PDA

View Full Version : Wildcat probably not too maneuverable



mortoma
10-22-2004, 06:10 PM
I have read posts already where some claim the Wildcat is too good. While I have not flown it yet, since I don't have PF yet, I'll venture to say that a lot of people are probably comparing it to AI controlled Zeroes. This is not a good comparison. I used to think the P-40s matched up pretty good to the Zeros in FB/AEP, until the time I tried flying the P-40 online for a day in HL. I went into a room called "Zeroes against P-40s" or something like that. Well, to be blunt, I found that the P-40 wasn't so hot against any halfway decent human pilot in a Zero. Please remember that ace AI do not turn any plane nearly as tight as it can be turned by a human. And Veteran, Average and Novice AI are even more pathetic. End of discussion.........

BuzzU
10-22-2004, 06:19 PM
I've heard guys say the Wildcat turns with the zero, and they are flying against humans. I hope this isn't true for two reasons. For one the whining will be unbearable, and every noob will be flying the Wildcat. Both of those will degrade the Wildcat to a Yak.

Bull_dog_
10-22-2004, 06:27 PM
The wildcat was one of the best, if not the best, american turning plane...but the zeke should handily out turn it at slow speeds...

I'm thinking a scissors or high speed, nose down turn should give the Wildcat and advantage over the zero.

Don't have the game yet, but i'm real anxious to see.

Soulyss
10-22-2004, 06:59 PM
Are we talking F4F-3 or F4F-4 here? Can make a lot of difference... the -4 was much heavier than the -3 with added pilot armor, self sealing fuel tanks, a folding wing mechanism an an extra pair of guns.

Chuck_Older
10-22-2004, 07:03 PM
I'm not even going to address the Wildcat FM. I can't comment, I don't have PF

What I am gonna comment on is preconceived notions.

Now, there has been all this talk "US fanboys R gunna B in for a shock with teh US planez in the PtO" and even some comments like that from folks WITH brains in their heads that warn us, "USN and USAAF planes aren't maneuverable. Get used to it, you're going to be rudely surprised."

Well, this is like a broken record. I have heard and read "Never turn with a Zero" since I could read (Yes, two years ago now).

The general consensus is that anyone expecting a USN or USAAF plane to turn with a "Zero" (or insert Axis plane here) is a noob or a fanboy, pick your perjorative (I took vocab in the dark ages). That is to say, the Prevailing Wisdom says that "We all thought before we Knew Better that a US plane could manuever, and we found out differently, so now we know the Truth: NO American plane can manuever"

Well, great. But oh, if only it were true. Turns out the Zero had an Achilles Heel at high speeds. I've read the Navy evaluation for the Zero and it says that above a certain speed, it's maneuverability is seriously impaired. Then I find out more. That certain US planes could actually roll like something besides a beached whale.

Now I read all this "UFOs exist and they are called the F6F or F4U or F4F". And I have to wonder:

Have all these people done a complete 180* turn, and the prevailing wisdom is now: "Safely assume no US plane can ever out-turn anything" Or even better: "An Axis plane can always out-turn a US plane"?

Let's even say it's true. Can anyone who says that these US planes are UFOs even present their arguments without acting like they have a chip on their shoulder or demanding that you take their word for it over anyones else's? I haven't read one about PF yet. It's all "US planes are too good". And the sims hasn't been out a week.

If there are concerns about a plane being too good, specific examples with specific situations are called for to judge if a problem even exists. But if I do it, all I get is a reaction like a just called them a liar. Strange. All I want is some proof so we can get to the bottom of it, but I am the Enemy if I want to talk facts with some of these people

Stiglr
10-22-2004, 07:22 PM
Well, I heard one guy level the charge that those US planes could make a max turn at low speeds with little energy loss and no stall.

Meanwhile, Oleg's Zero has always had a bit of a snapstall that the real one is NOT reputed to have. I dunno, if but if that's the case, the Zero could lose a lot of the advantage it should have in a straight up stallfight.

That specific enough for you? Sounds a bit like the Hurricane UFO from early FB; you remember, the one that could always stand on its nose long enough to get off a salvo of 20mm?

Chuck_Older
10-22-2004, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, I heard one guy level the charge that those US planes could make a max turn at low speeds with little energy loss and no stall.Well, I heard one guy level the charge that those US planes could make a max turn at low speeds with little energy loss and no stall.

Meanwhile, Oleg's Zero has always had a bit of a snapstall that the real one is NOT reputed to have. I dunno, if but if that's the case, the Zero could lose a lot of the advantage it should have in a straight up stallfight.

That specific enough for you? Sounds a bit like the Hurricane UFO from early FB; you remember, the one that could always stand on its nose long enough to get off a salvo of 20mm? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stiglr, you know that you and I can see eye to eye on things.

