Both should go to 6.3 at the lowest
Your reply was done 8 months later, where many vehicles (specifically the BRs from 7.7-11.7br (the max BR at the time) vehicles had changed). When talking about the F80A and F84B and how they needed to be moved up to 7.3br was when 8.3br had jets like the A5 sabre and Mig 15 (not bis variant). My post was made in March 2024, which was one month before the April 2024 BR changes that moved down a lot of 9.3-8.3br jets down (which shouldn’t have happened in the 1st place) due to the F104A and C being absolute monsters at 9.3br making many subsonic and subsonic jets within the 8.3br-9.7br range just unfun to play.
As I said above comment was made before the April 2024 BR changes, however the F80A and F84B both should move up to 7.3br, where the Sabres and Mig 15/17 all move up to their old BRs before the April BR changes. The Meteor F Mk 3 is balanced at 7.3br, however the Sea Meteor F Mk 3 is unbalanced at 7.3br and should move up to 8.0br, same with the Meteor Mk 4 G.41F (7.7 → 8.0br). The Mig 15bis Ish is also undertiered and should be the same BR as the normal Mig 15bis. Me 163B is perfectly fine at 8.0br, it has only 4 minutes of fuel and it has mk 108s for guns, which are low velocity and due to the ballistic changes they did, it practically can’t be used past 500-700m due to large bullet drop.
US still has a decent amount of undertiered jets and slightly overperforming ones, such as the F89B and F89D, F2H, F104A and C, F8U-2, A-10C, F-14 IRIAF and F15C. I won’t include the sabres as the Mig 15/17s are also undertiered due to F104s.
Now the F2H is an 8.0br jet at 7.3br due to poor US players, as it has better acceleration, better maneuverability, better top speed, and better guns than both the Me 262s and the Mig 9 (Mig 9 has slightly higher top speed, however that is only achievable in a dive), the only jet at the same Br that is comparable is the Su-11, where the Su-11 is better in acceleration, climb rate, and energy retention, but the F2H beats in manuverability, weaponry, and top speed as well as that the F2H has an airbrake while the Su11 doesn’t). The only way for a F2H to have worse tun than a Me 262 is if it is damaged, or at low speed while the Me 262 is faster, there is no other scenario where the Me 262 could even hope to outturn a F2H. Its the same with the Mig 9, as the F2H has better thrus to weight ratio than the Mig 9 essentially allow it to both outaccelerate and outrun a mig 9, the only way for the Mig 9 to outspeed a F2H is in a dive, however unlike the F2H, the mig 9 compresses past 920km/h.
As mentioned before this was made before the BR changes, which as you can currently see having the A5 sabre at 8.0br is bad for balance. An updated version of this would be to have the Cl13 mk 4 at 7.7br, which is pretty self-explanatory as to why the quote I responded to, “The problem is the 7.7 Range. You can’t just look at the down tier and completely ignore the up-tier, that is simply biased. It’s like BR compression is a very very well known issue, punishing a single aircraft over it is a foolish notion.” was a ridiculous notion as to have one aircraft be at a BR where it is viable but causes an entire BR range to suffer is the worst way to balance.
I mentioned those planes because the person who I responded claimed, “As for the reasoning why the US pilots usually aren’t the best? That’s because of a variety of very interesting coding choices the Developers made to both US aircraft and others, leading them to be not as good at what they should be at (going fast and agile at high speed) and their slower opponents being more capable of defending themselves at ‘high speeds’.”, which is trying to make a claim that US pilots are not bad but it’s limitations of the plane due to the Devs (due to rudder problems), however the P-39N and F4U-1A do not suffer from these limitations. So in this case why are they undertiered?
This is entirely connected as we have US planes that don’t suffer from the problems from what he claimed, yet they are undertiered, indicating that it’s not the plane that is the problem but the pilots who fly them are just incompetent.
We are literally in a topic talking about the P-51H, and it was clear that he was trying to indicate that the P-51H suffers from the limiations caused by the Devs. This is an assumption based on the conversation, which is pretty clear you did not read and most likely skipped causing you to miss some important context.
It does not turn worse than the D30, it turns better due to the combination of a lighter airframe and a better engine. The D30 weighs more than the P-51H (P-51D-30 has a gross weight of 4.6 tons vs the P-51H’s 4.4 tons.), making it have worse turn overall. This is also not including the engine performance P-51D-30 (1,959 hp max) vs P-51H (2,216 hp max) with WEP. This combination makes it so it will take the P-51H longer to lose its speed in a turn compared to the D-30.
