WWII Aircraft Suggested Plane List

[CountZero]

52 minutes ago, Feldgrun said:

 

Right, sorry, I meant the G-14 was used by the highest scoring aces on Combat Box.

ok , when i check link you posted i see it now, but that guy have streak of 17 and he died 8 days ago in 190a8. RIP lol

Looking by whos highest ace now, i see him https://combatbox.net/en/pilots/?tour=51&sort_by=-streak_current

and he used mostly 109g14 with 30mm for current life... 

 

Player can pick Lagg-3 and have 100+ kill streaks for few months and that would mean nothing in that Lagg-3 is better then La-5FN or La-7 will replace it, it can just mean player is bored and likes to troll hartmans with lagg-3 ...

 

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by CountZero

[CUJO_1970]

I know this might sound crazy, but go with me here: why not give the /AS option to G-6 and G-14 we already have

like they had in real life  

 

 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

5 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

I know this might sound crazy, but go with me here: why not give the /AS option to G-6 and G-14 we already have

I'm all for it but if ever we would get those, they will probably be sold as separate planes and not just as an option to existing planes. 

I would definitely buy them off course.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[CountZero]

13 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

I know this might sound crazy, but go with me here: why not give the /AS option to G-6 and G-14 we already have

like they had in real life  

 

 

It would be better for SP and MP , and probably more would sell then this Spitfire XIVe bubble we have as new collector airplane.

After Churchill, decision to do airplane like Spitfire 14 bubble when we have good enough one already as collector is realy strange one, even if its just training project, onother 109G6 would be more useful.

[Roland_HUNter]

On 10/21/2022 at 4:20 PM, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The G-10 has the advantage of decent high altitude performance compared to the G-14, but at low altitude it's slightly slower than it similar to the G-14/AS.




 

Something wrong with the first report.
The G-10 should be faster 10-13 km/h compared to G-14, because of the smoother nose.

Question:
Who made those colored lines?
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-27_DBSonder_MW_geschw.jpg

G-14/AS(M) is faster than a G-14:
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html

              G-14 vs G-14 AS
0 meter:550 vs 557 km/h
3k meter:604 vs 628 km/h
6k meter:645 vs 647 km/h
9k meter: 605 vs 650 km/h

G-14 5K:
652 km/h

G-14 AS 7,5K:
668 km/h

Etc....you can compare them when you open the link.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

2 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Something wrong with the first report.
The G-10 should be faster 10-13 km/h compared to G-14, because of the smoother nose.

Question:
Who made those colored lines?
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-27_DBSonder_MW_geschw.jpg

Kurfurst made most of the lines, except for the purple G-10 which I added myself after the second graph I posted for 1.8 ata.

About low altitude speed, if I had to guess the new wide propeller introduced in G-14/AS - G-10 - K-4 wasn't as efficient for top speed for similar aerodynamic configuration and power as the G-14 one, or maybe the new cowling even though it looks smoother is actually draggier in the end. But you can see that in the official specs table the G-14/AS and G-10 were a bit slower than G-14 at sea level:



In this one it states 570 km/h for G-6 with MW 50, while 560 km/h for G-6/AS with MW 50, and then the table below shows 562 km/h for G-10

2 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

G-14/AS(M) is faster than a G-14:
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html

              G-14 vs G-14 AS
0 meter:550 vs 557 km/h
3k meter:604 vs 628 km/h
6k meter:645 vs 647 km/h
9k meter: 605 vs 650 km/h

G-14 5K:
652 km/h

G-14 AS 7,5K:
668 km/h

Etc....you can compare them when you open the link.

The tables are the other way around, the 550 km/h is for G-14/ASM and 557 km/h for regular G-14  (both with gunpods), the link also has comparison graph, can see the ASM starts overtaking the AM variant only above 6 km altitude:


 

Edited October 22, 2022 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[the_emperor]

13 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

bout low altitude speed, if I had to guess the new wide propeller introduced in G-14/AS - G-10 - K-4 wasn't as efficient for top speed for similar aerodynamic

 

Yes, the high altitude engines seem to get a different prop

 

 

But the very late G-10 did feature the same engine an Airframe as the K-4 (fully covered & retractable landing gear), so would probably closer to the K-4 performance. So actually the G-10 would be an easy cash grab for a collector plane. just put the 20mm in the K-4 model ?

