PDA

View Full Version : Real Tactic Useless in this game.



BSS_Vidar
07-26-2005, 09:34 PM
I am a retired Navy flyer, and a Naval Aviation History Nutt. The one most effective tactic used against any model of the Zeke was that the faster, and heavier American airframes could roll right and dive away easily leaving a Zeke all by itself. This was because the Zeke's light weight construction and heavy torque would only allow the A-6M to roll to the left effectively.

In this game, I've been chased by Zekes, and have chased Corsairs and Hellcats easily in Zekes. The A-6M in-game can roll effectively in both directions. American tactics were quite centered on this particular weakness. In this game, the REAL tactic is useless. Can we get this fixed in the next patch?

p1ngu666
07-26-2005, 09:41 PM
is roll difference there for other aircraft?

i think the zeros engine rotated in the opposite direction to the american ones, so rolling to the right should be a double gain... roll to the left zero is in teh box seats http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

also the zero should roll effectivly (but not that fast) cos its got barn doors for alirons..

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2005, 09:57 PM
Pretty much agree with Vidar though I think that you need a speed advantage from the
start or the speed must begin as high for the Zero.

And which model Zero? Were they all poor in roll above 240 mph (IAS?) and hit compression
or just more drag than they had weight to counter much sooner in dives? I am sure the
early and mid-war Zeroes did.

Up to 200 mph, the Zero was quicker on the roll than the P-40's according to AVG accounts.

IIRC, the way to hit them was in slashing attacks. Even the Wildcats had a chance that way.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-26-2005, 10:23 PM
Try it in Target:Rabaul (http://www.targetware.net) and see if your experience is different.

LeadSpitter_
07-26-2005, 10:45 PM
A good start would be increasing the corsair and hellcats dive accelaration and increasing its breakup speed above 700kmph.

I just find it hard to believe the 190 and 109s can achieve up to 900kmh and manuver like they ar doing 400kmph with the supa trim.

I think the game was much better when 109s broke up at 750kmh, yak la spits around 650, or at least give them full elevator compressibility those speeds then make the breakup speed 100kmh higher then full elevator compressibility enough time with 3.04s more realistic trims to recover.

The true heavy bnz aircraft need some sort of dive accelaration advantage or noticably higher breakup speed advantage to widen the gap.

I mean right now the lighter ac, the turn and burn ac are dominating the game both in BNZ and in dive accelaration, highspeed manuverability and can kill longer distances accurately in one burst/one pass every single time, and take three times the damage.

alot of acs e bleeds are none existant while some are realistic, accelarations are way off, dive accelarations of way off, do some power off tests to even see from 10000m, dms are way freaken off and have always been a major problem with this game and never worked on just weapons streght seems to change. But im sure they know it or just dont care much anymore and just want to move onto bob. I just dont get all the work an effort put into all these patchs then changes so drastically next, besides the barely noticable torque in 4.01 the game feels exactly like the original il2 sturmovik but with more cheese, it just makes me wonder why, 3.04 was excellent besides some dms and the spits zero E climb ability. Why not correct dms in 3.04, add this slight torq and new ai to 3.04, why add in the super trim, how did that choice get made? I dunno it makes no sense to me where this game is headed.

p1ngu666
07-26-2005, 10:54 PM
actully, just thought, whats the power and weights of zero vs f4f,f6f etc?

also aeorabtic aircraft roll mentaly in any direction, with light airframe and powerful engines... with alirons like barndoors too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LBR_W.Zellot
07-26-2005, 11:46 PM
Fw190's were very resistant in high speed dives http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PlaneEater
07-26-2005, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Up to 200 mph, the Zero was quicker on the roll than the P-40's according to AVG accounts.


The AVG never faced Zeros. Be sure.

(Ki-27s, Ki-43s, yes, A6Ms, no.)

WOLFMondo
07-27-2005, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I think the game was much better when 109s broke up at 750kmh, yak la spits around 650,

650 is just over 400mph, so the la, yak and spit should break up before they hit there listed top speed...er...

spits where also pretty good at holding together in a dive by all records and tests.

AerialTarget
07-27-2005, 01:33 AM
The main reason boom and zoom doesn't work is because dive acceleration is almost not modelled. There is a single model, and it is applied to all airplanes. A bad diver like the Zeke will, in the game, stay with a good diver like the Jug until the Zeke reaches its maximum diving speed. This is clearly poppycock.

According to several people I have talked to, whenever Oleg is confronted with this he says something like, "What? The P-47 can already reach one thousand kilometers per hour, and you want it to be able to go faster?" I can't tell if he's deliberately missing the point or if there's no Russian phrase for "dive acceleration."

CVK_Monkey
07-27-2005, 02:02 AM
Dive acceleration is one of the important aspects of air combat, which is not simulated in this game. Probably it was too complicated to make mathematical model of this in game engine. I hope that in BoB it will be simulated.

FA_Whisky
07-27-2005, 02:19 AM
Dive acceleration is one of the important aspects of air combat, which is not simulated in this game. Probably it was too complicated to make mathematical model of this in game engine. I hope that in BoB it will be simulated.

If you can model level ecceleration, gravity, engine thrust, ac weight and ac drag. Than dive acceleration can not be a big problem.
But i do hope that in bob the planes are moddeled more correct in their strength and weakness.

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2005, 02:32 AM
are you talking online ore offline ?

nevertheless, i have never proplems in both cases to bring horror among Zeros in the USN fighters. in the Wildcats you just have to be more carefull....... in the F6F and F4U they havent any chances. only if i make the mistake to turn to early after the first pass.........

the Zeros cant turn ore roll effectiv over 350km/h IAS. and thier max dive speeds ,and accelerations are way off in comparison to the US heavy metall.
it seems you have another game than i.

but yes, flying both sides in VOW2 , i often came home in VOW2BETA with Hellcat kills flying a Zero. these pilots often flew them as if they would sit in a Yak ! bad idea !

and offline there is the following proplem- the AI is still a turner. and so , if you are flying Japanese the US planes are often easy meat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

OldMan____
07-27-2005, 06:20 AM
Dive acceleration IS modeled.. Ice, pingu and Me made some time ago side by side tests. Diving from 8 K I beleive, my Fw190A8 opened >100 meters from the Bf109 and little bit more to Spit 9 Ice and Pingu were using. All that before we reached 3k meters.


Later Pingu and I remde the tests with P47 and it left to dust other planes as soon both reached the 600 kph zone.


MAYBE the drag effect is little bit underdone.. but it IS there.

Atomic_Marten
07-27-2005, 07:00 AM
IIRC Zero's are rolling like cr@p on high speed. I have always used rudder to help me roll while in Zero.
So therefore if you go fast enough I doubt that Zero could roll with you. Generally speaking Zero controls will stiffen up on high speed.

Did you fly on 250mph IAS or more?
You have certainly noticed that in every ace pilot's account about combat with the Japanese that it is suggested that speed is 250mph and above all time when combat is imminent. I have not seen yet one US ace pilot account where this particular remark isn't pointed out as neccesary to obey.
While slow, American aircraft are just cannon fodder for Japanese pilots.

p1ngu666
07-27-2005, 07:54 AM
in coops ive had f6f and corsairs outdive my zero, even the 5 and later models which where better in the dive.

i also think that in 4.01 the zero got a boost which it needed, it was AWFUL before, especialy the later models

LEXX_Luthor
07-27-2005, 08:23 AM
Flyable Zero roll rate is very slow, and slows even more with increase in speed above oh maybe ~300km/hr, and does not like to turn at high speeds (say 400km/hr). But it dives too fast though (I think, not sure).

