PDA

View Full Version : A6M2 zero top speed



mike_espo
11-01-2007, 10:55 AM
Is there any plans in 4.09 to increase the A6M2 max speed to its historical 335mph or 540kph at 4500m?

I have done tests where in Crimea with 25% fuel and empty, the top speed of the Zero 21 at 4500m is only 520kph or 323mph.

Should it not be faster??

DKoor
11-01-2007, 11:00 AM
I get 530km/h for A6M2-11 @ 4600m.
I doubt that fuel loading will have some very significant impact on the max speed.
It may have much more impact on RoC and maneuver ability.

mike_espo
11-01-2007, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I get 530km/h for A6M2 @ 4600m.
I doubt that fuel loading will have some very significant impact on the max speed.
It may have much more impact on RoC and maneuver ability.

Really.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif What engine settings did you use? I had 95% pitch, rad closed, mix at 80% slight down trim.....

DKoor
11-01-2007, 11:14 AM
A6M2-11 is 1km/h faster than A6M2-21 in game....marginally really.
Complete settings:
MAP: Crimea, 12 o clock, best weather, starting altitude waypoint 200m higher than best speed alt at 4600m.
PLANE: 100% fuel, prop pitch 100% (you can never achieve max speed w/o using 100% pp if there's no AUTO pp, on any plane), radiator closed, loadout default.

mike_espo
11-01-2007, 11:20 AM
prop pitch 100% (you can never achieve max speed w/o using 100% pp if there's no AUTO pp, on any plane

Wow....I thought that 100% pitch would create drag, thus slowing down aircraft....

Daiichidoku
11-01-2007, 11:31 AM
A5M3 out performs all other zeros in all ways, but for a slightly greater turn radius/wing loading over M2 series...including outdiving 5a's, historically fastest @440mph

this is aat least a few patches old though, i dont know if its still true now

u got anything more current Kuna?

DKoor
11-01-2007, 11:52 AM
Yep...............

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
TYPE ALT SPEED LOADOUT IL-2Cv4.07 v4.08deviation(%) ENGINE OVERHEAT DURAB.(sec) ENGINE RUINABILITY

A6M3 SL 471 default 462 1,948051948 247 Yes
A6M3* 6000 558 default 554 0,722021661 247 Yes
</pre>

Daiichidoku
11-01-2007, 02:15 PM
"ENGINE RUINABILITY"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DKoor
11-01-2007, 04:53 PM
He he......... some of them have "No" in that column (Engine Ruinability Thru Overheat).

And then again... I luv to make crazy Excel columns too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
11-12-2007, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
He he......... some of them have "No" in that column (Engine Ruinability Thru Overheat).

And then again... I luv to make crazy Excel columns too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Yeah, with the Spit 25 you need that column.

BSS_Vidar
11-12-2007, 11:04 AM
The speed of the Zekes in-game has not that big of an issue for me; however, their controlability in high-speed dives HAS been an issue.

According to Corky Meyer (WWII Civilian Test pilot of the A6M5 vs the Hellcat), and the historicle testimony of Zeke pilots and their tactics... Zekes NEVER engaged in High-speed dives. Why???

First off, US heavy metal out ran them, second, The Zeke had terrible issues of compressibility via the ailerons at 200 kts, and elevator at 250 kts. Rudder remained un-effected throughout the Zeke's speed regimes.

While the Zeke's roll rate is signifcanty reduced in a dive in-game, Corky Meyer stated the Zeke's aileron inputs Locked up at and above 200 kts in a dive and the elevators at 250. Even in straight-n-level flight the Zeke had great speed, but the only place if could go was straight ahead.

Hence the Zeke's were stuck in a 130-180 kt effective combat envelope. When U.S. tactics evolved into "Keep it fast and never try to turn with a Zeke". Zeke pilots called US pilots cowards. With the torque issues, the Zeke could effectivly roll one way - to the left due to high engine torque in a light-weight airframe. This left them very vulnerable and predictable. If a US pilot boomed in, he knew a break to the left was comming. If a US pilot was being attacked from behind, the tactic was to roll right and dive.

Many of the Zeke's strengths have been represented well in it's flight model, but some of it crucial weaknesses have been left out.

V

BSS_Sniper
11-12-2007, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
The speed of the Zekes in-game has not that big of an issue for me; however, their controlability in high-speed dives HAS been an issue.

According to Corky Meyer (WWII Civilian Test pilot of the A6M5 vs the Hellcat), and the historicle testimony of Zeke pilots and their tactics... Zekes NEVER engaged in High-speed dives. Why???

First off, US heavy metal out ran them, second, The Zeke had terrible issues of compressibility via the ailerons at 200 kts, and elevator at 250 kts. Rudder remained un-effected throughout the Zeke's speed regimes.

While the Zeke's roll rate is signifcanty reduced in a dive in-game, Corky Meyer stated the Zeke's aileron inputs Locked up at and above 200 kts in a dive and the elevators at 250. Even in straight-n-level flight the Zeke had great speed, but the only place if could go was straight ahead.

Hence the Zeke's were stuck in a 130-180 kt effective combat envelope. When U.S. tactics evolved into "Keep it fast and never try to turn with a Zeke". Zeke pilots called US pilots cowards. With the torque issues, the Zeke could effectivly roll one way - to the left due to high engine torque in a light-weight airframe. This left them very vulnerable and predictable. If a US pilot boomed in, he knew a break to the left was comming. If a US pilot was being attacked from behind, the tactic was to roll right and dive.

Many of the Zeke's strengths have been represented well in it's flight model, but some of it crucial weaknesses have been left out.

V

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

stansdds
11-13-2007, 04:12 AM
I do believe BSS_Vidar has nailed it.

ICDP
11-13-2007, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
The speed of the Zekes in-game has not that big of an issue for me; however, their controlability in high-speed dives HAS been an issue.

According to Corky Meyer (WWII Civilian Test pilot of the A6M5 vs the Hellcat), and the historicle testimony of Zeke pilots and their tactics... Zekes NEVER engaged in High-speed dives. Why???

First off, US heavy metal out ran them, second, The Zeke had terrible issues of compressibility via the ailerons at 200 kts, and elevator at 250 kts. Rudder remained un-effected throughout the Zeke's speed regimes.

While the Zeke's roll rate is signifcanty reduced in a dive in-game, Corky Meyer stated the Zeke's aileron inputs Locked up at and above 200 kts in a dive and the elevators at 250. Even in straight-n-level flight the Zeke had great speed, but the only place if could go was straight ahead.

Hence the Zeke's were stuck in a 130-180 kt effective combat envelope. When U.S. tactics evolved into "Keep it fast and never try to turn with a Zeke". Zeke pilots called US pilots cowards. With the torque issues, the Zeke could effectivly roll one way - to the left due to high engine torque in a light-weight airframe. This left them very vulnerable and predictable. If a US pilot boomed in, he knew a break to the left was comming. If a US pilot was being attacked from behind, the tactic was to roll right and dive.

