What do you know, Gaijin came up with a new wiki that is supposed to be better and easier to get into. This video likely didn't influence much, but I claim it as a victory!
The fact that the MiG-21bis literally says “excellent energy retention” when literally just below it as the very first con is the fact it bleeds speed like crazy
And it does...i wish having powerful engine actually did anything, it feels like only F-5 doesn't bleed all its speed and then is limping for a solid minute or two.
@@deauthorsadeptus6920 It definitely does though. The MF, smt and bis can actually turn well and not stall due to their engines, whereas the early F-13 and PFM essentially fall out of the sky after one turn.
@@deauthorsadeptus6920 Which makes sense, the F5 is typically against large, powerful engined jets, and it is a small nimble fighter. Of course it will have better energy retention. I have the F5C and it does retain energy well, but after maybe 3 turns your gonna be going 250mph and the jet your fighting could just fly in a straight line and outrun you. Heck, the F4 or M21 your fighting could outrun you before even going into a turn fight if they're smart
"armament may explode" refers to the fact that the plane had gun issues irl, which means who wrote that article never even played it and just copied stuff from another place and hoped for the best
noticed a couple other things where.... .....yeah that sounds like an irl issue. The only thing stopping the tiger 1 page from saying 'breaks down often' are wheraboos who may dispute that for a very different reason
@@MooseGaming33It didn't break down that more often then most of the tanks of an era (and was way better then whatever british had made as their cruiser tanks). Also it would NOT matter in war thunder anyway, you don't even drive 10km most of the time, which is nothing even for a jagtiger (The ONLY german tank that was especially unreliable).
@@rickfastly2671 It was an exception more then anything (even in the US cause they had a fair share of their own less reliable stuff like M18) AND still bad compared to more modern tanks.
The amount of times I've read through an article about vehicle characteristics that completely contradict eachother is mind boggling. "Beware of its terrible armor." - "make use of its good armor."
even better when its the same vehicle in two different tech trees, or even two very similar models that have cosmetic differences and they will have one saying it has good armor and other bad armor
@@thomgizzizand then can get enough of russian cocks in their mouth when shouting how everything russian is superior irl bcs “i played way too much WT to know this”. when i first read this argument it blew my mind
Flaps don't always cause the nose to pull up automatically. Yes, flaps are intended to increase lift by changing the shape (or surface area) of the wing. However, they usually _also_ cause a pitch moment, which depending on the plane may act to increase or decrease the angle of attack. The usual scenario is that when you deploy flaps, they decrease the angle of attack. So you have two things acting in the opposite. On one hand the flaps increase the lifting capacity of the wing, but on the other hand they decrease the angle of attack which has a tendency to reduce lift. The final effect of flaps depends on how much they increase the wing's lift coefficient, and how much they end up affecting the aircraft's angle of attack. In most cases, the increased lift coefficient pulls through and the total lift increases, which causes the aircraft's trajectory to turn upwards. But in some few cases, the pitch-down moment of the flaps is strong enough that the lost AoA ends up causing a loss of lift. In these cases, extending flaps requires you to also apply elevator up to compensate for the pitch moment of the flaps. The J7W is one of those planes, which makes a lot of sense since the flaps are right at the rear end of the aircraft (because that's where the main wing is). When you deploy the flaps, you need to also pull on the elevator to prevent the plane from pitching down. Now, the J7W is _also_ supposed to have flaps on its canards (front wing) which deploy automatically when the flaps are deployed. This is missing in War Thunder, or at least the model does not have such animation. This feature in the real aircraft was intended specifically to counter the pitch-down tendency when the flaps were deployed, so I guess in War Thunder you just have to manually pitch up instead. So that's an actual FM issue that Gaijin probably should look at, if they have the time at some point...
Was going to make a comment on this myself. Though you explained it better than my sleep deprived brain could have right now. Also... Torilla tavataan 👀
The J7W was a prototype and was considered unsuccessful wasn't it? I would also question whether or not there was any documentation about it's trials. Are you sure about that? Again though this is much like the issue with the author of this video. Supposed to this and that and should be this and that in regards to a editable wiki that used to have barely anything on it. And no bro your wiki sources do not count. Gaijin have been pretty clear on this, they hire historians that have access to these secret documents so if the flaps have rainbows coming off it, good luck in trying to get something changed. The less you question the snail the better, and the more you assume you know the worse off you are going to be. And no a appropriate answer to cons is it is garbage. This isn't a normal plane. All of the weight is at the rear of it. it isn't going to handle like a gem.
@@dominozaur98 Not really. The R13s effective range is about 2-3km, and against a stationary target, it would still be at most 6-8km. But that target would have to be HOT, as the R13 generally only starts locking afterburning jets at around 4km. In order to reach 24km, you'd literally have to drop it from the stratosphere into an active volcano.
@kingghidorah8106 it's a shame. Many of the vehicles BRs are outdated. I don't blame the writers. Gaijin should provide an API with vehicle stats that the wiki is attached to, so info are always up to date and leave writers to the actual writing portion.
@@ivan5595 Part of why the wiki is so badly outdated is that many edits simply don’t get reviewed by a Wiki Mod in a reasonable time. Check the edit history, and you’ll be shocked how often the page was updated months ago, and that edit isn’t the current approved edit.
I remember seeing that for the Tiger, they recommend using the default APHE ammunition instead of the researched Pzgr. APHE because the default "has more penetration". However, the penetration loss for Pzgr. is minor, and in exchange you get twice the explosive filler.
no the default round has more explosive mass not penetration. Its right to say to stick to it because its basically a one shot if it gets inside the enemy tank and the extra pen of the unlockable round isn't that much anyway.
Another Misinformation on the Wiki is for the VCBI-2 (MCT30) The wiki says it can float but ingame it doesn't even do the half float thing like some BMPs, it just sinks like a rock.
Gaijin just removes stuff randomly The M551 and M113 should be able to float, and the SUB I-II had its floating removed for a while before they added it back in
One thing that's weirdly good about the WT wiki articles is the history section. I didn't read all of them but of those I did, they all contained good quality information that was not copied from the actual wikipedia, and are in some cases even superior to what you can find on the wikipedia.
14:40 I laughed so hard at this. This is like saying "remove the engine from your car. This way, if you want to go anywhere, someone has to tow you and you safe gas!"
Honestly i can get behind that idea. If you got bad aim but 12x 7.7 guns with big spread you are bound to hit by just spraying in their general direction.
Am I weird for flying my a-10 with gun dispersion mod off? I use stealth belt and when I see someone heading for head on I start shooting from 3-4km away, usually works
As a Wiki Editor myself with many other Gaijin projects preoccupying me a couple of pointers: 1. The wiki is publicly open for edits, log-in with your Gaijin account and any Wallet Timmy or WWII Expert can write on it, ofcourse there is some QA through moderation but with the sheer amount of articles, pages, and subsystems keeping pace with some changes isn't as simple. 2. (and biggest point) The sheer amount of pages in contrast to the amount of time vehicles change and get updated, There's as of writing 5,652 pages on the WT-Wiki, with 2,694 of these being vehicles (Including some april fools vehicles) 3. The misconception by passerby's on the Wiki that it's all managed by Gaijin themselves and then bug report, Reddit post, RUclips video pointing out the wrongs or making fun of something that desperately needs more users filling in the blanks & keeping it up to date
Bit tangential, but I contribute to a Wiki of a small niche MMO. After someone posts on forums explaining that they've quit forever because someone killed them and stole his ship, that he spent lot of time to build. I update the Wiki and do my best to explain that you can drop the key to prevent people stealing it, and retrieve it later. Some time later, one of the PvP players shares a screenshot where he is breaking a ship in deep water with a comment "I love when people throw away their keys and armor and turn 100% survival into certain death." (While there was some speculation the target was another PvPer who attempted an failed to do some PvP hijink, it could've as easily been a new player blindly trusting the wiki.) The current version of Wiki page does specify that you lose control of the ship immediately if you no longer hold the key.
It's also got good info. Is it alway useful, no, but I find you can sometimes find real good nuggets of info on how a vehicle works. It really needs someone to update the weaponry pages, they're almost all blank.
I've seen some of your edits, and I totally agree. I appreciate the work you put into the wiki. I fix stuff when I see it, it's really hard to keep up with and not get into a rabbit hole of just making more & more edits sometimes. Tons of stuff wrong on tons of pages. There's not nearly enough Wiki Moderation, and it sucks when I find a page that's had edits submitted for multiple months that are still pending. At least the more heavily trafficked pages are kept... reasonably up to date. The biggest thing I try to keep up with consistently is the (pretty comedically long) list of Airborne Radars with all the features. Kind of a pain sometimes.
I think the note about Yaks should not climb is due to an outdated belief about Yak planes not performing well at altitude due to a lack of high-altitude optimization features like turbochargers. Yaks don't care if they don't have a turbocharger or not, their high altitude performance is still very strong in War Thunder.
Yaks were always decent at highish alt. They lack turbochargers but so do most planes of the era. The two-speed supercharger kept it healthy enough to compete up to 6km, and that was all it needed.
