Jump to content


Thunderjets or no?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

hvPALANTIRION #1 Posted 06 October 2016 - 12:00 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 51 battles
  • 500
  • [HV] HV
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
I love the P-47 line - keeping all of them up through the XP-72. But the F-84s statistically seem to lose the magic. I have the FJ-1 and F-86, love them, keeping them. What does the F-84 bring to the table? Not guns, at tiers 9 and 10 they are the same as the P-51 line planes. And not speed, by any meaningful measure. Certainly they handle worse than the planes I already have. If I want to kill GTs I have other planes to do it better. So, is there any reason to proceed, or should I just stop and enjoy the line that I have so far?

Porkins_Jr #2 Posted 06 October 2016 - 12:03 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 5,280
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013
I just got the Thunderjet. It's stock right now. I've flown it 2 times, I think. No opinion as of yet.

Gang_Starr #3 Posted 06 October 2016 - 12:09 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2 battles
  • 3,845
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    04-09-2014

I loved the tiers 6-8, then got the 9 and it is a really bad plane. Was supposed to have the speed of a Pirate and the Maneuverability of an FJ-1 at mid-alt, yet it has no speed and no maneuverability, as well as no range on the guns. I hated that plane, willing to bet the tier 10 is the same way.

 

It would be amazing if we had 3vs3s again since it has 12 rockets and 2 tiny tims but the way the game is now the ordnance is absolutely useless :/


Tenks


CrazyHeinz #4 Posted 06 October 2016 - 02:27 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 3 battles
  • 888
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    10-30-2012
Tiers 9-10 are okay at best. Decent maneuverability and armor for the class, but anemic guns.


CrazyHeinz #5 Posted 06 October 2016 - 02:27 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 3 battles
  • 888
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    10-30-2012

View PostGang_Starr, on 05 October 2016 - 07:09 PM, said:

I hated that plane, willing to bet the tier 10 is the same way.

Yahtzee!



pyantoryng #6 Posted 06 October 2016 - 03:18 AM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2173 battles
  • 8,444
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Seems like a stuff of gimmick...given that it carries dual rockets...

WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

BobozeeBear #7 Posted 06 October 2016 - 11:10 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 264 battles
  • 450
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013
Tier 9 &10 are by far the weakest planes in that line, very disappointing. Mine are wall hangers for now until they get a little love

Edited by BobozeeBear, 06 October 2016 - 11:11 AM.

Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)


Sassover #8 Posted 06 October 2016 - 12:33 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 172 battles
  • 1,459
  • Member since:
    11-28-2013
They are definitely "challenge" planes, meaning if you want to test your skill, get them. Strong points are climb rate/boost and overall power of the guns. Weaknesses are speed, high alt performance & range of the guns. Also, if you like rockets, its got 14 of them.

 

 


hawkeyededic #9 Posted 06 October 2016 - 02:50 PM

    Resident Researcher

  • -Community Ace-
  • 962 battles
  • 2,036
  • [WG-CA] WG-CA
  • Member since:
    10-05-2012

Fort once Persha got something historically accurate. The F-84s were slow and unmaneuvarable, but very stable and sturdy with the ability to carry a decent ordinance load, including tactical nuclear bombs. The were never very good at their intended role of bomber escort, but were very very good at ground attack.

 

I've not played the Thunderjets since CT, but I remember them being very good at the air to ground roll until you used up all their bombs and/or rockets, then they were fair to middling in the air-to-air roll, unlike their predecessors.



 

Hawkeye's Hangar, your one stop spot for all my repaints. Like me on Facebook for news, updates and more.


Vanize #10 Posted 06 October 2016 - 03:10 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 577
  • Member since:
    05-21-2014

I was totally prepared for the F-84B to be a dog after loving the thunderbolts. But I actually like it  reasonably well and have done ok with it ( 58 battles with 57% win rate).

 

The F-84F on the other hand... wretched. It is no better than the F-84B, and it is routinely up against stronger opponents. I suck at the F model (7 Battles and 29% win rate). Given I am horrible with it and I have no where to go with it since it is the end of the tree, I doubt I'll fly this much more ever.



Porkins_Jr #11 Posted 06 October 2016 - 03:34 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 5,280
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013

View Posthawkeyededic, on 06 October 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Fort once Persha got something historically accurate. The F-84s were slow and unmaneuvarable, but very stable and sturdy with the ability to carry a decent ordinance load, including tactical nuclear bombs. The were never very good at their intended role of bomber escort, but were very very good at ground attack.s.

 

I have fun using my P.228 as a GA plane. I'll research the Tiny Tims then use the Thunderjet as a GA as well.


Edited by Porkins_Jr, 06 October 2016 - 03:34 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users