Honestly, it doesn’t matter what plane Gaijin adds, we would only get more underperforming aircraft. I’m almost certain this is intentional. 80% of the suffering and chaos in this game is intentionally caused by decision-making team.
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
6 Likes
Oh yeah, I see now
1 Like
Yes, this is a Kh-38ML.
I don’t have a photo with a Kh-38MT missile. But I can assume that the updated modifications of the Su-34 can launch them
Why does a f-4J(UK) have a better turn time than a su-27sm at 200-350 mph? How is a third gen fighter better than a jet known for its maneuverability?
2 Likes
War thunder is an arcade game that poses itself as realistic, the devs will adjust their game based on their idea of balance, i don’t know about the su27 being worse than a f4 tho lol, seems exaggeration but i wouldn’t be surprised tbh.
If you want to keep playing wt i suggest you to just forget about realism, the FMs are just one out of dozens of inconsistencies that it has.
3 Likes
It doesnt whatever source you have read is a flat out lie.
F-4J doesn’t have Agile Eagle (leading edge slats)
2 Likes
According to in game dog fights, it does.
Idk what to tell you, it flies like a brick below 350 MPH.
F-4J 50% fuel with gun rates around ~13deg/s below 350mph
Su-27 50% fuel rates around ~17deg/s below 350mph
Tested in game
Low-fuel Flanker demo back in 1996. From 4:25 to 4:40, the Flanker completes the full 360-degree circle in approximately 15 seconds if not shorter, which is around 24ish degree-per-second sustained turn rate. Most importantly, the Flanker seems to keep its speed pretty good. On min fuel, I managed around 17 seconds as the best time and this was with w-key spam to keep around 650ish km/h (350 knots) which is around the best rate speed for the Flanker in War Thunder. This is around 21 degrees per second. This is WITH afterburner btw (for WT), the Flanker in the video is NOT afterburning.
10 Likes
@Gunjob Would this + @Giovanex05 videos showing underperforming low speed turn rate and incorrect use of Nz / Ny G load for FM building be sufficient for a supplementary bug report on the Flanker?
I’m seeing a recurring theme of MiG-29 / Su-27’s of all types doing maneuvers that are simply not possible in-game. At what point will they admit these are not specialized airframes or “modified” to allow these things?
10 Likes
Even if my testing is incorrect, per Gaijin’s own FM sustained turn rate table, there is absolutely no state in which the Flanker can reach the level of sustained turn as shown in the video.
6 Likes
The one in the video isn’t even afterburning.
8 Likes
Exactly. Even if the fuel state of the Flanker is much lower in the video than what is possible with min fuel ingame, it does not make up for the fact that the Flanker in the video is not even using any afterburner. If you were to do the same maneuver with only one minute of fuel in War Thunder, you would not even come close to achieving a similar amount of turn without bleeding massive amounts of speed. I think this proves that there is definitely something off with the oswald efficiency/drag when turning at low speed.
4 Likes
In fact, the Flanker ingame would be close to stalling if it tried to replicate the video Flanker’s 15-second 360 without AB, starting from its ideal rate speed. The maneuver showcased in the video is what is known as a “min-radius” turn, which is the tightest circle that an aircraft can make, and that would mean that the aircraft would be within the stable flight envelope throughout the entire duration of the maneuver, and not lose any altitude.
5 Likes
Where does one find this spreadsheet, seems useful.
That is a nice ammo, can we get it in game?
I think there are a few too many unknowns in the video to make any conclusive statements. We don’t know what speed it went into the turn with and how much of it it bled. We don’t know the fuel load.
Though, if you can do a test with a big enough margin you might be able to prove something. Whether devs would take it is a different question.