Dreams Come True: XF5U

[Josephs_Piano]

@lglscs

The picture above in stat shark confirms it, as at 0 angle of attack the (virtual) rear horizontal stabilizer is producing lift, when it should be producing downforce for a stable aircraft, or be neutral for a perfectly balanced airplane.

there is no such rule - lift from the horizontal stabilizer is determined by the arrangement of the other flight forces on the aircraft, and can be +ve (tail-up/nose down) neutral or -ve (tail down/nose up) depending on these.

The configuration of the aircraft will determine what it is at various weights - high wing low engine vs low wing high engine are 2 very obvious cases where the power-drag moment actually works in opposite directions. t

The orientation of hte lift/weight moment is also different depending on whether the aircraft is a tail dragger or tricycle (or even bicycle) undercarriage.

These days the most common configuration for large commercial aircraft is tail down (-ve) from the H-stab - because most of these aircraft are low wing, low engine, tricycle designs that have a positive pitching moment - but there are other configurations (this diagram is just the easiest one to demonstrate the point)

[_Шизофрения]

I know that your information is incorrect and you are trying to justify such BR for a plane that is worse than P-51C and many more at much lower BRs
Because pathetic pancake climbs 17 m/s at best, have 610 km/h topspeed at deck and will lose in 1v1 to anything, even P-51D-5
It does not have high TWR on normal speeds because you have very weak engines 1350hp(x2) with 7000 kg takeoff mass, your helicopter trick is useless and all that stallfight part is wrong too.

[Deathdefire]

it FLYS worst in the game then the test flight. and so many 109s and yaks are better speeds and 4.0

[Kicimijazawa]

And so it seems it was a good idea not to overextend my self to do this event.
Unlike another recent hard to master (for me) event aircraft - F106 - this one is already fully spaded, so there would be no real imperative to take it to the battle… LOL

[lglscs]

It’s true enough that the position and direction of the forward thrust can change the loading on the rear stabilizer, as can other factors like the flap position on a high wing/ low horizontal stabilizer like a cessna 172, but if on one hand those effects shouldn’t be factors in the values calculated in statshark (assuming it calculates drag and thrust seperately), on the other hand it’s obvious that those effects cannot be applied to the xf5u by design…

[Mora]

True, I didn’t test for that. I just assumed that pitch response must be what someone on the forums must be talking about. Another interesting feature of it’s flight model is by War Thunders standards a huge adverse yaw. It’s nice to to have to do some legwork, but why is it so much bigger in the XF5U? I’d say it has about the same adverse yaw than a sailplane I fly, the Scleicher Ka 6E (which has the least of the about 12 sailplanes types I’ve flown, the SZD 50-3 Puchacz has about three times more).

[YaSen]

This thing has never flown, has it? But we “don’t have enogh sufficient data” to properly model Re.2005 MM.495 VDM, aren’t these exactly double standards?

The Re.2005 VDM situation is crazy

The Re.2005 VDM is terrible at the moment, but it can be fixed [image] As we all can see from the plane stats, the poor Re.2005 VDM at the moment is just a flat out worse Re.2005 serie 0 at the same BR. This makes absolutely 0 sense in many ways and I want to go over them together. 1) It’s not fun to play The most important reason of them all, more even than the historical accuracy, is this. Games should be fun to play, but this plane just isn’t fun. The Re.2005 serie 0 already struggles q…

[TheDudesRug]

Back to ground I go. See you next event, ARB.

[Mora]

Update 2.51.0.31

[image] Aircraft A bug that made it impossible to lock on to a radar target from the TWS HDN mode has been fixed. (Report). XF5U-1 — the flight model has been updated, L/D ratio at high AoA has been increased. Engine performance has been adjusted. (Report). Gross weight has been reduced relative to early specification (the prototypes had less fuel and no ADI). F-15C Golden Eagle — the sizes of the radar search zones in TWS mode have been adjusted: 15°x15° → 30°x15°, 30°x10° → 70°x15°, 60°x5° →…

“XF5U-1 — the flight model has been updated, L/D ratio at high AoA has been increased. Engine performance has been adjusted. (Report ). Gross weight has been reduced relative to early specification (the prototypes had less fuel and no ADI).”

[RunaDacino]

I am finally done with this thing.

FREEDOM.

JUSTICE.

PEACE.

(for my new empire plane)

This took way too long in prop tier SB.

