PDA

View Full Version : best planes in air combat role poll



chunkydora
06-23-2008, 12:54 PM
This poll idea was from Erkki_M.

If I left out any plane you think should be in the poll, let me know.

TinyTim
06-23-2008, 01:02 PM
The Fw190 should be excluded from poll-form, and the question should be:

Which plane apart from Fw190 do you think is the best (this poll excludes jets and exotics) in the air combat role, in the game.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

idonno
06-23-2008, 01:40 PM
The question is a little vague.

I'm not looking at this as a 1 vs. 1 co-alt merge dogfight, but rather, how one force would fare against another given a particular airplane.

The high altitude performance of U.S. airplanes give them the ability to dictate the terms of the fight. Look at it this way. Was the average fighter produced by any country at the end of the war more maneuverable than the ones produced at the beginning, or did they have better high altitude performance?

I tend towards the 47 and Corsair because of their toughness. Let's face it, things don't always go according to plan. Then I prefer the 47 over the Corsair for it's extra set of guns.

Freiwillige
06-23-2008, 02:04 PM
And just why should the FW-190 be excluded? It was a fighter and a damn good one at that. 4 vs 4 or in a group fight with dedicated wing men it more than lives up to its reputation. And the Dora's are just as good if not better than late war birds. So why exclude?

JtD
06-23-2008, 02:07 PM
Because it is going to win. As always.

Bearcat99
06-23-2008, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
The question is a little vague.


Yeah but it has been asked about a gazillimillibillion time on these boards over tha past 7 years as I am sure you know seeing your reg date.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif So I am sure it really doesnt matter ...

chunkydora
06-23-2008, 02:40 PM
I don't intend to make the kind of distinctions that idonno enquired about, they're a little two intellectual for me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The idea was simply to find out what percentage of people prefer what planes. And I'm SO sorry for picking such a boring unoriginal topic that you vets have seen gabillions of times, but I just joined this dern forum thing.

TinyTim
06-23-2008, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
And just why should the FW-190 be excluded?


Originally posted by JtD:
Because it is going to win. As always.

Exactly. Fw190 is so overhelmingly superior to anything else (contemporary) in general air to air role in this sim, that it's better IMO to exclude it from such polls.
(the only exception is maybe late 43/early 44 when La5FNs, Yak9s and SpitIXc (with merlin66) arrive to spoil the fun of antons)

But, you can, of course, always find a specific scenario where some other type of plane will be better.

TinyTim
06-23-2008, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
The idea was simply to find out what percentage of people prefer what planes.

Wait wait... being the far best air to air plane in the sim in my mind does not by any means mean that I prefer it. I actually prefer flying against it.

So, what do you really want to find out with this poll?
What plane do people consider as deadliest in air to air combat,

or

what plane do people prefer to fly in air to air combat?

idonno
06-23-2008, 02:50 PM
Yes, it's come up many times before, but it's worth bringing up again. There are always new people joining us who can benefit from such discussions. In fact there are still a lot of old-timers who don't seem to comprehend the true nature of air combat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

anarchy52
06-23-2008, 03:08 PM
I find this talk about FW superiority ridiculous, FW is just an aircraft that forces it's pilot to fight in a certain way and that is what makes it exceptional. Tempest for example, is far superior to any Anton and is very close to Dora below 3000m.

Antons have their issues in game, poor acceleration, porked turn rate (while it wasn't renown for turning circle, it was significantly better then its in game representation), incorrect roll rate (too good at low speed, too low at high speed), fragility (the old issue of getting a .50 cal bullet hole in the wing and loosing 50km/h top speed). In general it feels clumsy, heavy and underpowered. So most people fly the focke *very* carefuly and avoid taking risks. That is what makes fw-190 a great fighter in game - it teaches pilots how to fly. It is also good for learning deflection shots, as in FW you are usually aiming with the middle of your control panel.

Unlike Spits or La's which teach the new pilots how not to fly.

VW-IceFire
06-23-2008, 03:13 PM
The Gladiator is on there but no Tempest?

Xiolablu3
06-23-2008, 03:34 PM
With the planes we have in the sim, Bf109 early war, FW190 late war IMHO.

