PDA

View Full Version : US Naval Aircraft Air-to-Air Tactics



Silavite
02-26-2013, 11:22 PM
So... I've been playing IL-2 for awhile but only recently have I discovered these forums and started to play online. My favorite online servers are generally ones that use historic battles, and here I come to the crux of the issue; US Navy aircraft seem very well suited to 'Boom-n'-Zoom' style tactics. That said, I suck at BnZ :nonchalance: ... Does anybody know what tactics are suited these aircraft? (Besides BnZ of course)

Frequent_Flyer
02-27-2013, 04:19 AM
So... I've been playing IL-2 for awhile but only recently have I discovered these forums and started to play online. My favorite online servers are generally ones that use historic battles, and here I come to the crux of the issue; US Navy aircraft seem very well suited to 'Boom-n'-Zoom' style tactics. That said, I suck at BnZ :nonchalance: ... Does anybody know what tactics are suited these aircraft? (Besides BnZ of course)

I played many years ago and took a long break ( many years) until just recently. This sim penalizes aircraft that are not cannon armed. . Tthe stability and speed of the USAAC and USN aircraft was never accurately modeled . You will have an impossible time simulating the outstanding sucess the USAAC and USN aircraft experienced with the Boom and Zoom tactics.
Heavy machine guns although very effective in WW II not so much in IL-2. Sure it can be done however it is way to frustrating to be rewarding.

Bearcat99
02-28-2013, 04:11 PM
Although there have been insistances to the contrary all throughout the life of this sim I have to agree to a degree. I have to say though that there seems to be a difference offline and online as far as the guns go.. although last night on HL I was able to take out 4 planes with short 1-2 second bursts in a F-6 .. which really surprised me because that is usually not the case online.. I think some of that may be associated with packet loss .. but I do think that the Navy planes in particular are under powered. The Mustang has been improved .. the P_47s DM is still a bit too wek if you ask me.. Engine wise is is almost like an inline engine and Jugs were well known for being able to take punishment...

ytareh
03-08-2013, 07:25 PM
50cals are lethal at 100m convergence ..Just because the plane isnt atomised in a ball of flame doesnt mean it aint goin down!

Everything youll ever need to know about P51 flying (mainly in third post)

http://deltachevron.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=85

(Summary - engine 2750rpm at 50inches boost )

Author was Miss Strega aka Boomer aka Carrie Austad

(This was her online squadron application email:

My name is Carrie and I am a happily married mother of two lovely girls and two wonderful dogs. I\'ve been a commercial pilot since 1986 and am a former US Army rotary wing pilot. I have just over 6800 hours of rotary and 5900 fixed wing hours in the logbook. My last gig was flying for the California Highway Patrol, North Division, division in Sacramento, CA I\'ve held ATP, CFI, Multi, HP and rotary certs and the high point in my career was my birthday gift from my Uncle Joe of 8 hours in the P51D. I now work as project coordinator for a national security solutions provider specializing in CCTV systems for commercial and Government systems. My husband is a Full Colonel in the US Air Force and has been serving in Iraq since November 2008. My favorite aircraft to fly in IL2 are: F4U1C Corsair P-51D-20-NA Mustang MC-205 Series III B-25 Mitchell Spitfire Mk IX 25 Lbs and the mighty Gladiator

)

RIP

Frequent_Flyer
03-16-2013, 05:54 PM
50cals are lethal at 100m convergence ..Just because the plane isnt atomised in a ball of flame doesnt mean it aint goin down!

Everything youll ever need to know about P51 flying (mainly in third post)

http://deltachevron.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=85

(Summary - engine 2750rpm at 50inches boost )

Author was Miss Strega aka Boomer aka Carrie Austad

(This was her online squadron application email:

My name is Carrie and I am a happily married mother of two lovely girls and two wonderful dogs. I\'ve been a commercial pilot since 1986 and am a former US Army rotary wing pilot. I have just over 6800 hours of rotary and 5900 fixed wing hours in the logbook. My last gig was flying for the California Highway Patrol, North Division, division in Sacramento, CA I\'ve held ATP, CFI, Multi, HP and rotary certs and the high point in my career was my birthday gift from my Uncle Joe of 8 hours in the P51D. I now work as project coordinator for a national security solutions provider specializing in CCTV systems for commercial and Government systems. My husband is a Full Colonel in the US Air Force and has been serving in Iraq since November 2008. My favorite aircraft to fly in IL2 are: F4U1C Corsair P-51D-20-NA Mustang MC-205 Series III B-25 Mitchell Spitfire Mk IX 25 Lbs and the mighty Gladiator

)

RIP

QUOTE=ytareh;8965803]50cals are lethal at 100m convergence ..Just because the plane isnt atomised in a ball of flame doesnt mean it aint goin down!

Unfortunately, there is no consistancy in what you beleive. The same 6 X .50's on the P-40 are quantifably more effective than the identical configuration on the P-51, Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair and even to some extent the(8X .50) Thunderbolt. The P-38 reknowned for its stability as a gun platform . However in game when you pull the trigger it has the stability of a 9 year old girl tring to aim a fire hose at full power. It should be the best twin engined fighter by a wide margin, and superior in speed, manuverability and climb to a majority of single engined fighters. Sadly it is very frustrating piloting any of these Aircraft Considering historically speaking the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft to the West than VVS in WWII. I guess the Mustang was just a poor imitation of the Lagg-3.