Most of it Bf 109 F-4 (40 kills)

I’m not touching planes for at least 2 weeks. I’m tired.

[_Poul]

@RunaDacino

This took way too long in prop tier SB.

This is actually a very good way to see how much effort it took to complete the event.

My stats:

It took me 191 Air Realistic battles. Considering I completed all 7 stages, that’s less than 28 battles per star, so about 14 battles per day. That’s quite a lot, but I’m an Arcade player and I don’t play Air Realistic outside of air events. I also focused mainly on spading rank 5 Italian planes, and playing stock vehicles is always a disadvantage.

If someone is interested, here are the planes I played:

Spoiler

Some of these planes I only played to check something (like how much score I can get for quickly diving and destroying a base). So some of these battles took less than 3 minutes. I also never play for stats, so I didn’t care about them.

I can’t even calculate the average battle time, because battles in Air Realistic are so random. Some last 20 minutes, some last 3 minutes, and I didn’t keep track. I don’t play events in Air Arcade because it takes too much effort there.

Considering all of the above, I think it wasn’t that bad for me. But at the same time, it still takes quite a lot of battles to complete just one event.

In my opinion, these events require too much effort.

[lglscs]

Having test flown the revamped XF5U-1, the extra power and extra L/D ratio at high angles of attack makes a real difference, in particular it seems that they mostly added lift while keeping drag so now there’s a small chance you can try vertical scissors without pancaking into the ground - although it’s still not recommended. The extra lift also seems to allow the instructor to be more aggressive and pull a bit harder than it used to.

In sim mode, although it’s not as bad as it used to be the plane is still a bit unstable and needs consistent trimming, but overall it’s a lot easier to fly than many other props.

Another interesting feature of it’s flight model is by War Thunders standards a huge adverse yaw. It’s nice to to have to do some legwork, but why is it so much bigger in the XF5U?

Because the XF5U-1 uses elevon (elevators + ailerons) control surfaces, and since the flight model loads up the elevons in cruise flight and has them produce huge amounts of induced drag, loading up the outside elevon while unloading the inside elevon produces a large amount of adverse yaw, even though it hasn’t the same relative wingspan as a glider.

[RunaDacino]

Ima give you my own planelist too since iirc you made statistics posts about stuff earlier.

Spoiler

The ones with black 0 are usually “I joined a lobby, flew around, found nobody/only bombers, got frustrated and left without bothering to land.”

For me, game time for games I actually played were ~60-80 minutes, but there were a lot of games that were join, take off, fly around, get annoyed at not finding anyone to dogfight and leave.

For the long-games, I managed ~
6500 score fighting competent enemies over some 90 minutes. Translated, it’s 6500x0.9x2.3 = 13.4k event progress

Bf 109 F4 game, some 90 minutesish

Another equally challenging but fun match was 5800 score over 70 minutes. 5800x09x2.3 = 12006

F4U-4 game, some 70 minutesish

Score earned is very lopsided for both games’ scoreboards.

@_Poul

In my opinion, these events require too much effort.

Lopsided effort at that.

Dogfighting in a propeller plane is not an easy thing in terms of focus and execution. 80 minutes for ~13k event progress is a lot of fun, but I’m spent for the day.

Whereas people can also just afterburner suicide into airfields and make 10k score in 120 minutes with better score multipliers :v.

[Mora]

I wrote about the adverse yaw earlier. I just realised this thing has tailerons and therefore it should have very little, no, or even proverb yaw!

[TheDudesRug]

@_Poul

It took me 191 Air Realistic battles.

My whole 7 star event (ARB):

Spoiler

• Majority of the ground kills in hunter were light pill boxes. They give good score.
• Would have been quicker if I had more luck with the Fakour-90s this time around.

I wasn’t really counting battles, though. What I usually do is have a goal in mind that doesn’t involve the actual event vehicle. This time around it was to unlock the Australian F-111C. F-14 Iran is only there for when I’m not feeling ARB and just wanna do some low-effort BVR lobs (that may or may not hit).

But yeah, I’ve tried doing events in props before, but I find that jets (especially around 9.7) offer quick gameplay - not much climbing - lots of mindless people rushing to a base ignoring your missile coming for them. It really does lend itself for these events. But I’m a ground player, so that’s just my perspective.

@_Poul

I also focused mainly on spading rank 5 Italian planes, and playing stock vehicles is always a disadvantage.

