SIX! New planes for IL2-GB announced!

[PaperPilot]

1 hour ago, DanielZockt said:

The BF 110 gap could also be partially bridged by giving the Bf 110E access to the DB 601 (P) as a modification or replacing the DB 601A engine it has right now due to it never being used it in serial production. I still dont understand why it hasnt been added/changed after being in the game for so long now.

Would the Bf-110 E-1 be necessary? It was the short predecessor of the Bf-110 E-2, which is what is in Moscow. 

(Ps. This might not be an E-1. It was hard to find an image of a Bf-110E without a swastika.)

Edited March 30 by PaperPilot

[Sayan]

Очень хотелось бы иметь вымышленную морскую карту с кучей разных островов. И двумя-тремя кусками материка (метрополий) по краям. На этой карте можно было бы такие сюжеты рисовать!

-----

I'd really love to have a fictional nautical chart with a bunch of different islands and two or three pieces of mainland (metropolises) at the edges. You could draw such stories on this map!

[DanielZockt]

21 hours ago, PaperPilot said:

Would the Bf-110 E-1 be necessary? It was the short predecessor of the Bf-110 E-2, which is what is in Moscow. 

(Ps. This might not be an E-1. It was hard to find an image of a Bf-110E without a swastika.)

Both the Bf 110 E1 and E2 were equipped with the DB 601P.

[PaperPilot]

32 minutes ago, DanielZockt said:

Both the Bf 110 E1 and E2 were equipped with the DB 601P.

Interesting. Thanks for the info

[PaperPilot]

Another aircraft I think is worth exploring is the Dornier Do-217.

• Do-217 E-2/E-4
• Do-217 K-1/M-1

[Avimimus]

On 4/1/2026 at 4:04 AM, PaperPilot said:

Another aircraft I think is worth exploring is the Dornier Do-217.

• Do-217 E-2/E-4
• Do-217 K-1/M-1

I'd prefer a Ju-188 because of the cockpit (and some of the armament options), but the Do-217 is quite interesting with its higher wing loading and somewhat higher bombload.

I'd personally recommend an E-4 over the K/M. The early E variants remained in service for as long as the night bomber variants (with many units continuing to operate the E alongside the M/K) but entered service much earlier. So you can use the E in a much greater variety of scenarios. The performance difference also isn't that great between the variants. The E gives you worse visibility but a few more option.

[Kurfurst]

On 3/27/2026 at 10:49 PM, PaperPilot said:

That is very interesting. Thanks Kurfurst 

Basically the story in nutshell is this - the the early 210A, which started out as an improved 110 with emphasis based on a fast bomber concept first, and heavy fighter second,  had its known aerodynamic issues, largely due to mismanagement from the RLMs that pushed for its early introduction and ordered tooling of the factories for mass production, despite the plane not even finished its development stage and was not properly tested yet.  IIRC it was not even developed at Messerschmitt but it was sourced out.

When the Germans faced these issues, Messerschmitt took a fall for it (the company lost a lot in tooling, plus Milch hated Willy) and they were forced to fix the aerodynamic issues by various means, including lengthening of the fuselage and enlarging the vertical stabilisator for better stability.

These fixed 210As were then had a short German modification run of about 212 planes from the early, faulty airframes which were renamed as 210A (lang), i.e. long fuselage.

The 210C was this fixed plane, but in the meantime further developed with the DB 605s, and was originally planned to be produced in Germany from early 1942, a plan which was then cancelled in favour of the 410 version. In Hungary we bought the licence of this fixed and upgraded C version which is known as Ca-1, with the "a" standing for ausländich, ie. foreign or export version. This was practical for us since we already negotiated and eventually brought the licence of the 605s. Hence in the literature this somehow become known that the Hungarians fixed the 210s, when in fact, we simply bought the licence of the fixed version and produced it domestically (save instruments and guns - these still came from Germany), with about 1/3 of the production going to the Germans and we 2/3s under the licence agreement.

The Germans largely skipped this and went for the 410A which was basically a fixed, and slightly modified 210 with the much more powerful DB 603s.

[PaperPilot]

14 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I'd prefer a Ju-188 because of the cockpit (and some of the armament options), but the Do-217 is quite interesting with its higher wing loading and somewhat higher bombload.

I'd personally recommend an E-4 over the K/M. The early E variants remained in service for as long as the night bomber variants (with many units continuing to operate the E alongside the M/K) but entered service much earlier. So you can use the E in a much greater variety of scenarios. The performance difference also isn't that great between the variants. The E gives you worse visibility but a few more option.

Oh, good to know. Thanks. I would really like to see some variant of the Do-217 for Great Battles. I speculate that once the Leningrad 1941-42 and 1944 pilot career mode is done, presure by the community will be enough to convince them to fill in that temporal period. If that is the case I think we will see a lot of planes be made for Great Battles. Ones that the game has so desperately needed, planes that never had much of a spotlight on them in the history of the combat flight sim genre but we just as important to the siege in real life, and fan favourites. This list of aircraft will be rather long, but if it is done in years rathr than all at once, I think it can all be done by 2030.

2027

• Bf-110 F-2
• Do-217 E-4
• Ju-87 B-2
• LaGG-3 Series 35
• Pe-2 Model 1943
• SB-2

2028

• Fw-190 A-4
• He-111 H-3
• Ju-188 A/E
• IL-4 Model 1943
• Pe-3Bis
• Su-2

2029

• Blenheim Mk.IV
• B-239 Buffalo 
• D.XXI
• G.50Bis
• Hawk 75A
• MS.406/Morko Moraine

2030

• B-25H
• P-39N
• P-40B/C/Tomahawk Mk.IIa/b
• P-40M
• P-40N
• P-63C (Fictional/Semi-Fictional pilot career mode)

 

[LukeFF]

Guys, please don't make this yet another aircraft list topic. 🙂 We had enough of those on our old forums.

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, PaperPilot said:

This list of aircraft will be rather long, but if it is done in years rathr than all at once, I think it can all be done by 2030.

I think the issue is that, at some point, people will begin to want the aircraft built to the new standards developed for Korea... so it would make sense to develop aircraft primarily in the updated engine. Of course this means rebuilding more famous types first... which means some of these aircraft we'd be unlikely to see for a long time (unless third parties can get involved). But planning four years of development on a soon-to-be obsolete engine might not be worth it.

That said, I could see an argument for another four to eight aircraft for Flying Circus - as I suspect it'll be a few years before work begin in a new WWI sim, and there likely won't be any competition in that market. Rumpler C.IV, Morane-Saulnier N, Airco D.H.5, Roland D.VIb - there are quite a few interesting options left.

[Pausehelio]

Seafire Deck landings from an article about the Med. operations in 1944:

Accidents per 1,000 landings

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I think the issue is that, at some point, people will begin to want the aircraft built to the new standards developed for Korea... so it would make sense to develop aircraft primarily in the updated engine. Of course this means rebuilding more famous types first...

We are getting this with the F-51D.

But I'm happy to see that they are mostly doing new planes first. With GB they gradually got better at making planes with the engine, and the later planes are usually better than the earlier ones. So if they go to Europe after the Pacific, they will have a lot of experience with the new engine.

[MDzmitry]

6 часов назад, Pausehelio сказал:

Seafire Deck landings from an article about the Med. operations in 1944:

Accidents per 1,000 landings

Their reputation could also come from the failures of early exploitation, including by lesser prepared crews.

Here's a different article, focused more on 1943 Mediterranean ops. https://www.armouredcarriers.com/seafire-operational-history

Plenty of quotes and statistics regarding Seafires' high rate of accidents, from prop damage to collapsing landing gear, engine failures and complete write-offs.

Edited April 3 by MDzmitry

[PaperPilot]

19 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Guys, please don't make this yet another aircraft list topic. 🙂 We had enough of those on our old forums.

Apologies

[Minstrel]

On 4/3/2026 at 2:04 AM, LukeFF said:

Guys, please don't make this yet another aircraft list topic. 🙂 We had enough of those on our old forums.

You’re aware that this is an internet forum, right?

[MDzmitry]

2 часа назад, Minstrel сказал:

You’re aware that this is an internet forum, right?

The problem is that almost every update/devblog discussion turns into an aircraft wishlist. And it's typically done by a handful of people who continue to ask for the same bunch of aircraft over and over again.

 

[Art-J]

3 hours ago, Minstrel said:

You’re aware that this is an internet forum, right?

A forum where threads are topic-based for a reason. Once a thread turns into an off-topic gibberish it stops serving its original purpose for guys who hope for getting some new info on these actual six planes being worked on.

Jackfraser might've changed his nickname for new forum, but he hasn't changed his compulsive whishlisting habit 😉 . Please just tone it down, mate, or keep it in chit-chat section.

[MajorMagee]

You're fighting human nature in the same way that a hoarder can't stop collecting more stuff. It comes from deep in our Hunter-Gatherer past, and is tied to a variety of basic emotions (insecurity, pride, etc.).

[PaperPilot]

16 hours ago, Art-J said:

A forum where threads are topic-based for a reason. Once a thread turns into an off-topic gibberish it stops serving its original purpose for guys who hope for getting some new info on these actual six planes being worked on.

Jackfraser might've changed his nickname for new forum, but he hasn't changed his compulsive whishlisting habit 😉 . Please just tone it down, mate, or keep it in chit-chat section.

Yeah, we’re gonna have to keep an eye on that guy 😂 

[IckyAtlas]

Just a side note. In Korea there will be a B17 modeled, I do not remember if it will be flyable or not. Is it imaginable that the modeling, fm work etc.can be in a way with some adaptation work be made compatible with IL2 GB. The two technologies are different I know, but now that the Dev Team has shown they will keep supporting IL2 to the delight of many of us, maybe it is worth looking if this can be done. That would be just a WoW! moment.