Literally yes. Energy retention is measured two ways:
Rate of speed gain or loss at a given g-load, OR G-load at a given set speed that stays the same.
Either or are methods of measuring energy retention.
Once again, i am saying the same thing i told you, are you comparing the R2Y2 to a flying boat to now say it should stay at 8.0?
2 Likes
What flying boat? Almost all aircraft at 8.0 and 7.7 is worse in maneuverability than it.
And most are a similar climb rate.
ALL but Su-11 is worse airframe performance than R2Y2 at 7.3 and below, and Su-11 is worse in armament.
Are u kidding? The closest of R2Y2 is Sea Meteor, which is almost everything better than R2Y2 except the guns( even the guns, because the Type 5 has been nerfed like Type 992)
If only consider the climb rate or time to speed, R2Y2 is also the worst one, you can see F84G still better than R2Y2 when it was in high speed( that’s why F84G needs to keep at high speed)
1 Like
Sea Meteor is under-BR’d then.
Refer to this post:
There’s nothing that performs objectively better than R2Y2.
Vampire sacrifices climb rate for energy retention.
R2Y2 is better than all the 7.3s in flight performance EXCEPT Su-11 which sacrifices armament.
Top speeds don’t matter in War Thunder except to escape an engagement against a superior opponent.
Also Type 5 has massive pen and damage, they’re better than all but the American M2 20mm which they’re on-par with.
Even the Sea Meteor under BR, but it can’t be 8.0
This test is useless, you have to ignore this BR range that most of jets climb rate is based on the time to speed, and also you need to show up under what kind of situation to climb, the speed and degree you used may cause different results,like I post the table before, please check them:
If you just test them by the direct climb, then due to the engine issue, most of their performance is bad, all of them need to accelerate to over 700-800km/h and then keep a small degree rate to climb, Like F80C or F84G. Or if under low speed, R2Y2’s climb rate is worse than Kikka or F80C(only test from 0 -3km, about 350-400km/h speed with 15 degree test)
Under low speed, R2Y2 is better than most jets, but not in high speed
ANM3/Hisparno and Type 5’s pen are almost no different, and of course, nobody won’t uses AP belts, Type 5 has better damage, but the worse speed and RPM, but frankly say even 50.cal at this BR is enough, especially M3
3 Likes
top speeds don’t matter
except when you need to escape from a fight
I don’t think this one is logically congruent.
Also vampires sacrificing climbrate for energy retention when they have neither.
Early straight wing jets do not need to climb at 700-800kph, their Vy is generally closer to 500kph. Early jet engines put out their highest thrust at 0 airspeed, unlike later jets where you see an increase in thrust generated at higher speeds on many of them.
The data shows Vampires have quite a lot of energy retention. It’s their high thrust and wing design compared to the mass that allows for it most likely.
Remember that energy retention is speed loss at a specific G-load, OR turn rate AKA g-load [in this instance] at a specific speed.
Vampire being able to pull more Gs doesn’t means it bleeds more speed, it just means it can pull harder.
If you allow F-84G to pull as hard as Vampire, it will still only retain energy at 14.7 degrees per second.
over 700km/h with a small degree climb is still useful for most of the Early jets, such as F84G, under this table you may find clear the the engine power is different, however, considering the early jets resistances, the increase of power may not help them
Gaijin is phasing out the R2Y2. And they do it for the owners too.
You can see in your own chart both that the engine power is highest at 0 airspeed, remains constant in the entire speed range and how you experience significantly increased drag at 700kph compared to 500 kph ergo a lower climb speed yields better efficiency.
I went ahead and gathered the ingame data for you, you can clearly see the Vy is much lower than 700kph
at the moment nothing.
1 Like
Yes, as I mentioned that the drags might make the engine ineffective, I am not sure where did get this table, if under this situation, or the best speed range for the engine, it should be under 300-400km/h to climb
But if you really try to use the range to climb, you can find that F84G climb rate is better than R2Y2(just from 20 degree to 15, which will keep speed about 350km/h, from taking off to 3000m, F84G needs about 2min45s, R2Y2 is 2m48s, F80C only needs 2m5s)
you can clearly find that over 800km/h, the acceleration of F84G is better than R2Y2
I need to check the climb rate data someone provided before if under such kind of situation, it might be wrong and misleading
@AlvisWisla would you like to share with us how do you get that data? Based on what conditions are measured？Are they continuous or instantaneous values?
They believe F84G has replaced them, but R2Y2 never needs to be 7.7, it is best for 7.3
I set fuel to 12 minutes where possible, and obviously they’re continuous. Thinking otherwise is trolling.
The only way R2Y2 goes to 7.3 is if ALL 7.3s go to 6.7, and F-84G goes to 7.0 since it’s blatantly obvious now that F-84G is inferior to R2Y2 in all but initial climb rate.
Under testing before, R2Y2’s climb rate is even worse than Kikka
F84G’s advantage is very clear, Speed, climb, maneuverability at high speeds, even the air resurrection point, again, it’s very ordinary in comparison to some of the 7.3’s, he’s exactly a 7.3-7.7
The only way Kikka can climb faster is if you make the fuel level even more difference.
R2Y2 and MD450B are better than F-84G no matter our biases.
Data doesn’t lie.