Our "NAVY pilot(tm)" may be talking about Offline AI flight model, but gives no information, nor numerical data one expects from trained military pilots. Online zero, Offline zero, Sub zero?

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2005, 09:17 AM
Vnev in km/h IAS

Model21 ~650
Model32 ~700
Model52 ~750
Model62/63 ~770

F4F ~860
F6F ~860
F4U ~840

any proplems for USN pilots ??

BigganD
07-27-2005, 09:24 AM
BSS_Vidar this type of tactic will never work in current FM you will need to wait for bob.

A.K.Davis
07-27-2005, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I am a retired Navy flyer, and a Naval Aviation History Nutt. The one most effective tactic used against any model of the Zeke was that the faster, and heavier American airframes could roll right and dive away easily leaving a Zeke all by itself. This was because the Zeke's light weight construction and heavy torque would only allow the A-6M to roll to the left effectively.

In this game, I've been chased by Zekes, and have chased Corsairs and Hellcats easily in Zekes. The A-6M in-game can roll effectively in both directions. American tactics were quite centered on this particular weakness. In this game, the REAL tactic is useless. Can we get this fixed in the next patch?

This tactic is often useless in the game because people generally roll and dive from 1000m. They then level off on the deck and run. If they keep running straight and level, they'll be fine as long as they were able to achieve enough separation during the dive (from only 1000m, this is not likely). However, few people will just keep running once they achieve separation. After a short time, they will try to climb and reverse. The Zero pilot typically catches them at this point or shortly after if they fail on their firing pass.

Real tactics are useless under unreal combat conditions.

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2005, 09:37 AM
and im wondering why a less than 1000hp engine should make such much torque that the Zero should not be able to roll right.
sure, it should roll left faster , but why soooo bad to right ?

p1ngu666
07-27-2005, 09:48 AM
its light, so the force would have more effect, but while the american planes are heavier, they have bigger more powerful engines aswell

also ppl online dont extend enuff, and clever zero pilots go into a climb or fly level...

Chuck_Older
07-27-2005, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and im wondering why a less than 1000hp engine should make such much torque that the Zero should not be able to roll right.
sure, it should roll left faster , but why soooo bad to right ?

If it rolls quicker to the side it rotates, why is it so hard to imagine that it rolls slower against the direction it rotates?

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

And what difference does the hp rating make? A 900 hp engine should exhibit this with no problem, but a 1000 hp engine can't? Why? Power to weight is always more important than raw power.

If you hop in a 1,000 hp car that weighs 10,000 pounds, and I hop in a 500 hp car that weighs 4,000 pounds, I will beat you in a drag race

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2005, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

If it rolls quicker to the side it rotates, why is it so hard to imagine that it rolls slower against the direction it rotates?



sure, but not only japanese...........

btw, the propeler rotates to the right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - looking from the cockpit

EDIT:
and sure, if a propeller is rotating to right, you should better roll to left http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
but even the light Zero is no WW1 Sopwith Camel....

Chuck_Older
07-27-2005, 10:02 AM
I can't say why things are modelled in the game the way they are, many times.

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2005, 10:16 AM
im not anymore speaking about the game.........

crazyivan1970
07-27-2005, 10:26 AM
So Vidar, you dropped the bomb and left. Now what? If you make a statement, defend it, other then that i smell fishing.

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2005, 11:03 AM
hell, he posted less than 24hours ago !!

not all are such forum"maniacs" like us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BigKahuna_GS
07-27-2005, 11:12 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Vidar-
In this game, I've been chased by Zekes, and have chased Corsairs and Hellcats easily in Zekes. The A-6M in-game can roll effectively in both directions. American tactics were quite centered on this particular weakness. In this game, the REAL tactic is useless. Can we get this fixed in the next patch?
__________________________________________________ _________________________



That is historicaly accurate and a direct result from the testing of Koga's Zero recovered from the Auletion Islands. One of the very first persons to test this theory --and save his life was Ken Walsh 21 victory Marine Corps Corsair Ace. Walsh was coming out of a cloud trying to climb at about 15,000ft when he noticed a Zeke at co-alt and to close for comfort.

Walsh's intial speed was not that high and the Zeke flicked rolled in behind Walsh so fast it amazed him. Walsh nosed over & fire walled the Corsair, he was going to roll left but remembered the posted bullentin that the Zeke had a hard time rolling right. Instead Walsh rolled right and the Zeke could not stay with him and he saw tracers flash beneath and away from his Corsair.

Walsh credited this report and manuever with saving his life. You can read the whole story of this in Aviation History Magazine and in the book Koga's Zero---the story of the captured Zeke off the Aulention Islands.


The Zeke in Pacific Fighters rolls equaly well right or left. It should roll more slowly to the right especially when power is applied. Dont know if this can be modeled--but I did email Oleg about this over 6 months ago.

Also the sea level speed of the Corsair is about 10mph too slow and the Hellcat is about 13-15mph too slow on the deck. Both of these planes should be able to have their default setting load out in the "clean condition" no wing pylons or zero lauch rocket stubs. One of my virtual squad mates flew real Hellcats and said the wing pylons on the Hellcat are of the wrong type and were never that huge (drag).



__

A.K.Davis
07-27-2005, 12:00 PM
One of the very first persons to test this theory

This hardly qualifies as theory. The effects of engine torque on roll rates were well known.

LEBillfish
07-27-2005, 12:20 PM
No expert so let me try and use some common sense......

1. Prop turns right so roll right should be easier.....Wrong...If prop turns right it is trying to force the plane left...

2. Zero turns equally well right as it does left....Wrong....As you would then not have to fight torque flying level and trimmed.

3. Hellcat or whatever should be able to roll right and pull away...Ok...However under what condition?....If both planes are going the same speed and the HC floors it rolling right...It will still take a while to gain any appreciable distance to not be vulnerable...It's not a "roll right *poof* vanish thing.

4. Right roll on Zero is wrong....Are you sure?...Maybe right roll is correct and left roll is too slow.

Was the Hellcat trimmed?...Was it damaged?..Was the Zero damaged?....Did the Zero use rudder or no?....Were you in a panic and still were applying rudder or elevator?....Was your Prop pitch right?....Were you going slow so had to gain momentum?.....Was the Zeke jumping you at a high speed dive?....and so on.

Do a test, save a track, gather some numbers and send it in if it's wrong....It's not a magic bullet tactic for not watching your 6 in the first place, It is a minor benefit due to contrasting engine rotations.

Btw....This would mean you are gonna have trouble rolling left with a Zero...How ya like them apples? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
07-27-2005, 12:33 PM
adding to Billfish concerns .)

-the Zero pilot might be a starter.
-Low on Fuel and patience
-low on ammo .
-So as there was no danger after evading the enemy plane he just stayed up high and let the enemy plane dive away not to be caught in a drag and bag event.

etc i am sure there exist more reasons why the zero didnt want to follow .

Conclusion absolute no proof only pilot anecdote.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-27-2005, 02:16 PM
Actually, the success of that tactic was not welded to rolling in any particular direction, it's just that the roll against torque forces would produce a slightly better margin of safety.

Truth in fact, any heavier US plane could simply roll and dive away from a Zero, left or right, period. The Zero's overall lack of maneuverability at higher speeds will come into play; the roll action simply adds to the problem the Zero would have of bringing guns to bear before the escaping plane could gain separation speed and drop the nose, creating further maneuverability problems for the Zero.

