The best fighter pilot game out to date?

wrangler

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
3,930
Now wait is Falcon 4 a flight sim or a normal fighter pilot game.. Or does it double as both?

Both in the sense that it can be very realistic. I don't mean flight sim like MS Flight Simulator where you run around and land at airports. It has the ability to add or subtract features from the flight model to make it easier or more realistic whatever you desire. It is definitely a game where you fly around shooting down opposing fighters and there are also ground attack missions as well.
I played this game for years and like another guy said I was still a noob or maybe better to say I still felt like I left a lot of what the game offered on the table.

I still have my original manual with the hard binder.
Now, I haven't played Falcon in years but I understand that it has been kept updated graphics, mission packs and so on and so forth but the original actually had online coop or versus mode which even in the old days on dialup was cool as hell and I really miss that. Hope the updated ones have that as well.

This is a rare gem from the days when they made real games and I don't think it will ever be equalled. To do something like this nowadays would just cost too much.

Play the game. Start off on easy flight model and instant action. Unlimited fuel and ammo and get the feel of it. As you become more proficient, start adding more realism. Once you feel like you have the hang of it pretty well you can do single missions. Once you have that down start a campaign.

It's a rush and this game will give you a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction hard to find from todays games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,742
best?! I'll tell you what and I'll stick by it god damnit

Aces Over Europe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! most fun I've ever had with that type of game
 

mwin

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
3,047
I used to play Aces Over Europe on my old DX4-100 machine. The glory days of gaming. DOS 6.0 and Win3.1. :D
 

jmackay

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
3,928
Oh I just remembered a way old game that I used to play at my buddies house, hopefully someone else here played it and might know the game.

There are multiple times you could play, I remember at least space and "modern" (think mid 90's), there might have been WW1/2 as well.

It was multiplayer (only?) and used both sides of a keyboard and split screen (FTW! lol). You would start off facing each other a mile away or something, and then fight to the death.

It was a flight arcade style game.

Can't remember much more than that, hope someone knows what it is.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2001
Messages
572
Man talk about a trip down memory lane. I used to love flight sims, they were my first computer games. The first game installed on a computer I could call my own was TORNADO back in the early nineties. I loved that game, looked nice for the time and was felt very realistic. Looking back at the graphics now (http://www.migman.com/ref/1990_combat/Tornado/Tornado.htm) I am in amazement at what the imagination can do. They may look sucky by today's standards but back then I could have sworn I was in the cockpit of the real thing ;-)

Haven't played a flight sim since 1997 or 98 but would love to see something that takes advantage of today's systems.

Tornado was awesome in it's day. Some of the features are still unsurpassed (the mission planner) Looks like a real system that the USAF uses. Combine Falcon with that Mission planner, and whoa!

I can't play arcade flight games anymore. I'm used to my Cougar Hotas and being able to actually 'use' the radar. Even LOMAC is really shorting the F-15

I'll admit that I've taken a break from Falcon, but am thinking about diving back in. It's just a time issue. And I need to train. I needa sim that starts you out in UPT and works you up to being combat qualified in the F16!
 

GT98

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2001
Messages
1,257
Well, thats where Ubi fails because they oversimplified the game. The best fighters of the war were the best because yes they had their fortes but they were strong in all aspects. The P-51's fortes were range, speed, high altitude combat but they were also used in many other capacities that they excelled at during the war. It seems that Ubi allowed some of their planes one of their strengths and scrubbed the rest. Had these aircraft been properly characterized in the game, they would be the ones used most.


i have to agree..their damage model is all fucked to hell...a P-47 gun burst on an opposing aircraft only lasted 2-3 second bursts...
 

dderidex

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
6,328
i have to agree..their damage model is all fucked to hell...a P-47 gun burst on an opposing aircraft only lasted 2-3 second bursts...

What kind of "burst" only lasts 2 to 3 seconds? I've held the trigger down 20 to 30 seconds without running out of ammo, and that's about right.

