Author Topic: IL-2  (Read 1930 times)

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: IL-2
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2011, 07:08:04 AM »
You just dug a bit deeper in your hole.   ;)

The Il-2 is a "direct support" attack aircraft.  All it was meant to do was combat ground targets.  If you are getting shot down by fighters it is not the fault of the aircraft or you, it is the fact that you have no support to protect you.  There is a reason the Soviets gave it a rear gunner.   :aok

Even with the Il-2 being "nerfed", finding gv's is still easy.  The F3 view was a huge luxury and there is nothing to stand on when saying it should have that capability.   
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline MickDono

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Re: IL-2
« Reply #16 on: August 18, 2011, 08:02:44 AM »
As a gver I'm glad the thing takes more skill to fly now. F3 mode should be removed in all ac as far as I can tell.
-1

QFT

Offline Vudu15

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
Re: IL-2
« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2011, 08:39:43 AM »
set the gunner/pilot view to stick.  that's what i have, I dont get killed often.  really hate to tell you but mirrors will never be introduced to ah since they were never part of the airplane anyway.  il2 is great for practicing SA, if you get killed often, then you should perhaps reconsider upping il2s when there's lots of red planes around, or get better at SA.

semp

well before my SA comes into question ask around to anyone whose ran into me with any number of other a/c when faced with superior numbers, I have my bad days but I make em work for it.

edit: i was joking about the mirrors would make it worse.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 08:41:15 AM by Vudu15 »
"No odds too great"

"I was a horse ahead at the end" - Nathan Bedford Forrest
Training Video List https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL54E5CE

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: IL-2
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2011, 12:49:32 PM »
I just saw fester land an 8 kill run in one flight with an IL2. one kill being a fighter. The IL2s fine <S>
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline Vinkman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: IL-2
« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2011, 12:54:08 PM »
look guys I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night, Yes I set the views and whiny players nerfed the IL2 because they were dumb enough to get shot down by one.
I very rarely used it as a fighter because frankly it sucks at that (ill use a Brewster WAY better) but now I do not have time to hop in the gunner pos. do evasives then find a moving ground tgt at about 100ft with whatever terrain is in the area. plus dodge f'in wirbles.

you can see well out of the front and the 3 and 9 0'clock positions you can also see well above you. and that would be fine if attacking a/c were always in front of you. to the six you have almost nothing and like wise with the 5 and 8 oclock views you can see back and down but not up were the bad guys are coming from. and I dont drive gvs but you cats got the commander view so yall can move better and now were goin to limit the views on the IL2 an no I'm not flyin the bofor with wings, rather have a hurri1.

In AH you can move your head around as good as you can in real life. I would argue better, in fact. The limiting factor is the size and shape of the allowable head-movement box. If you can make a logical case that the range of motion is artificially limited in the Il-2, HTC might fix it.
Some time back I complained about the rear view of the P-39 and got no response. Later I made a better case by specifically pointing out that the range of forward head movement was artificially limited to to the front of the seat pan, when in other planes it seems to go all the way to the dash panel. In the next rev HTC revised the size and shape of the head movement box, and the Rear visibility in the P-39 was greatly improved.  :salute

Who is John Galt?

Offline surfinn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: IL-2
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2011, 01:26:10 PM »

Offline ToeTag

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
Re: IL-2
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2011, 01:54:29 PM »
Google search say's "Quoted for truth"
They call it "common sense", then why is it so uncommon?

Offline Rich52

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: IL-2
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2011, 02:12:09 PM »
The real problem is that other aircraft exactly like the IL2, rear gunner/bomb bay, were left with an F3 view. So one has to ask why was the IL2 singled out ? Most of all since its regular views are pretty bad. Im talking what ? The A-20 most of all, the TBM?, The SBD, DC3?, B5N2? B-25H? the 110s, the Stuka?

