Meh not really. Its flight performance is objectively worse than the C-10, literally the ONLY advantage the D-5 has is 2 more .50cals and greatly expanded CAS options.
Did I say the F6F at 3.3 should be moved down?
Two things upfront:
- You replied to a player which has stopped playing 10 months ago. You won’t get a response.
- I fought with and against @dot (excellent pilot) and imho most of his statements were quite reasonable. I do not share his 5.7 opinion about the F8F-1, actually the 4.7 is fine as i see them dying like flies at 4.7.
Have in mind that experienced pilots which are able to use an aircraft to its full strengths (whilst playing around weaknesses) might come to deviating conclusions to BR settings (as gaijin uses average results to determine BRs) and most of the BR discussions deal with the situation when very good pilots fly them.
This is either a fact free opinion…or you don’t refer to Air RB BRs.
Using an objectively undertiered P-51 C-10 as argument to reduce BRs of D models is not comprehensible.
We have D-5 (4.0), D-10 (4.3), D-20 (4.0) and D-30/P-51 K (5.0).
D-10 performs similar to the the D-30 - even gaijin realized this, that’s why they left it a 4.3. 4.0s for D-5 and D-20 are ok if you take the average pilot skill into consideration.
P-51 C-10:
-
Clearly a 4.3 to 4.7 aircraft. Unfortunately US mains are unable to make them work, so they dragged the BR down to 3.7 due to poor results.
-
Gaijin reacted and downranked the plane to Rank II - so that clubbers don’t use it anymore.
-
The main issue is that all of the premium/event versions of the C-10 share the same BR, but kept Rank III. As they are there flown by (mostly) far better pilots those guys benefit the most from the way too low BR of 3.7.
Have a good one!
1 Like
D-5 is slightly heavier (due to extra 2 guns) and more drag (due to bubble cockpit) than the C-10. If I had to guess, it’s only at a higher BR since more experience players play it.
The issue isn’t just U.S mains. The issue is Germany and Russia mains also being crap, and thus planes like Yak-3 get undertiered, and can curbstomp P-51C-10 along with other planes at that BR making them look worse than they are. Although, just saying “hurr durr America mains bad” is an extremely convinient way to try and discredit the opinion of any1 you disagree with, so there’s no doubt in my mind that you’ll keep spamming in on the forums.
I have no clue why you react this way - i was polite, friendly and stated facts.
-
Poor results of US players on average has nothing to do with that they would be less smart or intelligent; it is simply the fact that the US TT is extremely popular and has therefore subsequently a very high number of rookies which produce therefor subsequently poor results.
-
It is also not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing - you can’t beat statistical facts and experience based on 19k Air RB prop battles. Regarding discrediting opinions i would not like: You might consider to take a step back.
-
“Spamming” of handholding of US & USSR prop pilots by gaijin - i am not sure that your wording is adequate; especially if every experienced player has similar views - at least if he has a positive service record.
Your whole view on things is obviously way to biased towards US aircraft. Even as a lot of USSR props are severely undertiered too - the US tech tree excels with undertiered props by a substantial margin.
If you are able to name a single undertiered German prop fighter i would be happy if you could enlighten me - otherwise i see no sense to continue with this exchange. The He 100 D-1 does not count…
1 Like
Very old thing with this plane…
Legend has it - a super plane that won the war, a unique fighter
Reality - a great companion machine for high-altitude bombers that needs some height and a good pilot to make it unique
The game - the usual American pain - fly low to the ground ( only fools get on and unnecessarily prolong the game … ), the Mustang turns into an immovable brick that everyone gets …
So - board, use the view, exchange height for speed, i.e. ideally Boom and Run, don’t get involved in maneuver battles low to the ground in horizontal flight…
polite is a massive stretch and “stated facts” is just a blatant lie.
And you still try to use it in a degrading way.
“statistical facts”, back to back with, “experience based”. lol
That’s a sad misunderstanding of per capita. America has far more planes than USSR, and thus by proxy has more “undertiered” planes.
