Tactical Air War

[FTC_Etherlight]

 

[Willy__]

 

-snip-

 

LMAO     

[MeoW.Scharfi]

hahahhaha       

[Guest deleted@103832]

I've seen some opinions voiced that Blue should be focused on airfield bombing because they can't compete with Red in armor elimination and should play to their strength of bigger bomb load capability, and I have to come to the conclusion that opinion is spot-on correct. Problem is, based on my readings over the years concerning east front aerial warfare, that tactical approach, and the Red team capabilities forcing that approach, do not even remotely correlate with historical accounts of what actually occurred on the east front. I'd like to make a few points:

 

1) There were numerous airfield raids by both sides, no doubt, but 1) I've never seen any evidence indicating that airfield raids were of a persistent higher priority than supporting ground forces, and 2) airfield raids were focused primarily on eliminating enemy aircraft, and secondarily on destroying fuel and ammunition - not facilities. Often it was advantageous not to destroy the facilities because the attackers might be using that very field themselves within a few days - and in many cases the "facilities" might be a only a couple of small shacks for the command element while maintenance and loading occurred out in the open, or under portable tents, and the pilots and ground crew either slept in slit trenches or were housed in the nearest village. Airfield raids were also generally low-level bombing/strafing attacks, not high level bombing attacks from 4/5000 meters, which is the approach required in TAW for Axis bombers to survive the airfield AAA defenses. 

 

2) The Luftwaffe placed such a high priority on ground attack that it created a Schalchtflieger air arm in Sep 43 under the direction of a General officer. That decision was based on positive evaluations of two years of Ju 87, Bf 110, and Bf 109/Fw 190 Jabo performance engaged in the elimination of enemy ground units, including enemy armor. I am aware that decision was also based in part on the performance of the Hs 129, not currently present in this game, and the highly effective SD 1,2,4, and 10 bomblets, also not currently modeled in the game. 

 

3) The Il-2 destroys Axis armor in TAW at a rate far surpassing historical reality. If you are interested in my full opinion on this subject, I have posted in the History/Aviation/Il-2 Overrated? topic, looking for answers as to what is actually going on to cause this disparity between historical and in-game performance. So far I haven't read any responses that shed much light on the situation. Regardless, this ahistorical in-game phenomenon perpetuates an additional ahistorical phenomenon: it completely nullifies and renders moot any Blue team effort at ground attack themselves. 

 

I'm not one to complain without presenting potential solutions, though my novice proficiency in the IL2 editor precludes me from knowing how many of these solutions are workable in the TAW server environment:

 

1) The highlighting of an airfield under attack with a circular red ring should only be visible to pilots who took off from that airfield, not every single pilot playing. Individual Luftwaffe pilots were generally tuned in to the frequency of their own unit - many times escorting fighters and bombers weren't even on the same channel, let alone in the overall command information loop for everything occurring across several hundreds of km of front. And the majority of VVS aircraft didn't even have communication equipment at all until much later in the war. 

 

2) Likewise, the small dots indicating presence and degree of presence of aircraft on friendly and enemy airfields give away much more information than the average pilot would have been privy to during the conflict. If it is possible to turn off that feature, I suggest doing it. 

 

3) Remove the large aerodromes and hangars on airfields (excepting the very few major ones) and replace them with a couple of tents, more fuel stockpiles, and many, many more static aircraft, the majority of which are simply parked in the open and not behind protective barriers. Since our aircraft disappear when we despawn, the elimination of static aircraft by percentage should limit the number of players able to take off from that airfield. 

 

4) If possible, a good feature would for the defending flak units to be "caught napping" approximately 10 to 15% of the time, for approximately the first 15-20 seconds an enemy aircraft comes in range. 

 

5) Determine the reasons behind the IL-2's ahistorical performance and if possible, make corrections. Currently I am at a loss to explain it, and if the issue is in fact due to unrealistic modeling of the 23mm cannon AP shell, the fix can obviously only come from the developers. I wish I had a solution for this, but I don't. 

