PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, Zero vs. Wildcat - speeds



arrow80
04-18-2005, 09:34 AM
As far as my observations goe, F4F3 is faster at sea level at about 30 kmh/h than Zero A6M2b - 21 . Every report that I've read so far stated that Wildcat was slower than the early Zeros. I don't know what's wrong now...If Wildcat is faster than it should be, or Zero is slower at SL than it should be...Or experts, am I mistaken?

p1ngu666
04-18-2005, 09:51 AM
zero is too slow i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

LEBillfish
04-18-2005, 10:41 AM
If we are waiting on a patch that includes an entirely new FM, I would suspect that such a request at this moment is mute.....Kindof like asking if you can add a different carburator to your model A next week, that you'll be scrapping in the morning to buy your new RX-8.

Patience on speeds/dives/climbs/etc. performance over all would be my suggestion....As it sounds like you'll have every plane we have to re-critique in 2 weeks.

arrow80
04-18-2005, 10:55 AM
LEBillfish: I know that we will soon (in two weeks) get new FM, but I think that it is a good time to mention that speed of Zero is too low at SL (at least), so this error wouldn't appear in the forthcoming patch.

TAGERT.
04-18-2005, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Every report that I've read so far stated that <SNIP> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Every? Well than, it should be a simple mater to send those REPORTS to Oleg who in turn would fix it.. Assuming your REPORT has has some credibility. That is to say if you have to SCAN IN the REPORT off the back of the MATCHBOX package that the toy came in.. Well, dont expect Oleg to put too much value in such a REPORT. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
04-18-2005, 09:37 PM
tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
i read a similer report awhile ago, alas ive no idea where it is...
if i remmber correcty F4F had a few advantages
highspeed handling, roll, dive

think zero was better at every other aspect of flight, speed, climb, turn etc

zero's, as a family are undermodeled in alot of respects in PF

p1ngu666
04-18-2005, 09:38 PM
the report was by the americans btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

amusingly some american planes had problems in the test... zero didnt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TAGERT.
04-18-2005, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
i read a similer report awhile ago, alas ive no idea where it is...
if i remmber correcty F4F had a few advantages
highspeed handling, roll, dive

think zero was better at every other aspect of flight, speed, climb, turn etc

zero's, as a family are undermodeled in alot of respects in PF <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Prob is there were more version of the zero between 41 and 45 then than VW bugs between 1950 and 1969! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The pictue books that so many love to quote hardly ever spell out the spicifics of the data they present.. They typically have some picture of some version of the plane.. then list some numbers.. But the nubers are usally the best numbers from all the versions and not necessarly the version of the plane in the picture. So, if you want change... ie convice Oleg, your gonig to have to present more than picture book data! Including a track file showing how you did or did not obtain the numbers wouldnt hurt either.

arrow80
04-19-2005, 12:37 AM
Tagert: I don't know why you sound that derogative and tell me somthing about matchbox packages and toys. I have magazines and books at home that state this and you can also try to use google and read some statements and pilot reports. And yet I haven't found a single report or data that would state that Wildcat was faster than Zero at SL. I know, that my sources are not enough credible, but it is my observation and a ganeral presented fact (or a myth maybe). Therefore I asked experts if A6m2b - 21 was really slower than wildcat of about 30 km/h at SL. If not, than it is absolutely OK, but the representation in the game doesn't fit what I've read so I am questioning people here who might know more about it and have some real credible reports. I just really don't understand why do you have a need to be that derogative. S!

anarchy52
04-19-2005, 02:46 AM
Is this credible anough:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/Zero.pdf

It should be take with a grain of salt because US evaluation team made mistakes when rebuilding the Zero (negative G cutoff for example). Zeros in Japaneese service should perform better.

Summary: at Sea level wildcat and Zero are equal, above 1000 feet Zero is faster.
HardBalls AC viewer for PF shows:

A6M2: 432km/h (~270mph) at sea level which corresponds with US test. Seems that A6M2 Zero we have in game is modelled after this test of the rebuilt plane.

F4F-4: 461km/h at sea level

In game testing is needed.

The way i see it:

Wildcat (as many others) was probably beefed up for offline players (speed, agility, probably even durability - I know Grumman made strong planes but getting pounded by 2 20mm cannons without effect on ac performance is a bit over the top).

On the other hand Zero got zero-structural strength (half a dozen scattered .50 cals will break the fuselage in half which is pure nonsense, 1-2 hits on the wings will cause severe problems). Zero's weakness was self-sealing fuel tanks not glass structure.

JG53Frankyboy
04-19-2005, 04:10 AM
the Zero used in that report was a A6M2 Model21 that made an emergency landing after it was hit from AAA . it attacked Dutch Harbor at the Aleutians from the carrier Ryujo.


interesting is also as they speak of very good manouverabulity till 300mph = 480km/h.

in game its perfomrnce in that case is degrating much earlier

JG53Frankyboy
04-19-2005, 05:10 AM
PFm 3.04:
F4F-4 on Crimea map at sealevel Vmax TAS = 460km/h

with a Vmax of the Zeke21 of 430 km/h TAS they are far from equal as the USN tests claims

and btw, it seems not easy to find "THE2 corrct speeds for the Zeros
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
04-19-2005, 08:16 AM
anarchy52, I'd hardly say that a few 20mm rounds into a Wildcat aren't going to cause a performance hit. Ever been on the recieving end? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
04-19-2005, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the Zero used in that report was a A6M2 Model21 that made an emergency landing after it was hit from AAA . it attacked Dutch Harbor at the Aleutians from the carrier Ryujo.


interesting is also as they speak of very good manouverabulity till 300mph = 480km/h.

in game its perfomrnce in that case is degrating much earlier <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

also at high-mid alts its stiffens up, so its hardly any better than corsair http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
5b has a missing gun, and the 7 series should take a 500kg bomb, but they dont..
ki43 should have bombs too

anarchy52
04-19-2005, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
anarchy52, I'd hardly say that a few 20mm rounds into a Wildcat aren't going to cause a performance hit. Ever been on the recieving end? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I couldn't catch him (Maybe I forgot to switch supercharger gear when we descended to grass level?).
I'm mostly on the recieving end while flying 109 and 190 and they lose a lot of performance when hit.
Undamaged wildcat should be slower then Zero. Damaged wildcat should be slower then undamaged wildcat. At leas I think so.

Off topic:
Thing that annoys me is that many planes can continue fighting after recieving multiple 20mm canon hits, while others are out of the fight if hit by anything at all. Zero, 109 and 190 to some extent (fuel tank leak from hell, crippled by 3-4 .50 ca hits on the wing) are an extreme example of this. On the other side we have Spitfire, I-16, LaGG-3 which don't seem to lose performance until you saw their wings off, kill the pilot or put anough lead on their engine to make them too nose heavy to fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
04-19-2005, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the Zero used in that report was a A6M2 Model21 that made an emergency landing after it was hit from AAA . it attacked Dutch Harbor at the Aleutians from the carrier Ryujo.


interesting is also as they speak of very good manouverabulity till 300mph = 480km/h.

in game its perfomrnce in that case is degrating much earlier <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

also at high-mid alts its stiffens up, so its hardly any better than corsair http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
5b has a missing gun, and the 7 series should take a 500kg bomb, but they dont..
ki43 should have bombs too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the ingame flyable Ki-43-I couldnt carry bombs so far i know , only droptanks

bit the Ki-43-II , unfortunatly not flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif , could carry both http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.warbirdpictures.com/ArmyJB&W3/Ki-43-94.jpg

