Hoof's tests say that the stall speed of the A6M2 is 97 kmh. The real-life information gives a stall speed of 102 kmh (for the A6M3). If Hoof's numbers are close to the Warbirds numbers and the Warbirds numbers are close to the real-life numbers, it follows that Hoof's numbers are close to the real-life numbers for at least low-speed handling. Now look at PressLuftHammer's numbers. Keep in mind that the real-life stall speed is very close to 102 kmh for the A6M2. At a speed of 145 kmh, the A6M2 can complete one turn in 130 seconds. When viewing Hammer's graphs it must be considered that any speed slower than 145 kmh is outside of the A6M's flight envelope. Lower airspeeds only bring the A6M's turn time closer to infinity. An infinite turn time is, I guess, another way of saying "stall." The concept that lower airspeed brings a plane closer to a stall is correct. PressLuftHammer's stall speed is about 40 kmh too high, however. 40 kmh may not seem like much, but having a stall speed that is 40 kmh lower than your opponent's stall speed is an incredible advantage in vertical maneuvers. As Hoof said, the wing loading of the A6M3 is not much higher than that of the A6M2. The lower weight/power ratio of the A6M3 (5 lb/hp for the A6M3 amd 5.5 lb/hp for the A6M2) weighs heavily in favor of the A6M3. In addition, the wingspan of the A6M3 is smaller than that of the A6M2, allowing for easier control handling at low speeds. This greater control ability enables the A6M3 to defeat the A6M2, because the A6M2's slight turning ability cannot overcome the A6M3's better control ability and the A6M3's extra power where it is needed most - at low speeds.
Squirl, you've definitely put a lot of work into these analyses and with good intentions -- I appreciate that effort. I'm much too lazy for such things (being backgrounded in the liberal arts and not engineering), which likely explains why I'm a flying target Anyway, that's cool stuff.
I calculate for speed high stall speed. Its advanced for fight at low speed near stall speed. But high speed in best turn about 40kmph got high E in time high tune performance. For example estimation of E(in cinetick alt). H=V^2/(2*9,81) A6M2 269kmph H= 284,6m SpitIX LF 304kmph H=363,4m SpitIX LF have advanced in energy about 28% Increased wing loading -increased radius turn (approximately proportionally) Increased power engine - increased speed turn (approximately about power^-3) Clipped wings can increased roll, but decreased induction resistanse (Cx induction part) IMHO now flight model A6M not real for fixet it 1) increased turn performance (decrease turn time about 2 sec for all A6M A6M2 15 sec A6M5 17 sec and decrease turn radius) 2) decrease roll performance at average and high speed 3) decrease dive axeleration. For developers pls check canons MG/FF and Type 99 dispersion and damadge effect.
I have completed several tests. That is the quantitative analysis. Conclusions from the data are what need to be made now. An A6M out diving an F4F? This is heresy with respect to the real performances of the two planes. I am surprised that people have not noted this obvious flaw in the A6M's flight model. So what is my qualitative analysis? The A6M, as currently modeled, is a brick. This is the only logical explanation for a plane that loses turn fights and out dives rugged, heavily armored American fighters. The A6M's recent overmodeled damage model could also be the result of an addition of weight to the flight model.
Already in the past the Zekeling could be outturned by the Wildcat. I never spent much time looking into the real life Zeke vs Wildcat accounts, so I've got no hunch as to wether or not that's accurate. One thing I can say though is that it's been like this since 2.77 and earlier I think. It was like that before FH even touched it. I think hoof's numbers would even back this. Too lazy to look that up though. The exact models I'm talking about and that I know how to put in relation to one another are F4F-3 and A6M2 <Z>
For what it is worth, I did purchase the F6F, F4F/FM-2,P-47, and SpitfireV manuals. I do have some pics of charts and various info (stalls, climbs, loads etc) coming. i just have to reduce their size which may effect read ability (small print will be hard to read but I will retype the criticle information or what it says. Anyhow I can tell all here that the F4F-4/Martlet V/FM-1 (FM-1 is basically an F4F-4 just produced by eastern Aircraft Co rather than grumman) had a power load of 5.08 lb/hp and a wing load of 23.5 lb/ft with a 1200 hp engine with a gross weight of 6,100 lb's. I do believe the A6M2 has a lower wing loading but noted by me in another posting/thread i gave an example of the FM-2 against and early no armour A6M-5 that both those planes were very comparable in wing loading and were comparable to the Spit IA in wing loading. the later modelled A6M-5 had some armour protection which gave it a little better diving speed but still lacking behind the F4F in the dive but still dived better than earlier Zekes but control surfaces still suffered from increased speed again more so than the F4F/FM-1. anyhow I have stall speedsfor the F6F and F4F planes from the