PDA

View Full Version : A6M5a zero roll rate.



mike_espo
05-01-2004, 02:01 PM
Wow. Pathetic. I was playing blitzpigs server last night. The 52s roll rate is horrible! It started to roll bad at 350+kph(240mph True)at 1500m which is well within the historic maneuvering envelope. The shorter wing span of the 52s should roll better than the 21, but the 21 rolls better! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gifI thought it stiffened up at 300+mph. NOT km. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif Felt like moving a stick in mud...... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Will upcoming patch address this???

thanks

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

mike_espo
05-01-2004, 02:01 PM
Wow. Pathetic. I was playing blitzpigs server last night. The 52s roll rate is horrible! It started to roll bad at 350+kph(240mph True)at 1500m which is well within the historic maneuvering envelope. The shorter wing span of the 52s should roll better than the 21, but the 21 rolls better! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gifI thought it stiffened up at 300+mph. NOT km. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif Felt like moving a stick in mud...... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Will upcoming patch address this???

thanks

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

Fennec_P
05-01-2004, 04:43 PM
I think I read something about the Zero being corrected in the patch. Or, at least, someone had a chart showing the correct rate.

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/urban.jpg

Kwiatos
05-01-2004, 05:12 PM
I reported to 1C about Zero not only roll rate. Oleg said that they will check these things. So we will see.

VW-IceFire
05-01-2004, 05:21 PM
Yeah and the A6M2 had too much cannon ammo (was using the same amount as the A6M5). Little things like that no doubt fixed here and there.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

XyZspineZyX
05-01-2004, 11:00 PM
"Little things like that" show how bad the attention to any detail other than irrelevant artwork has become.

This game has no credibility left.

crazyivan1970
05-01-2004, 11:11 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

mike_espo
05-02-2004, 11:44 AM
I think the problem stemmed from people claiming the roll rate was too fast. The pendelum now has swung the other way. I think it will be corrected for sure by PF.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

Dmitri9mm
05-02-2004, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
"Little things like that" show how bad the attention to any detail other than irrelevant artwork has become.

This game has no credibility left.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stiglr strikes again! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif
How do you manage to keep that sour look on your mug all the time mate? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://barella.mat.ehime-u.ac.jp/kumac/P51/pics/079s1.gif
The n00b, the n00b, the n00b is on fire.
We don't need no Ponys let the ************ burn. Burn ************! BURN!

VW-IceFire
05-02-2004, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
"Little things like that" show how bad the attention to any detail other than irrelevant artwork has become.

This game has no credibility left.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whatever mate...

Regards,
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

XyZspineZyX
05-02-2004, 02:47 PM
Well, Dmitri,

All I can say is this game gives one an almost inexhaustible supply of utter bullsh** to make one grow bitter and disillusioned.

Perhaps if they would manage to simply "get it right" once in a while, we wouldn't have to keep mentioning all the utterly wrong performance attributes of all the planes.

The Zeros just happen to be some of the worst examples.

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, Dmitri,

All I can say is this game gives one an almost inexhaustible supply of utter bullsh** to make one grow bitter and disillusioned.

Perhaps if they would manage to simply "get it right" once in a while, we wouldn't have to keep mentioning all the utterly wrong performance attributes of all the planes.

The Zeros just happen to be some of the worst examples.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stiglr!

Take a deep breath and count to 10...

Buddy.. Know this.. NO sim is perfect.. AND No sim ever will be perfect!

With that said.. You can choose to FOCUS on all the things that are wrong.. It is easy to do, any NOOB can do it.. It is not hard!

But I challenge you to do this.. Make a list of all the PRO's and the CON's...

Until you do.. you will never be happy.. It is easy to find the wrong things.. but if you take a moment to LOOK AT the right things I think you will find that the PRO (right) list far exceeds the CON (wrong) list...

Problem is we as HUMANS take for granted the things that are RIGHT!

For example.. Have you ever heard someone say

WHY IS IT WHEN I AM LOOKING FOR SOMETHING IT IS ALLWAYS IN THE LAST PLACE I LOOK!!?!?!?

Do you see what Im saying? That is focusing on the NEGATIVE!! In that when you are looking for something it is ALLWAYS in the LAST place you LOOK because once you find it you stop looking!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

XyZspineZyX
05-02-2004, 11:14 PM
The pro list would run something like this:

1) looks good
2) can be fun at times, if wildly inaccurate

And the cons list? You don't want me to get started, do you?

When 8 of 10 missions end up with results that make one immediately say, "Oh bullsh**!!"; when flight models and even the physics change dramatically every patch (and the assertion in between time is, "Is right, be sure", well it's hard NOT to focus on the negatives.

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 11:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The pro list would run something like this:

1) looks good
2) can be fun at times, if wildly inaccurate<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah Stiglr.. Never mind.. I guess I gave you too much credit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And the cons list? You don't want me to get started, do you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In light of your effort you put into the PRO list Im sure it would be a waste of time.. So, you are correct, I dont want you to get started

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
When 8 of 10 missions end up with results that make one immediately say, "Oh bullsh**!!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's the man not the machine!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
when flight models and even the physics change dramatically every patch (and the assertion in between time is, "Is right, be sure", well it's hard NOT to focus on the negatives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As i said, it is not hard because it is so easy.. What is hard is to step back and take note of the good.. I can see you are not capable of this... Something I tend to see in the NOOBs who's first flight sim was IL2.. But I though you had been around for awhile?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

LeadSpitter_
05-03-2004, 12:17 AM
the zero m2 and m5 had one of the worst roll rates of any wwii fighter, it still is out turning just almost all aircraft with its great elevator use.

