PDA

View Full Version : A6M2/5 Handling?



Alyssa1127
03-11-2004, 05:23 PM
Does anyone else think that the Zero's handling characteristics are too sluggish? History describes the Zero as being "incredibly agile" and "possessing a phenomenal roll rate", yet she doesn't seem to handle any better than any of the other fighters in the game. This was based on my personal comparison of the Zero vs. the P-40E Warhawk, in which I didn't notice too much of an advantage. Not to say that CFS2 comes close to matching IL2, but in that game, no early model US fighter could keep up with the Zero in a classic turning dogfight, and Microsoft did have the technical advisory assistance of Zero-ace Saburo Sakai.

Just Wondering,

Alyssa

Alyssa1127
03-11-2004, 05:23 PM
Does anyone else think that the Zero's handling characteristics are too sluggish? History describes the Zero as being "incredibly agile" and "possessing a phenomenal roll rate", yet she doesn't seem to handle any better than any of the other fighters in the game. This was based on my personal comparison of the Zero vs. the P-40E Warhawk, in which I didn't notice too much of an advantage. Not to say that CFS2 comes close to matching IL2, but in that game, no early model US fighter could keep up with the Zero in a classic turning dogfight, and Microsoft did have the technical advisory assistance of Zero-ace Saburo Sakai.

Just Wondering,

Alyssa

mike_espo
03-11-2004, 05:26 PM
No. The zero can turn inside anything. It handles wonderfully. Only problem is in a power dive controls get sluggish. Just like in RL.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/llv26/Pilottisivut/Pilottikuvat/LLv26_Reinman.jpg

PBNA-Boosher
03-11-2004, 07:36 PM
I always believed that the Zero didn't champion the P-40 in terms of roll rate, but it did as it did with most planes, champion the category of turn radius. However, above 350 kph, it will not handle that well. It performs best at low speeds.

Alyssa1127
03-11-2004, 07:54 PM
Thanks, gents. I guess when I think of "phenomenal roll rates", I was expecting something on par with the FW190, which snap-rolls with a vengeance. The Zero just hasn't kept up so far - maybe I haven't been keeping the speed down enough, eh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BM357_OnYerSix
03-11-2004, 08:04 PM
As far as I've noticed, yes, the roll rate is lacking, it should roll better, but I have noticed that once the combat flaps are applied, it becomes very agile.

BM357_OnYerSix

http://bm357.com/bm357_leiston2.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
03-11-2004, 08:26 PM
the A6M5 should be better than it is

the A6M2 is just about right

Zyzbot
03-11-2004, 08:36 PM
Quote from JaPANESE ACE saBURO sAKAI

(On the Zero's maneuverability)

Oh yes, the Zero was incredibly maneuverable, but not over about 250 mph. Above that speed, the stick just gets too heavy because the plane's control surfaces are so huge. You've seen those films of kamikaze plunging straight down into the water far from any U.S. ships, right? The kids in those planes probably put their planes into a dive way too early, and before they realized their mistake, they had too much speed built up to pull out of their dive. They probably died pulling desperately on the stick with all their strength. When I coached those kids [kamikaze pilots], I'd tell them, "If you've gotta die, you at least want to hit your target, right? If so, then go in low, skimming the water. Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."

http://www.danford.net/sakai.htm

VW-IceFire
03-11-2004, 09:05 PM
According to the roll charts I've seen passed around...the Zero and the Typhoon were the worst on the chart (Typhoon ever so slightly better)...being up against the FW190, Spitfire, P-47's, Hellcats, Corsairs, and P-40's.

Zero's can really turn however...bat turns or sustained turns are their specialty.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

pourshot
03-11-2004, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alyssa1127:
Does anyone else think that the Zero's handling characteristics are too sluggish? History describes the Zero as being "incredibly agile" and "possessing a phenomenal roll rate", yet she doesn't seem to handle any better than any of the other fighters in the game. This was based on my personal comparison of the Zero vs. the P-40E Warhawk, in which I didn't notice too much of an advantage. Not to say that CFS2 comes close to matching IL2, but in that game, no early model US fighter could keep up with the Zero in a classic turning dogfight, and Microsoft did have the technical advisory assistance of Zero-ace Saburo Sakai.

Just Wondering,

Alyssa<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have NEVER heared the zero being described as "possessing a phenomenal roll rate",that is simply untrue,however at lower speeds nothing can touch it in turns and the closer the stall the bigger the edge over your enemy.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/roll-chart.gif

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

mike_espo
03-11-2004, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the A6M5 should be better than it is

the A6M2 is just about right<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure about that. I tried to get the zero 21 to its maximum speed of 533km/hr at 4500m and with 25 % fuel and rad closed could only get 490km/hr true.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=bunker.altervista.org/elalamein/freccia.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bunker.altervista.org/wwfreccia.html&h=145&w=320&sz=18&tbnid=mQkMwzrchhYJ:&tbnh=51&tbnw=112&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfiat%2Bg.50%2B%26start%3D120%26hl%3De n%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

WUAF_Badsight
03-12-2004, 12:25 AM
rgr that Mike Espo but i was only meaning the roll rate for the 2 Zeros that we have

as of yet i havent done a proper speed test of either under the Aces Version 2.0

mike_espo
03-12-2004, 06:59 AM
yeah badsight. I hear ya. The roll rate of the zero 52 should be better. But I am concerned with the top speed. No replies from my thread in ORR.

Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:

I have NEVER heared the zero being described as "possessing a phenomenal roll rate",that is simply untrue,however at lower speeds nothing can touch it in turns and the closer the stall the bigger the edge over your enemy.

Ride It Like Ya Stole It<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about this chart? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but according to this, every single plane in FB is completely wacked as far as roll rate is concerned! Look, at 260 mph IAS, the 190 rolls 160 degrees per second (out of 360 I assume) which means that it needs more than 2 seconds to complete a roll! And the 190 has the best roll rate according to this chart! That can't be right! Zero needs more that 6 seconds, you can start a roll pack up, go on holidays for a week, come back in time to finish the roll!

MAybe I'm reading it wrong, but this can't be right. Please enlighten me! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

brasil66
03-12-2004, 03:47 PM
The chart is at 1000ft. Right?
As we seem to be established, the Zero was much less effective at that height.
The left column is roll velocity? RV=360deg/seconds.
Sooo...and I might be completely wrong...the FW190 at 170mph would have a roll velocity of 120. That means to get the seconds you divide 360 by 120 or 3 seconds.
The Zero has a value of 55 so it would be(360/55) or about 6.5 seconds.

Okay...just timed an A6M2 in IL2AEP.
Conditions:
spd: 170(reading spd bar)
alt: 3250m(approx 10k ft - right?)

Results:
Time = 4.12 seconds (approximately)
RV = 360/4.12
RV = 87(approx).

Hmmmm.....things dont seem to add up. My test is probably dodgy.
I was suprised at the sluggish roll rate of the Zero in the game, but from reading posts...that wasnt its strong point.

Did I add anything substantive to this discussion? Probably not...but I kind of had fun.

What a great game!!

Well..it would seem that the chart is much more sluggish than IL2.

brasil66
03-12-2004, 03:48 PM
Oops. I meant 10,000 ft...not 1000

pourshot
03-12-2004, 04:15 PM
Well if the chart is wrong dont blame me blame NACA but I would be suprised if they would lie it would not be in there best intrest to do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Okay...just timed an A6M2 in IL2AEP.
Conditions:
spd: 170(reading spd bar)
alt: 3250m(approx 10k ft - right?)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That roll chart starts at 160MPH your speed bar is in KPH so your test could be correct,but you should try it agian at 160MPH to be sure.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

pourshot
03-12-2004, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Are you sure about this chart? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but according to this, every single plane in FB is completely wacked as far as roll rate is concerned! Look, at 260 mph
IAS, the 190 rolls 160 degrees per second (out of 360 I assume) which means that it needs more than 2 seconds to complete a roll! And the 190 has the best roll rate according to this chart! That can't be right! Zero needs more that 6 seconds, you can start a roll pack up, go on holidays for a week, come back in time to finish the roll!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what do you think it should be able to roll at?

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 04:46 PM
It's not about Zero having too slow a roll, it's about the other planes, 190 especially (I didn't time it but I'd say I can do two rolls inj one second not the other way around) also the Spit etc. Look, at 260 mph, roll speed for 190 is 160 degrees per second. 360 divided by 160 is 2.25 seconds for a Fw-190 to finish a roll. Now that's clearly not true.

I'm probably reading the chart wrong or I should use some other way of calculating it. If so please enlighten me!

pourshot
03-12-2004, 04:55 PM
Yes it's a well known fact that the roll for the 190 is porked but I can assure you the chart is correct as it lines up well with others I have seen but if you can bring along something that shows otherwise I would be glad to see it.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 05:09 PM
Well if the chart is right it's right and that's it. I just thought I was reading it wrong or something because even if 190 roll rate in FB is incorrect and too fast, 2.25 seconds for a finished roll seems to me way to slow.

Takata_
03-12-2004, 05:12 PM
This chart isn't showing the maximum roll rate, but speed of roll with a constant 50 pds stick pressure on controls. I guess it is possible to apply much more pressure on stick.
S~
Takata

brasil66
03-12-2004, 05:31 PM
POURSHOT
Thanks for pointing out my boneheaded error. Okay...now a proper test.

at 170mph(280kph) and 10000k(3300m)...it took me about 6.25 seconds to roll 360deg. That fits in just about right with the chart. Its about a 57 roll velocity(RV)

This was an A6M2 with no loadout and full tank. No flaps.

FW190 A4
Same conditions

Roll time = 2.35sec.

360/2.35 means an RV = 153. That looks high..but not too far off for me. Just a couple simple, non scientific tests.

Great info pourshot

Looks like Oleg has it right on with this chart. Great info Pourshot