Many of the Zeke's strengths have been represented well in it's flight model, but some of it crucial weaknesses have been left out.

V

I have to admit I have never seen anyone so conviced they are correct depsite ALL of the evidence to the contrary. You have repeatedly made the false claim that the A6M could not roll at speeds over around 250mph. Of course the controls became stiffer at higher speeds but it could still roll even at 400mph despite your repeated claims otherwise. I have also never once read about locked elevator controls in the A6M, but again you claim it could only fly straight and level at even moderate speeds. The TAIC report on the captured A6M never once mentions locked up elevator controls, it does say very stiff but that is NOT the same as locked up. Your claims of only being capable of flying "straight ahead" at even moderate speeds is utterly ridiculous.

To prove once and for all the the A6M could indeed roll at speeds over 250mph please look at the following chart. This chart is based on TAIC tests and is compiled by NACA. Now I am sure you can see from this chart that the A6M could roll at speeds over 390mph. It is definately slow but it is not limited to straight and level flight.

As stated many times before by myself and others the A6M in the sim has a rollrate of 12-13 seconds at around 300mph. So if anything the A6M is actually rolling too slowly in the sim, from the chart it should roll 360deg in around 9 seconds at 300mph.

So it is too slow by around 20mph at all altitudes and it rolls too slowly yet you still claim it should fly straight ahead at even moderate speeds!


Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:Many of the Zeke's strengths have been represented well in it's flight model, but some of it crucial weaknesses have been left out.


This statement could be claimed of every single aircraft in the sim. All you are proving with such ridiculous claims is your total bias against having a properly modelled A6M in IL2.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/RollChart.gif

BSS_Vidar
11-13-2007, 12:54 PM
Nifty chart.. Go read Corkey Meyer's first hand accounts of flight testing the M5 vs the Hellcat and other US aircraft. He had an article in Aviation History earlier this year which is were my statments come from. I don't make this **** up to suit myself you know.

If you are unfortunate enough to not know who Corkey Meyer is... Google'em

If you can find THIS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif snazzy art work on the www, you'll find what I'm talking about.

S! with the utmost respect,

V

ICDP
11-13-2007, 02:00 PM
I know who Corky Meyer is, he was a test pilot at Grumman! His statements practically backup the chart! He actually liked the A6M Zero, he even stated it was "every bit the fighter" and said it was a delight to fly.

You are clearly taking Corkey Meyers comments out of context. You are either deliberately or through ignorance attributing them to mean the Zero could not roll or pitch at speeds over 250mph. Now you can either continue quoting Corkey Meyer out of context (your only source BTW). Or you can read the chart that was created by US test pilots and also the TAIC report on the zero that clearly states that the controls on the Zero stiffen NOT lock entirely at high speeds.

I (and many others) have pointed out the fact that you keep making wrong assumptions, we use charts and report created by US pilots who tested the aircraft. You use one source and even that you take out of context.

The truth is I am posting this rebutle of your false claim for the benefit of other forum members who might actually believe you. I know no amount of charts and reports on the real Zero will dissuade you from believing it should be totally and utterly immobile at moderate speeds.

P.S. that "nifty chart" as you so eloquently put it is more proof than you have ever presented on how the Zero should roll at higher speeds.

BSS_Vidar
11-13-2007, 08:12 PM
All righty sir,

We'll just agree to disagree.

S!

V

ImpStarDuece
11-14-2007, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
All righty sir,

We'll just agree to disagree.

S!

V

Can I agree to disagree with you as well? I've disagreed with you on this issue a couple of times before, as its not the first time you have brought it up.

The phrase the USN uses in official testing in describing the Zero roll rate was that control forces became "objectionably heavy, especially in the alierons beyond 200 knots".

Not locked solid, but "objectionably heavy". They would of used "immobile" or "ineffective" otherwise.

The TAIC test of the captured A5M states that the Zero can roll with a FM2 until 160 knots IAS and with the F6F-5 and F4U until 200 knots IAS.


The Zeke 52 could roll with the P-51 and P-38J (with hydraulically boosted alierons) until 220 mph IAS and with the P-47 until 250 mph IAS.

So, quite clearly, the Zero could roll at 200 knots IAS. In fact it could roll as well as a F4U or a F6F at 200 knots, Corkey Meyer not withstanding.

But, I've told you this all before, and you'd seemingly rather go with Corkey Meyer's account from a 2003 magazine article than actual wartime qualitative, side by side testing conducted by both the USN and USAAF.

Outlaw---
11-14-2007, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
...The Zeke had terrible issues of compressibility via the ailerons at 200 kts, and elevator at 250 kts.

Compressibility is caused by shock waves and 200-250 knots is not shock wave range (at least not at the altitudes the zero was capable of reaching).

The control heaviness of the zero was due to large control surfaces and low mechanical advantages in the control system. This was by design.

Some aircraft with fabric covered control surfaces suffered from balooning which reduced control effectiveness at higher speeds. The zero may have also suffered from this effect though I'm not sure if it had fabric covered control surfaces.

--Outlaw.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-14-2007, 08:27 AM
They would of used

OT, and not to single any one person out, as I've seen countless dozens of people here do this.

"Would OF" makes no sense at all in any context. And it's the same for 'could', and 'should'.

"Would HAVE used...." is syntactically correct and the only thing that makes sense - as in, 'if they didn't use this word, what word would they HAVE used?'

The contraction is would've. It sounds the same but is TOTALLY different.

ICDP
11-14-2007, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
All righty sir,

We'll just agree to disagree.

S!

V

I'm afraid you have yet again taken the wrong meaning from a perfectly understandable and clear series of facts. There is nothing for us to disagree about, you have been proved categorically wrong. It is not possible to disagree with something that is undisputed fact. It is like arguing that the earth orbits the sun, a totally farcical argument. Adopting such a farcical point of view only makes you look foolish.

You have not presented a shred of valid evidence to back up your farcical claim. The only evidence you present has been taken totally out of context. Corkey Meyer stated the A6M had very stiff controls above 200kts, only you deduce that this equals totally immovable and that the zero could only fly "straight ahead" at speeds over 200kts.

By all means carry on with your farcical and utterly wrong belief based on nothing but an error in reasoning and deduction.

ElAurens
11-14-2007, 04:39 PM
Vidar is merely taking a page from Kurfy's play book. Repeat incorrect data enough times and people will believe it.

I really get the feeling that many "navy" pilots in this sim truly believe that all Japanese aircraft should just explode whenever a blue painted aircraft starts it's engine...

BSS_Vidar
11-14-2007, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Outlaw---:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
...The Zeke had terrible issues of compressibility via the ailerons at 200 kts, and elevator at 250 kts.

Compressibility is caused by shock waves and 200-250 knots is not shock wave range (at least not at the altitudes the zero was capable of reaching).



