Nobody stays stock forever. Most of the time people are flying spaded planes to research the next tiers.
This thing struggles to take down 5.7 fighters. A Yak-3U can outclimb, outspeed, outmaneuver it. Even much heavier fighters (relative to 3U) like F2G and P-51H can do the same. LF Mk9s may be slower (not by much), but they’ll EASILY outclimb and outmaneuver it, and from there they can just dive on you for free, forever.
Except it is a bad fighter, for all the reasons I mentioned above. If it is losing in the vast majority of situations and parameters to aircraft at or near it’s BR, it’s a bad plane. It received an FM buff recently which made it playable but it still flies like it is at a whole BR lower.
No. If wt would be accurate there would be no I-225 in the game.
There were just two (!!!) I-225 prototypes ever built - they never saw service. And if they would allow prototypes they would need a BR of 6.0 (Air RB currently at 5.0) at least - ofc without an airspawn (based on introduction / 2nd prototype 03.1945) to be “historically” accurate and would have to face Me 262s…😉
Regarding your request:
Imho you received valuable feedback - and you might consider that gaijin does not connect IRL usage or purpose of an aircraft when they allocate air spawns for fighters. The plane needs no airspawn.
Technically seen almost all fighter air spawns are based on gaijin’s balancing approach - and from my pov a “real” interceptor needs no airspawn.
Regarding the plane itself:
The current BR is too low as soon as you meet any experienced pilot flying it, all he has to do is to drag his most dangerous enemies above 7-8 km and make the fight slow. Imho a 5.3 BR would be easily justified.
I meet frequently two very good players (thank god always in different matches) flying them to their absolute strength and you need to double team them above 7-8 km as the plane turns exceptionally well at very high alt at rather slow speeds and is fast like hell.
I saw them killing (i watched the replays) P-38 Js, Ki-84s, A7M2s & J2Ms in pure 1 vs 1s flown by good & experienced pilots. Killing them requires a significant speed and alt advantage - not really easy thx to contrails revealing your position.
You claim, in your list, that planes such as the J2M5, N1K1-J, Ki-84, F2G, J6K, P-51H get outclimbed by the J7W. I’m not doing the whole roster, that’s a waste of time.
This is only true if you take the statcard values at face value, even though they are very well-known for being wrong all the time.
Their actual climb rates, at sea level and ~20min fuel (or closest), and what the statcard claims for a spaded plane, are as follows:
Unfortunately I don’t have the I-225 metamobile to throw into the pile, but looking at power to weight ratio alone, it easily trounces even the P-51H if both are at 3km or higher.
Even if you choose to take advantage of the J7W’s supposed better performance at high altitude, the I-225 beats you at your own game. On top of getting up there faster in the first place.
So it doesn’t outclimb many of the planes you said it would (because statcards are useless and they lie), it certainly can’t outturn almost anything on that list (ALL of the ones I mentioned above can outturn it), and many can outspeed it. A single hit to either wingtip is enough to put it into an unrecoverable flatspin. The many oil tanks will instantly drain all the oil when hit and you must RTB immediately.
It is only good if all you do is full commit head-ons. Which hey maybe you’re into that but I prefer to not have to gamble.
I don’t see how. Any experienced pilot I’ve ever spoken to and my own observation indicates it is a very, very mediocre if not downright underpowered plane.
I don’t really trust your shakey data analysis on this, especially when you’ve already made the mistake of saying a J7 outclimbs a P51H.
I read it, you just aren’t convincing in the slightest and sometimes straight up say things I’m about 99% certain are untrue.
I don’t really care if I am. I’m not trying to convince you. This isn’t an argument. You asked me a question, and I answered. It’s not even the topic of this thread.
Look big man, you can have whatever cope you want. I don’t really care, but objectively, you are incorrect.
Also, forgot to mention this, outclimbing somebody by 3 seconds to 5000 meters altitude doesn’t secure you a real advantage in air RB, especially when your aircraft flies like shit.
There is a knock-on effect of climb-rate for when it’s an 1 vs 1 duel though, to play devil’s advocate.
And that is climb rate is indicative of energy generation, and energy generation enables higher energy-cost maneuvers to be done longer or more often and also permits more vertical fights over flatter fights.
As it is, it looks superior to Bf 109 G-14 without WEP in vertical fights and slightly worse with WEP enabled (and 109s love their loops and spiral climbs to drain the enemies of energy (both dominate F Mk IX in such, LF Mk IX beats them except for a narrow 1.5-2.5 km perforance gap where G-14 and I-225 have P/W and SEP advantage. Over 5km, I-225 beats both G-14 and LF Mk IX handily)
Again, just devil’s advocate to reinforce that “time to altitude” isn’t the only way climb rate affects the way a fight goes.
Haha, you believe stat cards, completely disregard altitude effects on climb rate, and then give suggestions about balancing. You should apply to work for Gaijin.
Hey… super Noob here… took a 5 year break, have maybe 200 battles since I came back and like 700 total… so excuse me if this is a dumb question, but where do you go to get accurate aircraft stats?
Everyone harps on knowing aircraft performance, but short of flying and/or fighting them all and slowly learning I’m just not sure how to do that.
I knew the in game stat cards were wrong… but I didn’t realize they were not consistently wrong. Their wildly inconsistent nature makes even comparison very difficult.
WTAPC for Thrust to Weight. Caveat: Thrust to Weight does not consider prop efficiency. As a rule of thumb, aircraft with 2 engines generate more energy even with less TWR - classic example is the XP-50 being far better in a vertical fight than its TWR would imply.
Link: War Thunder Aircraft Performance Calculator
WTRTI gives you aircraft stat cards to reference based on coded values.
WTRTI gives you real-time readout of nearly everything you could dream of in Test Flight
WTRTI gives you fewer, but still sufficient readout in real matches.
Link: WTRTI
For aircraft with Jet engines, refer to Statshark’s FM charter. It gives you Maneuvering-energy diagrams at given altitudes for instantenous turn, best sustained turn and all that. It gives you time to speed, time to altitude and so on.
Link: StatShark - See All Player, Missile, and Vehicle Statistics
(they’re working on a prop plane version as well, but prop efficiency is a biiiit super complicated)
Some added bit for WTRTI:
It has a real time benchmarking function. At first pass, you can have it generate you graphs but when this does so, it also generates a .csv in the wtrti directory. You can import the CSV to whatever data analysis/graphing tool you use (excel, python, R, sheets etc).
As such, with WTRTI if you are curious about aircraft performance you can go into benchmarking and record stuff like time, IAS, TAS, Altitude, Turn rate, Roll rate, Prop Efficiency, Drag, Thrust, Specific Excess Power, Climb Rate, G-load. Start benchmarking once on the runway and proceed to do your desired tests.
(Time to speed from stop, time to altitude from stop, time to speed from dive, Turn rate at given G and IAS and so on. It does need some management of the CSV but it should be easy enough.)
