aircraft/loadouts Fiat G.91Y

[CaID 8,996]

4 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

Where is that logic comming from? You really want to let a single subsonic jet fight against supersonic designs? Slightly ovekill, gg... Not

 

I the point is the G91Y like most of the jet with afterburner have a fast acceleration which make the G91Y very hard to catch up even if the top speed is not so faster than the other planes. personally i wouldn't mind to add a few plane with afterburner who aren't yest supersonic. many ground attacker are subsonic and have the afterburner. such as the Su-7.

 

so the subsonic afterburner why not. but at about 9.0 to be fair with the other planes.

[Q_Garbage_Q@psn 2,092]

I say no. Afterburners is stuff for a 10.0 BR. Just look at this thing´s stats... almost 90 m/s climb rate while the dreaded Hunter has HALF that. Not only should the G91Y not be added to 9.0, it shouldn´t even be placed in a future 10.0 that can downtier to 9.0. If we ever get 10.0 with afterburners, those planes should be barred from fighting 9.0s due to the huge difference in performance. Any 9.0 would instantly be useless, especially considering that proper fighter jets with afterburners are usually supersonic to boot.

Edited June 26, 2017 by *Q_Garbage_Q

[CaID 8,996]

2 hours ago, *Q_Garbage_Q said:

I say no. Afterburners is stuff for a 10.0 BR. Just look at this thing´s stats... almost 90 m/s climb rate while the dreaded Hunter has HALF that. Not only should the G91Y not be added to 9.0, it shouldn´t even be placed in a future 10.0 that can downtier to 9.0. If we ever get 10.0 with afterburners, those planes should be barred from fighting 9.0s due to the huge difference in performance. Any 9.0 would instantly be useless, especially considering that proper fighter jets with afterburners are usually supersonic to boot.

 

 

i am sorry. remind me why your "no" should overcome Gaijin's decision? the only thing we can do here is to suggest. not decide.

however, if they decide to give the afterburner to the game, they will probably add other jet with similar performance. because there is jet without afterburner with similar or better performance than the G91Y. leave to Gaijin the right to choose and the duty to balance the game.

[Q_Garbage_Q@psn 2,092]

8 hours ago, CaID said:

 

 

i am sorry. remind me why your "no" should overcome Gaijin's decision? the only thing we can do here is to suggest. not decide.

however, if they decide to give the afterburner to the game, they will probably add other jet with similar performance. because there is jet without afterburner with similar or better performance than the G91Y. leave to Gaijin the right to choose and the duty to balance the game.

"I say no" means I just gave my opinion, being that they shouldn't add it. You're acting as if I'm giving Gaijin orders or something.
I'd say that the ridiculously good climb rate and acceleration on afterburner jets, even this sub-sonic one, are too much to fight 9.0 jets. The performance gap is even so extreme that if there was a 10.0 BR it would still screw up 9.0 battles because of downtier. Afterburner jets should perhaps even be 11.0 to isolate them from everything else (certain jets could be 10.0, but not the G91Y, in my opinion). I mean, it has TWICE the climb rate of the jet with the highest climb rate at the moment and undoubtedly a similar acceleration difference as well. And people are already complaining about that jet as is. It's a sure-fire way to break 9.0, even if every nation gets an afterburner jet. Anything that doesn't have an afterburner would be at a disadvantage so huge that one BR difference doesn't justify it.
All they'd have to do is exploit the climb rate to escape everything in an instant, or of course the acceleration if the opponent is not yet at 1100 kph. It'd be a complete hell for 9.0 and I can't even begin to imagine the response of the community, given that they already complain about jets like the Hunter. 9.0 has rather delicate balancing and the position every new jet needs to be looked at in detail, lest that balance get skewed.

Having said that, I'd thoroughly enjoy a new BR with afterburner jets. There is a place for them in War Thunder if you ask me, but what that place is needs to be carefully looked at.

[CaID 8,996]

1 hour ago, *Q_Garbage_Q said:

"I say no" means I just gave my opinion, being that they shouldn't add it. You're acting as if I'm giving Gaijin orders or something.
I'd say that the ridiculously good climb rate and acceleration on afterburner jets, even this sub-sonic one, are too much to fight 9.0 jets. The performance gap is even so extreme that if there was a 10.0 BR it would still screw up 9.0 battles because of downtier. Afterburner jets should perhaps even be 11.0 to isolate them from everything else (certain jets could be 10.0, but not the G91Y, in my opinion). I mean, it has TWICE the climb rate of the jet with the highest climb rate at the moment and undoubtedly a similar acceleration difference as well. And people are already complaining about that jet as is. It's a sure-fire way to break 9.0, even if every nation gets an afterburner jet. Anything that doesn't have an afterburner would be at a disadvantage so huge that one BR difference doesn't justify it.
All they'd have to do is exploit the climb rate to escape everything in an instant, or of course the acceleration if the opponent is not yet at 1100 kph. It'd be a complete hell for 9.0 and I can't even begin to imagine the response of the community, given that they already complain about jets like the Hunter. 9.0 has rather delicate balancing and the position every new jet needs to be looked at in detail, lest that balance get skewed.

Having said that, I'd thoroughly enjoy a new BR with afterburner jets. There is a place for them in War Thunder if you ask me, but what that place is needs to be carefully looked at.

the russian have 60m/sec.

[Malko07 556]

Afterburner or not afterburner seems to be a big issue, I don't get the point here. In all tiers, fast planes fly along with slow ones, (slow Ju87, and Spits for example). In 60s some fighters got afterburner (F104, Mirage III, Mig 21) others didn't (Mig 17,Mystère IV,Hunter) and almost all the bombers didn't have one too. And nobody here is speaking about the hudge fuel consumption when using it, resulting in cutting down to 50% your time available before refueling. Like in WWII, in cold war period each nation had fast and slow planes, and I don't know why that is functioning already for 39-45 shouldn't for 60s.

[Q_Garbage_Q@psn 2,092]

7 hours ago, Malko07 said:

Afterburner or not afterburner seems to be a big issue, I don't get the point here. In all tiers, fast planes fly along with slow ones, (slow Ju87, and Spits for example). In 60s some fighters got afterburner (F104, Mirage III, Mig 21) others didn't (Mig 17,Mystère IV,Hunter) and almost all the bombers didn't have one too. And nobody here is speaking about the hudge fuel consumption when using it, resulting in cutting down to 50% your time available before refueling. Like in WWII, in cold war period each nation had fast and slow planes, and I don't know why that is functioning already for 39-45 shouldn't for 60s.

Jets are not props... Speed has a completely different role in jet combat and is of a lot more importance than it is with props. Pretty much the only thing the Hunter has going for it, for example, is speed and acceleration. Due to this ONLY, does it club at 9.0.

[CaID 8,996]

9 hours ago, Malko07 said:

Afterburner or not afterburner seems to be a big issue, I don't get the point here. In all tiers, fast planes fly along with slow ones, (slow Ju87, and Spits for example). In 60s some fighters got afterburner (F104, Mirage III, Mig 21) others didn't (Mig 17,Mystère IV,Hunter) and almost all the bombers didn't have one too. And nobody here is speaking about the hudge fuel consumption when using it, resulting in cutting down to 50% your time available before refueling. Like in WWII, in cold war period each nation had fast and slow planes, and I don't know why that is functioning already for 39-45 shouldn't for 60s.

indeed. the after burn can bring some disadvantage forcing the player to watch their used. without mentioning the G from the acceleration that would be multiplied with the turning G making the maneuver a bit more risky and making the afterburner a thing better to use in strait line. i think as long there are still subsonic, they can fit in the game but in the high tier. at BR.9.0 the afterburner planes wouldn't be so out matching the other fighters. and just have to remember there is a few other planes that people what to see in the game that would have a comparable performance.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

On 26.6.2017 at 11:36 PM, *Q_Garbage_Q said:

I say no. Afterburners is stuff for a 10.0 BR. Just look at this thing´s stats... almost 90 m/s climb rate while the dreaded Hunter has HALF that. Not only should the G91Y not be added to 9.0, it shouldn´t even be placed in a future 10.0 that can downtier to 9.0. If we ever get 10.0 with afterburners, those planes should be barred from fighting 9.0s due to the huge difference in performance. Any 9.0 would instantly be useless, especially considering that proper fighter jets with afterburners are usually supersonic to boot.

10.3: problem solved

[CaID 8,996]

10 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

10.3: problem solved

the hunter is not the best climber. it is good but not yet the best. even there, it's not uncommon to see plane mixing with better climber and faster plane in every tier. the hunter still can put a good fight against the G91K just as any other plane at Br.9.0 and even some in br.8.0. just like when you are using the P-40E and half of the game have Biplanes. that may happen some game that you have a good advantage over your foes or you foes have a better plane. it's the challenge of the game to have a bit of unbalanced battle. the G91K is advantaged but still need to be careful

[Q_Garbage_Q@psn 2,092]

10 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

10.3: problem solved

I 100% agree. I think a separate tier for afterburners, which can´t be downtiered, is the only solution that does not involve ruining the balance of 9.0. And I would absolutely love to see planes like the G91Y and more

 

20 minutes ago, CaID said:

the hunter is not the best climber. it is good but not yet the best. even there, it's not uncommon to see plane mixing with better climber and faster plane in every tier. the hunter still can put a good fight against the G91K just as any other plane at Br.9.0 and even some in br.8.0. just like when you are using the P-40E and half of the game have Biplanes. that may happen some game that you have a good advantage over your foes or you foes have a better plane. it's the challenge of the game to have a bit of unbalanced battle. the G91K is advantaged but still need to be careful

Again, props are not jets. A tier 3 prop can easily kill a tier 4, but the performance difference between jets is greatly different to that between props. It has the speed of the Hunter, twice the acceleration AND unlike the Hunter it has good manoeuvrability. And the Hunter already clubs at 9.0. It´s a horrible idea. We need afterburner jets for each nation, all with a BR of 10.3 min, or 10.0 if there´s one that would not ruin 9.0 in a downtier (G91Y would)

[Malko07 556]

In 60,s last prop (turboprops) planes were mainly transport or high bombers and recon planes (lot of Soviet ones in cold war pictures "intercepted" by F4s or Lightnings), except AD4, or OV10A used in vietnam for CAS or FAC purposes. So if WT enters 60s with planes like the G91Y, props will be almost not present anymore, and advantages of afterburner being balanced by its hudge fuel consumption, the real problem will come from nations status which as to be turn from WWII into cold war one (as it is already ridiculous to see G9I along with old WWII Germans jets fighting against allied ones). And if it goes further the implementation of AAMs and AGMs.

[Smin1080p 60,444]

Suggestion passed to the developers for review 

[leroyonly 4,310]

As the G.91 Y has been implemented with Update 2.19 Drone Age,

 

Moved to Implemented Suggestions.