Reasons for FW190 :-


Applies to all FW190 models except the A8 which I find a bit too heavy and the opposition has caught up with the Anton by 1944. The A4 in 1942 and the Dora in late '44, '45 are fantastic birds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Excellent control at high speed

Very tough, I very rarely get a PK and it can take 20mm hits and continue flying.

Excellent dive rate, a 180 flip and dive, noone can catch you.

Very, very very heavy weapons

Excellent choice of weapons air to air, air to ground etc

Fantasic roll rate for evasion.

Often the fastest plane on the map at low level.

Many other reasons but I would be here all day...

If we had a Spitfire mk1/Mk11 in 1940 then I might choose that or think of it as equal to the Bf109 in this year.

If we had a Spitfire XIV, I may vote for that or think of it as equal to the Dora in 1944/45.

I cant help but htink that the Spitfire XIV might be the ideal bird for the kind of battles which happen in IL2. Incredibly fast, and also turns on a dime.

slipBall
06-23-2008, 03:44 PM
Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau AG FW-190, hands down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bremspropeller
06-23-2008, 03:50 PM
I find this talk about FW superiority ridiculous, FW is just an aircraft that forces it's pilot to fight in a certain way and that is what makes it exceptional.

Very wrong, as IRL with real bullets, real death and no refly-button, you're forced to maximize chances by minimizing risks. That's achieved by only attacking when the odds are with you and you're in a favorable position.

IRL, most successful pilots flew exactly the way you'd best do in the Fw in-game.

TTU_Phoenix
06-23-2008, 04:22 PM
I don't believe that the Fw 190 is necessarily superior to anything else. It is a good fighter. It is VERY GOOD at what it does, wich is BnZ. If you use it right, it is an excellent plane. But then again, that applies to everything else.

chunkydora
06-23-2008, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chunkydora:
The idea was simply to find out what percentage of people prefer what planes.

Wait wait... being the far best air to air plane in the sim in my mind does not by any means mean that I prefer it. I actually prefer flying against it.

So, what do you really want to find out with this poll?
What plane do people consider as deadliest in air to air combat,

or

what plane do people prefer to fly in air to air combat? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for bringing this distinction to my attention. I did make a contradiction. I'd say the purpose of this poll is to find out which plane is the deadliest in your hands, even of you don't prefer to fly it.

chunkydora
06-23-2008, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
I find this talk about FW superiority ridiculous, FW is just an aircraft that forces it's pilot to fight in a certain way and that is what makes it exceptional. Tempest for example, is far superior to any Anton and is very close to Dora below 3000m.

Antons have their issues in game, poor acceleration, porked turn rate (while it wasn't renown for turning circle, it was significantly better then its in game representation), incorrect roll rate (too good at low speed, too low at high speed), fragility (the old issue of getting a .50 cal bullet hole in the wing and loosing 50km/h top speed). In general it feels clumsy, heavy and underpowered. So most people fly the focke *very* carefuly and avoid taking risks. That is what makes fw-190 a great fighter in game - it teaches pilots how to fly. It is also good for learning deflection shots, as in FW you are usually aiming with the middle of your control panel.

Unlike Spits or La's which teach the new pilots how not to fly.

I absolutely agree with this post. Every plane has its weakness. TinyTim said: "But, you can, of course, always find a specific scenario where some other type of plane [than the fw-190] will be better". We shouldn't think of those other situations as the exception to the rule. They are legitimate situations, and the point of the poll is to find out which plane you believe you can best use to take advantage of to be victorious, not those that you think generally win. Sorry, I should have made this clear in the original post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

chunkydora
06-23-2008, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by TTU_Phoenix:
I don't believe that the Fw 190 is necessarily superior to anything else. It is a good fighter. It is VERY GOOD at what it does, wich is BnZ. If you use it right, it is an excellent plane. But then again, that applies to everything else.

Someone in a dora could get shot down by a p.11c (the king of all planes, btw) if they don't use the thing right.

chunkydora
06-23-2008, 04:57 PM
NO ONE has voted for the spit?

huh?

Can't you people just get over BnZing????!!!

Jeez...

JSG72
06-23-2008, 05:03 PM
I voted P-51b.(Sorry. Is it in there? didn't really look, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif as I am a BLUE! fan. And so am biased).

