As far as the "bomber"' classification goes... ever think it is classified incorrectly, it did go through a series of changes (from 6 to 4 bombs and less bomb options, addition of 37mm guns, remodel, etc)? If you or anyone else thinks the IL-2 should have the F3 view simply for having a "bomber" classification when there are other planes that do exactly as it does (dive bomb [no level bomb sight], attack gv's, has rear gunner, etc), how consistant is that? Classify based on a single set of parameters and apply it to all. Matter of fact, Larry, please tell me and ther others as to how the IL-2 is different, in performance, to the 110, Mossie, A20, or any other dive bomber/attack plane. Seriously. Back up your statements.
You mean besides being slower and less agile? There's a lot of room for interpretation in your request. But here is a stab . . .
Not sure why you think a bomber classificiation is inaccurate for the IL-2. It was always supposed to be a ground-target strike aircraft, which is generally what a bomber does. It's classification as a bomber is therefore completely accurate.
The A-20 was always a light bomber as well. It was designed to be used as a light bomber, was employed as a light bomber, and evolved from a more or less level-bomb role (as our Bostons do) to a very effective strafer attack platform.
The 110, by comparison, was a "heavy fighter", was always considered a fighter, and, although occasionally employed in an attack role, retained it's fighter status by becoming primarily a night-fighter/interceptor.
You want one that is mis-classified, it would be the Mossie. It was designed to be an unarmed, but fast-thus-uninterceptable light bomber. I can only assume it gets its fighter classification because the version HTC decided to give us is the night-fighter/interceptor version, as evidenced by the slower speed due to the exhaust covers (do a search and see the complaints); or perhaps because it didn't have a rear-facing gun position, as the more "traditional" bombers do. Thus an F3 view for the Mossie would not be logical in any event, and since F3 view is likely tied to that "bomber" button, the Fighter classification is understandable even if not entirely consistent.
These f3-enabled planes are already at a large disadvantage vs. true fighters. F3 view slightly levels the playing field, but they are still very disadvantaged. F3 is a modest concession to prevent the disadvantage already experienced by these planes from becoming catastrophic. I suppose the true goal of the complaint is to relegate them to hanger-queen status, but I don't see how that would be good for the game.