 

6) Taking over an enemy airfield by landing eight transports only makes sense if the airfield has already been abandoned, and I recommend eliminating that feature. Air units do not seize and hold terrain. Even if those transports are full of infantry, if the airfield is behind enemy lines a small unit like that would be eliminated quickly. As for paratroopers, if a ground unit cannot reach them by one or two maps they would be wiped out as well. On the other hand, I recommend the enabling of commandos or saboteurs to seize and deny use of ANY airfield for one map duration of time if (Luftwaffe) a certain number of paratroopers are successfully dropped in a prescribed radius as is currently the case, or (VVS) if a certain number of commandos are landed at the nearest unused airfield closest to the targeted airfield. There are many of those dormant airfields on the map. Airfield seizure was not the driving force behind tactical decisions on the eastern front. When enemy forces approached, air units were usually able to quickly fly away and utilize ground transport to vacate support personnel to another airfield behind friendly lines long before the first enemy troops arrived. The air units on both sides supported the ground units; I get the feeling sometimes in TAW the reverse is the case. 

 

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the LG Team for TAW. I make a donation at the end of every campaign, and I highly encourage everyone to do the same. I remember paying anywhere from $3 to $10 per hour to fly online in Air Warrior and Warbirds 20 years ago, and believe me that shit added up pretty fast. To fly for free in a great server, created and maintained by a bunch of guys donating their time and effort for free, is simply awesome. Thank you LG Team - - - - - 

Edited March 1, 2017 by deleted@103832

[Irgendjemand]

So how was the overall outcome. Did the germans stand any chance or did they get utterly wiped out as usual?

[SDV_DecabrisT]

In my time zone one could see one of blue very rare (with only good exceptions as JG8 for example). Although they were on the server - from 20 to 30 pilots.

Where have all of these people been??? What did they do???

Edited March 1, 2017 by SDVr_DecabrisT

[Major_Issue]

Typical day flying VVS:

 

- Join our speaking device

- Group of 4+

- Some pick groundattackers, some fighters. Mostly more fighters than groundattack (appx. two)

- Select target, often tanks

- "il2, wait, we drag the AAA"

- AA destroyed, il2 raining havoc

- "109, west"

  "Alt?"

  "low, alone"

  "lol"

- 109 shot down, after a while same thing

- il2 out of ammo and bombs. 

- Repeat

 

OR:

 

- Flying MiGs at higher alts

- "109s coming in, above"

  "See them, hard to get, far out"

  "Are they buggering out?"

  "Yes...."

 

 

 

There is a lot of theorycrafting that can be done why and how the LW looses but this is just a shameful display. Whenever a 109 decided to fight in his conditions and climb away, energy fight as hell (especially the F-4 lately), we had almost no chance but to run. It worked. We've been chased away by 3-4 coordinated 109s. How often? Can't tell but more often than not 109s spawn at the closest airfield possible, dont bother climbing much and get shot down. 

 

Other thing: Bombers flying lonely at comfy altitude for our fighters at 3-4k directly over airfields (which they don't attack). Most I see of ze germans in the chat is complaining. Complaining about this, complaining about that. Lala op, my guns don't work. I sometimes get the impression that half the energy that is wasted for complaining couldve been put into proper flying or practicing it. Honestly, most of the time I spent in a a compared to the 109s really shitty LaGG but still managed to be useful. Coordinationsproblems are mentioned here before but I think that a lot is looking for excuses to not practise certain things or a lack of flying dicipline. 

 

I know that not everybody has the time to get into squads or practise but after all that's the learning curve of a sim.

 

 

Regardless I want to thank the admins for making this campaign possible and wish them all the best in improving the server.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Der_Kurfuerst

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Thank you for the campain, it was more fun than the last one.

I have already expressed my wishes for the next one.
(historcal plane set, lay it out for the MINIMUM duration of a war.)

 

I fear that the "imbalance" of teams is for the time being not solvable. At the end of the day the players are making the difference and in this campain we had many many skilled red pilots.
This was caused by the player imbalance at the start of the campain (26 germans vs 2 reds). Good players who felt they could deal with the numbers and the limited planeset switched.
That are naturally players which invest a lot of time into the SIM. Lone Wulfs or pilots who fly only blue remained.

Its not easy to solve this but maybe a more natural planeset would help.

The imbalanced planeset (especially fighterwise) made the switch from blue to red hard. For a player with only BoS, there was only the lagg 3 in the final map. No yak1,
So in my approach(see above) "the average player" has more planes to choose from and a switch from blue to red is more attractive. And the more "average players" we can distribute to both teams the more we get a balanced experience. I know that sounds maybe weired, but the current planeset promotes the "I can do that player" to red and nobody else. 
 

