Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About istari6

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

80 profile views
  1. So do we know if the Gustav was an attempt by the RLM to "future-proof" against B-29s? Or were they facing threats already that required pressurization in 1943? I've heard the Mosquito was a high-flying reconnaissance airplane, but I don't believe it was pressurized. Thanks for the info. The idea of a few specialized 109s for high-altitude PR intercepts makes sense when you look at the numbers of G-1 (167) or G-3 (50). I guess even the G-5 at 475 is <5% of the G-6 (12,000+). So that all fits with the idea of a tiny fraction of the total production being for anti-PR work, while gaining experience with pressurization ahead of the coming B-29. Interesting, I hadn't considered the possibility that the data in the Aircraft Specifications is a typo. Having flown both the F-4 and G-2 in the game, the G-2 definitely "feels" heavier and mushier in a turn, with more nose instability. The F-4 feels like it turns on a dime with better precision in pointability. But that might be placebo effect since I'm interpreting how they feel through the bias of the specification data. Agree that the don't feel very different overall, but for me, the huge advantage of the G-2 is slamming the throttle to full power and fighting for 30 minutes. The F-4 might have higher peak power, but it's only usable for short bursts, always babying the engine. The G-2 feels better for energy tactics since I can just hold the engine at max available power and work the vertical. That's really interesting! Never considered the possibility that the prop could play such a key role in turn performance. I've always heard about the value of the late-war "paddle blades" for better extracting power at high altitudes. One of the great things about this hobby is that even after 30 years, still so much to learn.
  2. Interesting! Didn't know that the Ju-87 lasted until the end of the war. Thanks for the information, learned something today.
  3. Some of them have sun filters, which can help. Others (like the Soviet gunsights in the MiG-3 and Yak-1 ser 69) are just incredibly dim and easily washed out by snow or sun glare. I assume this is historical, given the German gunsights are far brighter and easier to see in all conditions.
  4. I've just started a Career flying the Bf 109 G-2 at Stalingrad. Having flown the Friedrich (F-2 and F-4) previously, I've been looking forward to learning the differences in the famous Gustav. Coming into this campaign, I knew the Gustav series was heavier than Friedrich, being increasingly optimized for 4-engined bomber interception. I also knew the German pilots rated the Friedrich the best overall flying experience, while the Gustav was increasingly "warped" by the weight, power and torque issues. When I looked at the Aircraft Performance information in Battle of Stalingrad, I wasn't surprised to see the G-2 has a SL turn time of 22.2 sec compared to just 20.3 sec for the F-4. That fits with a significantly heavier aircraft. Yet when I compared the actual weights, here's what I came up with: WEIGHTS Bf 109 E-7 Bf 109F-4 Bf 109G-2 Empty 2049 kg 2382 kg 2486 kg Standard 2614 kg 2890 kg 2994 kg Maximum TO 2893 kg 3189 kg 3283 kg For Empty or Standard, the G-2 is only 104 kg heavier than the F-4. That's just 4.3% heavier, yet it has a turn rate almost 10% slower. In contrast, the Friedrich was much heavier than Emil, yet pilots talked of it's sparkling performance and handling. Why did Gustav suffer such a decrease in turn rate for what seems a very modest weight increase? Can 104 kg have that big an effect on an airframe? If so, it would seem that the relative fuel load would be one of the most important facts in dogfights, considering the 109 has 304 kg in fuel alone. Also (unrelated question on the Gustav)... Why was pressurization pursued so halfheartedly in the G series? Learning about the different variants, it seems the odd-numbers (G-1, G-3, G-5, etc) were meant to be pressurized, while even-numbered (G-2, G-4, G-6...) were not. Yet the non-pressurized ones were built in vastly greater quantities. Was pressurization a technology that just didn't work properly? Were the B-17s and Lancasters not flying high enough to need pressurization, and this was more future-proofing against the B-29?
  5. I was wondering when the Ju-87 was finally phased out. I remember reading that they were withdrawn from service after being savaged in the Battle of Britain, so I was a little surprised to see them still arcing down over Stalingrad in August 1942 during my Yak-1 career. Makes sense that the Germans wanted to use them in an environment where they could still establish air superiority. Do we know why the 190s were first deployed in the north? I was surprised that given the centrality of the Stalingrad battle to the German's plan for 1942, that their best new fighter wasn't deployed at the tip of the spear. Appreciate the "low-key" approach in sharing PWCG. I've only recently gotten into BoX after years of flying DCS. I'm still enjoying the built-in Careers, but would welcome the chance to understand the differences in PWCG and see if it's an even better fit. What's the best way to learn about the differences between PWCG and the baseline Careers? A quick pointer to a link is all I need, I'm sure you're tired of being asked that question more generally :). Good tips on the 190 - looking forward to flying it up in Velikie Luki (via the scripted campaign) after I finish my current G-2 Career at Pitomnik.
  6. Ah, so the map & remaining planes are due in September, but the full release (including Careers) is planned for November? That's not too long to wait. Just hoping that the Careers won't be delayed into 2020.
