Yak-1 and Bf.109G-2 - Multiplayer Impressions

[Chuck_Owl]

Good evening, everyone!
 
Now that the Russian pilots have been given access to the Yak in multiplayer, I felt I'd share some of my impressions.
 
First, I feel the Yak is a fantastic bird to fly. It does not quite fly like my beloved Spitfire, but it has a more "natural" tendancy to turn (in other words, it doesn't spin on a dime... it will actually spin before you come to this point), which I like. The Yak does not quite climb as fast as a 109, but the lightness of the structure gives us Red pilots a much better chance against a 109 pilot that doesn't have the patience to boom and zoom us to death. The Yak has a very tight radius when performing Immelmans and Split S, which comes very handy when you're going defensive. 
 
Here's a multiplayer video when I was flying with Mastiff. We can already see  much more agressive VVS pilots than we previously had, which is good. :D Oh, and the improved clouds and cloud effects are just gorgeous. 
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OKcRp5IOUk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OKcRp5IOUk
 
Honestly, I have no idea about how "realistic" the Yak actually is in this game. I haven't done excel charts to compare in-game aerodynamic model vs test charts, so I guess I'll never really know how "real" this model is. But my gut feeling says that it does feel great and it feels fun to fly. 
 
Also, I would like to bring up the fact that I strongly disagree with the artificial "team balancer" currently in place on the servers. When I want to fly with other squadmates, we connect at the same time and the spawn icons are greyed out with "MAX" written in red over it. The server prevents too many players to spawn on the same side at the same time. So, my squadmates get split up between both teams... which really blows when you want to fly with your friends. Let us not forget that people will want to form virtual squadrons and also want to play with their friends. I'm a strong believer in the "social experience" in flight sims. For instance, the CloD ATAG server has both red and blue squadrons flying regularly in equal numbers, and we rarely have balancing issues.
  
I've seen many pilots duke it out on the MP servers. A quick salute to Hooves, Mikha and AbortedMan, who are definitely some of the best pilots I've seen on BoS.

Edited April 30, 2014 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[ph1317]

Do you think it's a smaller problem to fly when one side has let's say 4 times as many pilots than if all your squad mates are not on same side?

[Panzerlang]

I'd say let the cards fall where they may, as happened in real life. I'm quitting the server quite quickly recently when I find minutes of my time are being wasted on each seperate re-fly because of that red "Max" symbol. It's an intolerable imposition, especially when the server runs for only 25 minutes at a time.

[Matt]

Do you think it's a smaller problem to fly when one side has let's say 4 times as many pilots than if all your squad mates are not on same side?

I wasn't asked, but i think an auto-balance feature can be more problematic in other areas, apart from not being able to fly on the same side.

 

For instance, there is currently only one real level bomber, so obviously bomber pilots are more likely to join Soviet side. With this auto-balance, they would either take a Stuka or 109, if Allies outnumber Axis. Both might not suit them that well.

 

Also there are obviously many players who favor either only Soviet or only German. I can perfectly understand that and see nothing wrong with that (i'm not one of them).

 

I only flew online a few times, but i definately did not witness a 4 to 1 imbalance in number of players and even if this would be considered "unfair", a simple auto-balance feature completely ignores the pilot skill and planetypes, which usually have atleast a big of an impact on overall balance as the numbers of players.

 

Do all servers currently have this auto-balance on?

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

Yes and that feature really wasn't thought out.

[ph1317]

My experience from IL2 times was that good servers tend to have quite equal amount of pilots when the mission allows good plane types on both sides, like you write. And when there are enough pilots, like at least 10 total. But those unequal missions can turn totally unplayable if one side has even 2 : 1 superiority and keeps vulching pilots that try to take off. I don't know how auto-balance works, what kind of limits can be defined, but as general rule I see it as good option for the host.

[=AVG=Zombie]

Hahahaah, I bet there is a few kids who only fly the 109 who are shatting their pants lol

[TX-Zigrat]

I like auto balance. Switch to the other side with your friends if you want to fly together.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Both seem to be fairly balanced against each other and somehow satisfy my expectations.

 

While the Yak-1 wins in continues turnfights (G-2 isn't bad when adopting turnfight manouvres for a couple of minutes either) the G-2 as better acceleration and slightly better rate of climb.