TAGERT.
04-19-2005, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Tagert: I don't know why you sound that derogative and tell me somthing about matchbox packages and toys. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Derogative? Huh? Anyway, back on topic, In light of the total lack of any references or links.. what is one to assume? Do you expect us to just take your word for it? Do you expect Oleg to take your word for it? Many around here do, and you wouldn't be the first to quote a bubble gum wrapper as some sort of fact. Thus my question about your sources.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
I have magazines and books at home that state this <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Many? Yet not one reference? You would think that with MANY to choose from one could include a quote from said article and page number.. Yet nothing? Thus once again. Do you expect us to just take your word for it? Do you expect Oleg to take your word for it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
and you can also try to use google and read some statements and pilot reports. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pilot combat reports are pretty much useless for determine these kinds of issues in that 99% of the time they never contain the basic information to recreate the situation to then test for in the sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
And yet I haven't found a single report or data that would state that Wildcat was faster than Zero at SL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Than it should be a slam dunk.. Once you provide some proof.. Which should be easy sense you have MANY to choose from.. Or did you expect us to just take your word for it? Or did you expect Oleg to just take your word for it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
I know, that my sources are not enough credible, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What? But.. but.. You just said.. Your kidding right? So you have MANY NOT ENOUGH CREDIBLE SOURCES? What happen to all those magazines and books that STATED this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
but it is my observation and a ganeral presented fact (or a myth maybe). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, now I understand why you didn't post anything.. Because it is your INTERPRETATION of what was said.. and not directly STATED as you would have had us belive when you said they STATED JUST THAT. Now you see why Oleg does not bother with what is *said* in this forum.. Provide the data and maybe you stand a chance of change.. But don't expect us to just take your word for it? Let alone expect Oleg to just take your word for it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Therefore I asked experts if A6m2b - 21 was really slower than wildcat of about 30 km/h at SL. If not, than it is absolutely OK, but the representation in the game doesn't fit what I've read so I am questioning people here who might know more about it and have some real credible reports. I just really don't understand why do you have a need to be that derogative. S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, in summary, YOU GOT NOTHING.. Nothing that.. how did you say it above? "that state this". All you have is your IMPRESSION from your INTERPRETATION of what you read in a few combat pilot reports.. Which is very Very VERY different than a book that clearly STATES IT.

JtD
04-19-2005, 10:06 AM
So good Tagert. is around - if not for him there would be nobody to base a defence on nothing but a lot of typing.

Btw, if you use "us" please make sure you tell who "we" is. I have the impression it's supposed to be "the community" but I certainly don't agree with your style.

TAGERT.
04-19-2005, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Is this credible anough:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/Zero.pdf

It should be take with a grain of salt because US evaluation team made mistakes when rebuilding the Zero (negative G cutoff for example). Zeros in Japaneese service should perform better.

Summary: at Sea level wildcat and Zero are equal, above 1000 feet Zero is faster.
HardBalls AC viewer for PF shows:

A6M2: 432km/h (~270mph) at sea level which corresponds with US test. Seems that A6M2 Zero we have in game is modelled after this test of the rebuilt plane.

F4F-4: 461km/h at sea level

In game testing is needed.

The way i see it:

Wildcat (as many others) was probably beefed up for offline players (speed, agility, probably even durability - I know Grumman made strong planes but getting pounded by 2 20mm cannons without effect on ac performance is a bit over the top).

On the other hand Zero got zero-structural strength (half a dozen scattered .50 cals will break the fuselage in half which is pure nonsense, 1-2 hits on the wings will cause severe problems). Zero's weakness was self-sealing fuel tanks not glass structure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Arrow, take note of this post by anarchy52. It is a perfect example of how to do it. You make a statement and provide supporting data. Oh, and also note that it pretty much debunks your impression that the zero was faster at sea level.

arrow80
04-19-2005, 10:15 AM
Tagert: I won't convince you about mine sources, I've already sent to Oleg and also people in this thread presented relevant facts...have a nice day and please keep your adrenaline at low level.

TAGERT.
04-19-2005, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
So good Tagert. is around - if not for him there would be nobody to base a defence on nothing but a lot of typing.

Btw, if you use "us" please make sure you tell who "we" is. I have the impression it's supposed to be "the community" but I certainly don't agree with your style. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, "we" was ment to refer to reasoable people in this forum, sorry if you *felt* I was refering to you when I said we. I surly didnt mean to.

TAGERT.
04-19-2005, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Tagert: I won't convince you about mine sources, I've already sent to Oleg and also people in this thread presented relevant facts...have a nice day and please keep your adrenaline at low level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, I hope the candy does not melt before it gets to Oleg.. It would make it hard to read the wrapper! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anarchy52
04-19-2005, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
]Arrow, take note of this post by anarchy52. It is a perfect example of how to do it. You make a statement and provide supporting data. Oh, and also note that it pretty much debunks your impression that the zero was faster at sea level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank You, but I think You misunderstood:
Damaged and partialy rebuilt Zero was AS FAST AS Wildcat at sea level.
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm
was very insightfull, as it combines more sources and with more credibility then 1942 USAF report which is questionable in some points.

p1ngu666
04-19-2005, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
]Arrow, take note of this post by anarchy52. It is a perfect example of how to do it. You make a statement and provide supporting data. Oh, and also note that it pretty much debunks your impression that the zero was faster at sea level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank You, but I think You misunderstood:
Damaged and partialy rebuilt Zero was AS FAST AS Wildcat at sea level.
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm
was very insightfull, as it combines more sources and with more credibility then 1942 USAF report which is questionable in some points. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

slipped up there tagart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
04-19-2005, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Sorry, "we" was ment to refer to reasoable people in this forum, sorry if you *felt* I was refering to you when I said we. I surly didnt mean to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so next time better use "they" as you certainly don't make the impression to be a reasonable person. After all, you don't even seem to read and understand things before you quote and comment.

Nice links, anarchy52. Thanks.

arrow80
04-19-2005, 12:36 PM
just to add some link slightly OT with nice cockpit pictures and data of A6M3 (warning, big and many pictures):

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/Zeke32.htm

Slickun
04-19-2005, 02:58 PM
The things the Wildcat had as advantages were not insignificant. Better roll rate and handling at high speeds, better dive, tougher overall, make it a great "one pass haul a$$" type plane. Fight it to the strengths of the plane, and one had plenty to use.

I think I read somewhere that as far as anyone can tell, the kill ratio between the Wildcat and Zero was very close to 1-1.

73GIAP_Milan
04-19-2005, 04:15 PM
not to be rude or anything, but what i see here is that no real evidence is posted and tagert seems to know it all but does no attempt to show evidence himself...

only alot of words..

just my 2 eurocents worth it, you can continue your discussion now ^^

Blackdog5555
04-19-2005, 04:22 PM
Well some people, it seems, need to talk talk talk, and never say anything. i think they call it 'talk therapy". (girls on the phone thing) Here it would be "forum therapy" LOL.

TAGERT.
04-19-2005, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Thank You, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your Welcome.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
but I think You misunderstood: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Than Think Again.. Main point that YOU MISUDERSTOOD was I said you did it right in the since that you provided supporting documents.. Not just your *feelings* about some document, but the actual source. Dont confuse that with me agreeing with your summary of the document.. Which I dont wrt that damage stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Damaged and partialy rebuilt Zero was AS FAST AS Wildcat at sea level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Damage that was repaired before the tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm
was very insightfull, as it combines more sources and with more credibility then 1942 USAF report which is questionable in some points. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Credibility is in the eyes of the beholder.. If you dont want to belive, call it questionable.. If you do want to belive.. you dont. Just what part do you consider questionable and why?

TAGERT.
04-19-2005, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
slipped up there tagart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Negative

TAGERT.
04-19-2005, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Ah, so next time better use "they" as you certainly don't make the impression to be a reasonable person. After all, you don't even seem to read and understand things before you quote and comment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What ever gets you to sleep at night

TAGERT.
04-19-2005, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 73GIAP_Milan:
not to be rude or anything, but what i see here is that no real evidence is posted and tagert seems to know it all but does no attempt to show evidence himself...

only alot of words..

just my 2 eurocents worth it, you can continue your discussion now ^^ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your not rude, your just impressionable, Simple fact is Im not claiming anything is broken, therefore I dont need to provide any proof of anything. Im simply pointed out that the orginal poster didnt provide anything to support his claims... Get it or should I draw you a picture?

TAGERT.
04-19-2005, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Well some people, it seems, need to talk talk talk, and never say anything. i think they call it 'talk therapy". (girls on the phone thing) Here it would be "forum therapy" LOL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, does talking about talking qualify? ROTFLMAO!

p1ngu666
04-19-2005, 09:30 PM
curious tagart, wheres your knowledge coming from?

also the data on japanease planes that 1c used seems ropey. thinking of ki61, zero stuff, also the ki84 thing but i dunno much about that

Badsight.
04-19-2005, 10:51 PM
how about Tagert trys to stick to the threads topic instead of trying to character assasinate & ruin peoples threads ?

does he see it as his job to thread wreck

robban75
04-20-2005, 02:46 AM
Did some testing on the Crimea map, with full fuel and internal ammo. All speeds in TAS unless otherwise stated.

Performance comparison, F4F-4 vs A6M3.

Speed @ sealevel

F4F-4 - 468km/h

A6M3 -- 474km/



Climb F4F-4

Time to 5000m - 6:34

Average climbrates at alt in m/sec

1000 - ~14.7
2000 - ~13.5
3000 - ~11.8
4000 - ~12.8
5000 - ~11.2


Climb A6M3

Time to 5000m - 4:20

Average climbrates at alt in m/sec

1000 - ~20.4
2000 - ~19.2
3000 - ~19.6
4000 - ~17.9
5000 - ~19.2


Dive acceleration in km/h, 45 degree dive.

Alt --- F4F-4 - A6M3

5000 -- 330 --- 330
4500 -- 495 --- 514
4000 -- 605 --- 620
3500 -- 685 --- 695
3000 -- 747 --- 749
2500 -- 795 --- 791
2000 -- 832 --- 822
1500 -- 861 --- N/A
1000 -- 881 --- N/A
500 --- 898 --- N/A

Break up speed

F4F-4 ~850km/h IAS

A6M3 ~740km/h IAS


Level acceleration in km/h

Type F4F-4 - A6M3

ST= start timer

200 - ST --- ST
250 - 6 ---- 4
300 - 12 --- 9
350 - 22 --- 16
400 - 37 --- 27
420 - 46 --- 34
450 - 1:13 - 50
460 - 1:33 - 1:01

At 460km/h both planes were pulled straight up.

The F4F-4 reached 966m before it fell back to earth.

The A6M3 reached 1027m before it fell back to earth.

JG53Frankyboy
04-20-2005, 04:45 AM
you should have done this test with the A6M2-21.

these two were the oponents in 3 of the 4 carrierbattles in 1942 and mainly over Guadalcanal 1942. the A6M3-32 had not the range flying from Rabaul to Guadlacanal and back. and the 1943 A6M3-22 ,that would have enough range , we have not in game .
nevertheless, nice work !

robban75
04-20-2005, 05:01 AM
I just picked them because they were from the same year 1942. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JG53Frankyboy
04-20-2005, 05:13 AM
i never count on the given years in game. im always only locking wich planes realy fight eachother.

and about the A6M3-32 performance - sure , its a good one. nobody would complain about it !
and the first examples of it came august 42 to Rabaul. but as i said, it had not the range. it had to wait till the japanese finnished their bases at Bougainville . that reduced the distance to a half !

but THE Zero that fought the 1942 battles mostly was the A6M2-21.

anarchy52
04-20-2005, 05:16 AM
You should be testing M2 not M3

robban75
04-20-2005, 05:43 AM
Ok, added the A6M2-21

Performance comparison, F4F-4 vs A6M3 & A6M2-21.

