Hate for British planes?

[inferno]

I've seen a few instances of people really hating on spits and hurris. What's that all about? I'm curious.

 

Also hello, I'm new.

[Feathered_IV]

Hi and welcome!

 

Just put it down to sore losers. Some fight the Spits and Hurris on their own terms and get angry when they lose. Others are those strange breed that barrack for the nazi war machine as the poor underdog who would have won, but the allies cheated.

[6S.Manu]

I love all of them them but I hate the fables behind the Spits' myth. See my sign.

PS: I've always hated the Oleg's Spit. 

Edited February 22, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[Lusekofte]

In old IL2 I avoided Spits because they are just too easy, did not feel right. In CLOD they are more realistic, but my reluctant to fly them made me choose Blue planes. Now I prefer bombers, then I know what to do, not having to patrol or searching for what to do.

I never heard anyone say they hate the Spit.

In BOS I prefer Russian planes for some odd reason, LAGG give me a realistic feeling despite the critique of it FM, witch might be true. 

I think the spit with its spade grip are beautiful

[II./JG27_Rich]

"Any idiot can fly a Spitfire"

[JimmyGiro]

The concept of a 'war game' contains two different mind sets: war and games.

 

The aim of war is to destroy the opponent; cheating is encouraged.

 

The aim of games is to test the players skills, cheating is discouraged.

 

The propaganda of war, otherwise known as 'history', and the kudos of winning games, both strongly effect our state of emotions; therefore when faced with the cognitive dissonance inherent in war games, 'hate' is the inbuilt mechanism to aid personal resolution.

 

Hate is not the problem, it is a human symptom.

 

http://jimmygiro.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/hate-why-gary-glitter-isnt-in-our-gang.html

[MiloMorai]

"Any idiot can fly a Spitfire"

 

Just shows how good of an airplane it is. :)

[Mastermariner]

I don’t browse every corner of the forum but I can’t recall seeing anything like what you claim.

You need to back up your accusation with some examples.

Master

[MiloMorai]

Well Mastermariner, just post the Spitfireperformance link and see who shows up.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I don’t browse every corner of the forum but I can’t recall seeing anything like what you claim. 

 

I haven't seen much of it here, neither in the CLoD-forum, but is was prevalent over in the old IL2-forums. Then again, we don't have Spitfores here, and only the early quite lame version in CLoD.

 

The "hate" for the Spitfire probably hang on the later marks (Mk.VIII and IX) were really, really good fighter planes. Or rather, they were very nimble and fairly well armed (contrary to the Mustang), it's real weakness being the lack of range. That means the Spitfire is ideally suited for the air-Quake style of fighting common to many dogfight-servers, where the lack of range is of no consequence. This is contrary to the Mustang which has range, but lack good armament and isn't very nimble, and the German planes that had the firepower, but doesn't turn well. The Japanese "Frank" and the Russian La-7 are kind of in the same category, but most maps of that kind seem to have been based on an Western European setting.

 

The only people I've heard bad-talking the Hurricanes were on-line fighter jockeys wanting to fly Spitfires and ending up in their less glamorous cousin. Personally I love the rickety old bird and would always take the Hurri when available.

Edited February 22, 2014 by 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

[Finkeren]

I tend to think, that certain planes tend to be over-glamourised by the warbirds crowd, be it Spitfire, P-51, B-17, P-47 etc. and that makes me kinda lose interest (sorta like what Extreme_One was refering to) I don't go around spouting my disdain for these planes, but instead I tend to gravitate towards (and talk at length about) planes that I think are overlooked. Fortunately the IL-2 series has opened the flight sim communitys eyes to many of those planes that should be iconic, but which have always stood in the shadow of the established icons.

 

As for the Hurricane, I don't have anything against it as such, it's just big, ugly and was on the way out halfway through the war, which makes it kinda "meh" to me.

[Feathered_IV]

I've always been very fond of British aircraft.  Where other countries tend to construct them.  Britain tends to contrapt them.  I find them endearing because their failures are often beautiful and heroic, while their successes seem to surprise even themselves. 

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

HAHAHA Feathered! That's a great way of putting it.

 

+1

[Sternjaeger]

Under a technical point of view, if you look at the innards of a Spitfire or a Hurricane, the most recurrent question is "why?!?!".. British engineering is one of the most unorthodox ever, yet it works (most of the time!). It's kinda hard to explain, it's like there's a certain element of "kit sports car" to them which makes them very fascinating, this, together with the graceful lines and captivating colour schemes, makes them quite legendary. 

 

Having said that, bringing them to battle must have been quite another thing, especially if compared to their American counterparts. 

 

I personally love the look of all British aircraft, in fact, the uglier the better! 

[II./JG27_Rich]

Just shows how good of an airplane it is. :)

Agree.