The zero is still one of the most deadly early war aircraft in the game and the roll is correct, its the other aircraft that are overrolling.

try some of crazyivans coops zeros vs p38s, you can explode a 38 in a 1 second burst and easily out manuver the bnzing p38s. the p40 looses all its guns from a one side wing hit that makes the p40 do a complete 360 in level flight when holding down the trigger.

Also warclouds_TOH has a good p40m and p38j vs the m2 and m5 zero check them out for some fun

if you remember the p40 in earlier versions the ammount of stick pressure it had and 1.2 when we first got the zero was out rolling and out performing most aircraft. It has been corrected.

the snap stall rolls seem to have ruined the game where certain aircraft are double or tripling what the should roll in reality. Also the razor sharp response in opposite bank roll is the same as the initial roll which looks crimson skies like.

the zero has better accelaration then the p40s, it has a faster top speed, it can outdive the p40 for some reason, weight seems to have nothing to do with dive speed just engine power. it can out turn fight a p40 with ease its roll is just slower.

Right now its still a good fight if the p40 is around 2000m higher then the zero when attacking.

I agree with stiglr, and seeing the ammount of people dimish almost in half on HL im sure many feel the same way.

This is still the best wwii flight sim currently out and absolutely none of them compair to the way fb looks. But some of the crappy looking once mastered stick pressures at speed, complex engine management and roll rates

but the most important to me is oleg is against cheats you cant find that in any other flight sim ever made that can be modded by opening a notepad editor

Also there is no other flight sim that has all the difficulty levels and option to check them all on for online play. I definatly admire the work 1c did and like the new aircraft alot but 2.0 pretty much took the fun out of flying online.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Sun May 02 2004 at 11:31 PM.]

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Sun May 02 2004 at 11:35 PM.]

Dmitri9mm
05-03-2004, 12:23 AM
Now now Stiglr:
I wouldn't say that I totally disagree with you, there are a lot of issues regarding IL2/FB: The AI, the stalls and spins, the damage mdelling, muzzle flashes etc etc. I can't really count them.
All these problem have to be adressed and hopefully fixed in the upcomming games from 1C. But just condemning the whole thing doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?
I admire Oleg and co's attempt to make the whole thing look right, and I think they succeeded by all standards. The game still lacks behind some other flight-sims regarding how it feels. But still I find that IL2/FB has the best compromise between realism and gameplay.
Sorry to say it, but that attitude of yours doesn't really make people care about the important issues that you bring forward. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

http://barella.mat.ehime-u.ac.jp/kumac/P51/pics/079s1.gif
The n00b, the n00b, the n00b is on fire.
We don't need no Ponys let the ************ burn. Burn ************! BURN!

Spectre-63
05-03-2004, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The pro list would run something like this:

1) looks good
2) can be fun at times, if wildly inaccurate

And the cons list? You don't want me to get started, do you?

When 8 of 10 missions end up with results that make one immediately say, "Oh bullsh**!!"; when flight models and even the physics change dramatically every patch (and the assertion in between time is, "Is right, be sure", well it's hard NOT to focus on the negatives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you've found that it's really that bad, why are you still here???

http://home.comcast.net/~mjmcmahon672/images/Sig_Small.gif

Aaron_GT
05-03-2004, 07:32 AM
""Little things like that" show how bad the attention to any detail other than irrelevant artwork has become.

This game has no credibility left."

That's a bit harsh, Stiglr. Whilst Targetware
has many good points, it also has a number
of problems, despite a development cycle almost
as long as IL2. Targetware AI gunnery is
completely unrealistic, and bullets bounce
off the ground. However Targetware has
apparently better modelling of torque and spins.

I think both sims have things to recommend them
although one of the big problems with TW is
the relative lack of players at the moment,
which is sad.

Ideally I'd like to see a sim that combines
the best available talents and gets everything
right, of course.

LEBillfish
05-03-2004, 10:59 AM
I find this so odd.....No it doesn't roll like most yet you can get it to roll quicker easily with some application of rudder. Personally the plane will shock me if they improve the roll and ease up on the high speed control fade as the way it sits right now the plane is a terror.

By far it is one of the easiest planes to fly here, forgiving and accomodating as you can ride the edge of 140kph and hold it there, or get it really moving up to 450+ to catch opponents. Climbs fast, slows great, picks up speed quickly.

When someone new asks what plane to fly I ALWAYS tell them the Zero as most can pick it up and start getting kills hence getting them involved. I myself being a rookie against some of the old vets here do pretty darn good myself often walking away from 3-1 dogfights with much more superior performing planes.

If the Zero gets any better well......I think the Allies are in for a tough fight. Keep it real as you can, I'll enjoy it for all its +++ & --- then. Zero and E4.....Nummy, love em http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/k2kellyirie/IL2/starnew.txt

Willey
05-03-2004, 02:48 PM
There's a 30lb stick force roll chart around here in the forums. There the A6M is pretty bad, along with the P-39 (!). 1. It's just 30lb. 2. The P-39 is by far better than the Zero in FB (talk about the N-1 and Q-1 with wing guns = similar to D-2)
I'm not aware of whether the P-47D-27 has been fixed already, but it had the same 30lb stick force roll in FB for ages, while the other 2 got fixed in the first FB patch.
Those big Zero ailerons have 2 major attributes: They alter lift very much when deflected, and they drag much at the same time. The first one speaks for a high rate of roll, especially at lower speeds, while the latter one indicated a bricky rudder at higher speeds. At speeds around 200-300km/h IAS the Zero should have a nice roll rate - not like an FW or Clip Spit maybe, but quite competitive. At 350 it should still be quite usable. Up to 450 they should be put into concrete quite quickly. Twice speed means 4 times drag. Above that, you know it. Ages for a complete roll http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.
It was wrong in the first version (the RC one Oleg gave us), because it didn't stiff up enough with speed, and it's wrong since the fix because they are too bricky at low speeds. As mike_espo said, the pendulum is just at the other side now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

XyZspineZyX
05-03-2004, 05:43 PM
Aaron, you've never seen guncam footage that shows that bullets WILL bounce off the ground (or alternately, explode on impact, both of which happen in Targetware)?

I have.

As for TW's development, it is also done mostly by *volunteer*, and the main coding by ONE person, not a team.

I think, given the time they've been at it, the results you get in the average Targetware sortie beat the results you get in this game by a country mile. Or even further.

And that's with things *admittedly* either broken, or yet-to-be-fully addressed. Try getting an admission of that in here.

XyZspineZyX
05-03-2004, 05:48 PM
As for the Zero's roll rate, it shouldn't be very good once it gets fast; the plane has HUGE control surfaces, and when that's combined with low speed, that's what gives it its miraculous maneuverability.

The A6M5 should be the best rolling of all Zeros (not that that means "good"), since it was an attempt to modernize the Zero as much as possible, to give it higher speed, greater toughness, and the best weaponry. What was lost was a LOT of range (also, the A6M3 also lost a lot of range compared to the A6M2), and a little maneuverability. None of it really mattered much in the grand scheme of things, since the Hellcats, Corsairs and other American iron were still all better at speed, and with numbers, both of which the Zeros faced from '43 onward.

Still, overall, the Zero here would be a candidate for a complete FM audit and overhaul, if they're at all serious about simulating the Pacific theatre.

KIMURA
05-04-2004, 04:59 AM
The A6M3 was the best "roller" of the Zero-series.

IIRC there were after war trial in Maryland between diff. a/c among them the 3-some Seafire LIIIc, F6F and A6M5 (basic version). Up to 200mph these 3 contrahents had nearly equal roll-rates. Above that speed the stick forces of the A6M5 became harder.

Kimura

WUAF_Badsight
06-09-2004, 11:08 PM
if the FB Zero is what the real Zero was like ...... then it DOESNT deserve the fearsome tun fighting reputation it has

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Blutarski2004
06-10-2004, 08:20 AM
A long time back I posted some of the details of a comparison of the A6M2 Model 21 Zero versus an early P40(B or E, can't recall). This evaluation was done in either the late 60's or the early 70's, using USAF computer software (which I think was actually John Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability program). As I recall, the P40 had three areas of relative advantage over the Zero.

1. Superior roll rate at mid and high speeds

2. Superior level speed at altitudes below 3000 ft.

3. Much better dive characteristics.

Everything else fell in favor of the Zero. Based upon the above three points, P40 tactics are obvious:

Attack from superior altitude, disengage in high speed diving turn which the Zero could not follow, exit the battle at low altitude and high speed and re-orient. If no altitude advantage do not engage.

In defence, an immediate dive coupled with change(s) of direction when speed had built up.

And so on.

The relative advantages of the Zero (superior climb rate, tremendous maneuverability in the low and mid speed regime, higher speed at altitude) came into play only when the opponent opted or was forced to mix it up in a dogfight. It took a while for Allied pilots to grasp the particular nature of the Zero and it was during this period that the Zero made much of its reputation. It is indeed interesting to note that by June 1942, US F4 carrier Wildcats did very well indeed against their Zero counterparts at Midway

BLUTARSKI

sugaki
06-21-2004, 12:55 PM
The A6M5 in general's botched in the latest (2.01) patch. Aside from flying like a totally different bird than the A6M2, turning, stall characteristics, and roll is off.

I respect Oleg n' crew for their dedication to flight sims, and wouldn't go as far to say they have no credibility. However, it's a bit disconcerting to see the A6M5 dramatically change between each patch. The plane's a completely different beast it seems in every iteration, and doesn't fit the rep of being the "most realistic" sim.

All sims have their faults, which I understand. I'll buy PF, BoB even knowing what would be potential limitations. Think a lot of people latch on to specific flight sim games and trash others saying they suck, which seems too narrow minded. Since it's such a small niche market as it is, I just appreciate each sim for what they do good. CFS was great in its own way, as is FB. Target Rabaul is far less presentable as a game than FB, but does have great flight physics that make the planes fun to fly even alone.

jurinko
06-22-2004, 07:23 AM
In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans
leading living Ace, I said, "Commander, what was the Zero's top
speed?" His answer, "The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph. and a
maximum allowable dive speed of 350 mph. It became extremely heavy
on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's
controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll. A further
comment by Sakai was that the skin on the wings started to wrinkle,
causing the pilot great concern, since a number of Zero's had shed
their wings in a dive."

---------------------
Letka_13/Liptow @ HL

mike_espo
06-22-2004, 08:28 AM
After flying both 2.01 variants, I am a little disapointed. After reading documentation on test flights with captured zeros of both variants, It seems our 2.01 variants are off.

1. Top speed of both variants are too low ~ 40km/hr too low in the case of the 21.

2. Roll rates are off. Too low at low speed. More so in the 52. I agree that high speed roll should be affected, but at 310km/hr IAS,(193mph) this ship should roll as good as anything barring the 190. Documentation states that at 250mph or 402km/hr IAS is when roll starts to suffer. Poor roll just comes too early in AEP.

3. Acceleration seems poor. Due to light structure, the 21 should accelerate very quickly. I don't really find this is the case in our game.

4. Overheats way too quickly. I never was able to find anything that stated the Sakae 21 engine overheated easily.

Oh well, I don't think anything will be done with it. Hopefully PF will note this.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

WWMaxGunz
06-22-2004, 10:11 AM
Mike Espo .... did you used to post at the Delphi FSF?


Neal

Blutarski2004
06-22-2004, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans
leading living Ace, I said, "Commander, what was the Zero's top
speed?" His answer, "The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph. and a
maximum allowable dive speed of 350 mph. It became extremely heavy
on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's
controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll. A further
comment by Sakai was that the skin on the wings started to wrinkle,
causing the pilot great concern, since a number of Zero's had shed
their wings in a dive."

---------------------
Letka_13/Liptow @ HL
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I recall reading another comment attributed to Sakai that he disagreed violently with the kamikaze tactics being taught late in the war - i.e., instruction to the raw pilots to dive upon their targets from altitude. He argued that the Zero in a high speed dive was impossible to maneuver and therefore had no chance of being guided to hit a target ship. He advocated a low altitude approach as being more efficient.

BLUTARSKI

BigKahuna_GS
06-22-2004, 10:43 AM
S!



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."



Saburo Sakai on the Mustang vs the Zero:

During the war, I was convinced the Zero Model 21 was the best fighter plane anywhere. It was always number one with me. Then a few years ago, at Champlin, I had the chance to fly in a Mustang and take the controls for a while. What an incredible plane! It could do anything the Zero could, and many things the Zero can't, like a high-speed, spiraling dive. In the Zero, the stick would be too heavy to control the plane at those speeds. The Mustang's number one with me now, and I'm afraid the Zero's number two!

(On the key to a good fighter plane)
By far the most important thing for a good fighter plane is its range. I can't tell you how much that affects you when you're in the cockpit. When you know you've got plenty of gas, it really lets you relax. Those poor Germans in their Me109s! They could barely get to altitude and fight for a couple of minutes before they had to start worrying about their fuel supply. When you are worried about your gas, it really affects what you do with your plane, even how you fight. Think of how many German fighters ended up at the bottom of the English Channel because they didn't have the gas to get home. A plane that doesn't have the gas to fly is just junk. If the Germans had had 1000 Zeros in 1940, I don't think England would still exist today. Think about it: With Zeros, they could have operated from airfields near Paris and still hit any target anywhere in the British Isles, or escorted bombers, and still have plenty of gas to get home. I once flew a Zero for 12 hours continuous once in an experiment to see just how far it could go. That plane's range was incredible. That's part of what made the Mustang great, too.

(On the IJN's leadership)
Promotions in the Navy were based on what school you graduated from and who you knew, it had nothing to do with merit. Some guy could smash up 20 planes trying to learn how to fly, and then not shoot down a damn thing and he'd be promoted faster than me or any other successful pilot simply because he came from the right school. Those were the kinds of idiots we had leading us. How were we supposed to win the war with leadership like that? Take that idiot [Minoru] Genda. He could barely fly, but he jumped up and down about the Shiden-kai ["George"], so everybody else pretended to like it, too. That plane was a piece of ****, put together by a third-rate firm [Kawanishi].

(On the atomic bomb)
Once, I was on a discussion panel with [Enola Gay pilot] Col. Paul Tibbets in the U.S. and somebody asked me what I thought about the A-bomb. I said "If Japan had had the bomb, and they told me to fly the plane that carried it and bomb San Francisco or something, I would have done it gladly. That's a soldier's job. To follow orders and fight for his country." I think Tibbets was a great hero for the U.S. To fly out there with just two B-29s and no fighter escort, that takes a lot of guts. At the time, nobody knew about the A-bomb; there was no international treaty against its use, like there was for chemical weapons. The U.S. even dropped leaflets warning people in Hiroshima that a new weapon was going to be used. That's just war.

(On Okinawans' and other Japanese peace groups protests of U.S. bases in Japan)
Those people are so stupid. Do they think that soldiers actually want to start a war or something, even though they would be the first ones killed? Do they think that if we get rid of armies, that we can rid the world of war? Do they also think that if we banish doctors, that we can rid the world of disease? Why don't they understand that armed forces are like an insurance policy for use in case of emergency. Who do they think is going to protect them if someone were to actually invade Japan? Article 9 of the Constitution [the part of the Japanese Constitution that renounces war as a sovereign right]? Do they think that if they staple copies of Article 9 onto boards and post them all around Japan's shores that a foreign invader is going to turn around and go home if they read it?

BUSHIDO
"Do not give up under any circumstances"
(The Japanese Field Service Code, adopted 8 Jan 1941)
The battlefield is where the Imperial Army, acting under the Imperial command, displays its true character, conquering wherever it attacks, winning whenever it engages in combat, in order to spread Kodo [Literally "The Imperial Way," whereby the Japanese people, achieving a unity of mind, with Emperor as Master and serving Him with loyalty and devotion, endeavor to establish a highly moral nation through whose moral influence they hope to contribute to the peace and welfare of the world] far and wide so that the enemy may look up in awe to the august virtues of His Majesty. Those who march to the battlefield, therefore, should exalt throughout the world the glories of the Empire by fully realizing what the country stands for and firmly upholding the moral tenets of the Imperial Army.

The Imperial Rescript to the armed forces is explicit, while the regulations and manuals clearly define the conduct in combat and methods of training. Conditions in the zone of combat, however, tend to cause soldiers to be swayed by immediate events and become forgetful of their duty. Indeed, they should be wary there lest they run counter to their duties as soldiers. The purpose of this code lies in providing concrete rules of conduct, in the light of past experience, so that those in the zone of combat may wholly abide by the Imperial Rescript to enhance the moral virtues of the Imperial Army.


__________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

mike_espo
06-22-2004, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Mike Espo .... did you used to post at the Delphi FSF?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Im not sure what that is. I only played this sim and used to play Target: Rabaul

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
06-22-2004, 11:14 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ __________________________
Mike Espo--After flying both 2.01 variants, I am a little disapointed. After reading documentation on test flights with captured zeros of both variants, It seems our 2.01 variants are off.
1. Top speed of both variants are too low ~ 40km/hr too low in the case of the 21.
2. Roll rates are off. Too low at low speed. More so in the 52. I agree that high speed roll should be affected, but at 310km/hr IAS,(193mph) this ship should roll as good as anything barring the 190. Documentation states that at 250mph or 402km/hr IAS is when roll starts to suffer. Poor roll just comes too early in AEP.
3. Acceleration seems poor. Due to light structure, the 21 should accelerate very quickly. I don't really find this is the case in our game.
4. Overheats way too quickly. I never was able to find anything that stated the Sakae 21 engine overheated easily.
Oh well, I don't think anything will be done with it. Hopefully PF will note this.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________



If anything the dive speeds are to fast-from diving speeds tests performed in another thread.

This letter from AVG Fighter pilot Erik Shilling on the P40 vs the Zero:


Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Zero, P-40, Me. 109 E-3, Spite Mk I, Hurricane
Date: 11 Aug 1996 19:34:52 GMT

A different approach may convince some of the readers the
reason why our successes against the Japanese was so outstanding.
After reading the following, don't feel sorry for Japanese, they
started the damn war.

All of the aircraft listed below are contemporaries of the P-40. As
an added comment and question, why do many insist upon comparing
apples and oranges. Surely there can be no doubt in anyone's mid
that the F8F was superior to its forerunners, but it wasn't flying
in combat in December of 1941. Why compare it to earlier fighters?
Makes as much sense as camparing the F-16 with Germany's Fokker
triplane.

The P-40's contemporary fighter aircraft, were the Japanese AM62
21, and the Hayabusa Ki-43. Germany's Me. 109 E-3, Briton's Spitfire
Mark I as well as the Hurricane.

The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was.

The P-40B flown by the Flying Tigers had. . .
Self sealing fuel tanks. . . Japanese aircraft had none.
Armor plate that would stop any bullet fired from a Japanese
fighter or bomber encountered over Burma.
Bullet proof windshield that would stop any Japanese fighter or
bomber's machine gun bullets.
Very much stronger than the flimsily constructed Japanese aircraft.
A number of Zero's shed their wings at speeds slightly over 350 IAS
mph. Japanese would not even attempt a dive that approached 350
IAS. None of Japan's aircraft could even stand up to P-40's 30 and
50 caliber guns. It only required a few incendiary bullet, even
from our 30 cal. guns, to set fire or explode their aircraft.

Although subsequent model P-40s did fall behind the new model
Me.109s and British Spitfires in performance, however in every case,
each new model Zero that came out remained inferior to their
contemporary P-40.

Now why in the hell would anyone consider the Zero to be the best
fighter of the war?

Hell it didn't even start out that way. . .
The above is not just my opinion, but garnered from available
facts, and flying the P-40 in combat.

What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I.

Erik Shilling

--

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Hoarmurath
06-22-2004, 11:31 AM
Thx for sharing this propaganda piece of art http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I like propaganda, it's so funny...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

BigKahuna_GS
06-22-2004, 11:47 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ _______
Hoarmurath--Thx for sharing this propaganda piece of art
I like propaganda, it's so funny...
__________________________________________________ _______


What is so funny is people who comment on how planes should fly without ever flying one, especially in combat.

What is also interesting is that Erik Shilling and Saburo Sakai are in total agreement about the performance of both the Zero and the P40.


______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

mike_espo
06-22-2004, 11:49 AM
609IAP: Im not saying dive speed. Max speed in level flight is off. The Zero 21 cannot get near its max speed of 305mph or 490km/hr.

The best I could do with 25% fuel and no weapons was 448km/hr true or 270mph at 5000m.

Approx same situation with the Zero 52

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
06-22-2004, 12:08 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ __________________________
Mike Espo--After flying both 2.01 variants, I am a little disapointed. After reading documentation on test flights with captured zeros of both variants, It seems our 2.01 variants are off.
1. Top speed of both variants are too low ~ 40km/hr too low in the case of the 21.
2. Roll rates are off. Too low at low speed. More so in the 52. I agree that high speed roll should be affected, but at 310km/hr IAS,(193mph) this ship should roll as good as anything barring the 190. Documentation states that at 250mph or 402km/hr IAS is when roll starts to suffer. Poor roll just comes too early in AEP.
3. Acceleration seems poor. Due to light structure, the 21 should accelerate very quickly. I don't really find this is the case in our game.
4. Overheats way too quickly. I never was able to find anything that stated the Sakae 21 engine overheated easily.
Oh well, I don't think anything will be done with it. Hopefully PF will note this.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________



I havent tested the top end speeds-so I dont know.

Roll rate- according to Saburo Sakai--as speed increased controls stiffened to the point that over 250mph the Zero's roll rate was very slow. The actual onset where the roll rate started to slow was around 200mph (IAS), above 250mph and the roll rate was almost gone. Any faster than 350mph in a dive and you lost control.

Dive acceleration--The Zero was one of the worst diving planes in WW2 because of it's light weight and control surfaces. It dives to fast in FB according to dive tests in another thread.

It seems alot of the things you are complaining about are modeled correctly.


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."



______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Hoarmurath
06-22-2004, 12:26 PM
Saburo Sakai was comparing P51 to zero, not P40 to zero. No wonder he prefered the P51.

Erik Shilling never flew zero. And there was few zero in china, more army planes than navy ones.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

mike_espo
06-22-2004, 12:52 PM
609IAP: How can u say that they are fixed. The roll rate goes to hell at 300kph or 186mph IAS. This is not historically correct! 310km/hr for the 52. Controls should not stiffen up until 250mph and that is being conservative.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

sugaki
06-22-2004, 01:23 PM
609, you're not reading Mike's posts accurately. He said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2. Roll rates are off. Too low at low speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You reply:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Roll rate- according to Saburo Sakai--as speed increased controls stiffened to the point that over 250mph the Zero's roll rate was very slow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not addressing the same issue. We're talking of low speed agility, not high speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What is so funny is people who comment on how planes should fly without ever flying one, especially in combat...

It seems alot of the things you are complaining about are modeled correctly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except you contradicted yourself by making comments how the planes fly yourself. So you're not in a position to stand on the soap box either.

As for not knowing what we're talking about because we never flew one, if we have anecdotal backing as well as backing from knowing how the physical structure affects flight characteristics it gives a good idea of how the plane should fly.

And the fact is, it doesn't fly like a light, low wing-loading, large control surfaced aircraft. Which is irrefutable, regardless of whether you've actually flown one or not.

Dives are too good in the zero, and controls don't get sluggish enough at high speeds, this is true. I'd like to see this fixed as well. Large control surfaces meant stiffer control at high speeds.

However, large control surfaces also should translate to low speed rolls and low speed turning, which isn't reflected either.

Not to mention snap stalls on a plane known for very docile stall characteristics. It had good stall characteristics in part due to its wash-out wing structure, which meant ar flowed to the base more, preventing wing tip stalls (at the cost of increased drag). None of which is reflected.

Acceleration doesn't reflect how the plane was light either. There's a reason why the Zero was weak to gunfire--it had light armor to provide extra maneuverability and acceleration. When the game models the vulnerability, but not the lightness of the plane that's a bit aggravating.

I mention these things not because I'm some Japanese plane fanboy who demands all Japanese planes to be uber(though there's a lot of US fans like that). Without a doubt, the plane is inferior to the F6F, F4U, which attributed to Japan losing the war. What bugs me though is that the plane doesn't match at all what a Zero is supposed to be: a high maneuverable docile plane--with this patch it's a good maneuvering slow rolling heavy plane with abrupt and deadly stalls. I'm not understanding how the plane is so thoroughly neutered of it's strengths, yet retaining strangely inaccurate characteristics such as high speed responsiveness.

mike_espo
06-22-2004, 01:43 PM
Good Post Sugaki! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gifCould have not said it better myself. I don't have hopes this will be corrected. However, I do hope PF gets it right.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

WWMaxGunz
06-22-2004, 08:02 PM
Shilling didn't fly the Zero. He just flew P-40's against them.
The AVG got absorbed and reformed later in WWII in the Pacific.
They had lots of times fought Zeroes. He seemed to know what it
took to down them and to survive. He knew what to do and what
not, and why. Keeping the speed up was life to the AVG, and
Sakai confirms that.

FYI Hoarmurath, the P-40 outturned the 51 in the speed range we
discuss the Zero being stiff in and below at the least. AVG
vets won a lot of bets off rookies on that score, and who would
win a mock dogfight with the vet in a 40 and the rookie could
pick any plane he wanted, invariably a P-51. The P-40 was not a
bad plane, just as the LaGG-3 was not. Just because they were
not stellar don't mean they didn't have good aspects.


Neal

BigKahuna_GS
06-23-2004, 05:04 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Mike Espo--609IAP: How can u say that they are fixed. The roll rate goes to hell at 300kph or 186mph IAS. This is not historically correct! 310km/hr for the 52. Controls should not stiffen up until 250mph and that is being conservative.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



The captured Koga Zero (A6M2)1942 flight tests stated that the ailerons reportedly froze up at speeds above 200kts (230mph). It was described as, the roll rate suffered steadily as speed increased--not just a sudden freeze up at a certain speed. It was also found that at speeds over 200kts the zero had trouble rolling and turning to the right. This information was passed on to the fleet.

Ken Walsh (Corsair Ace) first dogfight with a Zero tested this theory out. While in a dive at 240kts, Walsh broke hard right and left the Zero chasing him behind unable to follow him, Walsh then manuevered behind the Zero and shot it down. The report also stated that the A6M2 also had a negative G acceleration cut out problem due to the float type carburator it used.

In the book "Report of Joint Fighter Confrence" pg310 it states this about a captured Zeke 52 1944 flight tests :

Combat qualities:
"It is a dangerous airplane to dogfight at slow speeds. Fighting qualities good at low speed, poor at high speed. Excellent for low altitude offensive combat or any turning fight where radius of turn or maneuverability is required as prime. Maneuverability is best feature but such items as poor pilot protection, extremely poor ailerons and only fair performance detract from it's usefuleness. Very poor in relation to present American fighters due to low performance, no armoring and stiffness of controls at high speeds.
Record stands for self."

The Zero suffered the same fate as the Japanese military as a whole. It ran wild for the first year of the war until more modern and powerful US fighters arrived in 1943 virtually rendering the Zero obsolete.

The Zero while an excellent airplane in 1941-42, was designed around an antiquated WW1 dogfighting philosophy. While japanese pilots were superbly trained, the dihcotmy was that many Zero pilots had no radios or parachutes and utilized hand signals for communications. A very interesting combination of the code of bushido and WW1 aircombat with very limited team concept in mind.

_______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

sugaki
06-24-2004, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The captured Koga Zero (A6M2)1942 flight tests stated that the ailerons reportedly froze up at speeds above 200kts (230mph). It was also found that at speeds over 200kts the zero had trouble rolling and turning to the right.
&lt;snip&gt;

The Zero while an excellent airplane in 1941-42, was designed around an antiquated WW1 dogfighting philosophy. While japanese pilots were superbly trained, the dihcotmy was that many Zero pilots had no radios or parachutes and utilized hand signals for communications. A very interesting combination of the code of bushido and WW1 aircombat with very limited team concept in mind.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you are not reading the posts carefully. We're talking of *low speed* roll and maneuverability, as well as stall characteristics. Why do you keep mentioning high speed?

As for no radios, this is because the radios were unreliable, so many pilots took them out altogether and snipped off the radio antennas, not because of "bushido."

Saying that turn-fighting is antiquated is just as single-minded as insisting zoom and boom is the ultimate form of fighting. The fact is, Japanese planes lost to ZnB because of their underpowered powerplants on the A6M5s that allowed for the US forces to determine the rules of engagement, not because turn fighting in of itself sucks. N1K1, Ki-100s were "turn-fighters," yet was on par with the F6F and F4U in terms of wartime performance. Turn-fighting is a misnomer--Japanese pilots used the maneuverability and climb rate to their advantage, they didn't simply turn. Had the Japanese created reliable 18-cylinder engines unlike the Homare, things would've panned out differently in terms of air superiority.

The demise of the zero can be attributed to the top brass' lack of desire to upgrade the Zero. Will Me-109s, Spits underwent modifications throughout the war, but the Japanese were reluctant to upgrade the Zero even after the emergence of the F6F and F4U, telling Zero creator Jiro Horikoshi that it'd be "too powerful."

-Aki

mike_espo
06-24-2004, 12:19 PM
Oleg emailed again. Stating his figures for FB zero flight models are from japan. I cannot find hard data that suggests the roll rate is otherwise. I suggest anyone who finds such data email Oleg at

il2beta@1c.ru

maybe then the roll rate will be corrected. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

GR142-Pipper
06-24-2004, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, Dmitri,

All I can say is this game gives one an almost inexhaustible supply of utter bullsh** to make one grow bitter and disillusioned.

Perhaps if they would manage to simply "get it right" once in a while, we wouldn't have to keep mentioning all the utterly wrong performance attributes of all the planes.

The Zeros just happen to be some of the worst examples.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm all for fewer aircraft but have them done right. There are simply too many planes for the requisite amount of programming attention to be given to each. In addition, let's lose the phoney aircraft (109Z, Horton, etc.). They just don't add anything to the game.