I do check as I am using performance charts that has already been provided by the community:
These charts have provided the climb rates, and if you look at both 100% and WEP. Looking at WEP from the google docs, the P-51H takes 35 sec to reach 1000m, while the J2M5 takes 40 sec, the N1K1 takes 39 sec, the Spitfire mk 24 takes 42 sec, and the Spitfire LF Mk 9 takes 40 sec. The Yak 3 and I225 are not included in the google docs, so looking at Air RB performance Guide Forum posts, the P51H takes 51 sec to reach 1000m, while the Yak 3U takes 52 sec, and the I-225 takes 53 sec.
The charts provided completely disprove your claims as the P-51H climbs better than every aircraft you listed at all altitudes. It is clear to me, you haven’t done any research whatsoever as basic google search for climb charts easily shows these charts provided.
This claim is also untrue as thanks to the climb charts provided, if the Yak 3U had better acceleration then we would have at least seen it have a better climb rate than the P-51H from 0-2000m, however that is not the case. Due to the fact that the P-51H is 1 second faster than the Yak 3U in a climb to 1000m indicates that the P-51H would accelerate faster than the Yak 3U to 500km/h.
Overall it is clear you did no research before making your claims as many of the info I found can be found by the war thunder wiki, the old wiki, and the forums.
The reason not many people have an issue with the Yak 3U and Spitfire LF Mk 9 is because they are pretty balanced and can be countered by aircraft of the same BR as well as how they have multiple weakness. The same cannot be said about the P-51H as it’s contemporary equal the Spitfire Mk 24 sits at 6.7br, while the P-51H sits at 6.3br despite it being slightly better. This doesn’t mean the Spitfire mk 24 should be moved down but instead the P-51H needs to be moved up.
As I have stated before, the only reason the P-51H is even at 6.3br is due to incompetent US pilots not playing them correctly and essentially throwing away all their advantages over some miniscule the majority of the time.
I disagree as there are props at 6.0br and 6.3br that are way better them, for example the F2G and F8F-1B. This is also not mentioning that unlike the P-51H, F2G, F8F-1B, Spitfire mk 24, Mk 22, and Tempest mk 2, the Yak 3U and Spitfire LF mk 9 don’t have the performance needed to handle jets like the F80A, F84B, F2H, F89, Su-11, Mig 9, Su-11 and Sea Meteor F Mk 3. Props like the Ki 84 Hei, Ta 152C3, J7W1 are 6.0 to 6.3br and they struggle to deal with the jets listed.
Do yourself a favor, stop using the kiwi climb chart, it is wildly outdated and methodology flawed. Its using test flight map which has in game variables.
Secondly, if you climb at those low speeds, youll cook your engine since it needs airspeed to cool properly and you wont be able to maneuver if you make contact with the enemy.
Example: P-47D-25 climbing at 240kph, you actually need to be going closer to 360kph to be able to maneuver. Thats a long time being vulnerable in a plane that accelerates like a bus.
Only at low altitude, even at medium alts both will lose a lot of performance.
Same can almost be said of the Yak3U but it has far better energy retention than either and can stay relevant for much longer. LF mk9 climbs very well and is the best turner of its BR or higher (as A7M2 is 5.3) so it can always leverage that if it is not directly facing the few props that can outturn it, on top of having above average performance at altitude.
A 5.3, a shitbus, and a plane that flies worse than the 4.3 XP-55 being bad against jets isn’t saying much.
Tempest MkII is also quite bad. It is only good at high speeds, outside of that it is quite poor in just about every regard.
the only plane that fought 262 where P51D models
Thank you for responding to that post so I could update the BRs in it.
np bro :)
Only reason I used the Kiwi climb chart despite it being outdated is due to how the planes that I was talking about (P-51H, Spitfire LF mk 9, Spitfire mk 24, N1K1) have not had any minor or major flight model changes that I can remember. The only plane that had a FM or engine change was the J2M5 in late 2023 or in 2024, where it was a overall nerf to the plane. Due to being unable to find current climb charts of the current J2M5 model, I was forced to used its pre-nerfed state.
Unless there is an updated version of climb charts that shows all or a majority of planes that includes time to climb using WEP from 0-6000m and beyond, I didn’t really have much of a choice as your climb charts only had time to climb with WEP from 0-1000m, and I couldn’t find another climb chart that had all the information I needed.
For F8F-1B, I can agree that it will lose some performance, however I can’t say the same about the F2G as I felt it could climb adequately till 5000m before major performance drop is felt.
You can’t say the same about the Yak 3U due to it gets amazing energy retention, acceleration and speed up until 3000-4000m, after that there is a major performance drop off. For the Yak 3U to be able to adequately fight jets its going to need a lot of altitude, and that major performance drop off past 4000m hinders it in the long run, especially if it has to not only face jets but face props with them. This is also not mentioning how the Yak 3U has a much lower wing rip speed compared to the props I listed, where Yak 3U is 697 km/h, F8F-1B is 827 km/h, F2G is 885 km/h, P-51H is 887 km/h, Spitfire mk 22 and mk 24 both are 875 km/h, and Tempest mk 2 is 879 km/h. The low wing rip speed already hinders and prevents the Yak 3U from effectively combating jets, and will only be able to attack jets that are slow unlike the other props I listed.
The Spitfire LF mk 9 climbs wells and turns really well, however it is similar to the Japanese Zero where compared to its contemporaries it does not have great straight line speed as it takes a long time to reach its max speed in a straight line, the majority of the time the Spitfire LF mk 9 can only go past 600km/h in a dive. We already have an example of a plane at 6.3br that has great climb, and great turn yet struggles against jets, which is the Ki 84 Hei. Both planes have nearly similar climb times, though the LF has a bit better manuverability compared to the Ki 84 Hei, while the Hei has better guns. Though looking at how the Ki 84 Hei struggles at 6.3br, moving the Spitfire LF mk 9 at 6.3br is a bad idea.
Only reason I even listed them as these planes are 5.7br planes maximum including the G56 (forgot to mention it, along with the Re 2005 at 6.0br), with the J7W1 being worse than that, yet are put at these high BRs where they will struggle and are unable to compete with jets. This is what will happen to both the Yak 3U and Spitfire LF mk 9 if they were to move to 6.3br or even 6.0br.
Decompression is badly needed especially at early jet tiers as we have too many 7.7 and 8.0br jets (F89B and D, F2H, Sea Meteor Mk 3, Meteor Mk 4 G.41F, Su-11, and Mig 9(l)) that are at low BRs of 7.0 and 7.3Br, it has thrown the entire early jet BR range and late superprop range into complete disarray. This is also not including the disastrous change for the 2nd time, where both sabres and Mig 15/17s are able to see 7.0-7.3br early jets due to have Brs of either 8.7br, 8.3br and 8.0br.
Tempest mk 2 is a weird one, as its strengths are high speeds, good climb, great energy retention, and good low altitude performance, yet has poor turn and poor high altitude performance. It is similar to the Yak 3U, where past 4000m it loses a major amount of performance. Though due to the nature of jets and them being high speeds, the Tempest mk 2 can see some form of success as it can catch jets and retain most of that energy in a dive compared to the Yak 3U and Spitfire Lf Mk 9.
However, I will say that the Tempest mk 2 if moved down to 5.7br, is something I wouldn’t oppose.
that’s my bad for not checking the date of the br rebalances.
No, I do not agree and as i said i think it would be better for the 262s to be moved to 6.7 unless you really just want to hope gaijin decompressed 9.3 and moves the 8.0-8.3 back up.
I struggled to outaccelerate it with the f2h while it outclimbed easily.
the way you talk about it makes me unsure whether you know rocket planes can have insane fuel savings by throttling to a lower percentage that still gives adequate thrust. if any planes dogfight you within 500-700m any skilled pilot can hit their shots anyway? It basically creates a no-fly zone near it. what i’m pointing to is the US doesn’t have an overabundance of undertiered or even slightly overperforming jets at 8.0-10.0 now compared to other nations.
to be honest i’m not sure what you’re thinking with saying the f89d and f2h are undertiered after what I said about it. No, it absolutely doesn’t require the 262 to be damaged or at low speed. it’s like you completely didn’t believe everything i said about it, did you even bother to test it yourself, lol? Are you saying the f2h has no compression at high speed? I would at most agree to the f2h being a 7.7 jet, 8.0 is silly.
I did read it, to me it seemed very clear he was talking about the p51d30 and f8f1 while you continue to assume he was including the f4u1a and p39n in that lmao.
If you want to insist the p51h’s airframe turns better, why don’t you test them both with wtrti since you’re so sure? Sustained and instantaneous turn rate is both under “turn” performance.
Lmfao. Dude you really took random climb charts from “the community” as matter of fact with no idea how it was done, applied it to acceleration, did not test anything yourself, said I didn’t do any research and tried to prove me wrong using it? I would like to know what you google searched as I did not find any charts.
lol no the yak3u and lfmk9 aren’t “pretty balanced” or have multiple weaknesses easily exploitable by other props, they are well known as the meta of 5.7 for a reason and you’re arguing against that and uptiering them to 6.0 because they will “face jets”. Apparently 4.7 5.0 or 5.3 props didn’t struggle equally or more against both? As said cannons at prop brs have always increased the br of vehicles substantially by at least .7 and are you saying you think the mk24s handling isn’t superior to the p51h? The mk22 could get a downtier to 6.0 at least or even 5.7.