It's worth pointing out that, as was historically accurate, the P-47 usually didn't fly with a full load of ammo, but about a 50% load (for fuel efficiency/range). There is a loadout option when flying the P-47 for "extra ammunition" that takes it up to the full 100% load - and it seems you can fire FOREVER with it.

Especially as it has 8 guns, and the 'inner' pair and 'outer' pair on each wing are fired with a different trigger. Firing 4 x .50 cal at a time is plenty to take down most aircraft, so you can empty one set of guns and switch over to the others.

If you aren't doing turn-n-burn dogfighting (which, granted, 90% of the servers out there are sticking you with), the P-47 is one of the better aircraft in the game.

Honestly, the complaints against American aircraft in this title are largely bunk. Can the P-51 turn with a Bf-109 at 200ft? Hell no, but the performance characteristics published of those aircraft totally agree with that. It's just NOT that maneuverable. There was a saying during the war "The Mustang may not be able to do what a Spitfire can do...but it can do it over Berlin".

And it's also designed as an altitude fighter. Try fighting at 10,000ft+ in the game with the P-51, and you'll find it's suddenly a LOT more useful than most other aircraft. Only problem is that, again, most servers are 'turn-n-burn' dogfight servers, which start everyone out at a dead stop, on an airfield, no more than 20 miles or so from the enemy airfield. A lot of the more serious-minded simmers deride most of the IL2 servers as "Air Quake" because of that - gamers seem to want to "get in action" in less than 1-2 minutes, and just getting UP to 10,000 ft can take 15 minutes or more.

Not really the game's fault - it certainly CAN do justice to a simulation of this aircraft - but, rather, what people are interested in actually playing.
 

mwin

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
3,047
My buddies and I play IL2 in deathmatch mode, basically. 3-5 of us, little map, full realism (minus takeoff and landing, to help speed things up). The Zero (A6M5) is what we have all seemed to work our way into flying over the past few months of experimenting with different planes. We just got into all this a few months ago, and we're all still learning. It is a ton of fun, though.
 

Foxcow

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
3,238
What kind of "burst" only lasts 2 to 3 seconds? I've held the trigger down 20 to 30 seconds without running out of ammo, and that's about right.

Honestly, the complaints against American aircraft in this title are largely bunk. Can the P-51 turn with a Bf-109 at 200ft? Hell no, but the performance characteristics published of those aircraft totally agree with that. It's just NOT that maneuverable. There was a saying during the war "The Mustang may not be able to do what a Spitfire can do...but it can do it over Berlin".

And it's also designed as an altitude fighter. Try fighting at 10,000ft+ in the game with the P-51, and you'll find it's suddenly a LOT more useful than most other aircraft. Only problem is that, again, most servers are 'turn-n-burn' dogfight servers, which start everyone out at a dead stop, on an airfield, no more than 20 miles or so from the enemy airfield. A lot of the more serious-minded simmers deride most of the IL2 servers as "Air Quake" because of that - gamers seem to want to "get in action" in less than 1-2 minutes, and just getting UP to 10,000 ft can take 15 minutes or more.

Not really the game's fault - it certainly CAN do justice to a simulation of this aircraft - but, rather, what people are interested in actually playing.


Again, I am going to disagree. The P-51's forte was its combination of speed, range and altitude. That does not at all suggest that it was any slouch at the lower altitudes. If the envelope for the P-51 (or any of the other very high performance piston fighters axis or ally) was more or less restricted to the higher altitudes, the allies would never have used them in the capacities that they did. The USAAF, RAF, etc, etc would not have bought so many if it performed as suggested in the game. In fact the main drawback of the early model (pre-merlin powered) Mustangs was that it lacked any sort of high altitude performance.

If would like to discuss the aerodynamics behind this, I would be more than happy to.
 

dderidex

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
6,328
Again, I am going to disagree. The P-51's forte was its combination of speed, range and altitude. That does not at all suggest that it was any slouch at the lower altitudes. If the envelope for the P-51 (or any of the other very high performance piston fighters axis or ally) was more or less restricted to the higher altitudes, the allies would never have used them in the capacities that they did. The USAAF, RAF, etc, etc would not have bought so many if it performed as suggested in the game. In fact the main drawback of the early model (pre-merlin powered) Mustangs was that it lacked any sort of high altitude performance.

