AB Fighter Plane Reviews

[Taranok 3,920]

The only problem I had when I tried to keep the plane low was the number of players on the enemy team who would specifically hunt my plane down, which is fair enough seeing as I was alone and miles away from friendly planes. The highest altitude at which I have actually had a dogfight has been about 8000m, but I would agree with you that regardless of BR, it is very rare to enter a dogfight above 4000m (unless one team sends in a large number of level altitude bombers at high altitudes, the resultant dogfights are some of the best I have had!).

 

For me, WEP helps in the initial sprint for altitude, and when trying to get behind your opponent via a sharp turn mid-dogfight. It can be a real game-changer if used in short bursts. (A fan of Latin meus amicus?)  ;)s

 

Yeah, I never expected it to stall, although it does encourage me to take a look at the differences between IAS and TAS. Maybe I shall join the IAS race during the coming summer months!

 

I would say the WEP/110% feature in AB is rather balanced at the moment on the whole, although I would agree with you that certain planes seem to benefit more than others, and it would be nice if perhaps a slightly more historical interpretation was applied in a later patch.

 

I figured that would be the place.  I mean, when it takes 7 minutes at level flight to overheat the Japanese 190 (not A6M2, whoops, minor error on my part) it's a real practicability concern.  Sure, let's say overheating the engine will break the plane just for the sake of argument.  If you have to fly at the hottest point in the map holding down WEP like a fool as you mow the lawns and trim the trees, you might be able to overheat the engine after 7 minutes in the case of one specific plane.  That plane isn't gonna stay there for that long without dying.  Also, I am incredibly jealous that you had high-altitude dogfights.  My highest altitude dogfights came from the idiotically overpowered BTD snagging climbing people as they were trying to murder me by climbing under me or from a P-51 or some other plane climbing on bombers.  True high-alt dogfights just don't happen :(

 

(Only when it makes me sound fancy.)  But yeah, under test spars with Cuteling, an F4U-1c taken up against a BF 109G-2, WEP makes the difference between both planes just dancing around each other in an aerial ballet and the 109G-2 being able to gain a performance edge and turn in on the F4U, get a firing solution and murder the plane.  It turns planes that were largely similar in performance to various U.S. fighters with some major drawbacks, such as poor energy retention, but some advantages, such as sustained RoC, and basically lets them out-turn those fighters with ease just by sucking them low.  Even 190s exhibit symptoms of this, though 190s are a fair bit naturally disadvantaged in sustained turn fights.

 

I can more or less agree on WEP.  The issue is when planes gain massive returns or never had a WEP.  The 109 series is a good example of planes gaining massive returns for free, the F4U-1A is a good example of a plane gaining WEP for free.  (The F4U's WEP was running water injection, introduced in the F4U-1C and 1D in mid-late 1944 with combat action seen in 1945, when the P&W R-2800-8 was swapped out for the P&W R-2800-8W, which was later retrofitted onto the 1A to turn those into essentially 1Ds, otherwise its military/combat power was a sustained WEP-like that it just had at 100% throttle).  I don't like seeing free WEPs anymore than I like seeing WEP turn a plane from a comparable climber to any fighter it's tiered near into rocket planes.  There's a real problem when 109s and 190s have more zoom climb than planes who, among other things, had a historical zoom climb advantage over the 109s/190s.

 

All of that said, if you want to run controlled tests with various planes to get a feel for IAS versus TAS, feel free to let me know, I'd be happy to get you acclimated to the changes and to point out practical differences while in flight.

[Speed59364 6]

Will do!

 

Mind if I ask what your favourites are? :)

I do not mind at all. :)

 

FW 190 A series, BF 109 F and G series.

P51 Mustang and P48 Thunderbolt as well. I do not mind the 12,7x99 MGs, especially not 8 of them.

I do have a sweet spot for the Spitfire, even though I am not very good with them. But they just look amazingly good.

 

You have another subscriber.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Speed59364

[Guest]

- BF 109 F-1 review has been recorded and edited, it will be up at the start of next week.

