noxx0s
04-20-2010, 11:46 PM
Discounting advantages in numbers of the allies that is...

From a purely performance standpoint.

Erkki_M
04-20-2010, 11:49 PM
SR71. In il2? Heinker Lerche. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In what kind of scenario?

Noxx0s
04-20-2010, 11:52 PM
Hehe apart from those "super" planes. Let's limit it to prop planes actually so people don't all just say 262.

Just in a general "patrol this area" type scenario. You don't what you'll be coming across, fighters, bombers or whatever.

JtD
04-21-2010, 12:03 AM
With the current flight models, I'd go with a P-51C, either 18 or 25lbs, would depend on the scenario. 25 is certainly better all around, but then it has somewhat less high altitude performance.

Erkki_M
04-21-2010, 12:13 AM
If in the Allied side, P51, D if available. If axis then FW190D9 then A6. And I'd go high, as usually online.

edit: that'd apply to WETO of course...

WTE_Galway
04-21-2010, 12:36 AM
If you mean real life and your sole interest was surviving, just take a TA152 in at circa 48,000 feet take your photos and be in and out before anyone can get close to catching you.

If you mean to win out in your typical IL2 macho man gunfight well the usual contenders .. tho I would probably opt for a B29 just cos big makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

na85
04-21-2010, 01:04 AM
Probably a P-47.. arguably the toughest single-engined fighter that served in the war. Big, fast, well armed, decent range, and hella tough.

TinyTim
04-21-2010, 02:50 AM
If I had the time to climb to optimal altutide:

MiG-3 (versus 1941 opposition of course)
Fw-190 in 42/43
Mustang III/IV in 44
Ta-152H in 45

BillSwagger
04-21-2010, 03:10 AM
P-47M

Large, comfortable, decent range, powerful, fast and could fight well at all altitudes. Might as well be a jet.

Bill

doogerie
04-21-2010, 04:16 AM
Tempest or spit

F19_Orheim
04-21-2010, 04:54 AM
non-mod: P47
mod: p47

Mysticpuma2003
04-21-2010, 05:10 AM
P-47N or in-game P-47D Late.

The scenario would help as the 47 on a ground raid would be great with it's loadout and able to take hits from AA.

Up high it would be great for stalking lower fighters for Booming and Zooming, but if it's a turn-fight low on the deck, it's great at running....and getting high for B 'n' Z http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif or crash-landing and running away from.

Cheers, MP

ROXunreal
04-21-2010, 06:14 AM
Well if my LIFE depended on it then a P-51 simply because I could run away from anyone if need be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now if I were to do actual combat and my life depended on it, then a Dora

rfxcasey
04-21-2010, 06:49 AM
Funny, I would have expected more people to vote for the Spits.

Me personally, I lean towards the La-7 3xB-20, the P-38, the Spits, or the 190.

If I had to choose 1, I'd say the La-7 3xB-20.

Friendly_flyer
04-21-2010, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rfxcasey:
Funny, I would have expected more people to vote for the Spits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfires aren't that fast, not easy to run away (we're talking survival, not fighting, right?)

thefruitbat
04-21-2010, 07:27 AM
any plane faster than the one the person trying to shoot me down, is in.

RegRag1977
04-21-2010, 07:32 AM
High altitude mission: P51 B/C or D

Low altitude mission: FW190A, Tempest, or the MKIII Mustang.

In PTO, P38, F4U.

na85
04-21-2010, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I had to choose 1, I'd say the La-7 3xB-20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With your life on the line you'd choose a fighter slower than its primary opposition (fw190D) and performs poorly at altitude?

thefruitbat
04-21-2010, 10:28 AM
obviously played to much online open cockpit airquake servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG53Frankyboy
04-21-2010, 11:06 AM
P-47 , anytime and everywhere !

Treetop64
04-21-2010, 11:21 AM
A toss-up between these guys:

&gt; P-47M and N - What's not to like about the two baddest and fastest versions of the P-47?

&gt; P-38L - Lots of speed and firepower, and twin-engine reliability (twins are sexy, too!)

