This plane is as slow as most aircraft a full BR lower than it (450 km/h on the deck with WEP), retains energy worse than most 2.0s, turns and rolls worse than practically any aircraft it faces, and climbs more poorly than most biplanes. Its only saving grace is its cockpit armor and 50 cals - weapons that many other planes at a lower BR have. So how did “statistics” based balancing screw this aircraft so hard?
I can think of 2 possible reasons
6x 50cals plus whatever bombs it had meant it was getting a load of kills in ground buffing its numbers
6x 50cals were just shreading everything below (most below only have 4) and its just a victim of “bad decompression”
point 2 makes a good amount of sense but there are planes with 6x 50 cals and better belts at 2.7 (see: F4U-1A)
point 1 doesn’t make sense because it can only carry 2x 100 lb bombs
Yep, fair points. No idea. Guess bring it up next BR change?
Perhaps this is because usually only more experienced pilots would choose such an aircraft and therefore the statistics look better compared to aircraft that are used more by casual pilots.
Sure, but why would try-hards play an intentionally bad aircraft at rank 2 and BR 3? If you want a plane that is extremely bad, but you can club new players with, there’s the OS2U Kingfisher. The Peashooters are also not very good, but they are 1.0.
The P-36s are as fast as the F4Fs but turn, roll and climb far better. The P-39N-0 is an all around improvement in every single department except guns. The A-36 Apache has even more guns and is faster, and better climbing, with an airspawn, but it does turn worse at lower speeds.
I think this aircraft kept going up in BR ages ago because it how good it is at head-on attacks, and once it reached 3.0 it was effectively forgotten. No one plays it, therefore there are no statistics, and it won’t go back down.
It is a sidegrade to the 2.3 model, as it has worse flight performance but an additional pair of 50s. It really should not be a 2.7, let alone a 3.0.
6x .50 cals on a good fighter platform.
The P-40 and A-36 are inferior aircraft which is why they’re 2.7 instead of 3.0.
50 cals, excellent dive top speed, control surfaces that don’t compress until very late. It’s perfectly fine at 3.0.
Yes, I played it.
It’s one of the aircraft I don’t play much in air RB cause its flight performance is beyond my skill, at least that’s what it was like 2 years ago.
I prefer weaker armament that gives me a better flight platform personally.
Richard accusing everyone of trolling again I see.
How is he trolling?
If you think he isn’t, please do fly it out, then compare it against 2.3s and 2.7s in any other tech tree. It’s a flying joke.
There are Japanese planes that fly faster, turn better and have better guns at 2.7 alone, and the Russians have better planes in all aspects at 2.3.
I think F6F tad too low especially with big armament buffs F6F 5N meanwhile bit too high. Currently no way F4F-4 should be only 0.3 lower than it so 2.7 more like it especially when F4F-3 is 2.3 and almost same FM it seems but 200kg lighter 2 mgs less but more ammo. one could say they can be same br even so 2.3 isnt far fetched.
The P-40 and A-36 are inferior to the F-4F.
Yes, other inferior-armed planes are superior to them in flight performance, AS I SAID.
If you think otherwise and think that’s trolling, you clearly never flew the planes.
because it is bloody awesome thats why.
Was actually flying it last night too, sooo good.
Also British F4F is way better but is 2.7 also lacks bombs only really. So it just low tier negligence as always.
Just putting facts out there British one offers same guns same ammo same weight. Probably same FM. Very slightly worse pure WEP horsepower on its engine. But on deck it offers 30 km/h more and doesn’t overheat on WEP. While being 2.7
how many games do you have in it and how have you performed?
81 battles, 106 kills, 51 deaths.