History of Japanese Planes on FH

"The Zero Fighter drew first blood on September 13, 1940 when thirteen A6M2s led by Lt Saburo Shindo attacked a force of 27 Chinese-piloted Polikarkpov I-15s and I-16s, shooting down all the Chinese aircraft with no Japanese losses."

"During the first year of the Pacific War, the standard shipboard fighter serving with the US Navy was the Grumman F4F Wildcat. The A6M2 was superior to the F4F Wildcat in speed, climb rate, and maneuverability, but the Wildcat had better firepower and was more robust. In a dive the two aircraft were fairly equal, but the turning circle of the Zero Fighter was very much smaller than that of the Wildcat by virtue of its lower wing loadings. "
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html

The information goes on and on for every modle of zeke and their history.....Unless you can find evidence that says otherwise "you wont" then I suggest you silence your poor attempts to argue a change that needs to happen. All the sites will say the zeke could outurn, and outclimb most all allied aircraft, which in WB isnt even close to the case...Its dive speed is modled low like it should, and It obiously has virtually no armor...So since 90% of reds spray their ammo everywhere anyway, would it hurt to have the zeke get back the performance that history says it had?

"The Zeros then turned towards New Guinea and the Solomons. During this campaign, the Reisen consistently mastered the Curtiss P-40s and the Bell P-39s and P-400s that the Allies threw against them. The Airacobra was no match for the Zero in air-to-air combat, and Saburo Sakai regarded the P-39 as a relatively easy "kill" for a pilot of any experience. "

"Information from these tests in the United States was quickly passed along to operational units in the Pacific which were able to improve their tactics against the nimble Zero which had ruled the Pacific skies for the first six months of the Pacific War. The tests confirmed that the Zero Fighter had an excellent climb rate, and could easily outclimb both the F4F Wildcat and the Curtiss P-40. "

 

im not askin for quotes..
im askin for proof of what uve written above

 

Well, I don't think anyone here is really denying that the A6M series needs to be looked into, allsop. By the way, the typo I was referring to is still there: "If you look up the numbers, the a6m should outurn the a6m ..."

 

I have no idea what your talking about ^_^

 

Jap planes handel just fine if your not near max lvl speed. since they lose handling near max speed now, have 100% fuel, and 80% of pilots never take trotel off 100%. it will always handel for shit.
Not saying its right. i dont know if it is. but if u do what p40E pilots are forced to,( You know SLOW down), it hanes better then f4f or p40s( there contempery rivals) at those lower speeds. I rather think its the spits and 109s and 190 and some others that turn to well at high speeds making jap planes seem like shit.

 

Gryphon, do you make bank on what you smoke or do you just find it under the kitchen sink?

 

A6M2 Wing Loading (Loaded)- 22 lbs./sq. ft.
A6M3 Wing Loading (Loaded)- 24.2 lbs./sq. ft.
A6M5a Wing Loading (Loaded)- 26.3 lbs./sq. ft.

KI-43-II Wing Loading (Loaded)- 24.8 lbs./sq. ft.
KI-61-Ib Wing Loading (Loaded)- 30.2 lbs./sq. ft.
KI-84-Ia Wing Loading (Loaded)- 35.2 lbs./sq. ft.

Spitfire Mk.1a Wing Loading (Loaded)- 25.6 lbs./sq. ft.
Spitfire Mk.5 Wing Loading (Loaded)- 27.4 lbs./sq. ft.
Spitfire Mk.9e Wing Loading (Loaded)- 30.2 lbs./sq. ft.

Bf.109 F-4 Wing Loading (Loaded)- 35.0 lbs./sq. ft.

FW-190 A-4 Wing Loading (Loaded) "full-up" 190 A-4- 38.8 lbs./sq. ft.

P-47D Wing Loading (Loaded)- 43.9 lbs./sq. ft.

D3A Wing Loading (Loaded)- 22.3 lbs./sq. ft.

F4F-4 Wing Loading (Loaded)- 29.9 lbs./sq. ft.
F6F-5 Wing Loading (Loaded)- 34.1 lbs./sq. ft.

These were researched at: http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/

If I had to rank the planes in turning ability I would rank them as follows: (descending order)

A6M2
D3A
A6M3
KI-43-II
Spitfire Mk.1a
A6M5a
Spitfire Mk.5
F4F-4
KI-61-Ib
Spitfire Mk.9e
F6F-5
Bf-109 F-4
KI-84-Ia
FW-190 A-4
P-47D

There are many noteworthy observations to be made from these statistics. First of all, the top three planes are Japanese. Even a Japanese dive bomber would out turn any Spitfire. So overall, the Japanese planes constitute the upper section of turn performance. The Spitfire series occupies the mid range of turning performance. The American planes designed to fight in the Pacific have turn performance superior to that of the German planes. Also worth noting is that the German planes are at the bottom of the scale-where they should be in a realistic flight model, but still are not far off from the F6F's turn performance. And of course the P-47D comprises the very bottom of turn performance.

However, we are talking about Japanese planes. I have included other planes' turn performance as a relativity tool-just as it would happen on FH. Two planes meet in combat and there is a margin of performance, just as there is a margin of turn performance between the planes on my chart. In the context of this thread, the chart of turn performance I have shown you is echoed in the flight modeling of Warbirds 2.76-77. Allsop has provided the real-world effects of the data which I have provided, so let it be known that mine and allsop's case has solid information backing it.

 

just curious, where does p38 (and if not too much trouble - hurricanes) belong on this scale?

 

keep as is and concentrate manpower on abuses or possible cheaterfilters. i am a dummy on knowledge of reality-behave of planes and i "learn" planes advantages in wb. ppl thinking some planes are uber but maybe a little decrease of big advantages gives more fun to play.

 

Zero is a parody in WB and that's a fact...I got (or had) info from my Japanese colleague, jap planes historian with exact datas on A6m3 i think, from Maru Mech (Japanese series of books - authority when it comes to these)...when compared to Zero's "performance" in WB (any version)...well...it IS a zero (0)...literally

 

As for the wing loading, guys, it doesn't determine turning ability of the plane, it's only one of many factors. For example hurricane's thick wing profile generates much more lift than spitfire's thin wing, 109's leading edge wing slats allow it to fly at higher angles of attack and so on. The airplane's mass also counts, area, shape and positioning of steering surfaces also... I'm not aerodynamics or flight physics expert but basing on logic this involves many more factors than just wing loading so your ranking squirl is pointless.

 

Yeah, the Zero is definitely wortj a big fat 0 in FH. The F4F has it for lunch, which is just no where near how things went IRL.

IMO a correctly modelled zeke would be too good in FH, so it has been dumbed down to stupid proportions. A middle ground might be a better idea.

 

I don't think it would be too good, glas. It would be a nightmare for Spits and other planes whose main strength was in the turning compartment, but dedicated B&Z planes should be able to deal with it just fine.

 

I am almost sure the difference of climb on WB is nowhere near of what it was in RL (hurri 1, spit 1, 109E4, 110C4)
Hurr still has minor advantage in turning and is a bit stronger, but lacks main thing.

 

In early war, the only BnZ planes were 109s really, there isnt any Allied planes which fit that description in 1940.

In later war, the zeke is outdated anyway and too slow (as it was IRL) but in early war, it would be king of the skies.

Reds wouldnt have a plane to cope with it. Since Golds have the 109, which is a great plane early war and definitely the best all-round plane, imo admins have decided they cant have 2 great planes on the 1 side, for balance sakes.

However, they should increase the ability of the zeke in later war, since even pitting it at its top performance in the arena in, f.ex 1943, would still make it a rarely flown plane. It was outdated by then, so no need to continue to pork it.

 

Well it appears to me once the Wildcat pilots adjusted their tactics they gave the Zeke's a pretty good run for their money. I don't believe the Zeke in RL was quite as insurmountable as some claim.

 

They didn't. They only increased own chances for survival.

 

Redant, Did you actually read how f4f pilots adjusted their tactics? Keywords first...."OutNumer, Outrun"...So, If you read up, the f4f only became effective against the zero in 2 ways...One, the f4f could take more damamge and the pilot would just put the nose down and RUN away. The 2nd tactic was the thatch and weave, Which involved F4f's having to be more numerous than just a single pilot, and if it were 2vs2 then the rear f4f would soon have a zeke on his tail too.....so they would need to outnumber for the tactic to stay effective....

The zeke was an amazing plane, dont even argue, its faults are in its defense, low armor and poor fuel tank protection and pilot protection...But come on, the a6m has worse armor than the i16 or i15s here in wb! Both of those russian planes are open canopy and the i15 is canvas and wood!...Yet it takes much more damage than even a thinly sheetmetaled aircraft? Just give the things its handling back.

As far as wing loading meaning nothing of turn performance, look at the order of the chart, from the layout it sounds very much like RL to me.

 

I agree with Allsop and my Scottish m8 in that matter...Zero would be superior in early war to anything reds would throw at them (even spitfire tactics would be to run the hell out, trying "step climbing" constantly - many don't know that zeke had an enormous acceleration and great climb...like Chinese pilots used to say "Zero is an impossible fighter, it is unbelieveable what it can do"

PS. there was one simple rule when fighting with Zero: if u loose speed, u're dead...no chance at all

 

If you don't take my word for it read these:

"Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft. To manuver and aircraft the wing must generate extra force, lift, which it does by increasing the angle of attack. This has the side effect of also increasing the induced drag, slowing the aircraft down, which has to be offset by increasing power. For any particular design there is a maximum amount of manuvering that the engine can make up for, known as the sustained turn performance. Planes with lower wing loading will not have to increase their angle of attack as much in order to supply any particular amount of lift, so lower wing loading leads to higher sustained turn performance. This is the primary explaination for the famous difference in manuverability between the Supermarine Spitfire and Messerschmitt Bf-109, the later used much higher wing loading in order to reduce drag for higher speeds, but in doing so limited its manuverability (which the German pilots did not consider important)." -http://www.fact-index.com/w/wi/wing_loading.html

"The Zero was designed by Jiro Horikoshi (my father, who had a hand in the P-38 and later models of the P-51 as an AAF aeronautical engineer, was honored to meet Mr. Horikoshi after the war) to fulfill Japanese Navy requirements for great range, rapid climb, high speed, and above all superior maneuverability. These were the characteristics desired by Japanese fighter pilots. In order to get them, the Zero was designed with a very low wing loading" -http://www.chuckhawks.com/zero_A6M.htm

"The F-15's maneuverability and acceleration are achieved through high engine thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading. Low wing-loading (the ratio of aircraft weight to its wing area) is a vital factor in maneuverability and, combined with the high thrust-to-weight ratio, enables the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed." -http://www.wordiq.com/definition/F-15_Eagle

"Rather than convert all fighter production to the Focke-Wulf 190, or to some other design, the Powers that Be basically told Messerschmitt to put a better engine in the Bf 109. This was done (the Dailmer Benz DB 605), but the new engine was heavier, adding weight, reducing the maneuverability. This in turn required heavier struts for the landing gear to support the greater weight, further weighing down the plane, and further reducing it's maneuverability as the wing loading went up." -http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/Bf109G6.htm

"Most airplane designs focus on one attribute to the detriment of others. A plane optimized for speed doesn't turn so well. The reason for this is that a low wing loading creates an excellent turning plane, but at the same time, all that extra wing area adds drag to the plane, decreasing its top speed." -http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/Ki84Ia.htm

All of these sources state that wing loading is the most inflential factor in the turn performance of planes. It is not the only factor, but decreasing wing loading (a good thing) improves turn performance more than modifying anything else. I wish I did not have to repeat myself so often, but I feel it is necessary when something like this comes up.

To summarize, the effect wing loading has on maneuverabilty can be stated as follows:

Wings produce more lift at higher angles of attack. In a turn, the wing needs to have higher angles of attack to compensate for g-forces. A wing with a lower wing loading has less weight to hold up proportional to the area of the wing. Therefore, in a turn, the pilot would not need to increase the angle of attack as much in order to sustain the plane in flight, and it follows that if he did increase angle of attack more than was necessary, he would turn even sharper. It is the ability to draw upon excess lift that governs a plane's turn performance.

After you have read this and digested its information, look at the wing loading figures I posted earlier, --stec.