manuals and I am astonished on what it states. I'm sure this will astonish others as well, first I'll give F6F's, here goes. the stall speed for the F6F loaded to 11,250 lb's (pounds) with a center of gravity of 26% the Hellcat F6F Clean power on 62 Knots = 71.3 mph, 114.9 kph. Clean power off 64 Knots = 73.7 mph, 118.6 kph and with Landing Gear and Flaps down power on stall is 50 Knots = 57.5 mph, 92.7 kph Landing gear and Flaps down power off stall is 53 knots = 61 mph, 98.2 kph FM-2 Clean with power on 68.5 knots = 78.8 mph, 126.9 kph Clean with power on with Flaps down and gear up 61 Knots = 70.2 mph, 113 kph Clean power on with Flaps and gear down 59 knots = 67.9 mph, 109.3 kph Clean power off 74 Knots = 85.7 mph, 138 kph Clean power off with Flaps down 67 knots = 77.1 mph, 124 kph Clean power off with flaps and gear down 65 knots = 74.8 mph, 120.4 kph very astonding imho for stall speeds. also Clean means no drop tanks and bombs/rockets but with ammo in regular fighter non jabo/bomber/mud mover mode. and of coarse power on means engine on and off is engine off or perhaps dead engine failure/shot thru. Anyhow like I said I will post more when I can and I do have photos already from the manuals but, i am in no way computer savvy and they are to large to post at the moment, i must get my computer guru (wife) to assist me in reducing their size so as to post here, please be patient. but in the meantime i do hope this info will be put towards the correction of these aircraft and give a better indication of how they should handle and their for shed more light on how the Zeros should behave P.S. squirl not trying to hijack your topic in anyway because it is a well known fact that the Zero aircraft out manuevered the F6F and F4F (F4Fslightly). but in my recent airial encounters with zeros in the arena they do out turn the F6F, F4F and all Spits. I do agree on your more recent postings in this thread that the Zero does indeed dive and and out dive the F4F and even SpitIX and that it took a long time for the far better speed of the spitIX to eventually pull away from the zero. Hopefully this is being fixed as we speak because imho the turn performance of the zero has been fixed or atleast improved upon, but the dive and lack of compression problems should be fixed on the zeke now.
<S> bizerk for some more nice work. I hope that your findings will be realized by this statement... ...hopefully your F6F and F4F will get the increases they deserve as well.
I love how reds keep draggin the f4f into conversations about the a6m. If the f4f was such a "comparable" turner, then how come tactics such as the "thatch and weave" were needed? Logicly if the f4f could turn just as well as the a6m "it never did" then thatch and weave would not be needed. Acounts cant make up for hard data like what squirl provides, because all acounts tell of the a6m besting the f4f, and the p39's awfull performance. Now do you listen to acounts or the data? Just a thought here- specificly twords the p39 "since we already drug the f4f into a conversation about a6m/spitfire/ki61". America didnt like the p39 for its poor performance. Britain got rid of their p39's to the russians because of their poor performance. Russian pilots do amazingly well in the p39. Some years latter a thing called "russian propaganda" is discovered.......Im just saying......
Reds? I don't see many reds claiming the F4F turned better than the Zero. If you're talking about me I've got two things to say: If I fly, I usually fly gold. Unless my squadron flies red that ToD. I've always preferred to fly gold, and in fact I'm gold at heart. I've been flying gold since before you've had your first erection. I was talking about how the planes related in-game... anything to add? As for the hard data squirl provides. He just shows there's a difference between the flight models in previous installments of the game and the current installment of the game. Again, I'm not so sure iEN's numbers were really that accurate, as the Zero could be outturned by a well flown Wildcat (I guess this was true IRL as well). BTW, it's called Thach Weave, called after John S. Thach. Developed in late 1941.. <Z>
Kinda like our "balanced" RPS allowing the f4f to be availbile BEFORE 1941 period? This is one of those situations where I just kick back and enjoy the irony. Constant insults jutting at questionable knoledge of others....but let me lay this on you as I think its fucking halarious. IRL, America didnt enter world war 2 untill december 7th 1941. Using the roman/christian type calendar that most parts of the world use today- we can conclude that december is the last month of the year. Being as that the thatch and weave was developed in "late" 1941 by your acount, then this suggests the tactic was made near the same time that America entered war with japan. Wow.....imagine that, a tactic being developed after you know what your fighting? Impossible. And imagine that, the chances of the tactic being developed after war on japan was started....a tactic to help pilots survive being attacked by zeros- not to outurn them.....I dont see where you were going with your statement but its all good.