Yup, but sometimes these events give you the motivation you need to even spade them in the first place.

@RunaDacino

Lopsided effort at that.

Still, I prefer these events to having the concurrent air - ground - naval events, that were often 40k each. That was life draining.

[_Poul]

@TheDudesRug

Still, I prefer these events to having the concurrent air - ground - naval events, that were often 40k each. That was life draining.

The change from task-based to score-based events was the biggest issue, at least from my perspective.

I actually created a detailed table of my battles because I wanted to compare the old task-based system with the new score-based system. I did it during the first score-based event.

The results were very surprising. I needed 16 battles with very good performance to complete the first score-based event:

Spoiler

	Kills	Assists	Zones	Deaths	Score	Time played	Place	Result	Activity	SL gained	RP gained
Battle 1	11	3	0	3	3293	09:34	1	Lose	92%	23026	6819
Battle 2	13	0	0	2	2935	13:49	1	Win	95%	34130	10028
Battle 3	9	4	0	0	2371	08:32	1	Win	91%	30260	6858
Battle 4	14	2	0	0	3409	09:13	1	Win	93%	43421	8836
Battle 5	6	1	0	1	2024	07:01	2	Win	86%	15072	5471
Battle 6	11	2	0	3	2773	08:56	1	Lose	83%	18656	5224
Battle 7	10	0	0	2	2622	06:30	1	Lose	91%	17854	6137
Battle 8	10	2	0	3	2896	09:53	2	Win	93%	21528	1313
Battle 9	7	2	1	3	2536	08:16	1	Lose	90%	12188	5446
Battle 10	11	3	0	2	3875	09:16	1	Lose	92%	27854	7224
Battle 11	8	1	0	1	2001	06:38	1	Win	85%	15462	5506
Battle 12	15	3	0	1	4061	10:14	1	Lose	94%	35654	8361
Battle 13	12	0	0	1	2309	11:41	2	Win	93%	30185	8780
Battle 14	11	4	1	3	3600	09:49	1	Lose	93%	24413	7552
Battle 15	8	2	0	2	2242	12:01	2	Win	93%	16924	7891
Battle 16	7	1	0	2	2307	09:23	3	Lose	92%	13569	5411
Total:	163	30	2	29	45254	02:30:46	-	-	-	380196	106857
Average:	10,19	1,88	0,13	1,81	2828	09:25	-	50%	91%	23762	6679

But just look at that table and compare it to the previous task-based event requirements in Air Arcade:

• Destroy 40 enemies: completed after 4 battles.
• Destroy 12 enemies in a single battle: completed after 2 battles.
• Help allies 12 times to destroy enemy vehicles: completed after 6 battles.

All you needed were three tasks, and even without focusing on them, I would have completed all three within 6 battles. We also had the easy TNT task (destroying bases) and the task requiring a certain number of victories.

A lot of people also forget that the old task-based events could be completed in different game modes. As a result, I often completed the Air tasks just by playing Naval and Ground battles. I usually didn’t even need to play Air battles to get the plane from the event.

From what I remember, my record for completing three tasks in Naval Arcade was 3 battles. When they switched to score-based events, it became impossible to finish events that quickly. In fact, I noted the time I spent completing the stars in the first score-based event, and it was: 2h 20min in Naval Arcade, 3h 50min in Ground Arcade, and 2h 56min in Air Arcade. In total, that’s 9 hours and 6 minutes to get all three stars, and you only had two days to do that. So with such a huge increase in requirements, it makes sense that they eventually had to split the events and stop running them simultaneously. Score-based events just require too much effort. And I’m not even talking about the coupon, where the requirement is even crazier nowadays.

To complete all three stars (Air, Ground, Naval) in the task-based system, I usually needed 3–4 hours of playtime every two days. Now, with score-based events, spending the same amount of time only gives me one vehicle activated on my account (not even a coupon). So for me, the current system is terrible, and I’m really surprised that people like it so much.

Crafting events were a completely separate thing, and they had their own problems. But if you actually want to get the coupon for the vehicle now, you have to play about the same amount of time as in the old crafting events to get two vehicles. The part I didn’t like about crafting events was having to build things - basically clicking a lot for no purpose. And you couldn’t get all the vehicles, while now you can. But even the crafting events required less effort to get one vehicle coupon than the current score-based events.