If I had a guess with a lot of the stuff like "zero compresses at high speed" is left over from like 2014 WT. Back then it did compress a lot. It's clearly written by people who used to play _a lot_ but barely do now and only really hop on new and/or flavor of the month vehicles. Oh and some of them almost only play sim battles. Like the typhoon thing was probably from a short period of time when 30 cal machine guns shredded planes. I also remember way back when 20mm hispanos 1 shot a lot, so you generally wanted to uninstall the accuracy upgrade (at least on the mkVs which didn't overheat too badly). The wiki is kindof a time capsule lol
@@Pvt_Wade the numbers also refer to the total land distance traveled, and not the relative air distance. What looks to the pilot to be a 3km shot is really much longer, because both aircraft are moving - and drag does not care about your relative perspective.
The best thing that the wiki has right most of the time is ammo rack amounts and locations (for tanks) i always check it when i get a new vehicle to get the most ammo without being a bomb
actually it makes sense flaps on j7 make you dive. flaps increase lift at the cost of drag so when you slow down and lift the rear of the plane, the nose goes down
That's great... but then, what exactly is the purpose of these flaps? Keep in mind, ingame, they ONLY pull you down no matter what you are doing. The more likely explanation is that they are simply unfinished/broken
@@Liniyka Given the unique wing config of the J7W1, I suspect that is the cause. The point of flaps, including these, is to provide more lift. In the J7W1, the flaps are located on the rear wing, thus deploying it would have a similar effect as pitching down on the elevator on a regular plane. Meanwhile pitch on the J7W1 is controlled by the canard(in the front), and should be able to correct the pitch when flaps are deployed. Again, it also possible that gaijin messed up the flight model, what do i know. Thanks for the video!
@@Liniyka saying this already shown that you have no clue how flying work, even many "normal" configuration plane, with regular wings and regular elevator configuration, the plane pitch down when flap are deployed, deploying flap have these following effect, increase lift (the intended), pitch down due to shift of lift center more to rear, pitch down due to you are increase the "virtual" angle of attack of the wing, finally more drag.
@@a709s33He was complaining about the flaps being pointless in-game, which they are, flaps only pitching you down in War Thunder is practically useless.
1. While the guns on a plane cannot explode, they can stop working if shot at. This has happened multiple times when flying the spitfire or any other plane that has the ammo for 20mm cannons in a belt in the wing. 2. 3:50 these Flaps add lift behind the centre of gravity, of course they push the nose down. They only do something in a really thight turn in combination with the canards.
To add to point 1 Gaijin also introduced a feature a few updates back (wanna say around a year ago but I'm not sure on specifics) where bombs could be shot and explode.
LA-15 Wiki page: 1.Don't climb at the beginning of the match, use the beginning of the match to fly straight forward to the enemy, as low to the ground you can get. 2. blah blah blah 3.Don't commit to a head-on attack or turn hard after one. Your guns are hard to aim in the heat of head-on and it would be advised to break when closing in on a head-on, or preemptively turn to get on their 6 immediately. Fly straight but don't head on? Don't turn? Don't climb? Might as well not play at 8.0
@KekusMagnus bad climbrate? I have never seen XP50 above me and both Whirlwind and XP50 ger an airspawn, thus they must have atleast the same climbrate.
So...neither a physics expert nor aviation technician but concerning the J7W1: When you install flaps (creating a force pulling up) on the backside of the plane, this part will be pulled up. As the plane has in essence two sets of wings and only one set has flaps, the other set "stays" at its position. Hence, you rotate the plane around that point. For normal planes this results in a lifting sensation whilst with inverted (flaps in the back) wings, this can result in the opposite effect, seemingly pulling down.
Depending on the type of flaps on the plane they might change the curvature of the wing. The wing always tends to pitch the nose down but if the aerofoil is curved more it tends to push the nose down more (techically decrease the coefficient of moment). Regarding stability the only diference is the counter-balance to the wing is ahead and not behind the center of gravity so unlike a conventional tail the canard is instaled with a slight positive angle of attack, a clasic tail having a slight negative angle of attack. If you want to learn more i suggest searching for some aircraft lateral stability explanation videos here on yt. I will try to answer you if you have questions.
When you go look at pages that haven't been filled in the page outline will say that "you should use positive words and not be too harsh" or whatever which is what leads to them calling RB24s (Swedish aim9b) "great against low speed or distracted enemies" instead of "should only be used against low speed or distracted enemies"
My least favorite thing is when a plane gets called "a good support plane" or "useful for picking off stragglers outside the furball." Translated to real English, those mean "this plane sucks unless your opponent is a dumbass"
being able to take damage and still fly decently well is absolutely relevant in air rb, the sabre for example can easily fly back to base missing half the plane, whereas the javelin if you get hit once you run a pretty big chance of just flatspinning if you try to turn
@@alexvolute7454And wasn't killed by randomly entering fast spin due to slightly yellow wing. Its absolutely atrocious on javelin and F-100, you need to turn slower then B-29 to not get yeeted into ground.
I think what they meant by “armament may detonate” was the bombs. Bombs do have a chance to explode when hit by cannons and can even be intercepted by a good player with a well placed shot. However why on Earth would you strap bombs to such an underpowered and frankly bad plane? Just play the Pe-8 or something.
For the flaps on the J7W1, I imagine its because they *are* producing lift, but said lift is very noticeably to the rear of the plane. Its probably causing the rear to want to lift up, so it does, causing the front to go down.
The war thunder wiki is not maintained by gaijin. Players can apply to join the wiki team and make wiki pages in return for GE. You dont need to have a vehicle inoder to make a page about it so they can just make stuff up.
@@dragondaan8668 anyone with a war thunder account can just go and edit the wiki. No applying necessary, and it’s more worthwhile to get the information corrected imo.
3:58 The flaps are on the canards, which should pull the plane up, I'm pretty sure they are animated too If it's pulling down it means that the flaps are positioned on the main wing in the flight model because they are pushing up behind the center of lift Tldr: the flight model is borked lmao
You can see the flaps drop on the main wing in the video. Or in game if you take 2 minutes to check. The flight model sucks, but this is not one of the problems with it.
With all seriousness tho, Sun tzu said that if you know yourself and your enemies well, you will never lose. He did not guarantee victories, just that you won't lose.
About the flaps, it is working as intended, as the plane has the canards/elevators in the front, when you deploy the flaps on the wing, the lift increases on the wing and causes a swingseat effect raising the wing and therefore lowering the nose.
Uninstall the upgraded 7.7 to make your tyhpoon like a shotgun, i cannot believe someone wrote this 😂😂😂 its like shooting a pistol through a mesh to make it a shotgun logic
There are also some small details that makes me think they dont play their own game, like, when a match ends, there is the window where all the match info is shown. When that window is loading, there is a "skip" button. But a lot of times it simply switch to "to battle" when you are going to click it, making you (possibly) enter another match accidentally. Its so stupid and probably easy to fix, but if i remember correctly this thing is in the game for years...
I try to fix articles when I come across them being blatantly wrong. I also try to help keep the Airborne Radars page up to date - mostly the list section on it of all the aircraft. A *massive* part of the problem with the wiki is that all edits have to be manually reviewed by a wiki mod, and they are incredibly slow to ever look at most pages.
It's just as bad for ground vehicles. Britain's tree has many entries without anything in them, and the ones that are filled out are questionable at best.
On canard configuration flaps will push your nose down because they essentially work like elevators when pushing down, you need to use the canard to counter the pitch down moment so you have an increased lift vector aligned with the center of mass. On a modern fighter that is all controlled buy the fly by wire
As flawed as the wiki is, it taught me a lot about how to play when I was first starting. Knowing every plane in your BR and having a "general" sense of its strength and weaknesses (to a varying degree of precision) is crucial.
I think the point about the missile range is a mistake in that all missiles have an on paper range and a practical one. On paper, even a missile like the R13 has ranges of 24 kilometers. However, you have to consider that it chases targets at Mach speed while those same targets fly away at similar speeds, so the practical range from the launching aircraft is more like 3-4 kilometers.