Edited February 22, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[Sternjaeger]

+1

 

The LOOK of the plane is the thing that first grabs me.

 

Surely we're all the same like that.

 

I mean, when checking out a girl, we care more about her figure than her capacity for eloquent conversation, right?

 

But on the other hand, when you see a dog with three legs you kind of love it even more, know what I mean?

 

true :-) another thing that really makes the difference is colour schemes: mosquitoes and beaufighers don't look like much, but put some invasion stripes on them and oooooh mama... 

Edited February 22, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[Sternjaeger]

Quick story.

 

Before I became interested in WWII planes, must be about twenty or so years ago, there was some memorial service happening near where I live.

 

I didn't really know this, or I did but it hadn't really registered.

 

Anyway I left my house to walk up the road to the shop and suddenly heard this sound, it was a low grumble that became a drone which became a roar.

Now I'd know it instantly but then I wasn't sure what it was.

 

Suddenly 4 Spitfires flew overhead at about, I guess, 600 metres above me ... and I wept. Not like a girl!

At that instant I understood what that fly-by was for, what it was commemorating, how important it was to my existence.

 

That moment is why I love the Spitfire.

 

that's the kinda stuff that brands you for life as an aviation nutjob 

 

My wife was not into aircraft, but when I took her to the hangar and she witnessed a low pass of the P-51s she was sold 

[Sternjaeger]

Getting airborne is easier (and cheaper) than what it seems mate: a microlight license is cheaper than what you'd think and you get to fly very cool, fast stuff!

 

[II./JG27_Rich]

Nice story Extreme_One . With me and 109s it was a story my Dad told me when I was 8 or 9  when he was over seas. He was sitting up on this hill around the town of Monte Saint Angelo watching some engineres fix a small bridge when all of a sudden he could hear this aircraft coming. He looked up but nothing. It was getting closer and closer, finally he looked down and this 109 going full steam just cleared the bridge and went by him a litttle lower through the valley, then came a Spitfire after him. He said the 109 was going faster lol. Maybe he came out of a dive though eh.Then anytime we were out together and we saw a 109 model kit that was resonable I'd be able to get it. Ever since it's been Messerschmitts on the brain. I remember these kits were a whole dollar when I was a kid

 

Edited February 22, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[II./JG27_Rich]

And the Axis aeroplanes were always on fire on the box art LOL

Edited February 22, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[inferno]

Oh so this thread got moved here.

 

I must say that the first plane I ever managed to land in 1946 was the Spit so it's probably true that any idiot can fly it. I guess that's also why I personally love it haha. I'm pretty sure I did a little dance the first time I landed a plane intact in IL-2.

 

Oh and the "hate" I've seen for the plane has just been scattered about on different websites. I've never seen anyone bad mouth other planes like the 109 or f4u or whatever so it just seemed odd to me.

[Finkeren]

Nice story Extreme_One . With me and 109s it was a story my Dad told me when I was 8 or 9  when he was over seas. He was sitting up on this hill around the town of Monte Saint Angelo watching some engineres fix a small bridge when all of a sudden he could hear this aircraft coming. He looked up but nothing. It was getting closer and closer, finally he looked down and this 109 going full steam just cleared the bridge and went by him a litttle lower through the valley, then came a Spitfire after him. He said the 109 was going faster lol. Maybe he came out of a dive though eh.Then anytime we were out together and we saw a 109 model kit that was resonable I'd be able to get it. Ever since it's been Messerschmitts on the brain. I remember these kits were a whole dollar when I was a kid

 

 

That box art is awesome. Just look at the historical accuracy, impressive! Also I think, this is the only example I've seen of the plane model that's in the box being the one that is shot down on the box art - prolly would still have been non-PC at the time to even admit, that a 109 ever shot down a British fighter. And what's this: 1/4 scale? Was this model really 2 meters long? Damn.

 

BTW: As for the Bf 109 being faster than the Spit, why would that seem strange? For long periods of the war, that was the reality. Emil vs. Spit Mk 1 = essentially a tie, Friedrich vs. Mk 5 = 109 faster, early Gustav vs. early Mk 9 = 109 slightly faster, Gustav 10/Kurfürst vs. Mk 16 = tie.

[Pierre64]

And what's this: 1/4 scale? Was this model really 2 meters long? Damn.

Actually 1/48th.

One-quarter-inch-to-the-foot (1/4"=1'-0").

 

By the way, fascinating and unusual camo scheme: purple with red markings and yellow spinner. (Probably RLM 28 Weinrott, RLM 23 and 04 ) 

[Finkeren]

Leave it to the Brits to muck things up

 

I've seen those purple-ish colors on other old kits of Luftwaffe planes. I think it might be the result of a litteral interpretation of some ww2 color photographs. I have seen pictures of Bf 109s where the dark grey looks distinctly brownish or even purple.

[ITAF_Rani]

Hate spitfire and hurryes...is ridicolus in my hopinion..

 

They are a master piece of the flying history...like all the other warbirds...

 

I' m devoted to axis fighter planes....but spitfire is very nice to see and fly....maybe in the old oleg' s IL 2 sim the Mitchell' s bird was too overmodeled...and for this reason...win a dogfight against spitfire adds always more satifasction...

 

Me 109 is a deadly flying shark in my opinion and i love G series....

[MiloMorai]

That box art is awesome. Just look at the historical accuracy, impressive! Also I think, this is the only example I've seen of the plane model that's in the box being the one that is shot down on the box art - prolly would still have been non-PC at the time to even admit, that a 109 ever shot down a British fighter. And what's this: 1/4 scale? Was this model really 2 meters long? Damn.

 

BTW: As for the Bf 109 being faster than the Spit, why would that seem strange? For long periods of the war, that was the reality. Emil vs. Spit Mk 1 = essentially a tie, Friedrich vs. Mk 5 = 109 faster, early Gustav vs. early Mk 9 = 109 slightly faster, Gustav 10/Kurfürst vs. Mk 16 = tie.

 

Is that a typo? Mk16 is a re-engined Mk9. You mean SpitXIV.

 

As for haters of British airplanes, especially the Spitfire, and even the British, there is a member here that does.

[Emgy]

Unfortunately, sometimes people respond to (perceived or true) fanboyism by overcompensating and going totally anti. It happens in a lot of forums, not just for flightsims.

 

For instance, some people give Bioshock infinite bottom grades because it got overhyped and didn't live up to their expectation. And then they go around internet gaming forums and argue with anyone who thinks it was okay++.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Calvamos

[siipperi]

Because Me 262 is way cooler than spitfire.

 

But seriously based on what? There is awfully lot people that love spits and mosquitos (and im big fan of later). But I think most of german planes have more character than allies planes. I mean the look.

[Emgy]

 

 

But seriously based on what?

Mm, this topic was surprising to me too.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Spitfire is the celebrity plane of Western Allies, X-wing of WW2; if a person not interested in WW2 aviation can name at least one fighter from the war, it likely is a Spitfire. So it's only natural for elitists out there to dismiss Spitfire as "plane that every noob envisions himself expertly piloting when he's buying his first sim (or downloading War Thunder)" and decide that savy simmer like himself is already beyond and above flying Spits... especially if he never flew it that much in first place! Sopwith Camel is similarily hyped up as "the" WWI plane and gets the same treatment from RoF pilots (FM making it faster than it was does not help, either) - depending whom you ask, Camel is best plane in the game, limiting noobmobile people should move on from, overpowered plane that ruins multiplayer or all of above.

Not sure why anyone would mix good ol' Hurrie into this, though? Possibly because many people can't tell Spitfire from Hurricane?

Edited March 4, 2014 by Trupobaw

[MiloMorai]

Not sure why anyone would mix good ol' Hurrie into this, though? Possibly because many people can't tell Spitfire from Hurricane?

 

That is true because German pilots claimed Spitfire even if it wasn't.

[Volkoff]

I think that the Spitfire is a very lovely looking warbird. My only real concern, and potential area for bias against the Spitfire, would be the forward fuel tank and the potentiality of being burned rather catastrophically, if not fatally, in the event of a fire. Did late models provide some protection for the pilot, so as to minimize the potential for serious burn injuries or death, due to fire?   MJ

Edited March 4, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[johncage]

I've seen a few instances of people really hating on spits and hurris. What's that all about? I'm curious.

 

Also hello, I'm new.

anytime something is overrated, ie, lots of people love it, people tend to impulsively and instinctively recoil.

 

there's a bandwagon mentality on both sides at play.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I think that the Spitfire is a very lovely looking warbird. My only real concern, and potential area for bias against the Spitfire, would be the forward fuel tank and the potentiality of being burned rather catastrophically, if not fatally, in the event of a fire. Did late models provide some protection for the pilot, so as to minimize the potential for serious burn injuries or death, due to fire?   MJ

 

I believe the Hurricane was a lot worse in that regard. There were quite a lot of very badly disfigured Hurricane pilots. I'm not sure whether this had to do with the rest of the plane being sturdy enough the pilot more often survived cockpit fires, or the Spitfire having better pilot protection though.

[J2_Trupobaw]

I suspect Hurricanes sturdiness meant pilots kept flying them in situations where Spitfire pilot would be bailing out (like cannon hit to "soft" parts of fuselage). When Hurricane was downed, the cause was more likely to be a serious one, like engine fire. Also, cockpit fire in doped material fuselage was likely more dangerous and left less time to bail out unharmed than in all-metal Spitfire.