That said, no, it is not specific enough. In fact, it is almost as un-specific as you can get. I don't call this:

"Well, I heard one guy level the charge that those US planes could make a max turn at low speeds with little energy loss and no stall."


a very convincing argument. I'm supposed to beleive that the flight model is wrong based on this bit of hearsay? You know I can't call that specific. Specific is "The F4F-4 retains too much E in a sustained full bank turn with full elevator. I made the turn at 10,000 feet at 250 mph with 5* of flaps deployed, I lost no speed and only 200 feet of altitude in 12 complete 360* turns. I then split-essed and did 4 loops by holding full backpressure and holding full throttle before I stalled"

That would be specific. And then you or I could try it out (if we had PF) and then see if we could replicate it and judge for ourselves and see if we could do that too. But I'm not going to take "some guy's" word about it, and I know you wouldn't either.

Stiglr
10-22-2004, 07:55 PM
I didn't even say I was taking anyone's word for it, but you seemed to be saying that saying the Wildcat didn't lose energy in low speed turns was not as specific as a broad, "it's too maneuverable relative to the Zero".

That's what I'm getting at. It does seem as if the person raising that flag did so based on more than just a cursory glance. He also brought up flight phenomenon that the sim system has had trouble with before: that's why I mentioned the UFOcane and the 109 that could safely complete loops just after taking off in FB 1.0

Not having the sim in hand, I can't say one way or the other.

Steven_J
10-22-2004, 08:04 PM
I don't have the game yet but it looks like they model the F4F-3 which doesn't have the heavy wingfold mechanisms and a few other things added to make the heavier F4F-4. The Wildcat can turn pretty well so don't make mistakes about that but it still falls a little short when compared against the Zeke which is about as maneuverable an aircraft that you'll find during WW2. However, it's slower and can't climb as well which really hobbled it against the Zekes. Most Wildcat/Zeke comparisons are with the A6M2 which is lighter than later variants.

Timely topic as I am reading "Zero." This is a big time publication introduced shortly after the war discussing the Japanese side of things. A quote:
"Of the many American fighter planes we encountered in the Pacific, the Hellcat was the only aircraft which could acquit itself with distinction in a fighter-vs-fighter dogfight."
This quote almost seems to then contradict itself in the end, if I read it correctly:
"The stubby Grumman Wildcats featured performance characteristics generally similar to those of our Zero fighters, but the enemy plane proved inferior in almost every respect to the Zero. Because of the general similarity, however, dogfights between the Wildcats and Zeros were not uncommon." It sounds as though the Wildcat is close (similar), but no cigar (inferior.)
They are probably comparing to the F4F-4 as well because just before Midway, F4F-3s were being replaced. And most dogfighting then occured Guadalcanal and Solomons, etc. Make of it what you will, but the Wildcat is prety danged maneuverable but unfortunately had to contend with the Zeke which is paper machet on steroids.

Chuck_Older
10-22-2004, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I didn't even say I was taking anyone's word for it, but you seemed to be saying that saying the Wildcat didn't lose energy in low speed turns was not as specific as a broad, "it's too maneuverable relative to the Zero".

That's what I'm getting at. It does seem as if the person raising that flag did so based on more than just a cursory glance. He also brought up flight phenomenon that the sim system has had trouble with before: that's why I mentioned the UFOcane and the 109 that could safely complete loops just after taking off in FB 1.0

Not having the sim in hand, I can't say one way or the other. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither can I. For some planes in FB, I have reference. For these planes, I don't have so much. I do know that the F4F shouldn't manuevervlike a light, properly powered plane, but just how 'bad' or 'good' should it be? Where are the F4F experts? I haven't seen them comment yet. I am waiting for them to make an appearance...

Frequent_Flyer
10-22-2004, 08:17 PM
Heres a quote from Oleg at Simhq dated 10/14/4 ' Americans had advantage from the beginning and till end of war in all aspects...Enough to say that Japanese till end of the war used Ki-43 !!!'(end of Oleg's quote)
The Germans/Japanese interchagable took an airframe Bf-109/Zero designed in the 30's with poor handling characteristic at high speed, and did relatively little to modify their airframes until they surrendered in the mid 1940's. Except install more powerful engines,only to exacerbate the speed=decrease maneuverability.Thats just bad sceince where ever your from!!!! Peresumably,and I'm using some other posters(Stiglr) words "they wanted to run like little girls". However, since these"little girls" still could'nt outrun the Allied fighters they more often then not got .50 cal. rounds blown up their skirt.
If I'm not mistaken the Bf-109 and Zero in all their variants were the most numerous fighters produced by their respective nations. Again thats just bad sceince no matter whose on your money.