6:00 i have done a decent bit of testing on missile ranges. By no means scientific but this is from many real matches and looking at the replays after (all aproximations, based on jets that would actually carry them and realistic speeds youd be going) Guaranteed = Unless the snail intervenes, your missile will hit Effective = Your missile will most likely hit but can be avoided with proper evasive moves Ideal = Soonest id recommend firing a missile at an aware target Limit = Furthest your missle is able to hit (if you fire from further away your missile just will not have the energy to hit, even without any evasive manouvers) For this list ill mostly be refering to Sidewinders but most of these have a fairly similar Russian Equivalent (Sometimes minor differences but most have little impact on range) 9B | Directly Behind only - Effective (barely)
G91R wiki: good for climbing and boom and zooming. G91R reality: good at being slow, reversing If you try to go boom and zoom you'll spend all the match trying to catch someone and get smoked by a happy f104 that 20 seconds before was at 15 km
My favorite phrase from the wiki is "The Yak-17 has a very weak engine, the Junkers Jumo 004". Yeah, it makes sense with the context, but there was no context at all
it would probably take you 3-4 hours to correct most mistakes of popular vehicles. Thats the point of the wiki after all, and not many players are as experienced to be in the position to have flown most. Instead you made a video saying its wrong
17:01 P-47s are insanely dangerous if you know how to manage your energy semi-competently I disagree heavily. While it is correct they aren't the most meta, their performance even at 3000m can give Bf-109s a run for their money. Landing flaps + verticals seems to put most Bf-109 players in the wringer as the P-47 is deceptively agile for it's size. I find that many enemies like to go after you, you can act as bait that can run away and drag enemies up to more favorable altitudes. I've put Spitfire Mk Vcs on the the ropes at 4000 meters with the D-22 with proper flap management, this was on equal altitude. The issue is that people tell U.S. players to boom and zoom but never really elaborate that you have to take risks and be aggressive
If you win a fight in the vertical against a 109 in a P-47, the opposing pilot is completely clueless. The 109 excels in vertical stall fights and almost nothing can match them in that regard
@@KekusMagnus The difference between fighting at 2000m and 4000m heavily affects a Bf-109's performance, and most planes for that matter. And I'm not talking straight engine capability, but the loss of lift in the wings. Many players don't really feel the effects of it until around 5000-6000 meters where people start feeling their planes turn like tanks, but when you're a P-47D. You barely are affected by it, mixed with consistent engine horsepower nearly no matter the altitude. You can then notice how each person is unknowingly getting worse until they really feel it at the extremes in altitude. It's like not realizing you're breathing in high concentrations of carbon monoxide until you're feeling really tired all of a sudden.. Also, P-47D landing flaps are known to give really high lift, to the point you can actually UFO the plane-D-22 included. There's a video showing the P-47D-28 or P-47M (post RPM nerf) literally toying with a K-4 with it's landing flaps.
For the J7W flap "bug", you should spend a minute thinking about it. On all planes lift is generated by both the main wing and the elevator yes? And when a plane flies trimmed and level, it means the centre of lift and center of mass overlap. Ok? On a "classic" plane, when flaps come out, as it is the main wing that generates the extra lift, the centre of lift shift slightly forward, lifting the nose. Now the J7W is a canard. Meaning, the main lift-generating structure is in the rear. When you lower the flaps, centre on lift shifts back (toward the largest generator of lift). As the center of gravity does not change, the nose goes does. It's not a bug, it's a feature of the design.
Flaps on J7W1 are working correctly because wings are in back, they should extend upwards to, but I'm not usre they would be any use for landing etc...
yes. that sounds correct. good turn at high speed, bad at slow speed 'slow sustained turn rate' means that even if you have speed, it has trash energy retention.
Wiki and Forums. You would be surprised how many forum posts comments get deleted or ignored. Besides that the mods don't do jack shit to actually moderate properly. There's several infamous folks who should seriously get muted but aren't.
2:05 the page hasn’t been updated for years and is likely written by a non native English speaker. Armament may detonate is probably referring to the 60kg bombs rather than the cannons or machineguns 4:10 the USSR MIG-21 wiki page is 3 years old 6:09 they forgot to add a hyphen
The thing with the J7's flaps retracting at such a low speed is because they used the landing flaps' speed limit as the limit for all settings. As far as I can tell, every aircraft with automatic flap retraction has this issue, rendering combat and takeoff flaps practically useless on those planes.
4:00 fun fact, that in fact is not a bug that's just aerodynamics, honestly not sure what the japanese were thinking but the way the flaps are positioned they infact create positive lift, issue is on the tail, which infact pitches you down, bruh, also for the flaps retracting unless the japanese somehow added an flight computer that automatically retracts flaps like on soviet fighters like the mig21 (alteast i think that's what it is?) if not then it's a bug yea...
The problem is simply that different people work for different pages, and Gaijin balancing/bug fixing makes many articles outdated. So info isn't accurate, also different format for pro and cons, the German M48 super puts "Has access to 1st gen thermal vision device for gunner" into Pro's. While the Leopard A1A1 (L/44) puts Thermal Sights in Pro while putting in Cons: "Only generation 1 thermals". Also, different experiences shape different opinions. For example, the Aim 9E at 11.0 -is it a good missile or a bad missile? If you grinded Air using the A-10 (Aim 9L), AV-8A (Aim 9G), etc. you'll prob. call it a bad or mediocre missle. But if you use planes that prev. only had Aim 9B's, you'll probably notice quite the improvement.
The J7 flaps are working as intended, they increase lift, this aircrafts wings being at the rear, behind the centre of mass, causes the nose to pitch down
The Flaps on the J7 do provide lift, its just that the wings are mounted at the rear rather than the center, the flaps themselves are almost at the extreme end. If the front mounted elevator and the plane itself is flying level, that means a lift force at the rear will dip the aircrafts nose down. However, if the front elevator is pitched for turning, the flaps and elevators actually complement each other and allow for tighter turns at the cost of even more kinetic energy than flaps on center mounted wings. If you visualize the control surfaces and the forces they create when in flight in your head, this will make sense. You can picture it a bit like a 2x2 Car with all wheel steering where the front wheels pitch outwards and the rears ones inwards. The major difference being that due to much less friction, if only the rear flaps are pitched in level flight, according to a combination of all 3 of Newtons Laws a lever effect is created to conserve the planes momentum. I am a physics student btw, massive respect to Gaijin that they got the physics right.
I get what you're trying to say, but it doesn't actually work ingame. No matter your speed, these flaps always only pull you down instead of helping with pulling positive Gs
@@Liniyka Alright that is valid criticism, if engaged while turning the flaps should be beneficial to increase the turn rate, according to my best understanding. The airflow apparently isnt modeled in depth to account for that in the case of rear mounted wings. Its just that what you showed in the video, the nose dipping when flying level and pitching flaps is actually true to life.
@@laurenz4572 That's incorrect. Flaps are high lift devices, they aren't necessarily meant to increase G load. If the wing is behind the centre of mass, using the flaps will create a pitch-down torque no matter what speed or however the elevator may be trimmed. This'll only serve to impede the turn rate. Flaps are used when your wing is stalling or you need more lift, hence why they're useful for minimum radius turns but harmful for the vast majority of aircraft in a ratefight. "the airflow apparently isn't modelled in depth to account for that" lemme hold you up right there. You don't know the underlying workings of the game, you don't know how aircraft are modelled. I can tell you with certainty that this is modelled, because it's trivial to do so - all you're doing is moving the centre of pressure.
Not sure if J7 has many pop culture appearances, but one is Chapter 24 of "Oh My Goddess!" where a college motorcycle club needs to reassemble second, lost prototype (it was buried in a naval base, and college later built on the site) and have it take off, to placate the plane's spirit and earn money for a new clubhouse. (They charged spectators 200 yen each.) If you want to tie this back to War Thunder, there's couple of jokes to be squeezed: 1. War Thunder flight model is bonked because it was based on a prototype that only managed to fly with the help of thoughts and prayers (real historical prototype did see test flights and is currently in National Air and Space Museum) 2. Japanese college student built a better plane than Gaijin - with a box of scraps! (They did have to replace some missing parts, and they had no blueprints.)
I believe the actual community that cares about air RB is very small. Little remains from the time when 9.0 was top tier and when every planes had its own strength and weaknesses. Today RB is filled with premium players that either abuse their XP-50 or dive into a base with a Ju 288 just to farm RP for that Mig-23 they're researching.
The J7W1 flaps working in reverse may be due to an issue of the wins being so far back and the center of gravity being a bit further forward than it should be
About the flap thing.. that’s how flaps work on canards in real life, the nose drops, it’s a change in center of pressure and center of lift, not just “making more lift”
Flaps- adds more lift to the main wings. The vast majority of aircraft are traditional layout, main wings infront of horizontal stabilizer and very close to the center of mass. The J7W1 is a Canard style with the main wing in the back, and behind the center of mass. It's still adding lift, but it adds the lift BEHIND the center of mass, tipping the nose down just like forward stick input on a traditional airplane.
The J7 isn't "broken" per se. It's a uniquie aircraft with a CG far to the rear. Consider the physics when the plaps deploy on a wing that the very back of the plane. Additional lift from the wing for a given angle of attack will drop the nose. It's awkward, but not broken. As far as armament detonating, some planes seem to have a more accute problem with bombs mounted to the wing detonating when hit by enemy cannon fire. FYI.
For the first plane, it is not necessarily bad or a mistake that the flaps make the plane pitch down when not being controlled. The wing (and the center of lift) is near the center of gravity, so when the flaps on the trailing edge of the wing are deployed then the center of lift moves backwards. This causes the center of gravity to be more towards the front of the plane than the center of lift, which causes the plane to pitch down. It depends on when the center of lift and gravity are.
3:50 Your nose goes down, because your wings are on the back of your plane, the opposite side to the nose; of course the nose will go down when you add lift at the tail. The flaps are working fine and exactly as intended. 5:12 Both list "As all MiG-21s, it tends to bleed speed in turns, though not as much, thanks to the improved engine".
5:10 Thunderskill has the Soviet 21Bis at 2.94 Air frags per death while the Finnish one has only 1.4 Air frags per death. Also the Soviet MiG has an insane 74.45% winrate. (4.11.2024 stats for the last 1 month) So clearly Soviet MiG is stronk russian bias makhine and the Finnish one is shit and has worse energy retention.