Speed @ sealevel

F4F-4 - 468km/h

A6M3 -- 474km/

A6M2-21 - 438km/h



Climb F4F-4

Time to 5000m - 6:34

Average climbrates at alt in m/sec

1000 - ~14.7
2000 - ~13.5
3000 - ~11.8
4000 - ~12.8
5000 - ~11.2


Climb A6M3

Time to 5000m - 4:20

Average climbrates at alt in m/sec

1000 - ~20.4
2000 - ~19.2
3000 - ~19.6
4000 - ~17.9
5000 - ~19.2


Climb A6M2-21

Time to 5000m 4:38

Average climbrates at alt in m/sec

1000 - ~16.7
2000 - ~17.9
3000 - ~18.9
4000 - ~18.9
5000 - ~17.9


Dive acceleration in km/h, 45 degree dive.

Alt --- F4F-4 - A6M3 - A6M2-21

5000 -- 330 --- 330 -- 330
4500 -- 495 --- 514 -- 514
4000 -- 605 --- 620 -- 620
3500 -- 685 --- 695 -- 693
3000 -- 747 --- 749 -- 745
2500 -- 795 --- 791 -- 786
2000 -- 832 --- 822 -- N/A
1500 -- 861 --- N/A -- N/A
1000 -- 881 --- N/A -- N/A
500 --- 898 --- N/A -- N/A


Break up speed

F4F-4 ~850km/h IAS

A6M3 ~740km/h IAS

A6M2-21 ~660km/h IAS



Level acceleration in km/h

Type F4F-4 - A6M3 - A6M2-21

ST= start timer

200 - ST --- ST --- ST
250 - 6 ---- 4 ---- 5
300 - 12 --- 9 ---- 12
350 - 22 --- 16 --- 21
400 - 37 --- 27 --- 37
420 - 46 --- 34 --- 54
450 - 1:13 - 50 --- N/A
460 - 1:33 - 1:01 - N/A


At 460km/h the F4F-4 and A6M3 were pulled straight up.

The F4F-4 reached 966m before it fell back to earth.

The A6M3 reached 1027m before it fell back to earth.

anarchy52
04-20-2005, 06:51 AM
Zero outdives wildcat?
Wildcat is faster then Zero?
and that's just scratching the surface...

PF is made in haste to attract PTO fans and off-whiners.
Or put it this way: PF is a game, FB is a flight simulator game.

Ratsack
04-20-2005, 07:30 AM
Pingu,

From memory,the A6M5b (Model 52b) is meant to be 'missing' a gun. They took it out to save the weight that went into the armoured glass and stuff. This was the only one of the Model 52s produced in significant numbers that had any protection at all for the pilot. Had a thicker skin on the wings, too, so better dive than the rest. Best of the bunch. (The Model 52c - contrary to what the object viewer says - was not meant to be some land based version, but was meant to be a 52b with armour, self-sealing tanks, extra guns and a more powerful motor to drag it around. It got only the guns and the armour, and so was a sitting duck. Only about 100 built...another historically irrelevant addition to the sim...looks good in the gunsights, though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

JG53Frankyboy
04-20-2005, 07:47 AM
all i read so far they left out the left , nose mounted light machinegun because of weight in the A6M5c.
i always reading that a A6M5b should have:
1x 7,7mm Typ 97 light MG
1x 13mm Typ 3 heavy MG
2x 20mm Typ 99 Model2 canon

but hell, would a light MG realy put more firepower to the A6M5b http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
04-20-2005, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
all i read so far they left out the left , nose mounted light machinegun because of weight in the A6M5c.
i always reading that a A6M5b should have:
1x 7,7mm Typ 97 light MG
1x 13mm Typ 3 heavy MG
2x 20mm Typ 99 Model2 canon

but hell, would a light MG realy put more firepower to the A6M5b http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, yes it would. 5b got the exclusive "face hunter" bullets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

rats one of the 5b's 7.7mm's was replaced by a 13mm gun, the 5c and onwards had no 7.7mm gun,

Ratsack
04-20-2005, 09:02 AM
Nuts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif You guys are right: the 52b did have guns of three different calibers, didn't it.