 

With that in mind I could easily escape any Yak-1 trying to get into shopting range by accelerating away or diving, than using rope a dopes to gain the advantage again (which infact isn't easy as the Yak-1 can keep it's energy fairly well and can follow a climbing 109 pretty good).

 

I'm not sure about the engine limitation of only 1.3 ata at 2600 RPM for the Daimler Benz engine though, it seems to me that the G-2 has noticeablie worse rate of climb than the F-4.

 

Anyway I enjoyed dogfighting Yak-1s today, I'm eager to try it against it's german counterparts as well.

Edited April 30, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuk4

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Do you think it's a smaller problem to fly when one side has let's say 4 times as many pilots than if all your squad mates are not on same side?

 

Desperately tried to find photo documentation of the 10,000+ Allied bomber incursion in to Germany or any of the other first-hand documentation about the out-numbered plight of LW pilots, but it existed. It was persistent. Being outnumbered is a reality of war. The German 6th Army in the BoS is a great example.

 

A Jagdgeschwader is a hunting group. Seldom would our airforces have clashed in massive engagements, but always were we hunting. 4 on 2, 8 on 4, 8 on 1. Didn't really matter - balance is for video games. Lets simulate.

[Volkoff]

My trackir broke last night, right when I was trying the Yak-1 out in multiplayer.   I didn't get to fight it out with a G2 in multiplayer. I won't get to try the Yak-1 out until my new Trackir arrives. I refuse to use a hat switch to look around.   

 

I did get to sim-fly both the Yak-1 and BF-109 G2 in qmb, last night, right before my Trackir broke.   I was  more comfortable with and impressed by the G2, than I was comfortable with and impressed by the Yak-1. I do like the Yak-1, but for the same reasons I would like the Mig-17 on a Vietnam map. The Yak-1, though very nimble, is generally outclassed by her fast diving and fast climbing rivals. She is the underdog. She presents one with a significant challenge in multiplayer gameplay.

 

I am biased in favor of the G2 because the G2 reminds me of the 200hp SPAD XIII in Rise of Flight. (The BF-109 F4 reminds me of the 180 hp SPAD VII) While not the fastest version of the SPAD XIII, if flown to her strengths, the ROF SPAD XIII is a formidable opponent and a fantastic lone wolf ride, when pitted anything that Central has in game. The early G2, while not as capable as a later G2 version, is able to hold the high ground against the LaGG-3 or Yak-1.

 

  MJ

Edited April 30, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[Matt]

I'm not sure about the engine limitation of only 1.3 ata at 2600 RPM for the Daimler Benz engine though, it seems to me that the G-2 has noticeablie worse rate of climb than the F-4.

 

That and it's slower than the F-4, even if the F-4 is sticking to safe engine limits (2500 RPM / 1.3 ATA).

 

Overall, the only advantage i see for the G-2, is the better rearward visibility if you use the glass mod.

 

I would currently definately stick to the F-4.

[TJT]

Could it be that the balancer is a feature put in place for testing, much like the time limits. Remember, we are currently testing it, not really flying for plessure.

[Capt_Hook]

The G2 seems to have a less squirrelly rudder than the F4.

[AbortedMan]

Thanks for the shout out!

 

S!

[216th_Peterla]

Im a lover of the Lagg 3 but today after a while(on Normal Light EU) I change to Yak1 and there it is the difference. That's a excellent counterpart to Friedricks and Gustavs. I really like it but I will still fly on Laggs sometimes.

By the way another excellent work done in this early access game that is far a way better than some finished products on the market.

Good job guys.

[Chuck_Owl]

Do you think it's a smaller problem to fly when one side has let's say 4 times as many pilots than if all your squad mates are not on same side?

 

In practice, the teams tend to balance themselves naturally. I have have very rarely seen 4:1 ratios between the reds and the blues, even in CloD or 1946. 

 

I like to think that BoS is a sandbox, where players have the liberty to do what they want. "Balancing" should interfere as little as possible in order to get the best experience. The only "balancing" that actually matters is made by the map-makers regarding aircraft available, target emplacements and general mission parameters. The game shouldn't "force" players to play a certain way... it should "encourage" them instead.