Chuck_Older
10-22-2004, 08:20 PM
Doesn't say much about the plane's handling characteristics, does it?

That quote can lead to all sorts of out-of context conclusions. One could say that using Oleg's logic, the most important aircraft of the battle of Britain, the Hurricane, was a 'bad' design and not the right plane. I suspect that this quote was to a particular point made by someone, rather than a comment that the Bf-109 and A6M weren't capable aircraft

Frequent_Flyer
10-22-2004, 08:55 PM
I'm not posting to to quote chapter and verse about wing-loading and power to weight ratios.If oleg who has a colleted enough data to program a flight model to his standards. Thru his reasearch, he has determined that 'the Americans had the Advantage from beginning to end'it must be possible that a Wildcat can turn with a Zero. I don't beleive anyone would accuse Oleg of a bias toward American or Japanese equipment.

Tater-SW-
10-22-2004, 08:56 PM
Subjective statements of "i was outturned/outrolled/outclimbed/outrun are all pretty meaningless. The only way to know for sure is to have a known, RL test, and repeat it on your machine with a stopwatch. I did a 360 turn holding 187 mph at such and such and alt/bank/g-load/etc/ad nauseum and compare it to the real thing.

"Don't turn with a zeke" is pretty open ended as statements go. How MANY turns? I've read stuff saying not to loop with them because they'll be behind your 3-9 line by the third loop. That at least gives us something to work with.

I think it's fair to generalize and say that F4Fs that get low and slow around zeros are going to be in trouble. Not every time, not every turn, not every pilot pairing, but most of the time, yes. That's about all we can hope for.

As for Oleg's comment, I think in general he was right. The USN planes vs IJN planes early war had plusses and minuses. They were fairly balanced overall looking at their combat statistics vs each other. The US plane design concepts were heading in the right direction when the war started, though (and all the US planes that saw combat in the PTO were designed before the war started). The IJN/AF design philosophy was pointed the wrong way ("maneuverability" at all costs), it took a while for them to change direction. I suppose in that sense Oleg is off since the US used it's pre-war designs to great effect (pre-US entering war to be specific).

tater

Frequent_Flyer
10-22-2004, 09:08 PM
Tater
My point is they may have engineered the Zero for "maneuuverability at all costs"but it was not nearly as maneuverable at high speeds as the American aircraft. Given that advances in speed of combat aircraft from the beginning of hostilites till the end were incredible the IJN accomplished very little with their main front line fighter. Also the F6F was designed during the war as essentially a new Grmman fighter. as The chages deemed necessary for the Wildcat could not be accomplished with the F4F's airframe.

Tater-SW-
10-22-2004, 10:26 PM
Yeah, I agree. I didn't mean to implyg that the zero was a better turner at all speeds, quite the opposite. I was talking generally about what the japanese thought was valuable in a fighter---the trend was towards higher wing loading and what we would call energy fighting. Oddly, with all the emphasis on "maneuver" most sources talk about Zeros making serial passes on targets, not latching on in a turn fight. BnZ within the confines of the Zero's stiff controls at moderate to high speeds. A low wing loading plane that was best used as an E fighter. Wierd.

As for the F6F, the contract was signed with BuAer in the summer of 1941 as a backup for the seemingly endless F4U program. You are right, it was simply built as an improvement on the F4F in all ways (not, as myth states as a purpose built zero-killer (the Koga Zero flew a month after the XF6F-3, a plane virtually identical to the production model)).

tater

Ruy Horta
10-23-2004, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Where are the F4F experts? I haven't seen them comment yet. I am waiting for them to make an appearance... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly an expert and its been a while since I read a specialist work on the Wildcat (and I love the Wildcat as a type). However as I'm currently (and much too slowly, I admit) reading The First Team Vol.1 I came across a couple of helpful references.

1. The dash 3 and 3a were much more maneuvrable and had superior climbs to the dash 4.

2. The "Wildcat" could turn with the Zero in combat, but would be outturned in a SUSTAINED turnfight. If I remember correctly it could even last more than just a single circle.

Now the latter leaves room for conditions like initial speed etc. Indeed we know the Zero had a tendency to lock up at high speeds. We also know that initially the Japanese used the Zero as a Boom and Zoom fighter.

The Coral Sea Battle illustrates that a slow and low Wildcat is dead meat, yet if the same Wildcat can keep conditions favorably aquits itself very well. Although the claims may have been optimistic, the trends were clear, the Wildcat CAN sustain battle damage and live on the Zero can't.

The Wilcat's main disadvantage is a lesser climb rate, which deteriorates with the dash 4 and a lesser sustained turn radius. If the Zero manages to gain the inititative and force the fight on her terms, then you could say the Wildcat is inferior. Yet if conditions are different (combine team work etc etc etc) the Wildcat is more than able to hold its own.