Edited October 23, 2022 by the_emperor

[Roland_HUNter]

19 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Kurfurst made most of the lines, except for the purple G-10 which I added myself after the second graph I posted for 1.8 ata.

About low altitude speed, if I had to guess the new wide propeller introduced in G-14/AS - G-10 - K-4 wasn't as efficient for top speed for similar aerodynamic configuration and power as the G-14 one, or maybe the new cowling even though it looks smoother is actually draggier in the end. But you can see that in the official specs table the G-14/AS and G-10 were a bit slower than G-14 at sea level:



In this one it states 570 km/h for G-6 with MW 50, while 560 km/h for G-6/AS with MW 50, and then the table below shows 562 km/h for G-10

The tables are the other way around, the 550 km/h is for G-14/ASM and 557 km/h for regular G-14  (both with gunpods), the link also has comparison graph, can see the ASM starts overtaking the AM variant only above 6 km altitude:


 

About the G-14 comparison, yes, my mistake, my apologies.

Interesting, so:
AS motor is weaker at sea level so G-14/AS would be slower, that's corret. But back to the topic: G-10, had 605D engine, right?

It's still strange for me, the G-10 slower than G-14/AS? Why?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

2 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

It's still strange for me, the G-10 slower than G-14/AS? Why?

I think both should be very similar, there is only 50 PS difference in engine power at sea level between 605 ASM and 605DB, and the tables say 560 km/h for G-6/AS and 562 km/h for G-10. Though with such small difference individual variation between produced planes could either be faster in either direction.

[Roland_HUNter]

7 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I think both should be very similar, there is only 50 PS difference in engine power at sea level between 605 ASM and 605DB, and the tables say 560 km/h for G-6/AS and 562 km/h for G-10. Though with such small difference individual variation between produced planes could either be faster in either direction.

So what was caused by the bubbles on the nose was air resistance, even though it was made smoother, other smaller things compensated for it?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1 minute ago, Roland_HUNter said:

So what was caused by the bubbles on the nose was air resistance, even though it was made smoother, other smaller things compensated for it?

looks like it, also I noticed this in kurfurst page:



ASM variants also had bigger area oil and water radiators, this would also increase drag.

[FliegerAD]

 

The Ju 88 R-2 is basically that: an upgrade to the C-6 by replacing the engines with more powerful BMW 801 engines. The result is a faster aircraft, by at least some 50 kph.

 

Furthermore, the gondola could carry MG151/20 instead of the old FF, increasing the firepower as well.

(Sorry, poor image quality: there is a wider and much clearer shot in Chris Gloss's Bloody Biscay, p.133).

 

 

 

Available and in operational service by mid-1943, alongside the older C-6, it would be an easy fit for BoN.

 

Lastly, since all the necessary visual assets (BMWs and MG151/20) are in game already, it should be a relatively easy to model aircraft.  Thus I think it would be a nice collector aircraft. Of course, I am aware the Ju 88 Zerstörer is not exactly the star of this game... but still, one can dream.

 

_

Edited October 29, 2022 by FliegerAD

[CUJO_1970]

I enthusiastically support this suggestion. 

[FliegerAD]

Thanks!

 

Curiously, it seems the only daytime Ju 88 R-2s were in use over France, with I/KG 6, III/KG 54, and of course V/KG 40 respectively I and III/ZG 1. If this is right - I'd love to see info on the contrary! - it makes sense the devs chose the C-6 since it can be used on other fronts.

The radar-less R-2 was not a common sight, however that qualifies it for a collector's aircraft all the more.

 

Anyway, it would have a fighting chance against the Beaufighter, should it ever be introduced (I hope it does....); and it is not even too bad against the Mosquito, even if the R-2 is still outmatched.

 

One of the more successful pilots of the R-2 was Leutnant Knud Gmelin. His last kills were, in fact, Mosquitos. He claimed four (3 himself, 1 his radio operator) on 11 April 44, though two seems like a more reasonable number. Anyway, here he is with his radio operator after returning from that battle:

He died on June 9, when his plane was hit by AA fire. He managed to crash land and save his two crewmates, though.

 

 

 

Also, here is a better version of the picture above:

You can clearly see the long-barreled MG 151/20s and the beautful BMW.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marsvinet]

I say yes to have the ability to get shot down in my beautiful up-gunned Ju 88 at even higher speeds!

[76IAP-Black]

Add the BMW 801 and delete the gondola...