The only reason I can figure that makes sense is the years of endless colossal whines, "Waaa they keep killing my tanks". And almost all these tanks kilt were ones attacking air bases so that makes the whines even more pitiful. And no doubt the "Im a great tanker cause I camp spawns all the time" crowd had a waaa in it too. Many take it personal when an aircraft kills a spawning tank before they can, while IT IS spawning to attack an air base.

At Vbase battles the IL2 has always been an almost non-player. Its to slow, to far to fly, and you'd just be dead meat to a fighter who has an ounce of skill. To say the IL2 with F3 made it to effective a AtA fighter is laughable. Its like flying a bath tub with wings. It had some use zinging around slinging pumpkins at vulchers but if you get kilt while vulching you dont have the right to whine.

Just glancing at the stats I'd say two patterns have emerged. #1 is that far less are even flying the IL2 now. #2 is that far less are upping them at contested air bases where there is a lot of enemy presence. Thats why P-51D kills in it went from 151 to 31. Everyone knows its now crow bait if theres a lot of red around it.
Yes, your on "Ignore"

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17423
Re: IL-2
« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2011, 02:17:43 PM »
well before my SA comes into question ask around to anyone whose ran into me with any number of other a/c when faced with superior numbers, I have my bad days but I make em work for it.

edit: i was joking about the mirrors would make it worse.

I am quoting your own statement.  you need to work on your SA.  one little piece of advise when you are turning to line up on a tank put your il2 sidewides and use the look up view (adjust it first)  then you will have the tank in sight at all times.

I need some side mirrors or something flying that thing sux now. I cant see the tanks, I cant see the airplanes, just gauges and a ton of armor.

In real life you could move around to get your view, but I dont have time to move my head to the right spot while dodging fighters/ tanks and wirbs.

semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline ToeTag

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
Re: IL-2
« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2011, 02:26:59 PM »
maybe things were changed but the 110 did not have F3 mode the last time I flew it.
They call it "common sense", then why is it so uncommon?

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: IL-2
« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2011, 02:51:06 PM »
A simple solution, wish for the IL10. It was rated for low level aircombat along with having two NS-23.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crew: 2, pilot and gunner
Length: 11.12 m (36 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 13.40 m (44 ft)
Height: 4.10 m (13 ft 5 in)
Wing area: 30 m² (322.9)
Empty weight: 4,675 kg (10,305 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,345 kg (14,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6,537 kg (14,410)
Powerplant: 1 × Mikulin AM-42 liquid-cooled V-12, 1,320 Kw (1,770 hp)
Performance

Maximum speed: 550 km/h at 2,700 m; 500 km/h at ground level (340 mph at 8,860 ft / 310 mph g/l)
Range: 800 km (500 mi)
Service ceiling: 4,000 m (13,123 ft)
Wing loading: 211 kg/m² (43.2 lb/ft²)
Armament


2 × 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 auto cannons in wings, 150 rounds per gun
1 × 12.7 mm UBST machine gun in the BU-9 rear gunner station, 190 rounds
Up to 600 kg (1,320 lb) of various weapons as described in the text.

Technical descriptionThe airframe featured one engine, two-seat, monoplane, with a metal-covered frame. The plane was highly armoured. The front part of the fuselage, with the cockpit, was a shell of armour plates 4–8 mm thick; the thickest, 8 mm, were under the engine, there was no armour above the engine. The front windshield was made of armour glass 64 mm (2.5 in) thick. Also armoured was: a roof above the pilot, side window frames in the pilot's cab, a wall between crew seats, and a rear wall behind the cab. Total armour weight was 994 kg, including its attachment. The wing consisted of a central section, with two bomb bays, and two detachable outer panels. The undercarriage was retractable. The main wheels folded to the rear after rotating by 86°.

Early Il-10s had two 23 mm VYa-23 autocannons (150 rounds each) and 2 7.62 mm ShKAS machine guns (750 rounds each) fixed in wings, and a 12.7 mm UBT machine gun in a rear gunner station BU-8, with 150 rounds. The horizontal angle of the rear machine gun field of fire was 100°. From 1947, the aircraft were armed with four NS-23 23 mm cannons in the wings (150 rounds each) and 20 mm B-20T cannon in a rear gunner station BU-9 (150 rounds). The IL-10M had four 23 mm NR-23 cannons in wings (150 rounds each) and 20 mm B-20EN cannon in a rear gunner station BU-9M (150 rounds). Avia B-33 had four 23 mm NS-23RM cannons in wings and 20 mm B-20ET cannon in a rear gunner station BU-9M.

The normal bomb load was 400 kg, maximum load was 600 kg. This could be small fragmentation or anti-tank bomblets, put in bomb bays, or four 50–100 kg bombs in bomb bays and externally under wings, or two 200–250 kg bombs attached under wings. Small bomblets were put directly on bomb bay floors, in piles. A typical load was 182 (maximum 200) 2 kg AO-2,5-2 fragmentation bombs, or 144 PTAB-2,5-1,5 anti-tnk HEAT bombs. Apart from bombs, four unguided rockets RS-82 or RS-132 could be carried on rail launchers under wings. Avia B-33s were also fitted to carry other rocket types. Late Soviet aircraft could carry ORO-82 and ORO-132 tube launchers. In the tail section was a DAG-10 launcher with 10 anti-aircraft or anti-personnel grenades AG-2 (after being thrown, they would fall with parachutes and then burst, but were not widely used in practice).

The Il-10 engine was a 12 cylinder inline V engine Mikulin AM-42, liquid cooled, power: 1,770 hp continuous, takeoff power: 2,000 hp. Three-blade propeller AV-5L-24 of 3.6 m diameter. Two fuel tanks in the fuselage: upper 440 l over engine, ahead of the cockpit, and lower tank of 290 l under the cockpit. The aircraft had a radio set and a camera AFA-1M in a rear section of the fuselage.

bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: IL-2
« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2011, 02:59:34 PM »
The real problem is that other aircraft exactly like the IL2, rear gunner/bomb bay, were left with an F3 view. So one has to ask why was the IL2 singled out ? Most of all since its regular views are pretty bad. Im talking what ? The A-20 most of all, the TBM?, The SBD, DC3?, B5N2? B-25H? the 110s, the Stuka?
vudu at least knows what he's talking about. the 110 does not nor did have f3 mode. the views in the il2 are no worse than the views in the a20 or b25h. everything but dead 6 is easily adjusted.
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline Vudu15

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
Re: IL-2
« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2011, 03:34:04 PM »
well semp you dont actually know how my SA is so lets leave it right there.

let me specify: I make my attacks on tanks between 10-100ft above the ground. so your looking for trees, hedgerows, wirbs, tanks, hills, tryin to line up your shot(without being hit by a main gun round) THEN you have fighters other ground attack a/c and anyone with a pistol tryin to shoot the guy in a plane over a gv fight. and then you have the added bonus of not being able to see where 99.9% of badguys come from, the high six oclock.

I dont know what alt yall shoot from but from mine within 5 secs you've lined up made your pass been shot at and are heading out and away from the tgt.
anyhow semp do you fly the IL2 much I figured you for a BnZ master in a D pony......doubtful on the master.
"No odds too great"

"I was a horse ahead at the end" - Nathan Bedford Forrest
Training Video List https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL54E5CE

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: IL-2
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2011, 04:07:09 PM »
don't know what kind of stick you have vudu but...high six with hatswitch + another button combination

jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17423
Re: IL-2
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2011, 05:01:25 PM »
haven't upped il2 much lately, if if you go back several months, I would get at least 100 kills in in the il2.  it's my tank buster of choice, as I consider bombing gvs dweebish  :D.  I also keep my il2 at 2 to 3k and dive to put rounds in the hatch, easier to kill tanks while st the same time gives me room to dive and manouver to avoid fighters.

semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.