HayateAce
07-27-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
No expert so let me try and use some common sense......

1. Prop turns right so roll right should be easier.....Wrong...If prop turns right it is trying to force the plane left...

2. Zero turns equally well right as it does left....Wrong....As you would then not have to fight torque flying level and trimmed.

3. Hellcat or whatever should be able to roll right and pull away...Ok...However under what condition?....If both planes are going the same speed and the HC floors it rolling right...It will still take a while to gain any appreciable distance to not be vulnerable...It's not a "roll right *poof* vanish thing.

4. Right roll on Zero is wrong....Are you sure?...Maybe right roll is correct and left roll is too slow.

Was the Hellcat trimmed?...Was it damaged?..Was the Zero damaged?....Did the Zero use rudder or no?....Were you in a panic and still were applying rudder or elevator?....Was your Prop pitch right?....Were you going slow so had to gain momentum?.....Was the Zeke jumping you at a high speed dive?....and so on.

Do a test, save a track, gather some numbers and send it in if it's wrong....It's not a magic bullet tactic for not watching your 6 in the first place, It is a minor benefit due to contrasting engine rotations.

Btw....This would mean you are gonna have trouble rolling left with a Zero...How ya like them apples? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Mr Fish,

You are kind of a scary man. You may be interested to know that your knowing of WWtwo fighter planes is a bit on the pale side.

This silly zero business is proven over and over on dogfight servers that like the Bs109 they are given fake performance for gameplay.

Also, this is not one anecdote given by one pilot for the sole explanation of one encounter. History tells us over and over of how superior US aircraft could evade the zero.

Study history Mr Fish and it will set yourself free. In the meanwhile, check into a Bro or Manzeer.

KayBye!

IL2 is on teh deathbed, checkout TARGET:Rabul
http://tesla.liketelevision.com/liketelevision/images/lowrez/bonanz30214.jpg

BSS_Vidar
07-27-2005, 03:30 PM
Whadda-ya-mean dropped a bomb a left Ivan? I wrote this late last night. I don't live here ya know.

There's nothing to defend, and I don't eat fish. It's all in the history books.

If a Zeke got on your tail "in any situation" you rolled right and dove away.

AerialTarget
07-27-2005, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
Later Pingu and I remde the tests with P47 and it left to dust other planes as soon both reached the 600 kph zone.


You are making Oleg's mistake of confusing dive acceleration with maximum diving speed, I think.

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2005, 03:39 PM
ok, Zero is über http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
07-27-2005, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:

You are making Oleg's mistake of confusing dive acceleration with maximum diving speed, I think.

Be really careful in calling Oleg's judgements "mistakes". He knows what he is talking about. It's easy to read a few books and claim "Oleg is wrong" but, with further study you might find out Oleg had the right idea after all.

joeap
07-27-2005, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:

Mr Fish,

You are kind of a scary man.

R U blind man?

crazyivan1970
07-27-2005, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Whadda-ya-mean dropped a bomb a left Ivan? I wrote this late last night. I don't live here ya know.

There's nothing to defend, and I don't eat fish. It's all in the history books.

If a Zeke got on your tail "in any situation" you rolled right and dove away.

Ok, my appologies then...but let me say thing. It became very common on this board to complain about something that doesn`t exist, just like your statement, Zero cant do a squat with properly flown Aliied fighter, no matter what it is. I don`t fly DF servers, i fly COOPs only and my experiances are based on what i see there. And when i see some Hellcat driver shutting down 6 Zeros and coming back home alive ...well he must have done something right...didn`t he? Maybe he survived because he used those tactics that dont exist... I am puzzled here. I have nothing against a healthy discussion if it`s based on something that is a real problem. And i cannot confirm what you described, simple as that.

This is my problem: You guys are making claims... i go double check it before i report it and i cant confirm it. You know what i mean? Look around you...we have 10 threads across the boards that P-51 sucks, another 10 that P-38 late is uber, now another 20 that 109 is overmodelled and on the top of it another 50 that allied planes all porked and Oleg sold his soul to blue. Am i right or i am seeing things?

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2005, 03:56 PM
but that a Zero is über against F6F , F4U , P-40E/M , P-47 , P-39 , P-51 , P-38 is new, isnt it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chuck_Older
07-27-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
No expert so let me try and use some common sense......

1. Prop turns right so roll right should be easier.....Wrong...If prop turns right it is trying to force the plane left...

2. Zero turns equally well right as it does left....Wrong....As you would then not have to fight torque flying level and trimmed.

3. Hellcat or whatever should be able to roll right and pull away...Ok...However under what condition?....If both planes are going the same speed and the HC floors it rolling right...It will still take a while to gain any appreciable distance to not be vulnerable...It's not a "roll right *poof* vanish thing.

4. Right roll on Zero is wrong....Are you sure?...Maybe right roll is correct and left roll is too slow.

Was the Hellcat trimmed?...Was it damaged?..Was the Zero damaged?....Did the Zero use rudder or no?....Were you in a panic and still were applying rudder or elevator?....Was your Prop pitch right?....Were you going slow so had to gain momentum?.....Was the Zeke jumping you at a high speed dive?....and so on.

Do a test, save a track, gather some numbers and send it in if it's wrong....It's not a magic bullet tactic for not watching your 6 in the first place, It is a minor benefit due to contrasting engine rotations.

Btw....This would mean you are gonna have trouble rolling left with a Zero...How ya like them apples? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Mr Fish,

You are kind of a scary man. You may be interested to know that your knowing of WWtwo fighter planes is a bit on the pale side.

This silly zero business is proven over and over on dogfight servers that like the Bs109 they are given fake performance for gameplay.

Also, this is not one anecdote given by one pilot for the sole explanation of one encounter. History tells us over and over of how superior US aircraft could evade the zero.

Study history Mr Fish and it will set yourself free. In the meanwhile, check into a Bro or Manzeer.

KayBye!

IL2 is on teh deathbed, checkout TARGET:Rabul
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a jack@ss you are. If that's what men look like in your neck of the woods, the sheep must be nervous, eh?

Does Target:Rabaul have "teh Bf 109" or "teh LAGG"? No? Then shaddup about Target:rabaul versus Il2, K/ Lol, K? Bye, K!!1!!!! K?

LEBillfish
07-27-2005, 04:17 PM
Well first off it's Mrs. Fish....You however can call me Ma'am, and what I stated has "nothing" to do with history or how planes "really" performed..

Quite simply it has to do with "what the planes "actually" do in the sim compared to what they did real life", and simply by saying "it doesn't do what they really did" doesn't tell anyone a thing about what is happening in the sim OR real life.

"Proven over and over.....History tells Us"..etc. etc. doesn't tell any of us squat in this thread.......All your stating is it is not doing what "you think" it should do not the facts of history...

However, being so many of you obviously "know these facts in such great detail" then answer these simple questions......

(planes assumed to be in equal condition of both quality of trim, damage, fuel and controlled to their optimum performance equally....Also assumed to be at equal speeds in level flight when manuevers begin...Also state which version of the Zero)

1. Maximum rate of roll from level flight 180 degree's to inverted left for both Hellcat & Zero in seconds.
2. Maximum rate of roll from level flight 180 degree's to inverted right for both Hellcat & Zero in seconds.
3. Maximum rate of roll from level flight 180 degree's left to a nose down condition (pure vertical dive) for both Hellcat & Zero in seconds.
4. Maximum rate of roll from level flight 180 degree's right to a nose down condition (pure vertical dive) for both Hellcat & Zero in seconds.
5. Rate of accelleration for each in a 60 degree dive.
6. Rate of excelleration for each AFTER performing a maximum rate of roll from level flight 180 degree's right to a nose down condition.