- Currently working on reviewing ... the Ki-43.

I cannot wait them out. I am still not fully sure if Era1 Japanese and Era2 German are simply having weak weaponry, or enemy generally holds more fire or my hands are crooked. Really looking forward on Bf 109 F-1 and Ki-43 to get a final judgement over myself. This waiting is getting scary... :)

 

I certainly learned something already from your channel. I do observe an improvement in my results slowly. I do take a bit more time to rethink my approach and my situation awareness improved a lot too. I do not get jumped so easily any more.

 

I find the biggest shortcoming in this is that the enemy is generally positioned directly behind your own plane, meaning that you can see the direction they are in, but not their orientation. And of course you can only track the locked enemy, and you don't always have the luxury of having locked the correct plane ahead of time.

Hm. I actually do not have problem to figure out from that enemy tracking both their position and heading. Finally the camera do not jump on them, but move from you towards them, so you get their relative position against you.

 

But yeah, that locked enemy or not locked enemy is a problem. :)

[tx141 815]

Update 19.3.2014:

 

- Spitfire Mk. I review has been added to the list.

- I have added another small section at the bottom of the Original Post highlighting: 1) Next plane I am reviewing, 2) Planes I am currently grinding towards, and 3) Planes requested to be reviewed. - The latter point is to help me remember what you folks want me to review!

 

I figured that would be the place.  I mean, when it takes 7 minutes at level flight to overheat the Japanese 190 (not A6M2, whoops, minor error on my part) it's a real practicability concern.  Sure, let's say overheating the engine will break the plane just for the sake of argument.  If you have to fly at the hottest point in the map holding down WEP like a fool as you mow the lawns and trim the trees, you might be able to overheat the engine after 7 minutes in the case of one specific plane.  That plane isn't gonna stay there for that long without dying.  Also, I am incredibly jealous that you had high-altitude dogfights.  My highest altitude dogfights came from the idiotically overpowered BTD snagging climbing people as they were trying to murder me by climbing under me or from a P-51 or some other plane climbing on bombers.  True high-alt dogfights just don't happen :(

 

All of that said, if you want to run controlled tests with various planes to get a feel for IAS versus TAS, feel free to let me know, I'd be happy to get you acclimated to the changes and to point out practical differences while in flight.

 

If you really want to annoy enemy BTD pilots, chase them in a Ki-43. Metaphorically speaking, it is the equivalent of a matador and a bull, with the BTD in the end usually diving to lower altitudes just to get away from you. Still, I would agree with you that the frequency of high-altitude dogfights is rather low. Even in my FW 190 D-9 (BR: 5.7), I am usually the only fighter plane up at 5000m+, even in games with jets!

 

I will definitely take you up on your offer sometime in the near future, I look forward to seeing what the differences are.

 

I do not mind at all. :)

 

FW 190 A series, BF 109 F and G series.

P51 Mustang and P48 Thunderbolt as well. I do not mind the 12,7x99 MGs, especially not 8 of them.

I do have a sweet spot for the Spitfire, even though I am not very good with them. But they just look amazingly good.

 

You have another subscriber.

 

I see. My heart lies with the F6F, although I do love the FW 190s as well! :)

 

Thank you for subscribing!

 

I cannot wait them out. I am still not fully sure if Era1 Japanese and Era2 German are simply having weak weaponry, or enemy generally holds more fire or my hands are crooked. Really looking forward on Bf 109 F-1 and Ki-43 to get a final judgement over myself. This waiting is getting scary... :)

 

I certainly learned something already from your channel. I do observe an improvement in my results slowly. I do take a bit more time to rethink my approach and my situation awareness improved a lot too. I do not get jumped so easily any more.

 

Hm. I actually do not have problem to figure out from that enemy tracking both their position and heading. Finally the camera do not jump on them, but move from you towards them, so you get their relative position against you.