I'd understand why there can be diverse opinion on the matter and even in the same text. The issue is not fixed, it depends greatly on conditions.

In the end the Zero and Wildcat are simply well matched, both having some advantages. Add doctrine and luck and you get the picture.

Frequent_Flyer
10-23-2004, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Doesn't say much about the plane's handling characteristics, does it?

That quote can lead to all sorts of out-of context conclusions. One could say that using Oleg's logic, the most important aircraft of the battle of Britain, the Hurricane, was a 'bad' design and not the right plane. I suspect that this quote was to a particular point made by someone, rather than a comment that the Bf-109 and A6M weren't capable aircraft <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>........................................ I don't want to misrepresent Oleg. His quote does not include the Bf-109/Zero those are my thoughts.My line of reasoning, is as follows; Both the Bf-109/Zero were airframes that clearly were inferior to allied aircraft in manueverability at greater speeds. Since aircraft from all allied nations were getting faster as the war progressed it is counter intuitive to increase the speed of a aircraft that handles poorly at lesser speeds. The fact that thes two aircraft made up the vast majority of their respective nations fighter force just served to exacerbate the issue.

Chuck_Older
10-23-2004, 08:25 AM
Erm...what?

Frequent_Flyer
10-23-2004, 08:50 AM
Chuck, to paraphrase Oleg-'The American's had the advantage from the beginning till the end over the Japanese in the PTO ' Yet we all read posts that exclaim 'Theres no way the Wildcat should turn with a Zero' There were Spitfire pilots that were in shock that the Wildcat could "out turn them with ease". Its not a wild assumption that the Wildcat could turn with a Zero in real life combat. The Zero was made faster(excluding firepower) not better as the war progressed. The American aircraft at the beginning were already more manueverable at greater speeds. They not only got better, but faster as the war progressed. I don't understand why posters think the American aircraft should be out performed by the Japanese?

Chuck_Older
10-23-2004, 08:52 AM
You must have been editting that when I replied


The Japanese aircraft should out-perform US aircraft in a lot of cases, in a critical category:

rate of climb

Frequent_Flyer
10-23-2004, 09:06 AM
What goes up must come down, and when it does the Japenese aircraft were completly out classed in a dive and as speed built up they were out manuevered. They could not out zoom climb either.

Tater-SW-
10-23-2004, 09:06 AM
That's the most important factor, rate of climb. Co-alt and co-E with a zeke is a BAD place to be in a F4F. RL F4Fs lose a couple hundred feet in a loop, zeros can actually climb a couple hundred in a loop. I'll try and find the test flight comments where I read that (I think it was in a magazine article by a ww2 test pilot).

Anyone flying zeros around in slow circles thinking they should own the world deserves the flaming death they will be handed time after time.

tater

Frequent_Flyer
10-23-2004, 09:38 AM
If I were actually in combat the most important factor to me would be durability.An analogy of the Zeke would be the scene from one of the 'Indiana Jones' movies where 'Indy 'is trapped by a guy twirling a huge sword around in some increible acrobatic moves, but after all that pretentious display the sword wielding man ended up dying tired as 'Indy' pulled out his .45 magnum.

Snootles
10-23-2004, 09:44 AM
Interesting story, why that scene is in the movie the way it is. Harrison Ford was originally supposed to swordfight the guy, but he had a case of dysentery and wasn't really up to the task, so they just altered the script.

Tater-SW-
10-23-2004, 10:16 AM
Actually, I haven't seen it in ages, but I think Indy had a .38 revolver. The .45 Winchester Magnum is a pretty odd cartridge (and I think pretty modern, actually) it's for an auto as well.

The options in the interwar years would have been a .45 ACP (a Colt 1911 pistol, basically) or .38 revolvers of various types.

tater

mortoma
10-23-2004, 10:28 AM
How did this degenerate into a thread about what type of pistol/revolver Indy Jones used in a corny movie?? ( Corny but cassic I might add. ) I'm always truly amazed at where threads usually go.

Frequent_Flyer
10-23-2004, 10:35 AM
I will defer to you on this. I have'nt a clue.

Frequent_Flyer
10-23-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
How did this degenerate into a thread about what type of pistol/revolver Indy Jones used in a corny movie?? ( Corny but cassic I might add. ) I'm always truly amazed at where threads usually go. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is what happens when people would be otherwise occupied playing PF,except its not released in the Chicagoland area.

Snootles
10-23-2004, 10:40 AM
Okey, I have a good question. How does one E-fight? What maneuvers and tactics are involved. See, I'm sorta stupid and never really figured it out.

Stiglr
10-23-2004, 11:07 AM
Snootles, to make a very long and involved story short, ALL fighting is a form of energy fighting. Simply put, your plane has a certain amount of energy at all times, both kinetic (speed) and potential (altitude); you alter your energy state by spending the energy (turns, energy sapping maneuvers and climbs), or storing the energy (climbing above your opponent and gaining potential energy). Energy fighting merely refers to being constantly aware of your energy state vis a vis your opponent's energy state. The goal is to get your enemy in a situation where you have an energy advantage and he cannot avoid you (the classic example of that would be to get him so slow he is near stall speed, and can't turn to avoid you, and has no alt to trade for speed...and you're on his six with some speed); however, just being faster and behind your opponent who doesn't see you (and both of you at fairly high speed) can be all it takes.

As you see by those two examples, both turnfighting and boom-and-zoom are different forms of energy fighting.

Of course, the fact that all planes don't have the same aerodynamic qualities and maneuver abilities changes the energy equation; some planes might need a bigger or smaller energy advantage over another plane to get that critical edge necessary to end up in a position to kill said plane; that's what makes it interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BlackPhenix
10-23-2004, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Snootles, to make a very long and involved story short, ALL fighting is a form of energy fighting. Simply put, your plane has a certain amount of energy at all times, both kinetic (speed) and potential (altitude); you alter your energy state by spending the energy (turns, energy sapping maneuvers and climbs), or storing the energy (climbing above your opponent and gaining potential energy). Energy fighting merely refers to being constantly aware of your energy state vis a vis your opponent's energy state. The goal is to get your enemy in a situation where you have an energy advantage and he cannot avoid you (the classic example of that would be to get him so slow he is near stall speed, and can't turn to avoid you, and has no alt to trade for speed...and you're on his six with some speed); however, just being faster and behind your opponent who doesn't see you (and both of you at fairly high speed) can be all it takes.

Of course, the fact that all planes don't have the same aerodynamic qualities and maneuver abilities changes the energy equation; that's what makes it interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is this and what have you done with Stiglr??!!!

I think this qualifies as your best post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

RocketDog
10-23-2004, 01:48 PM
Just a quick comment on the original topic:

Mr Nakajima and I have just played around online with the F4 Wildcat and the 1941 version of the Zero. Both aircraft had 50% fuel and we didn't go above about 4,000m. The conclusions were:

1. The Zero can turn significantly tighter than the Wildcat and can be easily pull into the Wildcat's 6 o'clock position within a few turns. It's very difficult for the Wildcat pilot to shake the Zero.

2. The Zero outclimbs the Wildcat easily.

3. In level flight there is almost no difference in maximum speed, but the Zero overheated much faster and so the Wildcat could pull away after a little while. We had expected the Zero to be a little bit faster.

4. The Wildcat is almost immune to the rifle calibre MGs of the Zero. The Zero pilot has to make every cannon shot count.

5. In a one vs one engagement, the Wildcat is in deep trouble. It has "spiral climb victim" written all over it.

6. In an online co-op situation where teamwork counts, it's going to be very close. I'd probably rather take the Wildcat because it's tougher and has better firepower and ammunition quantities.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Stiglr
10-23-2004, 02:22 PM
Rocketdog wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>4. The Wildcat is almost immune to the rifle calibre MGs of the Zero. The Zero pilot has to make every cannon shot count.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you quantify that? Is this just the fuselage or also the wings and flight surfaces?

I'd think the armor would make the pilot pretty much impregnible vs. anything but a shot through the canopy from the front aspects...

but, the MGs, in enough quantity, or concentrated in one area, like a wing or along a flight surface, should be able to damage the Wildcat significantly. Do you think this is the case???

(By the way, in AEP, I found a good burst of MG from a Zero would hurt a P-40 [though, of course, the cannon made shorter work of it]).

Sakai recounts that he didn't think much of the cannon and did most of his damage with the MGs.

RocketDog
10-23-2004, 04:45 PM
It wasn't a proper scientific test, because we've only had the game for a few hours, but shot an aileron away and then chased him around for four or five minutes trying to get some shots into the the engine and forward fuselage without seeming to cause much damage. The fuselage is so fat that it seems to cover the engine from dead astern - a bit like the I-16.

Maybe I need to practice my aim a bit more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Chuck_Older
10-23-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
Just a quick comment on the original topic:

Mr Nakajima and I have just played around online with the F4 Wildcat and the 1941 version of the Zero. Both aircraft had 50% fuel and we didn't go above about 4,000m. The conclusions were:

1. The Zero can turn significantly tighter than the Wildcat and can be easily pull into the Wildcat's 6 o'clock position within a few turns. It's very difficult for the Wildcat pilot to shake the Zero.

2. The Zero outclimbs the Wildcat easily.

3. In level flight there is almost no difference in maximum speed, but the Zero overheated much faster and so the Wildcat could pull away after a little while. We had expected the Zero to be a little bit faster.