&gt; Do-335 - Another fast, brutal, but not-so-sexy "twin"...

Friendly_flyer
04-21-2010, 12:14 PM
If I needed to run my way out of it: Mustang Mk.III. If I needed to fight may way out of it (and my airfield was nearby), La 7. The La is so good even I feel like a competent dogfighter in it, but the range sucks.

Romanator21
04-21-2010, 12:45 PM
Allied side: P-51 D for ETO, P-38 J or L Late for PTO, P-39 N for Ostfront, P-40 for MTO.

Axis side: Do-335 or FW-190 if not available, Ki-61, FW-190, Mc.202 III, respectively.

All around winners for any situation however are the P-38, P-39, and Mustang.

Daiichidoku
04-21-2010, 12:59 PM
of the in-game types:

fighters:

P 47D late
P 38L late
Do-335
Ki 84B



"other":

B 29



of real types:

fighters:

P 47N
P 38K (!!!:P)
P 38L
F4U-4
DH. 103 Hornet
MB. 5
He 100
He 219 A6


"other":

A 26 Invader
XA 38
B 29

staticline1
04-21-2010, 01:56 PM
In game probably a modded P-47 or 38.

In real life: F8F-2. Fast, awesome climber, great maneuverability, typical "kitty" toughness and heavy firepower.

DKoor
04-21-2010, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IcyScythe:
Discounting advantages in numbers of the allies that is...

From a purely performance standpoint. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mate, the way you constructed your question... I would like the fastest plane with nice range as well.

All else like guns, ordnance, type of plane etc. DOES NOT matter.

He-162 or Me-262 HGII (if available)... they are monstruosly speedy planes...

Ohka is also nice however I don't like the concept of one ticket planeshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif...

ElAurens
04-21-2010, 05:05 PM
P 51 H

Christos_swc
04-21-2010, 11:49 PM
Ta 152.
Would be kinda boring but safe.
Then again I just might meet those before me who opted for the P-47 and P-51.
Knowing I can outrun,outturn and outgun both would be quite comforting!

Romanator21
04-22-2010, 03:16 AM
Heh, funny guy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

You are only faster with WEP. In a more real situation, your engine would be fried after a few minutes. Within normal combat limitations the Mustang still greatly out-flies the Ta-152 C.

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/comp2.jpg

Ta-152 H is a close match, but turning will kill you, and your albatross wings make a nice target. I would still put money on the P-51.

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/comp1.jpg

TinyTim
04-22-2010, 03:29 AM
I think this thread like many others on these boards suffers from a "IL-2 mixing with reality" syndrome.

So, are we talking about real planes, or their virtual counterparts as portrayed in IL-2 sim?

A life can hardly depend on a virtual one...

JG53Frankyboy
04-22-2010, 05:11 AM
i was actually talking about real life.........

in game, well, perhaps also the La-7

K_Freddie
04-23-2010, 02:54 PM
I'm quiet happy with a FW190A9... The 'best mixture of both worlds' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CloCloZ
04-25-2010, 03:34 AM
Allies side: Tempest +13lbs under 5000m, Spit XIV above

Axis side: FW190 D-13

Bremspropeller
04-25-2010, 03:54 AM
190 and 262

Crazy_Goanna
04-25-2010, 06:18 PM
If trouble is approaching-- the fastest

rnzoli
04-27-2010, 08:50 AM
Everything depends on the goals and circumstances of the mission(s).

I would always take the IL-2 Sturmovik for close air support, because my voda-drinking commander would kill me with his handgun, if I miss the target.

Yet I would probably take the Storch, in case I need to rescue someone out from an encirclement, with only narrow streets used as "runways".


Try these missions with P-47s, FW-190s and La-7s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-27-2010, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
P-47 , anytime and everywhere ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/werd.gif

CRSutton
04-27-2010, 01:05 PM
"Swiss" ME 109. For obvious reasons...

irR4tiOn4L
04-28-2010, 12:50 AM
If my life depended on it and i was fighting WWII aircraft, id definitely want an F22.

Failing that, one of those uber jet planes that are dubiously included in IL2.