 

But yeah, that locked enemy or not locked enemy is a problem. :)

 

Haha, the waiting will soon be over! :)

 

In my opinion, as you go up the ranks, I do not really notice a difference in the amount of damage planes can take, especially as the burst masses become greater and the ammunition more effective. I believe the difference lies in the actual dogfights, at lower ranks, the dogfights are usually longer, meaning that you get more time to set up your shots and/or to sit behind your opponent. Meanwhile at higher ranks, planes become more maneuverable, and faster in general, meaning you have less time to make your shots count. Hence sometimes giving the impression of weaponry being weak or generally ineffective.

 

I am glad to hear it, and it is nice to see that viewers such as yourself are using my videos as a basis rather than a "How-to". Hence why I always throw in the disclaimer: What works for me may not work for you!  :)s  

[Titan_Alpha 622]

Just watched your Spit Mk1 video, very nicely done, I remember really liking that plane despite those tiny 7.7's.

 

Your video made me nostalgic, I haven't flown the Spit Mk1 in 9 months, I have take her out for a spin today because of your review, thank you !  :salute:

 

I have a question, would it be possible for you to upload future videos in 1080? 

[tx141 815]

Just watched your Spit Mk1 video, very nicely done, I remember really liking that plane despite those tiny 7.7's.

 

Your video made me nostalgic, I haven't flown the Spit Mk1 in 9 months, I have take her out for a spin today because of your review, thank you !  :salute:

 

I have a question, would it be possible for you to upload future videos in 1080? 

 

That is no problem, the battle felt rather iconic to me seeing as I predominantly went up against planes from the Battle of Britain.  :salute:

 

I have been looking into rendering videos in 1080p. I will try and get the next set of uploads in 1080p for you. Thank you for the feedback as always :)

[BBosstone 50]

I´m really excited about the P-47 review. Can you consider using the ground target belt, too. I hear a lot of people saying API-T are the best to use on the 8 50s, but I beg to differ, because I feel the ground target belts deliver that extra punch due to their AP rounds, that you will need to down hostile planes really quick.

[Taranok 3,920]

Update 19.3.2014:

 

- Spitfire Mk. I review has been added to the list.

 

Eughad, why did you call that a Thach Weave?  A weave is when you, in a 2 man party, kite an enemy plane chasing you into the guns of your wingman.  Both planes are involved in the Thach Weave.  The weave was created to allow for the technically maneuverable but supremely disadvantaged F4F Wildcat to engage Zeroes, a significantly more maneuverable enemy, by bringing the more maneuverable plane into the guns of a waiting ally by intent, and it's one of the moves that I really feel WT needs to make an attempt to give assists out to players who pull enemies into other allies, as it historically was a very, very important maneuver invented specifically to fight the Japanese Zero.  I actually do this all the time when I squad up with players on voice comms, as well, and it makes it exceptionally easy to score kills whether you're the attacking or defending wingman on enemies that don't use similar teamwork, provided the attacking wingman is close enough and has a sharp enough aim to destroy or force the enemy to break off fast enough.

 

When a plane attempts to dodge by turning side to side, that's a flat scissors.

 

Flat Scissors

 

Thach Weave

 

The 109E wasn't engaged or even close to a firing solution at the time, ergo it was a scissors.  While the maneuvers are similar to each other, it was definitely not a weave!

 

This should not to be confused with a rolling scissors, either.

 

I can't comment on the historical nature of the Spitfire, as I never really cared for the plane enough to really look into its history beyond the cursory.  Just, you're not abusing WEP ya kind-hearted fool :Ps.  It's worth mentioning that the Spitfire, much like the Zero, has ridiculously strong rates of climb in arcade with WEP.  I don't know how it compares to real life, but they're often the select few planes that can keep up with German planes even into Era 4 in terms of RoC, and these 2 turn fighters are great when used to force enemy planes down from altitude, if not killing them outright.  Provided you know how to dodge a head-on, which you have personally shown in numerous videos, including this one.