I think the J7W1 goes nose down with flaps because the flaps increase lift behind the center of mass, causing the rear to lift, while in normal planes the flaps increase lift in front of the center of mass, which logically causes the nose to lift
Most flaps pitch your nose down, this is due to the fact that the centre of lift is behind the centre of gravity on almost every single prop fighter. I'm not sure why you are surprised about the J7W1 behaviour, try deploying flaps in a Yak, Spitfire, Hurricane or really any prop fighter and you'll see it pitches your nose down.
They only pull the nose down when the flaps are being deployed. Once deployed, the flaps on those planes will actively pull the nose upwards. The flaps on the J7W1 *always* pull the nose down. They are incorrectly modeled as literally half of the entire flap system is simply missing.
@@steve_i400 I just tested all the planes you mentioned in full real controls, with a speed of 300 km/h (lower to 250 km/h if needed since some landing flaps rip at those speeds). Hurricane (I tested *every single land based version* in the british non-premium tech tree) - the moment the flaps are deployed the nose starts going up. At the same speed, the next level of flaps makes the nose go up faster and you need to push the stick forward more in order to keep the nose level. Spitfire (I tested *every single land based version* in the british non-premium tech tree, both Merlins and Griffons) - same as Hurricane except only with landing flaps. Yak-3 - only plane that worked the way you mentioned. I was wrong in that the flaps being deployed makes your nose go down. It appears some planes suddenly change their pull in the precise moment that the flaps reach a certain position. However you are absolutely wrong in that flaps always pitch your nose down. Just the simple fact that 2/3 of the planes you mentioned don't behave like that at all is proof.
In DCS the F18s nose also pulls down when you set your flaps to the full position but correcting it and turning your thrust up to keep the 140 knots for the landing, will give you the lift you need to get down softly.
RB isnt the onlt gamemode, so saying they cant see each other (Spit mk22, 109 g14) is incorrect rcause their AB BR is the same and they are within 1 BR in SB.
5:17 24 kilometers range may be correct. You should remember that your jet and enemy jet are moving, and while the distance between you two may be 4km, the distance your missile has to travel will be bigger relative to your speeds.
@TheArcticFoxxo why do you think so? Remember stat cards and wiki accordingly tell you the stats in ideal conditions. So if the missile was launched at high altitude, with speed over mach 1, and did little to no manuvers, it's range would be basically limited by it's self liquidator only.
@@blankspace998 Because it's dV doesn't even set it as capable to pass 15km? Hell, it only has a 2 second burn time... Even the AIM-9M can't hit 20km and that has almost 3x the burn with a far higher dV.
So actually with the J7W, it’s not incorrect. On a low wing aircraft, extending flaps generally causes a pitch down moment that we counteract with elevator and use of trim. When you extend the flaps you’re creating a change in the shape of the wing (chord line) and moving the center of pressure aft on the airfoil, which is why you experience that pitch down moment.
i dont want to be that guy but..the flaps are like that in most planes as the drag at the bottom increases it will push the nose down.. it provides lift when the planes nose is manually pushed back up
My favorite was looking at two different tanks in the same BR with exactly the same gun and ammo. One tank has as pro that the gun is really good and can penetrate most tanks in its BR. The other tank, with the same gun, ammo and BR, has listed as con that the gun is underperforming and struggles to pen most tanks. What...?
I'm gonna be honest, not just the wiki but the game as well does.... interesting stuff as well. For example, I shot a Sherman above the mantlet and it died immediatly (I used a KV-1S for reference) and then I met with the same turret on a similar sherman but I couldn't pen it. When I checked the protection analysis on the latter one I found that the weakness is exactly where I shot it, according to the hit cam. So, wth? Not only that but sometimes a regular Sherman can kill me in the KV-1S from the front, eventhough they don't shoot my LFP which is impossible according to my previous experiences. Sorry I just had to get this off my chest, I'll watch the video now
@@Denkmaldrubernachtit is not. I tried it in the French tech tree and in the American in the form of the 105mm Sherman, it is a full on badass on its own BR. It's not bad just hard to use
@@Hamidikinvolumetric is still the worst update they kept in in the history of the game. This is why most of this bs happens. Interesting how a 20mm detonates the ammo but a 75mm/88mm APHE sometimes just makes it yellow or orange. Not to mention the Panther mantlet that's made out of black hole or the driver viewport on German tanks that eats rounds for snack, no matter the caliber (except the high caliber HE but that doesn't count)
On helicopters with mast mounted optics it says on the wiki pro's that it can fire missiles while only exposing the mast mounted optics, which doesn't work, it hasn't worked for like 2 years now i think, there is still a bug report out there
What do you know, Gaijin came up with a new wiki that is supposed to be better and easier to get into. This video likely didn't influence much, but I claim it as a victory!
Thank you for the video either way, it was a good laugh.
Yeah well they completely wiped out performance sheets (TWR, thrust on spaded etc.) soooo it's not so great yet either.
@@Winhert They are still working on porting some stuff (like ammo racks), so it might come back too.
Just came to tell, your prayers (=whining) were heard (=ignored) by the Great Snail:)
The new wiki is so devoid of content it's about a useful as the stat cards
The fact that the MiG-21bis literally says “excellent energy retention” when literally just below it as the very first con is the fact it bleeds speed like crazy
And it does...i wish having powerful engine actually did anything, it feels like only F-5 doesn't bleed all its speed and then is limping for a solid minute or two.
The article could be refering to energy in a climb, though pretty much all jets are good in a climb
@@deauthorsadeptus6920 Depends on how they pull and which variant
@@deauthorsadeptus6920 It definitely does though. The MF, smt and bis can actually turn well and not stall due to their engines, whereas the early F-13 and PFM essentially fall out of the sky after one turn.
@@deauthorsadeptus6920 Which makes sense, the F5 is typically against large, powerful engined jets, and it is a small nimble fighter. Of course it will have better energy retention. I have the F5C and it does retain energy well, but after maybe 3 turns your gonna be going 250mph and the jet your fighting could just fly in a straight line and outrun you. Heck, the F4 or M21 your fighting could outrun you before even going into a turn fight if they're smart
The A-10 advert on the wiki pages says a lot.
"Why bother learning all this, snatch your mothers credit card and grind out that top tier Timmy"
lmfaoo
"armament may explode" refers to the fact that the plane had gun issues irl, which means who wrote that article never even played it and just copied stuff from another place and hoped for the best
noticed a couple other things where.... .....yeah that sounds like an irl issue. The only thing stopping the tiger 1 page from saying 'breaks down often' are wheraboos who may dispute that for a very different reason
@@MooseGaming33It didn't break down that more often then most of the tanks of an era (and was way better then whatever british had made as their cruiser tanks). Also it would NOT matter in war thunder anyway, you don't even drive 10km most of the time, which is nothing even for a jagtiger (The ONLY german tank that was especially unreliable).
@@deauthorsadeptus6920 the Sherman was pretty reliable.
@@rickfastly2671 It was an exception more then anything (even in the US cause they had a fair share of their own less reliable stuff like M18) AND still bad compared to more modern tanks.
Maybe it refers to the bombs now being able to get destroyed.
my favourite bit from the wt wiki is that the F-84F "Gains a fair bit of speed in a dive"
Me when a plane accelerate while diving 🤯
Newton ain't got NOTHIN on the WT wiki 🗣️🗣️🗣️
Which is supposed to mean it gets more...? Or something?
It's basically "Gravity exists"
"You should note that gravity affects this plane and indeed pulls down"
The amount of times I've read through an article about vehicle characteristics that completely contradict eachother is mind boggling.
"Beware of its terrible armor."
- "make use of its good armor."
even better when its the same vehicle in two different tech trees, or even two very similar models that have cosmetic differences and they will have one saying it has good armor and other bad armor
But the wiki told me the sm91 is a good turnfighter 😂
The worst part is that people think war thunder is a real life simulation that accurately depicts all the armament.
@@thomgizziz I know it's so annoying when people pretend it's super realistic
@@thomgizzizand then can get enough of russian cocks in their mouth when shouting how everything russian is superior irl bcs “i played way too much WT to know this”. when i first read this argument it blew my mind
Flaps don't always cause the nose to pull up automatically.
Yes, flaps are intended to increase lift by changing the shape (or surface area) of the wing. However, they usually _also_ cause a pitch moment, which depending on the plane may act to increase or decrease the angle of attack. The usual scenario is that when you deploy flaps, they decrease the angle of attack.
So you have two things acting in the opposite. On one hand the flaps increase the lifting capacity of the wing, but on the other hand they decrease the angle of attack which has a tendency to reduce lift.
The final effect of flaps depends on how much they increase the wing's lift coefficient, and how much they end up affecting the aircraft's angle of attack. In most cases, the increased lift coefficient pulls through and the total lift increases, which causes the aircraft's trajectory to turn upwards. But in some few cases, the pitch-down moment of the flaps is strong enough that the lost AoA ends up causing a loss of lift.
