Still doesn’t change the fact Kurnass 2000 retains more energy.
The test is done with trim settings.
Something that has never happened in a single match I’ve played, partially cause I know better.
Statistical improbabilities are not to be taken into account.
Oh hey, the Kfir C7 energy retention turn rate, with a max G pull of 9G, vs the F-4’s 11Gs, which means F-4 pulls better instantaneous as well.
Kurnass 2000:
Slightly better energy retention, mostly due to a second engine for the mass being pushed.
And better instantaneous.
Kfir C7 was good at 11.3, and 12.0 is the new 11.3.
As someone else already said:
3 Likes
@Leinadmix9_ツ
Well, play more if you feel you don’t play that often.
I guess i should, ping me whenever you dont say some bad hot take
3 Likes
how do you get so many different stats on your HUD?
War Thunder Real Time Information: WTRTI.
I use it for fuel management and study.
Totally agree with that.
I am trying to grind the plane because I want the AGM65D for ground pound and this shit is abysmal. Unironically the basic Kurnass is infinitely better and more viable than this, with the trash radar and the AIM7E-DFs. And what is the improvement that deserves that 12.3 br? The PD radar? Which you can’t use for anything. Like sure if the plane had some radar missiles with the PD radar, I would understand the 12.3 br and it would be OK, but not like this! This IR only trash truck gets outranged, out flared, and out manoeuvred.
And to all the giga brains screeching: But bUt PyTooooNNN PyYYYTooONN 3
It’s completely worthless, you can easily flare it, but most importantly you need to be within 3km to effectively use it. In a br where they can slam-dunk a SARH missile into your face from 10 km. And even in a magical rainbow unicorn fart quantum superposition scenario where you can get in range, don’t get dunked by SARH missiles, your teammates don’t steal your kill with their SARH missiles, that’s one game from every twenty or forty.
And the issue is not that the Python 3 is a bad missile it’s the FUCKING RANGE, that’s the issue. The AIM9M is also a good missile, and I always carry 2 on my F15/F16, but you would need to be a fucking moron to go into a 13.7 br ARB with a full AIM9M loadout.
1 Like
Yeah I’m not sure why people think the python 3 is something special, imo Aim 9L has better flare resistance and range, python has quick acceleration but you have to be super close for it to hit, and even then it takes a second for it to start tracking after launch.
That’s a weird thing to have an opinion on. The current Python 3 seeker is copy pasted from the AIM-9L, they’re the same.
1 Like
I have used both plenty and I have more luck with the 9L, either way the python really isn’t an upgrade.
The Python is definitely an upgrade. You can just say that it’s not an IRCCM missile… it’s still the best non-irccm in the game.
2 Likes
And at the BR they play at means absolutely nothing! Id take a plane with 9L and 7M ANYDAY over only pythons.
Which still gets defeated by 1 flare.
R-60M is far better than aim9J.
R-24R have inertial guidance and also will track just fine if the target is being painted by the radar.
1 Like
I said it has inertial guidance, not that it does track you.
Same can be done to any non irccm missile? It can even be done to IRCCM missiles themselves in the right conditions? If all you think about is “oh no my missile CAN be flared!” then you are not focusing on the actual use parameters and are making your gameplay worse as a result
It’s the same logic when people say “it’s a very good missile to unaware enemies”.
Cool, so is an AIM-9B
2 Likes
It’s not the same logic, you’re just not as good as you think you are and are using wrong types of thinking to come to a bad conclusion