 

Either way, a solid video all around.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Taranok

[tx141 815]

Eughad, why did you call that a Thach Weave?  A weave is when you, in a 2 man party, kite an enemy plane chasing you into the guns of your wingman.  Both planes are involved in the Thach Weave.  The weave was created to allow for the technically maneuverable but supremely disadvantaged F4F Wildcat to engage Zeroes, a significantly more maneuverable enemy, by bringing the more maneuverable plane into the guns of a waiting ally by intent, and it's one of the moves that I really feel WT needs to make an attempt to give assists out to players who pull enemies into other allies, as it historically was a very, very important maneuver invented specifically to fight the Japanese Zero.  I actually do this all the time when I squad up with players on voice comms, as well, and it makes it exceptionally easy to score kills whether you're the attacking or defending wingman on enemies that don't use similar teamwork, provided the attacking wingman is close enough and has a sharp enough aim to destroy or force the enemy to break off fast enough.

 

When a plane attempts to dodge by turning side to side, that's a flat scissors.

 

Flat Scissors

 

Thach Weave

 

The 109E wasn't engaged or even close to a firing solution at the time, ergo it was a scissors.  While the maneuvers are similar to each other, it was definitely not a weave!

 

This should not to be confused with a rolling scissors, either.

 

I can't comment on the historical nature of the Spitfire, as I never really cared for the plane enough to really look into its history beyond the cursory.  Just, you're not abusing WEP ya kind-hearted fool :Ps.  It's worth mentioning that the Spitfire, much like the Zero, has ridiculously strong rates of climb in arcade with WEP.  I don't know how it compares to real life, but they're often the select few planes that can keep up with German planes even into Era 4 in terms of RoC, and these 2 turn fighters are great when used to force enemy planes down from altitude, if not killing them outright.  Provided you know how to dodge a head-on, which you have personally shown in numerous videos, including this one.

 

Either way, a solid video all around.

 

Thanks, and thank you for the information, silly me! It seems I am learning something new everyday.  :)s

 

I omitted considerations of the Mk. I's climb rate with WEP since most dogfights at its rank seem to occur at altitudes no higher than 2500m. The climb rate is not too bad, but for me, the problem is that even if I climb to catch an enemy fighter such as a BF 109, they can easily dive and run for it, whilst my Mk. I will struggle to keep up. Still, once you are above the enemy fighters, you can perform some really nice stall/hammerhead turns in the Mk. I.

 

I decided to have a look around on the internet, and by the looks of things, the Spitfire Mk. I and the BF 109 E-3 were historically very similar in terms of their climb rates (see here, another pair of websites gave me optimal climb rates of 14.6 m/s and 15.1 m/s respectively - see the Wikipedia page for the Spitfire Mk. I and the following website for the BF 109 E-3), although I know later variants of the BF 109 historically had significantly higher climb rates than the Mk. I (G-6 in particular having a climb rate of roughly 17.0 m/s as taken from Wikipedia).

 

Of course, I cannot personally verify these numbers as I currently do not have access to my copy of Warplanes of the Third Reich by W. Green, or to my little Plane Spotter's Guide by T. Holmes. Still, I would say that in-game the Mk. I has a climb rate that can match the first two Gustav iterations of the BF 109, although the Merlin III engine lacks the acceleration to compete with these planes in my opinion.

[Taranok 3,920]

I omitted considerations of the Mk. I's climb rate with WEP since most dogfights at its rank seem to occur at altitudes no higher than 2500m. The climb rate is not too bad, but for me, the problem is that even if I climb to catch an enemy fighter such as a BF 109, they can easily dive and run for it, whilst my Mk. I will struggle to keep up.

 

Indeed.  This is one of the biggest problems with U.S. fighters in general, specifically because they're boom and zoomers that are horrible at climbing, tend to be horrible at zoom climbing (particularly after tier 10/BR 4.3) though I've seen a few cases where they can still out-zoom a 109 of the same BR range, and they can't guarantee one shot kills, nevermind guarantee a kill before they just dive.  A P-51 chasing a 109G-6 basically means the G-6 will get away and the P-51 will be dead, since they both dive at basically the same speed and, while the P-51 will hold energy better if it doesn't turn as well as will out-turn the G-6 until ~400kph indicated, the P-51 will ultimately lose any turn fight against a G-6, and will lose the energy retention war.  Then you have bombers and, well....bombers dive at mach 3.4 and nothing snaps off, and then they're just gone.  I look forward to the days the devs fix diving well beyond the capabilities of a plane, even though it means the P-38 will have compressibility (or speed cap) issues at the relatively low speed mach 0.64 if I remember correctly.

