WWII Aircraft Suggested Plane List

[357th_KW]

Ideally we’d get a combo A-20G/J and have the option of the solid nose or a bombardier.

[SFC_Scott]

25 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

Ideally we’d get a combo A-20G/J and have the option of the solid nose or a bombardier.

I like that idea even better! But I suppose the base model A-20 already there, so having the option of just picking the G like we can from the wide variety of 109 variants would work. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by SFC_Scott

[DD_Crash]

A bomb aimer that could actually drop the bombs would be very good to have

[Mtnbiker1998]

The A-20B we have is a blast to fly, and Gambit's Havok over Kuban is excellent. An A-20G is probably the one reason I'd even consider buying another East Front module.

 

That being said, I'd be just as happy to pick it up as a collector or in another battle.

[Niagara]

A20G would be great !!  and yes they were USED by the Russians ,  but we will never see one ,  they need to make another 99 variants of the BF109  and FW 190 first ..Sad but True ??..

[SFC_Scott]

4 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

The A-20B we have is a blast to fly, and Gambit's Havok over Kuban is excellent. An A-20G is probably the one reason I'd even consider buying another East Front module.

 

That being said, I'd be just as happy to pick it up as a collector or in another battle.

The A-20 is my favorite aircraft in IL-2.  I would certainly pay for the G as a collector. The IL-2 Gods know I've given plenty of sacrificial currency for collector planes. What's one more? I'd sacrifice for a B-25 as well...

[BOO]

Having the G as a collector always seemed to be a no brainier for me. I can only think that there are reasons why it hasn’t appeared. 

[SFC_Scott]

38 minutes ago, BOO said:

Having the G as a collector always seemed to be a no brainier for me. I can only think that there are reasons why it hasn’t appeared. 

I'm sure. Like the IL-2 development team is actually a team of KGB agents who have been tasked with devising horrifying new ways to torture unsuspecting World War II flight sim enthusiasts.  If so, they are succeeding.  Right now they are reading this thread and toasting each other with vodka. "Well done, Comrades!" Either that or plotting my obduction because I figured them out!  If you don't hear from me again...

Edited October 8, 2022 by SFC_Scott

[BOO]

1 minute ago, SFC_Scott said:

I'm sure. Like the IL-2 Team is actually a crack team of KGB agents who are devising horrifying new ways to torture unsuspecting World War II flight sim enthusiasts.  If so, they are succeeding.  Right now they are reading this thread and toasting each other with vodka. "Well done, Comrades!" Either that or plotting my obduction because I figured them out!  If you don't hear from me again...

or……..it’s not as popular as we think it is to risk the dev cost of making a powered turret and self sealing tanks for it. 
 

I’ll go with either ?

[Carl_infar]

I think the best choince for 1st 4 engine bomber in il2 GB would be lancaster or halifax as both have only 3 turrets (in comparision to say B17 with many more stations) plus pilot seat so not so much to model as for stations.

I would happily pay the 80 bucks to get any of them 

[Bell]

Easiest four-engine bomber to make.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Bell said:

Easiest four-engine bomber to make.

Have better chances tthen B-17 or any other 4 engine bomber, give it forward shooting gunpod and its good to go, dont even bather with bombs. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

18,482 B-24 Liberators says "You is wrong, be sure".  It is a must as an AI, minimum.

[Noisemaker]

On 10/8/2022 at 10:25 AM, SFC_Scott said:

I'm sure. Like the IL-2 development team is actually a team of KGB agents who have been tasked with devising horrifying new ways to torture unsuspecting World War II flight sim enthusiasts.  If so, they are succeeding.  Right now they are reading this thread and toasting each other with vodka. "Well done, Comrades!" Either that or plotting my obduction because I figured them out!  If you don't hear from me again...

Like Jason?

 

#FreeJason

[Nickkyboy99]

I know it's an old post, but the Hs 126 would be useful. In MP (specifically the Finnish server), the Po-2 is an excellent aircraft which can be used to spot enemy tanks lingering around the capture points.

