Which Time period do you fly?

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Hi Everyone

 

Just thought it would be cool, to find which time period you prefer to fly in the most?

(please note, even if you fly more than one..please only vote for your favourite)

[+Dave 2,322]

I prefer Korean War era, becauses its WWII style dogfighting with jets.

[Gr.Viper 131]

*torn between periods of early planes, early jets and early missiles*

[Slartibartfast 153]

Hmmm... me I prefer all of them... but hey thats me...

[+Brain32 265]

I voted 1980+, I used to be a die hard propeller head, but when IL2 online died I went modern. Korea is great too, the mix of the two

[+JonathanRL 974]

1955 to 1975 is perfect for me.

[macelena 1,070]

1955 to 1975 is perfect for me.

 

Same here

[mdatelmi 124]

Mostly Vietnam for me...with some digression in modern and future/what if planes.

 

WWII and Korea only for photoshopped screenshots...well...sometimes ago!

[Guest Raden]

Hi Everyone

 

Just thought it would be cool, to find which time period you prefer to fly in the most?

(please note, even if you fly more than one..please only vote for your favourite)

 

Me I returned to my fav MiG-21 series battling the USAF, IAF, Taiwan, and Kuwait in GermanyCE, IsraelME, Libya, Formosa Strait, Taiwan, and definitely the ANW.

 

 

I also flew more my /refurbished MiG-15 and 17 (EAF, SovietBlack, NKorea, ChinaBlue) 

 

Period? 1980s up to What Ifs in 2010!

 

Yhe only prop I keep r the Bronco/USMC, USAF, and TNI-AU; also the legendary Mustang P-51 USAF, TNI-AU and IAF.

 

 

 

 

 

[+hgbn 91]

From WWII to around mid 70's. My absolute favorite Era is Korea with the mix of jets and props and where it's the pilots skills which more or less decide the outcome of a fight.

[MaverickMike 10]

I like to fly in the vietnam era. This era I think has a good mix of cannon dogfights and some missile and BVR action. However I have recently purchased FE2 and am enjoying flying in WW1 aswell. I havnt got a Korea install as of yet so I havnt got any experience with this era.

[CarlosemoG 0]

This is a hard one. I modified my WOE so that I can fly missions between 1945 and 2020. From the Bf-109E3 (1936) to the F-35B and C (2012).

All eras have their special flavour to them, from the gun kills of WWII and Korea to the BVR "Gotcha!" of the 70s/80s and the stealthiness of the 90s and onwards.

I suppose since the majority of models I have in my WOE were produced in the 50s/60s/70s, I mainly fly in the Vietnam time period.

Edited April 11, 2010 by CarlosemoG

[+Gepard 11,292]

I prefer the Near East conflict. Israels wars from 1956 to 1973. I think that the modern times avionics cant be handled well by the TK'games. For instance i miss the "silent shot" capibility of the modern soviet fighters or the multiple target capability of modern radar systems. Thatswhy nearly never past 1980.

[UnknownPilot 33]

I took the question to be in regards to TW sims, and on that note, I voted Vietnam. SF2:V is what truly got me into the series and brought me here. I have some earlier planes, and some what-ifs, but by and large my install is all about Vietnam.

 

I would LOVE to mess with WW1 and 2 stuff in this series, except I can't. Without torque, gyroscopic precession, and prop wash modelling (even if it was just a fudge to make it feel right), I just can not use a single engine prop plane in this series. That leave only counter rotating twins, and there just aren't that many of those that are all that interesting.

 

Modern stuff just can not be trusted. I seriously doubt that the full specs of any currently used fighter (US fighter at least) will be de-classified and available to the public. What-ifs are ok because they are what-ifs anyway, but a what-if that is supposed to be real just doesn't work (hard to explain, but it makes sense to me lol)

 

Also, modern stuff doesn't really work well in TW sims either. The systems modeling is just not there (which is quite unfortuante because the FM (at least where jets are concerned) is excellent). However, it's just about perfect for pre and early radar and early to JUST maturing missiles (ie, '46 to mid to late 70s).

 

 

All that said, if you take the whole of my simming experience, it's overwhelmingly WWII. :)

Edited April 11, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Certainly Not refering to TW games

[MigBuster 2,884]

Quite like the late 50s to late 70s jets - good mix of guns with rubbish missiles - makes things challenging - especially now the AI is at a much better level.

 

As said above thats the strongest period for this series IMO

[JediMaster 451]

I don't have a fave, I like them all!

If you're asking what I'm flying most right NOW, that would be a mix between WWI and modern (thanks to LOMAC, DCS, and F4).

I've done tons of WWII flying over the years, with Il-2 being the only thing I'm still flying, but not too often. Before FE2 came out, I was spending a bit more time in the Vietnam era with the SF2 titles.

