Give B-24D its missing additional bombs(Bug Report)
Reasoning: How this bomber is still at 5.7 while the B-17G Flying Fortress sits at 5.0, despite being objectively better than the B-24D Liberator, is unclear. Legacy BR, perhaps?
Objectively speaking, compared to the B-17G, the B-24D has worse engine performance, overall inferior flight characteristics, and a lower power-to-weight ratio. The B-17G features a nose turret that provides significantly better frontal protection, whereas the B-24D relies on nose guns with limited traverse, resulting in weaker forward defense. B-24D has a larger profile than the B-17G, making it an easy and massive target to shoot down with a volley of cannon fire.
The B-24D carries the same maximum payload of 8 x 1,000 lb or 4 x 2,000 lb bombs as the B-17G, meaning it does not offer a meaningful gameplay advantage. The B-24D is missing its 4,000 lb bombs as mentioned in the bug report.
The only notable advantages the B-24D has over the B-17G are a faster-opening bomb bay and the fact that all bombs are carried internally, reducing drag.
Overall, the B-24D is objectively inferior to the B-17G and can be considered either a worse side-grade to the B-17G or a slight improvement over the B-17E series. Therefore, a BR of 5.0 would be a more logical placement for the B-24D.
most of the props still outturn you and can dive on you for free because they climb better and have better rip speed. your speed doesnt matter that much because everything else is trash or meh about it.
How is it trash when it has great acceleration and climb for a jet this early, and just cause prop planes outturn you doesn’t mean it still isn’t good at turning at the same time.
ALL the months prior it was fluctuating between top-2 and top-5 planes of ranks 8-9 K/B wise.
Stats are high. BR goes up. Simple as.
Your opinion on the matter means little as gaijin balances things pureply by player stats/economics, not by how good X or Y is. So if people are dying to IRIAF en masse, then it is valid canidate for going up. And they sure as hell do.
Reasoning: As it stands, the F4U-1C is the worst-performing F4U-1 variant in terms of flight performance compared to the F4U-1A , F4U-1A (USMC), and F4U-1D Corsairs. Reminder: all F4U-1 series, including the F4U-1C, use the identical engine, so the F4U-1C has objectively inferior flight performance and is easily outclassed by other aircraft at 4.7 BR, particularly due to its very poor climb rate. Simply put, its flight characteristics are closer to those of a 3.0 aircraft.
The 4.7 BR placement appears to be a harsh response to its fairly powerful 4 x 20 mm armament with a high ammunition count, which is understandable from a game design perspective in Air RB. However, I believe moving it down to 4.3 would be a fairer adjustment rather than placing it at 3.0 alongside the F4U-1A and F4U-1D.
The Mig-17 already sits at 8.7 as do the Lim-5P and 17PF (which are vastly superior), the 17AS going to 8.7 will not change anything except to make the plane worth playing. 2x R-3S are not a valid reason to be a br higher.
Mystere IVa should not be 8.7 as well, its a 8.3 plane.
Give P-47M-1-RE its 100/150 octane fuel, further improving the flight performance (Bug Report).
Reasoning: As it stands, the P-47M-1-RE Thunderbolt does not offer a meaningful difference in flight or engine performance compared to the P-47D-28 Thunderbolt at 5.0, since the P-47M-1-RE’s engine was nerfed. Although the P-47M-1-RE is lighter, it produces less horsepower and has a lower top speed at low altitude compared to the P-47D-28.
I believe the P-47M-1-RE could be improved in its current state of engine performance so that it better justifies its 5.7 BR placement.
It has been reported that the P-47M-1-RE historically operated with 100/150 octane fuel. In-game, however, the P-47D-28 already uses 100/150 octane, while the P-47M-1-RE is modeled with 100/130 octane and could potentially be upgraded to 100/150.
If equipped with 100/150 octane fuel, the P-47M-1-RE’s engine power and top speed would improve further, surpassing the P-47D-28 even when it also uses 100/150 octane. This would create a clearer performance distinction and help justify its 5.7 BR placement.
The related bug report was accepted but later closed as “Not a Bug,” citing that the performance change from 100/150 octane fuel could impact the aircraft’s battle rating.
Aim-9Ds facing shouldn’t be facing flareless 8.0s. Just for reference, the F8U-2 was considered OP at 10.0 for the same Aim-9Ds. It’s pretty much just point-n-click free kills currently.
(note)
In accordance with early SAMs going up, the following planes would also have to be raised:
A-4E (Early), Ayit, Hunter F.58, Yak-130, A-4E Early (M), and A-4E.
Removal of 2 x 20 mm cannons and replacement with two .50-cal machine guns (Bug Report).
Reasoning: Historically, the XP-55 Ascender was never armed with two 20 mm cannons and two .50-cal machine guns. The report I created cites a source stating that the XP-55 was equipped only with four .50-cal machine guns during construction. Along with another report already correcting its engine performance, this warrants a reduction of one BR step by replacing the 20 mm cannons with .50-cal machine guns.
Reasoning: As it stands, the F9F-2 Panther does not offer any meaningful advantage over the F9F-5 Panther, which shares the same 8.0 BR. The F9F-5 is objectively better, while the F9F-2 has performance closer to the F2H-2 Banshee at 7.3, albeit slightly lighter and faster.
There is little to no reason to choose the F9F-2 when the F9F-5 occupies the same BR and offers superior flight characteristics. Moving the F9F-2 to 7.7 would be a more logical placement and would serve as a smoother progression between the F2H-2 (7.3) and F9F-5 (8.0), creating a more linear Banshee–Panther progression at 7.3, 7.7, 8.0, and 8.3.
F101C
Air realistic
9.3->9.0
It’s effectively an American mig19 but noticeably worse at turning, 0 missiles, and although niche quite a big target. It does have a good amount of ammo but due to it’s worse turn I think it’s worth trying at 9.0.
Same as U.S. Chappy but with Stinger seeker. IRCCM does not belong facing flareless post-war jets.
(note)
In accordance with early SAMs going up, the following planes would also have to be raised:
A-4E (Early), Ayit, Hunter F.58, Yak-130, A-4E Early (M), and A-4E.