Worf101
03-19-2013, 08:12 PM
In my limited experience with IL2 and ALL it iterations I must say that I feel the general observations on flight models tend to be correct. The P-40 is just about the ONLY thing I can dogfight in at all, online or off. I think though that one of the biggest factors is the simplified flight models of the A.I. When set on Veteran or Ace they simply do things that should not be done. 2 nights ago we had an Me109 doing close to 500 mph in dive to get away from a Mustang in a similar dive. The mustang broke apart the Me didn't. And as a dive bomber I will tell you that the Jug here is as glass jawed as the Mustang. It makes no sense. Still whattya gonna do? It's the only game in town.

Worf

ytareh
03-22-2013, 12:41 AM
Mustang will do WELL over 800kmh in a dive .(It stabilses up nicely in a dive when run -as recommended in link above -engine 2750rpm at 50inches boost-prop pitch 50-75%?)Ive caught a 190 in a dive and shot him down in a P51D .As for the P47?Well she'll do faster in a dive than any other piston engined plane 900+++?Is it only the Me262 that does about 1020/1080 -or is IT 1200 and the P47 1020/1080?)

NB The P51 will rip off control surfaces at silly low speeds IF you break THIS rule :ONLY MOVE ONE CONTROL ie pitch/roll/yaw-AT A TIME !!!!(And do it gently)

horseback
03-24-2013, 08:32 PM
This is one of the things that causes me to walk away from this sim in frustration every so often; all of the late-war American fighters in the game appear to be over fragile trim hogs armed with BB guns that cannot hit the broad side of a barn anyway. It becomes fairly obvious when you compare the flight model of the P-40E/M to the late-war fighters. Oleg and his team referred almost exclusively to Soviet sources for flight data, and the P-40 and P-39 were provided to the VVS in large numbers, so their performance and capabilities were well known and documented by the Soviets, as were the various marks of Spitfires provided by Britain (and here we should note that many of the Spits passed on to the USSR were delivered after several months' use by the RAF, while the Warhawks and AiraCobras from the US were factory fresh). In any case, this should mean that using wartime tactics that were successful against contemporary LW or Japanese fighters, these aircraft obtain the same results reported by the pilots who flew them in combat. This tells us that in terms of the simulation, the P-39 and P-40 are accurately depicted in terms of where they fit and compete with their opponents.

Our problem comes when we read wartime comparisons of the P-39 and especially the P-40 to the fighters that replaced them: both the P-39 and the P-40 were considered unforgiving aircraft in the air, and the P-40 was especially well known for needing constant trim adjustment, especially for the rudder, as well as being a notorious ground looper--pilots had to pay constant attention to trimming the aircraft for the slightest variation in speed, as little as 5 miles per hour, according to one report cited in America' Hundred Thousand, which devotes several paragraphs to this issue in the P-40 section, and just a few lines for almost every other US-built WWII fighter.

By contrast, the P-38, the P-47, the F4U and most particularly the F6F and Mustang are described as being very stable and being either easy to trim or not really needing a lot of trim adjustment at all. Of the five, the Corsair is cited as the hardest to manage, and the Mustang and Hellcat were thought to be the easiest to fly to their limits, which goes a long way in explaining their combat successes. In the game, all of these aircraft require vastly more adjustment from the basic settings than their late war opponents and rivals, not only in trim, but in prop & engine management (and note that there were NO special instructions from the programmers on the differences in these FMs from other fighters of that time slot). Admittedly, they can (mostly) "hit their numbers", but you have to work a lot harder to do so than you should. I won't even go into the damage models, which are beyond silly when you learn that American aircraft were universally thought of as 'overengineered' and much more heavily built than other country's fighters at the time.

The Mustang is particularly penalized in this respect; any comparison of the Mustang to the P-40 (and there are a great many, both from modern times as well as in the wartime memoirs) makes it clear that the Mustang was a much easier aircraft to trim and maneuver, if not quite as slam-bang as the Warhawk (which could compete well with Spits and 109s in a low to medium altitude knife fight, if the pilot was as good as his opponent). In the game, the positions are reversed in an almost grotesque way; the Mustang pilot is constantly adding and subtracting trim and fighting his stick while the turn and bank indicator lie to him shamelessly. The delayed trim response and the depiction of the .50 caliber guns as popguns at anything more than 25 meters above or below convergence make it a lot harder to master. It's unstable, touchy and fragile.

In fact they all are. Some have argued that they are more accurately modeled than the aircraft that they only have the factory data and wartime descriptions for, but that simply means that the P-38, P-47, F4U, F6F and P-51 are not properly slotted compared to their more optimistically depicted opposition. Flying these aircraft successfully in the game should be a LOT less work than doing so in a late model Bf 109 or Ki-84, much less the later model Soviet designs, and the opposite is true.

Rant over.

cheers


horseback

Frequent_Flyer
03-26-2013, 10:32 PM
Horseback, very well thought out and expresssed. I would not consider your post a rant. Words" to this effect " have been expressed many times and in many ways,on this forum. Unfortunately, never given serious consideration.. Most folks interested in a historacically accurate representation of all combatants in WW II agree with your sentiments.

Sillius_Sodus
03-29-2013, 06:54 PM
Jeez guys/gals, I get shot down online by late-war US fighters often enough as it is, don't make 'em better! :D