WAITER! More cats please!
1 Like
Since it was the first version produced on a large scale, I think it should already be in the main tree.
+1
Interesting Aileron servo tab placement.
For real they have to remodel how self-sealing fuel tanks function to make US fighters relatively tougher. thousands 7.7mm rounds should not be able to damage fuel tanks at all, or otherwise bullet holes from large caliber & shrapnel & minor explosions should be smaller. Fuel leakage should be [diameter] - [sealing diameter] = [actual diameter of the hole after sealing] [Radius] x [Radius] x [Pie] x 2 = Flow rate. Though the exit hole would be larger. The tank should cast a box to imitate the area of fuel vapor. The area of fuel vapor should be a rectangular box with the 3d model center located forward of the actual center of the box itself. So that the trail of the fuel air mixture can be larger towards the rear by simply scaling the registration box. When IAI contacts the surface of the aircraft, it should scan for the box. If the tiny explosion from IAI happened in the box, the chance for the fire should be considered. This method definitely comes with a concept of Self-sealing “rating”, like a tier system for a body armor. A lot of Japanese planes and US planes have “self sealing fuel tanks”. But the difference comes from how effective they are. It’s the thickness that is constantly updated for Japanese aircraft, they used “Crude sealing tanks” from early in the war. Even ki-43-i had self sealing fuel tanks, contrary to the popular beliefs, but it was for 7.7mm caliber. Ki-43-ii sacrificed fuel capacity for the new tank, it was rated for 12.7mm ap. That’s how much of a bullet hole size they could compensate, though the hole must be bigger than the bullet itself. Tracer round should ignite the vapor as long as it enters the box of vapor scattering area. The chance of ignition should be based around the flow rate. F6F in this game gets chewed by A6Ms with just 7.7mm like… shooting at the same spot somehow rip through their ribs. Tail coming off from 7.7mm rounds, under 100 rounds. It’s crazy. They really need to stop with that. The skins should have corresponding spar HP alongside with the part HP. The chance to hit spars should be separate. To begin with, to rip the tail completely, you need to shoot at the exact spot. Like, hitting the spars in a very close approximate. I think the current airplanes in general is too easy to catch fire from AP-I. And pure incendiary rounds act like they are blank. Do they even have a proper ignition chance, the chance to ignite seems to be based on the caliber itself, guns of all countries sharing the basic data profiles for small calibers. I bet real F6F tanks 200 rounds without a fatal damage as long as they are from behind. Thin aluminum skin meant for aircraft won’t be tough enough to tank rifle calibers logically, but the spars won’t be getting hit in the exact same spot. I wonder how accurate the damage model for spars is, getting shredded from 7.7mms in the game. Sure, the wings are lifting the aircraft. If the spar loses its strength, the wing would apply a lift force critically fatal for sustaining the structure during the flight. Real life pilots aren’t accurate aimers like in this video game, probably. What I want to say is, this game’s damage model is HP-based, it’s just that the parts are separated. We dive at the same speed when our aircraft is damaged in the wings, because the structural integrity against G-force nor lift is never deteriorating. The problem for current damage model gets much deeper than this. But what US aircraft designers of the era meant by bullet-proof is for saving critical components and crews. The armors are around pilots in the most case scenarios. Otherwise increasing the thickness of the outer skin to the point they would have a chance to withstand the rifle caliber round would cause a noticeable bent on the surface, more energy would be transferred when the round couldn’t penetrate. Also, angled entry of rounds would curve out the surface, definitely applied for tank surfaces too. Angled entry should cause a larger hole for non-self-sealing tanks. But the peeled off cut-damage is more efficiently covered up than a round hole of the same area. It should be. It’s like putting a bridge over cliffs, compared to putting a bridge over a pond. Even if the “non-ground” area is the same, bridge over cliffs would be shorter in length. Thus, the self-sealing fuel tanks should be able to aid the cut-shaped damage better than the rounded hole of the same area. The entry angle of the round against the fuel tanks should be included in the calculation.
Within the current modelling of the damage model, F6F won’t be able to shine like in real life. Where they could tank more rounds relative to other aircraft. Pure incendiary should function accordingly to the real life counterpart, so that the self-sealing fuel tank would serve the purpose in combat.
do you even know how self sealing fuel tanks work? Rubber. the tanks aren’t bullet proof the rubber seals the holes left by the bullets
Read
. How come you would come up with the idea from my post stating “cut-shaped bullet hole from an angled entry of a bullet would be sealed more efficiently than a rounded hole of the same area, the shores are closer to each other.” You would have guessed.
A figure. Now imagine the holes of varying sizes. I thought I talked about the rubber thickness in the section of the “crude sealing tanks”, you must have read it as the tank thickness. Just read the original texts before making a wild assumption.
That is how pretty much every half decent rifle caliber MG works in WT.
In a mission eddit session, I summoned captured F4U-1 as a bomber escort. A burst of 7mm, just 10 rounds killed the engine from behind. I don’t know how it works but overall the dm in rb is pretty naive. They are better cranking the toughness, but not simly the HP crap. Wish they do something to make it more realistic.
The AI planes rarely have real damage models, just very very simplified ones. Try it with a real player instead in a custom match.
Okay.
??
1 Like
Hey.
While it is true that the early-production F6F-3 in late 1943 didn’t have the provisions for the rockets, the late-production F6F-3 did receive the provisions for these rockets. This was confirmed by the F6F-3 SAC, which was dated October 1945.
Initially, I included the rockets on the list since they are historical. However, I feel it would make F6F-3 a bit redundant as F6F-5 is miles better with its water injection.
I’d prefer the early-production F6F-3 to be added to War Thunder without rockets. Perhaps I should remove the rockets from the proposed armament and clarify this -3 is the early-production model.
1 Like
Well, I’d like to see F6F-3 comes back, but with water injection. In history, 80% of F6F-3 in front line service got water injection modification as early as Jan 1944. It is quite possible to have an F6F-3 with 2250hp on the deck with no ram air effect (versus 2399hp with ram air on -5 in the game), with less aileron effectiveness on the high speed, while getting a little bit more turning capability compare to the -5. We would see a little lighter, 20mph slower version of F6F re-join the game, just like how F4U-1A differs from 1D.
1 Like
Wouldn’t that be way too similar to the existing -5 though?
I believe that the F6F-3 Late (with water injection) could be an excellent candidate for a squadron vehicle, premium battle pass aircraft, or event reward
Indeed, the F6F-3 with water injection had access to the same ground-attack weaponry as the F6F-5.
My current suggestion specifically focuses on the early F6F-3 (without water injection) with limited ground-attack capabilities. This version would fit well as a tech tree researchable aircraft. The F6F-3 Late (water-injected) should be suggested separately as a side-upgrade, and it should be squadron or premium aircraft, in my opinion.
1 Like
This would be great to see! It’s a very iconic aircraft and deserves its place in-game, perhaps foldered.
1 Like