Jump to content


XF90 (give it a faster turn time)


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

Mojoe_Bailey #1 Posted 30 April 2018 - 03:14 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1443 battles
  • 45
  • Member since:
    02-03-2018

I don't understand why XF90 has a 17.4 second turn time when the Gloster Javelin which has a heavier frame, much more hit points, and a bigger gun armament has a 15.4 second turn time. Seems like a ton of anti-American bias, don't you think? Also, the Me 262 HG III has a 15.4 second turn time as well, and has bigger guns too that wreck you in head ons...they are nose mounted. Why do these big heavy jets with bigger heavier guns and bigger heavier ammo belts inside and heavier everything out-turn XF90!? This is NOT historically accurate and it also makes no common sense. 

 

So both these heavy fighters out-turn the XF90! This is not fair. XF90 as it plays right now in the current meta is garbage with that bomber/GA type turn time. Certain ground attackers can out-turn XF90! You can't turn properly in XF90 to get your guns on anything. And if a Me 262 HG III follows you, you just have to accept your fate and take it up the rear every time. There is no option to turn fight it. Like I said, NOT fair. Anti-American bias. 

 

From comparing the XF90 to the Gloster Javelin, which is much heavier and has more hit points...it is actually the Javelin that should have the 17.4 second turn time and the fast and light XF90 should have 15.4, but never mind that. I don't want to hurt the UK, so....I say have both these jets turn 360 degrees in 15.4 seconds and we are good. Just make XF90 turn 15.4 seconds to be fair and I believe it will be a great aircraft that a lot of people will use. Heavy fighters already suffer in the meta at tier X, so we need this. 

 

Additional things the developers need to add are: 2 bombs to the Gloster Javelin, two heavy rockets to the Me 262 HG III. Make Javelin 30mm Addens more accurate, better dispersion. Give HG III 30mm guns a little more range and better dispersion. 

 

If all 3 of these aircraft turned at 15.4 seconds, everything would be great. Make these heavy fighters great! Heavies really drop off at tier X and we need them buffed a bit to make game play more exciting and diverse.

 

Players, please post your thoughts on this. I have wanted to play XF90 but I refuse to grind up to it until I see that abysmal turn time changed to equal its peers. On paper, the XF90 certainly looks like garbage compared to the two other heavies and it plays that way too from what I've seen on youtube. Me 262 every time, kills it. No chance to fight back. You are essentially running away from everything with that garbage 17.4 second turn. 



SpiritFoxMY #2 Posted 30 April 2018 - 04:07 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2794 battles
  • 1,868
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    12-31-2012

I personally don't buy into "anti-American bias" talk: I love my Corsair and my Mustang - had a ridiculous hard carry in a Corsair yesterday against a swarm of Yaks and Zeroes...

 

... that said, I see my cousin struggle mightily in the XF90 - his PP is in the 5k average range which is barely effective in my book. He complains mostly of the massive turn radius making it really hard for him to fly on compact maps without accidentally flying into a swarm of enemy fighters. He also has problems keeping his guns on target. Standard hard boom and zoom problems: I think the issue with the XF90 is it is very different from the preceding American heavies which have tended to be more maneuverable than their British and German counterparts (110s and 410s have 16s turns which isn't much different from the 17s of the XF90).

 

I'll let others answer this more clearly but I personally dislike high tier heavy gameplay as it currently is.


***

But a truce to this mournful story

For death is a distant friend

So here's to a life of glory

And a laurel to crown each end


Reitousair #3 Posted 30 April 2018 - 08:14 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6508 battles
  • 458
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

Personally, I haven't had any issues with the XF-90 until it comes to hitting tiny little planes like the Ki-162-III. It has the same DPS as an IL-40P... but you travel at mach speed (almost, as Mach 1 is ~1250KPH). The turn time is an eternity but I found it to be good enough to use in conjunction with the insane speed to blast away from enemy aircraft so that I can take an eternity to get back around for another pass.

 

If anything, I'd say the XF-90 only really needs a buff to roll rate and maybe a bit more responsiveness in the elevators. But with practice (and a decent framerate, the XF-90 is outright unplayable at <25FPS due to the absurd speed) I managed to get it to work to devastating effect, ripping apart enemy fighters, heavy fighters, and GA usually in a single pass.

 

HF's when played right rule the meta of tier 10, as their DPS is off the charts to the point not even GA can stand up to them for very long, I've one-passed IL-40P's built for durability in my XF-90 and Javelin. Though, HF gameplay at tier 10 is rock-paper-scissors with some skill and positioning thrown into the mix that could potentially upset the balance. I forget how the triangle goes but I think it's...

XF-90 beats HG III due to monstrous speed and consistent DPS against the HG III's low health pool, along with HG III having a similar boost length with less power.

HG III beats Javelin due to the Javelin being huge and those 30's can tear up that health pool ultra fast, the HG III also decelerates alright.

Javelin beats XF-90 due to the monstrous boost time and speed-control of the aircraft along with the long-range ADEN's to pick off the XF-90 from a decent range.

 

Trust me man, XF-90 is worth it, but you have to play it completely different from every other HF in the game, it's in a class of its own practically. (you also need to have a decent framerate, DO NOT play it if you can't get a decent framerate on your computer.) 


I do fly Chinese aircraft a fair amount so... *ahem*

CHINA NUMBAH WAN

 

I even made a custom skin for my IL-10M!

 


mnbv_fockewulfe #4 Posted 30 April 2018 - 07:43 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 3,039
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

(clearly doesn't understand how turning time actually works)

Turn isn't only to do with weight.

For example: the P-38 (a heavy twin engine craft) could out-turn the Fw 190 (a lighter single engine craft) in most circumstances. 

Turning is most directly correlated to "wing loading". Wing loading is how much area there is in the wing providing lift for how much the whole aircraft weighs. If you have a high wing loading, there is a smaller area of wing lifting a heavier aircraft. A low wing loading means there is a large wing lifting a lighter aircraft. At slow speed, the larger the wing the more and easier lift will be generated. The larger the lift, the greater the change in pitch you can effect in a turn. A smaller wing has to have more airflow over it in order to generate more lift to effect the same change in pitch as a larger wing. 

 

What does this mean for the XF-90?

Despite having a lighter airframe, it probably has a smaller wing area and therefore a higher wing loading. As an example for the Javelin, it has these special vortex generators on the wings to increase airflow over them at low speeds (a contribution to maneuverability not dependent on wing loading). 

Another befit of a smaller wings is less drag at high speed (and therefore better turning at high speed). 

Compare the performance bands of the XF-90 to the Javelin. I can almost guarantee the XF-90 has a higher optimum alt.  


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


FluffyPabu #5 Posted 30 April 2018 - 07:43 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5968 battles
  • 470
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012
in my opinion, XF-90 needs a better gun parameters (damage) compared to its rivals.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users