 

My experience with team balancing is that there will always be people flying for both sides. Lots of people are very competitive by nature and will want to go for the "best" aircraft (which are usually the german ones), or the aircraft that will suit their playstyle the best. Other players like myself will prefer to go for the underdog (VVS in our case) because they either like their aircraft better or they're looking for a challenge. In the end, I'll always fly an aircraft because I enjoy flying it. I don't want to be forced to fly an aircraft I don't want to fly because the game says I should fly Blue or Red.

[ph1317]

Desperately tried to find photo documentation of the 10,000+ Allied bomber incursion in to Germany or any of the other first-hand documentation about the out-numbered plight of LW pilots, but it existed. It was persistent. Being outnumbered is a reality of war. The German 6th Army in the BoS is a great example.

 

A Jagdgeschwader is a hunting group. Seldom would our airforces have clashed in massive engagements, but always were we hunting. 4 on 2, 8 on 4, 8 on 1. Didn't really matter - balance is for video games. Lets simulate.

 

I'm well aware of that, but IMO this is more a game than an attempt to simulate all aspects of air war.

If you wanted to simulate real combat wouldn't we also make missions where that Allied bombing flight lasts several hours instead of 30 minutes?

And flying is done according to command chain instead of everyone doing whatever they want.

And once you're killed then no more flights - simulating that detail alone would make tactics more realistic than pretty much anything else.

[Chuck_Owl]

I'm well aware of that, but IMO this is more a game than an attempt to simulate all aspects of air war.

If you wanted to simulate real combat wouldn't we also make missions where that Allied bombing flight lasts several hours instead of 30 minutes?

And flying is done according to command chain instead of everyone doing whatever they want.

And once you're killed then no more flights - simulating that detail alone would make tactics more realistic than pretty much anything else.

 

If I wanted to play War Thunder, I wouldn't be flying BoS. This is a sim, not a game. Of course, permadeath is no fun and some game elements should be added to make it playable, but we fly BoS because most of us want to live the Stalingrad experience, just like we wanted the Battle of Britain experience with Cliffs.

 

The sandbox element is essential IMHO. There's so much stuff you can do on MP that's not combat, like training new guys to fly, teaching wingmanship lessons, practising navigation. If you deprive players of the opportunity to do whatever they want (and some players WILL do that regardless), than I guarantee you that BoS will shoot itself in the foot by alienating Virtual Squadrons. BoS should be a welcoming place to new players and allow them to fool around a bit and get comfortable. There's a dimension in wingmanship that Single Player will just not teach you unless you go online and fly with a Virtual Squadron.

Edited April 30, 2014 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[AbortedMan]

I'm well aware of that, but IMO this is more a game than an attempt to simulate all aspects of air war.

If you wanted to simulate real combat wouldn't we also make missions where that Allied bombing flight lasts several hours instead of 30 minutes?

And flying is done according to command chain instead of everyone doing whatever they want.

And once you're killed then no more flights - simulating that detail alone would make tactics more realistic than pretty much anything else.

Just wait until the game is out on full release...I am actually looking forward to bombing flights that really do last several hours, and virtual campaigns that really do simulate "perma-death" with extremely long spawn times (30 minutes, to 1 week/next session), command structures with wingman/element/flight/squadron/wing organization, limited resources/aircraft, you know, all the realistic stuff...That's the BoS experience I (and many others) am anticipating.

 

You need to remind yourself that the current state of the game is almost akin to a tech demo that is being drip fed week by week with new content...we're not even halfway through the drip! Aside from that, there's many ways to play the game (or any flight sim). Fast-food/dogfight servers are one of them, virtual online campaigns that simulate careers and consequences is another. I imagine a majority don't get to experience the latter, but I highly recommend it as it really gets you the most out of this kind of game in all its facets. 

[II./JG27_Rich]

In my opinion and I might be wrong but here goes, I don't think the Russians caught up to the Germans single engine fight wise until the La-5N and I think that's just the way it was. I think I remember a Gunther Rall story about him trying to catch one and he couldn't saying "He was damn fast".. I could be wrong about the La-5N so please say something if you know better. The 109 in Russia reminds me of the Zero in the Pacific and the hard time the Americans had with it.