[Sirus_Prime 111]

Just wanted to stop by and say your F6F video saved that plane from being canned.  I had flown 7 games in it without a single kill, and after watching how you fly it I just bagged 6 kills while avoiding being shot down in a single game.  You sir, have earned my sub.

[BoW_DowN 14]

Unlock the yak-3p and do a review (it's worth it imo)

[tx141 815]

Just wanted to stop by and say your F6F video saved that plane from being canned.  I had flown 7 games in it without a single kill, and after watching how you fly it I just bagged 6 kills while avoiding being shot down in a single game.  You sir, have earned my sub.

 

Thanks, I am glad to hear that my review renewed your enjoyment of the F6F-3. :)

 

Unlock the yak-3p and do a review (it's worth it imo)

 

I already have it unlocked, and so I will add the Yak-3P to the request list. :)

[BBosstone 50]

Dear moderators of this forum could you please pinn this thread. The information tx141 provides about a lot of planes, that are in your game are extremely helpful for both newcomers and veterans. A lot of complaints about specific planes could be avoided, if people would have a look on these detailed reviews. They do of course represent the opinion of an individual, but are nonetheless useful for a majority of your active gamers / customers.
Thank you in advance.

[tx141 815]

Dear moderators of this forum could you please pinn this thread. The information tx141 provides about a lot of planes, that are in your game are extremely helpful for both newcomers and veterans. A lot of complaints about specific planes could be avoided, if people would have a look on these detailed reviews. They do of course represent the opinion of an individual, but are nonetheless useful for a majority of your active gamers / customers.
Thank you in advance.

 

I was going to get a few more reviews in before requesting this thread to be pinned, still, thank you for the support!  :salute:

 

P.S. On a slightly unrelated note, did you get my PM?

[tx141 815]

Update 24.03.2014:

• BF 109 F-1 Review has been added.
• P-47D-25 Review will be up this Wednesday.
• I have spent some time trying to render my content in 1080p. Unfortunately, the test videos I produced were heavily pixilated and showing large quantities of interlacing lines. As a result, I will stick to 720p for now, and try to squeeze as much as possible out of my computer in terms of recording quality. Up until now, I have been recording using Dxtory with the recording quality set to "High" (Dxtory codec) and the War Thunder graphics settings set to low. Last night I tried recording with the War Thunder settings set to medium, with noticeable improvement in quality.
• Within the next couple of weeks, I hope to boost the quality of the videos a little more. If anyone can offer me advice on settings (etc.), I would be incredibly grateful! :)

As always, to viewers both old and new, thank you all for your continued support.  :salute:

Edited March 24, 2014 by tx141

[Sirus_Prime 111]

Could I request a review of the Ki-45 tei Toryu?  The I love the previous versions, but I'm having trouble adapting to the single 37mm.

[Taranok 3,920]

Nice 109F-1 review.  More or less shows exactly how to use the plane.  You're a bit short-selling the MG FF though, its firepower is more or less identical to the MG 151/20 of later tier 109s, but you touched on the one thing that messes up people's aim with it.  The 0.30s.  I find it works best to either turn the tracers to stealth for the 0.30s or, as I've more recently done, bind your MGs and Cannons to 2 separate guns (I run MGs on left mouse, Cannons on right).  This lets you conserve MG ammo when you need it, is very useful for RB if you ever dabble (I suck at RB though, so my advice there is spotty at best), and lets you save your MG ammo for while the cannons are reloading, since the 2 reload separately when manually reloaded if one is at 100%.