That's an interesting assumption, but what do you back it on? The Allies needed something - ANYTHING - to escort the bombers over Germany. Heck, that's why something as ungainly as the P-38, complete with external tanks, was used as an escort fighter.

And it is certainly true that P-51s were used as 'ground attack' in the late war - indeed, in Korea, they were one of the PRIMARY ground attack aircraft...but they did terribly in that role compared to purpose-built dedicated aircraft. However, in Korea, they were basically "the best of what's left", and in late WW2, there was simply no Axis air cover to resist them. Over Japan, they had a policy to "break the tape" on every mission (the tape covering the barrel of the gun on takeoff to prevent FOD), so on the way back, they'd shoot up literally everything that moved - and many things that didn't - just to use up their ammo.

That didn't mean it was an awesome ground attack fighter, any more than use as a dogfighter meant it was impressive at that role...it was just what was there.

And, of course, you can hardly argue that experience doesn't matter. WW2, of all wars, demonstrated that in spades - where you have some experienced aviators in 'inferior' aircraft surviving the war with far more than 100+ kills and pilots in the latest-and-greatest getting shot down on their first mission even into the last days of the war. And, looking at averages, by the end of the war, your typical P-51 pilot had a few missions under his belt, had seen combat more than once, and was flying a new aircraft built in a secure factory under no danger from the enemy. Compared to many German pilots of this period, who often never even HAD in-air training yet (due to fuel restrictions, almost all late-war Luftwaffe pilot training was on the ground), and on their first mission was taking into the air half-decade-old-or-more aircraft, or aircraft build by an enslaved population in factories under constant bombing.

And let's not even talk about the quality of fuel and oil in the engines that was available from the refineries of North America vs the bombed-out and/or corroded storage tanks in Germany (most of the refineries in Romania already destroyed or unavailable).

Anyway, it's hardly worth debating here, just Google "P-51 in IL2" and you'll find hundreds of threads on the topic. Mostly people with charts and graphs arguing with other people who talked with vets that said "ZOMG, WE PWNED THE SKIES WITH THE P-51" so assume it must automatically beat every aircraft in everything. The "problem" with the game is that the servers put pristine Axis aircraft with capable pilots and ideal fuel against P-51s - an anachronism that surely contributes a lot to the perceived in-game "imbalance".

Anyway, as a disclaimer, although it's not really relevant, I'm not completely disinterested. I happen to fly the Mustang in IL2 quite a bit and don't have any issues with the performance of it. It's my preferred ride...if you are on Hyperlobby and see a P-51D-20 flying around in a 'Korean War'-era skin, that's probably me.
 

deton8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
454
Oh I just remembered a way old game that I used to play at my buddies house, hopefully someone else here played it and might know the game.

There are multiple times you could play, I remember at least space and "modern" (think mid 90's), there might have been WW1/2 as well.

It was multiplayer (only?) and used both sides of a keyboard and split screen (FTW! lol). You would start off facing each other a mile away or something, and then fight to the death.

It was a flight arcade style game.

Can't remember much more than that, hope someone knows what it is.

The game you're thinking of is called Evasive Action. Me and my friends used to play the split screen dogfight for hours trying to shoot each other down or complete the little stunts that gave you extra fuel and weapons. Great game... I still have the three floppies it came on :D
 

jmackay

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
3,928
The game you're thinking of is called Evasive Action. Me and my friends used to play the split screen dogfight for hours trying to shoot each other down or complete the little stunts that gave you extra fuel and weapons. Great game... I still have the three floppies it came on :D

Wow you rock!

