They should have actual testers with good in-game knowledge and draw their own conclusions by testing stuff in the matchmaker instead of relying on average player statistics
1 Like
Reducing MP while removing those super high trees won’t really make it any more difficult to MP, as the “usable” height remains pretty much the same.
Reading Comprehension brother. I replied to the comment that said name planes that handle like they do IRL.
Not a chance. It has higher lift than anything that’s not a delta canard with the combat flaps down. With landing flaps, it’s on par.
Compressor stalls lmao. What are you 5?
Unrecoverable flat spins are already modeled and compressor stalls don’t effect the 14B.
Sure, the wings are heavy, but they make lots more lift than most fighters. And they only make up 40% of the total lift.
I’m not sure you actually know what you’re talking about…
None of them do.
It’s a game ffs, do you really think your oh so precious F-14 can pull 13Gs?
Legitimate phenomenon that affected the F-14A, which is the only plane you play.
they aren’t modelled and sure they don’t affect the 14B
flaps don’t lock like they did irl with the F-14 in game do they?
Wings don’t get stuck with 1 swept 1 aft?
Wing are heavy and admittedly they probably do produce more lift than most other fighters
nice stat pulled out of your ass.
I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.
No vehicles in this game handle like they do irl.
1 Like
MICA’s are subjects to Multipathing too,… you’re talking BS right now,…
most people forgot that MP have been nerfed seriously and in such it’s easy to quit the altitude from which you’re safe thanks to MP.
in the same time, if you’re fired at by Magics, they have similar use than AIM-9L/M
2 Likes
lets go to this thread
1 Like
"Although the acquisition of the F110 solved many of the engine-related issues that blighted the A-model Tomcat throughout its US Navy service (the last F-14 lost to a TF30 failure crashed as late as April 1, 2003), the new General Electric powerplant had a few reliability issues of its own during the early phase of service. Indeed, there were two fatal accidents hauntingly similar to the incident on September 20, 1995 that is detailed later in this feature.
The first of these had actually occurred more than two-and-a-half years earlier, on March 15, 1993, when F-14B BuNo 163411 — the very last A+/B-model Tomcat built by Grumman — disintegrated in flight 20 miles east of Nags Head, North Carolina, d fluring a VF-101 training sortie, killing LT William E. Daisley and LCDR Fred D. Dillingham. Liner burn-through in the afterburner was the suspected cause. This fault in the F110 had been detected by General Electric three years earlier, prompting the company to instruct Grumman to perform special inspections on the afterburner ‘cans’ and the surrounding nacelles following engine runs at Calverton.
An identical liner burn-through severed the flight control rods of F-14D BuNo 161158 from VF-11 on February 18, 1996. The jet was flying at Mach 1.2 just a few hundred feet above the water during a competitive training unit mission from USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) in the southern California operations area at the time of its demise. Again, the resulting conflagration engulfed the jet with such speed that neither the pilot, LT Terrence L Clark, nor the radar intercept officer (RIO), CDR Scott Lamoreaux, had time to eject. According to a story written by journalist Michael E. Ruane and published in the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper shortly after the accident, ‘the wingman [in a second Tomcat] could not tell if the F-14 blew up first and then hit the ocean, or just exploded on impact. The jet was flying at high speed, simulating an enemy missile, when it crashed. Diving units later retrieved the aircraft’s two engines from the ocean floor, and the right engine was found to have a mysterious hole burned in its lining’."
But yes,… F-14A was the only ones to get compressor stalls
in the meantime, it is better to explode without having time to eject in F-14B and D variants.
Topic
Spoiler
9 x 1.5 = 13.5. If all jets have a 1.5 multipiler on their IRL stats, which they do, then it’s not a problem.
I do think all jets with FBW should be limited to 9-12G though.
Also effects almost the entirety of USSR/China Toptier aswell. They’re not adding them. It’s a pointless point you made which is why you got mocked for it.
It was also largely fixed by the 414 TF-30 model, which came pretty early in the A’s lifetime.
Try to get a damaged wing/engined F-14 out of a flatspin. You can’t. Or just throttle 1 engine down all the way to get the effect of a stalled engine.
Yes, and that would buff the F-14 if they didn’t break off.
Barely happened in service. There was a single test done where they FORCED the plane to do that physically and It was still perfectly controllable to land even at 20/68.
Oh really?
- Grumman F-14 Tomcat Aero Series 25.
Seems normal tbh. The F-15 had these same problems early on with the F100s.
they’re not handling like real life then are they.
Is that really too hard of a concept to grasp?
And it is a problem.
All FBW jets should be limited to their airframe limits and nothing further.
nowhere near to the extent on the F-14A.
a large amount of jets are susceptible to compressor stall.
weren’t damaged to get into those flatspins irl.
Unrecoverable flatspins aren’t new to damaged planes in war thunder.
should lock, which results in massively increasing drag until they break.
still did.
Remind me what 443/1008 is?
Also you failed to even give an angle sweep of the wings while insisting “wings make up 40% of the total lift”
This isn’t really feasible when you consider the gamut of “expert” opinion is and how drastically it can diverge from general playerbase opinion.
Like who gets to be an expert? Is it the people who theory-craft scenarios where things are balanced instead of actually playing the game?
I explicitly said:
Not testing on crafted scenarios, but on actual matches by joining the matchmaker like any other player would.
The experience in the matchmaker is based on what the average player does; hence you reach point where argument devolves into “my thing isn’t OP… braindead x nation mains are just dumb and play sub-optimally.”
Hence you end up with debate that other fighters should be able to use standoff range advantage of AMRAAM to defeat Rafale.
1 Like
Exactly, really the only people that are experienced in playing multiple nations are able to call out bias. Still can’t get over some frenchies being unable to admit the rafale is the best plane in the game
1 Like
The problem is that the “average player” isn’t a constant between nations, the playerbase that plays minor nations often are people who already grinded at least 1 major nation and are much more experienced than the average playerbase of major nations. The only exception are premium vehicles.
My personal experience has been that minor nation bias is a heavily exaggerated phenomenon and there are enough exceptions that it isn’t a universal constant.
For instance Rafale isn’t good just because French players are something special on average. I outperform most of them in Air RB while having next to no top tier RB experience lately and I’m playing with HOTAS and first person view.
Pretty much every player that repeats minor nation bias trope is themselves bad at the game.
1 Like
Rafale isn’t a good example because it is actually OP, but I see lots of instances where vehicles get overtiered because they are played on average by more skilled players, happens more with ground vehicles than air though.
Topic
Spoiler
That doesn’t affect the F-14. It’s not FBW. You’re just being argumentative for the sake of it, as usual.
Sure, that doesn’t mean it’ll be modeled though. It’s not good game design. It’s null to drag it on like it’s some gotcha point.
In real life, pilots go into these unrecoverable flap spins by getting into compressor stalls or mid air collision. All other spins were recoverable and had procedure on how to get out of them. Even inverted flatspins.
also increases lift massively, and only for landing flaps anyways which you literally only use for landing. A non-issue and buff…
43%… And that’s not accounting the underbelly as part of the lifting body which is absolutely is.
Fully unswept. Obviously. It shows it in the diagram.
What about the F-15JM, or F-15I, or F/A-18C MLU 2? The F-16AM with MAWS? JAS-39A?
What about them?