Actually I never voted. Because of what I just said. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

PanzerAce
06-23-2008, 06:49 PM
My vote goes to the N1K. I don't know why, but for some reason my normally average flying suddenly turns into ace quality moves when I'm in the N1K. I don't know if its the auto flaps that allow me to focus on the throttle, or the way that the 4 20 mike mikes seem setup JUST for my style of combat (without even changing convergence), or what, but I love that plane. THe ONLY problem I have with it is that when I do get shot down, it is almost always by having the tail chopped off. for wing loss to tail loss, it's probably 1:4. No idea why.

TTU_Phoenix
06-23-2008, 06:53 PM
Personally, I don't like flying the Spit. Wing guns never seem to feel right to me. Give me nose guns any day. There are some exceptions (liek the J2M and the N1K) but the Spit's guns seem too far out on the wing.

Afromike1
06-23-2008, 08:37 PM
What is bad about the 109?

chunkydora
06-23-2008, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by TTU_Phoenix:
Personally, I don't like flying the Spit. Wing guns never seem to feel right to me. Give me nose guns any day. There are some exceptions (liek the J2M and the N1K) but the Spit's guns seem too far out on the wing.

I agree about wing guns, they seem unnecessary to me. All I need is a couple cannons in the nose. La-5FN anyone? But I was hoping somebody would vote for the spit just for old time's sake, and it is a cool plane.

chunkydora
06-23-2008, 08:45 PM
In both this one and another poll recently by DKoor the jug gets more votes than the stang. I wonder if that is based largely on the extra set of 50 cals on the jug and the fact they all have 400 rounds, whereas on the stang only the inside pair have 400 rounds.

ImpStarDuece
06-23-2008, 09:57 PM
Where is the Tempest on that list?

WeedEater9p
06-24-2008, 12:07 AM
P.11c of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Von_Rat
06-24-2008, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Afromike1:
What is bad about the 109?

brain32 should be along shortly, oh heck just do a search for just about any post by brain that has the word me109 in it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-24-2008, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Afromike1:
What is bad about the 109?

Nothing, its fantastic from 1939 through to early 1943 with the 109E to the 109G2.

However as it gains weight, it loses its potency. Still has good top speed and climb, but the controls get very heavy at high speeds. When most other planes are carrying 4 cannon, or at least 2 cannon plus many machine guns, the Bf109 has very light armament for fighter to fighter work in 44,45.

I LOVE the early 109's, and people who tend to **** them off usually only fly late war planes. The 109E in 1940, 109F4 in 1941 and 109G2 in 1942 are particularly potent birds.

The reasons that they often lose these 'best plane' polls is because it has such awesome competition in the late war. If you made a poll 'Which is the best plane in 1941', then you would see a mass of Bf109 votes. It all depends on what year of the war you are flying. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

idonno
06-24-2008, 01:46 PM
Quite right Xiolablu3.

Late war I'm a big fan of the U.S. planes, but I love the F4 in 41. It's fast, and great in the vertical.

JSG72
06-24-2008, 02:08 PM
Wasn't the A6M3. The best in '41?

S'pose it depends where you come from? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

R_Target
06-24-2008, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Wasn't the A6M3. The best in '41?

Not without a time machine. A6M2 was though.


S'pose it depends where you come from? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Around this place, no doubt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JSG72
06-24-2008, 06:22 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Of course, A6M2!

Xiolablu3
06-25-2008, 02:31 PM
I disagree, the Zero was slow even for 1941.

Also it had no armour and was very poor at higher speeds. The roll rate was especially bad at high speeds, being described as ' rock solid' by some pilots.

The Zero had the range, thats for sure, but it was deficiant in a number of areas IMO. Its lightness in particular which contributed to iuts excellent low/mid manouverability was gained by totally forgetting pilot armour and other such luxerious that the Bf109 and Spit took for granted. No doubt the Bf109 could have been as light as the zero if it had also forgone all these vital things. In the rearly war days, Jappanese pilots even used to take out the radio in order to make the plane lighter (!)