Here and here A little excerpt from the latter: The Thach Weave "Fight as a team and you'll live longer," Lieutenant Commander J.S. "Jimmy" Thach told his men in 1942, after it became clear that the U.S. Navy's F4F Wildcat was no match for the Japanese Zero in single combat. One day while discussing the problem with other pilots Thach pushed matchsticks (representing aircraft) around on a tabletop until he came up with a workable solution. His solution was to fight in pairs, using the ingenious weaving tactic that he devised. The F4Fs would fly parallel courses until attacked, then bank steeply inward. "The quick turn toward each other does two things to the enemy pilot," Thach explained. "It throws off his aim and, because he usually tries to follow his target, it leads him around into a position to be shot by the other member of our team." Convinced by the results, the Navy made the "Thach weave" standard practice and ordered its originator to teach the tactic to other fighter pilots. This maneuver was also adapted by the U.S. Army Air Forces, the British RAF, and the Soviet Air Force. Two Wildcats side by side initiate a Thach weave as a Zero attacks from behind. Here a kill is scored on the second turn. Pictures sourced from original Navy handbooks article provided by Pappy ____ Apart from that, Did you ever watch the Ali-G show? He would have a conversation, and he would just ignore reason and stick to his own thing, clearly for the fun in it. With you, it's the same, even if you'd bring in John S. Thach, or Saburo Sakai, you would still stick to your own thing. Is it idiocy or an attempt at irritating whoever it is you want to irritate, I don't know, it makes you look like the biggest retard I've seen in a loooong time though. Where I was going with that statement? I was correcting you. As you seem to need correction in pretty much anything apart from unzipping your fly. <Z>
A well-flown Wildcat can not out turn a well-flown A6M. Look at this excerpt about a dogfight between an A6M and a F4F: "The Wildcat was starting to smoke. As it pulled up in front of me in a hard loop, a steady amount of back pressure on the stick easily brought my Zero back into firing position. The harder the Wildcat pilot pulled, the easier it was for me to keep him in my gunsight. Just as I was on the verge of finishing him off, he eased off on the stick, rolled over and pointed his nose toward the earth. Within seconds the Grumman was extending away from me and out of range. There was no way I could follow ? no Zero could outdive an American fighter. But he couldn't dive forever, we were barely above 1,000 feet. He would have to pull out. As soon as he did I was on him. Again he pulled up and started a tight turn. With little effort I pulled tighter and, again, had him in my sights, smoke billowing out of his cowling. Just as I was about to fire he dumped the nose and pulled away. He was good, very good. After a few more clashes, each of us using his aircraft's strong points to keep the other at bay, we broke off. He couldn't out run me. I couldn't outdive him. The classic duel of two pilots using the strong points of their aircraft, each unable to bring his guns to bear on the other as a result. I wasn't over the Pacific, it was Ellington Field during the "Tora, Tora, Tora" dogfight portion of the Confederate Air Force Wings Over Houston Airshow. Col Randy Wilson was in the Wildcat and I had been asked to fly the Zero when sponsor/pilot Col John Kelley couldn't get the weekend free." From - http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=36 Clearly even a skilled Wildcat pilot cannot overcome the maneuverability of the A6M - in real life.
Interesting read. I've seen it happen in WB though. But what if the Zero was flown by a less experienced pilot? We can only guess I assume. <Z>
If the A6M was flown by a pilot of less skill than the F4F's pilot, then perhaps the F4F could win a dogfight. Pilot skill is partially determined by how much of the plane's potential the pilot can bring out. What I am saying is that the A6M should have more potential than the F4F has in turning ability.
at alsy: the british did have marlets in there cv fleet in 1940 (marlet is brish name for f4f)and british were in war in 1940. so its not streaching as much as a 109t that never had a accual cv launched from dry dock to take off of. also since at satart of war f4f and sbd are only navel planes avalible. and no one wants to suport adition of erliy british naval planes such as sword fish because its another dreaded biplane. admins allow f4f and sbd at start of war so reds dont have nice pritty empty cvs untill mid 1941. just like admins allow 109t, never flown off deck, and niki, developed for deck but kept home for homland defence because of the decimation to japans carrier fleet, of cvs to help balence out at least alittle the reds super carrier fleet late war.
1. P39 modification in Russia. Remove part weappons (wings M2 at P39Q) and part armor. (grass weigth 3549kg ->3236kg) 2.First P-39 was model P-39D-2 (about 80 airplans)in beginng 1943 year have more power engin V-1710-63 (about 1550HP at S.L. war emergence power 5 min) USAF use P-39D1 in 1941-1942 year with engine power 1150H at S.L. 3. Rissians pilot fight with Germane fighters Bf.109 and FW-190 have bad turn performance vs A6M but best speed, climb, armor .