[JaffaCake]

It was a little disappointing that the targets could be taken out by as little as 2 players with how AAA is targeting right now. This meant the maps weren't decided in server's prime time, but when the population was low and people could fly unopposed. Count in the il2 ability to eliminate close to the entire tank column its hardly surprising how many wins came from tank kills.

[Haza]

Thank you for the campain, it was more fun than the last one.

 

I have already expressed my wishes for the next one.

(historcal plane set, lay it out for the MINIMUM duration of a war.)

 

I fear that the "imbalance" of teams is for the time being not solvable. At the end of the day the players are making the difference and in this campain we had many many skilled red pilots.

This was caused by the player imbalance at the start of the campain (26 germans vs 2 reds). Good players who felt they could deal with the numbers and the limited planeset switched.

That are naturally players which invest a lot of time into the SIM. Lone Wulfs or pilots who fly only blue remained.

 

Its not easy to solve this but maybe a more natural planeset would help.

 

The imbalanced planeset (especially fighterwise) made the switch from blue to red hard. For a player with only BoS, there was only the lagg 3 in the final map. No yak1,

So in my approach(see above) "the average player" has more planes to choose from and a switch from blue to red is more attractive. And the more "average players" we can distribute to both teams the more we get a balanced experience. I know that sounds maybe weired, but the current planeset promotes the "I can do that player" to red and nobody else. 

 

 

 

TheRedSheriff

 

We could limit the number of fighters on each side as a ratio to the number of Bombers/Ground attack only configured fighters that are in game on that side.  That way it might encourage more players to get into bombers, or it could just kill the server DEAD!?

 

 

EDITED:  Removed sentence as deemed to be passive aggressive.

 

Regards 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Haza

[FTC_DerSheriff]

TheRedSheriff

 

We could limit the number of fighters on each side as a ratio to the number of Bombers/Ground attack only configured fighters that are in game on that side.  That way it might encourage more players to get into bombers, or it could just kill the server DEAD!?

 

Perhaps, having looked at your TAW and WOL stats we might even get you in a bomber and try for yourself those other aircraft in this game, although I'm not suggesting that you are just "the average player".

 

Regards 

Yeah, sure get personal. That's always a good start for a discussion and lays always a good foundation for upcoming answers.

 

Anyway, I have flown Bombers on both servers in the past.

 

But why I answer to passive aggressive comments? I don't know.

Edited March 1, 2017 by TheRedSheriff

[LLv34_Temuri]

It was a little disappointing that the targets could be taken out by as little as 2 players with how AAA is targeting right now.

This got me thinking if using a dedicated Attack Air command for each AAA piece would solve this issue of AAA sticking to only one player. I haven't checked how TAW does it, so I don't know. It's at least worth checking out.

[Scojo]

This got me thinking if using a dedicated Attack Air command for each AAA piece would solve this issue of AAA sticking to only one player. I haven't checked how TAW does it, so I don't know. It's at least worth checking out.

Wouldn't they still always just attack the first plane that entered the airspace? From my experience, that's the problem with AAA right now

[SCG_Darbzy]

RED WINS!! RED WINS!! RED WINS!!

 

 

Seriously though, this server isn't perfect but it's still the best damn multiplayer combat flight sim out there as far as I'm concerned. I love navigating and it always gets the adrenaline pumping when you find yourself in a big scrap.

 

I'm statistically the worst pilot on my squadron, but I still had a great time. I've just sent some cash to the LG team for their hard work and (mostly thankless) dedication to this game. Please continue to develop this great server as I hope to be playing it many more times in the future.

 

Danke!

[LLv24_Veccu_VR]

Hi Veccu! Thanks for video, I didn't record it from my side. It looks different from my cockpit. Second 110 hit me hard and I missed trying to avoid collision. But any way your formation was impressive Salute!

Hi!

 

I do not see any explanation why LLv32_vvaris fell down, no hits from your guns either... according to him it was "taran", ram by you... weard

Either I don´t understand why Stableace´s left propeller went broken (bent bacwards) as it is shown in video. Usually if shot, it wont go like that... veryvery weard that also..