I sit corrected...but I'm right about the 52c, though...I think. Memory ain't what it used to be. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

JtD
04-21-2005, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Zero outdives wildcat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it doesn't. If you take a look at Robbans figures you'll notice the Zero only initally pulls away. It gains 20kph during the first five hundred meters, but starts losing the speed advantage soo after. 15-10-equal-disadvantage.

Robban, thx for testing.

S.taibanzai
04-22-2005, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Tagert: I don't know why you sound that derogative and tell me somthing about matchbox packages and toys. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Derogative? Huh? Anyway, back on topic, In light of the total lack of any references or links.. what is one to assume? Do you expect us to just take your word for it? Do you expect Oleg to take your word for it? Many around here do, and you wouldn't be the first to quote a bubble gum wrapper as some sort of fact. Thus my question about your sources.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
I have magazines and books at home __that state this__ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Many? Yet not one reference? You would think that with MANY to choose from one could include a quote from said article and page number.. Yet nothing? Thus once again. Do you expect us to just take your word for it? Do you expect Oleg to take your word for it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
and you can also try to use google and read some statements and pilot reports. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pilot combat reports are pretty much useless for determine these kinds of issues in that 99% of the time they never contain the basic information to recreate the situation to then test for in the sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
And yet I haven't found a single report or data that would state that Wildcat was faster than Zero at SL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Than it should be a slam dunk.. Once you provide some proof.. Which should be easy sense you have MANY to choose from.. Or did you expect us to just take your word for it? Or did you expect Oleg to just take your word for it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
I know, that my sources are __not enough credible,__ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What? But.. but.. You just said.. Your kidding right? So you have MANY NOT ENOUGH CREDIBLE SOURCES? What happen to all those magazines and books that STATED this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
but it is my observation and a ganeral presented fact (or a myth maybe). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, now I understand why you didn't post anything.. Because it is your INTERPRETATION of what was said.. and not directly STATED as you would have had us belive when you said they STATED JUST THAT. Now you see why Oleg does not bother with what is *said* in this forum.. Provide the data and maybe you stand a chance of change.. But don't expect us to just take your word for it? Let alone expect Oleg to just take your word for it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Therefore I asked experts if A6m2b - 21 was really slower than wildcat of about 30 km/h at SL. If not, than it is absolutely OK, but the representation in the game doesn't fit what I've read so I am questioning people here who might know more about it and have some real credible reports. I just really don't understand why do you have a need to be that derogative. S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, in summary, YOU GOT NOTHING.. Nothing that.. how did you say it above? __"that state this"__. All you have is your IMPRESSION from your INTERPRETATION of what you read in a few combat pilot reports.. Which is very Very VERY different than a book that clearly STATES IT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I nother big Ego triper

Who believes his own lies is one ,but to make other people believe it is sad

JG53Frankyboy
04-28-2005, 07:10 AM
and some not FM related tweaks that should be made by the PFm A6M:

A6M5c Model52c should have no MW injection , only normal boost. in the model prefix 52 the "2" is saying it has a Sakae 21 engine.

A6M7 Model62 should also not have MW injection , like above , it has Sakae 21

well
A6M7 Model63 SHOULD have the MW injection , it had the Sakae 31

and pls realy think about to ad a A6M3 Model22 to the game:
a Model 32 merged with the wings of a Model 21 ->
.speed a little bit less than the Model 32
.maneuverability like the Model 21 ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )
.max dive speed like Model 21
.rudder trim
.100rpg in the wing canons
.1943 plane

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif