Sort answer: No scale, the rules are scale independent with the ground divided into zones.

Longer answer: 

The big scenarios require 12 x 8 zones, a few are marginally smaller.
Figure out what size zones your table can accommodate.
Now decide how you wish to represent your aircraft.

The author uses 1/600 scale aircraft - B17s in threes, most fighters in fours, Usually three of these "sections" to a squadron.

There may be stacking, so it's a good idea for each zone to accommodate 4 squadrons.


So Here's what I did:

Marked out a grass mat in 150mm squares (approx 6").

Found some top views of the relevant aircraft and using the magic of MS paint, created pictures of formations.
Scaled these and inserted them into a word document to crop out 60mm wide formations.
Print these on card and ink on squadron designations.

Assemble flight stands from 60mm square bases.
(MDF bottom, clear acrylic top and three lengths of bamboo skewer stick to represent height).

A bit of physical cutting and pasting to assemble the aircraft plans into squadrons of (mostly) 3 sections.

It's now possible to move the stands about with the card sections placed on top.


If you wanted genuine aircraft models on my table you'd need between 1/900 and 1/1800 scale models.
This sounds like a private 3d printing venture for the suitably equipped enthusiast.
Or use 1/600 from tumbling dice with a single aircraft representing each section.

What scale model Steve ? Found Blood Red Skys works for small Fighter/Fighter battles.

But the 2pdr portee should have an AP factor. The no HE myth has arrisen due to the bulk of 2pdrs being on tanks, which didnt carry HE since their MG's were more effective. Also all gun crews were issued with a bren for local protection.

Now that sounds fun!

I had my second outing with Fire in the Sky (from Mark's Game Room - available on Wargame Vault).

It's an air wargame, with a focus on fighter action during the daylight raids of the 8th USAAF.

I've always wanted to capture the thrill of WW2 air combat.
The traditional "You are the pilot, secretly select your next manoeuvre" approach has never satisfied me.

Fire in the Sky puts each player in charge of one or more Squadrons / Staffelen of fighters.
The US bomber box functions as a static target as the fighters manoeuvre around it.

The game mechanisms are simple: a certain randomness to determine which side activates, then a variable number of points to spend on manoeuvre an energy.
The game does not drown you in choices: Move, climb, dive, dogfight, flank bounce, rear bounce.

Energy fighting "boom and zoom" is the order of the day.
Fighter squadrons typically finish a fight disordered (courtesy of a scatter roll) and require some effort to regroup if they intend to go again.
Outcomes feel credible: Bombers are tough, more fighters break off and return to base than are shot down.


I really enjoyed the game with its rapidly changing situations and simple resolution of movement and combat.
We (relative beginners) managed two games in a four hour session with plenty of chat, and time to check we were doing it right.

You won't enjoy his if you say things like:
 "I need to represent the Spitfire's three knot speed advantage"
 "Ahh, but which aileron was damaged"
 "I still have eight rounds of .77mm in two guns".

It will suit players who prefer to say:
 "We dived on the tail of the 109s as they were setting up to attack our bombers".
 "We hit them from out of the sun, they didn't see us in time to react".


If interested, there are several videos on the Mark's Game Room YouTube channel.

Great stuff, Nobby.

 

Stop breathing on the lens, Will.

Best question (From Monty P, Live at Drury Lane.) ?

Quizmaster..." Which great opponent of Cartesian dualism, resists the reduction of psychological phenomenon to a physical state and insists there is no point of contact between the extended and the un-extended ?"

Mrs Scum...."I don't know that !"

QM.."Well, have a guess."

Mrs S...."Erm, Henri Bergson."

QM.."Is the correct answer !"

Mrs S.."Cor, that was lucky, I've never even heard of him."

Nice one

Thanks!