Same with the Me 163, it’s either 8.0 or 8.7 because it gets different gun, just old vehicles that get neglected as there is no good system to prevent this.
Any vehicle that doesn’t get played a lot should just get a modifier to account for it, or a system that automatically lowers such vehicles in BR over time.
Because the 262 is FAR more outclassed than the rest? I don’t want to downtier the 262 either but decompression needs to happen and gaijin will never do it
Honestly, I have no idea where those and the Ki-200 really belong, due to the weird way that snail opted to implement the Komets.
From my understanding, the engine could not throttle like it does ingame. The A & B models of the engine could either be “on” or “off.” The C model of the engine had a low-power “cruise” engine chamber and a full-power chamber equivalent to the A/B model’s “on” setting.
Perhaps with engines implemented as they actually were, the thing could see its BR drop? Throttle controls would turn the engine either fully on or fully off, with no in between. Going over 100% activates the main chamber as an “afterburner” of sorts.
The “feature” of the plane that always bugged me was how its rudder locks up at the supposedly “insane” speeds it can reach, making it near-impossible to aim the potato launchers on the B-1 and really hard to aim the slightly better guns on the B-0. But then when you have just 2 min fuel left, the mysterious locking up vanishes and it flies like a cracked Spitfire.
They don’t turn like a brick at all, they’re similar to the P-80. The issue is not that the 262 is bad at 7.0, it’s that so many other allied aircraft have been compressed down over time. There is no reason for the 84B to be 7.0, the F2H be 7.3, Su-11 7.3, and so on. The A1a is obsoleted by the Jabo which gets an airspawn and carries less fuel on min load. Overall the 262s are quite nice to fly, they’re just competing about highly compressed (mostly)US jets. They can’t go down because they’d be completely untouchable to props, if played right which becomes boring for both parties.
The 163 had a 4 step throttle. None of which really affected fuel consumption. It’s not just on and off.
Without the fuel control it’s useless, a 6 minute tank is basically unplayable, but at 8.7 it’s also unplayable, and a different pair of guns is not worth a 0.7 BR increase at a compressed BR range.
Now that the F86A’s and the MiG-15’s see 7.0BR now, playing early germany has been nothing but pain. I want to add that the Vampire F.B.5 (which is slower than the 262 in my observation) is still at 8.0. A BR in which it’s only pro’s are its dogfighting capabilities and armament.
This whole BR feels like a crapfest. I have been TEAM KILLED by an F86F in my Vampire, because I told them in chat that the F86F/F86A doesn’t deserve to get its BR lowered.
Don’t even have anything to say about the Ho-229. You need to have actual masochistic tendencies to be enjoying that thing.
Which version of the HWK109-509 engine are we talking about here, FYI? IIRC the A/B models of engine were either “open fuel valves” or “closed fuel valves” with no in between, and the C model had two separate sets of plumbing leading to cruise and main combustion chambers.
A 6 min fuel tank would be playable at a vastly lower BR. People would take off, rocket up to high alt, shut off the engine, glide around looking for targets, and reignite to engage before gliding back to base.
As for where to put such a plane, though, I frankly have no idea. People would whine “bias” no matter what is chosen.
With the Komets being what they are currently, I would seriously place them both at 7.3-7.7. Same with the Japanese version that has even less fuel. And I’d un-brick the rudder controllability while I’m at it, because it can’t aim the potato guns at the high speeds it can technically reach due to the instructor constantly trying to auto-level it with the horizon.
109-509A-1, used is many captured 163B-1a frames.
And as for the fuel flow, they should just give it the ~7:30 it was capable of, or alternatively buff its climbrate which (depending on source, because performance numbers vary a LOT with this plane) is upwards of being half of what it should be.
I don’t think lowering it would be fair, as much as I’d love to fight props. I think both should be 8.0, the B-0, personally is just worse than the B-1a. I prefer 108s to 151s. But honestly, the 163 / Ki200 don’t need anything changed with them compared to other aircraft at the BR. The vampire at 8.0 is pathetic. Sabre and Fagot both should go up, and probably will soon given the upcoming decompression.
I fully agree. Vampire used to he one of my favourite aircraft to play, then they bumped it up twice in quick succession which is wild. It’s funny because they bumped the Vampire from 7.3 → 7.7, they did the same with the Su11. But then when they bumped the Vampire to 8.0, the Su-11 straight to 7.0. They claimed that player statistics were not a reliable method of balancing, and the forum post has since been lost to time since the forum update. Ironic, eh?
I have seen videos of the plane being able to climb almost straight up, which the ingame plane cannot do ingame without stalling out. So I guess I’m not surprised.
What about the flight model’s wobbliness at high speeds that make it incapable of aiming well at said high speeds? To me, that is a much bigger problem.
Yeah, I’ve likely seen the same videos and I got no answers for that man. I love the Komet with all my heart. I think it’s a little sad that its climb rate feels squandered, but I think overall the plane (the B-1a) is in a comfortable position at 8.0 given how easy it is to bait people into vertical reversals.
I find it hilarious that people will still greedily go into said vertical maneuvers against a rocket plane, then complain when they can’t keep up with it and die.
Any sources on the rudder deflection at various speeds on the thing? That bugs me far more than anything - over 750kph you may as well not bother trying to aim at anything, and it hits that speed in level flight in seconds.
Honestly, I haven’t really flown the Komet in a long time. I don’t know if they changed anything with the FM but I have no idea what this issue you have with the rudder is. It could also be that I tend to force reversals and bait people slow rather that high speed fighting, when I get home I’ll try to look into it but I doubt there will be any souces on it historically. All accounts I know of point to it just being an excellent flyer at speed.
The ability to finely adjust the aim at high speeds is frustratingly wobbly unless you’re in a perfect 6 position chasing someone. Due to instructor over-relying on rudder for every plane and constantly auto-leveling with the horizon.
The best way I can think to test it is to try and BnZ someone in it, you’ll notice immediately if you’re over 750kph when trying to shoot.
163 B:
163 C (for comparison):
Not sure what I’m looking at but I think that the Me 163 doesn’t climb like it should, right?
yea long time ago according to some of my older warthunder freinds it climbed like irl and was so good nothing could beat it so they nerfed it
the most masochist german aircraft because of the br has to be the me262 c2b stock grind, it has 6.0 jet engines from the he162 which is mid the me262 c1a is very good at 7.3 but the c2b has no right be higher as they are very similar other than the rocket motors once you run out of fuel your dead in dogfights as the 2 bmw rocket motors are weaker than the previous c1a they just have a longer burn time and fighting mig 15bis with better flight performance is just pain hope they make it 7.7 where it belongs and if they do end up adding the me262 HG models they go after it