Is there a Messerschitt 163 in the game?
 

..?

Simple Answer: Yes. I unlocked it in Battle of Berlin.

yes and its everything you hope it will be! :)

Is there a list of all the planes available.

I hate it. I don't really like the jets on there. The Me 262 seriously doesn't do what it should, same with the Komet.

262 is USELESS, i was very disappointed, it doesnt turn (i know it had a wider radius than most, but thats stupid.

however the 163 is SUPERB for airfield capture, small target, super fast, although take-off after landing is hilarious, and more luck than judgement, due to resting on one wing, so you need to land 90* to where you WANT to takeoff again, and then you have to make sure you stop on the correct wing, its brilliant. :)

Lol. Is the online quite easy to play and stuff. How long does capture airfields last and do you get to choose what plane you want to go and how many in the teams?

I haven't done any team stuff yet, but capture the airfield to me. Doesn't take long. And you can choose your plane.

in arcade yes its easy, realistic is easy too if you know what you're doing and get some practice, sim... not so much but thats something to work up to.

capture airfields can last however long you like, you can set the tickets, and the time length up to unlimited.

and its 8vs8 maximum but you can choose, and yes you CAN choose your plane, HOWEVER, make sure you want to spend te whole match in it.

What's the plane in soviet ace's sig?

Polikarpov I-16 Type 10 Rata (Rat) and I-153. Both are the same, but the I-153 Chaika is just a biplane version of the I-16. :D

Forget about Dogfighting with a Me-262. If it's anything like the origional, it is touchy on the throttle, frequent engine flame out, slow acceration, slow rate of fire with the 30mm cannon.

You have to slowly throttle up, outdistance your enemies, then turn around and rush at them in a shallow dive.

Good Luck hitting anything at a closing speed of @ 600-900 mph. That means, go after Bombers, hit one, and keep going. Lather, Rinse & Repeat.

Does the Game's 262 throttle up and down like the origional?

LJB:cool:

Hmmmmm....Well. I wouldn't go that far. They certainly came from the same Design Bureau (Polikarpov's) but there are a good deal of constructional differences.

The reason for the continuation of Biplanes in the CCCP was because of their experiences in the Spanish Civil War, where (they believed) that Biplanes were best able to tangle with Biplanes, and that Monoplanes (i.e. their I-16's) were at a disadvantage in a classic turning Dogfight. Stalin signed off on all this, of course.

They weren't alone in that philosophy. The Italians (Fiat CR-42) and Japanese (just in time for the party with monoplanes, highly maneuverable ones), concurred.

Is there a I-153 in the game? With the late production M-62 engine? That might be interesting to do a bit of contour flying through the Russian countyside running Bf-109's into trees...

LJB:cool:

...I would also mention that, it's a little known fact, that Italy was producing CR-32ters right through 1943.

LJB:cool:

Sorta? I haven't played around with it long enough to see what it can do. But I don't plan to because it's such a terrible plane.

If you put up any Biplane against a monoplane, the biplane will no doubt out-turn the monoplane, if its a slow dogfight. And the I-153 Chaika is an I-16 biplane. first there was the I-15 which was a I-16 biplane with fixed landing gear, and an R1820 engine. Then came the I-15bis, which was the same, but the plane didn't have the "gull" wing on top, it just had a solid wing above. Then as the Spanish Civil War rolled around the I-153 Chaika came along, and was yet another I-16 biplane. Same engine: M25, but with once again "gull" wings, and this time with raisable landing gear. So the I-153 Chaika is an I-16, just with a top "gull" wing. And yes, the I-153 Chaika is in game, but it has the M25 engine I believe. Which was actually more of a reliable engine than the M63, which would cut out a lot more than before. And the reason the Biplane was still being used in the USSR, was because Stalin and the rest thought that the biplane would become the lead design of aircraft, rather than monoplanes.

The I-153 was not an I-16 biplane. The two plane might share some resemblance in features such as the shape of the cockpit and tail, due to their sharing a designer, but they are rather different apart from this. The I-153 was the final development of a family of fighter biplanes that started with the I-5 in 1931. The I-15(1934) was a heavily revised version of this with a M22 engine and the famous gulled wing which lead to the Chaika(Seagull) nickname. In turn this became the I-15bis(1937) with a straight upper wing and a M25V engine, and a further development was the I-153(1939) with a return to the gulled upper wing and consequently the old nickname, an M62 engine and a retractable undercarriage.

The I-16 was first introduced to service in 1934, only months after the I-15. The two planes shared the M22 engine but very little else. The I-15 was a biplane with a metal forward forward fuselage and a fabric covered rear fuselage, wooden wings and fixed undercarriage, while the I-16 was a monoplane with a metal frame covered in wood and a retractable undercarriage. The I-16 mirrored the advances in engines fitted to the I-15 family, which where produced alongside the I-16, and was fitted in turn with the M25V, M62 and M63 engines as these became available, but without any name change.

What the I-153 Chaika is is an revised I-16 type 24 with a gull wing. The plane had to be slimmer so it could work better with being a Biplane. The first I-153s were actually modified I-16s, which is where they found the problem of the fuselage being to bulky for the biplane (there are pictures to support this, and several books). So they slimmed the body down, added the M25 engine, later the M63 (because of delays something like that.) So the I-153 IS an I-16 but with biplane modifications. Having a solid metal biplane like that would have severely slowed it down, and made it into a tug. That's why it was given an aluminum body (not really aluminum, but something close to it, back then.) The I-153 was just an improved I-16, but being a Biplane, it couldn't take on all the weight the I-16 could since it had a lighter more flexible frame.

Yup. Correct. This man knows his history...

A good starter on the subject is "Aircraft of the Soviet Union" by Bill Gunston. Not the last word, but, a good overall primer.

LJB:cool:

If you want a direct book about the I-15 and I-16 I suggest the two links below. They've got everything you need to know about either plane, and they've really taught me a lot about the planes.

I-15 Book
I-16 Book

I don't see where you are getting the idea that the I-153 was derived from the I-16. Every historical reference I have seen points to the I-153 having been developed from the I-15, and they have very little in common in the way of construction, even the fuselages are made from different materials, with the I-16 having a wooden covered metal frame and the I-153 having an all metal forward fuselage and fabric covered metal tube rear fuselage. The I-16 and I-153 differ in not just construction but also virtually every point of detail, and in shape the I-153 has far more in common with the I-15 than the I-16.

Because these two books and others have taught me a lot about early Soviet planes.

I'll have a look at getting these. They certainly look interesting, and I've heard good things about the Red Star books.

I've also got the Yak-3 book, and you know the Yak-3 WHOO!! :cool: If you lived in LA, I would let you barrow them. But a cross country and Trans-Atlantic flight might be a bit much :P