Failing that it wouldnt much matter, as long as i chose one of the leading designs of the war at whatever stage i were at (109, spit, fw190, zero, george, frank etc) but most importantly, had put in a LOT of practise

Failing that, id stay on the ground

rfxcasey
05-12-2010, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I had to choose 1, I'd say the La-7 3xB-20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With your life on the line you'd choose a fighter slower than its primary opposition (fw190D) and performs poorly at altitude? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in that case then I'd just choose the Me comet. Higher, faster, bye bye...... What is the point then if all you are going to do is run? I mean in that case don't even get in the plane in the first place. It's safer on the ground. I mean I know the question was prop jobs but if all "surviving" entails is running away this is pretty much a stupid question. The Wildcat wasn't as fast or nibble as the zero but it's toughness, pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks made it more "survivable" then a zero when hit.

Erkki_M
05-12-2010, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rfxcasey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I had to choose 1, I'd say the La-7 3xB-20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With your life on the line you'd choose a fighter slower than its primary opposition (fw190D) and performs poorly at altitude? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in that case then I'd just choose the Me comet. Higher, faster, bye bye...... What is the point then if all you are going to do is run? I mean in that case don't even get in the plane in the first place. It's safer on the ground. I mean I know the question was prop jobs but if all "surviving" entails is running away this is pretty much a stupid question. The Wildcat wasn't as fast or nibble as the zero but it's toughness, pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks made it more "survivable" then a zero when hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should you get a Zeke behind you in firing range, which one would you rather be in, Wildcat or P47?

Its not all about the speed, its about the ability to survive disadvantages while turning advantages into kills and equal situations into advantages, while all the time being able to engage or disengage at will. P51, clos ebehind FW190D9 with P47. Komet may be fast(not really, just well climbing and accelerating), but once you're out of the 20 minutes of fuel you have, you are done. Real life didnt have bases 5km from each other, like a typical il2 furball server.

p-11.cAce
05-12-2010, 08:43 AM
http://www.belliludi.com/Bf109E.jpg

Super dominance be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

rfxcasey
05-12-2010, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rfxcasey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I had to choose 1, I'd say the La-7 3xB-20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With your life on the line you'd choose a fighter slower than its primary opposition (fw190D) and performs poorly at altitude? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in that case then I'd just choose the Me comet. Higher, faster, bye bye...... What is the point then if all you are going to do is run? I mean in that case don't even get in the plane in the first place. It's safer on the ground. I mean I know the question was prop jobs but if all "surviving" entails is running away this is pretty much a stupid question. The Wildcat wasn't as fast or nibble as the zero but it's toughness, pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks made it more "survivable" then a zero when hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should you get a Zeke behind you in firing range, which one would you rather be in, Wildcat or P47?

Its not all about the speed, its about the ability to survive disadvantages while turning advantages into kills and equal situations into advantages, while all the time being able to engage or disengage at will. P51, clos ebehind FW190D9 with P47. Komet may be fast(not really, just well climbing and accelerating), but once you're out of the 20 minutes of fuel you have, you are done. Real life didnt have bases 5km from each other, like a typical il2 furball server. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really know what your argument is? Or maybe you were agreeing with me? Anyways, I wasn't comparing the Wildcat to the P47 though you wouldn't be taking off and landing from carries in the P47 typically I assume. Just stating that the term survivability is to general without putting it is some context. Was the Wildcat more "survivable" then the zero? I think so. Was the zero more lethal? Probably. Every thing depends on the year you are talking too as you can say oh well the F4U is much tougher then the Wildcat but if you are talking 1941 you didn't have the option of an F4U did you? You didn't have the option of a P 47 either not to mention the fact that you might be based from a carrier. All in all it's extremely subjective to vast number of variables.

If you was carrier based in 1941 which plane would you want considering what was available. And if your flying for the US the zero is not an option.

Oh and about the "Komet", who needs a base? If all you doing is trying to get away I can land in a field for all I care. Not to mention, as far as IL-2 is concerned, it's plenty fast and I can climb so high you well never even see where I come down once I'm out of fuel. I've had it well over 300,000 ft before to the point where the earth looks like a black ball. Try that in your 190.