Edited April 30, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[AbortedMan]

In my opinion and I might be wrong but here goes, I don't think the Russians caught up to the Germans single engine fight wise until the La-5N and I think that's just the way it is but I could be wrong so please say something if you know better. It's something like the Zero in the Pacific and the hard time the Americans had with it.

That's the same understanding I'm realizing, though I'm still learning about the actual events and real life performance curve of technology and design in BoS. I was under the assumption the VVS weren't competitive 1 on 1 with the LW until the LaGG-3-66 (phased out relatively quickly after its conception) and the La-5FN came into play.

[Chuck_Owl]

In my opinion and I might be wrong but here goes, I don't think the Russians caught up to the Germans single engine fight wise until the La-5N and I think that's just the way it is but I could be wrong so please say something if you know better. It's something like the Zero in the Pacific and the hard time the Americans had with it.

 

While the Japanese Zero was superior to anything the Americans had to throw at them at the beginning of the war, once the Americans had the Corsair fully operational, the Japanese failed to develop an adequate counterpart. The Russians, on the other hand, eventually won by sheer numbers until the very end of the war. The late-war Russian aircraft like the Yak-3, Yak-7 and the Yak-9 were pretty much on par with German and American/British technology.The Yak-9 was comparable to the British late Spitfires and the American Mustangs. Both a Yak-9 and a Mustang shot down Me-262s, which is quite a feat.

 

The reason why Russian aircraft were shot down in droves at the beginning ot the war was:

 

1) VVS aircraft were obsolete at this point of the war and Stalin had failed to see the importance of developing better fighters until it was too late (Barbarossa)

2) German pilot experience was much, much greater than the Russian pilot's. Most Luftwaffe pilots had the Spanish Civil War, the Polish Campaign, and the Battle of France under their belt. Most German pilots had hundreds of hours of combat, while most Russian pilots had no combat experience.

 

And, as you know, when you start flying online against experienced pilots, you're pretty much dead meat against a guy that knows what he's doing.

Edited April 30, 2014 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[ph1317]

 If you deprive players of the opportunity to do whatever they want (and some players WILL do that regardless), than I guarantee you that BoS will shoot itself in the foot by alienating Virtual Squadrons. BoS should be a welcoming place to new players and allow them to fool around a bit and get comfortable. There's a dimension in wingmanship that Single Player will just not teach you unless you go online and fly with a Virtual Squadron.

 

I understand that many if not most people wouldn't like if they were not allowed to do what they want.

BUT: real military isn't like that. Real pilots didn't go flying when they felt like it, but when they were told so.

Bomber pilots didn't usually get to select targets, but different people planned missions and flight crews flew according these orders.

IMO if you really want simulate those real missions this is just as important as flight modeling of different planes, weapons etc.

And because this command structure is missing, IMO this is a flight sim GAME.

[Chuck_Owl]

I understand that many if not most people wouldn't like if they were not allowed to do what they want.

BUT: real military isn't like that. Real pilots didn't go flying when they felt like it, but when they were told so.

Bomber pilots didn't usually get to select targets, but different people planned missions and flight crews flew according these orders.

IMO if you really want simulate those real missions this is just as important as flight modeling of different planes, weapons etc.

And because this command structure is missing, IMO this is a flight sim GAME.

 

Of course, real military isn't like that and I'm perfectly aware of that. The real military aspects can be simulated in online war servers (thinking of SoW campaign or ACG campaign in Cliffs) with ATCs and a proper command structure put in place. Lots of people join Virtual Squadrons (and it varies from place to place TBH) in order to get this kind of experience.

 

One thing I really like to do is come on a server with set objectives and plan a big wing sortie to accomplish this set of objectives. For instance, a couple of weeks ago I hopped on ATAG and we planned a 8-bomber-strong sortie against a radar station and a nearby airfield. The bombers' objective was to destroy both targets and make it back home. We had about 10 fighter escorts, whose mission was to keep us bombers alive at all costs. So we had a bomber lead and an escort lead and there was a display of teamwork (and enjoyment) like I had never seen one before. Luftwaffe pilots winged up in several smaller formations and harassed us all the way back to Britain, while they kept giving out our positions to rally up their fighters and try to stop us. People actually want to do mission-driven stuff just like in the military, but more often than not we're not given the chance nor the tools to plan and execute a proper mission.