 

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=21112&name=LLv32_vvaris

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=21081&name=Ktif

 

 

see you in the air...

 

S!

 

-veccu-

Edited March 1, 2017 by LLv24_Veccu

[Roo5ter]

RED WINS!! RED WINS!! RED WINS!!

 

 

Seriously though, this server isn't perfect but it's still the best damn multiplayer combat flight sim out there as far as I'm concerned. I love navigating and it always gets the adrenaline pumping when you find yourself in a big scrap.

 

I'm statistically the worst pilot on my squadron, but I still had a great time. I've just sent some cash to the LG team for their hard work and (mostly thankless) dedication to this game. Please continue to develop this great server as I hope to be playing it many more times in the future.

 

Danke!

I got really annoyed at the Red team for some reason.  That's why I took my CM+1 Stuka at the end of a mission and did the near suicide dive bomb on your IL2 on the runway :D

[Sputnik77]

I was wondering about possibilities to coordinate players more by creating dynamic sorties and an User Interface expanding game's ability in this field.

 

In general it would be a data-driven web-application that would organize players into sorties and coordinate their efforts. At the end of each mission it would analyze data from log, comparing it with data it gathered from players input into the website and update results/ generate next mission.

 

Brief description of concept:

 

 

So as player logs in to the website, where current status of the mission is shown with interactive map and list of generated sorties:

1. Available Sorties tab:

- list of automatically generated sorties in briefing status (able to join)

- list of sorties in "In progress" status (not able to join, but can see details like start time, target, home airbase, list of players taking part and their airplane types)

- list of players on the server and logged in to the website that dont take part in any sortie(lobby room)

2. Choosing sortie to fly (sortie detail page)

- player clicks available sortie on the list and goes to sortie detail page

- map showing target, home airbase, route

- briefing containing description of target, success conditions (number of units to destroy)

- list of available slots with airplane types

- some slots already occupied by other players

- choose slot by pressing button - this registers your details against that slot and refreshes page to show slot occupied for other people

- when ready press ready button

- when min number of players reached and in ready state, the flight leader can press "Mission start" button.

- after mission starst, the all participants in sortie have 3min to spawn at homebase specified in sortie briefing, at this time if still slots available someone can still join the mission as long as manages to spawn in time.

3. Flying Sortie

- all the players joined and spawned at correct airbase according to sortie briefing

- fly to target and perform task

- shot down = sortie end for this player

- after successful mission and landing = sortie ends

- each player can end his participation in sortie by pressing cancel sortie button on website, this is equal to return to base because of damage

4. Results

- back to the website, each player have to click "end sortie" button to return to lobby and be able to participate in another sortie

- results of mission are in status "waiting for results verification" until the mission ends and log file can be analyzed

- analyzing flight log and comparing with sortie data saved in database against each player taking part in it:

* checking if player spawned at correct airbase and within sortie start time limit

* checking if player engaged target specified in sortie briefing, all other targets will not count (ground units)

* checking if player landed within sortie end limit and if cancelled while in flight, checking if he was damaged

* checking status of target and calculating sortie success rate

* checking player "sortie end" event time against time when target was engaged, estimating if player quit sortie before getting to target

- saving analyzed data and displaying sortie results on website, adjusting players ranks and statistics, adding bonuses for sortie completion percentage, punishing players who did not comply with rules

 

Example sortie: Recon

 

Briefing (on website)

Perform an unarmed recon over enemy positions. You can report on 5 enemy positions (can take up to 5 photos).

Successful recon ends with landing on friendly airbase. If aircraft is destroyed, the photos are lost and recon report will not be submitted.

 

Takeoff: Some Example Airbase (grid 1123.23)

 

Available Slots:

#1 Ju-88 (recon) - player: Sputnik_77   [sTART SORTIE]

 

Start sortie

Click the Start sortie button and alt-tab into game.

Select specified airbase and Ju-88 with empty payload.

Spawn, fly to enemy positions, spot ground units, note their grid on map (screenshot optional), rtb.