The f2g and f8f1b are in fact not way better nor easier to play than either of them. what next you want to include the f7f? However I guess I’m not that surprised since you also think the p63s with weird 37 ballistics and exploitable hp drop at low speed thrust and f15c is undertiered.
except those planes are known to be overtiered or massively overtiered which is not the same as the lfmk9 and yak3u at 5.7 being moved to 6.0.
😂😂😂😂
I don’t think P-51H-5 increased BR to 7.0 because max speed and climb rate slower the early 1st gen fighter aircraft from post WW II
I’d say that’s more an overall balancing issue than a ‘fighting jets’ issue. They already struggle more than enough with other props and are overall worse than the LF mk9 and 3U.
But when compared to other props at their BR they easily stand out as the best at 5.7, they simply don’t belong there. If either of these spots a 109 K4 and decides he’ll get to die, there’s nothing the 109 can do unless there’s a huge skill disparity or some kinda miracle happens.
On this alone they deserve at least 6.0 like many other props.
Agreed, 7.0-8.0 is a giant clusterfuck that spans about a decade in one of the most active periods of aviation development. It should cover a BR range at least twice as big with much greater separation between the actual ww2 jets (262, 162, P-80, very early Meteor, Yak-15, MiG-9) and ones that came quite a bit later after engines and aerodynamic knowledge improved (pretty much everything else).
Sabres and MiG-15s obviously don’t belong down at 8.0.
2 Likes
I think it should be at 4.7.
this is a common myth that keeps getting told around because the content creators that said it didn’t bother to check if it was true or not or had everyone from their large fanbase somehow not correct them which makes undertiered lavs or yaks seem worse than they actually are. The lavs or yak3u do not reach critical supercharger altitude until ~5km. With the hp charts from wtapc it is more accurate to say WEP doesn’t provide the same boost to lavs or the yak3u as other planes with superchargers at ~2.4km.
Stat cards are usually not accurate for most planes. Here it seems the top speed was reached with WEP while climb rate was tested at 100%.
2 Likes
Moving the Me 262s to 6.7br will just lead to more compression, we currently need 9.0br+ to be more decompressed, so the sabres and mig 15/17s can move back up to their original BRs.
I’ll test that later to see if true, however acceleration is not the main factor to move up a vehicle, had you played the meteor F mk 3, you would know despite its good acceleration and good manuverability, it has worse top speed, worse roll rate, worse energy retention, and it has worse thrust to weight ratio (F2H is 0.44 while Meteor F mk 3 is 0.39) as compared to the F2H. Even when comparing the Meteor D Mk 3 to its contemporaries like the F80A, Kikka, Mig 9, and Me 262, the downsides are very similar with the exception of t/w ratio for some of them.
I have used rockets planes, especially the Me 163 with fuel saving methods, however with fuel saving methods you won’t be able to catch any jets that can easily outrun you like a Sabre, Vautour, La 200, Mig 15/17, G91, heck even the F84G can outrun one in that case. The only way for a Me 163 to even get close to catching any one of these jets (though it can catch a F84G with 100% throttle though you will waste most of your fuel trying to catch one), is to go 100% and spend a lot of fuel, or essentially attack them while they are distracted and spent a lot of speed, or to 3rd-party them. Many 7.7 and 8.0br aircraft have the capability to handle a Me 163, the only aircraft that will struggle against a Me 163 are literally early jets such as the F80, Me 262, Meteor F mk 3, Mig 9, Su-9, F84B, etc.
Even the most skilled pilot will have trouble hitting shots with Mk 108s if firing at 500-700m as this range gives jets past 700km/h adequate time to adjust flight paths to avoid them. If you ever used an jet with Mk 108s, you would know that.
US still has a decent amount of undertiered jets which I have already listed in the previous posts, due to how they have a major performance difference compared to its adversaries.
The F89D still has the performance of a F89B due to the afterburning engines, there is no reason for it to even be facing 6.0-6.3br props. If it had its airburst rockets removed, then I would say its fine, however due to the fact it still has them, it should be at 7.7br minimum due to its flight performance.
Your claims about the F2H are practically untrue if you had actually tested it as I did tests with the Me 262 A2A (lightest Me 262 we have in game) and the Mig 9(l) (a Mig 9 but with much better engines), and the results speak for themselves:
F2H vs Me 262 Turn data:
Parameters for testing:
Location: Jungle
F2H: 20 min fuel
Me 262 A2A: 20 min fuel
The F2H has better AoA however it has worse turn degree and turn time (by 0.5-1 sec max) than the Me 262 initially, however the moment you look at the turn speed does the problem become obvious. Comparing the energy retention of the F2H vs Me 262 shows that overall the F2H has much better energy retention and will be able to sustain a long turn fight, the same cannot be said about the Me 262 as it keeps losing speed the long it stays in a rate fight. In the long run, the Me 262 will be unable to out turn or rate a F2H. Combine that with how the Me 262 acceleration is medicore at best and there is no real way for a Me 262 to win a turn fight unless it has a significant speed advantage and/or catches the F2H off guard.
Now for F2H vs Mig 9(l):
Parameters for testing:
Location: Western Europe
Mig 9(l): 20 min fuel
F2H: 20 min fuel
Here you can see that the F2H just blows the Mig 9(l) out of the park. As for compression I never said the F2H doesn’t experience compression, however the Mig 9 experiences compression earlier compared to the F2H.
The Mig 9(l) is a jet at 7.3br that should be 7.7br as it preforms much better than the Mig 9, Meteor mk 3, sk 60b, and Me 262 a1/u1, which all these jets I’ve mentioned are 7.3br and are balanced there. The F2H is better than the Mig 9(l), which would make it 8.0br.
I did not believe you at all because you have no record and experience of playing either the Mig 9, Me 262, Me 163 or the Meteor F mk 3 on record. The only early jets you have even touched are quite literally just the U.S. early jets. This indicates a majority of what you experienced in the F2H is literally based what you played against as indicated by your Mig 9 comments. Had you played any early jets from a different nation you would be able to tell the difference in performance between a clearly undertiered jet vs. a jet that has been in the 7.0-7.3br for years.
I did and the only aspect the P-51D-30 beat the P-51H was just in AoA.
Parameters for test for both P-51D-30 and P-51H:
Prop pitch: 100%
Radiators: 90%
Location: Western Europe
P-51H has better turn time, turn radius, and better turn speed.
Now for your Spitfire LF Mk 9 climb chart, what was the radiators set to? Cause it looks like it was set to either at 0% or a low percentage.
When testing the climb rates, the Spitfire LF mk 9 does beat the P-51H if you did not care about cooling, which would not be used in a match. However the moment you set the Spitfire to get as much cooling as possible, the story is different.
The Spitfire LF mk 9 at 0% radiators, will cook its own engine before reaching 6000m (Around 5500m is when the engine starts degrading). Even the radiators at 25-40% will not be able to prevent temperatures from hitting red. At 50% radiators is when you have a balance of performance and cooling, though you will have temperatures in the orange range and close to red. At 75% radiators, Spitfire is more optimized for cooling and will reach orange temperatures, and at 100% is completely optimized for cooling over performance and this allows for temperatures at low orange temperatures.
The Spitfires in general have high drag radiators that will affect its performance, however the P-51 series has low drag radiators that will barely affect performance even at 100%. The Spitfire LF was able to beat the P-51H at 0%-50% radiators. At 75% radiators, the Spitfire LF and P-51H are pretty much equal, and at 100%, the P-51H beats it in climb rate.
Testing parameters:
Location: Western Europe (Medium temperature)
Spoiler
Spitfire LF mk 9:
Prop Pitch: Auto
Radiators: 0%, 50%, 75%, 100%
Supercharge Stage 2 altitude: 1800m
Fuel: 30 min
P-51H:
Prop pitch: Auto
Radiators: 0%, 80%
Fuel: 30 min
Climb IAS for both Spitfire LF and P-51H: 280km/h
Yak3U and P-51H test did find that at low altitudes, the Yak 3U did beat the P51H until 490-500km/h, however once you go above 3000m, the Yak 3 loses it acceleration advantage due to supercharger stage 2 kicking in. The Yak 3U only has acceleration advantage at low altitudes and at speeds below 500km/h, however once at medium to high altitude or at speeds above 500km/h, the P-51H has better acceleration, which your data also supports.
Parameters for Yak 3U and P-51H tests:
Location: Western Europe
Spoiler
Yak 3U:
Prop pitch: 100%
Radiator: 0%, 20%
Supercharger stage 2 altitude: 3500m
Fuel: 30 min
P-51H:
Prop pitch: 100%
Radiator: 0%, 80%
Fuel: 30 min
1st: These charts, “Air RB performance guide” and Kiwi’s “Climb and MEC chart” are well known, especially Kiwi’s as this was found using the old forums. Quite literally if you search “War Thunder Climb Charts” on google, you will find both there.
2nd: You provided no evidence until now that you have tested the aircraft mentioned, and every chart you mentioned doesn’t even include parameters such as: was the tests done using AEC or MEC. If MEC was used, what was the prop pitch used, what % radiators used, and what altitude did you change supercharges if there as multiple, etc. You left out vital info for tests to be recreated and re-experiemented. For all I know, your data may or may not be accurate due to this.
Yes both planes do, both planes are at their best at low altitudes, however at high altitudes of 5000-6000m they both see performance drops, especially for the Yak 3U. For example: at 5000m, a Bf109 K4 will be faster than both, will be able to use verticle maneuvers to its advantage and can utilize the german airbreak and high speed rolls, and it has better energy retention. This is the same for other Bf109s and fw190s from 4.7-5.3 such as the Bf109 G-6, G-14, G-14, and Fw190 D9, D12, D13.
U.S. aircraft like the P-47D-28, D-30, P-47N, P-47M, P-38L, P-38K, P-51D-30, F8F-1 will all outperform both planes at high altitudes (except F8F-1), have better high speed manuverability, better dive speed, better energy rentention, and better roll rates.
Heck the Ki 84s can also do well against the Spitfire LF mk 9 and Yak 3U as due it being a jack of all trades, against the Yak 3U it can utilize its high altitude performance, and better manuverability, while against the Spitfire LF mk 9, it can also use its high altitutde performance, and the fact in the intial turn, it can outturn or outrate a Spitfire LF mk 9 with combat flaps, out roll and it has better energy retention.
Zeroes can obviously outturn both of them, utilize low speed dogfights, better vertical stall speed, and against the Spitfire mk 9 it has better roll rate.
Also if both planes are meta, then there would at least be more than 1 plane on the team, however from 4.7-6.7br range, the majority of the time its either there are 0-2 spitfire LF mk 9 and 1-2 Yak 3U.
And its already pretty clear you haven’t even played the Griffon spitfires to even make these claims, the Spitfire F mk 24 will have better maneuverability, and better acceleration with essentially an equal climb rate to the P-51H, however the P-51H will have better high speed performance, better high speed maneuverability, better energy retention and has access to combat flaps. I’ve said this before for many years and on this thread, that the Spitfire Mk 24 and the P-51H are equals to each other and as such, the P-51H needs to be 6.7br like the Spitfire mk 24.
Now the Spitfire mk 22 is a Spitfire mk 24 without the Octane 150 fuel, putting it at 6.0br is insanity as it is clearly better than the Tempest mk 2, Ta 152H, Re 2005 and La 9 in climb rate, manuverability, and acceleration. It should be 6.3br, yet because good players have played it, its the same BR as the Spitfire mk 24 despite it having worse performance than the Mk 24.
Never said they were easy to play however both planes have better performance than both. Though since you brought up the F7F. F7F can counter both of them as it has better high altitude performance than both, better high speed performance, and it has better firepower, though it should not be 6.3br, at maximum it should be 6.0br like the other heavy fighters. P-63s are balanced though no idea why the P-63A5 is 3.3 when it was fine at 3.7br. And are you trying to tell me that the F-15C is not better than the Su-27SM, J11A, Gripens, J10A, F-16C or the Mirage 2000-5F?
So because they are overtiered we should move the Spitfire LF mk 9 and Yak 3U despite many planes from 4.7-5.7 have playstyles to counter them? It is currently better to move down the Ta 152 C3, Ki 84 Hei, and G56 down to 5.7br, and the Re 2005 to 5.3br.
No one at this point is asking for it to be 7.0br, previously before the April BR changes, this became a discussion due to the Spitfire mk 24 being 7.0br as well despite the fact it shouldn’t have been 7.0br in the 1st place. At this point, we are just asking for it to be moved to 6.7br where the Spitfire mk 24 resides as it is it’s equal.
I agree it is a balancing issue, as I have advocated about them before that they should be 5.7br, with the J7W1 and Re 2005 being lower than that. However, the G56, Ki 84 Hei, and Ta 152 C3 are not worse than both as the G56 and Ta 152 C3 both have better high altitude performance, better high speed performance, better weaponry, better energy rentention, and better dive speed. The Ki-84 Hei can utilized what I mentioned before, which are: against the Yak 3U it can utilize its high altitude performance, and better manuverability, while against the Spitfire LF mk 9, it can also use its high altitutde performance, and the fact in the intial turn, it can outturn or outrate a Spitfire LF mk 9 with combat flaps, out roll and it has better energy retention.
If the K4 is at low altitude then yeah its gonna be a difficult fight with the K4 most likely dying, however it has much better high altitutde performance than both, better high speed performance, better vertical maneuverability, better vertical energy retention, better dive speed, and better roll. This does not mean they are both 6.0br worthy as I have mentioned before, there are many ways for other 5.7br props and props from 4.7-5.3br to counter them.
This is a problem due to the F104s, Mig 19, Mig 21F-13, Su-7, J7II and Lightning F6 being at such low BR of 9.3br, which has mostly caused subsonics like Sabres and Mig 15/17s to suffer as a result nd cause them to get downtiered, causing more BR compression. This problem was also cause by the fact we have attacker aircraft like the Su-25k and A-10A with all-aspect missiles at 10.3br making it so the the F104s, Mig 19, Mig 21F-13, Su-7, J7II and Lightning F6 have to be lowered to not face them as much.
Until this is first fixed, I don’t expect early jet BRs to get fixed as well, and in fact I’m pretty sure its gonna get worse.
Though one solution that might fix this problem and not require as much decompression would be to implement a +/- 0.7br spread instead of the current +/- 1.0br spread as at least this would reduce a lot of the problems.
1 Like
If facing a team with sufficient russia players at 5.7 you WILL meet way more than 1 or 2 3Us. Same with LF mk9s, facing USA alone at this br you will see more than two of the premium LF mk9, more if you are also facing britain.
152C3 will only ever get a kill if the enemy is asleep or texting while flying, as it is the worst turning single engine prop in the game, with lackluster climb rate and speed to go with it. A lot of this is also applicable to the J7W which is pretty fast up high and obscenely maneuverable at very high speeds, but you’d need a match timer with a whole lot more than 25min to make that work.
G56 and Ki84 Hei aren’t as reliant on their enemy being unresponsive since they can still do fighter stuff, but still not amazing. At least the Ki-84 Hei offers no advantages over the 5.3 model.
3U will outrate a Ki-84 easily, again you’re relying on the enemy being worse than you to actually win. LF mk9 has both better instantaneous and sustained rate.
Both Ki-84 and 109 K4 have subpar props and prop efficiency, their power output seems better on paper than it actually is. Even if both are faster at 5 or 6 km than an LF mk9 and 3U, the advantage is small enough that you’ll have to run to the edge of the map to gain enough separation to turn around.
And all of that can be countered with the superior climb rate and maneuverability offered by the LF mk9 and 3U. Air RB isn’t a 1v1 where you can get the most out of your plane’s capabilities, matches are short and you have to make the most of them in that time.
There is nothing at 4.7 that stands a fair chance against an LF mk9 or 3U (nor should there be, that’s kinda the point of a higher BR). Well, maybe the Bearcat since they moved it down again. But things that actually belong down there like 190 A-5s are just free kills.
You’ve been comparing them to 6.3 props. If a Ki-84 with an unchanged flight model from 5.3 can be at 6.3, so should the 3U and LF mk9.
Similarly, there’s no excuse to having an already fantastic 5.7 fighter (Yak-3 VK107) be outclassed by its direct upgrade (3U) at its own BR.
I used to see that as a solution, but you’d still end up putting vehicles facing their direct upgrades at the same BR, because there’s just not enough granularity within the BR system to account for minor differences.
5 Likes
No prop deserves 7.0 br its insane even gaijin realized that and moves the spit down as far as ive seen spit mk 24 outurns the P51 H5 should stay where it is 6.3 is fine for it
They moved down the spit because they moved the MiG 15 to 8.0 and players complained.
Otherwise there’s no reason for props to not be 7.0, if it wasn’t for Jet compression.
3 Likes
Well for the past two days, I have played 25 matches at 5.7br using planes from different nations (USA, Britian, USSR, Japan, and Germany), and from those 25 matches, I counted only 6 Spitfire LF Mk 9s and 15 Yak 3Us. Even matches where I was against mostly Russian or British planes, the opposition at most had 2 Yak 3Us maximum, and 1 Spitfire LF mk 9. The 5 matches I had against America alone, I only saw 1 Spitfire LF mk 9. The majority of planes on the US side were P-51Hs, F8F-1Bs, F4Us, P-47s and P-51Ds. On the Russian side, it was mostly Yak 9s, La 7B, and Yak 3Ps, while on the British it was mainly Hornets and Griffon Spitfires. Overall, the majority of planes I saw were mainly Zeroes, Ki 84s, Ki-83s, BF 109G and Ks, P-51D and Hs, P-47Ds, Yak 3Ps, La 7 and 7B, Ta 152H, F8F-1B and F4U-4B. I saw less Yak 3Us than these planes, and the Spitfire LF mk 9 is practically nonexistent.
For two supposedly meta planes, they really aren’t being used much, meanwhile we are seeing more P-51Hs, F4U-4B, Ta 152, and P-47s.
I agree the Ta 152 C3 has worse turn rate and climb rate, however you forget that with combat and takeoff flaps, you surprisingly gain some instantaneous turn that allows you to gain a small window to cut off the turning circle of any aircraft with the combat flaps allowing 667km/h before breaking and 591km/h limit for takeoff flaps, this is something that can be used as an advantage.