Edited April 30, 2014 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[IVJG4-Knight]

My first MP experience.

 

First of all the scenary looks great.I had a smile on my face just from flying around and admiring the clouds .

But imho there was just way too much lag for a decent game.If you fly at low speed it's not that obvious but at high speeds it horrible .

I've flow last in the first few days whe MP mode was available and was a little better for me then. I really hope things will improve .

[LBR=H-Ostermann]

The G2 was considered by many Luftwaffe pilots to be a step backward in development. More armor and bigger guns means more weight and conversely less performance. That's what I read, no first hand knowledge of it myself.

 

 When I flew IL2 on Hyper Lobby I don't remember running into too many unbalanced servers. The good servers attract enough people that you had the Sqns. who work to master the a/c of their choice and the lone wolves who don't care what they fly. I haven't bought any Entente a/c for my copy of ROF and I haven't flown anything but the 109 variants in COD, online or off. That's just the way some people care to play the game. I'll avoid a server that will bar me from playing the game the way I like.

 

 On the other hand, can a real picture be taken of what the servers will be like while its still in Alpha? How many more will buy this game when it goes gold? Shouldn't that be taken into account for the final analysis of server balance? We who have the game sometimes talk like everything about this game is settled down into it's post release rhythm. Sometimes we forget the big variable still awaiting in the wings (pun intended), those who will be buying the game at a future date.

 

 As for me, I'll avoid a server that forces me to fly as a defector to the other side.   I only go online when I can fly with a team mate since my virtual life depends on it. That, and I find it 100% more enjoyable to do so.

[IVJG4-Knight]

I was reluctant to try this, but i had considerable success while turning and burning with the yaks and speeding , climbing my way out of trouble.Managed to get 3 kills one after the other easy.

[TJT]

The G2 was considered by many Luftwaffe pilots to be a step backward in development. More armor and bigger guns means more weight and conversely less performance. That's what I read, no first hand knowledge of it myself.

 

 

 

Heavier with a stronger engine but no differance in guns to the F-4...

[Panzerlang]

I'm giving up on the MP until the devs have finished the flaps, it's like a War Thunder rally right now.

[Descolada]

The 109 still seems to outclass the yak-1, and with a competent pilot seems to be better. But if he screws up even just once the yak can punish him, and punish him hard.

[Volkoff]

In my opinion and I might be wrong but here goes, I don't think the Russians caught up to the Germans single engine fight wise until the La-5N and I think that's just the way it was. I think I remember a Gunther Rall story about him trying to catch one and he couldn't saying "He was damn fast".. I could be wrong about the La-5N so please say something if you know better. The 109 in Russia reminds me of the Zero in the Pacific and the hard time the Americans had with it.

The Fresco vs Crusader/ Phantom match up might be a good analogy, too. This is a decidedly asymmetrical match up of air forces. The Yak can be dangerous, just as a Mig-17 could be dangerous, if the blue team uses bad tactics and/ or plays to the strengths of the red team machines. Still, blue can refuse to play the game that favors the red team and pretty much engage or disengage red forces, at will. Red is the decided underdog, on this particular map.  MJ

Edited May 1, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[sturmkraehe]

yes, indeed. While the Yak is a far better ride than the LaGG3 on this scenario it is still the underdog. It also seems that it is more vulnerable and explodes very soon. I also find the guns less effective than on the LaGG when it comes down to the cannons.

[DB605]

The G2 was considered by many Luftwaffe pilots to be a step backward in development. More armor and bigger guns means more weight and conversely less performance. That's what I read, no first hand knowledge of it myself.

 

Sorry but this is another classic myth about 109. Please, if you have source to such claim let me know it, because i have read lots of pilot interviews and other books about 109 and i've never read any claim that G2 would be actually be step backwards. Many pilots said Friedrich was best 109 as an aeroplane as it was nicely balanced between performance and manouverability but not actually best as an fighter. G2 was faster and better in higher altitude and well liked by it's pilots. G6 was actually first 109 that was little step backwards in terms of performance (about ~15km/h's slower than G2) because of bulges for guns and landing gears. Even then, at least finnish pilots said performance loss was so little that it was barely noticeable and they appreciated better guns of it.

