at a higher RPM which the Tiger 2 cannot reach because it is limited to 2500RPM as stated here:
3 Likes
Mode: Air Realistic, Air Simulator
Vehicle: Ki-87
BR: 5.7 (RB) or 6.0 (SB) → 5.0
Reasoning: The Ki-87 is slow for its BR at most altitudes, only being comparable in speed at very high altitudes - higher than any combat actually happens. It is additionally a very large and heavy aircraft, with relatively poor climb and maneuvering performance, even compared to aircraft a full BR below it. Even at 5.0 it would be worse than its competition, but it would be better than it currently is.
Infamous drag argument
Maybe it is because the drag is too high. You can even read in Wikipedia that grid fins could have even less drag at supersonic speeds and subsonic speeds, with abysmal performance around Mach 1.0. aerodynamics dont care about your “muh grilled fins drag” pseudo hypothesis.
The whole maneuver argument falls apart with distances higher than 3 kilometers. An AIM-120 can pull just fine against +12G targets trying to notch at around 5km and above.
And thus, we end up with the same point, over and over: the AIM-120 is the better missile by having way better energy retention and more than enough pull. saying otherwise is either a cope, or a skill issue.
1 Like
Now we don‘t even have a lineup except 12.0 and 7.7.😭
that still dosent change that the Tiger 2 was governed to 2500RPM
and i dont see how that source contradicts anything, engines produce more HP at higher RPMs
problem is that the Engine was limited to 2500RPM so that it survives for longer
this is from a different engine but the same still aplies:
Even orbital launchers use grid fins, and they arent exactly draggy. Were they worse than planar fins, they use them instead.
Falcon 9 Full Thrust:
uhhh, the Falcon uses then deliberately because of their increased drag, you’ll note theyre folded for launch and ascent.
2 Likes
why would you document that the engine produces 750 HP at 3000 RPM for the vehicle if it doesn’t actually run at 3000 RPM in the vehicle you make your specifications about? That is like saying your Car can do 200 kph at 10k RPM but you redline at 8k RPM
2 Likes
Ill take a read on this stuff later, i was looking mainly for an example of high performing missiles/rockets with this fins. Thanks for the info.
VBC (PT2) should stay at 9.3 instead of 9.7
4 Likes
it’s not true, it has been debunked already. Gaijin has been already generous with the current numbers at the average speed the missile usually travels. You’re not getting AIM-120 levels of drag performance with the R-77s architecture.
Compromises must be made, unless you assign Gaijin’s development team a hefty budget to develop realistic wind physics. If you are millionaire, be our guest. If not, play shut.
So you’re lecturing (said lecture is a lie btw) about the AIM-120s behavior while not having a single NATO/AIM-120 related plane? lmfao, i’ll never get tired of this site.
Next lie you’ll yap about is that Sparrows are op and the F-14 is still broken in big 2025.
Enjoy facing the 14.0 F-15E.
because the engine could theortically handel that for short periods of time
it is not that it will redline at 2500 it was limited to increase the service life of those engines as germany had quite the recource problems towards the end of the war
also if we take your source as absolute truth the Tiger 2 will only have a single reverse gear
and do you see those values that are totally real world values, i also always measure my speed down to the tenth
psst
Spoiler
F-14A
This doesn’t change anything, this just lists the power of the engine @ 3000 RPM which no one argues against. It was standard to fit all Maybach HL 230 engines with a centrifugal speed governor that limited the engine to 2500 RPM and at those speeds, the output is around 600hp. As per the driver’s handbook for both the Tiger Ausf. E and Tiger Il as well as the Panther driver’s handbook and secondary literature from historians.
2 Likes
nowhere in your source it is stated that the governor is active the whole time (applying your logic) and also in my source you find that it has 4 reverse gears and not 1
4 Likes
I want to dispute the increase in the battle rating for the MSC tank,this tank is skill dependent and also it is poorly protected from enemy shells,As an owner and fan of the MSC tank, I can say that the French setup will be incomplete if only the MSC from the French branch moves to 11.0 I ask the administration to consider my complaint
1 Like
and your source only says that it can only go 3 kph in reverse
it does due to the nature of how a centrifugal speed governor works
it means it is directly attached to the drive shaft infront of the gearbox
you cannot turn of the governor
here from the Panther manual:
1 Like
Seriously, the coastal fleet urgently needs significant decompression, just as the bluewater fleet received in the last update. I am disappointed by the lack of consideration given to coastal vessels, as coastal battles continue to suffer from abysmally terrible balance, which can harm player retention in the long term. For this reason, I am putting forward the following individual BR proposals for most coastal vessels on my mind.
Firstly, starting with PC-451:
Mode: Naval AB & RB
Vessel: PC-451
Change: Keep at 2.0 (instead of 2.3)
Reasoning: PC-451 has a major weak spot that severely undermines its survivability. Her ammunition racks are located in the bow and can be easily detonated by incoming fire. Because of this, she should remain at 2.0.
5 Likes
Mode: Naval AB & RB
Vessel: PT-565
Change: 3.0 → 2.7
Reasoning: I question the logic of placement at 3.0. The PT-565 is nearly identical to the PT-200, which sits at 2.7. Both share the same armament, armor, and crew size, with no significant gameplay differences. PT-565 should therefore be lowered to 2.7 to align with PT-200.
3 Likes