 

I'd also like to point out that while the 109E-1 tapped you with 0.30s in the dogfight, I didn't notice any damage to the plane.  That was more of a hit registration issue where you saw hits but weren't, and they either saw hits or missed outright, since you definitely weren't touched.  That's one of the biggest advantages of the 109/190 line, and can't be overstated how hard it is to actually hit 109s in combat due to their insane energy retention.  Owing to the ridiculous DM of the 109s and 190s, you got tapped by gunners and it barely pinked the plane, while a lot of planes would have had far larger, more serious damage to the plane from a similar shot or shot window, so it's nice to see even more practical demonstrations of 2 of the biggest advantages of the 109 including its ridiculous climb rate for the tier, which pretty much every 109 gets to enjoy except the F-4/F-4 Trop, especially now that the P-47s were dropped to tier 7 and the F4U-1A to 6, getting a lot of the bad climbers away from the F-4 while putting a good climber right next to it, giving it more fair competition on the whole.  (Spitfires and Zeroes still aren't used right by most people due to a fear of heights or something).

 

Aside from that, the only thing I really know is that the 109G-6 was the first version of the 109 specifically geared for high altitude with the DB 605AS variant, the S standing for its enlarged supercharger better geared for high altitudes.  Whether the earlier DB605A was better than the 601, however, is unknown to me.  I just know the AS was designed for higher altitudes than the A.

 

On the speculative front, my best guess for the Germans preferring nose-mounted cannons over wing-mounted is a matter of convergence.  They had working and reliable 20mm cannons, didn't have persistence requirements like America did (either that or American design was typically overengineered, as seen in every plane built by them until the P-51) and, unlike 0.50s, you don't need a lot of cannons to gain a lot of killing power.  By lining up the cannons in the nose, it was likely easier on the whole for pilots to aim the 20mm cannons accurately than wing mounted variants, a problem that was solved I guess in 0.50 cal toting planes by turning them into mobile shotguns with a range of convergences, a tactic not done on planes such as the P-38 to the best of my knowledge due to having all 5 guns in the nose.

 

I would assume that the talk of high altitude engines and gun convergence is speculative on my part, don't take it as hard fact.  I only know the DB605AS was set for higher altitudes than the 605A, but don't know the A's tolerance.

 

Speaking of the P-38, however, I'd love to see you flail about in that plane even though I already know how to throw it around.  You've played a great plane in era 2, now play a bad one that isn't the P-400 :Ds.  It's also a great plane to showcase energy fighting tactics when you have no maneuver as well as how to climb at a severe RoC disadvantage.  But hey, maybe you can dispel the myth that it has no firepower!

[SunsetShimmers 7,929]

The MG FF/M really is a decent gun, and I have no problems scoring kills with it. The 60 round ammo means it can't spray and pray like other cannons though; with the F-1 I generally spray with the MGs, and hold the cannon back for shots I'm sure to hit.

 

The MG FF/M doesn't actually have that low a muzzle velocity either; with HE Mine shells, it has 700 m/s. That is still considerably lower than the MV of the 7.92mm MG 17 (900 m/s), so yeah, there sometimes are issues with hitting a target with both gun types.

 

Note that the Bf 109 E-3 doesn't have the MG FF/M and its high-capacity HE Mine shells; it only has the regular MG FF, which fires much weaker shells. Together with the fact the F-1 has its cannon in the nose, I generally rate the E-3 as having only slightly greater overall firepower.

 

 

Other comments on the F-1 review:

 

You should bind separate firing controls for MGs and Cannon. Planes like the Bf 109 F-1 and P-39 really benefit from this.

You should be using IAS; it will give you better information for best climb rate, and performance limits.

You should be using WEP as much as possible; more engine power doesn't just affect top speed, climb rate and acceleration, but turn rate too. The only reason to not use WEP in arcade is to hold it in reserve for a later time... but given how fast it recharges I only very rarely bother doing this.

[tx141 815]

Could I request a review of the Ki-45 tei Toryu?  The I love the previous versions, but I'm having trouble adapting to the single 37mm.