[Chuck_Owl]

It's a very interesting so far, gents. I like how perspective varies from pilot to pilot.

 

By the way, I must thank you guys for watching my video in the first post. Much more views than I expected TBH... I really appreciate it

[LBR=H-Ostermann]

Sorry but this is another classic myth about 109. Please, if you have source to such claim let me know it, because i have read lots of pilot interviews and other books about 109 and i've never read any claim that G2 would be actually be step backwards.

 

Sorry, but at 55 years of age I've read many things and have only stored that which I've read, not where I've read them. It may have been Galland (Sp?) in an interview.

  As someone pointed out the weapons on the G2 remained the same as the F4 and I'll take his word for it. Another thing about having read many tones is sometimes the information begins to meld. BUT, the fact remains that the G2 was a heavier variant than the F and therefore suffered from reduced performance, I would include maneuverability in that. This would continue until the plane was made obsolete by it's inability to be modified to meet performance needs (the K was again good but not good enough, pilot skill being equal). This is one reason the FW 190 was desired, because Kurt's foresight was such that he had implemented the ability for the plane to be modified to meet the performance challenges of the allies as they developed new a/c. And this was after it had been rejected by the high command because they thought the 109 would see them through the war. But the high command changed their minds for a reason.

 The comment made by Galland when Goring asked him what he needed to win the battle of Britain of Britain speaks volumes about the 109.. He responded, Spitfires. With the advent of the Spitfire in the war,(when Britain was brought into it) the 109 was already showing its age. Still a good fighter, but not with the advantage it had over the older vintages of other countries. The only real advantage the 109 had over the Spit was fuel delivery. Once that was ironed out something new was needed to respond to the Spitfire threat. So then the 190 appears over the channel. The Spitfire mod in service was then outclassed by the FW 190. Then it was a race to see  which a/c could be modified to outclass the other. For like the design of the FW the Spit also had an ingrained ability to be upgraded in the performance arena.

 The G variant may have had better high alt. performance than the F variant, and faired well against high flying bombers, but once those bombers were successfully escorted they fell off as a viable war machine. The Red Tails proved that in spades, they never lost a bomber to any German a/c, of any sort. To say also that most of the combat on the Eastern front was at low level  would mean that the G variant rarely the gained the alt. it needed to perform at peak performance.

 

 One of the youtube documentaries has German Pilots being interviewed about the planes they flew. That may have been where I saw a German pilot speak of the fact not all pilots thought the G model was an improvement over the F. I suppose it depends on the alt. at which you faced the enemy. Right tool for the right job. But in the end the G model had to be replaced by the K, and so forth.

Edited May 1, 2014 by JG3Target

[DB605]

 BUT, the fact remains that the G2 was a heavier variant than the F and therefore suffered from reduced performance, I would include maneuverability in that.

No. It was heavier, weight difference IIRC was less than 200kg. This probably has been very slight impact to manouverability but performance stayed about the same for early G2 wich was restricted to 1.3 ata. Once it was cleared to 1.42 ata (june '43), it was clearly better performer than F4 in both climb and top speed.

[Chuck_Owl]

No. It was heavier, weight difference IIRC was less than 200kg. This probably has been very slight impact to manouverability but performance stayed about the same for early G2 wich was restricted to 1.3 ata. Once it was cleared to 1.42 ata (june '43), it was clearly better performer than F4 in both climb and top speed.

 

Any idea why this 1.3 ata limitation was put in place at first for the G-2 when the F-4 didn't have it?

[sturmkraehe]

The G2 had a new and in principle better performing engine afaik but put too much strain on some parts (as it was more powerful). To my understanding some modifications to the engine later allowed to lift the restriction.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Any idea why this 1.3 ata limitation was put in place at first for the G-2 when the F-4 didn't have it?

Simple answer: Different engine, different tolerances, etc.

 

The complex answer is probably better explained by these guys: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6171-g-2-vs-f-4-rough-testing/

 

They know much more than I do on the specifics but needless to say the G-2 had greater performance potential thanks to its new engine and some of the enhancements that made it heavier were deemed necessary as the war continued on. But for the Battle of Stalingrad it seems like an interesting choice between the F-4 and the G-2 with the F-4 perhaps having the sweet spot in performance for the time period but clearly having reached its performance potential.