--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is partially true Outlaw. The compressability you're describing with regards to shockwaves takes place in the trans-sonic speed regime. This is where the "Flying Tail" technology kept so secret by the U.S. in the X-1 and F-86 designs comes into play. Violent buffeting takes place with shock-wave compressability. Not the case with the Zeke.

Compressability also takes place in the regimes below transonic where the problem isn't shock waves, but the flow of the air over the camber breaks away about 2/3's back due to wing design. The Zero suffered from it as well as the Me-109 (Quote from Gunther Rall "The stick was as if stuck in a bucket of cement", and the P-38 in high-speed dive at higher altitudes. This is not a stall -dispite the airflow separation. The flow breaks away cleanly due to high speed particulaly at the outter third of the wing. With the airflow separated, this takes away from the effectiveness of the ailerons. The high pressure airflow benieth the wings remains in contact with the lower surface effectivly neutralizing the flight controls - i.e. compressability.

S!

V

BSS_Sniper
11-15-2007, 12:06 PM
Let me put this in a senario. This is how some of you act toward pilot accounts.

The scene: at any airport on the tarmac.

You: (walk up to a pilot that is about to go up on a flight} "Hey, I just looked up all these charts and I even read a book! This is how you should fly your plane. LOOK AT MY CHARTS!"

Pilot: Who the H3ll are you?

You: I fly IL2. I just left my office though. I looked for hours for this info.

Pilot: Shoo! Go Away!

You: But my charts! You're wrong, you don't know what you're doing!

Pilot: (punches you in the face and taxis away)

You: (watch the pilot taxi away holding your charts in the air) I'm right, you can't deny the charts!

Seriously guys, Vidar doesn't just make this stuff up. He doesn't just look for info that supports only his point. He's a real, trained, professional pilot and it is funny to see the junk that gets thrown up in here by people that have zip to do with aviation. This is why I keep my posts in here to a minimum. I wouldn't take advice from you, the nonpilot in real life either. Not meant to be demeaning, but I finally had to get that out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BSS_Vidar
11-15-2007, 03:10 PM
The solution to compression of flight controls in the sub-sonic regime during post WWII prior to modern aerodynamics.

How did we fix this?

We had the new jet age rising, yet the the science of the airfoil was pretty much the same. The same technology was applied to sweep wing design with little to no change to airfoil shape. So, how did we stop flight control compression with these new high-speed aircraft?

Before answering that let's look at some examples of aircraft that flew straight-n-level and would experience fight control compression in normal cruise speeds without this solution:

B-47 Stratojet, A-4 Skyhawk, and the Boeing 707.

How did these aircraft cruise at high sub-sonic speeds without flight control compression?

The answer is "Wing Fences".

These little tabs were placed just forward of flight controls (B-47 was the first to have them) to generate small vorticies that helped pull the separating high-speed airflow over the back third of the camber back down to engage the flight controls surfaces.

Depending on the aircraft, Fences were stationed only on the top of wings just forward of ailerons. On the top surface of Horizontal Stabs just forward of the Elevators. Some aircraft even had fence tabs on both sides of the virticle stab just forward of the rudder's leading edge.

S!

V

ElAurens
11-15-2007, 03:29 PM
And B47s have what exactly to do with the A6M and how it is modeled in this sim?

That "evil" chart that was posted was from tests done by real military pilots testing a real aeroplane in an effort to to find out it's strengths and weaknesses. That technical air intellegence was used to help Allied pilots defeat the Zeke.

It wasn't made up by flight simmers, historians, or fanbois of any aircraft. It is real world data, not conjecture, or feelings.

Why do yo find it impossible to believe this?

Or do you not trust the operations manuals that pretain to the real aircraft that you fly, instead believing hearsay from old timers at the airport when you calculate your weight and balance figures, or takoff runs, etc?

BSS_Sniper
11-15-2007, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
And B47s have what exactly to do with the A6M and how it is modeled in this sim?

That "evil" chart that was posted was from tests done by real military pilots testing a real aeroplane in an effort to to find out it's strengths and weaknesses. That technical air intellegence was used to help Allied pilots defeat the Zeke.

It wasn't made up by flight simmers, historians, or fanbois of any aircraft. It is real world data, not conjecture, or feelings.

Why do yo find it impossible to believe this?

Or do you not trust the operations manuals that pretain to the real aircraft that you fly, instead believing hearsay from old timers at the airport when you calculate your weight and balance figures, or takoff runs, etc?

I thought Vidar gave you a source of information from a REAL military test pilot, that test flew the zero and came to the conclusion that Vidar posted?

BSS_Sniper
11-15-2007, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Vidar is merely taking a page from Kurfy's play book. Repeat incorrect data enough times and people will believe it.

I really get the feeling that many "navy" pilots in this sim truly believe that all Japanese aircraft should just explode whenever a blue painted aircraft starts it's engine...

Just wondering where you got the idea that the data was wrong? The zero is fine as modeled, except you can still dive it and hang with any US aircraft without losing enough control authority to make a difference. That in itself conflicts with tactical doctrine of the day, on both sides.

Also, in that chart, does it mention which way the aircraft are rolling?

ICDP
11-15-2007, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
Let me put this in a senario. This is how some of you act toward pilot accounts.

The scene: at any airport on the tarmac.

You: (walk up to a pilot that is about to go up on a flight} "Hey, I just looked up all these charts and I even read a book! This is how you should fly your plane. LOOK AT MY CHARTS!"

Pilot: Who the H3ll are you?

You: I fly IL2. I just left my office though. I looked for hours for this info.

Pilot: Shoo! Go Away!

You: But my charts! You're wrong, you don't know what you're doing!

Pilot: (punches you in the face and taxis away)

You: (watch the pilot taxi away holding your charts in the air) I'm right, you can't deny the charts!

Seriously guys, Vidar doesn't just make this stuff up. He doesn't just look for info that supports only his point. He's a real, trained, professional pilot and it is funny to see the junk that gets thrown up in here by people that have zip to do with aviation. This is why I keep my posts in here to a minimum. I wouldn't take advice from you, the nonpilot in real life either. Not meant to be demeaning, but I finally had to get that out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So the charts and reports we present that were created by REAL pilots who flew the ctual A6M are not relevant because Vidar has/does fly planes? Has Vidar flown a real Zero? If not then his points about it are nothing but supposition based on one other pilots findings. We present charts as created by pilots who flew the A6M, Vidar presents his assumption as based on one pilots memoirs. If you are to take Vidars supposition as gospel then all other piltos who flew the A6M and compiled the reports we base our findings on are lying. To discount and ignore the TAIC report and the A6M rollrate as shown in a NACA chart because Vidar has flown real planes (but not the A6M) is total BS.

Taking your line of arguments how about this for a scenario?

Vidar: Hi guys, I see you have all flown the A6M Zero and have concluded its controls start to stiffen up at speeds over 200kts.