In these cases, extending flaps requires you to also apply elevator up to compensate for the pitch moment of the flaps. The J7W is one of those planes, which makes a lot of sense since the flaps are right at the rear end of the aircraft (because that's where the main wing is). When you deploy the flaps, you need to also pull on the elevator to prevent the plane from pitching down.
Now, the J7W is _also_ supposed to have flaps on its canards (front wing) which deploy automatically when the flaps are deployed. This is missing in War Thunder, or at least the model does not have such animation. This feature in the real aircraft was intended specifically to counter the pitch-down tendency when the flaps were deployed, so I guess in War Thunder you just have to manually pitch up instead. So that's an actual FM issue that Gaijin probably should look at, if they have the time at some point...
This is what I assumed was the issue, but I didn't know about the automatic flaps missing on the canard, good info.
Was going to make a comment on this myself. Though you explained it better than my sleep deprived brain could have right now. Also... Torilla tavataan 👀
Hi Herra :P
Private pilot here.
I was planning on comment something similar to this... nice
The J7W was a prototype and was considered unsuccessful wasn't it? I would also question whether or not there was any documentation about it's trials. Are you sure about that? Again though this is much like the issue with the author of this video. Supposed to this and that and should be this and that in regards to a editable wiki that used to have barely anything on it. And no bro your wiki sources do not count. Gaijin have been pretty clear on this, they hire historians that have access to these secret documents so if the flaps have rainbows coming off it, good luck in trying to get something changed. The less you question the snail the better, and the more you assume you know the worse off you are going to be.
And no a appropriate answer to cons is it is garbage.
This isn't a normal plane. All of the weight is at the rear of it. it isn't going to handle like a gem.
the R-13 is secretly an amraam.
Amraams have 120 km range not 24.
The range there is correct he just didn't consider the speed if a target which can fly 3,5 km per second.
@@dominozaur98 Not really. The R13s effective range is about 2-3km, and against a stationary target, it would still be at most 6-8km. But that target would have to be HOT, as the R13 generally only starts locking afterburning jets at around 4km.
In order to reach 24km, you'd literally have to drop it from the stratosphere into an active volcano.
@@dominozaur98 yeah the article stated maximum terioritcal distance at high altitude. Like amraams 120 km.
@@cactuslietuva well, even Russian Wiki states that maximum range of R-13M1 is 15 kilometers, not 24.
The wiki is completely outdated for many things
and yet you see the pages were updated barely weeks ago
@kingghidorah8106 it's a shame. Many of the vehicles BRs are outdated.
I don't blame the writers. Gaijin should provide an API with vehicle stats that the wiki is attached to, so info are always up to date and leave writers to the actual writing portion.
@@ivan5595 Part of why the wiki is so badly outdated is that many edits simply don’t get reviewed by a Wiki Mod in a reasonable time. Check the edit history, and you’ll be shocked how often the page was updated months ago, and that edit isn’t the current approved edit.
The game balancenis outdated af
I remember seeing that for the Tiger, they recommend using the default APHE ammunition instead of the researched Pzgr. APHE because the default "has more penetration". However, the penetration loss for Pzgr. is minor, and in exchange you get twice the explosive filler.
i still dont get it pzgr 39 is more than enough to oneshot most stuff.
Ah, but the round with more explosive filler has enough to overpressure opentops and light tanks.
no the default round has more explosive mass not penetration. Its right to say to stick to it because its basically a one shot if it gets inside the enemy tank and the extra pen of the unlockable round isn't that much anyway.
@@Deuce_and_a_half wrong
The default round is PzGr 39. The researchable one is PzGr, the one with less pen and more filler
@@Deuce_and_a_halfYou got it backwards bud. Default round has more pen, less filler.
Another Misinformation on the Wiki is for the VCBI-2 (MCT30) The wiki says it can float but ingame it doesn't even do the half float thing like some BMPs, it just sinks like a rock.
gaijin at one point decided to make a bunch of vehicles that can float not float for "le game balance"
@@notnurfcreangaWhich is absolutely braindead, cause floating just makes you an easier target. And it's MUCH faster to just drive around the water.
@@deauthorsadeptus6920 like their way of deciding wich m113 can float is arbitrary
It's actually the same thing with the vextra (the last I checked) it said that it could float as well...
Gaijin just removes stuff randomly
The M551 and M113 should be able to float, and the SUB I-II had its floating removed for a while before they added it back in
One thing that's weirdly good about the WT wiki articles is the history section. I didn't read all of them but of those I did, they all contained good quality information that was not copied from the actual wikipedia, and are in some cases even superior to what you can find on the wikipedia.
14:40 I laughed so hard at this. This is like saying "remove the engine from your car. This way, if you want to go anywhere, someone has to tow you and you safe gas!"
Honestly i can get behind that idea. If you got bad aim but 12x 7.7 guns with big spread you are bound to hit by just spraying in their general direction.
Yeah and even a single round can cause a fire.@@serch3ster
Am I weird for flying my a-10 with gun dispersion mod off? I use stealth belt and when I see someone heading for head on I start shooting from 3-4km away, usually works
As a Wiki Editor myself with many other Gaijin projects preoccupying me a couple of pointers:
1. The wiki is publicly open for edits, log-in with your Gaijin account and any Wallet Timmy or WWII Expert can write on it, ofcourse there is some QA through moderation but with the sheer amount of articles, pages, and subsystems keeping pace with some changes isn't as simple.
2. (and biggest point) The sheer amount of pages in contrast to the amount of time vehicles change and get updated, There's as of writing 5,652 pages on the WT-Wiki, with 2,694 of these being vehicles (Including some april fools vehicles)
3. The misconception by passerby's on the Wiki that it's all managed by Gaijin themselves and then bug report, Reddit post, RUclips video pointing out the wrongs or making fun of something that desperately needs more users filling in the blanks & keeping it up to date
Bit tangential, but I contribute to a Wiki of a small niche MMO. After someone posts on forums explaining that they've quit forever because someone killed them and stole his ship, that he spent lot of time to build. I update the Wiki and do my best to explain that you can drop the key to prevent people stealing it, and retrieve it later.
Some time later, one of the PvP players shares a screenshot where he is breaking a ship in deep water with a comment "I love when people throw away their keys and armor and turn 100% survival into certain death." (While there was some speculation the target was another PvPer who attempted an failed to do some PvP hijink, it could've as easily been a new player blindly trusting the wiki.)
The current version of Wiki page does specify that you lose control of the ship immediately if you no longer hold the key.
Hey I've seen you on twitch!
It's also got good info.
Is it alway useful, no, but I find you can sometimes find real good nuggets of info on how a vehicle works.
It really needs someone to update the weaponry pages, they're almost all blank.
@@Xazamaswhat's the game it sounds kinda fun.
I've seen some of your edits, and I totally agree. I appreciate the work you put into the wiki.
I fix stuff when I see it, it's really hard to keep up with and not get into a rabbit hole of just making more & more edits sometimes. Tons of stuff wrong on tons of pages. There's not nearly enough Wiki Moderation, and it sucks when I find a page that's had edits submitted for multiple months that are still pending. At least the more heavily trafficked pages are kept... reasonably up to date.
The biggest thing I try to keep up with consistently is the (pretty comedically long) list of Airborne Radars with all the features. Kind of a pain sometimes.
I think the note about Yaks should not climb is due to an outdated belief about Yak planes not performing well at altitude due to a lack of high-altitude optimization features like turbochargers. Yaks don't care if they don't have a turbocharger or not, their high altitude performance is still very strong in War Thunder.
Yaks were always decent at highish alt. They lack turbochargers but so do most planes of the era. The two-speed supercharger kept it healthy enough to compete up to 6km, and that was all it needed.
the J7W1 can carry bombs
those can detonate when hit
there you go, solved that riddle for you
But that's not really a 'con' either as thats.... for any plane with bombs.
If I had a guess with a lot of the stuff like "zero compresses at high speed" is left over from like 2014 WT. Back then it did compress a lot. It's clearly written by people who used to play _a lot_ but barely do now and only really hop on new and/or flavor of the month vehicles. Oh and some of them almost only play sim battles.
Like the typhoon thing was probably from a short period of time when 30 cal machine guns shredded planes. I also remember way back when 20mm hispanos 1 shot a lot, so you generally wanted to uninstall the accuracy upgrade (at least on the mkVs which didn't overheat too badly).
The wiki is kindof a time capsule lol
Yeah...what did they do to zero, there are literally historical records on them compressing to hell on even remotely fast speed (like 500km/h).
That page on the R-13 must have been a typo. They probably meant “2-4 km” or something like that
2.4 I say.
That or they were copying the max launch range from the stat card. Those things are so blatantly wrong that idk how it makes it into the game.
@@Natediggetydogi believe those numbers refer to the max theoretical range at max altitude
@@Pvt_WadeEven then, R-13 can get 4 and even 5 km shots on a slow target.
@@Pvt_Wade the numbers also refer to the total land distance traveled, and not the relative air distance.
What looks to the pilot to be a 3km shot is really much longer, because both aircraft are moving - and drag does not care about your relative perspective.