Nope, Bf109F for me for sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Freiwillige
06-25-2008, 04:26 PM
The zero Vs 109 argument, my thoughts.
The zero was a naval fighter desighned for low to medium altitude air superiority. The 109 was desighned as a short range fighter/Interceptor geared for med to high alt. I dont think one is truly greater than the other. I do think that the luftwaffe would probably use the same tactics as the p-40's used in china. I think in that scenario even a 109E-4 would have the advantage let alone the F series. But allied fighters against the zero were mostly turn fighters as well and did good at it until the Zero came barging onto the scene. Hurricanes, Spits, Buffalo's all turn fighters, they just got out turnedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
06-26-2008, 08:09 AM
The Zero definitely had benefits over the Bf109, it was a much better Naval fighter thanks to the range and good landing characteristics.

So if you were flying off a carrier obviously the Zero was the better choice.

Just felt I should add this, as I felt my above post was harsh the the Zero, which was the BEST Naval fighter in 1941 IMO.

The Bf109F was arguably the BEST land fighter in 1941 IMHO. Possibly the early FW190 models were in its class depending on what the sortie was. I just think that the 109F4/G2 reached its Zenith at this time mid 1941- mid 1942 with its major redesigned improved airframe. Much like mid 1943 to mid-1944 when the Spitfire VIII/XIV reached its peak design with its major redsigned improved airframe.

Both designs had been given time for testing and major improvments which were introduced with the 109F4 in 1941 and the SPitfire VII/VIII models in 1943.

Just my thoughts.

idonno
06-26-2008, 10:39 AM
The thing that never really seems to get adequately discussed in the issue of "best fighter" is what exactly is meant by the term "best fighter."

I touched on this in my earlier post, but I'd like to expand the thought.

Does best fighter mean best 1 vs. 1 dogfighter? If so, how do you define dogfight? For many, the definition seems to be - a turn fight. If that's what a dogfight is, then I'd take a Spit V over a 109F4 any day. However, if dogfight simply means combat between to fighters, then I begin to lean towards the the 109 with it's speed and vertical fighting advantages. The Spitfire's turn advantage is of little use if the faster airplane refuses to play his game, and with patience, the Me driver can work himself into a vertical advantage that Mr. Spitty will not be able to take away.

When I think of a best fighter candidate, what I look at is how would a group of one fighter type do against a group of another. In real life you virtually never saw lone hunters out searching the sky for a little 1 vs. 1 action. In a lone Zeke vs. a lone F4F match-up my money is on the Zeke. Yet, the F4F achieved a positive kill ratio against the A6M in real life force-on-force air battles. Of course, good tactics had a significant roll in this success, but could better tactics on the part of the Japanese have overcome the 18 or 19 to 1 kill ratio that the F6F Hellcat enjoyed over the Zeke. I don't think so. I also don't believe that better tactics would have reversed their fortunes against the Wildcat.

In the group-on-group fights of the actual WWII experience, the Wildcat's toughness is a significant advantage over the frailty of the Zeke, and we see this played out in this sim as well. Whenever I have witnessed a furball between these two types on the Zeke's vs. Wildcat server, it's the Wildcats who are raking up the kills.

If there is anything good about the complete lack of operational realism with which most people approach this sim, it is that you can be quite successful with airplanes that proved to be inadequate in real life.

chunkydora
06-28-2008, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by idonno:
The thing that never really seems to get adequately discussed in the issue of "best fighter" is what exactly is meant by the term "best fighter."

I touched on this in my earlier post, but I'd like to expand the thought.

Does best fighter mean best 1 vs. 1 dogfighter? If so, how do you define dogfight? For many, the definition seems to be - a turn fight. If that's what a dogfight is, then I'd take a Spit V over a 109F4 any day. However, if dogfight simply means combat between to fighters, then I begin to lean towards the the 109 with it's speed and vertical fighting advantages. The Spitfire's turn advantage is of little use if the faster airplane refuses to play his game, and with patience, the Me driver can work himself into a vertical advantage that Mr. Spitty will not be able to take away.

When I think of a best fighter candidate, what I look at is how would a group of one fighter type do against a group of another. In real life you virtually never saw lone hunters out searching the sky for a little 1 vs. 1 action. In a lone Zeke vs. a lone F4F match-up my money is on the Zeke. Yet, the F4F achieved a positive kill ratio against the A6M in real life force-on-force air battles. Of course, good tactics had a significant roll in this success, but could better tactics on the part of the Japanese have overcome the 18 or 19 to 1 kill ratio that the F6F Hellcat enjoyed over the Zeke. I don't think so. I also don't believe that better tactics would have reversed their fortunes against the Wildcat.