Give me EXACT numbers to each of the above for both r/l planes and in Sim planes then we can determine any discrepency. State each for various starting speeds in 25km/h increments from 250-400.

(BTW, you do realize to go into a dive requires elevator...at slow enough speeds the Zero will be in dive position quicker "dependant" on roll rates due to it's superior manueverability)

Once we have the above we can begin to determine seperation rates of both r/l and sim aircraft and can then press 1c for corrections.

NOT stating "I got shot down, couldn't out run so it's wrong"....as what the planes can do, and what you did or didn't do that we don't know are two different things....

Now tell me about history HayateAce...Jr.. Here's your chance, put your numbers up you base all this on.

BigKahuna_GS
07-27-2005, 04:18 PM
S!




AKD--This hardly qualifies as theory. The effects of engine torque on roll rates were well known.

That is how Walsh described the official USN fighter tactics adopted from the captured Zero--as "theory" because he or no else he knew had proven that these Zeke "weak points" and new fighter tactics had been proven yet.

OK, Lets clarify this. Through extensive flight testing of the captured Koga's Zero by the USAAF/USN several weak points in the flight parameter of the Zeke were discovered. The Zero weak points were formalized into official USN/USMC flight tactics. This information was then distributed to all USN/USMC fighter groups.

Is that clear enough ?
Then you could also read Koga's Zero as I recommended.

The official USAAF/USN flight test of the captured Zero type 21

1.Roll rate slowed as speed approached 200kts, progrssively getting worse at speed increased.
2.Zero rolling to right was reduced vs left.
3.As speeds increased over 300kts all control response proggresively got worse
4.Elevator near complete lock up at speeds over 350kts

__

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2005, 04:25 PM
at ~360kts IAS a Model 21 , that was Kogas Reisen, brakes in PFm.

at ~190kts IAS the Zero is flying like a Bus in PFm

............................

sure, there is no big difference , if at all, in roll left ore right - in NO plane in game btw - and even than its not said if its roll is too fast to right ore too slow to left , as Ma'm already said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BigKahuna_GS
07-27-2005, 04:30 PM
S!


Good read.


Subject: Mitsubishi Type 0 Evaluation, Feb 1943 CONFIDENTIAL.

Complete Report :

Mitsubishi Type 0 Evaluation, Feb 1943.
CONFIDENTIAL.
HEADQUARTERS
TWENTY THIRD FIGHTER GROUP
Office of the Commanding Officer.
A.P.O.627
New York, N.Y.
6 February 1943

SUBJECT: General Technical Data and Flight Characteristics of the Japanese Zero Fighter Airplane.
TO: Commanding General, China Air Task Force.

1:- Subject airplane is a type Zero Mark 1, Carrier Fighter, Japanese No. P 5016. All tests were conducted by the undersigned, and such conclusions and remarks contained herein regarding performance as do not involve mathematical rates or measures are the opinions of this officer.

2:- All tests were carried out at Kunming, China, and comparative performance with P-40K and P-43A1 aircraft was tabulated. Insomuch as the elevation of the Kunming airdrome is above 5000 feet, the minimum altitude at which performance tests were run was 10000 feet.

3:- Insomuch as subject airplane is being flown to India this date, and numerous photographs have already been forwarded, technical data given is brief and of a general nature. Proper facilities do not exist at this station for complete disassembly and inspection of parts, or for testing of materials. No dimensions are given as these are already known and have been published by the Air Forces Intelligence Service.

4:- GENERAL TECHNICAL DATA
a. The Japanese Navy Zero airplane is a low wing, single radial engine, single seat, all metal, flush riveted monoplane of very light construction. The fuselage is of semi- monocoque design. The thickness of wing and fuselage skin covering is .02 inch, and is unstressed. The landing gear is fully retractable. The weight of the airplane, fully serviced, with belly tank installed is approximately 5600 pounds.

b. Engine: The engine is a 14 cylinder, twin row radial of almost identical design to our own Pratt & Whitney R-1535 series, and is tightly cowled. Accessories and accessory drive are similar to our own engine, the chief differences being in the oil cooler design and the float type carburetor. This engine, contrary to opinion and data expressed elsewhere, will not develop 900 H.P., nor is its altitude performance superior to our own standard fighter craft engines of single stage, single speed, mechanically driven blowers. This engine at full throttle and full r.p.m. with the aid of 160 indicated mph of ram, will hold zero boost only to 16000 feet indicated. Our own P-40K Allison V-1710-73 will, at 3000 rpm, hold zero boost, with benefit of 230 indicated m.p.h. of ram, to 22000 feet indicated. However, it is believed that the propellor on this particular Zero airplane is not set to permit maximum allowable r.p.m. (maximum obtainable r.p.m. was 2075).

c. Fuel System: The fuel system consists of two wing tanks of 55 gallons capacity each, one fuselage tank mounted ahead of the instrument panel of 37 gallons capacity, and one non-streamlined detachable belly tank of 88 gallons capacity (total fuel capacity 235 U.S. gallons). All tanks are non-bullet proof. A motor driven fuel pump of similar design to our own furnishes fuel to the carburetor at a pressure of .33 kg/sq.cm. This is believed to be normal pressure; the pressure increases markedly with positive acceleration forces on the airplane. A wobble pump of similar design to our own supplements the motor driven pump. Two fuel ***** control the selection of tanks (the forward **** is shown in the lower left hand corner of attached cockpit picture, just aft of the two fuel gages). One **** controls selection between the belly and fuselage tanks; its third position is "off". The other **** controls selection between the two wing tanks; its four positions are; "left wing, right wing, both and off". The systems controlled by the two ***** are in parallel, but should not be used simultaneously as fuel will drain from the higher fuselage tank to the lower wing tanks when the two systems are inter-connected. Thus, if such draining fills the wing tanks, the action will continue with fuel running thru the wing tank overflows until the fuselage tank is completely drained. 91 octane fuel was used in the conduct of all tests, and at full throttle at 10000 feet no detonation was experienced. This indicates that timing was probably slow, insomuch as engine is reportedly designed to operate on 100 octane fuel; normal performance probably was still further reduced thereby.

d. Landing gear: The landing gear is retractable and of the conventional full cantilever, laterally braced type. The gear retracts inboard and forms a flush, integral surface with the fuselage. The landing gear lock is of a mechanical finger and recession. The finger, however, abuts against the recession at approximately a 20 deg. angle off of a dead center position. The plate containing the lock recession is an integral part of the strut itself, hence the locking device bears a 20 degree component of the entire lateral forces on the gear, reduced the ratio of lever arms about the main hinge point of the strut. The main wheels are small and there is little clearance between wheels and wheel cowling. The struts are of conventional, telescoping oleo type. The gear is hydraulically actuated. The tailwheel is four inches in diameter and mounts a hard rubber tire. It is fully retractable normally, but on this plane has been slightly damaged so that it does not fully retract. A landing hook, raised and lowered by a lever on the right side of the cockpit, is mounted just ahead of the tail wheel.

e. Propellor: The propellor is a three aluminum blade, hydraulically operated, constant speed type.

f. Engine Accessories:
(1) Boost control: An automatic boost control is provided. A selector lever is provided in order that this control may be thrown in or out of operation as desired. Details of construction and operation of the boost control are unknown.
(2) Mixture control: Two mixture control devices are provided. One is automatic for all normal operations. The other is a manually operated control for leaning the idling mixture - this is operated whenever the engine tends to load up during prolonged periods of idling.
(3) Carburetor: The carburetor is a double barreled, float type. No idle cut-off device is incorporated.
(4) Oil Cooler: The oil cooler is mounted below the engine and is fed thru a duct in the ring cowling, with a butterfly valve shutter mounted in its throat. The cooler consists of a coil of copper tubing.
(5) Other engine accessories are very similar to our own conventional designs.
g. Hydraulic System: The hydraulic system operates the landing gear and flaps. It is very similar to that of our own P-43 aircraft, and its normal operating pressure is about 750 pounds per square inch. The motor driven hydraulic pump is not dis-engagable and supplies continuous pressure to the system. A hand operated pump is provided similar to our own two stroke, piston-type pumps. The wheel system and flap system are in parallel and common selector levers are provided for both systems exactly as in the P-43. In this particular airplane the motor driven pump rotor has been removed for safety (the hose connections of the hydraulic system are slightly deteriorated) and all operations are accomplished with the hand pump.
h. Controls: All air control surfaces, linkages, and operating devices are conventional. Ailerons and elevators are of very small area and the tail must be held down at all warm up speeds in excess of 1?00 r.p.m. Stabiliser skin protrudes as a flap to make a flush joint with rudder and elevator surfaces. Tab control is provided for elevator control surfaces only. The stick is conventional and contains no actuating levers or buttons. Gun trigger and selector levers are mounted on the throttle control. The rudder is controlled by a solid bar instead of individual pedals. Brakes are conventional hydraulic and are toe operated. All engine, propellor, and accessory controls are conventional and conventionally located.

i. Armor:- This airplane contains no armor, bullet proof glass, bullet proof fuel tanks, or any other kind of protection.

j. Armament:- The armament consists of two manually charged 30 caliber, synchronized machine guns firing thru the propellor above the propellor axis, and two twenty mm. cannon, one mounted in each wing just outboard of the propellor arc. Rates of fire are unknown. The wing guns are charged by compressed air from a cylinder reservoir. Ammunition and magazines for the guns have been forwarded under separate cover to the Commanding General, 10th U.S. Air Force. Details of gun operation and ammunition are unknown.

k. No radio equipment was obtained with this airplane.

l. Oxygen equipment has been forwarded under separate cover. The undersigned did not see this equipment.
m. Instruments and Cockpit Controls:- The following instruments and cockpit controls are indicated in the accompanying cockpit photograph.
(1) Artificial horizon - similar to our own.
(2) Bank and turn - similar to our own.
(3) Air speed indicator - one of our own was installed in this plane.
(4) Rate of climb indicator - similar to our own. Graduated in hundreds of meters per second.
(5) Oil and fuel pressure gages - Graduated in kg/sq.cm.
(6) Tachometer - Graduated in hundreds of r.p.m.
(7) Altimeter - Graduated in hundreds of meters.
(8) Cylinder head temperature - One of our own is installed in this plane.
(9) Oil temperature gage - Graduated in degrees centigrade.
(10) Manifold pressure gage - graduated in centimeters of mercury above and below standard atmospheric (standard atmospheric pressure is designated as zero boost on the gage).
(11) Inclinometer - Mercury column indicates a climbing or diving attitude of airplane in degrees. Normal attitude of zero degrees is assumed by airplane at about 190 m.p.h. indicated in level flight at 4000 meters altitude.
(12) Fuel gages - These gages are of the liquidometer type and must be energized by pulling out the small button adjacent to gage and releasing. After energizing, the gages read accurately in level flight for about 15 seconds. The gages are graduated in liters.
(13) Compass - Conventional floating card type with adjustable, course-setting, planar compass rose mounted around periphery of compass bowl. Correction card is mounted underneath.
(14) Oil cooler flap control.
(15) Cowl flap control.
(16) Engine primer.
(17) Ignition switch.
(18) Booster coil control button.
(19) Propellor control lever (full rear position gives high r.p.m.)
(20) Mixture control - Use of this control is not fully understood, as in the rear position of this lever, mixture control is automatic. Movement of the lever to any forward position at any altitude causes no perceptible change in engine operation.
(21) Throttle lever with gun selector and actuating controls mounted thereon - Wing or synchronized guns may be separately fired, or all may be fired simultaneously.
(22) Idling mixture control - This lever is spring loaded with normal position to the rear. Pushing the lever forward leans the idling mixture and prevents fouling of the engine during engine warm up. Apparently there is no thermostatically controlled by-pass around the oil cooler, for it requires about five minutes for the oil to warm up sufficiently for take off (at an air temperature of 50 deg.F).
(23) Fuel wobble pump lever.
(24) Selector button for engaging automatic boost control.
n. Miscellaneous.
(1) Primer. - An engine primer supplies fuel to three cylinders for starting.
(2) Magneto. - Ignition is furnished by a magneto very similar to our own. A magneto booster coil, actuated by a button just above the ignition switch, is used for starting.
(3) Cowl Flaps. - Cowl flaps similar in construction and purpose to our own radial engine cowl flaps are operated by a hand crank on the forward right hand side of the cockpit.
(4) Belly tank. - The belly tank is of excellent construction and is secured to the fuselage beneath the airplane with one connection. It is released by a handle on the left side of the cockpit.
(5) Foot Guards. - A foot guard is provided on each rudder pedal (see cockpit picture) - thus if the pilot loses the use of one leg he can still actuate the rudder.
(6) Canopy. - The canopy is of the standard sliding type with stud and slot type lock. Various slots along the canopy track afford different positions of opening for the canopy. There is no emergency release.
5:- The materials used in the Zero airplane are of excellent quality. Generally, the workmanship of both airplane and power plant is rather mediocre. The most notable feature of the construction of this airplane is its utter lack of sectionalization. Any damage inflicted necessitates a major depot overhaul for repair.

6: - PERFORMANCE:-
a. High speed tests were as follows:
ALTITUDE (Feet) 10000 15000 20000 25000
IND AIR SPEED (mph) 238 219 190 171
TRUE AIR SPEED (mph) 286 289 270 265
R.P.M. 2050 2050 2050 2050
MAN PRESS (cm Hg) +12 +2 -8 -13
Cyl Head Temp (deg C) 235 228 226 225
OIL TEMP (deg.C) 55 55 55 55
OIL Press (Kg/Sq cm) 5 5 5 4.8
FUEL Press )Kg/Sq Cm) 0.42 0.4 0.4 0.38

Notes:
1. All of above performances were run at full throttle and maximum r.p.m. propellor setting.
2. It is believed that oil temperature gage was inaccurate.

3. True air speed was computed by estimating temperature at the various altitudes. A free air temperature gage was not available.
b. Maximum climb tests were as follows:
ALTITUDE (Feet) 10000-15000 15000-20000 20000-25000
AVERAGE I.A.S. 130 125 118
AVERAGE Rate/Climb 2690 Ft./S 2410 Ft./S 1785 Ft./S

c. Estimated normal cruising at 12000 feet indicated is 1700 r.p.m. and -7 cm. Hg. boost. The power output under these conditions is unknown; the indicated air speed was 197 mph, or a true air speed of approximately 245 mph. Fuel consumption under these conditions was 37 gallons per hour. Fuel consumption at other power output conditions was not tested due to limited time and a very limited supply of fuel.

d. Airplane stalls as follows:
FLAPS UP FLAPS DOWN.
POWER ON 62 53
POWER OFF 70 59
Ceiling tests were not conducted on account of lack of proper oxygen equipment.

7:- - RELATIVE PERFORMANCE WITH P-40K AND P-43A-1 AIRCRAFT
a. Climb - The Zero airplane maintains a higher rate of climb than the P-40K-1 at all altitudes in excess of 10000 feet. However, it is believed that below 5000 feet, the P-40K-1 would climb faster. The P-43 A-1 will maintain a higher rate of climb than the Zero at any altitude above 12,500 feet. In climb tests with this airplane, the P-43 was operated at 2500 r.p.m. and 42" Hg., and with this output did not achieve the advantage in climb until 12,500 feet was reached. However, with maximum allowable output of the P-43 engine (2700 r.p.m. and 48.5 in. Hg.) it is believed this airplane would outclimb the Zero at any altitude. The P-43 was not operated at maximum engine performance on account of the extreme importance of conservation of equipment in this theatre.

b. High Speed and Acceleration - Both the P-40K-1 and the P-43A-1 are considerably faster than the Zero at any altitude. Acceleration tests were run at 13000 feet indicated with the following results:
(1) P-40K-1 versus Zero. Airplanes were flown side by side at 200 m.p.h. indicated. On signal, both engines were given full throttle and full r.p.m. For seven seconds the two planes accelerated equally, at which time the P-40 began to pull away very rapidly. Twelve seconds after acceleration signal was given, the differential speed was estimated at ten m.p.h.
(2) P-43 A-1 vs. Zero. The same test was performed as with the P-40K-1, but at an initial speed of 190 m.p.h. indicated. After signal was given, Zero gained about one quarter plane length on the P-43, after which P-43 pulled away, but not as rapidly as the P-40. Again the P-43 was operated at 42 in.Hg. and 2500 r.p.m. - as compared to 3000 r.p.m. and 41 in. Hg. with the P-40.

c. Individual Combat. - Several dog fights were carried out with both the P-40K-1 and P-43A-1, using various tactics. The Zero is, of course, vastly superior in maneuverability. It was found that the P-40 can, however, effectively fight the Zero without necessarily diving away. This is accomplished by proceeding away from the Zero on initial pass at high speed until approximately one and a half miles away, at which time a maximum turn is begun back into the path of the pursuing Zero. This turn can be completed just in time for the P-40 to pass thru the path of the Zero and barely miss a collision. If the Zero does not dodge from his own attack, the P-40 can fire a very effective head on burst in this manner. Of course, the Zero can take evasive action, but he cannot maneuver into such a position as to get effective fire into the P-40 without also getting return fire.

With the P-43, the same tactics can be used, but head on runs are not advisable with this airplane due to lack of both fire-power and protection. It is believed that the best tactics for engaging the Zero in individual combat with the P-43 is to climb away from the Zero and attempt to gain an advantageous position for a diving attack. The P-43 has a slight advantage in rate of climb, as before mentioned, and has a considerably higher best climbing speed.
It is advised never to engage in a turning fight with the Zero with either a P-40 or P-43 type airplane - but the above tactics may be effectively used provided the combat involves only two single airplanes.

8:- FLYING CHARACTERISTICS
a. Maneuverability - The Zero is very maneuverable. It will turn a little shorter than our own P-36A, but is slightly slower than this airplane and has a lower rate of climb. At altitudes below 12000 feet, the P-36A has a much better rate of climb and is almost as maneuverable.

b. Dives - The highest speed attained in diving was 300 m.p.h. indicated. Above 200 m.p.h., the Zero became increasingly hard to maneuver, and at 300 m.p.h. requires a great deal of force on the controls for even a gentle turn. At these speeds, the airplane is very stable, and especially so about the longitudinal axis. It has no tendency whatever to roll in a dive, and at 300 m.p.h. it is practically impossible to make it roll. Above 226 m.p.h. indicated the P-40 will out maneuver the Zero - thus a Zero airplane pursuing one of our own airplanes in a dive is completely at the mercy of any following P-40's or similar pursuit aircraft. This probably explains why they rarely if ever follow our own aircraft in even a shallow dive where they could keep up for a short while.

c. Stalls - The Zero stalls very smoothly, even in tight turns. It has no tendency to whip on stalling, nor does it have any €œsquashing€ tendencies like the P-26. At speeds above about 200 m.p.h. indicated, it is believed impossible to exert enough pressure on the elevators to cause the airplane to stall. This was not actually tried, however, for fear of a structural failure.

d. Landing - The airplane glides at 85 m.p.h. with flaps down and lands at about 65. It is very easy to land and has no ground
looping tendencies whatever. The tail wheel is non-steerable and non-lockable.
e. Generally, the Zero is a very simple and easy airplane to operate. It has a high power loading and is consequently easy to get out of €œtight spots€ or difficult situations. It is structurally very weak, however, and must be handled with respect. It would be very foolish to attempt a forced landing with the Zero in any but very smooth terrain.

9:- REMARKS
a. Visibility is very poor directly ahead and down. Otherwise, visibility is good.
b. Best engine warm-up speed is 900 - 950 r.p.m.
c. The engine will not run under any conditions of negative acceleration, inverted, or in a steep skid. A Zero is unable to follow any airplane which does a sharp pushover unless it rolls and it cannot roll at high speed.
d. The Zero is manufactured of excellent materials, but it exhibits mediocre workmanship throughout.
10:- A more detailed technical report will be submitted on this air-plane in the near future.

B. K. HOLLOWAY
Lt. Col., Air Corps
Commanding.

BSS_Vidar
07-27-2005, 05:01 PM
I'm not calling the Zeke Uber. It does everything like it's suppose to except for this charaterisitc.

Very good read indeed. thnx for posting that Kahuna. The non-ability for the M2 to do neg G push-overs seems to have been correct after all. This trait was in the M2 on the release of the Pacific Fighters CD, but was removed on the first patch.

It was interesting that there was no mention of the inferior roll-to-the-right tendencies. But, the dive characteristics were well covered.

This bad roll-right characteristic was not only a weakness when the Zeke was offensive. This was a dead give-a-way for evassive action as well. PTO pilots knew which way a Zeke was gonna go when he discovered someone was on his tail. LEFT, every time. Allied pilots were spring-loaded to anticipate this weakness in the Zero.

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2005, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
...........The non-ability for the M2 to do neg G push-overs seems to have been correct after all. This trait was in the M2 on the release of the Pacific Fighters CD, but was removed on the first patch.

............

was corrected after oleg got original japanese sources.

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:

Very good read indeed. thnx for posting that Kahuna. The non-ability for the M2 to do neg G push-overs seems to have been correct after all. This trait was in the M2 on the release of the Pacific Fighters CD, but was removed on the first patch.



The M2 was capable of neg G... The one captured wasn't, because the carburator had been mounted wrong during repairs. This has already been cleared long ago.

BSS_Vidar
07-27-2005, 06:20 PM
Ah yes, I remeber that now. Thnx for clarifying dat.

S!

A.K.Davis
07-27-2005, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
This bad roll-right characteristic was not only a weakness when the Zeke was offensive. This was a dead give-a-way for evassive action as well. PTO pilots knew which way a Zeke was gonna go when he discovered someone was on his tail. LEFT, every time. Allied pilots were spring-loaded to anticipate this weakness in the Zero.

Grr...this was not special magic with the Zero. All single-engine prop aircraft exhibit this tendency, but it is obviously aggravated by already poor rolling characteristics.

WWMaxGunz
07-27-2005, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by PlaneEater:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Up to 200 mph, the Zero was quicker on the roll than the P-40's according to AVG accounts.


The AVG never faced Zeros. Be sure.

(Ki-27s, Ki-43s, yes, A6Ms, no.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AVG pilots faced Zeroes when they got absorbed into the US forces later in the war.

Eric Shilling has been very active on the net about AVG and post-AVG war flying.
From his words here: http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling2.html
Parenthesis parts below are my own additions;
"The AVG encountered 4 types of Japanese aircraft in their fight over Burma and
southeast China. Two were fighters, the Hayabusa we called the I-97 and the
Mitsubishi (with an editors note: the more common was the Ki-27, Mitsubishi A5M's
did see service in China but were withdrawn by Dec 41) an obsolete fixed geared
fighter, the I-96. The only Japanese bomber was the (real) I-97, which I think
was called the Sally, and an occasional Japanese photo-recon plane."

And yet Eric Shilling does have a lot to say on that page comparing P-40 models
to Zeroes.

I note that he is emphatic about Zeroes shedding wings at over 350 mph IAS and how
Japanese would not attempt to dive to as much as 350. But that is Eric Shilling
and Oleg got information from Japan.

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

Here is one with parts I wouldn't expect to find in PF, P-40 windshield protecting
the pilot from bomber guns... I've been plinked through windshields many times:

http://yarchive.net/mil/avg_tactics.html

The index link on the upper right of that page leads to many interesting links.

p1ngu666
07-27-2005, 10:26 PM
the zeros ingame breakup at there dive limit, or did in 3.0

some planes go over the placard dive speed, mostly those with a reputation for being a good diver..

WWMaxGunz
07-27-2005, 10:37 PM
I would like to call attention to use of language in reports as it applies to people getting
expectations and more, pulling up bits of quotes to run with in their own interpretations.
This part is good because we get the "very rapidly" quantified by 10 mph difference over
5 whole seconds... 10 mph is 14.67 ft/sec, the average is half that -- not exactly drag
race takeoff.



(1) P-40K-1 versus Zero. Airplanes were flown side by side at 200 m.p.h. indicated. On signal, both engines were given full throttle and full r.p.m. For seven seconds the two planes accelerated equally, at which time the P-40 began to pull away very rapidly. Twelve seconds after acceleration signal was given, the differential speed was estimated at ten m.p.h.


When you see "much faster" in the P-47 vs FW-190 report, the 65 degree dive from 10,000 ft
to 3,000 ft... as Oleg wrote me the speed difference is 20 to 30 kph. I look at "very
rapidly" above quantified as they did, not Oleg, and 20 to 30 kph doesn't seem so bad at
all.

Simpler; so many people read unquantified remarks and blow them up.

How many times do Allied accounts of fighting Japanese begin with hitting them at high
speed and having a speed advantage? That advantage I very much doubt was any 10 mph IAS.

Atomic_Marten
07-28-2005, 12:19 AM
I just want to point out that no roll or any kind of other manoeuver will save US pilot if he is slow on speed. US pilots were well aware of that fact.. NEVER go in any kind of manoeuvring with Zero if it isn't absolutely neccesary.

And also, if he is on high speed Zero (or for that matter almost any Japanese fighter) couldn't catch him. Rolling to the right was I presume especially effective on high speeds, when Zero's controlls were already somewhat stiffen up.

This whole issue MUST be put in context. Regarding speed and manoeuverability.

IMO all of you guys that expect that you will right-outroll Zero and save yourself on low speed are wrong.

LEBillfish
07-28-2005, 12:45 AM
Be sure.....

That's exactly what I mean, as no manuever is a magic bullet in every situation. Going slow, break left and dive?....Well, when a zero is slow its moves are much faster...
Meaning, it starts and finishes the move quicker...
Meaning, as the Hellcat pilot tries to recover and gain speed...The Zero is on his butt the whole while hammering away.

Yes, Hellcats turned tighter then Zero's BUT!!, at or above X speed....Seperation also determined by the speed you start as the Zero is quick...to a point.

Now if you want to put it into "PF just a`cus terms"....In contrast at X speed I don't care what the manuever is the Zero cannot follow as it seems to flatten out...Loop, Barrel Roll, SPlit S.....If too fast the Hellcat does it tighter. Same for break right roll and dive.

But not when slow....

Why I say just don't toss out a "Zero is uber, Hellcat is porked in a roll right dive"......Give some numbers or even an ntrk....

Cause truth be known....Being the worst pilot here with a Zero I'll stay on most folks flying Hellcat's 6's...Yet if in a Hellcat will leave most folks in Zero's in the dust......So if I'm the worst V Pilot here, what's that saying?

BSS_Vidar
07-28-2005, 02:01 PM
Now where did I ever say I was slow in the engagement? I always keep my speed above 200mph in level flight, never make more than half-a-circle turn with a Zeke, and never-EVER pull into the virticle with a Zeke on your tail. His thrust & Lift-to-weight ratios will eat you alive. I've been drilling this into the BSS for quite some time. We extend, then re-attack.

When you are co-altitude at the same speed with a Zeke on your tail, especially at or above 200 mph. The power and weight of an American made fighter 'SHOULD' easily open the gap with a roll to the right into a dive. With a terrible roll rate to the right inherant with the Zeke, you SHOULD have allready lost'em. The dive is a benefit to extending away from the Zeke to fight again later. This tactic was used by the Marines when they were still flying F-4F's guys!

If you're behind a Wildcat in a DF server and he breaks hard to the right, you should be just sitting there holding your joystick folks. Because that meatballed crate your in should not be able to follow him.

Someone here said you can't use real tactics in the game. I'm inclined to beleave that to some extent. As a Navy flyer and a Comercial rated pilot, I see stuff capable in the game that really cracks me up. At times, I've had to fight my insticts of 20 years plus of training to adapt to playing a PC game. It isn't easy sometimes when you've been wired a certain way, then see something that shouldn't be happening.

But then again, I still jump on the computer after a 7 hour flight as soon as I walk through the door. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (the wife doesn't get it).
Good thing this is just a game, because if this were accurate... Well, I'm not going there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
07-28-2005, 02:35 PM
Again, Vidar, try it in Target:Rabaul. It sure works there. Especially the roll. If the Zero is at higher speeds, and isn't trimmed well nose down AND managing his throttle, he will not be able to get guns to bear during those critical first moments when your acceleration hasn't kicked in and you're not "walking away" from him.

At any rate, the effect is NOT like Han Solo activating the hyperdrive in the Milennium Falcon. It takes a goodly bit of time for the effects to show up in RANGE, just like you can't instantly translate a climb rate advantage into safety from guns (unless stall speed becomes a factor).

LEBillfish
07-28-2005, 02:47 PM
10 miles/h = 14.67 f/s = 4.47 meters/s.....So if a Zero is say 10m behind you and you perform the manuever, him on your tail falling behind another 30m to line up setting him at 40m, and his range he'll shoot is 200m...then;

Naught gazinta naught..naught/naught...*bites tongue sicking out of the corner of her mouth smoke boiling out her ears*......If your speed is increasing 1 miles/h over his per second then he will have a shooting time till you reach 200 meters distance of.....134 seconds = 2'14" to plug away at your 6.....(someone check my math please)....

Meaning at the 200 meter mark (this all based on the zero's speed staying constant WHICH IT WILL NOT as he will accelerate too).....you will be traveling 134 miles per hour faster then the Zero.....

If I have ammo and anyone in my sights for 2 minutes........they are going down.

Now, that said......If I refuse knowing my plane to follow yet roll left and follow...make the time I'm on your 6 longer.....As I will know what you are doing and use my quicker manueverability to intercept your assumed path not hope you will fly mine.

Adjust the math for the initial seperation as you like....and if you come up before reaching the 200m. mark at 15 seconds or more....I'll have hammered you so bad you will slow and be crippled to a level I can finish you at will.

Sorry...Like I said, it's not a magic bullet. It is a neet trick that plays on "habit and trained reflexes...The Hellcat pilot trained to roll right to gain a few extra meters of range hoping the zero pilot rolls left from habit and therefor takes 2 minutes to re-lock on.....Naturally by that time you so fast he can't catch, and now unable to correct so you can, and now get on his 6.

Trouble is...Most of us that fly Zero's were never trained, and roll to stay on our opponents 6...Plus, we press the plane to it's limits wherein the r/l Zero pilot would not...Why?...we can't die.

and once jumped, all the training in the world will not save you...yet keeping your cool will.

A.K.Davis
07-28-2005, 02:54 PM
It is true in PF as well. The reality is most of this rolling dives are made from low to medium altitude, 1000-1500m. If I'm in a Zero and bounce a Wildcat or Hellcat from 100m, they usually roll and dive. During the roll and initial dive, I will not be able to bring guns to bear. By the time I am back on his tail, he will have achieved another 100-200m of separation, but will be leveling off. At this point, one of two things happen: I take potshots with my MGs and the red pilot starts jinking or climbing, bleeding off the speed his gained and in final desperation trying force an overshoot (this is a really bad idea with a Zero on your tail), OR if the pilot has gained a enough separation and speed he will simply fly away (not likely in a Wildcat).

I fought in an A6M5 against a P-38J at 3000-5000m for over an hour last night and was absolutely at his mercy. Only last moment dodges kept me alive.

Truth is most pilots don't have the discipline and patience to properly fight Zeros, but like to attribute their failure to the FM.

p1ngu666
07-28-2005, 04:18 PM
true davis..

ive seen ai do the roll and dive thing, but its at low alt and they hit the drink http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Badsight.
07-28-2005, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Now tell me about history HayateAce...Jr.. Here's your chance, put your numbers up you base all this on. why are you even bothering , HayateAcehole is a ****** , blinded by "USA-hell yea!" so bad hes beyond seeing the truth

hes not out for anything but easy-to-kill axis planes , & his seemingly apparent lack of skill keeps him from posting the truth about how effective Allied planes can be in certian circustances

in other words , hes a troll & your wasting your time , no bigger joke has ever posted at UBI

Fehler
07-29-2005, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Now tell me about history HayateAce...Jr.. Here's your chance, put your numbers up you base all this on. why are you even bothering , HayateAcehole is a ****** , blinded by "USA-hell yea!" so bad hes beyond seeing the truth

hes not out for anything but easy-to-kill axis planes , & his seemingly apparent lack of skill keeps him from posting the truth about how effective Allied planes can be in certian circustances

in other words , hes a troll & your wasting your time , no bigger joke has ever posted at UBI </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL!! Now the Japanese planes are uber to him! I suspect that since everything is so much better than his plane, he should perhaps take a look at his flying abilities.

I am, by no means an ace, and in most aircraft I am less than mediocre. But I really dont feel like plane X is any better than mine whatever my mount versus whatever they are flying. Situations almost always rule the fight.

Example, I had a very nice dogfight in a P-40 against a Bf109 G-10 the other day and we both expended all our ammo without knocking either plane down. But 1 on 1's on a server with 40 slots is extremely rare.

jugent
07-29-2005, 01:29 AM
This game is very good but it dont match how it really was.
Simulations are fantastic but if you should put in all parameters to get the right behaviour of a plane, you will need not the next generation of processors but the second next.
Today if you should simulate drag, lift yaw on plane you can calculate it but it takes fraction of seconds to calculate split seconds of flight.
And on top of this, graphics and other things are also to be processed.

If aircraft where 80% correct in this game, the killratio would be quite different. The radiators (for inline engines)are not included in the damage-profile, which is odd because it would be quite easy to add to the overall damageprofile. After all the oil-coolers are included, and engine failurs because of overheating was a major reason for crashlandings and ditchings.

As an historical example is that
During the last eastfront offensive during WWII VVS got 20 aircraft to every german aircraft, according to Antony Beavor, and still OKL flew a lot with and still used Stukas, and many survived.
They would live for one day in this game.

AerialTarget
07-29-2005, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
I fought in an A6M5 against a P-38J at 3000-5000m for over an hour last night and was absolutely at his mercy. Only last moment dodges kept me alive.


Ha, ha! I know exactly what you mean. Only, I'm on the dealing end this time. I fly the P-38 exclusively, and even back in the Aces Expansion Pack days when the P-38 was borrowing a bomber's flight model, I have always regarded the Zeke, alone out of all airplanes, as merely a target. I've never been shot down in a P-38 under any circumstances by a Zeke.

Asgeir_Strips
07-31-2005, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I am a retired Navy flyer, and a Naval Aviation History Nutt. The one most effective tactic used against any model of the Zeke was that the faster, and heavier American airframes could roll right and dive away easily leaving a Zeke all by itself. This was because the Zeke's light weight construction and heavy torque would only allow the A-6M to roll to the left effectively.

In this game, I've been chased by Zekes, and have chased Corsairs and Hellcats easily in Zekes. The A-6M in-game can roll effectively in both directions. American tactics were quite centered on this particular weakness. In this game, the REAL tactic is useless. Can we get this fixed in the next patch?

I Agree, but i always make sure that i dont find myself in that position.. I always shoot down Zekes at my first pass if possible..

Man i love the head on pass! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

x__CRASH__x
07-31-2005, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by PlaneEater:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Up to 200 mph, the Zero was quicker on the roll than the P-40's according to AVG accounts.


The AVG never faced Zeros. Be sure.

(Ki-27s, Ki-43s, yes, A6Ms, no.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Serious? Well ****! *crumples up paper* So much for my "Flying Tiger" match-up!

WWSensei
07-31-2005, 10:59 AM
If aircraft where 80% correct in this game, the killratio would be quite different.


Correllary: If virtutal pilots were 20% correct at combat tactics as they think they are in the game the killratio would be quite different.

F19_Ob
07-31-2005, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
The one most effective tactic used against any model of the Zeke was that the faster, and heavier American airframes could roll right and dive away easily leaving a Zeke all by itself.

Exactly this tactic is what I've used online in patch 304 and it always worked well.
In p40's I always outdove the zeros, rolled in the opposit direction because the Zero couldn't roll in high speed and left the zero flying solo.
I haven't flown online in 4.01 yet so I cant say if the FM is changed.

It's indeed possible to use real life tactics against an enemy and many planes feel reasonably balanced in several respects if one compare with the litterature.
I for one use the textbook tactics described by pilots and feel they work.

Flying the p40 online I always used high speed and the few times I was hit by zeros was my own fault because I reduced my speed to help someone and misjudged the overall situation and therefore was jumped by an unseen enemy.

well, my experience so far.