 

End sortie

alt-tab to website to fuill in recon data and end sortie

 

Add Recon Data:

#1 target type: [select type from the list] in grid: [type the grid number in format xxxx.x] add photo: [click] (optional)

#2 target type: [select type from the list] in grid: [type the grid number in format xxxx.x] add photo: [click] (optional)

#3 target type: [select type from the list] in grid: [type the grid number in format xxxx.x] add photo: [click] (optional)

#4 target type: [select type from the list] in grid: [type the grid number in format xxxx.x ]add photo: [click] (optional)

#5 target type: [select type from the list] in grid: [type the grid number in format xxxx.x] add photo: [click] (optional)

 

[END SORTIE] - click

 

Results

At the mission end the application validates recon data input by user. It compares it with mission file and position of actual units on map.

If pilot managed to specify correct type of target (ground defenses, supply depot, factory, field base etc) and the grid number provided is within max error range (lets say 3km) from real position of unit on the map, then the enemy unit pops up on the map in next mission. It becomes a valid target and in next mission, sorties are generated to destroy it.

Player who successfully recognized enemy units gets a score bonus, rank update etc....

 

 

 

 

I can create a proper document with the whole description of each feature with wireframes and user cases. That will take few weeks. Then the implementation of web app - probably another 3-4 months.

Does it make sense?

[JG700_Rammjager]

Hi.

 

Reds won a campaign. What a surprise ... lol :-DDDD

They are constantly outnumbered (even 4 times less reds than blue on server sometimes), they had shitty planes - slow ratas, crap LaGG, unarmored pe-2 (only 50 percent capacity which have Ju-88 or He-111).

And when You open on TAW Statistic page - 9 of 10 pilots with highest number of air kills are red. LOL :-DD 

Two days ago with Widu we are chased a damaged (white and grey smoke) LaGG. Guest what - he escaped from two undamaged F4 (as I heard F4 is one of the best planes of BoS/M/K ...)

Next war give red I-16 only and blue F4. I think blue will loose quickly - of course IF MK squad will fly red side ;-)

 

Regards.

Ramm.

Edited March 1, 2017 by JG700_Rammjager

[I./JG1_Nechy]

i see for germans more big proble, why Rus have LA5  and germans no  FW190?   because is coreectly maped? comon guys be fair.  80% percent russian planes are boosted over real fly model and speed, an u do this?   And what next_?  G2 too good plane hmm beter give it out.  and in future u allow germany only e7 and stuka aand maaaaaby He111?   

 

Us JG1 no cry around boosted and no real russians planes, but we too want all german planes !!  sure g-4 and now A5 or new bf 110 and rus have new Yak.    Pls be fait nothing more-  because im sure for La5 u allow new engine update 

[Major_Issue]

Yea great. Now it's about "faulty" FM again? Seriously? 

La 5 is hardly a match for the F-4 when flown corretly and the F-4 is arguably the best plane (maybe besides the Fw).

Even if the LW had the Fw it wouldnt have made a big difference. Planes aren't hardly the problem of the campaign.

[Scojo]

80% percent russian planes are boosted over real fly model and speed

Proof?

[Tuesday]

Why do people keep suggesting the I-16 is crappy? 

 

It might not hold 550 in level flight on the deck, but it's probably the best fighter in the game. 

 

The only crappy part about it is how easy it is to forget the bloody doors!

[I./JG1_Nechy]

Proof?

absolut any war memroies? any post and in war testing?   or u need more?

[Scojo]

Why do people keep suggesting the I-16 is crappy? 

 

It might not hold 550 in level flight on the deck, but it's probably the best fighter in the game. 

 

The only crappy part about it is how easy it is to forget the bloody doors!

What makes it such a good fighter? (Genuinely asking. I don't fly it much)

absolut any war memroies? any post and in war testing?   or u need more?

Oh nice. I didn't know this counts as proof. I can do that too, watch....

 

 

"109s are over modeled in this game. My proof is war memories, war testing, do I need any more?"

[HR_Tumu]

Thx again to all the people made possible this competition. 

 

good job red side , like i read before this edition had very good red pilots .

Thx blue side for all the combats.

 

Waiting for next edition.

 

[Roo5ter]

absolut any war memroies? any post and in war testing?   or u need more?

The memories reside in our German blood, we just have to find and trigger them.

 

[StG77_Kondor]

Why do people keep suggesting the I-16 is crappy? 

 

It might not hold 550 in level flight on the deck, but it's probably the best fighter in the game. 

 

The only crappy part about it is how easy it is to forget the bloody doors!