Though I must disagree about speed as at altitude, especially high altitutdes, the Ta 152 C3 can reach speeds past 500km/h in a straight line much faster than most planes.
G56 and Ki 84 Hei are good aircraft when facing 5.7brs, past that they struggle against superprops. The Ki 84 Hei is practically a side grade to the Ki 84 Ostu at this point.
I would need to test the Yak 3Us turn rate against the Ki 84s to see if true, however you forget unlike the Yak 3U and Spitfire LF mk 9, the Ki 84 has access to combat and takeoff flaps allowing it to get instantaneous turn against both, while better sustain turn against the Yak 3U.
Its really not, as both the Yak 3 and Spitfire LF mk 9 past 5000m lose enough performance that they struggle to get past 500 km/h in a straight line. You also forget that the Spitfire LF Mk 9 has a time limit due to having much worse cooling than the aircraft mentioned, where you are forced to have the radiators open, stop using WEP, or reduce prop pitch in order to not overheat. Neither the Ki 84, Yak 3U, or even the Bf 109 K4 has this major problem.
As by literal testing I’ve done, the Spitfire LF mk 9 cooling is so bad that it cooks its own engine before reaching 6000m without any radiators, where even 25% radiators cools it just enough to reach 6000m before being forced to drop throttle and sometimes open radiators to cool the engine. Spitfire requires at minimum 50% radiators to be open to not reach red temperatures, which comes at a cost of performance especially acceleration past 400 km/h.
The Yak 3U on the other-hand due to stage 2 supercharger will lose WEP past 3200-3500m, which prevents the Yak 3U from accelerating past 500km/h easily and past 5000m, it will start struggling to accelerate past speeds around 420-440km/h.
Not really as past 5000m, both planes lose enough performance for their competitors to catch up. This is also not mentioning how other props with worse climbs like the P-47 and P-51D can side climb allowing them to get to their needed altitude before engaging.
You can make the same type of argument for other 5.7br aircraft against 4.7br like the Bf109 K4 vs a La 7, or a P-47M vs the Ki-61Ostu Kai or the A6M3 mod.22 Ko, or the Ki 84 Ostu vs Spitfire Mk Vc/trop. However this doesn’t mean a 4.7br cannot take advantage of a weakness that these planes have.
I’ve compared them to 6.0-6.3br props like the Ki84 Hei, G56, Ta 152 C3, Re 2005, and J7W1 as these are literally 5.7br (except J7W1 its worse than any current 5.7br aircraft) aircraft that are overtiered to 6.3br and they don’t perform well there against both superprops and jets.
Also this would be the worst way to balance, if an aircraft is overtiered, you don’t overtier other aircraft due to that. It is always better to reduce the BR of an overtiered aircraft. Because if we followed your logic, the Vampire FB5 is a jet at 8.0br that has 7.3br performance, and because it can perform well there this means that the Mig 9, Meteor F mk 3, Me 262 A1/U1, Ar 234 C3, and Sk60B should move there as well. Or how about the R2Y2 V1, an 8.0br jet with 7.0br performance, and because it can perform well there means the F80A, F84B, F3D, A2D, Me 262 A1, Me 262 A1/Jabo, Ho 229, Su-9, and Attacker FB1 & 2 should move to 8.0br as well. See how bad of an idea that is to do balancing?
In actual honesty, the Yak 3 VK107 and the Yak 3U are sidegrades to each other due to their performances at low vs high alt, at low altitude the Yak 3U will slightly outperform the Yak 3 Vk107, at around 3000-3500m both aircraft have equal performance, however at altitudes past 4000m, the Yak 3 Vk107 will slightly outperform the Yak 3U. Yak 3 Vk 107 is more suited to higher altittudes compared to the Yak 3U however Yak 3U is more suited to low altitude compared to the Yak 3 Vk107.
+/- 0.7br may not be a complete solution, but it would be much better than what we currently have.
K-4 will overheat under AEC or low radiator %s unless you’re above critical alt
3U is actually better at high alt, VK107 only holds a very narrow advantage at 4-5km. And of course better anywhere below those 4km.
3U will also go much much faster than 500kph at those alts, it is very low drag.
They’ve had years to downtier the worst performers like the J7W and haven’t done it, the 3U and LF mk9 existing at 5.7 is pushing down everything with them and creating more balance issues.
You clearly don’t have much experience with either of them so I’ll cut you some slack, but if there’s anything at 5.0-6.0 that deserves to be moved up it’s those two.
There is literally nothing those 4.7s can do unless they are fighting a paid actor or a bot. All the higher tier plane has to do is deny them a straight turnfight and it’s a done deal.