It would be nice if the Germans had a plane similar to the Po-2 because it would help a lot with spotting for the Axis side.

 

The Hs 123 is also a welcomed addition, but I prefer the Hs 126 because it's a monoplane with its wing above the cockpit, hence better visibility for spotting ground targets. Also, it has a rear gunner which is nice.

 

EDIT: Actually, the Fi 156 Storch would be a better choice imo. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Nickkyboy99

[Jackfraser24]

Did the Mc.205 Veltro have a wing longer than the other, like the Mac.202?

[Feldgrun]

The highest scoring German fighter on Combat Box is the Bf 109 G-14. [Edit: The highest scoring aces use the G-14 to get] highest in Kills to Deaths, and in overall Kills (however, the P-51Ds, with the reworked .50 cals, are currently kicking the crap out of everybody). In contrast to the G-14, the G-10, according to some, was superior to the G-14. If that's true, would the G-10 likely become the new favourite and highest scoring German fighter on multiplayer servers? At one point I thought it would be the K-4, but the Mk 108 has terrible velocity, but would likely shine if we ever got heavy bombers in this game.

 

If we're not going to get a Pacific battle soon (which I hope we do), and if it has to be late-war Eastern Front, let there be a G-10.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Feldgrun

[the_emperor]

the G-10 was essential a K-4 with a 20mm instead of a 30mm (later versions also feature fully covered landing gear and retractable rear gear)

So compared to the G-14 it would be faster in the straight and enjoy a higher FTH, but due to being heavier would also be a little bit less nimble in a dogfight.

[Hotaru_Ito]

Can't talk about multiplayer since I'm pretty much single-player-only, but I've always had the impression that the G-10 and the Fw-190A-9 were being saved as the obligatory 109 and 190 for a future late-war ETO expansion. Not sure where I read that, whether it was an actual dev statement or just speculation, but in the likely event the next expansion is East '45, I think those two are pretty safe bets for the German lineup.

 

If they went to Italy that'd be too early for the G-10 though, not sure what the 109 in that one would be. Just scrolling through the Wikipedia article on 109 variants I'm not seeing anything big between the E-4 and G-10 that we don't already have, but I'm not an expert.

[CountZero]

7 hours ago, Feldgrun said:

The highest scoring German fighter on Combat Box is the Bf 109 G-14. It scores highest in Kills to Deaths, and in overall Kills (however, the P-51Ds, with the reworked .50 cals, are currently kicking the crap out of everybody). In contrast to the G-14, the G-10, according to some, was superior to the G-14. If that's true, would the G-10 likely become the new favourite and highest scoring German fighter on multiplayer servers? At one point I thought it would be the K-4, but the Mk 108 has terrible velocity, but would likely shine if we ever got heavy bombers in this game.

 

If we're not going to get a Pacific battle soon (which I hope we do), and if it has to be late-war Eastern Front, let there be a G-10.

Its biggest scoring because it is fown most, even in K/D is 8th out of axis airplanes, also if you look at K/D and K/h (that is important) youll see 109K4 is better and 109G6Late is better, even 109F2 and D9 have better K/D... its nothing special to have most kills when its airplane that is most flown... its most flown because K4 is limited and non exist on Normandy map , and G6Late is BoN airlane and most ppl dont have that...

Buth MP is nothing like historical enviroment, this is more like showing gun stats in CoD and saying what gun is better based on K/D or kills amount LOL

 

G-10 will be added to game thats a given, question is only will it be collector airplane for bobp campaign or as part of some late war dlc.

 

Also it would not replace G-14 as highest scoring airplane, as it would not be available and used on most missions, so you would still have G-14 with most time flown = most kill scored... Its more likely that G6Late will eat up its stats when BoN get cheeper, as it can be used on more timeline for missions.

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by CountZero

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

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.




 

[Feldgrun]

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

Its biggest scoring because it is fown most, even in K/D is 8th out of axis airplanes, also if you look at K/D and K/h (that is important) youll see 109K4 is better and 109G6Late is better, even 109F2 and D9 have better K/D...

 

 

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

[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