The best thing that the wiki has right most of the time is ammo rack amounts and locations (for tanks) i always check it when i get a new vehicle to get the most ammo without being a bomb
actually it makes sense flaps on j7 make you dive. flaps increase lift at the cost of drag so when you slow down and lift the rear of the plane, the nose goes down
youre right, i commented the same in detail and with physics terminology if youre interested.
That's great... but then, what exactly is the purpose of these flaps? Keep in mind, ingame, they ONLY pull you down no matter what you are doing. The more likely explanation is that they are simply unfinished/broken
@@Liniyka Given the unique wing config of the J7W1, I suspect that is the cause. The point of flaps, including these, is to provide more lift. In the J7W1, the flaps are located on the rear wing, thus deploying it would have a similar effect as pitching down on the elevator on a regular plane. Meanwhile pitch on the J7W1 is controlled by the canard(in the front), and should be able to correct the pitch when flaps are deployed.
Again, it also possible that gaijin messed up the flight model, what do i know.
Thanks for the video!
@@Liniyka saying this already shown that you have no clue how flying work, even many "normal" configuration plane, with regular wings and regular elevator configuration, the plane pitch down when flap are deployed, deploying flap have these following effect, increase lift (the intended), pitch down due to shift of lift center more to rear, pitch down due to you are increase the "virtual" angle of attack of the wing, finally more drag.
@@a709s33He was complaining about the flaps being pointless in-game, which they are, flaps only pitching you down in War Thunder is practically useless.
Naval wiki with almost no text: crying in a corner
1. While the guns on a plane cannot explode, they can stop working if shot at. This has happened multiple times when flying the spitfire or any other plane that has the ammo for 20mm cannons in a belt in the wing.
2. 3:50 these Flaps add lift behind the centre of gravity, of course they push the nose down. They only do something in a really thight turn in combination with the canards.
To add to point 1 Gaijin also introduced a feature a few updates back (wanna say around a year ago but I'm not sure on specifics) where bombs could be shot and explode.
LA-15 Wiki page:
1.Don't climb at the beginning of the match, use the beginning of the match to fly straight forward to the enemy, as low to the ground you can get.
2. blah blah blah
3.Don't commit to a head-on attack or turn hard after one. Your guns are hard to aim in the heat of head-on and it would be advised to break when closing in on a head-on, or preemptively turn to get on their 6 immediately.
Fly straight but don't head on? Don't turn? Don't climb? Might as well not play at 8.0
17:17 "where is the xp 50?" You could write that overpowered fantasy plane to all other props' pages it is fighting against...
The whirlwind still lurks undetected; same climbrate as XP50, 2 more 20mm cannons (4x total) and an airspawn as well, all at 0.3 LOWER br... hehehe
@@petrkdn8224 it's trash. Bad energy retention, bad climbrate and a poor turn rate. It's only good at going head-on and killing bombers.
@@KekusMagnusNah, that thing is UFO. The ONLY problem are 60 round mags.
@KekusMagnus bad climbrate? I have never seen XP50 above me and both Whirlwind and XP50 ger an airspawn, thus they must have atleast the same climbrate.
So...neither a physics expert nor aviation technician but concerning the J7W1:
When you install flaps (creating a force pulling up) on the backside of the plane, this part will be pulled up. As the plane has in essence two sets of wings and only one set has flaps, the other set "stays" at its position. Hence, you rotate the plane around that point. For normal planes this results in a lifting sensation whilst with inverted (flaps in the back) wings, this can result in the opposite effect, seemingly pulling down.
Depending on the type of flaps on the plane they might change the curvature of the wing. The wing always tends to pitch the nose down but if the aerofoil is curved more it tends to push the nose down more (techically decrease the coefficient of moment). Regarding stability the only diference is the counter-balance to the wing is ahead and not behind the center of gravity so unlike a conventional tail the canard is instaled with a slight positive angle of attack, a clasic tail having a slight negative angle of attack. If you want to learn more i suggest searching for some aircraft lateral stability explanation videos here on yt. I will try to answer you if you have questions.
On the MIG 21bis, it's simple. If you don't want to retain energy, then it has excellent energy retention!
When you go look at pages that haven't been filled in the page outline will say that "you should use positive words and not be too harsh" or whatever which is what leads to them calling RB24s (Swedish aim9b) "great against low speed or distracted enemies" instead of "should only be used against low speed or distracted enemies"
My least favorite thing is when a plane gets called "a good support plane" or "useful for picking off stragglers outside the furball." Translated to real English, those mean "this plane sucks unless your opponent is a dumbass"
being able to take damage and still fly decently well is absolutely relevant in air rb, the sabre for example can easily fly back to base missing half the plane, whereas the javelin if you get hit once you run a pretty big chance of just flatspinning if you try to turn
The saber could also.. Yknow, not get hit?
@@TheArcticFoxxo sure, just point me to a player that has not once in their entire time of playing war thunder ever gotten hit by anything
@@alexvolute7454And wasn't killed by randomly entering fast spin due to slightly yellow wing. Its absolutely atrocious on javelin and F-100, you need to turn slower then B-29 to not get yeeted into ground.
I think what they meant by “armament may detonate” was the bombs. Bombs do have a chance to explode when hit by cannons and can even be intercepted by a good player with a well placed shot. However why on Earth would you strap bombs to such an underpowered and frankly bad plane? Just play the Pe-8 or something.
For the flaps on the J7W1, I imagine its because they *are* producing lift, but said lift is very noticeably to the rear of the plane. Its probably causing the rear to want to lift up, so it does, causing the front to go down.
The war thunder wiki is not maintained by gaijin. Players can apply to join the wiki team and make wiki pages in return for GE. You dont need to have a vehicle inoder to make a page about it so they can just make stuff up.
@@dragondaan8668 anyone with a war thunder account can just go and edit the wiki. No applying necessary, and it’s more worthwhile to get the information corrected imo.
@ If you apply for the wiki team you will be able to earn GE.
3:58 The flaps are on the canards, which should pull the plane up, I'm pretty sure they are animated too
If it's pulling down it means that the flaps are positioned on the main wing in the flight model because they are pushing up behind the center of lift
Tldr: the flight model is borked lmao
You can see the flaps drop on the main wing in the video. Or in game if you take 2 minutes to check. The flight model sucks, but this is not one of the problems with it.
With all seriousness tho, Sun tzu said that if you know yourself and your enemies well, you will never lose. He did not guarantee victories, just that you won't lose.
VICTORY IS OURS REFERENCE!!!!!!!
About the flaps, it is working as intended, as the plane has the canards/elevators in the front, when you deploy the flaps on the wing, the lift increases on the wing and causes a swingseat effect raising the wing and therefore lowering the nose.
I imagine for the R-13M1, it was supposed to be 2-4 km, but they forgot the dash
3:40 - That's not true. Every aircraft may have different tendency when flaps are lowered/raised.
Uninstall the upgraded 7.7 to make your tyhpoon like a shotgun, i cannot believe someone wrote this 😂😂😂 its like shooting a pistol through a mesh to make it a shotgun logic
There are also some small details that makes me think they dont play their own game, like, when a match ends, there is the window where all the match info is shown. When that window is loading, there is a "skip" button. But a lot of times it simply switch to "to battle" when you are going to click it, making you (possibly) enter another match accidentally. Its so stupid and probably easy to fix, but if i remember correctly this thing is in the game for years...
It's a failsafe so when it bugs out in the loading, giving you infinite loading, you can skip it to be able to exit the screen.
@@petrkdn8224 yes, but if they just move the button a bit to the left, it would likely solve the problem i described
@raphael_ap if you press escape you can skip the animation but not leave the post game screen and won't send you into another battle accidentally
@petrkdn8224 nice. Thanks for the tip 👍
I try to fix articles when I come across them being blatantly wrong.
I also try to help keep the Airborne Radars page up to date - mostly the list section on it of all the aircraft.
A *massive* part of the problem with the wiki is that all edits have to be manually reviewed by a wiki mod, and they are incredibly slow to ever look at most pages.
It's just as bad for ground vehicles. Britain's tree has many entries without anything in them, and the ones that are filled out are questionable at best.
On canard configuration flaps will push your nose down because they essentially work like elevators when pushing down, you need to use the canard to counter the pitch down moment so you have an increased lift vector aligned with the center of mass. On a modern fighter that is all controlled buy the fly by wire
the flaps are on the BACK so they make the air go down.
(thrust down on the back = nose down)
It is a free wiki that can be edited by anyone just like wikipedia used to be .
Its outdated , just edit it .
As flawed as the wiki is, it taught me a lot about how to play when I was first starting. Knowing every plane in your BR and having a "general" sense of its strength and weaknesses (to a varying degree of precision) is crucial.
Fun fact: the only plane that can survive ( has chance to get back to base) without a tail (first harriers are shoot by aim 9b very often) is harrier
When you the same thing in pros and cons so you always come out on top
I think the point about the missile range is a mistake in that all missiles have an on paper range and a practical one. On paper, even a missile like the R13 has ranges of 24 kilometers. However, you have to consider that it chases targets at Mach speed while those same targets fly away at similar speeds, so the practical range from the launching aircraft is more like 3-4 kilometers.
6:00 i have done a decent bit of testing on missile ranges. By no means scientific but this is from many real matches and looking at the replays after (all aproximations, based on jets that would actually carry them and realistic speeds youd be going)
Guaranteed = Unless the snail intervenes, your missile will hit
Effective = Your missile will most likely hit but can be avoided with proper evasive moves
Ideal = Soonest id recommend firing a missile at an aware target
Limit = Furthest your missle is able to hit (if you fire from further away your missile just will not have the energy to hit, even without any evasive manouvers)
For this list ill mostly be refering to Sidewinders but most of these have a fairly similar Russian Equivalent (Sometimes minor differences but most have little impact on range)
9B | Directly Behind only - Effective (barely)
The missile range on the wiki is simply taken from the in-game stat card in the game. Liniyka should have noticed that.
G91R wiki: good for climbing and boom and zooming.
G91R reality: good at being slow, reversing
If you try to go boom and zoom you'll spend all the match trying to catch someone and get smoked by a happy f104 that 20 seconds before was at 15 km
My favorite phrase from the wiki is "The Yak-17 has a very weak engine, the Junkers Jumo 004". Yeah, it makes sense with the context, but there was no context at all
Isn’t this objectively true?
@@burritoman5567 for a couple of them - yes. For the rest - most likely no. This is a Theseus' paradox type thing
it would probably take you 3-4 hours to correct most mistakes of popular vehicles. Thats the point of the wiki after all, and not many players are as experienced to be in the position to have flown most. Instead you made a video saying its wrong
17:01
P-47s are insanely dangerous if you know how to manage your energy semi-competently
I disagree heavily. While it is correct they aren't the most meta, their performance even at 3000m can give Bf-109s a run for their money. Landing flaps + verticals seems to put most Bf-109 players in the wringer as the P-47 is deceptively agile for it's size. I find that many enemies like to go after you, you can act as bait that can run away and drag enemies up to more favorable altitudes. I've put Spitfire Mk Vcs on the the ropes at 4000 meters with the D-22 with proper flap management, this was on equal altitude.
The issue is that people tell U.S. players to boom and zoom but never really elaborate that you have to take risks and be aggressive
If you win a fight in the vertical against a 109 in a P-47, the opposing pilot is completely clueless. The 109 excels in vertical stall fights and almost nothing can match them in that regard
@@KekusMagnus The difference between fighting at 2000m and 4000m heavily affects a Bf-109's performance, and most planes for that matter. And I'm not talking straight engine capability, but the loss of lift in the wings. Many players don't really feel the effects of it until around 5000-6000 meters where people start feeling their planes turn like tanks, but when you're a P-47D. You barely are affected by it, mixed with consistent engine horsepower nearly no matter the altitude. You can then notice how each person is unknowingly getting worse until they really feel it at the extremes in altitude. It's like not realizing you're breathing in high concentrations of carbon monoxide until you're feeling really tired all of a sudden..
Also, P-47D landing flaps are known to give really high lift, to the point you can actually UFO the plane-D-22 included. There's a video showing the P-47D-28 or P-47M (post RPM nerf) literally toying with a K-4 with it's landing flaps.
He completely lost me here. I have not played in a year but highly doubt p47's became irrelevant in that time.
I hope your situation improves Liniyka, thank you for the good content and take care.
Thank you!
For the J7W flap "bug", you should spend a minute thinking about it.
On all planes lift is generated by both the main wing and the elevator yes?
And when a plane flies trimmed and level, it means the centre of lift and center of mass overlap. Ok?
On a "classic" plane, when flaps come out, as it is the main wing that generates the extra lift, the centre of lift shift slightly forward, lifting the nose.
Now the J7W is a canard. Meaning, the main lift-generating structure is in the rear.
When you lower the flaps, centre on lift shifts back (toward the largest generator of lift). As the center of gravity does not change, the nose goes does.
It's not a bug, it's a feature of the design.
Flaps on J7W1 are working correctly because wings are in back, they should extend upwards to, but I'm not usre they would be any use for landing etc...
Pros: "Competitive high speed turn rate" Cons: "Slow sustained turn rate"
yes. that sounds correct. good turn at high speed, bad at slow speed 'slow sustained turn rate' means that even if you have speed, it has trash energy retention.
Wiki and Forums. You would be surprised how many forum posts comments get deleted or ignored.
Besides that the mods don't do jack shit to actually moderate properly. There's several infamous folks who should seriously get muted but aren't.
2:05 the page hasn’t been updated for years and is likely written by a non native English speaker. Armament may detonate is probably referring to the 60kg bombs rather than the cannons or machineguns
4:10 the USSR MIG-21 wiki page is 3 years old
6:09 they forgot to add a hyphen
W video. Stay safe bro. very funny stuff
The thing with the J7's flaps retracting at such a low speed is because they used the landing flaps' speed limit as the limit for all settings. As far as I can tell, every aircraft with automatic flap retraction has this issue, rendering combat and takeoff flaps practically useless on those planes.
Lots of the wiki refers to AB not RB. It’s all interchangeable and not specified. So it could be about either flight model and you don’t know.
Can you trust the War Thunder Wiki?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: noooooooooooooo.
4:00 fun fact, that in fact is not a bug that's just aerodynamics, honestly not sure what the japanese were thinking but the way the flaps are positioned they infact create positive lift, issue is on the tail, which infact pitches you down, bruh, also for the flaps retracting unless the japanese somehow added an flight computer that automatically retracts flaps like on soviet fighters like the mig21 (alteast i think that's what it is?) if not then it's a bug yea...
Could be that they just get pushed down at too much force
@anton33779 i doubt that but could be
The problem is simply that different people work for different pages, and Gaijin balancing/bug fixing makes many articles outdated.
So info isn't accurate, also different format for pro and cons, the German M48 super puts "Has access to 1st gen thermal vision device for gunner" into Pro's. While the Leopard A1A1 (L/44) puts Thermal Sights in Pro while putting in Cons: "Only generation 1 thermals".
Also, different experiences shape different opinions. For example, the Aim 9E at 11.0 -is it a good missile or a bad missile? If you grinded Air using the A-10 (Aim 9L), AV-8A (Aim 9G), etc. you'll prob. call it a bad or mediocre missle. But if you use planes that prev. only had Aim 9B's, you'll probably notice quite the improvement.
The J7 flaps are working as intended, they increase lift, this aircrafts wings being at the rear, behind the centre of mass, causes the nose to pitch down
I was just talking to someone about WT wiki being shit and you posted this :D :3
The Flaps on the J7 do provide lift, its just that the wings are mounted at the rear rather than the center, the flaps themselves are almost at the extreme end. If the front mounted elevator and the plane itself is flying level, that means a lift force at the rear will dip the aircrafts nose down. However, if the front elevator is pitched for turning, the flaps and elevators actually complement each other and allow for tighter turns at the cost of even more kinetic energy than flaps on center mounted wings. If you visualize the control surfaces and the forces they create when in flight in your head, this will make sense. You can picture it a bit like a 2x2 Car with all wheel steering where the front wheels pitch outwards and the rears ones inwards. The major difference being that due to much less friction, if only the rear flaps are pitched in level flight, according to a combination of all 3 of Newtons Laws a lever effect is created to conserve the planes momentum. I am a physics student btw, massive respect to Gaijin that they got the physics right.
I get what you're trying to say, but it doesn't actually work ingame. No matter your speed, these flaps always only pull you down instead of helping with pulling positive Gs
@@Liniyka Alright that is valid criticism, if engaged while turning the flaps should be beneficial to increase the turn rate, according to my best understanding. The airflow apparently isnt modeled in depth to account for that in the case of rear mounted wings. Its just that what you showed in the video, the nose dipping when flying level and pitching flaps is actually true to life.
@@laurenz4572 That's incorrect. Flaps are high lift devices, they aren't necessarily meant to increase G load. If the wing is behind the centre of mass, using the flaps will create a pitch-down torque no matter what speed or however the elevator may be trimmed. This'll only serve to impede the turn rate. Flaps are used when your wing is stalling or you need more lift, hence why they're useful for minimum radius turns but harmful for the vast majority of aircraft in a ratefight.
"the airflow apparently isn't modelled in depth to account for that" lemme hold you up right there. You don't know the underlying workings of the game, you don't know how aircraft are modelled. I can tell you with certainty that this is modelled, because it's trivial to do so - all you're doing is moving the centre of pressure.
@@Liniyka Flaps are not meant to assist in pulling positive gs, they're meant to increase your lift.
Not sure if J7 has many pop culture appearances, but one is Chapter 24 of "Oh My Goddess!" where a college motorcycle club needs to reassemble second, lost prototype (it was buried in a naval base, and college later built on the site) and have it take off, to placate the plane's spirit and earn money for a new clubhouse. (They charged spectators 200 yen each.)
If you want to tie this back to War Thunder, there's couple of jokes to be squeezed:
1. War Thunder flight model is bonked because it was based on a prototype that only managed to fly with the help of thoughts and prayers (real historical prototype did see test flights and is currently in National Air and Space Museum)
2. Japanese college student built a better plane than Gaijin - with a box of scraps! (They did have to replace some missing parts, and they had no blueprints.)