4. The Wildcat is almost immune to the rifle calibre MGs of the Zero. The Zero pilot has to make every cannon shot count.

5. In a one vs one engagement, the Wildcat is in deep trouble. It has "spiral climb victim" written all over it.

6. In an online co-op situation where teamwork counts, it's going to be very close. I'd probably rather take the Wildcat because it's tougher and has better firepower and ammunition quantities.

Regards,

RocketDog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This preliminary report seems a good place to start to determine the performance of the F4F to me. This would seem to indicate to me that the jury is still very much out on whether or not the Wildcat is over-modelled, but it also gives me the gut feeling that it's closer to properly represented than being over-modelled


PS

I think Indy used a Webley. There's a good shot of it in his flat, when Marcus comes over to tell him the Government wants him to find the Ark. he tosses it into his breifcase. My memory says it's a Webley

Ruy Horta
10-24-2004, 03:32 AM
WARNING, best I found on a fast scan, but in french...

On the revolver(s)

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jones-jr/armes.html

On the holster

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jones-jr/holster.html

Kwiatos
10-24-2004, 04:16 AM
Everything is here. RL test comparison between A6m2-Wildcat-P-38-P-39-Corsair.
Even about maximum speed of A6m2 which is too low in PF:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/diego.pdf

WUAF_Badsight
10-24-2004, 04:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snootles:
Okey, I have a good question. How does one E-fight?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Snootles , most people dont even know what "E" is when you are talking about Dogfighting

learning what E is comes from flying

& you can be sure that modern Combat Flight simmers have as much & probably more "stick" time than their WW2 counterparts

with any skillfull human endevour , the better you become at it the more complex it is , the more to it there is

E is a state that can be poor or good regardless of Alt

to get in touch with E , you gots to fly m8

real or virtually

Mr_Nakajima
10-24-2004, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
Just a quick comment on the original topic:

Mr Nakajima and I have just played around online with the F4 Wildcat and the 1941 version of the Zero. Both aircraft had 50% fuel and we didn't go above about 4,000m. The conclusions were:

1. The Zero can turn significantly tighter than the Wildcat and can be easily pull into the Wildcat's 6 o'clock position within a few turns. It's very difficult for the Wildcat pilot to shake the Zero.

2. The Zero outclimbs the Wildcat easily.

3. In level flight there is almost no difference in maximum speed, but the Zero overheated much faster and so the Wildcat could pull away after a little while. We had expected the Zero to be a little bit faster.

4. The Wildcat is almost immune to the rifle calibre MGs of the Zero. The Zero pilot has to make every cannon shot count.

5. In a one vs one engagement, the Wildcat is in deep trouble. It has "spiral climb victim" written all over it.

6. In an online co-op situation where teamwork counts, it's going to be very close. I'd probably rather take the Wildcat because it's tougher and has better firepower and ammunition quantities.

Regards,

RocketDog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flying the Wildcat one-on-one against the A6M2 was very difficult. I could just about hang on the the zero for a few seconds in a tight turn, but after that it would get on my tail with increasing rapidity. From that point I was in deep trouble, as with the turtle-deck behind the pilot I couldn't even see where abouts RocketDog was - I had been hoping to use the low roll rate of the A6M to scissor away, but didn't manage it once.

But the Wildcat is tough. And thankfully has an elevator on either side. I have read accounts (Lundstrom I think) where pilots said that they were happiest with an A6M directly behind them as that's where their armour was toughest. Some would even shrink themselves down in the seat for that extra bit of cover. Once the A6M has expended its cannon ammo it will find it difficult scoring against the Wildcat, so use the machine-guns for sighting and the cannon for the kill.

Fehler
10-24-2004, 05:40 AM
Mr_Nakajima,

From what you and Rocketdog have posted, this is exactly what I feel I should expect in a A6M2 v F4F encounter. Great!

So what is all the hype about? All a A6M2 pilot needs to do is sucker the Wildcat into a climbing fight, bleed his E, reverse and kill him before he has time to get fast again. Dont turn in a Zeke if you are fast, but find ways to sucker the US planes into bleeding off their speed.

This is what I do when I am flying against P-38's now in AEP. It works great, as long as the Allied flyer participates. When he doesnt, and uses his superior dive/zoom speeds, it make for tough work, as it should.

I am disappointed that I dont have PF yet here in the U.S. I cant wait to try some of this on line!

Someone posted that n00bz will be flying the Zeke online, but seriously, to be successful, the Zeke pilots will have to be crafty, and patient (And hope they dont get hit by anything).

609IAP_Recon
10-24-2004, 06:46 AM
I just love reading all these threads where 9/10th of the people don't have the game, but start arguing about something they have never played yet.

LOL

Good post Fehler - I think you hit the nail right on the head.

Tater-SW-
10-24-2004, 08:14 AM
I agree, that sounds like exactly what a F4F vs Zero fight should look like. BTW, what F4F was it, the -3, or the -4? I think on the deck the -3 might actually have been a couple mph faster.

As for the thread, yeah, what are we supposed to do in the US? Why the hell thye didn't release at the same time I'll never know.

tater

Mr_Nakajima
10-24-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I agree, that sounds like exactly what a F4F vs Zero fight should look like. BTW, what F4F was it, the -3, or the -4?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An F4F-4. As RocketDog said, it wasn't a scientific test, but it felt to me like everything was behaving as it should.

Chuck_Older
10-24-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Recon:
I just love reading all these threads where 9/10th of the people don't have the game, but start arguing about something they have never played yet.

LOL

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying that if someone, take me for example, reads that somebody thinks the FM is off for a certain plane in PF, that just because I don't have PF, I can't comment on how the real thing flew?

Or if somebody says something is wrong with the FM, and I say 'hold on, let's make a test with certain paramenters with specific goals before we decide it's wrong', that I shouldn't be able to say that because I don't have PF?

If so, I must say that I very strongly disagree with you

Stiglr
10-24-2004, 11:30 AM
Actually, the idea is, if you have anything critical to say about 1C sims, no matter how on-target or apropos, to a fanboi, you're an ungrateful whiner.

That's it, no more, no less.

I'd say, continue to reserve your right to critical or independent thought.

Frequent_Flyer
10-24-2004, 02:00 PM
IMO if someone is posting to be an abrasive, beligerant blow hole it serves no purpose and most readers and I would hazard to guess the powers that would consider amending the issue the poster raised, will only be raising their middle finger and hitting the delete key with the other one. However,a well versed and diplomatic critique usually gets some air time.

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Since aircraft from all allied nations were getting faster as the war progressed it is counter intuitive to increase the speed of a aircraft that handles poorly at lesser speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I presume you mean "handles poorly at HIGHER speeds"... I just wanted to point out that it is not a completely irrational move (to increase the speed of a "zero" type fighter) as high speed is still useful even when you can't maneuver well (flee, pursue, intercept, etc).

Anyway, in regard to the larger issues in this discussion, if I recall correctly (not sure) I believe that the zero had superior speed and significant climb rate advantages over the wildcat, so that makes it a superior BnZ fighter, right? Also, the zero had superior low speed turning ability.

So just about the only combat style that the wildcat can excel in would be high speed slashing... turn with the zero for a brief time and then extend away. This is a very narrow band in the matrix of tactical situations that the two fighters might engage each other in, so I don't see how people can say that the wildcat "matched well against the zero".

With superior speed and climb, the zero can pretty much dictate the terms of the fight; and if the zero ever manages to get the wildcat to blow his speed, the fight is pretty much over... The only hope I think for a wildcat to regain initiative against a smart zero might be to try to outmaneuver it in a dive.

The wildcat's options are limited in 1v1.

Stiglr
10-24-2004, 05:36 PM
Exactly why the Wildcat should be meat against the Zero in any 1 v 1 situation.

The difference can be made up, though, in situations where multiple Wildcats do Thach Weave tactics, and clear each other, or exploit high speed slashing attacks and HOs.

Frequent_Flyer
10-24-2004, 09:14 PM
The relavence of my statement refers to the advance in Allied aircraft vs. The Japense zero at 10,500 produced it ranked #1 in production. Other than clip its wings to fit on carrier they did nothing but increase its speed,marginally at that.It never could manuever at high speed. So why only make it faster? The model 21-max speed was 331 MPH at 14,930 ft.first flown June 1941. The F4F-4 max. speed was 320MPH at 18,000ft. first flown october 1940. The zero was'nt going to flee from the wildcat, nor could it out dive it,nor beat it in a zoom climb assuming it even remained intact. It would not out turn it at higher speeds. So at near a stall and low where the cat could'nt dive it had the advantage.
The zero model 52 of which 6,000 were produced : max. speed-351 at 19,685ft. first flown in the summer of 1943.
The F6F-3 Hellcat's max speed-376 MPH at 22,800ft. first flown 3 october, 1942 with 15 squadrons equipted within 9 months. The most produce model of the zero had its first flight and the Americans already had 15 squadrons of an aircraft that swept it from the sky.To say nothing of the Corsair,P-38,P-51 and P-47.
Why would an aircraft(zero) that could not compete at speed,in a dive, in a zoom climb or high speed manuverability, durability, armament,pilot protection and any other catagory except rate of climb be the most produced fighter for your Navy/Army?
I think the inverse is true the American's dictated the terms of the dogfight...... come up and play with me, I'll send you down faster than you rate of climb.There would be no reason to play in the dirt at stall speeds with a zero the war was flying to the Japanese mainland at 30,000 ft.

