AlvisWisla being confidently wrong as always. Keep it up buddy, the only time you’re getting likes is on my threads because the same kind of vultures gather into the same carcass.
the f7f is not even close to the bf109 f4 climb rate wise, and the 109 f4 climbs amazingly already. But if you’s this obtuse to understand how climb rates work i’m sorry, but i am NOT going to record comparisons nor post WTRTI for you once again.
The F7F starts losing horsepower above 3500m, and it also somehow got nerfed on the high speed handling. It was FAMOUS for having great high speed authority, making it the main reason why it went to 6.7. Now that it no longer does f7f things, it went down to 6.3 because of the armament.
@Italy_Suffers dawg, it’s pointless to argue with Visla, they say that the sea vixen is bad and that it flies identically to the mig15 bis… in a post about why does the do335 have an airspawn despite it’s climbrate improvements since it got changed.
28.5 and that’s without the minor fine-tuning I do in match.
Interesting that you claim everyone is wrong about climb rates.
Keep claiming it’s useless to converse with everyone that has information to share.
All your posts do with attempting to start a cult is prove everyone correct.
Nice claiming that all skilled players in the game are vultures tho…
You aren’t everyone. He is claiming that you are the one that is wrong.
2 Likes
I get my vs information largely from people better at air than I.
I stopped playing Sea Vixen consistently in 2023, which is where he got that screenshot from.
Sea Vixens sustained is noticeably worse when I tested it today, so yeah… it only accelerates now.
It also is funny cause he’s implying @Italy_Suffers is wrong cause I used information from Italy Suffers in my posts as well.
you don’t keep 300 ias in the f7f while clocking 28m/s, besides the ki83 and the hornet do 40m/s without speed loss.
Nice claiming that all skilled players in the game are vultures tho…
you’re not skilled. You gaslight, lie, spread falsehood, deviate topics and have a high ego. There is a definition for that kind of personality.
It also is funny cause he’s implying @Italy_Suffers is wrong cause I used information from Italy Suffers in my posts as well.
tremendous strawman.
Did ItalySuffers say that the sea fury is goated like you did, where you posted that it climbed better than the Ki84? did ItalySuffers say that the sea vixen and the mig15 bis fly identically? Did ItalySuffers say that the Alpha Jet accels better than the a4e despite they’re carbon copies engine wise? Did ItalySuffers say that the f7f climbs like a ki83? No, he did not, not even in this post. More gaslighting.
1 Like
@Mantis_Chat_Ban
I’ve never seen more than 30 meters per second sustained on Hornet for a setup that keeps its engines cold.
Instantaneous 40 meters per second is possible with all of them, but that’s not the same as sustained.
Claiming that 2:1 KDR In many planes, and higher in some others is not “skilled” is hilariously wrong.
For every 2:1 KDR person there is there’s someone out there that’s 0.5:1.
And to claim that facts are ego is annoying.
I’ve only ever cared about KDR in terms of making Silver Lions and when repair costs dropped as well as be insured with premium, I stopped caring about KDR personally.
I never said the the Sea Fury is goated, I said it’s a P47 equivalent, which it is.
A-4E and Alpha Jet uses different engines, and Alpha Jet has a higher TWR, this is common knowledge.
Keep making posts gaslighting the planet tho. Keep having posts claiming everyone on the forum is gaslighting you when they aren’t.
All you do is prove the posts Italy and I post correct.
According to your stats, you consider yourself unskilled since we share similar performance.
Meanwhile I consider yourself skilled and think higher of you than you of yourself.
You just can’t expect us to trust your methods because i KNOW what you do, you just fly in a straight line for some time then pull up and wait til the speeds and climbrates drop to a suitable moment where you can screenshot and say “see? I’m right” even despite keeping the pace would drop your speed and climbrate down.
The F7F not only is the worst climber of the three, but it also is the lightest body mass plus fuel load wise. The only advantages it has over the others are the guns and looking the coolest of the bunch.
You really cannot fathom what MANY TONS more of fuel and still doubling the performance of the tigercat is.
According to your stats, you consider yourself unskilled since we share similar performance.
Meanwhile I consider yourself skilled and think higher of you than you of yourself.
Ye wot?