US test pilots: Yeah that's correct. We have all flown and tried the A6M and its manouverablility begins to deteriorate at speeds over 200kts. We have documented this in many reports and charts.

Vidar: Sorry guys you must all be lying, you are all wrong the A6M can only fly straight ahead at speeds over 200kts. It's controls lock up solid and are immovable.

US test pilots: What, have you ever flown a real Zero? If not then where do you get your facts? We have flown the A6M, and while its controls do get very stiff at higher speeds it is still able to manouever.

Vidar: I am basing my opinion on some statement I read once.

US test pilots: So you have never flown the A6M but you are telling us we are wrong and you are right? Are you for real?

Vidar: Well I am an aviator, so my word is based on experience.

Us test pilots: But you have never flown a real A6M Zero, how could your experience in other unrelated aircraft be valid? Are you seriously trying to suggest that if you have flown one aircraft you have flown them all?

Seriously Sniper, being a pilot and an aviator does not autmatically make Vidar's assumption based on one misinterpretation any more valid. He has never flown an A6M so no amount of flying experience will give him automatic insight as to how it performs. Also you must realise we are not presenting our unexperienced personal opinions as facts. We are actaully presenting facts as documented by real pilots who flew the real A6M5. Does the fact that we aren't aviators make these factual reports less valid? Isn't it silly to claim these A6M pilot reports are not valid by virtue of the fact that non aviators have presented them?

I have never driven a Ferrari but I have driven plenty of other cars. Therefore I could get into a Ferrari and give it a drive based on my driving experience. Though until I have driven one I cannot possibly make a vailid claim how it should exactly perform based on my experience of driving other cars. I have to base my opinions on how a Ferrari performs based on the writings of real Ferrari drivers.

Vidar is basing his opinion on how the A6M should perform based on Corkey Meyer's accounts. No amount of Vidar's real aviation/flying experience is being drawn upon to make his conclussion. He has to rely on what other people have written, people who flew the A6M. Everyone else here is having to do the same thing, we rely on reports and charts based on real accounts of pilots who flew the A6M. We do not even have to form an opinion, it is all down in black and white. And the black and white clearly shows the A6M could indeed roll and manouever at speeds over 200kts. We are not making it up, it is a fact that is written in black and white in the TAIC and NACA reports.

ICDP
11-15-2007, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
And B47s have what exactly to do with the A6M and how it is modeled in this sim?

That "evil" chart that was posted was from tests done by real military pilots testing a real aeroplane in an effort to to find out it's strengths and weaknesses. That technical air intellegence was used to help Allied pilots defeat the Zeke.

It wasn't made up by flight simmers, historians, or fanbois of any aircraft. It is real world data, not conjecture, or feelings.

Why do yo find it impossible to believe this?

Or do you not trust the operations manuals that pretain to the real aircraft that you fly, instead believing hearsay from old timers at the airport when you calculate your weight and balance figures, or takoff runs, etc?

I thought Vidar gave you a source of information from a REAL military test pilot, that test flew the zero and came to the conclusion that Vidar posted? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No he didn't. I have read Corkey Meyer's account of flying the A6M and not once did he say it could only fly straight and level at 200kts and above. He said it had stiff controls at over 200kts, if you and Vidar misinterprate that statement to mean the A6M had totally locked controls then the original statement is taken out of context. All it proves is that you and Vidar are reaching a conclusion not backed up by the facts. Facts that are very clearly presented in the reports and charts we have posted. Once again Corkey Meyer DID NOT claim the A6M could only fly straight and level at over 200kts. That is Vidar's misinterpratation of a very clearly written statement.

BSS_Sniper
11-16-2007, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
Let me put this in a senario. This is how some of you act toward pilot accounts.

The scene: at any airport on the tarmac.

You: (walk up to a pilot that is about to go up on a flight} "Hey, I just looked up all these charts and I even read a book! This is how you should fly your plane. LOOK AT MY CHARTS!"

Pilot: Who the H3ll are you?

You: I fly IL2. I just left my office though. I looked for hours for this info.

Pilot: Shoo! Go Away!

You: But my charts! You're wrong, you don't know what you're doing!

Pilot: (punches you in the face and taxis away)

You: (watch the pilot taxi away holding your charts in the air) I'm right, you can't deny the charts!

Seriously guys, Vidar doesn't just make this stuff up. He doesn't just look for info that supports only his point. He's a real, trained, professional pilot and it is funny to see the junk that gets thrown up in here by people that have zip to do with aviation. This is why I keep my posts in here to a minimum. I wouldn't take advice from you, the nonpilot in real life either. Not meant to be demeaning, but I finally had to get that out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So the charts and reports we present that were created by REAL pilots who flew the ctual A6M are not relevant because Vidar has/does fly planes? Has Vidar flown a real Zero? If not then his points about it are nothing but supposition based on one other pilots findings. We present charts as created by pilots who flew the A6M, Vidar presents his assumption as based on one pilots memoirs. If you are to take Vidars supposition as gospel then all other piltos who flew the A6M and compiled the reports we base our findings on are lying. To discount and ignore the TAIC report and the A6M rollrate as shown in a NACA chart because Vidar has flown real planes (but not the A6M) is total BS.

Taking your line of arguments how about this for a scenario?

Vidar: Hi guys, I see you have all flown the A6M Zero and have concluded its controls start to stiffen up at speeds over 200kts.

US test pilots: Yeah that's correct. We have all flown and tried the A6M and its manouverablility begins to deteriorate at speeds over 200kts. We have documented this in many reports and charts.

Vidar: Sorry guys you must all be lying, you are all wrong the A6M can only fly straight ahead at speeds over 200kts. It's controls lock up solid and are immovable.

US test pilots: What, have you ever flown a real Zero? If not then where do you get your facts? We have flown the A6M, and while its controls do get very stiff at higher speeds it is still able to manouever.

Vidar: I am basing my opinion on some statement I read once.

US test pilots: So you have never flown the A6M but you are telling us we are wrong and you are right? Are you for real?

Vidar: Well I am an aviator, so my word is based on experience.

Us test pilots: But you have never flown a real A6M Zero, how could your experience in other unrelated aircraft be valid? Are you seriously trying to suggest that if you have flown one aircraft you have flown them all?

Seriously Sniper, being a pilot and an aviator does not autmatically make Vidar's assumption based on one misinterpretation any more valid. He has never flown an A6M so no amount of flying experience will give him automatic insight as to how it performs. Also you must realise we are not presenting our unexperienced personal opinions as facts. We are actaully presenting facts as documented by real pilots who flew the real A6M5. Does the fact that we aren't aviators make these factual reports less valid? Isn't it silly to claim these A6M pilot reports are not valid by virtue of the fact that non aviators have presented them?

I have never driven a Ferrari but I have driven plenty of other cars. Therefore I could get into a Ferrari and give it a drive based on my driving experience. Though until I have driven one I cannot possibly make a vailid claim how it should exactly perform based on my experience of driving other cars. I have to base my opinions on how a Ferrari performs based on the writings of real Ferrari drivers.

Vidar is basing his opinion on how the A6M should perform based on Corkey Meyer's accounts. No amount of Vidar's real aviation/flying experience is being drawn upon to make his conclussion. He has to rely on what other people have written, people who flew the A6M. Everyone else here is having to do the same thing, we rely on reports and charts based on real accounts of pilots who flew the A6M. We do not even have to form an opinion, it is all down in black and white. And the black and white clearly shows the A6M could indeed roll and manouever at speeds over 200kts. We are not making it up, it is a fact that is written in black and white in the TAIC and NACA reports. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm really not trying to argue or drag this convo down, however, there is a huge hole in your comparison and why mine fits, YOU ARE NOT A PILOT. lol I would also consider him more of an expert in aviation than ANYONE of you that has never logged one hour behind a stick or yoke. Vidar isn't arguing with a test pilot, he's arguing with YOU. We know Meyer didn't say the plane couldn't fly straight and level at 200 mph. We talked about that last night. Sorry that we have to spell everything out for you.

Vidar is pointing out facts. Since we have to be spot on without any sarcasm, Corky Meyer did say that over 200 the zero is basically useless in a roll. (My words, don't want you to think I'm quoting out of context) I will find it online, PDF govt files. I don't have the book but read it there. Hell, Corky lives an hour away from me. I would love to talk to him and then have you STILL argue. lol

The point of this entire argument is this: The plane should be disabled enough by speed that Pacific theater planes can roll right and dive away as an escape. Can you do that in here? NO, you can't. Why? Because enough of its aileron control hasn't been "dumbed" up. I won't even go into the Hellcat being able to outclimb a zero. We all know you can't do that in here either.

How can you argue with the real tactics use by the US and the Japanese. They worked in RL. You can't use them here because they don't work. That in itself should tell you something is wrong.

Poker_4H
11-16-2007, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
The point of this entire argument is this: The plane should be disabled enough by speed that Pacific theater planes can roll right and dive away as an escape. Can you do that in here? NO, you can't. Why? Because enough of its aileron control hasn't been "dumbed" up.


It is, and you can.

Iwo map from 3000m
Corsair vs. A6m5, IIRC
tested nose over, roll left, and roll right.

Nose over and left roll, A6m5 was able to maintain distance initially, even closing distance within first 3-400m, then Corsair pulled away ... pullout was at the deck .. or rather, wasn't for the A6m5.
Roll right & dive .. Corsair established and increased distance from start of roll to pull out.

Remember ... most firing was done up close ... therefore distances that we in game shoot would not be firing solutions in R/L, therefore, reaching a 1000m lead was out of range in WW2, whereas, there are players who can, and do, get hits at that range.

Dropping 1500m and pulling back up is not the same as disengaging.

And I've flown against Vidar... myself in an A6m5, and he in a corsair ... Considering I had the supposedly "uber" plane, he kicked my *** enough times. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ICDP
11-16-2007, 10:39 AM
The A6M in IL2 takes 12 seconds to roll at 300mph. That is not slow enough for you? Also I DON'T CARE IF VIDAR FLIES PLANES EVERY DAY OF HIS LIFE, it does not qualify him to comment on how the A6M should fly. If he has never flown an A6M then all of his other flying experience is completely and utterly worthless in this debate. He is going by what Corkey Meyer said, not his OWN EXPERIENCE.

I have been a PC technician for eighteen years but I have never used a Macintosh. Does my extensive PC experience mean I am able to comment on how a Mac performs. Of course it doesn't, my opinion on Macintosh's is worthless because I have no experience using them.

I have been driving cars for 22 years but have never driven a Ferrari. Does my 22 years of driving other vehicles make my opinion on how a Ferrari should handle valid? Not by a long shot becuase (and here is the point) I HAVE NEVER DRIVEN A FERRARI.

It is the same scenario for Vidar, his years of aviation experience in no way qulaifies him to comment on how the A6M Zero flies. He has never flown one so how could he possibly be qualified to comment on its handling. He has to rely on the written word and upon comments from pilots who actually flew the thing. He has presented a pilots account on how the A6M Zero handles, all he is doing is relying on someone elses experience. Yet you argue that the TAIC and NACA reports I have presented are invalid due to my lack of aviation experience!

What a totally irrational and idiotic point of view. I am through debating with you on this subject since you are clearly incapable of rational discussion. Luckily Oleg relies on valid data rather than the ramblings of morons to make his FMs.

ElAurens
11-16-2007, 10:43 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So now we go from real data to trying to replicate tactics in a DF room.

Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?

Look, I "fly" Japanese aircraft alot online, and while I much prefer the IJAAF types I get a fair amount of time in the A6M, and I will tell you that if the F6F guys fly smart there is no way a Zeke will come close to touching it.

The problem lies with F6F guys not staying fast.
I love it when an F6F starts turning, because I know it's a n00b and he will shortly be toast.

And almost none of you ever extend properly. Do you think I have no E at all? You must E X T E N D. A long ways. You just can't push the nose over and floor it for 10 seconds and think you are safe.

And I'm not saying the F6F doesn't have problems, it certainly does. Laughable over heat model and poor acceleration, to name two.

The problems you navy jocks are having are not with the Zeke's modeling. It is with the F6F's modeling and your poor application of tactics.

Daiichidoku
11-16-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
And almost none of you ever extend properly. Do you think I have no E at all? You must E X T E N D. A long ways. You just can't push the nose over and floor it for 10 seconds and think you are safe.


im havign NOTHING to do with any other part of this;

i just wanted to quote this, because it is true of too many ppl, in any scenario with any planes etc

BSS_Sniper
11-16-2007, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So now we go from real data to trying to replicate tactics in a DF room.

Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?

Look, I "fly" Japanese aircraft alot online, and while I much prefer the IJAAF types I get a fair amount of time in the A6M, and I will tell you that if the F6F guys fly smart there is no way a Zeke will come close to touching it.

The problem lies with F6F guys not staying fast.
I love it when an F6F starts turning, because I know it's a n00b and he will shortly be toast.

And almost none of you ever extend properly. Do you think I have no E at all? You must E X T E N D. A long ways. You just can't push the nose over and floor it for 10 seconds and think you are safe.

And I'm not saying the F6F doesn't have problems, it certainly does. Laughable over heat model and poor acceleration, to name two.

The problems you navy jocks are having are not with the Zeke's modeling. It is with the F6F's modeling and your poor application of tactics.

I think something is wrong here. lol That is the point of this simulation or am I wrong? lol If realism and representing the aircraft as they really are/were isn't the point, then I'll shut up and not post anymore.

I guess you don't know us. Quite a few of us are professional pilots with military backgrounds, extensive. We make a point to apply the proper procedure and tactics and they do NOT work here unless someone just does not want to chase.

BSS_Sniper
11-16-2007, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
And almost none of you ever extend properly. Do you think I have no E at all? You must E X T E N D. A long ways. You just can't push the nose over and floor it for 10 seconds and think you are safe.


im havign NOTHING to do with any other part of this;

i just wanted to quote this, because it is true of too many ppl, in any scenario with any planes etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has nothing to do with flying the Hellcat or Corsair correctly. We know what to do. This really came about when Vidar, myself and a lot of others we know are flying a Zeke and follow them through their defensive roll and dive. When they finally do pull out at the deck, guess where we are? Yup, right there with them and we shouldn't be, laughing the entire time at how wrong it is.

While I appreciate your test Poker, it doesn't mean much to me for one reason; I've been in the Zeke and stayed with every plane that would dive and they will not get away when I follow. We did our own tests outside of HL and the results are the same as online. The game Zeke performs too well and is able to not only dive with, but maneuver with its US counterparts.

BSS_Sniper
11-16-2007, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
The A6M in IL2 takes 12 seconds to roll at 300mph. That is not slow enough for you? Also I DON'T CARE IF VIDAR FLIES PLANES EVERY DAY OF HIS LIFE, it does not qualify him to comment on how the A6M should fly. If he has never flown an A6M then all of his other flying experience is completely and utterly worthless in this debate. He is going by what Corkey Meyer said, not his OWN EXPERIENCE.

I have been a PC technician for eighteen years but I have never used a Macintosh. Does my extensive PC experience mean I am able to comment on how a Mac performs. Of course it doesn't, my opinion on Macintosh's is worthless because I have no experience using them.

I have been driving cars for 22 years but have never driven a Ferrari. Does my 22 years of driving other vehicles make my opinion on how a Ferrari should handle valid? Not by a long shot becuase (and here is the point) I HAVE NEVER DRIVEN A FERRARI.

It is the same scenario for Vidar, his years of aviation experience in no way qulaifies him to comment on how the A6M Zero flies. He has never flown one so how could he possibly be qualified to comment on its handling. He has to rely on the written word and upon comments from pilots who actually flew the thing. He has presented a pilots account on how the A6M Zero handles, all he is doing is relying on someone elses experience. Yet you argue that the TAIC and NACA reports I have presented are invalid due to my lack of aviation experience!

What a totally irrational and idiotic point of view. I am through debating with you on this subject since you are clearly incapable of rational discussion. Luckily Oleg relies on valid data rather than the ramblings of morons to make his FMs.

The reason I take pilot's point of view on an aviation related subject vs someone who sits at a desk should be obvious. How do I make you understand. Would you seriously listen and take advice from the guy that makes fries at Burger King if he tried to tell you anything about how to do your job? I doubt you would.

Also, the simple statement you made, "If he has never flown an A6M then all of his other flying experience is completely and utterly worthless in this debate." isn't completely correct as his experience gives him 100 fold the amount of insight on the subject over you and contradicts your car analogy.

You still never clarified which way the aircraft were rolling in the test. It matters.

ICDP
11-16-2007, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
Blah, blahh blah. The car anology is a perfect comparison. Despite my 22 years of experince driving cars that gives me no referrence and insight to say exactly how a Ferrari should handle. I could make a guess but that is all it is. The same is true of a pilot with years of flight experience, unless he flew the A6M zero he cannot possibly KNOW HOW IT FLIES apart from second hand reports and accounts. If you can't understand this anology then you really are dumber than your posts make out.

Do not expect further responses from me on this matter. You are deluded to thinking real aviation experience counts for jot when it comes to knowing how the A6M flew UNLESS YOU FLEW IT.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-16-2007, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
I guess you don't know us. Quite a few of us are professional pilots with military backgrounds, extensive. We make a point to apply the proper procedure and tactics and they do NOT work here unless someone just does not want to chase.

I guess YOU don't know US.

We are spread all across the globe.

We have active duty Marines and AF personell in and out of the warzone.

We have ex-AF and Army and Canadian Army personell.

We have professional pilots (including an ex-RAF pilot), private pilots, and even a member of the FAA.

As well as police, IT, mechanics, and just about everything else you can think of.

Hell we even have fairly high ranking IL2 world-tournament contestants.

You're not impressive with your squad boasting, and you clearly don't know who you're talking to.

ICDP
11-16-2007, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
Would you seriously listen and take advice from the guy that makes fries at Burger King if he tried to tell you anything about how to do your job? I doubt you would.

If that guy who makes fries at Burger has used a Macintosh for only a few hours then his word on Macintosh's is far more relevant than my 22 years of working with and fixing PCs. For one simple reason, I HAVE NEVER USED A MAC THEREFORE I CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE A VALID OPINION ON HOW IT WORKS.

Sorry for shouting but it seems you can't grab this basic but very important concept.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-16-2007, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
Would you seriously listen and take advice from the guy that makes fries at Burger King if he tried to tell you anything about how to do your job? I doubt you would.

If that guy who makes fries at Burger has used a Macintosh for only a few hours then his word on Macintosh's is far more relevant than my 22 years of working with and fixing PCs. For one simple reason, I HAVE NEVER USED A MAC THEREFORE I CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE A VALID OPINION ON HOW IT WORKS.

Sorry for shouting but it seems you can't grab this basic but very important concept. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to be contrarian, but your metaphor falls there.

Mac has it's own way of doing things, but many things are the same, and experience with one can lead you to being able to figure out the other.

And as time moves on they are more and more similar as well.

About the only thing that doesn't go along with what I said, and DOES go along with what you said, is opening an empty CD-ROM drives. Turns out it's a damned button on the keyboard, and a poorly labeled one at that.

Suuuuuuuuuure Macs are easier to use, only took 15 friggan minutes to put a CD in the damned drive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'm in IT and occasionally have to deal with them, and like them less the more I interract with them. lol

ICDP
11-17-2007, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
Would you seriously listen and take advice from the guy that makes fries at Burger King if he tried to tell you anything about how to do your job? I doubt you would.

If that guy who makes fries at Burger has used a Macintosh for only a few hours then his word on Macintosh's is far more relevant than my 22 years of working with and fixing PCs. For one simple reason, I HAVE NEVER USED A MAC THEREFORE I CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE A VALID OPINION ON HOW IT WORKS.

Sorry for shouting but it seems you can't grab this basic but very important concept. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to be contrarian, but your metaphor falls there.

Mac has it's own way of doing things, but many things are the same, and experience with one can lead you to being able to figure out the other.

And as time moves on they are more and more similar as well.

About the only thing that doesn't go along with what I said, and DOES go along with what you said, is opening an empty CD-ROM drives. Turns out it's a damned button on the keyboard, and a poorly labeled one at that.

Suuuuuuuuuure Macs are easier to use, only took 15 friggan minutes to put a CD in the damned drive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'm in IT and occasionally have to deal with them, and like them less the more I interract with them. lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, I can only guess at how the Mac operates and how to get the best out of it. Until I actually use a Macintosh all of my experience counts for nothing. Once I use a Macintosh I can the draw upon my experience to compare and evaluate how it stacks up against a PC.

Likewise a pilot who has trained and flown for years in modern fighter jets is not able to draw upon his current flying experience to declare the A6M zero can only fly straight and level at 200kts. He is purely relying on the written word of Corkey Meyer and is drawing his conclussions based on Corkey's experience, not his own.

In short, until someone experiences something for themselves they have no option but to rely on the word (written or otherwise) of those who have experienced it.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-17-2007, 05:59 PM
I know what you are saying, and don't disagree with the point, just the example. A computer is a computer. If you really know any given platform, you have a leg up to get otherones figured out. No, you don't know in advance, but you can figure stuff out more quickly, so experience in other platforms really does help. That's all I was saying.

Daiichidoku
11-17-2007, 07:22 PM
so a zero is faster than a 533mhz front side bus?

ElAurens
11-17-2007, 10:36 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ICDP
11-18-2007, 12:24 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Not in this sim it isn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
11-18-2007, 03:58 PM
Perhaps Vidar has more from Corky Meyers that he's based his point on.

Eric Schilling had much to say based on experience fighting against Zeros during the war.

P-40 vs Zero and others thread on Usenet. (http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html)

[QUOTE]Note that he speaks of Zeros going back to early models.

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.

-----------------

>The first operational models of the A6M Zero, as has been
>discussed here, had ailerons that virtually locked up at higher
>speeds. The pilots knew this, obviously, and complained about it.

snip

>If you look at the wing plan form of the Zero, you will notice
>that the ailerons are HUGE and cover a substantial portion of the
>wing. With no assist of any kind and being fabric to boot, is it
>any wonder that the ailerons became immovable at high speed?
snip

I'll try a very simple and crude explaination of the Zero's
problem, although I'm sure some may disagree.

in each illustration the control is on an airplane which is
traveling from right to left as seen by the reader.

This represents the Zero's aileron design.
<-------- The horizontal V represents the hinge line, and as it
can be seen, this one would require a lot of strength to move the
control, especially at high speeds.

This is more indictive of the P-40's
--<------ Here it can easily be seen that it takes less force to
move the control since its area is smaller, and the air striking
the area forward of the hinge helps move the control.

----<---- In this case, once the control is deflected, the air
will be so effective on the front of the control, it will cause
control snatch, and the pilot will have to use a great deal of
force to prevent it from going full lock. Not Good.

--------< Antiservo needed, such as can be seen on some aircraft
with flying elevator controls.

Erik Shilling

---------------------

Interesting comments by Saburo Sakai concerning the Zero:

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." A captured Zero tested by Americans
military, showed its top speed to be 319 mph, this was a later
model, the AM6M5, and was tested without guns or ammunition.
Therefore Saburo Sakai's statement that the top speed of the A6M2
and A6M3 of 309 mph would seem correct.)

----------------------------------

That's the pertinent Zero references I found from that thread.

ElAurens
11-18-2007, 08:51 PM
I do believe that Sakai is mis-quoted slightly here, as I do believe he said knots and not MPH.

M_Gunz
11-18-2007, 09:58 PM
Eric Schilling was quoting Saburo from when Eric was interviewing Saburo personally.
He was still sharp on the subject in the 90's as what he wrote there attests, I won't
speculate to correct him but maybe you know better from some other source.

BigKahuna_GS
11-19-2007, 12:25 AM
S!

http://www.warbirdforum.com/sakai.htm

An afternoon with Saburo Sakai

http://www.warbirdforum.com/sakaifon.jpg

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. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">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.</span> 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. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. </span> You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."



_

M_Gunz
11-19-2007, 02:38 AM
Schilling directly from Sakai, please note that the Zero is an A6M2 though we are not given
the altitude:

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.

275 knots = 317 mph
350 knots = 403 mph

Easy enough to check against
The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph .
In an A6M2... what is top speed?

309 knots = 360 mph

It is or it isn't, right?

And from some other interview maybe is:

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.

250 knots = 288 mph

In that quote he also includes elevator, the Kamikazes could not pull up at some great speed.

Schilling tells why the controls heavy-up:

This represents the Zero's aileron design.
<-------- The horizontal V represents the hinge line, and as it
can be seen, this one would require a lot of strength to move the
control, especially at high speeds.


Zero does not have balanced control surfaces. It was made to turnfight at mid to low speeds.

JG53Frankyboy
11-19-2007, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Schilling directly from Sakai, please note that the Zero is an A6M2 though we are not given
the altitude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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.

275 knots = 317 mph
350 knots = 403 mph

Easy enough to check against
The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph .
In an A6M2... what is top speed?

309 knots = 360 mph

It is or it isn't, right?

And from some other interview maybe is:

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.

250 knots = 288 mph

In that quote he also includes elevator, the Kamikazes could not pull up at some great speed.

Schilling tells why the controls heavy-up:

This represents the Zero's aileron design.
<-------- The horizontal V represents the hinge line, and as it
can be seen, this one would require a lot of strength to move the
control, especially at high speeds.


Zero does not have balanced control surfaces. It was made to turnfight at mid to low speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

309mph is ~495 km/h , sounds a little bit too slow.
309knots is ~572 km/h, sounds a little but too fast.
anyway, we dont know wich Zero version was talked about...............

btw:
"Sakai distinguished between normal full power speed (316 m.p.h.) and over boost (345 m.p.h.). His normal full speed is exactly the same as the Zero's maximum speed given in the captured Japanese manual. The San Diego test report, while revealing that the San Diego Zero was not tested at over boost, does confirm Sakai's assertion that such a rating was available. Sakai has credibility that is primarily based on his personal familiarity with the Zero 21 aircraft. These additional factors only bolster his credibility.

The evidence assembled in this report strongly indicates that Sakai's version of the Zero's maximum speed (345 m.p.h.) is highly credible and probably the correct one. Additional support for this conclusion is found in an intelligence document issued in 1944: "Performance data given for the ZEKE Mk. 1 [Allied code name for the Zero 21] was obtained in actual flight tests. Although emergency speed obtained in tests was 328 m.p.h., calculations indicate a maximum speed of about 345 m.p.h. as possible for a short period of time" (Intelligence Summary No. 44-11)."

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm

BSS_Vidar
11-19-2007, 09:24 AM
Thanks for posting that Kahuna,

I was aware of Saburo Sakai's accounts, but did not have direct reference to them, except from what I had read years ago in post-action reports and pilot testimonies as a Top Gun student back in 1988.

As for my comment about the Zeke's control in level flight.. It WAS a back-handed remark ment more as a joke on my part, and should have been followed by an "LOL". Sorry for the misunderstanding.