 

You can indeed, I do need to play the Japanese a little more in general.  :yes:

 

Nice 109F-1 review.  More or less shows exactly how to use the plane.  You're a bit short-selling the MG FF though, its firepower is more or less identical to the MG 151/20 of later tier 109s, but you touched on the one thing that messes up people's aim with it.  The 0.30s.  I find it works best to either turn the tracers to stealth for the 0.30s or, as I've more recently done, bind your MGs and Cannons to 2 separate guns (I run MGs on left mouse, Cannons on right).  This lets you conserve MG ammo when you need it, is very useful for RB if you ever dabble (I suck at RB though, so my advice there is spotty at best), and lets you save your MG ammo for while the cannons are reloading, since the 2 reload separately when manually reloaded if one is at 100%.

 

I'd also like to point out that while the 109E-1 tapped you with 0.30s in the dogfight, I didn't notice any damage to the plane.  That was more of a hit registration issue where you saw hits but weren't, and they either saw hits or missed outright, since you definitely weren't touched.  That's one of the biggest advantages of the 109/190 line, and can't be overstated how hard it is to actually hit 109s in combat due to their insane energy retention.  Owing to the ridiculous DM of the 109s and 190s, you got tapped by gunners and it barely pinked the plane, while a lot of planes would have had far larger, more serious damage to the plane from a similar shot or shot window, so it's nice to see even more practical demonstrations of 2 of the biggest advantages of the 109 including its ridiculous climb rate for the tier, which pretty much every 109 gets to enjoy except the F-4/F-4 Trop, especially now that the P-47s were dropped to tier 7 and the F4U-1A to 6, getting a lot of the bad climbers away from the F-4 while putting a good climber right next to it, giving it more fair competition on the whole.  (Spitfires and Zeroes still aren't used right by most people due to a fear of heights or something).

 

Aside from that, the only thing I really know is that the 109G-6 was the first version of the 109 specifically geared for high altitude with the DB 605AS variant, the S standing for its enlarged supercharger better geared for high altitudes.  Whether the earlier DB605A was better than the 601, however, is unknown to me.  I just know the AS was designed for higher altitudes than the A.

 

On the speculative front, my best guess for the Germans preferring nose-mounted cannons over wing-mounted is a matter of convergence.  They had working and reliable 20mm cannons, didn't have persistence requirements like America did (either that or American design was typically overengineered, as seen in every plane built by them until the P-51) and, unlike 0.50s, you don't need a lot of cannons to gain a lot of killing power.  By lining up the cannons in the nose, it was likely easier on the whole for pilots to aim the 20mm cannons accurately than wing mounted variants, a problem that was solved I guess in 0.50 cal toting planes by turning them into mobile shotguns with a range of convergences, a tactic not done on planes such as the P-38 to the best of my knowledge due to having all 5 guns in the nose.

 

I would assume that the talk of high altitude engines and gun convergence is speculative on my part, don't take it as hard fact.  I only know the DB605AS was set for higher altitudes than the 605A, but don't know the A's tolerance.

 

Speaking of the P-38, however, I'd love to see you flail about in that plane even though I already know how to throw it around.  You've played a great plane in era 2, now play a bad one that isn't the P-400 :Ds.  It's also a great plane to showcase energy fighting tactics when you have no maneuver as well as how to climb at a severe RoC disadvantage.  But hey, maybe you can dispel the myth that it has no firepower!

 

Thank you as always. :)

 

I can understand that I may be short-selling the MG FF 20mm Cannon quite a bit, it is just from my personal experience that I have found it rather unreliable by comparison with the later tier MG151. With regards to the usage of "Stealth" over "Tracers" in the 7.92mm Machine Guns, I personally find I really struggle with "Stealth" ammo, although I appreciate your point as the 7.92mms are merely softening up the target for the finishing blow. I used to have my cannons on LMB, machine guns on RMB, yet I am rather heavy handed with my mouse, and so when I used to try and fire just my machine guns, my aim was thrown off quite a bit. Ergo, that is why I still have both weapons on LMB, with my machine guns on RMB for the cases where I am chasing larger, less maneuverable targets.