Tater-SW-
10-24-2004, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
This is a very narrow band in the matrix of tactical situations that the two fighters might engage each other in, so I don't see how people can say that the wildcat "matched well against the zero". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's easy to say, because in real life it was TRUE. The Zero and F4F were evenly matched. The real loss statistics prove it. We can have theoretical argument why the zeke should rule, but it didn't rule vs the stubby Wildcat.

The Zero climbed better, +Z. They were about the same speed, wash. It was a better turner at low speed, +Z. The F4F was a better turner at high speeds, +W. The F4F was hugely more durable, +W (how many plusses for that?). The Zero had better range, +Z. The F4Fs had better communications gear, +W. The F4F had a better weapons package, +W.

That's 4 to 3 in the F4F's favor, I'm sure there must be more important factors, or some weighting, but it's still obviously close, even theoretically. My only statement was that they were a pretty even match up, and history demonstrates it. 1v1 is another matter. All things being equal, the zeke has the advantage, but it only takes one mistake for the zero to get burned, and the F4F can eat 30 cal for days.

Also, F4F pilots got to learn from mistakes that would have been fatal in a less durable plane... all stuff that is meaningless to sim pilots, but still important in RL comparisons.

tater

geetarman
10-25-2004, 08:51 AM
That San Diego test is very enlightening! Of particluar note were the comments about the Wildcat's abilities vs. the Zero. I also was impressed with the Airacobra's healthy margin of performance advantage against the Zero at lower altitudes.

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2004, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
This is a very narrow band in the matrix of tactical situations that the two fighters might engage each other in, so I don't see how people can say that the wildcat "matched well against the zero". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's easy to say, because in real life it was TRUE. The Zero and F4F were evenly matched. The real loss statistics prove it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's NOT true and just about everyone knows it. The Zero decidedly outperforms the Wildcat in most categories.

Now, I don't know these "loss statistics" you refer to, but let's just say there was an overall even kill ratio in matchups between the two aircraft in the war. Such a statistic would incorporate all kinds of other factors that are not relevant to the 1v1 combat capabilities of the two aircraft such as engagement initiative, pilot techniques, missions, etc and so such statistics would not "prove" it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Zero climbed better, +Z. They were about the same speed, wash. It was a better turner at low speed, +Z. The F4F was a better turner at high speeds, +W. The F4F was hugely more durable, +W (how many plusses for that?). The Zero had better range, +Z. The F4Fs had better communications gear, +W. The F4F had a better weapons package, +W.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you have put together a loose list of a bunch of factors, some not even related to combat potential, and then you have arbitrarily assigned an equal numeric weight to each issue. You can't really argue the balance of the two aircraft using a line of approach like this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and the F4F can eat 30 cal for days. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps in the Maddox games the Wildcat will be able to do so, but in reality 7mm guns were actually much more potent I think. Saboro Sakai for example actually preferred using his MG's over his cannon and he was a very prolific killer. Nevertheless, in terms of firepower the two aircraft were about equal IMO because the cannon's explosive rounds help make up for any weakness that the .30's might have had in terms of crunch power I think.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, F4F pilots got to learn from mistakes that would have been fatal in a less durable plane... all stuff that is meaningless to sim pilots, but still important in RL comparisons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an excellent comment regarding a strategic impact of the aircraft but it's not really relevant in terms of comparing 1v1 combat performance of the planes themselves.

Anyway, Jimmy Thach (of Thach-Weave fame) points out:

"In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we had against the Zero is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly, but is the result of comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by a few of their pilots and superior marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots ...
The deficiency not only prevents our fighter [the F4F] from properly carrying out its mission but it has had an alarming effect on the morale of the fighter pilots in the Fleet at this time and on those who are going to be sent to the Fleet."

In terms of combat capability the Wildcat really only has a few advantages: durability and roll rate (the high speed issue). While the Wildcat might have similar available G's at high speed, it's induced drag was so much higher that any attempt to dogfight at high speed would result in it rapidly dropping out of the speed range where the Zero had trouble rolling. Generally it was only with carefully disciplined tactics/teamwork that the Wildcat could hang with Zeros in a many vs many engagements.

This is why there was such a huge push to develop the Hellcat, the first American aircraft with enough performance (power, speed, climb, agility) to reliably match the Zero 1v1. Matching favorably with the Zero is what the Hellcat was famed for, not the Wildcat.

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2004, 03:57 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Hello,

Ido have the for one week now and I may say from personal experience that the Wildcat is inferior to the Zero in almost every domain of flight.

Sensei