However, my initial reponce in this thread in regards to the Zeke's controlability in a DIVE still stands. Corkey Meyer flew the Zeke to the edge during testing, but he didn't push it to where it would kill'em, nor did any of the other test pilots. The tactics used by the Japanese PROHIBITED high speed dives and chasing US aircraft in the Zeke for this very reason.


V

Don_X
11-19-2007, 01:29 PM
Altitude (m) IAS TAS
max stall max stall
1000 390 120 416 128
1500 390 120 428 132
2000 390 120 441 136
2500 390 120 454 140
3000 390 120 467 144
3500 390 120 480 148
4000 390 120 492 151
4500 380 120 492 155
5000 370 120 491 159
5500 360 120 490 163
6000 350 120 488 167

These are the best figures I could get from the A6M2 in level flight.

DIRTY-MAC
11-19-2007, 04:41 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by M_Gunz:


Eric Schilling had much to say based on experience fighting against Zeros during the war.

I dont know if im remembering it correctly, but wasnt it just mostly Ki43s and Ki27s that the Eric and Tigers met? I have a vague memory of that

ElAurens
11-19-2007, 05:25 PM
You are correct. At the time the AVG was active in Burma and China, Japanese air operations there were the province of the Imperial Japanese Army Flying Corps. The AVG never engaged a Zeke.

All IJN flying units were off in the Pacific running roughshod over the Allies at the time.

ICDP
11-20-2007, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
As for my comment about the Zeke's control in level flight.. It WAS a back-handed remark ment more as a joke on my part, and should have been followed by an "LOL". Sorry for the misunderstanding.
V

Thanks for clearing that up Vidar, this statment is was why I got involved in the first place. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I actually believe the A6M Zero in IL2 has very poor rollrate over 250mph. I can easily outfly an A6M at these speeds in the mid to late US fighters. The earlier fighters are always just fodder for the A6M apart from in a dive because they don't have the power to take advantage of the Zeke's poor high speed rollrate. Also the fact that the F6F is a good 10-15mph too slow is countered by the fact that the Zero is too. I would hate for the Zero's speed to be fixed while the F6F was left broken.

One thing that is never taken into account is the way pilot strength is modelled (or not) is a major factor in all these problems re rollrate. We all know that our virtual pilot can always apply full strength to move the controls in any aircraft. This removes the historical advantage aircraft with light controls such as the P51, F4U, Fw190 etc had in real life. While the advantage is still there it is not as marked as it should be.

JG53Frankyboy
11-20-2007, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Don_X:
Altitude (m) IAS TAS
max stall max stall
1000 390 120 416 128
1500 390 120 428 132
2000 390 120 441 136
2500 390 120 454 140
3000 390 120 467 144
3500 390 120 480 148
4000 390 120 492 151
4500 380 120 492 155
5000 370 120 491 159
5500 360 120 490 163
6000 350 120 488 167

These are the best figures I could get from the A6M2 in level flight.

??

with A6M2 Model 21 (the Model 11 is even , if not slightly faster) on the Crimea map:
at 4500m (according to il2compare the full throttle alt) i got ~525 km/h TAS .

Don_X
11-20-2007, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Don_X:
Altitude (m) IAS TAS
max stall max stall
1000 390 120 416 128
1500 390 120 428 132
2000 390 120 441 136
2500 390 120 454 140
3000 390 120 467 144
3500 390 120 480 148
4000 390 120 492 151
4500 380 120 492 155
5000 370 120 491 159
5500 360 120 490 163
6000 350 120 488 167

These are the best figures I could get from the A6M2 in level flight.

??

with A6M2 Model 21 (the Model 11 is even , if not slightly faster) on the Crimea map:
at 4500m (according to il2compare the full throttle alt) i got ~525 km/h TAS . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So is my whole installation of IL2 undermodelled? I was correctly trimmed and rad shut during these trials.

BSS_Sniper
11-20-2007, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
so a zero is faster than a 533mhz front side bus?

LMAO thats the best!

ICDP I apologize for getting a bit over the top. I've been gone for a few days. Hopefully we can try to understand each other a bit better and I'll get back OT. S!

M_Gunz
11-20-2007, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by M_Gunz:


Eric Schilling had much to say based on experience fighting against Zeros during the war.

I dont know if im remembering it correctly, but wasnt it just mostly Ki43s and Ki27s that the Eric and Tigers met? I have a vague memory of that

He argues that the AVG did meet some Zeros and it's been shown that a few were sent there to
try something or other.

Also the AVG was turned back over to the USAAF, IIRC about mid-war. Those guys got chances
to meet Zeros or at least some of them did before it was over.

VFS-214_Hawk
11-21-2007, 07:27 PM
The AVG Flying Tigers NEVER FAUGHT AGAINST THE A6M2 series fighters.

PikeBishop
11-28-2007, 06:09 AM
Dear All,
The difficulty I have about this is that the speed for the lockup of the ailerons quoted in a dive is less than the maximum LEVEL speed of the Aircraft. Also Saki's quote about this effect is anecdotal......OK he was an experienced pilot but what does he mean by "extremely heavy" or "impossible to roll"
I mean, is it the case that a US pilot of bigger stature would find the stick forces 'uncomfortable' rather that extremely heavy??
I take the point about the large area that the ailerons took up....but did the japanese ever experiment to reduce the forces......if not did that mean that the forces were heavy but not enough to warrant further investigation?
I also think the point about the speed being quoted may have been in Knots, because I have always wondered why the japanese fighters seemed to be somewhat slower than their US counterparts. This idea combined with the fact that the japanese never quoted speeds under WEP makes me think that they were actually better than we have always been led to believe. One point that I think is important is that prior to any captured examples of the Zero being flown US pilots would have no knowledge of this roll rate problem and would have believed completely the 'invincible' reputation of the Zero and so be doubtful of their own survival in any encounter with the type. Access to performance figures now means that the Zero will never have the reputation it deservedly had in WWII because all advantages have been lost to history.
Best regards,
SLP.

HarryMann
11-28-2007, 05:16 PM
You still never clarified which way the aircraft were rolling in the test. It matters.

If NACA had produced two charts for both left and right roll-rate then that'd answer that..

they didn't, so any self-respecting engineer would take their figures as the mean achievable roll-rate (at that stick force); particularly as most aircraft were not so asymmetric as the Zero was reputed to be.
Whatever, taking the charted values is the ONLY sensible thing to do - unless you want to live in cloud cuckoo land...

as although Brits frequently get incensed with all manner of so-called 'facts' coming from the West of the Atlantic divide (including the origins of fully flying control surfaces, wing fences, who invented what, and when, who captured the 4-wheel Enigma (Shark) from a U-boat, who built the Colditz Glider etc. etc.

-- we don't argue with NACA reports!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Darth_Snoopy
12-05-2007, 09:53 PM
Blitz_Pig

That is the best post that I have seen in a loooooong time.

Do one on "NUCULAR", or "PITCHER" as in My driver's license pitcher came out horrible.

Hope you dont mind if I use elements from your post elsewhre.