FUCK I THOUGHT I WAS THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON OF HISTORICAL AVIATION HERE! Not sure about the IL-2, if it was loaded to the max than it had a tough time getting off the ground, part of the weight was the armor that made it nearly indestructible.
P-47 is nice, good armor, great engine, better armament. And the B-17 actually didn't have a lot of armor. They gave it weak armor so it could carry more bombs without being weighed down. The crew had armored seat cushions, pretty much it. Yet somehow the plane could return with extensive battle damage. The fire extinguishers probably had something to do with it.
Other than the B-24's lack of armor, it was better in just about every way. The B-24 could go farther, faster, and carry more. As for the B-25, I feel like this resembles someone we already know. airportjournals.com/wp-content… But how are we gonna choose a 1940's plane for a pony?
Would it be alright to use this piece as a banner for our Facebook group, the Equestrian Aviation Club? I'd insert the name of the group on the banner, if that's okay. All art will be credited on its description.