Author Topic: best e fighter? (Read 1869 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #15 on:** October 07, 2007, 06:16:56 AM »

Id go with my favorite as i know it very well... the G14

TequilaChaser · « **Reply #16 on:** October 07, 2007, 08:48:30 AM »

best E fighter?

really has less to do with the plane type and more to do with the obedient flying skill of the pilot flying any particular plane........in the right hands of a player with the well rehearsed flying skill of e-management , the pilot prevails beyond any plane type one could think of. He could be flying a spitfire 1 or an A20, or a z6m2 zero, or F4U-1A, or C202, or Yak and it would always come down to the better piloting skill verses his opponent.......

it really is the pilot vs the plane when one talks E Fighting.......just alot of people want to believe it is the plane's strengths that makes it a better E Fighter. If you don't know how to plan ahead, manage E- State and apply it toward your particular fight, then you could be in any spitfire/109K4/F4U-4 or any other plane type and still get your rear waxed.......

btw..Saxman is one of the better E-Fighters in the game as of late.....for he practices this flying style everytime he takes off from my visual opinion.......

as far as BnZ, TnB and E - Fighting..E-Fighting has always been an agressive mixture of both BnZ & TnB yet applied in such a way that the one doing this style never really puts his self in harms way of a guns solution, although it may appear he does to his victim........

sethipus · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2007, 12:51:38 PM »

I have to second Nilsen, a 109, my favorite is the K4, but the G14 too. The K4 has an enormously powerful engine for its size and weight, and if you fight the vertical with your opponent, there are few who can match it in terms of raw climbing power.

It's not a good pure diver, so you don't BnZ with it from several thousand feet up, but if by "E fighter" you mean a fighter that can go vertical and beat almost any plane in the game on pure energy and raw engine power, the K4 is very hard to beat.

humble · « **Reply #18 on:** October 18, 2007, 05:30:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wolfala
A-20...Inertia baby

Ding Ding Ding...

humble · « **Reply #19 on:** October 18, 2007, 05:44:10 PM »

I agree 100% with TC that "E-fighting" is much more pilot dependent then it is plane dependent. If we then go beyond that and look at some other variables. Stability at low speed/unusual attitudes, gun package, "zoom", ability to both bleed and gain E I think three planes come to mind.

F4U probably the best overall in my mind in that it has all but the low speed stability against torque at the top of the zoom.

P-38 Has the stability the hog lacks but suffers IMO just a bit IMO in the rolling scissors aspects of E fighting

A-20 As wolf said...intertia. Actually the best pure E platform in the game IMO. Limited in alot of ways....but as deadly as any fighter as long as the gerbals are running strong...

***at edit***

One other factor un mentioned so far is damage/toughness. When you get to good E fighters locked up the A-20 has a tremendous ability to take damage and still fight. Often times the thing will absorb what should be a "killing blow" and the other guy is left on the wrong end of the sawzall.

The other factor might be effective gunnery range. when I'm "on" I can saw a guy in half at 800 in the A-20. Personally I think it has the best sight picture in the game....

Nilsen · « **Reply #20 on:** October 18, 2007, 05:44:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by sethipus
I have to second Nilsen, a 109, my favorite is the K4, but the G14 too. The K4 has an enormously powerful engine for its size and weight, and if you fight the vertical with your opponent, there are few who can match it in terms of raw climbing power.

It's not a good pure diver, so you don't BnZ with it from several thousand feet up, but if by "E fighter" you mean a fighter that can go vertical and beat almost any plane in the game on pure energy and raw engine power, the K4 is very hard to beat.

yup the k4 has even better climb and is faster than the g14, but because the g14 has a slightly tighter turn radius i like it better. It also looks better i think, and that is important

Viking · « **Reply #21 on:** October 18, 2007, 07:13:09 PM »

Inertia ... while useful if you already have an E advantage over your opponent ... is useless if you face a co-E plane of superior E-building characteristics ... like a 109 for example. Great inertia does not an E-fighter make. E-building does.

humble · « **Reply #22 on:** October 18, 2007, 07:45:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Inertia ... while useful if you already have an E advantage over your opponent ... is useless if you face a co-E plane of superior E-building characteristics ... like a 109 for example. Great inertia does not an E-fighter make. E-building does.

Thats not true at all, initial E state isnt overwhelmingly important...relative pilot skill is as well as familiarity with the opponent. As long as I have a reasonable amount of altitude AGL I could care less how the fight starts. E fighting isnt about starting with more E its about finishing with more.

Since the A-20 is not widely flown as a "fighter" its overall capabilities are often misjudged, combine that with unparalleled toughness(IMO), tremendous stability and a sawzall center mounted gun package and the A-20 is a fine neg E fighter is as well.

I'm not in a spot where I can edit this one down but if you take a look at the last few minutes I get bounced by a good la-7 driver on the deck after I bounced Domin. The lala is positive E and obviously has angular advantage and SA. The A-20 has no problem at all in a vertical climb scissors and then can zoom stable till less then 50mph ias and recover to again win a climbing turning vertical fight on the deck. Now the A-20 absorbed a couple of good shots along the way...but thats typical.

A-20 E fighting on the deck

The A-20 can change up from E to angles and back better then any fighter in the game IMO....

E by itself is useless...it's the application of E that is priceless

Stang · « **Reply #23 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:11:12 PM »

For me the 38 is the best. It hates to slow down, weighs more than just about any other fighter, and is rediculous in the vertical. Co-E in an uphill fight it simply is fantastic. Flown by someone who knows it it can dominate just about any E-fight.

Wadke · « **Reply #24 on:** October 19, 2007, 12:11:35 AM »

F6F-5

Charge · « **Reply #25 on:** October 19, 2007, 04:46:53 AM »

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530/pg_1

-C+

Knegel · « **Reply #26 on:** October 19, 2007, 02:23:46 PM »

Hi,

Regarding the plane i understand it in this way: A E-fighter is the plane doomed to make B&Z, cause its main acceleration(climb) is rather bad and/or its E-bleed while sustained turning is rather high and or it have a more poor turn ratius.
The E-fighter need to safe its E-advantage by evading long turns and by attacking the enemy and forcing him to make energy wasting evading manouvers, without to get into his gunrage.

Thats why a plane can be a E and Turn fighter at same time.
SpitIX vs A6M5 , Spit is the E-fighter.
SpitIX vs P47, P47 is the E-fighter.

Of course also a A6M5 can make E-fight vs a SpitIXc and a SpitIXc can make E-fight vs a P47.

Thats where TC is right, E-Fight is the way to maintain the energy in a way to be able to get into a shooting position. This isnt only about keeping as much energy as possible, but also about beeling energy in the right moment.

Greetings,

Knegel

Widewing · « **Reply #27 on:** October 19, 2007, 03:20:45 PM »

There's been a lot of discussion on this topic, but most people don't understand some basic concepts.

Badboy has previously quoted Shaw: ""In the angles fight the tactician first seeks to gain a position advantage (angles), even at the expense of relative energy, and then he attempts to maintain or improve on this advantage until he achieves his required firing parameters. The purpose of the energy fight is to gain an energy advantage over the opponent while not yielding a decisive position advantage. Once a sufficient energy advantage has been attained, it must be converted to a lethal position advantage, usually without surrendering the entire energy margin."

In short, every fighter can be an E fighter or an angles fighter. It's up to the pilot how he chooses to engage. A lowly F4F-4 can E fight a 109K successfully depending upon initial E advantage and pilot skill.

Some aircraft are better at E fighting than Angles fighting. Others are just the opposite. We also have quite a few that can be successfully utilized for either. Those "all-arounds" include the F4Us, F6F-5, all 109s including the E, the Spitfire 8, 9, 14 and 16, as well as the P-38s, Niki, Ki-84, Lalas and several others. These aircraft have the ability to transition from Energy tactics to Angle tactics seamlessly. The P-51s, Typhoon, P-47s and the various 190s are not good angles fighters, and thus do not make the transition without complication. In other words, if you blow your E in these types, odds are that you will not have an easy time of it. They have a narrow window where they must get the kill or be put at substantial risk.

You can certainly use E tactics in a Hurricane IIC if you have some altitude. The drawback is that when your altitude and E are exhausted, the Hurri ends up being a pure angles fighter.

As to which fighter being the best E fighter... There are no absolutes here. I would stick with that group of "all-arounds", where you have the ability to fight using both Energy and Angles. This allows for far greater flexibility of tactics and offers the pilot greater options.

My regards,

Widewing

humble · « **Reply #28 on:** October 19, 2007, 04:12:07 PM »

For the moment I'll vote whatever Wadke is in:). I havent been that painfully schooled in recent memory (and mine of course is short and self-serving {as any selfrespecting "fighter pilots" should be}).

Viking · « **Reply #29 on:** October 21, 2007, 10:09:01 AM »

This thread is named "best e fighter?". To even mention the A-20 in this context borders on the absurd.