  7. Patrick - PWCG is your baby, right? I've heard great things about it. Yes, I'm avoiding flying 190s directly over Stalingrad since that never happened historically. Nice to have the option, but I'm enjoying learning and experiencing the history along the way, so for my own personal taste I'll probably focus on Kuban. I'm surprised the only option for 190 in Kuban is as ground attack. I would have thought the Germans would need the 190s help in battling for air superiority, but I guess the various 109 models were still sufficiently effective they could rely on them? Or is it more that the Germans had lost air superiority and now required "strike fighters" (to use a more modern term) that could basically rely on speed to strike the target unescorted? Too bad, as I was looking forward to learning how the 190 handled as an air-to-air weapon. I know it's a legend, but I've never flown the Anton in a sim before.
  8. Thad - that's great news about the scripted campaigns planned for Tank Crew. I've been waiting to dive into that until there was more historical content available like Scripted Campaigns or Careers. Do we know if Careers will be available for Battle of Bodenplatte on Map release?
  9. Do we know when the Career modes will be available? At the same time as the Map becomes available? I'm holding off on diving into Bodenplatte until I can "live it historically" by joining a squadron. The research that goes into the Careers is fantastic, and really helps the history come alive.
  10. I've been working my way through the war starting with an I-16 in Oct 1941. Having recently finished a short career in a Yak-1 ser 69, I'm now in a 109 G-2 over Stalingrad. Looking ahead, I'm eagerly awaiting the first chance to fly the Fw 190. The goal is to be historical. Only fly an aircraft when and where it actually served. Based on research in the forum, I found these threads: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/42437-a-question-on-jg51-mölders-and-stalingrad/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_operational_history#Eastern_Front So it seems that this scripted campaign (I./JG 51) is the earliest historical moment I could fly the Fw 190A, correct? And the first dynamic Career that would be historically accurate would need to wait for Battle of Kuban with the A-5? Thanks!
  11. OK - thanks for the reply. Not seeing any other responses, so it sounds like our ability to tailor the campaign difficulty is non-existent, at least for the moment.
  12. Yup, dual UBS is the way to go. Punishing against the fragile 109, relatively straight path, and sufficient ammunition to get 2-3 kills per sortie if you can get behind the enemy.
  13. Sorry if this has been asked previously, but my searches of forum posts aren't turning up an answer. I'm currently flying an Ironman MiG-3 campaign in the 233rd IAP, from 12/5/41 onwards. It's now 1/15/42, and I've flown 27 missions, sufficient to get a good feel for the rhythm of how they're constructed. My challenge is that I keep flipping between Moderate and Hard Difficulty, trying to find the right blend of challenge and realism. Moderate provides roughly equal numbers of MiGs and 109s, but the 109s fly poorly. The same casual turns and gentle split-Ss, over and over. They're easy to shoot down, I never feel pressured by an aggressive enemy. Usually, my MiG comrades will end up cleaning up the sky, and we return with multiple kills per sortie. Very little challenge. Hard provides tougher AI opponents. Now they're more aggressive in attacking, in following, and in evasive maneuvers. Definitely more pulse-pumping. The problem is that my side is ALSO (almost) always outnumbered in the air, with the result that we get shredded over and over, and I end up running home in Boost power with 3-4 109s on my tail, which will chase me for dozens of kms, often not leaving me alone till I drag them over my home base outside Moscow (!) and they get shot up with fuel leaks. The problem seems to be the combination of Numbers and AI Skill both being ratcheted up together. At this point in the air war, the Luftwaffe was having real challenges putting numbers in the sky (given the arctic conditions). OTOH, the Luftwaffe was definitely more experienced and well-trained than the VVS. So I'd love to have the tougher AI skill level (Hard) and equal numbers (Moderate). Are there any mods that can modify the Career difficulty settings in this way for greater historical realism and challenging gameplay?
  14. Gambit21: All good. I missed that you were joking around. Jagermeister: "I crashed a P47 once and I was waiting for my damage trigger to kick in and it didn’t. I started hearing heavy labored breathing in my earphones ... it was me. The breaths got shallower and then stopped. I died. It took about 2 minutes." Wow. That's really cool. It's possible that I'm underestimating how fragile these pilots are, and maybe IL-2:GB is more realistic than I'd thought. I haven't waited after a crash to see if the pilot was actually mortally wounded. I just assumed that if you were going to die, it would happen immediately or else you survived for the future. Thanks for the info on your crash testing, that is really interesting. I'm definitely going to wait in the future and see what happens with my pilot after some of the more gnarly crashes. I do suspect that if you're not dead immediately, if you quit and go to next mission, you're assumed to survive.
  15. Is it really that hard to understand that people have different preferences? I explicitly said "Totally understand that other people fly with a different attitude (hey it's just a sim pilot, crash and restart with another life), but I like to try to stay alive in realistic missions where possible." I do care if my fake little guy dies, because for me much of the fun is flying realistically with a sense of danger and surviving it as best I can. My buddy likes to go up and shoot down as many planes as possible, not caring if he dies. It's all good, I'm not judging his favorite way to fly.
  • Create New...