A far larger portion of USSR planes are undertiered, and not only that, are many steps lower than they should be.
He-112, Ju 288, Fw 190, Bf 109. Hs 129 is also abit questionable for GRB, especially when its full APHE belt has addtional 0 SP cost.
Do you really expect that somebody will reply to your nonsense claims if you can’t discuss like an adult? Being rude by insulting others (“blatant lie”) or trying to look smarter than you actually are guarantees a rather unpleasant feedback.
A quick look at your vehicle stats showed that you might be a good tanker (idk & idc) but as an Air RB pilot you are part of the problem called “US mains produce poor results in Air RB” as you somehow managed to have negative K/Ds vs aircraft across all your US planes, with very few exceptions.
That’s the reason why you sound like a blind man talking about colours. Not worth my time to reply in detail to your nonsense.
As a picture says more than 1,000 words:
3 Likes
Why is brotha talking to a mirror?
Ahem, I didn’t read the comments past 6 or 7 comments, the earliest comments in this thread.
I’d point out few important factors
“It’s fast, untouchable in horizontal flight. Use it on your advantages.” Like everybody already knows it, it’s not that simple. As the OP said it so good, “You can’t just extend forever and call it a day. Only thing you can do next is to force a headon.” So true.
Only solution to this is to have friends. Play the game together, probably better to have a discord voice chat.
Other than that, “You can solo everyone in P-51” is an utter bullshit. It relies so hard on team coordination to be valuable.
Also American props are neither undertiered nor overtiered in most parts. Except F4U and P-51, Xp-50. Probably because those are famous aircraft? So that bunch of newbies try the vehicles and die many times? I’m guessing that P-39 is not even that overpowered compared to something like Ki-43-iii ko which is actually 570kph at altitude. I don’t see notable overtiered aircraft in the US tree. F4U-1A in this game is in a configuration only available in early 1944 onward, F4U-1a with water injection installed are produced in 1 to 4.9 ratio. So it’s 1944 plane actually, at 2.7. And it scored really good K/D in real life against Japanese. And It has excellent roll, low speed maneuverability, top speed, and the acceleration at deck is actually really good. Top speed at the deck is 570kph with the radiators open. A6M(3.7BR) is only 430kph at deck, rolls at the halved rate. F4U-1a has significantly better armaments, high velocity. And you’d think yourself, “wow, skill issue.” But apparently, F4U also faces enemies such as Yak-1B and even Corsairs, be it from other countries or even a mirror match. What if you are getting chased by Yak-1B and A6M at the same time, sure you can outturn Yak but doing so would let you get killed by the A6M. American planes are great when all the enemies are significantly slower and your team has like twice the fighter planes up in the sky. Preferably already establishing the height advantage. It doesn’t match the War thunder meta so hard, that’s true.
Also the skill issue™ bullshit. That’s true. But it could be said for any nations. As much as US main likes to turnfight, Japan main is turn fighting. Saying it as if Japan mains are performing the tactics to match the plane’s characteristics intentionally, is a bit of stretch. They just like Japanese planes because it matches their original playstyle, not because they learned it the hard way. And adding to it, players in ki-43 performing a headon against Me-410? It’s silly as hell. Especially since it’s at the beginning of the match.
Think of it like Rock paper scissors, if you are alone, it could be 1 vs 2 in a rock paper scissors.
Literally, what you do then. You might be the rock, the enemies hit you with both paper and scissors.
Would you be able to create enough distance to kill Yak-1B first, then escaping from A6M to reset the situation. Probably not. Doing 2 consecutive headons and surviving the situation would be the only practical scenario for the game. Unless you have friends that actually manages the situation. Like, using the speed advantage and only making a slow turn to hold the energy during the turn.
High altitude performance is a relative thing. You and your plane’s performance don’t get better in higher altitude, it’s just the TAS /IAS translation of the speed. It’s just that other aircraft’s performance tend to get worsened more rapidly. It’s like fighting in a poisoned area, but only you have the access to a gas mask. You do just fine at low altitude. BR is literally defined by the statistics of the player base, Gaijin is not increasing the BR for the useless features (at least in this game.).
So you better forget about climbing more than 6k, entirely. It’s basically pointless within this game’s flow.
F8F staying at 4.7 is a funny joke, since it actually turns just fine. People are just overshooting in it.
People say American planes don’t turn, but it’s not actually true. I think what is actually happening is that people are always wepping, and not managing the speed. Doing a half-assed B&Z and dying.
If they could throttle down a bit, the B&Z would be more manageable. Just because the VNE is high doesn’t mean you can have a decent control at that speed. As long as the plane is fast at the B&Z exit, staying slow until you fire your guns at the target would aid a lot in the controllability. So what I’m saying is that the plane’s speed when you fire at the enemy below, could be slow. As long as you keep diving after the initiation of the attack. If you don’t have enough energy to climb back up, since the enemy is above you, just fly horizontally. Give your friend a chance to attack the enemy by dragging him down to lower altitude.
If you try to conserve your energy too much, you are trying to fire against the enemy during the pull. Firing against the target when you are at the bottom of the B&Z trajectory would put so much restrictions against your maneuver. You should have freedom of AoA during the attack. So you should continue diving after you attack, and the speed when you attack the target should be lower, definitely.
American planes are only strong because of it’s capability to hold speed after you dive, vertical dive only accounts the drag of the plane. Your heavy plane actually requires more energy to get the lost altitude. So it’s just better to utilize the ability to fly fast horizontally than anything.
Have friends that’s actually matured, and they would aid you real good in playing the US tree.
1 Like
Untrue. There are some things other than headons that you can do using a speed difference.
- When climbing at shallow angles (in the average matchup, 10 m/s is a safe bet), you, in the faster plane, will gain more energy than the slower opponent (that follows you aggressively). Using that energy you accumulate over time, you can reset a fight.
- By going fast and having a slower opponent follow you, you create separation. Since you have more kintetic energy, you can convert into more potential energy (= altitude). With the separation the opponent has to overcome, you create an energy trap. As you do passes, the opponent must bleed speed to dodge so you can keep attacking more.
You can combine both things to be even more effective.
Example: A plane with a top speed of 450 km/h follows a plane with 550 km/h top speed. The slower plane can convert to 795.3 m of altitude, whereas the faster plane can convert to 1188 m of altitude, a difference of 392.7 m. Considering the time it would take to overcome an initial separation, when the planes merge again, the faster plane will have more energy, which can be used to energy trap with.
The numbers I got for the example came from y = 0.0509*(v/3.6)^2, where v is velocity. Derived from Potential Energy = Kintetic Energy. This does represent a simplified view that ignores variables such as drag (works in favour of faster planes), and climb rate differences during the energy conversion process (works in favour of slower planes).
Yes, the better climbing plane can just climb hard to not fall for such tactics, but it faces the exact same issue the faster planes have with “you can’t run forever”. Climbing hard is the exact same running away but vertically rather than horizontally. The climbing plane will have to eventually do something, and attack. This is where you bait such a plane into fast maneuvers and chases, which allows you to do the tactics I described earlier. It’s all about how well you know how to bait people to follow you.
To practice these skills, I recommend using the He-100 (against biplanes), A-36 (against low tier monoplanes), and He-162 (against props).
Makes sense, I agree with a lot of points here.
Just seeing a wall of texts makes me want to disagree for no reason, it could be said for anyone.
I first appreciate you for reading my post thoroughly, it’s not an easy thing to do when you already know the contents.
Your point is to have higher speed as a means to hold energy, so that you can just zoom better out of a long extension.
The problem I see here is, a vertical climb and an efficient sustainable climb are completely different things. Good for jets, it doesn’t work for props. Sure, He-100 can pull it off since it’s fighting against biplanes mostly, and it has like a top speed of 4.7.
The reason it doesn’t work for props, is that prop efficiency is better when the speed is low. Below the top speed, planes are always increasing the speed out of the thrust. It’s this reason that jets are good at this, while props won’t do good doing this method as much. The enemy can just climb harder at lower speed to atleast stay near the same altitude. Or even going for a different direction while doing so, to make it easier to counter attack at the attack’s exit.
P-51 can do this against A6M, sure it can do. But against other fighters, I really doubt. It’s the most ideal scenario, it can solo, maybe. Even then it requires teammates to interrupt the enemy movements. Even if it’s not planned to begin with, we are in a random match. Having a minimal coordination with teammates, even though they are not actual friends nor communicated with. How much of our kills are actually done alone? I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, actually suggesting the opposite of it.
This tactics equalizes the initial energy advantage, like if you extend too long after the dive. Only thing you are left with is nothing more than the horizontal distance, which is not very useful in initiating an ideal attack again. Not like we can choice the better engagement in the very first, though.
Shallow climb actually doesn’t add enough energy to have at least 800m distance between you and the enemy when going vertical suddenly. Otherwise the enemy can just stop following the climb. shallow dive combined with a sudden pitch up can be used to temporarily shorten the distance between, for the enemies it’s a really useful maneuver. Smart opponents can cheese it if not dumb enough.
I’m not opposing your general idea, actually, my replies are always filled with letters. Otherwise, what I’m not repeating nor accusing against are all agreed upon. Repeating things I found relatable would make this reply too long so. I just don’t think the horizontal distance to be that useful against the opponents other than denying the chance of hit. And I don’t think the horizontal movement speed difference between the 2 planes can make a good difference when both of them are zooming. Also, in that scenario, the chasing side can follow up with a shallower climb, which is slightly more energy efficient.
The reply above is written within the idea that what you are doing is to come on top of the enemy by eventually making a vertical loop while avoiding the enemy fire by the means of the distance. If the distance itself is not very important, it must have been more practical doing it. As the fight enters the classic energy trap maneuver.
It might work if you are making a circular energy trap, it requires you to dodge the enemy bullet when you start turning. But you might come on top of the enemy that way, if you keep the energy. I’m pretty you can’t just make a vertical loop to get into the firing position unless it’s a headon. If you bait enemy into a sudden vertical climb and the enemy miss for once, you can literally squeeze the enemy’s energy into negatable amount. That could be done. I’m pretty sure that requires you to dodge once, the attack is from a very risky angle for both sides. But sure, it can be done against most aircraft. I don’t play in that way usually, so I didn’t think of that. If you meant it, my apology.
Look at your own essays. Lmao.
If i read something like this:
…you give a clear sign that you don’t care about 140+ posts before as they are not worth your time.
By degrading other opinions as worthless you simply kick yourself out of any serious debate - your whole goal is trying to look smarter than you actually are.
Because gaijin decided to give planes like Bf 109 fantasy FM’s, so balanced but not powerful aircraft like P-51 lose.
I could just provide server replays to demonstrate what I mean. When I get an appropriate game with the concept on display, I’ll post it here.
Edit: while I’m looking for an appropriate game in the P-51C (vs a better climbing, slower opponent), you can take a look at this older server replay I have in the F8F-1. Make sure to sometimes use sensor view to see energy states, and player camera view (cam 2 on the top UI) to see how people think.
replay link
@ 6:44 a Ki-44 and Bf-109 start chasing me. I energy trap them with speed and separation. After going up, by the moment I and the Ki-44 had the same TAS, I was 1.3 km above him.
@ 11:41 another Ki-44 starts chasing me, with some B7A2s coming to the fight later on. Same speed + separation tactic.
@ 15:39 a B7A2 gets very close to my six. Same tactic once again, but he ends up turning away.
@ 17:59 same B7A2 returns for a chase. He doesn’t dare to go up.
Edit 2: Here’s a replay of me in a P-51C vs higher La-5F. As a result of encouraging a high speed chase, I ended up with energy advantage. replay link
Fight starts at 15:08 but I was trying to encourage him to attack me even before that. He needed to feel safe and above me so I gave him the opportunity.
My intention is that it really is talking about my previous post to begin with. If it wasn’t already obvious enough.
Cool, It’s showing what you said exactly, the F8F fighting against G-2 and Ki-44-ii was really cool.
