File1305056268.jpg-(107 KB, 349x349, LIFT_SURFACES.jpg)
>you have something against the F-5?
YES. Mind you, its horrifically irrational and could safely be ignored. As F-22 fag pointed out, they're very cheap and quite survivable for the price...
>Fucking hell, the amount of damage taken from ground fire seems to be insane in these games
... but not at low-level. Especially at low level. Which is my main dislike; it's too damn small to have much staying power in a fight, (as the Muskets are now learning) and there's little structure to soak up hits from hostile guns. It reminds me of the Oscar; a fragile, fast little knife-fighter. With wing-loading of 70 pounds/foot, an F-5 turns like a dervish, but her power/weight (and acceleration, and climb-rate) simply can't match that of larger fighters like the F-16. (Roll rate, the most important manuverability measure, I cannot speak to, since no reference book on the face of the fucking earth seems to know, or care, about roll rate.) It basically boils down to being a fragile knife-fighter with limited oomph, and my philosophy tends towards... well, pic related.
The stores aren't THAT limited, mind you, unless you want to move mud. But the guns vex me. Two Pontiac M39s with 280rds/gun firing at 1,500 rounds/minute is... okay. Volume of fire is important for scoring lethal hits on jets that ghost through your reticule at 600 MPH, and this gun combo puts out half of what the M-61 does (6,000 rounds/minute.) On the plus side, having two guns is insurance against a jam, which could leave you toothless.
tl;dr planefag is a barbarian cowboy who flies Jugs and Phantoms, ignore his hurr.