 

I can only speculate on whether a hit detection issue occurred. I have leveled out like that before against a similar opponent and taken noticeable damage. I will admit that taking down a BF 109 is one of the most rewarding things in AB as they are incredibly difficult planes to take down.

 

When I re-do my review of the BF 109 G-6, I will go into its specifications in a bit more depth, as I believe the plane underwent a number of significant changes from its earlier G variants.

 

Thank you for your suggestion on why the armament was moved towards the nose, I will go away and try and find a little bit more out about it when I get the time.

 

I will add the P-38G to the list of requested reviews, it will take some time due to the rather large request list!  :Ds

 

The MG FF/M really is a decent gun, and I have no problems scoring kills with it. The 60 round ammo means it can't spray and pray like other cannons though; with the F-1 I generally spray with the MGs, and hold the cannon back for shots I'm sure to hit.

 

The MG FF/M doesn't actually have that low a muzzle velocity either; with HE Mine shells, it has 700 m/s. That is still considerably lower than the MV of the 7.92mm MG 17 (900 m/s), so yeah, there sometimes are issues with hitting a target with both gun types.

 

Note that the Bf 109 E-3 doesn't have the MG FF/M and its high-capacity HE Mine shells; it only has the regular MG FF, which fires much weaker shells. Together with the fact the F-1 has its cannon in the nose, I generally rate the E-3 as having only slightly greater overall firepower.

 

 

Other comments on the F-1 review:

 

You should bind separate firing controls for MGs and Cannon. Planes like the Bf 109 F-1 and P-39 really benefit from this.

You should be using IAS; it will give you better information for best climb rate, and performance limits.

You should be using WEP as much as possible; more engine power doesn't just affect top speed, climb rate and acceleration, but turn rate too. The only reason to not use WEP in arcade is to hold it in reserve for a later time... but given how fast it recharges I only very rarely bother doing this.

 

I would happily agree with your sentiment on the MG FF/M, it does pack a nasty punch but you have to get close. I should have gone away and read about the muzzle velocity, I had to base this on how it felt to me, although I will append this to the video at a later date.

 

It is interesting that you should say that about the E-3. I have found that the FI-T dominant "Air Target" belts for the MG FF Cannons lack the punch in terms of removing components of planes (i.e. wings etc.), yet they seem to achieve pilot/gunner knock-outs more frequently than the MG FF/G, however this could just be down to my personal experience. At convergence, the E-3 feels as though it has the more potent firepower, yet the nose mounting of the weaponry in the F-1 offsets this quite nicely.

 

Concerning your other points:

 

- I would, but as mentioned in my reply to Taranok, I am rather heavy handed with my mouse and so this can significantly throw my aim off. I will consider trying it again at a later date.

- I need to learn more about IAS usage before switching to it, I will try and make the transition during the Summer (rather busy with personal work at the moment).

- I am aware I could be applying WEP  a lot more, yet I have grown accustomed to only using it where necessary (I am also doing this because I have recently started to give RB a go).

 

Thank you as always for your informative feedback.  :salute:

Edited March 25, 2014 by tx141

[SIiver 2,122]

Thread moved to the "Academy" Section so it doesnt get lost.

[tx141 815]

Update 26.03.2014:

 

- Added P-47D-25 Thunderbolt review.

 

I would like to say thank you to Sliver for moving the thread to the "Academy" section.  :)s

Edited March 26, 2014 by tx141

[Guest]

I did score 4 kills with Bf 109 F-1 yesterday... Would do more, if I did not pancake it into field, while trying to capture an airfield during Domination mission. I could not remember when I managed more as 3 kills with it last time. Two things from your review helped me immensely... Controlling my own descending speed on the target to keep plane more manoeuvrable and delaying fire till 0.3km... Big thanks!

Edited March 26, 2014 by Guest

[Acht_Acht_Kanone 402]

Hey OP, its not exactly a fighter but could you do the Stuka G-1/2 and the Me410 /U4 's?

[BBosstone 50]

Awesome P-47 review, just brilliant.