I believe the actual community that cares about air RB is very small. Little remains from the time when 9.0 was top tier and when every planes had its own strength and weaknesses. Today RB is filled with premium players that either abuse their XP-50 or dive into a base with a Ju 288 just to farm RP for that Mig-23 they're researching.
The J7W1 flaps working in reverse may be due to an issue of the wins being so far back and the center of gravity being a bit further forward than it should be
8:51 did you see that "bad cockpit visibility (SB)". every single fighter from ww2 (except some american planes) have really bad cockpit visibility.
Wiki sucks, stat cards lie. Its best to just test the vehicle while you're researching it and get a feel for how it flys
About the flap thing.. that’s how flaps work on canards in real life, the nose drops, it’s a change in center of pressure and center of lift, not just “making more lift”
Flaps- adds more lift to the main wings. The vast majority of aircraft are traditional layout, main wings infront of horizontal stabilizer and very close to the center of mass.
The J7W1 is a Canard style with the main wing in the back, and behind the center of mass. It's still adding lift, but it adds the lift BEHIND the center of mass, tipping the nose down just like forward stick input on a traditional airplane.
The J7 isn't "broken" per se. It's a uniquie aircraft with a CG far to the rear. Consider the physics when the plaps deploy on a wing that the very back of the plane. Additional lift from the wing for a given angle of attack will drop the nose. It's awkward, but not broken. As far as armament detonating, some planes seem to have a more accute problem with bombs mounted to the wing detonating when hit by enemy cannon fire. FYI.
pro tip: fire heat seeking missiles near friendlies
Wiki lists AN/AWG-9 on F-14 as a "phased array radar"
It is a phased array... Look up what "phased array" means. Almost every 4th gen airborne radar is a phased array.
@@delayed_control It isn't. The AWG-9 uses a mechanical gimbal to physically move the antenna and direct the radar beam. It isn't electronical.
For the first plane, it is not necessarily bad or a mistake that the flaps make the plane pitch down when not being controlled. The wing (and the center of lift) is near the center of gravity, so when the flaps on the trailing edge of the wing are deployed then the center of lift moves backwards. This causes the center of gravity to be more towards the front of the plane than the center of lift, which causes the plane to pitch down. It depends on when the center of lift and gravity are.
3:50 Your nose goes down, because your wings are on the back of your plane, the opposite side to the nose; of course the nose will go down when you add lift at the tail. The flaps are working fine and exactly as intended.
5:12 Both list "As all MiG-21s, it tends to bleed speed in turns, though not as much, thanks to the improved engine".
14:10 this was viable in 2019 when F-4C came out
3 gunpods and a dream
16:14 i actually prefer to fight at higher altitudes with soviet fighters for some reason they still perform really good
5:10 Thunderskill has the Soviet 21Bis at 2.94 Air frags per death while the Finnish one has only 1.4 Air frags per death. Also the Soviet MiG has an insane 74.45% winrate. (4.11.2024 stats for the last 1 month) So clearly Soviet MiG is stronk russian bias makhine and the Finnish one is shit and has worse energy retention.
In what world does the G-14/AS outperforms the P-51H? In my world, bro. Give me the "Dago Messer" anyday over the Mustang.
I remember reading one of the valentine’s wiki, and throughout the entire article it kept changing between the hull and turret armour being better.
I think the J7W1 goes nose down with flaps because the flaps increase lift behind the center of mass, causing the rear to lift, while in normal planes the flaps increase lift in front of the center of mass, which logically causes the nose to lift
Most flaps pitch your nose down, this is due to the fact that the centre of lift is behind the centre of gravity on almost every single prop fighter. I'm not sure why you are surprised about the J7W1 behaviour, try deploying flaps in a Yak, Spitfire, Hurricane or really any prop fighter and you'll see it pitches your nose down.
They only pull the nose down when the flaps are being deployed.
Once deployed, the flaps on those planes will actively pull the nose upwards.
The flaps on the J7W1 *always* pull the nose down. They are incorrectly modeled as literally half of the entire flap system is simply missing.
@flipallthetables793 nonsence, they pull the nose down as long as they're deployed, you're proving you've never flown outside arcade/realistic
@@steve_i400 I just tested all the planes you mentioned in full real controls, with a speed of 300 km/h (lower to 250 km/h if needed since some landing flaps rip at those speeds).
Hurricane (I tested *every single land based version* in the british non-premium tech tree) - the moment the flaps are deployed the nose starts going up. At the same speed, the next level of flaps makes the nose go up faster and you need to push the stick forward more in order to keep the nose level.
Spitfire (I tested *every single land based version* in the british non-premium tech tree, both Merlins and Griffons) - same as Hurricane except only with landing flaps.
Yak-3 - only plane that worked the way you mentioned.
I was wrong in that the flaps being deployed makes your nose go down. It appears some planes suddenly change their pull in the precise moment that the flaps reach a certain position. However you are absolutely wrong in that flaps always pitch your nose down. Just the simple fact that 2/3 of the planes you mentioned don't behave like that at all is proof.
In DCS the F18s nose also pulls down when you set your flaps to the full position but correcting it and turning your thrust up to keep the 140 knots for the landing, will give you the lift you need to get down softly.
Make sure to regulary check wiki to be Outdated
remember this is community maintained wiki, so if the wiki has bad information YOU are part of the problem
RB isnt the onlt gamemode, so saying they cant see each other (Spit mk22, 109 g14) is incorrect rcause their AB BR is the same and they are within 1 BR in SB.
5:17 24 kilometers range may be correct. You should remember that your jet and enemy jet are moving, and while the distance between you two may be 4km, the distance your missile has to travel will be bigger relative to your speeds.
It is physically impossible for the missile to reach 24km
@TheArcticFoxxo why do you think so? Remember stat cards and wiki accordingly tell you the stats in ideal conditions. So if the missile was launched at high altitude, with speed over mach 1, and did little to no manuvers, it's range would be basically limited by it's self liquidator only.
@@blankspace998 well if you are so sure try it in game
@@blankspace998 Because it's dV doesn't even set it as capable to pass 15km? Hell, it only has a 2 second burn time... Even the AIM-9M can't hit 20km and that has almost 3x the burn with a far higher dV.
@@TheArcticFoxxo It was copy pasted from the R-23R most likely
Idk why can't the stat cards tell you the empty weight of each plane, not even the wiki says that aside jets and that's the only thing I use it for
So actually with the J7W, it’s not incorrect. On a low wing aircraft, extending flaps generally causes a pitch down moment that we counteract with elevator and use of trim. When you extend the flaps you’re creating a change in the shape of the wing (chord line) and moving the center of pressure aft on the airfoil, which is why you experience that pitch down moment.
i dont want to be that guy but..the flaps are like that in most planes as the drag at the bottom increases it will push the nose down.. it provides lift when the planes nose is manually pushed back up
2:24 yea blowing the wing off is the only way and we know your screwed anyway
My favorite was looking at two different tanks in the same BR with exactly the same gun and ammo. One tank has as pro that the gun is really good and can penetrate most tanks in its BR. The other tank, with the same gun, ammo and BR, has listed as con that the gun is underperforming and struggles to pen most tanks.
What...?
The J7 flaps are inverted, because they add lift to the back of the plane, pitching it forward.
It makes sense
2:39 you can destroy the.
Sorry about the drone situation. I would of voted in favour of Ukraine yesterday but couldn’t because I don't live in the US.
I suspect living in the US without being a US citizen wouldn't have had much of an impact here
@@heinrichbMe when I spread misinformation online: 🥰🥰🥰
im sorry that your family has to deal with a homonazi son
Ukraine? Lmao won't be for long
WDYM?
I'm gonna be honest, not just the wiki but the game as well does.... interesting stuff as well. For example, I shot a Sherman above the mantlet and it died immediatly (I used a KV-1S for reference) and then I met with the same turret on a similar sherman but I couldn't pen it. When I checked the protection analysis on the latter one I found that the weakness is exactly where I shot it, according to the hit cam. So, wth? Not only that but sometimes a regular Sherman can kill me in the KV-1S from the front, eventhough they don't shoot my LFP which is impossible according to my previous experiences.
Sorry I just had to get this off my chest, I'll watch the video now
Sherman deserves some bs. It's such a bad vehicle in wt
@@Denkmaldrubernacht no they need to make a better game, bs is just encouraging toxic gameplay
@@Denkmaldrubernachtit is not. I tried it in the French tech tree and in the American in the form of the 105mm Sherman, it is a full on badass on its own BR. It's not bad just hard to use
@@LastGoatKnight RNG
@@Hamidikinvolumetric is still the worst update they kept in in the history of the game. This is why most of this bs happens. Interesting how a 20mm detonates the ammo but a 75mm/88mm APHE sometimes just makes it yellow or orange. Not to mention the Panther mantlet that's made out of black hole or the driver viewport on German tanks that eats rounds for snack, no matter the caliber (except the high caliber HE but that doesn't count)
On helicopters with mast mounted optics it says on the wiki pro's that it can fire missiles while only exposing the mast mounted optics, which doesn't work, it hasn't worked for like 2 years now i think, there is still a bug report out there