A lot of players forget that you didn’t have to fully complete the crafting events. Completing them fully originally gave you two vehicles, which was later changed to three vehicles (out of four available). And most players didn’t play Naval anyway, so they weren’t crafting ships in the first place. Many players could also get some GJN (even around 10 GJN when you completed the crafting event fully) by selling the excess parts on the marketplace. You didn’t even have to sell vehicles to get GJN.

I don’t miss the crafting events, they were awfully designed with all this useless building (basically clicking and waiting). But they were still easier to get coupons than the current events.

The last crafting event ever was this:
https://warthunder.com/en/news/8494-event-tokushu-heiki-assemble-and-test-an-honorable-missile-to-obtain-prizes-en
By completing it fully, you could get 3 vehicles out of 4 in 12 days. It required 75k score every day to get three vehicles, and I agree it was crazy amount, but you could do that in any game mode you want (even in Naval Arcade with x1.9 score multiplier or Naval Realistic with x2.2 score multiplier).

To get just one vehicle coupon in crafting events, you needed 25k score per day for 12 days.

Meanwhile, the next event, which is one of the easiest (35k per star, 600k for the coupon):
https://warthunder.com/en/news/9807-event-get-the-r400-in-the-fast-and-dangerous-event-en
Requires 7 stages (14 days, more than crafting events) with an average of almost 43k points per day just to get one vehicle coupon. And you can only do this in Ground modes - you can’t play Naval or Air battles for higher event multipliers.

And sometimes we even get harder events nowadays (45k per star, 750k for the coupon):
https://warthunder.com/en/news/9323-event-get-the-fv40303-in-the-enter-the-serpent-event-en

So yeah, I’m not a fan of the current system. I’ve completely given up on grinding coupons - it takes too much effort nowadays, even more than crafting events, which is ridiculous. I definitely preferred the old task-based events.

[TheDudesRug]

@_Poul

The last crafting event ever was this:

I crafted the Object279, among others. I don’t miss those crafting events. But they had some interesting points, like assembling parts and putting stuff together.

@_Poul

So yeah, I’m not a fan of the current system.

Fair enough. I really enjoy the score based system, but I can understand it might not be for everyone. I already get the whole do a bunch of tasks fix from the Battlepass and Special tasks. I like how score is just that. Play the game. As long as it’s the right gamemode and the vehicle counts - go at it how you want.

[_Poul]

@TheDudesRug

I don’t miss those crafting events. But they had some interesting points, like assembling parts and putting stuff together.

You see, everyone is different. Personally, I hated that part.

@TheDudesRug

I like how score is just that. Play the game. As long as it’s the right gamemode and the vehicle counts - go at it how you want.

I understand that. I see it differently, because from my perspective these tasks were mostly passive. But obviously, you’re right - a task that requires you to get player kills or assists can’t really be called fully passive, since it requires playing in a specific way. I play everything, so for me it’s not a problem to play a fighter and fight against other players. But many players don’t like this, and for them such a task is not passive at all. They would prefer to bomb ground targets or something similar.

Since I play everything, it doesn’t really matter to me what the task required. So for me, the bigger problem is that it takes 2-3 times longer to complete score-based events than task-based events. From my perspective, that’s a lot of time wasted.

That’s why I think the idea we had a long time ago - to simply combine both systems - would have been the best. The idea was to keep both tasks and score and treat them as two separate objectives. Whichever comes first (completing three tasks or reaching a specific score) would finish the star. Unfortunately, the devs ignored this suggestion on the old forum, which is a shame, because that system would have satisfied everyone. I’m sure a lot of players would have been pleasantly surprised to see that they could complete three tasks much faster than reaching the required score.

[TheDudesRug]

@_Poul

a task that requires you to get player kills or assists can’t really be called fully passive, since it requires playing in a specific way

To be fair, those tasks are quite fine. It’s Battlepass where we’ve seen some wacky tasks that have had people scratching their heads. Like back in 2021 we had to depth charge stuff to death:

- YouTube

@_Poul

That’s why I think the idea we had a long time ago - to simply combine both systems - would have been the best. The idea was to keep both tasks and score and treat them as two separate objectives. Whichever comes first (completing three tasks or reaching a specific score) would finish the star.

And yeah, that would be ideal. Too bad it wasn’t implemented.

[memer4life9000-psn]

It’s baffling to me that Gaijin chose to give an experimental aircraft machine guns it ultimately never mounted, yet refuse to give it the engines it was intended to have. The double standards are truly mind-boggling.