 

Was it even historic?

[FliegerAD]

14 hours ago, Marsvinet said:

I say yes to have the ability to get shot down in my beautiful up-gunned Ju 88 at even higher speeds!

 

That's the style, that's the spirit! ?

 

In all seriousness, while the R-2 would be dead meat in most in-game scenarios, it did reasonably well irl. I mean, it was intended to hunt ASW-planes and get away from mean Beaufighters and Mosquitos. And it could hold its own even when forced into combat against those. Flying over post D-Day France is suicide, though.

 

 

48 minutes ago, 76IAP-Black said:

Add the BMW 801 and delete the gondola...

 

Was it even historic?

 

It was. The C-5 was exactly that, BMW 801, no gondola. Only 10 or so were build because the Fw 190 enjoyed priority until the night fighters needed stronger engines, and then the R-2 came along - including the daylight fighter variant as a by-product.

 

I have not tracked down the C-5s, don't know if they were ever in frontline service. It would be a nice plane. After all, it is a clean airframe with powerful engines. And it looks gorgeous:

 

 

_

Edited November 8, 2022 by FliegerAD

[BB_HRD]

Can somebody tell me why the Allied Forces do not have a 4 engine, high level bomber in IL2 please?

Thanks

[CountZero]

money, time to make = no profit

 

here at around 30min they talka bout 4 engine bombers

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by CountZero

[=621=Samikatz]

This is asked basically every week. Extremely time consuming to make for a small team, intense on the game engine, difficult to market and sell as standalone compared to a planeset of tactical aircraft. Too high of a risk to make a development focus, basically

[Soilworker]

6 hours ago, CountZero said:

money, time to make = no profit

 

here at around 30min they talka bout 4 engine bombers

 

 

This was a great insight but it left me with more questions as it does not explain why we don't have AI versions of these planes and if anything it makes it sound as if they should be possible (perhaps not anywhere near historical numbers). 

 

I get why they're not flyable and I don't want to fly them anyway other than out of interest (seriously, how many people want to sit and fly in formation for several hours for every mission?!) but I do want to shoot them down in my German BoBp & BoN careers. 

[jollyjack]

Ai versions only already would be nice ...

[Raptorattacker]

?...

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Soilworker said:

 

This was a great insight but it left me with more questions as it does not explain why we don't have AI versions of these planes and if anything it makes it sound as if they should be possible (perhaps not anywhere near historical numbers). 

 

I get why they're not flyable and I don't want to fly them anyway other than out of interest (seriously, how many people want to sit and fly in formation for several hours for every mission?!) but I do want to shoot them down in my German BoBp & BoN careers. 

I belive most ppl asking for B-17 just wont to shoot at it or escort it, i doubt many wont to fly it. But you still have same problems with AI only. Whos gona give them money for AI airplane that they can just not pay amd have in game.

[Trooper117]

OMFG.... not again... there must be a zillion posts on this all over the forums.

[jollyjack]

 

[senseispcc]

Developers decision! Nothing to see here.?

[Soilworker]

40 minutes ago, CountZero said:

I belive most ppl asking for B-17 just wont to shoot at it or escort it, i doubt many wont to fly it. But you still have same problems with AI only. Whos gona give them money for AI airplane that they can just not pay amd have in game.

 

Well the biggest amount of work is the interiors and if they don't need to model those I can't see it being too much more work than say the B-25/B-26 and would I argue that the B-17 is integral to BoBp (at least) in a similar way the map is, so we've essentially already paid for it in a sense. 

 

Edit: I would also argue that the loudest people asking want to fly it. But yes I think I am in the majority but it bugged me that Enigma only asked about the possibility of it being flyable. 

 

14 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

OMFG.... not again... there must be a zillion posts on this all over the forums.

 

Dude, there is new info from Enigma's interview so I for one don't see a problem with discussing it under new light but the great thing about forums, etc. is: If you don't want to read it, don't click on it, no one is making you. 

(Apart from me quoting you, you'll get a notification which you'll probably be tempted to click on. ?) 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Soilworker

[Trooper117]

I watched that interview weeks ago.

I'm well aware what's in it, I'm well aware what the official line was from the devs for bombers for months and months ago.

The point is it's a question that can be found all over these forums since the game was released and you don't have to do much searching to find one... 

 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Wether the topic is redundant or not, with the release of battle of Normandy, you just cant ignore the absence of the 4 engines bombers. 

 

That, and the pathetic inflight communications, two elephants in the room. Yet they continue to develop around these elephants making them more and more obvious and troublesome.

 

As of now, June 8th 1944, I'll take off in my 190, to encounter proverbial B-26s that catch on fire at a single glance, and God forbid my wingmen warn me if a fighter gets on my 6.

 

Enough. Time to fix these monster flaws instead of adding around it hoping we'll forget/accept.

[Trooper117]

Look, I don't think there is anyone on these forums that wouldn't want some heavy bombers in the game... but that is not a flaw. The dev's have explained over and over why we can't have them. If they find a way to include them in the future that would be great, but as it stands at the moment it's a no...

As to in flight comms, yes, that is a flaw, and it's something we have all moaned about for a very long time...

[DBS]

TBH i dont know why they made tank crew when they could have made bomber crew..

[JG_deserteagle540]

 

 

 

Yes, the AI version would be really nice. Then The Me262 and FwA8 sturmbock could be used like in real life happened.

[twilson37]

I have been playing flight simulators for decades and I think the last game I remember having four engine aircraft built in the game was European Air War. Modern simulations have focused on creating finely detailed aircraft and flight models pushing graphics and memory to the maximum to give us the most realistic experience in that aircraft that the engine can handle, this however comes at a sacrifice to the number of aircraft in the sky at one time. Could someone create a 4 engined bomber for IL2 or DCS sure but the current engine for these platforms will not allow mass box formations of aircraft we are accustomed to. So the teams have to decide on better graphics and more realistic gameplay for a few aircraft or lower graphics for larger aircraft and in the end higher graphics and more realism sell more copies.  That being said Il2 1946 has come a long way with modifications which do include 4-engine aircraft in mass formation, that is probably the best option, and it will probably always will be that the modified version of past iterations of flight sims will hold the massive aerial combat missions while the current versions refine the accuracy of the aircraft and flight model.

[saldy]

BoX is not appropriate for playable heavy bombers. The maps are too small for them.

[twilson37]

I will add this analogy.  The flight sim developers are the Luftwaffe high command. 

"We need a four engine bomber"

      "But we do not have the resources to build 4-engine bombers"

" I don't care build one"

       "Okay well if I build one it will need to have all the features of my twin engine Aircraft"

"Yes definitely"

       " I have done it just as you requested, here is the HE-177"

"Good Greif"

[oc2209]

Per the title, list all planes not currently in the sim, that you'd be willing to buy individually as collector planes. Anything from the Spanish Civil War to VE-Day '45 is on the table. This is a wishlist foremost, not a place to argue feasibility. That said, we know we're not getting 4 engine bombers anytime soon.

 

I'll begin:

 

Spitfire I

Boulton Paul Defiant

Fairey Swordfish

Gloster Meteor (as late a version as possible)

Vickers Wellington

 

Yak-3

Yak-9U

La-7

IL-10

I-15bis

 

Bf-109B, C, or D

Ar-68

Hs-123

Ju-87B

Do-217

Ju-188

He-162

Ta-152

Me-163

He-219

 

P-61

 

I'm sure there are other planes I'd buy that I simply forgot to list.

[zan64]

anything axis, fighter wise. esp early war (or spanish civil war, but we would need a map!)

except Ta-152, dont see the appeal as i think it looks weird and i wont be playing at 30,000alt nor were they by that point in real life 1945 either (edit for those interested 1946 recently updated their altitude physics which affects how the Ta-152 operates in game, if you wish to go up against bomber formations) 

 

anything soviet, fighter wise. a muse often about an earlier series lagg-3, would be quite a challenge heh, and also about late series i.e. 66th

 

would also in particular buy an early Ju-87 and esp an Hs-123

 

would never buy a bomber have enough already from expansions to satisfy my limited interests in them, sorry bomber fans

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by zan64

[CountZero]

F4F-3

F4U-1C

YP-80A

A6M2

N1K2J

Bf-109G10

MC205V series III

I-153P

Tu-2S

Yak-9UT

[Leftenant_Soap]

^ some of the ones already listed I'd like to see as part of the next modules, time will tell...

 

L-4 Grasshopper

Lysander

Bf 108

A-26 Invader

B-32 Dominator (heh)

Edited November 15, 2022 by DD_Soapy