PDA

View Full Version : 'best' tactics when flying a FIATG50 vs I-116 & I-153 are?



MichaelMar
07-19-2005, 04:43 PM
Maybe you all can help out? I like flying the FIAT G50 and had been playing a lot on Finnish/Soviet map using early war planes from that theater.

When flying the Fiat G50 I often come across those pesky little Russian planes. Being in a G50 this scares the **** out of me. For those little Russian planes are faster, turn better(even though the Fiat G50 should turn 2 sec faster then it does now in game), much better armored and have MUCH better weapons.

Just how can a Fiat beat these enemy? I know the Finns used the Fiat, IRL, and where very good at killing the Russian enemy planes. So, with the Fiat I am using, though I feel it is under modeled, what are the 'best' tactics to use against enemy Russian planes?

THX

VF-29_Sandman
07-19-2005, 05:42 PM
looking at hardball's a/c viewer, here are ur advantages against the I-153: speed at both sea level and at 5000 meters. that's all u have. they have waaaaay more manuverablity, range, and hp.

against the I-16's: u have slight...and keyword here is slight..edge in turn radius. but they have all the other 'high cards' in the deck. they will outrun u in the straights and at 5000 meters with their bigger engines, but looks like their weakness is, their controls are very, very sensitive.

of these 2, the i-16 is the more serious threat. extreme caution should be used..and make the i-16's make the mistakes. u cant afford making mistakes against them.

get high, and stay high. zoom and boom should be ur mantra. the g-50 appears to have excellent dive traits, nice zoom climb if u conserve e, but is a dog in acceleration. fuel mix needs to be monitored. over 3000 meters, u need to lean the mix. avoid gettin down in the grass against either of these threats. they will chew u up fast. trade alt for speed when u need it, but i belive that 2500 meters should be ur 'hard deck'...dont go under 2500 meters for very long. this plane needs alot of air under it for it to be somewhat effective in the zoom and boom.

armament is also very poor on the g-50. only 2x12.7 mg's. u need to make ur shots count. this is the same guns (practically) as the ki-43's. get in close and rake the cockpit or engines.

MichaelMar
07-19-2005, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
looking at hardball's a/c viewer, here are ur advantages against the I-153: speed at both sea level and at 5000 meters. that's all u have. they have waaaaay more manuverablity, range, and hp.

against the I-16's: u have slight...and keyword here is slight..edge in turn radius. but they have all the other 'high cards' in the deck. they will outrun u in the straights and at 5000 meters with their bigger engines, but looks like their weakness is, their controls are very, very sensitive.

of these 2, the i-16 is the more serious threat. extreme caution should be used..and make the i-16's make the mistakes. u cant afford making mistakes against them.

get high, and stay high. zoom and boom should be ur mantra. the g-50 appears to have excellent dive traits, nice zoom climb if u conserve e, but is a dog in acceleration. fuel mix needs to be monitored. over 3000 meters, u need to lean the mix. avoid gettin down in the grass against either of these threats. they will chew u up fast. trade alt for speed when u need it, but i belive that 2500 meters should be ur 'hard deck'...dont go under 2500 meters for very long. this plane needs alot of air under it for it to be somewhat effective in the zoom and boom.

armament is also very poor on the g-50. only 2x12.7 mg's. u need to make ur shots count. this is the same guns (practically) as the ki-43's. get in close and rake the cockpit or engines.


GREAT! Thanks for the information...how on earth did you gather the information? What text did it come from....G50 Pilot's Manualhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So, was the G50 designed as a Boom & Zoom plane with a decent turn rate? Also, would it be best to fly the G50 as Z&B on most early 'historical' maps?

THX MUCH http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Hurri-Khan
07-20-2005, 01:24 AM
So, was the G50 designed as a Boom & Zoom plane with a decent turn rate? Also, would it be best to fly the G50 as Z&B on most early 'historical' maps?


As far I remeber it was designed as light interceptor, originally planned armament was a single 12,7mm!.

Finns had serie 1&2 fiats. The one we have in game seems to be serie 2 late with AM TR-9D radio installation (taken from gladiators) and horn balanced rudder. The default skin represents more serie 7, with those teardrops in cowling.

It's turn rate was not so great (better to right side due engine), finns even planned to build slats to increase it. Operating time wasn't much either, a drop tank installation was planned too. But because of lack of spares and the a/c wasn't that good, it didn't receive those. Drop tank was tried but those were used for I-153's instead. (finns used 22 of those for maritime recon, there was a steady sparepart supply for those http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). The fiat also lacked armored seat.

But fiat seems to have been much better than morane; it was faster and generally better armed (before morane received 12,7mm berenzina or MG151). Fiat was also very tough, structural limit was 14G's. It also withstood great speeds ( one pilot accidentally dived at speed over 800km/h, windshield broke during the dive ).

Generally flying characteristics were liked, but fighting with it and maintaining it was like hell http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

so:

-Fly higher than your enemy
-Use energy & group tactics (BnZ)
-Maintain adequate speed
-Generally be better than your adversary http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<--H-K-<<<

VF-29_Sandman
07-20-2005, 01:54 PM
to adequately zoom and boom, u must have altitude. generally, the higher the better as u'll burn up quite a bit of altitude in the boom. unless the bogey's wingtips at the very least overlap the gunsite, consider urself out of range. remember, the g-50's guns are very weak, but strong enough at least to kill the pilot.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-20-2005, 04:24 PM
Although the finns were very successful with it, there are a number of things about PF that prevent the G-50 from attaining a record similar to that of its real life counter part. The first problem is that the I-16 and I-153 fighters faced by the Finnish G-50 were not the planes we have in the game. They were older, less powerful versions. Also, the Finns had a very small front line to defend and it was well covered by advanced radar and spotting systems. Early warning with accurate reports on enemy types and numbers gave the Finns the initiative by giving their pilots the time to climb to altitude and move into a favorable attack position.

VF-29_Sandman
07-20-2005, 05:49 PM
obviously oleg wouldnt put the actual version's the g-50 faced...or no1 would fly em. soooooo, these 2 planes are 'uber' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Hurri-Khan
07-21-2005, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Although the finns were very successful with it, there are a number of things about PF that prevent the G-50 from attaining a record similar to that of its real life counter part. The first problem is that the I-16 and I-153 fighters faced by the Finnish G-50 were not the planes we have in the game. They were older, less powerful versions. Also, the Finns had a very small front line to defend and it was well covered by advanced radar and spotting systems. Early warning with accurate reports on enemy types and numbers gave the Finns the initiative by giving their pilots the time to climb to altitude and move into a favorable attack position.

Not exactly true I would say.. The finns faced I-16's from serie 6 to serie 18 during winter war. The decision to order G.50's was an emergency solution, because there was nothing better available. The Fiat delivery took place late in the war because of Germany (which was allied with soviets at the time, and prevented their transport through). So most likely it faced type 18's already during it's short appearance in winterwar.

During Continuation war there was more later types. I recall reading that most of cannon armed I-16's was withdrawn into defence of Leningrad. Heck finns already faced and captured those during winterwar.
But yes, there was older models also (I don't know why, but maybe soviets didn't have aircraft factory able to do upgrade near Leningrad?).

I-153 is another story, I've never heard of finns encountering tchaykas with cannons. Even soviet sources state that it was made in very limited quantities. It is however possible that it was a field modification, tchaykas usually wasn't able to fire at BnZ'ing FAF.

What comes into radar, that wasn't available since '43. The front wasn't that small either, there was northern Ladoga also. (north finland was defended by F19 during winterwar and LW in continuation war, generally no FAF activity there). It might seem small comparing to fronts which germany and soviets had, but take in account that FAF had maybe 50 planes usable as a fighter..

But what one usually forgets about continuation war is that those same soviet units also faced LW in estonia, so the soviet numbers wasn't that much better (still some 10-20x times FAF strenght).


<--H-K-<<<

Tully__
07-21-2005, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
obviously oleg wouldnt put the actual version's the g-50 faced...or no1 would fly em. soooooo, these 2 planes are 'uber' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
Those two aircraft (the I-16 and I-153) are roughly accurate for the year of manufacture of the aircraft they're modelled on, but not for the year of manufacture of the aircraft the Fins faced. As they were in the game long before there was a Finish map and are quite appropriate for other maps that were included with the I-16 & I-153, how can you say the choice of these versions is bias?

Hurri-Khan
07-21-2005, 11:40 AM
I do admit that I-16 type 24 should be renamed as type 28 and put into '41 category, but it was faced by G.50 nonetheless. But then propably same should be done for example to B239 also, it didn't have reflector sight and 4 x 12,7mm guns in '39 either.. So just don't use it too early or in too large amounts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.


<--H-K-<<<

VF-29_Sandman
07-21-2005, 01:54 PM
maybe some of the ace g-50 drivers could enlighten us on how to properly fly this bird..if their are any since this ship is very underpowered. on the other hand, it does appear to have nice zoom and boom capabilities as long as u have the altitude. how much ammo does the g-50 carry anyway?

Hurri-Khan
07-22-2005, 12:14 PM
"Already tested in real battles on I-16, ShVAK guns 20 mm calibre have proved the high efficiency. A shell of this gun surpassed by weight twice the bullet of a heavy machine gun (48 and 96 grammes accordingly), the destroying ability was several times higher. However, if on I-16 the guns were positioned outside of the air screw rotation square, on I-153 it was decided to mount them in a synchronized version, with fire through the screw. In the beginning of 1940 an army series of planes have been built, designated as I-153P (N9N96578, 6598, 6760), three machines in total. I-153P passed the tests in 16 fighter aviation regiment, 24-th aviation division, Moscow military district during summer of 1940. Pilots' reaction was that these Tchaykas were a little bit more inert, the fact that the transparent visor was heavily covered with the gun powder was sited as the main inconvenience. As a whole the tests have passed successfully, and it was decided to built another three such guns. But, according to the factory data, a total of five copies of I-153P were produced."

hmm.. that might be the reason there are no mentions of those http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


<--H-K-<<<

GerritJ9
07-22-2005, 05:38 PM
According to "Warplanes of the Second World War: Fighters Volume 2" by William Green, the Fiat G.50bis carried 300 rounds per gun. No mention of the amount carried by the G.50 as used by the Finns though. Hope this is of some use.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-22-2005, 10:25 PM
The Finnish G-50 had the same ammo load, gives about 28 seconds of continuous fire.