 

As for Korea, I never had MiG Alley, so other than that one CFS3 mod and some mods for TW sims (I don't think I ever got the Korea terrain installed, though, just some planes), it would have to be Chuck Yeager's Air Combat c.1991 the last time I had a sim that actually had Korea OOTB.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

Hard to choose, as each era has its own pros and contras, but most especially both the extreme ones:

 

WWI pros: dream-like impression to feel suspended in the air behind your enemy while flying at very low speeds, easy landings at low speeds provided the winds are not against you, instinctive flight with few instruments - Be a bird, not a machine

WWI contras: hardly recoverable loss of control on some vicious models, no radio navigation, no radio at all anyway, and worse of all, no parachute!

 

1980+ pros: useful HUDs, helpful radio navigation, trustful missiles - The electronics work for you out of combat situation

1980+ contras: high speed landings; too high speeds for gunfights; the enemy too enjoys trusful long-range missiles that most often beat any of your ECM; the modern radar missile-locking process needs too many successive steps in combat situation for a small brain like mine, especially on LOMAC, and requires more acquired reflexes than pure instinct (I find much more pleasure in a successful instinctive gunshot with high deflection, even if not decisive, than in a decisive missile hit at long range)

 

The pros and contras melt more and weigh less on the three other eras. They don't disgust me of WWI, not at all, but otherwise, I rarely fly something more modern than a F-4E. Besides and rather than WWI, I largely enjoy WWII (Il-2 1946 or BoB II Wings of Victory), with some frequent digressions to Korean War and 1960s-70s (Israeli Wars rather than Vietnam). Both in WWII and Korean War, I can find my favourite weaponry, the American one with the six .50 pack: no need to deal with different guns and their associated ballistics at long ranges (the Me-109E, Zero or Spit V-IX are nightmares), sufficient punch against almost any aerial target, and sufficient duration of fire.

[Nesher 628]

i prefer modern sims...

but i haven't flown one in a long time

[UnknownPilot 33]

1980+ contras: high speed landings; too high speeds for gunfights;

 

They've been saying that since the Me-262 (too fast to (gun) fight).

 

As long as you and your opponent are on a similar speed and maneuverability scale, gun fights aren't that hard. I've been doing some missions lately testing out aircraft, and my test is the F-16. I have a mission with 2 groups of 2 F-16s, and they are armed with AIM-9Ls (all aspect). And my goal is to not out-range them, instead to get in close, and then take them out. When using the Flanker A and Fulcrum A, the missiles they came with (Atoll Ds being the best) were utterly worthless and just dead weight. So it ended up being a gun fight, and the Flanker is more than capable of taking them out with guns (it's a lot more effort in the Fulcrum, unfortunately [as I aesthetically prefer that one, plus the SF version has a better done cockpit than the SF Flanker]).

 

Regarding landing speeds... what's high? The F-14A (ok, that's late 70s introduction, but in practice it was 1980+) I've gotten to touch gently at 110KIAS.

 

As supermanevuerability remains important, each successive design seems to be dropping wing loading and increasing thrust loading, as well as using various flaps, slats, and FBW tricks to basically make these fighters fly like aerobatic planes, with slow landing and rotation speeds, great handling, and ridiculous top speed, climb and acceleration. (one page I was reading said that the ST-21, the planned upgrade for the existing F-14D, could have taken off with a full combat load with a 7kt TAIL wind, and brought 16,000lbs of ordnance and fuel back aboard. )

[FalconC45 162]

All of above.

 

Falcon

[Guest huthut]

WWI. Men were men and Aces were Aces. There was no other option.

[Cali 6]

1980+, Modern fighters, can't stand the old jets/airplanes.

[+Dave 2,322]

1980+, Modern fighters, can't stand the old jets/airplanes.

 

 

You're missing out on some really good dogfighting that doesn't involve pushing a button and killing from 30+ miles. Do not get me wrong I love all simming (I have entire installs dedicated to modern stuff) but there is something cold and personal (and more skill required) to get on a Mig-15's tail and shoot it down with 6 .50 cal's in 1952 with an F-86. Anyone (as an F-15 instructor told me) can push a button and kill a plane at BVR, doesn't mean they can dogfight. Even with today's training, DACT has taken a serious back seat to the air to mud mission. (Strike U is a prime example) I find a lot of combat simmers like more modern era because its turned into a point and shoot, instant gratification. But when we got those same simmers in say an F-4B (crappy missiles and no gun) or an F9F Panther, they couldn't hang. They lost their dog fighting skills, they got frustrated because they had to work hard for their kill and would often quit after 2 engagements. To prove my point (Rugg I found this interesting when we talked on the phone) Rugg stated they rarely make it to the merge in online play. Would love to see what some of those guys do in the situation I described. Ok my point to all this, there isn't any era I can't stand. I love it all. Been flying WWI stuff as of late (along with FC2). I found more than one occasion after having flown 4 or 5 missions in ROF, then went to FC2, that in the merge with the Su-27 or Mig-29, I had the advantage in tactics and going back to basics. Got to love a gun kill against a SU-27 in an F-15.