The reason I post your narval with my sea fury is because one can’t tell the expertise in two lucky battles, so i picked your narval since it’s basically a sea fury with airspawn and has half the battles I do on my Hawker’s. Besides you frag air to air kills in ground, and while your stats are even worse than me who does air to air only in air RB you still dare to say we have the same performance.
@Mantis_Chat_Ban
Glad you know that I use the same exact standard for all prop aircraft: Sustained non-overheating climbing starting at 310kph on most aircraft, ~350kph for aircraft lacking some lift, and sustain that speed throughout the entire flight.
Keep claiming everyone on the planet is wrong for using the obvious sustained climb rate standard.
Also the fact you claim 80 battles is “2 battles” is hilarious.
Narval is when I was bad at fighters [2019/2020], I haven’t flown it since getting good at fighters in 2022.
Even my F-4E gameplay in 2021 was when I was rather bad at fighters.
Keep implying you’re unskilled though when it’s obvious you’re skilled…
i don’t claim everyone is wrong. I claim and demonstrate that YOU are wrong, and YOU even have the boldness to assume that overheating should be avoided at all costs or as if it was some sort of taboo or your elitist shtick. The F7F and the ki83 cook their engines, thus I care for it. The Hornet doesn’t overheat til you wep for over 5 minutes so I don’t open rads and lower pitch til I am about to start overheating.
Babe if you’re not willing to push your plane’s engines for a while because you don’t want to overheat then enjoy having the same assge stats on ground rb.
1 Like
There’s a standard for that? I just assumed it would be a non-overheating climb at whatever speed gave it the best climbrate.
2 Likes
the standard is to climb in a way you can set yourself over the enemy while not killing your engines. Apparently Alvis has the OCD about the numbers colors. I imagine Alvis staying a whole km behind everyone despite he flies straight and pitches up intermittently because seeing 40m/s climb rate for a split second is convincing enough to believe it’s climbing constantly at that rate.
@Mantis_Chat_Ban
For testing, overheating, AKA killing the engine, is a variable that must be removed from the scientific experiment.
In real matches I’ll push the engines more, but for the sake of testing I will use the same exact rules for all aircraft otherwise it’s inconsistent.
You even agree with me on the standard for in matches:
However, matches are not the same every time.
And then you claim you fly straight and pitch up intermediately which invalidates all your screenshots.
You have zero credibility due to stating that.
And you knew the standard prior… holy malicious…
Yeah, I’ll never trust your posts due to that.
You know the standard, you know everyone uses it, and you do a wrong standard anyway according to your posts.
If you don’t, then I expect an apology and for you to edit your posts with the correction.
I really do not get why Mantis claims this standard is wrong just cause I use it:
Climb in a way you can set yourself over the enemy while not killing your engines.
While also claiming that is the standard…
meanwhile: B-29 internally crying
1 Like
For testing, overheating is a variable that must be removed from the scientific experiment.
There is no “scientific experiment” to “remove overheating from”, the scientific experiment is to find a balance in placing yourself as high as possible without pushing your engines til destruction. You are expected to climb above an enemy in a game mode that pits two teams fifteen kilometers apart in a wall of death. You choose: stay behind and below with fresh engines, push them so hard you burn them down or balance it out and manage to get the most performance and efficiency at the expenses of higher thermal values that still don’t jeopardize the engines’ integrity. In other words, you decide whether to die to enemy or hand yourself to luck, or kill your own plane, or thrive along and survive both situations.
you have zero credibility
rich coming from the guy making their own rules about how to climb in a prop in order to appear rightful.
1 Like
Weird for someone listing the standard I use…
you are the one making rules and standards over smoke (alas, false scenarios that don’t happen, but you still do for the sake of “scientific experiments” (nerd emoji)
You are carrying on with the gaslighting and finger pointing a mirror.
You mean climbing at double the optimal climb speed and trying to zoom climb in props? I’m looking through your replays out of interest to see what these fine tunings are but tbh I’m just seeing you airspawn an AU-1 and still get outclimbed by literally everything.
1 Like
Test drives don’t have replays; and my AU-1 was exclusively to target bombers so I didn’t care about being higher than fighters, I just needed to intercept the bomber.
Also @Mantis_Chat_Ban claiming I’m the one that made the rule “the standard is to climb in a way you can set yourself over the enemy while not killing your engines” is wrong.