From Glyn Williams, co-founder of Particle Systems comes Evasive Action, an innovative combat flight simulator featuring dogfights with planes from as early as 1917 up to the future of space combat of 2064. Overall Evasive Action is a fun and easy multi-player air-combat game - more an arcade-style action game instead of a flight simulator. Bugs, inconsistencies, and some gameplay quirks makes the game feel as if it can't decide whether to be an arcade shooter or a realistic flight sim. A diamond in the rough, but still a diamond nevertheless. Worth a try for anyone who's interested in expansive flight sims with original premise.

...I wanted to do something far more gamelike - a deathmatch in the air. Evasive Action featured air-combat and air-racing, in 4 different time periods. It was very gamey, featuring shoot-triggered, and stunt-triggered power-ups. It was also multi-player allowing split screen and modem link ups (working at a blistering 1200 bits per second). It was also way too ambitious and way-too complex for one guy working alone, especially coding in assembler. By the time it was done, the technology was looking long in the tooth - and the release version was way too buggy. Not pleased with this one."

Lol man soo old school...
 

GT98

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2001
Messages
1,257
What kind of "burst" only lasts 2 to 3 seconds? I've held the trigger down 20 to 30 seconds without running out of ammo, and that's about right.

Let state this better...a 3 second burst from P-47 was enough to knock down just about anything in the sky, short of a 4 engine bomber...but then again the Germans didn't have any ;)..the problem I've been running into with IL2 is that it seems like I have to expend the whole ammo belt into an aircraft to bring it down, which totally takes away from the realism factor.


It's worth pointing out that, as was historically accurate, the P-47 usually didn't fly with a full load of ammo, but about a 50% load (for fuel efficiency/range). There is a loadout option when flying the P-47 for "extra ammunition" that takes it up to the full 100% load - and it seems you can fire FOREVER with it.

Especially as it has 8 guns, and the 'inner' pair and 'outer' pair on each wing are fired with a different trigger. Firing 4 x .50 cal at a time is plenty to take down most aircraft, so you can empty one set of guns and switch over to the others.
.

I've read several books on the P-47 and never seen anything mentioned where they didn't carry less ammo then the whole 9 yards (where that saying comes from)...they did remove the outermost .50 cals on some P-47 to help improve range, leaving 6 .50 in the wings, but I never heard of a pliot short-changing himself ammo.
 

dano

Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
686
Let state this better...a 3 second burst from P-47 was enough to knock down just about anything in the sky, short of a 4 engine bomber...but then again the Germans didn't have any ;)..the problem I've been running into with IL2 is that it seems like I have to expend the whole ammo belt into an aircraft to bring it down, which totally takes away from the realism factor.

Well that all depends on your gunnery skills, I've seen plenty of planes get utterly shredded by P47's in IL2. At what range are you firing, are you even hitting with all guns as convergance plays a large part in it too.
 

Foxcow

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
3,238
That's an interesting assumption, but what do you back it on? The Allies needed something - ANYTHING - to escort the bombers over Germany. Heck, that's why something as ungainly as the P-38, complete with external tanks, was used as an escort fighter.

The earlier model P-38s did not do so well at the higher altitudes because they had the same Allison engines that were supercharged. They had problems with the superchargers in the cold temperatures. The P-38s in the European theater were relegated to ground attack and recon duties as the Mustangs came online. In the Pacific theater, they excelled because high altitude combat was not at all the forte of almost all Japanese fighters of the time (The B-29 was pretty much impervious at high altitudes). The P-38 also had very long legs and two engines which was ideal for traveling over very long distances reliably (Admiral Yamamoto shot down). Ironically, the highest scoring American ace of the was Richard Bong. He flew the P-38.


And it is certainly true that P-51s were used as 'ground attack' in the late war - indeed, in Korea, they were one of the PRIMARY ground attack aircraft...but they did terribly in that role compared to purpose-built dedicated aircraft. However, in Korea, they were basically "the best of what's left", and in late WW2, there was simply no Axis air cover to resist them. Over Japan, they had a policy to "break the tape" on every mission (the tape covering the barrel of the gun on takeoff to prevent FOD), so on the way back, they'd shoot up literally everything that moved - and many things that didn't - just to use up their ammo.

That didn't mean it was an awesome ground attack fighter, any more than use as a dogfighter meant it was impressive at that role...it was just what was there.

Honestly, you cannot say that they performed terribly in the ground attack role. If the loss of life and machines was so great or they were ineffective against targets (hard or soft), like I said before, the USAAF would have pulled them from the role altogether. Granted, they did not perform as well as an aircraft that was purpose-built for the role or otherwise but they did quite well. The liquid cooled Merlin was probably its Achilles heel and the price you pay for its speed. 6 .50 caliber was a pretty healthy load but compared to the P-47s 8 .50 cal or the P-38s 4 .50 cal + 1 20mm cannon, the P-51 will appear to be lacking. The Jug and the Lightning could also carry a larger payload. However, the Jug and the Lightning had a higher wing loading than the Mustang.

You are right that late in the war, Luftwaffe did not have the numbers to resist them but that was thanks to the USAAF in the early days. Without air superiority, June 6, 1944 would have not been able to take place.


And, of course, you can hardly argue that experience doesn't matter. WW2, of all wars, demonstrated that in spades - where you have some experienced aviators in 'inferior' aircraft surviving the war with far more than 100+ kills and pilots in the latest-and-greatest getting shot down on their first mission even into the last days of the war. And, looking at averages, by the end of the war, your typical P-51 pilot had a few missions under his belt, had seen combat more than once, and was flying a new aircraft built in a secure factory under no danger from the enemy. Compared to many German pilots of this period, who often never even HAD in-air training yet (due to fuel restrictions, almost all late-war Luftwaffe pilot training was on the ground), and on their first mission was taking into the air half-decade-old-or-more aircraft, or aircraft build by an enslaved population in factories under constant bombing.

I agree with you there. Through attrition, there simply wasn't anyone left to fly the airplanes and even less time to properly train them. The US had several advantages; time, manpower, aircraft, and safe grounds for training and manufacturing. At the height of the war, the US alone was producing a little more than 100,000 aircraft per year. The Axis powers together couldn't even match that. It was no wonder that they USAAF pilots had less to shoot at.


Anyway, as a disclaimer, although it's not really relevant, I'm not completely disinterested. I happen to fly the Mustang in IL2 quite a bit and don't have any issues with the performance of it. It's my preferred ride...if you are on Hyperlobby and see a P-51D-20 flying around in a 'Korean War'-era skin, that's probably me.


I'll be sure to say if I do see you in there :D
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2001
Messages
572
To add to the discussion,

The Jug (P47) was used as a multirole fighter initially, but shifted to ground attack as the big radial could soak up bullets and keep going. The merlin suffered from the 'golden BB' syndrome where if it lost coolant, buh-bye.

That's not to say that the Musting is not an incredible fighter. It is. It is an escort fighter that excelled at supporting the 8th and 9th at 15-30k feet.

The Spitfire is essentially a point defense fighter. Excellent maneuverability, poor range.

The 109 was a dream to fly compared to the 190. The 190 was better on paper, but all of the top aces flew the 109 to the end. You did not have to think to fly it- it became an extension of the pilot.

The air wars in Europe and Asia were far different.

Japan tended to go light and maneuverable. The US was big and heavy (sound familiar?) but long ranged. The Zeke would beat you in a turning fight, but US pilots quickly adopted boom 'n zoom to utilize their strengths- slashing attacks that stayed out of the turning fight. It did not help that the Navy had some really crappy aircraft early on (Brewster Buffalo anyone?).
 

Skott

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,200
Sometimes the winner of a fight just came down to who got the jump on who first. Another thing American pilots had going for them was that as the war progressed German and Japanese replacement pilots had fewer and fewer training hours under their belt before seeing combat whereas American pilots tended to get more and more.

I kind of wonder if Richard Bong had been trained in a P47 or a P51 instead would he still have had the highest record of kills? We'll never know for sure. Its all merely speculation. I'm just glad he was on our side.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
528
I went up to grapevine mills a few months ago and there was this sweet ass fighter pilot game that got me back interested in flying games.

What is the best game out for these types of games for pc. And I suppose you can talk about other game systems as well but I am most interested in PC gaming.

grapevine mills, thats a bad mall that has only gotten worse with time...
 

neeyo

Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2000
Messages
544
If you were like me, back in the day you picked up Falcon 4.0 with a huge paper manual in a metal binder.

You see, back then, games came with actual instruction booklets, not the lame ass html docs on the cd that you get today.
 

rayman2k2

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
8,070
If you were like me, back in the day you picked up Falcon 4.0 with a huge paper manual in a metal binder.

You see, back then, games came with actual instruction booklets, not the lame ass html docs on the cd that you get today.



hear hear, closest thing to flight manual most people would ever get
 

jmackay

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
3,928
If you were like me, back in the day you picked up Falcon 4.0 with a huge paper manual in a metal binder.

You see, back then, games came with actual instruction booklets, not the lame ass html docs on the cd that you get today.

Remember having to refer to page XX, sentence XXX to find the word so you could play the game? Ahhh old copy protection
 

iqwertyi

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
167
I haven't played much video games in general, but I thought Lock-On was pretty cool and realistic (to me at least).
 

CleanSlate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Messages
5,244
I'm sorry guys but I bought Falcon and I've played it a bit but the controls make little to no sense to me and the graphics are pretty bad LOL.

I didn't want a "SIM" I wanted a "game", I guess something similar to the old top gun NES video game but up to date with great graphics and all that is what I was looking for... Which is basically what that arcade game I played in the mall was that re-wet my appetite for these types of game. It was just a great amount of action with enemies flying at you from every side.

Now, who wants to buy almost a brand new Falcon 4.0: Allied Force?
 

CleanSlate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Messages
5,244
I PMed you.

No one knows of a good game like what I described up above?

=)

~Adam
 

dano

Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
686
I'm sorry guys but I bought Falcon and I've played it a bit but the controls make little to no sense to me and the graphics are pretty bad LOL.

I didn't want a "SIM" I wanted a "game", I guess something similar to the old top gun NES video game but up to date with great graphics and all that is what I was looking for... Which is basically what that arcade game I played in the mall was that re-wet my appetite for these types of game. It was just a great amount of action with enemies flying at you from every side.

Now, who wants to buy almost a brand new Falcon 4.0: Allied Force?

Go buy IL2 1946 and set it to easy.
 

CleanSlate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Messages
5,244
It seems as though alot of these games tend towards being very SIMy...

I wonder whatever happened to the old run and gun fighter pilot games? No wonder I've not heard much about one particular game that just knocks every other game out of the park. GAME... Not SIM =)

Ah well, I guess when the next big Fighter pilot movie comes out we might get a good one.

~Adam
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
528
It seems as though alot of these games tend towards being very SIMy...

I wonder whatever happened to the old run and gun fighter pilot games? No wonder I've not heard much about one particular game that just knocks every other game out of the park. GAME... Not SIM =)

Ah well, I guess when the next big Fighter pilot movie comes out we might get a good one.

~Adam

what, was stealth not big enough a fighter pilot movie? (that was a joke, horrible movie). but your right, def not many fighter pilot movies exist
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
725
Blazing Angels had such potential. But they managed to f-up the flight stick control, and when it was ironed out, the consoled game levels itself. So, when you push the stick to the right or left, it just does a quarter roll and then returns to level flight. You can't actually stay in an aeileron left or right flight pattern.
 

The Red

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
1,344
I could have sworn I saw discovery channel footage of soviet wwii era yaks with massive damage and a picture of one with an un-exploded artillery round in its fuselage. I think they modeled the Yaks pretty well... they were low-flying slow-moving tanks of a plane that have not been copied since..
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
528
I could have sworn I saw discovery channel footage of soviet wwii era yaks with massive damage and a picture of one with an un-exploded artillery round in its fuselage. I think they modeled the Yaks pretty well... they were low-flying slow-moving tanks of a plane that have not been copied since..

ever heard of an A-10 Warthog? that thing was even more so my friend
 
Top