In the group-on-group fights of the actual WWII experience, the Wildcat's toughness is a significant advantage over the frailty of the Zeke, and we see this played out in this sim as well. Whenever I have witnessed a furball between these two types on the Zeke's vs. Wildcat server, it's the Wildcats who are raking up the kills.

If there is anything good about the complete lack of operational realism with which most people approach this sim, it is that you can be quite successful with airplanes that proved to be inadequate in real life.

It's good that you made that point. When I think of best plane, I mean best plane used in real-life situations. Mustangs escorting b17s, Yaks escorting IL2s, 109s intercepting pe2s, whatever their role in real life was. Unfortunately, in the sim you can't ever get the communication, teamwork and dedication that was present IRL. There's nothing wrong with flying 1-on-1s, but had I taken the time to explain my thoughts fully when I started the poll (sorry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif) the I would have said to think about situations likely to occur IRL in your decision.

Thanks for brining that up idonno.

Bewolf
06-28-2008, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
The thing that never really seems to get adequately discussed in the issue of "best fighter" is what exactly is meant by the term "best fighter."

I touched on this in my earlier post, but I'd like to expand the thought.

Does best fighter mean best 1 vs. 1 dogfighter? If so, how do you define dogfight? For many, the definition seems to be - a turn fight. If that's what a dogfight is, then I'd take a Spit V over a 109F4 any day. However, if dogfight simply means combat between to fighters, then I begin to lean towards the the 109 with it's speed and vertical fighting advantages. The Spitfire's turn advantage is of little use if the faster airplane refuses to play his game, and with patience, the Me driver can work himself into a vertical advantage that Mr. Spitty will not be able to take away.

When I think of a best fighter candidate, what I look at is how would a group of one fighter type do against a group of another. In real life you virtually never saw lone hunters out searching the sky for a little 1 vs. 1 action. In a lone Zeke vs. a lone F4F match-up my money is on the Zeke. Yet, the F4F achieved a positive kill ratio against the A6M in real life force-on-force air battles. Of course, good tactics had a significant roll in this success, but could better tactics on the part of the Japanese have overcome the 18 or 19 to 1 kill ratio that the F6F Hellcat enjoyed over the Zeke. I don't think so. I also don't believe that better tactics would have reversed their fortunes against the Wildcat.

In the group-on-group fights of the actual WWII experience, the Wildcat's toughness is a significant advantage over the frailty of the Zeke, and we see this played out in this sim as well. Whenever I have witnessed a furball between these two types on the Zeke's vs. Wildcat server, it's the Wildcats who are raking up the kills.

If there is anything good about the complete lack of operational realism with which most people approach this sim, it is that you can be quite successful with airplanes that proved to be inadequate in real life.

It's good that you made that point. When I think of best plane, I mean best plane used in real-life situations. Mustangs escorting b17s, Yaks escorting IL2s, 109s intercepting pe2s, whatever their role in real life was. Unfortunately, in the sim you can't ever get the communication, teamwork and dedication that was present IRL. There's nothing wrong with flying 1-on-1s, but had I taken the time to explain my thoughts fully when I started the poll (sorry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif) the I would have said to think about situations likely to occur IRL in your decision.

Thanks for brining that up idonno. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, to throw that in, my impression of "best fighter" is pretty simple asked in threads like this.

What plane would you personally prefer to sit in any given situation during the discussed timeframe. As soon specific situations arise the question is not really answerable anymore on a general basis.

idonno
06-28-2008, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
Unfortunately, in the sim you can't ever get the communication, teamwork and dedication that was present IRL.

Don't be so sure. Have a look at this. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/48310655/m/9771043336)

chunkydora
06-28-2008, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chunkydora:
Unfortunately, in the sim you can't ever get the communication, teamwork and dedication that was present IRL.

Don't be so sure. Have a look at this. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/48310655/m/9771043336) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected. But it certainly isn't common.

idonno
06-28-2008, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by chunkydora:

I stand corrected. But it certainly isn't common.

That's one point I would never argue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif