PDA

View Full Version : Wildcat & Zero - relative dive and roll



RocketDog
11-30-2004, 02:49 PM
There's as interestiing discussion in the Pacific Fighters forum about the relative dive and high-speed roll performance of the early Zeros and the Wildcat. I won't repeat all the figures, but the observations suggest that in the game:

1. The Wildcat breaks up at too low a speed.

2. The roll rate of the Zero is too high at high dive speeds (reports speak of the control surfaces becoming almost immovable above ~ 300 mph).

A quick test in the game shows that the Zero can roll surprisingly well up to the point that it breaks up, and that the Wildcat never gains a real advantage in control authority over the Zero. Further, the Wildcat (supposedly a very strong aircraft) breaks up at only marginally higher speeds than the Zero. In short, the Wildcat gains almost no advantage by diving away from a Zero.

Does anybody have any hard facts to support these conculsions? (I'm thinking of you, Skychimp!)

Regards,

RocketDog.

Loki-PF
11-30-2004, 04:27 PM
RocketDog,

Actually what my online tests showed was that 1) the Zero dove faster than the wildcat, 2)the Wildcat went into the hard buffet and broke up sooner than the Zero and 3)The Zero lost no control authority that was discernable above 250 Mph.

250 Mph is the number generally quoted by Sakai and others as the departure point in controlability. When I say "discernable" in regards to roll rate and elavator authority I'm talking about in regards to the Wildcat. Several of our tests involved diving up to 350Mph and then testing roll rate etc. In these test the Zero easily kept up with the Wildcat.

TooCool_12f
11-30-2004, 04:48 PM
seems it has been changed with 3.02

before patchs, the wildcat, in game, could shake the zero rather easily, since it couldn't match the roll responsiveness of the grumman at higher speeds. I flew it tonight and, bascally, I couldn't do anything againsta zeke. it's superior in turning at any speed (I'd expect it to be quite heavy above 500kph) and it rolls quite well even above 600

even in a corsair (F4U-1A) I had hard time getting away from it (only prolonged dive followed by straight escape allowed me to gain some separation, it could match any manouver at any speed)

Tater-SW-
11-30-2004, 05:12 PM
Bump for a fix, I agree.

tater

BlitzPig_DDT
11-30-2004, 05:24 PM
All around the 3.0 FMs seemed to be the best. I'm not sure what they were after in 3.01, but it was apparently an over correction, and it eased up a bit (but not enough in some cases) in 3.02. :/

SkyChimp
11-30-2004, 06:17 PM
F4F-3s and F4F-4s didn't have dive speed limitations.

WTE_Dukayn
11-30-2004, 06:23 PM
I flew a Zero last night in a 3.01 game. Get above 250-300 Km/h and the roll rate is drastically reduced. Dunno what this translates to in mph.

Dunno about 3.02 as I refuse to use anything beta.

JG53Frankyboy
11-30-2004, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
RocketDog,

Actually what my online tests showed was that 1) the Zero dove faster than the wildcat, 2)the Wildcat went into the hard buffet and broke up sooner than the Zero and 3)The Zero lost no control authority that was discernable above 250 Mph.

250 Mph is the number generally quoted by Sakai and others as the departure point in controlability. When I say "discernable" in regards to roll rate and elavator authority I'm talking about in regards to the Wildcat. Several of our tests involved diving up to 350Mph and then testing roll rate etc. In these test the Zero easily kept up with the Wildcat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

using PF 3.02 (every patch so far is a beta version of the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )
i reached
740km/h IAS in a F4F-4
660km/h IAS in a A6M2-21
in a dive till the first parts fall away , without trying to recover from the dive.

i realy wouldnt call that the Model21 has a higher max Divespeed than the F4F-4.

if the difference is big enough , dodnt know.
but keepin in mind Skychimps words here and that a Ki-61 can dive till 850km/h IAS .
the Wildcat speed looks like realy to low.

and yes, strange enough the Model21 rolls better at 600 than at 450km/h IAS ?!?!?!

but hopefully after fixing the performances of this important Duo the Wildcat cant outrun the Model21 in horizontal speed again , like in PF 3.0

Ankanor
11-30-2004, 07:28 PM
The wildcat couldn't outrun the Zero. Period. The tests in 1943 by the Americans showed that the Wildcat had better roll at high speeds, and its engine did not cut out in a negative G maneuvers. In Dive the two planes were equal. There is more to this, though. During the testing of the Hellcat, the tested Hellcat received damage from the high speed of the dive. The next trial was made witha remote controlled Hellcat, the Speed achieved was 805 kmh, when the operator in the parallel flying Wildcat commanded leveloff.

To summarize, the Wildcat is not better in the dive than a Zero. But, it can stay longer in the dive. One of the Improvements of the 3-2 type Zero over the 2-1 was the stronger skin, allowing 657 kmh dive speed. the last model used, the 5-2c had a terminal dive speed of 741 kmh. But this was the last Zero, with pilot armor, parachute http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif and selfsealing tanks.

GR142-Pipper
11-30-2004, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
All around the 3.0 FMs seemed to be the best. I'm not sure what they were after in 3.01, but it was apparently an over correction, and it eased up a bit (but not enough in some cases) in 3.02. :/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree with you, particularly in the case of the F6F.

GR142-Pipper

ICDP
12-01-2004, 01:23 AM
Anyone who claims the 3.0 FM's were better than the 3.01 or 3.02b FM's loses all credibility as far as I am concerned (and I'm sure quite a few others too). How can anyone seriously consider the 3.0 FM's better when most of the USN fighters wouldn't stall in tight turns and the F4U1 could reach 456mph at 9200m. The Bombers would even loop without stalling for god sake and yet we still have people who make claims based on nothing but their opinion (not based on fact) that the 3.0 FM's are better. Yes some areas need fixed (such as A6M zero roll authority at speed) but the FM's are gradually improving over the 3.0 joke FM's. I hope Oleg doesn't seriously listen to such outlandish claims that the 3.0 FM's are the best yet.

By the way DDT you never responded to my question about your sources on F6F stall speed. I posted a link to an official US test report which refutes your claims. Here it is again, please comment on the large discrepancy between your figures for stall speed compared to those in the official test report.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/fighter.htm

Is it any coincidence that the fans of 3.0 FM's all favour the USN fighters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

GR142-Pipper
12-01-2004, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Anyone who claims the 3.0 FM's were better than the 3.01 or 3.02b FM's loses all credibility as far as I am concerned (and I'm sure quite a few others too). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Everyone has a view....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How can anyone seriously consider the 3.0 FM's better when most of the USN fighters wouldn't stall in tight turns and the F4U1 could reach 456mph at 9200m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because the aircraft WOULD stall in 3.0 and their flight characteristics were much more in line with the way they flew.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Bombers would even loop without stalling for god sake and yet we still have people who make claims based on nothing but their opinion (not based on fact) that the 3.0 FM's are better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Regarding the bombers, do you seriously think anyone cares if the bombers can loop or not? How often do you ever see bombers loop? Just about never. So what's the big deal? It's safe to say that most who fly fighters could care less what they do.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes some areas need fixed (such as A6M zero roll authority at speed) but the FM's are gradually improving over the 3.0 joke FM's.[/quote}...and you base this one what exactly? YOUR actual flight experience? [quote]I hope Oleg doesn't seriously listen to such outlandish claims that the 3.0 FM's are the best yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The claims are certainly not outlandish whatsoever. The 3.0 flight models for the American aircraft were simply better (better being defined as a closer relative performance differential). If you feel otherwise, that's certainly your right but keep in mind that there is a lot more to a flight model than mere stall characteristics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>By the way DDT you never responded to my question about your sources on F6F stall speed. I posted a link to an official US test report which refutes your claims. Here it is again, please comment on the large discrepancy between your figures for stall speed compared to those in the official test report.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/fighter.htm

Is it any coincidence that the fans of 3.0 FM's all favour the USN fighters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I don't "favor" any of the aircraft, red or blue. The only thing that most people ask for is a reasonably accurate modeling of the aircraft being presented. The Hellcat didn't get a 19:1 kill ratio from being the gutted aircraft it became in the 3.01/3.02 patches.

Speaking of coincidence, it's also no coincidence that those who enjoy the large performance disparity between the Japanese/German and American aircraft since the 3.01 patch seldom fly on servers in which Russian aircraft oppose them. Just my take.

GR142-Pipper

Hunde_3.JG51
12-01-2004, 01:49 AM
I agree with what ICDP said, latest FM's are a huge improvement over 3.0. At least IMO.

...and I favour the Corsair in the Pacific.

RocketDog
12-01-2004, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ankanor:
The wildcat couldn't outrun the Zero. Period. The tests in 1943 by the Americans showed that the Wildcat had better roll at high speeds, and its engine did not cut out in a negative G maneuvers. In Dive the two planes were equal. There is more to this, though. During the testing of the Hellcat, the tested Hellcat received damage from the high speed of the dive. The next trial was made witha remote controlled Hellcat, the Speed achieved was 805 kmh, when the operator in the parallel flying Wildcat commanded leveloff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Ankanor, please can you provide a reference and if possible post it to PF@1c.ru to draw it to the attention of the dev team.

Thanks,

RocketDog.

Ankanor
12-01-2004, 04:55 AM
Sadly, it's from a booklet about the Hellcat, gotta check the sources.

ICDP
12-01-2004, 10:31 AM
Pipper,

You are correct in that everyone has a view but that doesn't change the fact that the FM in version 3.0 was not closer to reality. In 3.0 the Corsair could reach 456mph at 9200m, this is WAY overmodelled yet you still feel it was more realisitic?. Your statement that nobody cares about bombers looping forever shows a lack of understanding IMHO. Bombers doing loops meant they could do totally unrealistic evasive tactics thus destroying the feel of the game. It is not just a case of loops but every manouever was effected by the same easy FM.

Regressing back to 3.0 to suit some USN fighter fans (not an accusation) who feel the F4U1 was more realisitc doing 456mph at 9200m is not a reasonable request IMHO. The current FM's (3.02b) allow for proper tactics to be employed by F6F and F4U pilots. These aircraft hold a decided advantage in most areas over the A6M's in PF but a lot of your opponents will have a lot of experience and will give a good account of themselves.

The only problem I have is that the A6M's do not suffer from high speed roll stiffness. It is for this reason that I stopped flying the A6M, I don't like to fly aircraft that are obviously modelled with unhistorical performance.

For referrence I fly the following aircraft in PF.

Fw190A4/A5/A6
Fw190D9-44
P40's
F4U1A and Birdcage Corsair
P38's
P39's
Ki61's
F4F's
Mig3's

If I had to pick an obsolute favourite it would be very close between the Fw190A4, P38J and P40B. I would not consider myself biased towards/against any particualar side in PF, I want all aircraft to perform to realisitic figures in AEP/FB/PF. I have argued for and against many different changes for all sides in the IL2 series. My opinions re performance are based first and foremost on available test data, I rely on anecdotal evidence on only rare occasions.

Finally, please bear in mind that while the F6F had a 19:1 kill ratio this is irrelevant when comparing PF online. The USN in 1944-45 were better trained/experienced than the Japanese pilots, had the USN been flying Wildcats they would have likey had a similar outcome. The same kill:loss ration would be hard to achieve in PF. The main reason for this is that the vast majority of virtual fliers in PF are very experienced and they know exactly how each opponent they face performs compared to their chosen aircraft. A perfect example is the P40E v the A6M2, overall I would rate the P40E as the better fighter because its strenghts would give it the advantage over the A6M2. The fact that the P40 had a bad kill/loss ratio when facing the A6M2 means nothing in PF as I know how to use its strengths. If you are basing your arguments on how the F6F should perform due to its historical kill:loss ratio then you really should re-evaluate your position. The chances of facing an inexperienced pilot with only a few hours PF stick time under his/her belt is very remote.

Regards

WWMaxGunz
12-01-2004, 10:51 AM
Without comparing sim planes at all this should be looked into.

At 250 mph (400 kph) the Zero should be slow rolling with stick side move limited.
Even before then, 200 mph, it should be beginning to lose roll rate.

No more is needed to show a problem. What can be said of Wildcats bears nothing
on how the Zero should roll at those speeds. Time to leave sides out of it if we
want a better sim and not s slanted game.

GR142-Pipper
12-01-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Pipper,

You are correct in that everyone has a view but that doesn't change the fact that the FM in version 3.0 was not closer to reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's where we differ. I don't accept your assertion (not fact) that version 3.0 FMs were worse than they are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In 3.0 the Corsair could reach 456mph at 9200m, this is WAY overmodelled yet you still feel it was more realisitic?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My comments are more concerned with the F6F. I very rarely fly the F4U at those altitudes so I won't comment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your statement that nobody cares about bombers looping forever shows a lack of understanding IMHO. Bombers doing loops meant they could do totally unrealistic evasive tactics thus destroying the feel of the game. It is not just a case of loops but every manouever was effected by the same easy FM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're extrapolating what you perceive bombers doing to what the fighters are doing. It's an extrapolation without merit in my view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Regressing back to 3.0 to suit some USN fighter fans (not an accusation) who feel the F4U1 was more realisitc doing 456mph at 9200m is not a reasonable request IMHO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So tweak the F4U's performance at 9200 meters. Don't screw up the flight model over this one rarely visited flight regime.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The current FM's (3.02b) allow for proper tactics to be employed by F6F and F4U pilots. These aircraft hold a decided advantage in most areas over the A6M's in PF but a lot of your opponents will have a lot of experience and will give a good account of themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The F4U might (and should) but the F6F as currently modeled certainly doesn't. I'm an experienced sim pilot and I've flown the F6F against a variety of Japanese aircraft. It is no longer even close to competitive in most cases.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> (...snip...) Finally, please bear in mind that while the F6F had a 19:1 kill ratio this is irrelevant when comparing PF online. The USN in 1944-45 were better trained/experienced than the Japanese pilots, had the USN been flying Wildcats they would have likey had a similar outcome. The same kill:loss ration would be hard to achieve in PF. The main reason for this is that the vast majority of virtual fliers in PF are very experienced and they know exactly how each opponent they face performs compared to their chosen aircraft. A perfect example is the P40E v the A6M2, overall I would rate the P40E as the better fighter because its strenghts would give it the advantage over the A6M2. The fact that the P40 had a bad kill/loss ratio when facing the A6M2 means nothing in PF as I know how to use its strengths. If you are basing your arguments on how the F6F should perform due to its historical kill:loss ratio then you really should re-evaluate your position. The chances of facing an inexperienced pilot with only a few hours PF stick time under his/her belt is very remote. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm basing my remarks on many engagements with opposing aircraft. I merely mentioned the kill ratio as a contributing point and not the sole basis for my remarks.

GR142-Pipper

RocketDog
12-01-2004, 12:30 PM
Pipper and ICDP, I was trying to use this thread to draw the dev team's attention to what look to be significant bugs in the F4F and Zero FMs only.

Please can you take your argument to PM?

Thanks,

RocketDog.

ICDP
12-01-2004, 12:46 PM
NT

ICDP
12-01-2004, 12:53 PM
Sorry RocketDog, my appologies.

My advice is to e-mail your traks. and findings to Oleg at pf@1c.ru, if the Zero is wrong (and I believe it is) then Oleg will look into it.

Regards

uhoh7
12-01-2004, 01:50 PM
good thread, aside from the insane comments about how good the 3.0 FMs were.

uhoh7

Loki-PF
12-03-2004, 07:59 AM
Great news Folks,

I've had some email correspondances with Oleg and crew over the last couple of days regarding this. They are aware of the problem and already have it fixed for the next patch! Woot woot!

Diving beer kegs with wings here I come!

I will update other posts as well.

mortoma
12-03-2004, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Dukayn:
I flew a Zero last night in a 3.01 game. Get above 250-300 Km/h and the roll rate is drastically reduced. Dunno what this translates to in mph.

Dunno about 3.02 as I refuse to use anything beta. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You've been installing and using
Betas for this game a long time, you just didn't know it.