That 'crappy' I-16 wasted many many MANY a blue 109E-7s. I believe it was almost a 2-1 ratio on purely 109E7 vs I16 losses. Top speed isn't quite there, but she an accelerate well off of a dive and all it takes is for the Emil pilot to make one mistake for the Rata to kill him. Rata in that sense more forgiving in a 1v1 situation. 

[Willy__]

What makes it such a good fighter? (Genuinely asking. I don't fly it much)

 

The ability of turning in a dime, very resistant to damage, very small and hard to hit, russian guns kills almost anything with one burst. It can outclimb e7s aswell.

 

If we went by war memories LW should be flying F4's while VVS was still flying biplanes and ratas, without proper communication between pilots (no radios). But then again, since this is a game and we play for fun I guess some sort of "balancing" was needed. At least in terms of multiplayer gameplay.

Edited March 1, 2017 by JAGER_Staiger

[Roo5ter]

A lot of people commend the I16 for it's turning capabilities but I have found some success in the E7 while fighting ratas by doing low speed tight turns with flaps.  The Rata cannot keep itself aloft in that situation with the tiny wings.  You can use that to regain an advantage or put them into an unstable nose down condition that allows you to accelerate out and reset or retreat quite safely.

It really is a fun matchup and I love how visceral it feels flying the I16 and seeing your cannons as they fire.  I also love hearing my little cockpit doors rip off as I forget to put them up.

[Tuesday]

What makes it such a good fighter? (Genuinely asking. I don't fly it much)

 

 

Visibility is unmatched; armament can be tailored to the pilots' strengths and/or their intended mission. 

 

It's already slow, so there is no really limiting engine weakness to using it at high altitudes.  Have brought this baby up to 8km before - there was another one at 9km above me.  You can throw it around pretty easily no matter what height, but there is a nasty wing dip that can be fatal at low alts. 

 

Start flying it more and you'll pretty quickly realize it can hold its own.  Set the pitch to 93% on the techno-chat and you won't over-rev the engine.

[I./JG68_Sperber]

Aircraft Flight and Technical Specifications and Operational Details

Started by Han, Nov 05 2016 21:57

 

I-16

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 448 km/h

Climb rate at sea level: 16.7 m/s

BF 109 E7

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Emergency: 477 km/h

Climb rate at sea level: 14 m/s

 

In the last TAW campaign, I could not escape an I-16, which was on the same level.

The difference from 2,7 m/s +/- 5m/s  are the problem

[Scojo]

Ah ok cool. I'll have to try it more. The few times I have flown it I felt like I couldn't deal with the boom n' zoom in it, but it sounds like that's because I was always too low

 

Thanks for the info guys

[I./JG1_Nechy]

änd ask how long can I16 fly in boost and how long E7??? i think e7 is max 1 minutes, if u have closed radiators maby less

[Scojo]

änd ask how long can I16 fly in boost and how long E7??? i think e7 is max 1 minutes, if u have closed radiators maby less

Are you implying the game's I-16's boost time is longer than the real I-16?

[Roo5ter]

 

 

In the last TAW campaign, I could not escape an I-16, which was on the same level.

The difference from 2,7 m/s +/- 5m/s  are the problem

 

The comment laughing at how horrible the I16 was earlier was obviously ignorant.  A quite capable fighter that is simple and can be learned very quickly.

[I./JG68_Sperber]

I only fight with an I-16 when snow lies, then I can see them ...

[JG700_Rammjager]

To TAW Admins.

 

Run another war with conditions like we had in a previous one.

Change one thing - let ppl fly all 7 maps. (maybe increase a number of tanks which destroing is needed to win map ;-) )

Probably it will be 7:0 for reds, but all players here want to fly TAW.

Last campaign start 12.02.2017  - ends 28.02.2017. It's only 16 days of flying.

Time of flying on TAW is shorter than waiting for another campaign.... :-D

 

Ramm.

[I./JG68_Sperber]

YES ! I want fly MAP 6 and 7 too

[JaffaCake]

Why not just keep the campaign running at all times and rotate through the maps? Then as soon as they have something new release it

[FTC_DerSheriff]

This is the i16 vs a bf109E7 under the same (summer) condictions in comparision of levelspeed. Additionally the E7 outlclimbs the I16 by a hughe margin especially at high speeds.
Cheers

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by DerSheriff