GR142-Pipper

BigKahuna_GS
06-24-2004, 03:24 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ _______________________
sugaki
Saying that turn-fighting is antiquated is just as single-minded as insisting zoom and boom is the ultimate form of fighting. The fact is, Japanese planes lost to ZnB because of their underpowered powerplants on the A6M5s that allowed for the US forces to determine the rules of engagement, not because turn fighting in of itself sucks
__________________________________________________ __________________________



Look at the design of the Zero itself---you answered your own question. Low power, poor diving ability, poor roll rate coupled with no armor and light weight construction all adds up to an antiquated WW1 design philosphy.

I did not say turn fighting was antiquated--look at all of the powerful russian turn fighters that had it all : speed, fast roll rates and very good turning ability.

The thing you guys keep forgetting is that the Zero roll rate suffered long before it froze up completely. A simple dive or speed boost could put the Zero into area where the symptoms of a poor roll rate manifested themselves long before actual control lock up.

What I would also like to know is the reported trouble of the Zero rolling to the right and turning right above 200kts present ?
That was a marquee manuever for allied pilots escaping from a zero.


__________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
06-24-2004, 03:39 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ _________________________
sugaki
As for no radios, this is because the radios were unreliable, so many pilots took them out altogether and snipped off the radio antennas, not because of "bushido."
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Sugaki you are misquoting me on several subjects.

I said it was a combination of things, because of the code of bushido many japanese pilots did not carry a parachute. I did not say it was about faulty radios. That was just another problem for the zero and it resulted in poor teamwork.

____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

jurinko
06-25-2004, 07:50 AM
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/RollChartClr2.jpg

notice that Zeke rolls poorly even in low to medium speeds.

---------------------
Letka_13/Liptow @ HL

Willey
06-27-2004, 04:31 PM
I've got the same chart but there it says 30lb stick force...

Fennec_P
06-27-2004, 06:43 PM
Upon closer inspection...

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/chart7.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
06-28-2004, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

In addition, let's lose the phoney aircraft (109Z, Horton, etc.). They just don't add anything to the game.

GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

on the contary ....... they ADD to FB

the game code might or might not be up to accomodating this many planes but having more is better than having less

if the reason for having less is for greater accuracy however , then less is a good thing true

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

sugaki
07-16-2004, 02:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Look at the design of the Zero itself---you answered your own question. Low power, poor diving ability, poor roll rate coupled with no armor and light weight construction all adds up to an antiquated WW1 design philosphy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You keep skirting the issue--I'm not talking about design philosophy, I'm talking about the aircraft flight model. Stop sidetracking.

Poor roll rate, that's funny, since the Koga Zero tested good rollrate at low speeds. This doesn't have good rollrate at any speed. Big elevator surfaces meant good rollrate. Why do you think it has bad rollrate at high speeds? It's to have good lowrate at low speeds! Since the surfaces were so big it got more and more stiff at higher speeds.

Not to mention horrible stall characteristics for the A6M5 in FB. The best qualities were its acceleration which brought it up to combat speed quickly, its low stall speed at about 60mph w/o flaps, all recorded in the tests done on the Koga (model 22 Zero).

I don't care if it's inferior to the F6F, was antiquated in design. I'd like to see the airplane modelled correctly.

I'm baffled to know what "Japanese source" was used for the technical specifications, since Maru Mechanic, the most noted Japanese source shows specifications that are totally different from how FB flies.

-Aki

Hoarmurath
07-16-2004, 03:13 AM
Sugaki, if you have any accurate specs and flight tests reports, send them to Oleg. He will either adjust the FM accordingly, or answer you about the reason he won't do it.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

sugaki
07-16-2004, 10:49 AM
Will do, thanks for the tip Hoarmurath.

Aaron_GT
07-17-2004, 09:59 AM
Stiglr wrote:
"Little things like that" show how bad the attention to any detail other than irrelevant artwork has become."

Target Rabaul isn't 100% accurate either. For example take off torque on the Beaufighter is undermodelled, and possibly overmodelled for the P40.

IL2 has grown beyond its original design, and I think it has grown a bit beyond the ability of 1C to cope with all the details. (Hence the splitting off of PF was a good move). Secondly the code base is several years old, and no doubt patched and messy, and some flip-flopping suggests software management issues.

Bugs are not good, but I think constructive criticism rather than ridicule will be better.

For the record I think TW has great potential - mostly it is lacking numbers or offline missions (no AI issues currently, at least!)

SkyChimp
07-18-2004, 05:10 PM
That NACA chart specifcially states that the force-limits for the Zero are unknown. Here is a chart that gives a somnewhat clearer picture. See "Hamp.":

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/Rolldata.jpg

Theoretically, the peaks of all those roll rates should be improved with greater stick force.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2004, 06:50 PM
All I have to say is this:

We've seen a bunch of good, accurate descriptions of how a Zero flew in here. And how it fared against contemporaries like a P-40.

Now go fly a Zero in Targetware. Specifically, fly it against a P-40E. That way you'll have planes that appear both in IL-2 and TW to compare.

See which gives you a "just like the history books say" fight. See which has you sweating and trying to roll with a P40 in a dive....see which gives you godlike maneuverability, provided the engagement speed is low.

faustnik
07-20-2004, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
That NACA chart specifcially states that the force-limits for the Zero are unknown. Here is a chart that gives a somnewhat clearer <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting chart SkyChimp, thanks for posting. That chart shows a lower roll rate for the Spitfire than the NACA Chart.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)