 

Cali I hope you do not think I am jumping on you at all by the way, if I sounded like that in anyway my apologies. Was not my intention.

[UnknownPilot 33]

You're missing out on some really good dogfighting that doesn't involve pushing a button and killing from 30+ miles. Do not get me wrong I love all simming (I have entire installs dedicated to modern stuff) but there is something cold and personal (and more skill required) to get on a Mig-15's tail and shoot it down with 6 .50 cal's in 1952 with an F-86. Anyone (as an F-15 instructor told me) can push a button and kill a plane at BVR, doesn't mean they can dogfight. Even with today's training, DACT has taken a serious back seat to the air to mud mission. (Strike U is a prime example) I find a lot of combat simmers like more modern era because its turned into a point and shoot, instant gratification. But when we got those same simmers in say an F-4B (crappy missiles and no gun) or an F9F Panther, they couldn't hang. They lost their dog fighting skills, they got frustrated because they had to work hard for their kill and would often quit after 2 engagements. To prove my point (Rugg I found this interesting when we talked on the phone) Rugg stated they rarely make it to the merge in online play. Would love to see what some of those guys do in the situation I described. Ok my point to all this, there isn't any era I can't stand. I love it all. Been flying WWI stuff as of late (along with FC2). I found more than one occasion after having flown 4 or 5 missions in ROF, then went to FC2, that in the merge with the Su-27 or Mig-29, I had the advantage in tactics and going back to basics. Got to love a gun kill against a SU-27 in an F-15.

 

Cali I hope you do not think I am jumping on you at all by the way, if I sounded like that in anyway my apologies. Was not my intention.

 

Could not agree more.

 

As I said in the other thread about the F-105 in the SF General Discussion forum - this is not to brag, the the LOMAC guys dreaded us IL2 guys coming in because "you prop guys know how to dogfight". And it makes them do a double take then you gun down their Flanker in an Eagle, because they think it shouldn't be possible. (but all they do is BVR button pressing, or rely on their rides' better agility and slam the throttles and pull back on the stick till they get a kill - actually not so unlike the VVS guys in IL2 with their Yak3 and La7s)

 

I've done similar experiments and it's fascinating. A friend of mine, who is now hooked on SF2:V at my place, has been my guinea pig and observation experiment. He loved LOMAC to death too, but just couldn't get on with IL2.

 

In fact, I tossed him into a P-39 cold (with virtually no sim stick time at all), explained the Cougar profile to him and let him have at it. I figured the Airacobra with it's tricycle landing gear would be a bit easier to move into (and I didn't find it difficult at all, personally... lol). He could barely get it off the ground. And after getting passed that, it was a struggle to get him to look around and attain SA. He wanted to do everything through a HUD (which wasn't there of course). And combat was exactly as described - bank and yank and wait for the kill shot (which never came).

 

When he was flying A2A in SF early on he still wasn't looking around, but I was guiding him and telling him what the AI was doing when it left his FOV, and it helped him quite a bit (one particular instance that came to mind when writing this was a rolling scissors broke out when he overshot the AI). It wasn't that I had 6th sense, just that I was familiar with those close in situations. He later acknowledged how much it helped him and how he needed to get feel for that.

 

He's finally using the view control and is getting better with SA now, but I still can't get him to turn off the red boxes yet.

 

Regarding WWI, did you know those guys are really no different than the modern button pushers? Just without the buttons. lol What I mean is when I got into FS-WWI, I was doing some online stuff and was frustrating them as well. They didn't seem to understand how I managed to stay above them all the time and be faster. I remember talking to Argon and some others about it (when helping them with the Dr1 and Camel tuning, among other things).

 

Even some IL2 guys who loved biplanes got argumentative when I suggested that the romantic notion of angles fighting never really existed and that you could E-fight in those crates too. (I mean, read Richtofen's comments or the Dicta Boelcke, or note the success of the SPAD - the Jug of it's day, it was all about the Energy Fight, as it would later become known)

 

If I can find my CFS3 I might just have to get OFF, but I worry about it. Even FS-WWI was lacking in some of the dynamics. The planes just don't have the nasty habits and difficulties they should. :( .....but I digress.

 

 

Oh, another interesting thing, my friend that I mentioned, I don't think he even uses the pedals as even a footrest. He says he uses them, but I've never seen it. I use them all the time and even then still probably don't use them often enough. I love a plane with good rudder authority, especially if it doesn't have too much induced roll. There are countless times the rudder is useful or even vital, but if you don't think like a stick and rudder guy, you are left out and struggle, even in your mighty missile armed afterburning jet.