Though it sounds like I’m against you for something, but just a clarification. F8F is 100kph faster at the same altitude compared to the fighters it faces, it climbs at the staggering 31 meters per second at the ground level. Slightly greater than the 27 to 28 meter per second of the Ki-44-ii. G-2 having the exact same climb rate as F-4 at lower speed ( dunno about the shallow climb.) This is completely off topic but F8F’s 2350hp goes way beyond that due to the ram air in supercharger-less settings, I think it was treated as gear 1. Wasn’t it like a goat-horn something, the physical trumpet shape of the super charger intake duct behind the engine. Otherwise the gear 2 configuration caps the horsepower at 2370hp, So it actually doesn’t have 2850hp like the X-ray suggests, atleast in usual plays. I think the plane reaches like 680kph at the deck. Whereas, most fighters of the era could reach 600kph or not, Tempest is 612 to 620kph, and that’s what I believe is the next fastest prop plane at the deck. This could be wrong, as for anything.
Now I realized I can’t see other’s pre-edited comments, I’ll make it clear that my edits are right after the initial posting, I fixed the F8F’s climb rate to 31 from 34, after my testing. And Changed Ki-44-ii’s 27 to “27 to 28”. And added the last one third of my comments. The horse power and speed values are untouched.
My accusation, is that the enemy is dumb enough to follow the shallow climb, otherwise the enemies could have just climb at way steeper angle to overcome the vertical reach issue. The distance would be made but at least they could keep up in the altitude, maybe they can fly toward different directions, that could have been more tactical for them. Tough, they just followed you in a straight line and it’s an unchangeable truth. So it seems to be 100% legit way to fight back. It’s just my coulda shoulda, again. Anyway.
I’d say I’m impressed by your plays. Very intriguing way of playing the commonly misunderstood planes, I’mma learn few things to imitate that. Both F8F and Ki-44-ii settles around 25 meters per second at mid altitude. F8F having it 2 or 3 mps higher. F8F is definitely better at shallow climb, both keeping the speed and climb rate at lower angle. I’m assuming it’s due to the wing loading and the wing tip drag at various AoA, but it could be from other factors too. I see the point in extending away.
Any comments about the P-51C vs La-5F replay? It somewhat addresses your hypothetical opponent that climbs over the faster plane, as can be seen in the first encounter with the La-5F.
I will try finding a Pyorremyrsky opponent next, which would be a perfect example.
In the mean time, here are high speed examples with Yak-3 vs Zeros: replay link
Yak-3 feels kinda lame for this purpose, but it could be my inexperience.
Engagements at 9:44, 12:43, and 22:06.
Also, you may be interested in this:
Spoiler
This is speed of planes across various climb rates. All data points taken at the deck, or close to it. The general trend is that faster planes gain energy better than slower planes at shallower climb angles.
1 Like
La-5f’s power output is 1650hp at deck, 1500hp at 3000m, 1430hp at 3500m, 1270hp at 4500m. The continuous climbing really did a number on that enemy La-5f. The highest point of that energy trap maneuver is happened to be 4700m. It seems like a really thought out tactic to me. Since I have nothing against it, all I could say is nice. It seemed like La-5 Tried keeping the nose up instead of regaining the speed to properly put the nose up again, after the first vertical zoom. I’m assuming that P-51 can do similar thing by making a long slightly descending horizontal turn to make a fake headon, then zooming after a very short horizontal flight, while the enemy tries to do a 180. The enemy’s energy must be low right after the enemy does 180, it would be a nice opportunity. I think it’s dangerous but I’ll experiment with that myself, when I would be able to boot up the game next time.
The D-9 kill was really precise in the Yak-3 vs D-9 demo you handed us.
All these replays are interesting and makes me learn tactics that are new to me.
Also, I realized that the A6M5 was deploying the flaps during the flight, even though the A6M5 was chasing you in a direct line. I think it’s an oversight, but until then he was equal in the speed. The enemy flopped a big time.
Not exactly true. The slower plane can simply climb aswell.