Or let me axe you this. In a high speed head on situation, mono e' mono which plane would you choose for the sake of survivability? The one with the biggest guns? Effective firing range? Toughness? Speed? Fuel capacity?

Very subjective isn't it?

And the Me 163 Komet set a speed record that wasn't broken until 1947 so what are you talking about?

La 7 had a top speed of 411mph while the 190D had a top speed of 426mph at sea level. Negligible in my opinion.

Taken from Wikipedia

One regimental commander, Colonel Ye. Gorbatyuk, a Hero of the Soviet Union, commented: "The La-7 exhibited unquestionable advantages over German aircraft in multiple air combats. In addition to fighter tasks, photo reconnaissance and bombing were undertaken with success. The aircraft surpasses the La-5FN in speed, manoeuverability, and, especially, in the landing characteristics. It requires changes in its armament, and urgent fixing of its engine."[7] The twin ShVAK armament inherited from the La-5 was no longer powerful enough to bring down later, more heavily armored German fighters, especially the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, in a single burst, even when Soviet pilots opened fire at ranges of only 50100 meters (160330 ft).[7]

The La-7 ended the superiority in vertical maneuverability that the Messerschmitt Bf 109G had previously enjoyed over other Soviet fighters.[17] Furthermore, it was fast enough at low altitudes to catch, albeit with some difficulties, Focke Wulf Fw 190 fighter-bombers that attacked Soviet units on the frontlines and immediately headed for German-controlled airspace at full speed. The Yakovlev Yak-3 and the Yakovlev Yak-9U with the Klimov VK-107 engine lacked a large enough margin of speed to overtake the German raiders. Only 115 La-7s were lost in air combat, only half the number of Yak-3s.[13]

BillSwagger
05-12-2010, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rfxcasey:

Or let me axe you this. In a high speed head on situation, mono e' mono which plane would you choose for the sake of survivability? The one with the biggest guns? Effective firing range? Toughness? Speed? Fuel capacity?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-47M

Effective firing range? check
Toughness? check
Speed? check
Fuel capacity? check

I think the OP made one thing clear and that was to keep the choices away from jets. Other options to consider are the time period and carrier operations, but again, the OP never made that distinction. So with that said, its a lot broader and much more simpler to choose, IMO.
I think of the P-51 a lot, but then the P-47 was tougher, and the M variant just as fast, if not faster than the late war P-51. And then there's the whole comfort aspect of flying it, being that it was a large plane its cockpit much roomier by comparison. It just seems like the ideal war bird from that sense. The N was the first to offer an auto pilot, and the rudder pedals extended out to serve as leg rests.
The only other plane that probably comes close to this sort of air superiority is the F4U-4.

The other contenders would be the 190A-8, the Ki-84, and the Tempest all of which are very potent fighters. The 190A-8 would probably be my third choice behind the P-51. It was a well rounded plane similar to the P-47 in that it was sturdy enough to perform a variety of rolls in part owed to its survivability.
The 109, i don't really see shining as well beyond 1943, with the likes of the P-47 and P-51 in the skies. Really all the 109 had going for it was its climb and ceiling and once fighters were developed to overcome that, there was little threat it posed to the faster and higher flying planes.

rfxcasey
05-12-2010, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rfxcasey:

Or let me axe you this. In a high speed head on situation, mono e' mono which plane would you choose for the sake of survivability? The one with the biggest guns? Effective firing range? Toughness? Speed? Fuel capacity?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-47M

Effective firing range? check
Toughness? check
Speed? check
Fuel capacity? check

I think the OP made one thing clear and that was to keep the choices away from jets. Other options to consider are the time period and carrier operations, but again, the OP never made that distinction. So with that said, its a lot broader and much more simpler to choose, IMO.
I think of the P-51 a lot, but then the P-47 was tougher, and the M variant just as fast, if not faster than the late war P-51. And then there's the whole comfort aspect of flying it, being that it was a large plane its cockpit much roomier by comparison. It just seems like the ideal war bird from that sense. The N was the first to offer an auto pilot, and the rudder pedals extended out to serve as leg rests.
The only other plane that probably comes close to this sort of air superiority is the F4U-4.

The other contenders would be the 190A-8, the Ki-84, and the Tempest all of which are very potent fighters. The 190A-8 would probably be my third choice behind the P-51. It was a well rounded plane similar to the P-47 in that it was sturdy enough to perform a variety of rolls in part owed to its survivability.
The 109, i don't really see shining as well beyond 1943, with the likes of the P-47 and P-51 in the skies. Really all the 109 had going for it was its climb and ceiling and once fighters were developed to overcome that, there was little threat it posed to the faster and higher flying planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha ha ha, your funny, you failed to see the humor in my statement. What would fuel capacity matter in a head on engagement where one of you if not both of you are going to die. Oh, I know, what if you get a fuel leak. In a head on you might as well choose a Beaufighter MK 21.

p-11.cAce
05-12-2010, 01:16 PM
Oh - head to head...I think this would do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/guns/b25h.jpg

biggs222
05-12-2010, 01:17 PM
Spit mkXIVe

good rate of climb
high speed at most alts
still has a great turning circle
decent firepower: x2 20s and x2 .50s

koivis
05-13-2010, 06:14 AM
For Finnish and Eastern front, the Bf 109G-2 could outrun and outclimb any opposition from 1942 to late 1943. First were delivered to FiAF in March 1943, but at that point most enemy fighters on the northern front were LaGG-3s, Yak-1s and -7s, and early La-5s. Troubles started only when Yak-3, Yak-9U and La-5FN were introduced in 1944. After that, Fw 190 was propably a safer choice on whole eastern front, and even that had serious problems with the aforementioned fighters.

mortoma
05-13-2010, 07:36 PM
In real life? Planes in official series up to 4.09 or can the mods be included??

In the official game I'd like to see anyone beat me in the TA-183 Huckebein, if my life truly depended on it. Wanna try it? I didn't think so....nuff said.

In real life? Maybe a F-22 Raptor ( if I got about 5 years of training to get to that level )!! But since I'm 52 years old and not likely to get in the Air Force fighter pilot program, I'd best forget that idea!!

In the modded game I'd feel really safe in the Mig-17 Fresco. Nothing could really touch you and you could dictate everything.

horseback
05-14-2010, 11:39 AM
Real Life historical situation? F6F-5 Hellcat or P-47D, the statistically safest and probably most rugged aircraft of WWII. In-game, the Hellcat is badly treated and I think the R-2800 is grossly undermodelled in terms of DM in all the planes it is found in.

In the game, except for the execrable instrument panel --my needle and ball are (IMHO unrealistically) hidden from view--the La-7 is a monster below 4-5Km, although I like the Dora 9 a lot too.

cheers

horseback

thefruitbat
05-14-2010, 11:55 AM
i stopped flying the la7 a few years ago when i migrated to cockpit on from wonderwomen, and as you pointed out, couldn't see the slip ball indicator.

recently, i have rediscovered it, purely by accident in co-ops, and due to the wonders of 6 dof, can see the slipball now, i quite like it again, more so as it isn't anywhere near top dog anymore, it has its flaws, but what a beast when flown well.

rfxcasey
06-01-2010, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Real Life historical situation? F6F-5 Hellcat or P-47D, the statistically safest and probably most rugged aircraft of WWII. In-game, the Hellcat is badly treated and I think the R-2800 is grossly undermodelled in terms of DM in all the planes it is found in.

In the game, except for the execrable instrument panel --my needle and ball are (IMHO unrealistically) hidden from view--the La-7 is a monster below 4-5Km, although I like the Dora 9 a lot too.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of Hellcats I was flying one the other night when my squad was seriously outnumbered by Zeros. I think I took the most bullets ever last night and I have the track to prove it. That's one tough plane!

ggb123
06-12-2010, 12:55 AM
hop in a bf109k4 back in ww2

sr-71 in cold war

and Not flying at all in nowaday's morden war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif