View Full Version : Aircraft Handling

01-26-2005, 08:49 AM
Can someone tell me why all the Eastern aircraft in these sims (japanese, russian, etc) handle like a dream and you can get away with throwing them about like crazy without stalling. Where as all the Western aircraft (British, American, German) seem to handle like they have lead weights attached to the tail?

For instance, I was flying an I-16 on Il2 and was able the chuck it about the sky and shoot down 4 BF109's quite easily. yet when I flew a BF109 I got shot to pieces in less than a minute because the plane stalled while in a simple turn. Also in PF I flew a Zero and did pretty much the same thing as I did with the I-16 (I even flew the thing straight upward and my speed dropped to 10 before the stall warning came up) against some P40's. yet, when I flew a P40 I was again cut to pieces by the Zeros before I could even get a chance at aiming at one.

I've also noticed the same problems with the Mustang, Seafire, Wildcat, Corsair, Fokker 190. Is something wrong with the physics modelling of the Western planes? Surely they can't all handle so badly... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

01-26-2005, 08:58 AM
It was a different philosophy of air combat. Turn and burn versus boom and zoom.

01-26-2005, 09:02 AM
lol... that makes absolutely no sense to me.. Nice phrase though.

Could you explain what you mean?

01-26-2005, 09:47 AM
What it means is an I-16/Zero etc. sacrificed speed due to their designs (though doubtfully deliberate) for handling.

Turn to get on anothers tail and Burn them, vs. Zoom down from on high and straffe to Boom them.

A great example is the A6m....Try the A6m2, nice turn and burn...Then try the A6m7, still some turn but you can see where they started to sacrifice some of the Turn for Zoom, or manueverability for speed as they just could no longer compete.

No two planes here alike. What you must do is learn how each craft needs to be flown and fly it appropriately to a certain degree to "win".

There are nice blendings of the two styles making the distinction grayed. However, in all cases you sacrifice to gain. Once you learn a plane then you can work toward pressing it's limits to fly more toward that happy medium.

Yet if you take a Zoom & boomer, and press it to its limits riding the stall, turning at low Energy...you'll find you better get the kill quick, as if you don't you have blown your advantage and are now vulnerable.

01-26-2005, 11:13 AM
The 109 was a notoriously difficult plane to fly, (and land). Once you get dialed in though, it flies like a dream IMO.

01-26-2005, 11:23 AM
Welcome to the real world of how aircraft worked in WWII. Yes, as LEBillfish said, it`s all about different Nations view on how planes should fly to beat the enemy.

The Germans mostly had the `Eagle` philosophy, I like to think of it, or `vulture` if you want. Get high, look for a low enemy, dive, STRIKE, get high again, enemy should be dead or wounded by then (boom and zoom).

The LA5, I16 and the early Spitfire/ Hurricane were more `pull and turn` planes. So if facing a 109 in BOB, they should be able to outturn almost anything as you`ve already experience.

Funny, isn`t it how it feels more natural to `Turn and burn`, it`s almost instinctive, but boom and zoom takes discipline.

So in the Pacific if you want to fly the way you like, you`ll have to fly Japan, but if you want to fly for the allies you will need to learn to get high, STRIKE and get high again like the Eagle. DO NOT TURN with a Zero! It will beat you! If a zero gets on your tail- RUN, barrel roll and call for back up.

You`ll get the hang of it.

01-26-2005, 11:23 AM
okay, I see where you're coming from. However, I still think that the Zero slowing to virtually nothing before it's stall warning came up is wrong. I don't doubt that they were manueverable, but I was less than 10kph before it stalled.

01-26-2005, 11:29 AM
Produce facts and information to Oleg (address in Readme). This is not CFS and Oleg only makes aircraft work to flight specifications that are proven, not `I think`.

01-26-2005, 01:18 PM
Well, I've been unable to recreate the effect since the last time. And beleive me, I've been trying for the last hour and a half. If I get it again, I'll make a track of it and post it somewhere so people can check it for themselves