PDA

View Full Version : ==DIVE TESTS: F4F vs. ZERO==



TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 12:09 AM
Here is the results from Loki's dive tests between the F4F and ZERO

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/DIVETESTS/F4F_VS_ZERO/DT_F4F_VS_ZERO_SPEED_N_SHAKE.jpg

DAY 1
I have not had time to take a look at all the graphs, so Im providing you all with the excel file where I graphed just about all the variables from DeviceLink. For the ones I didnt graph the data is there for you to play with. Also note that I combined the two seperate track files into one excel file and used the PITCH variable to sync up the data. The assumption here is that Loki and Fenris started diving (push forward) at the same time. Like I said, I have not had much time to look at it those dont know just what to make of it yet. But here is the link if you want to.

DAY 2
I updated the graph, I noticed something I did not expect, the F4F starts shaking before the zero does at a given speed, and shakes more! I half expected that to be the other way around from my general readings on the two aircraft. This sake is what causes things to fall off the plane. The next thing I would like to look at is the roll speeds, but, we will need new tests for that. PS I fixed the kph error, it is not shown in mph and the scale factor data was multiplied by 500 to scale it to the graph.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/DIVETESTS/F4F_VS_ZERO/DT_F4F_VS_ZERO.zip

Also note that I have not had a chance to do the Control Atohroty tests yet, I hope I can get to it by the end of the week.

Enjoy

TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 12:09 AM
Here is the results from Loki's dive tests between the F4F and ZERO

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/DIVETESTS/F4F_VS_ZERO/DT_F4F_VS_ZERO_SPEED_N_SHAKE.jpg

DAY 1
I have not had time to take a look at all the graphs, so Im providing you all with the excel file where I graphed just about all the variables from DeviceLink. For the ones I didnt graph the data is there for you to play with. Also note that I combined the two seperate track files into one excel file and used the PITCH variable to sync up the data. The assumption here is that Loki and Fenris started diving (push forward) at the same time. Like I said, I have not had much time to look at it those dont know just what to make of it yet. But here is the link if you want to.

DAY 2
I updated the graph, I noticed something I did not expect, the F4F starts shaking before the zero does at a given speed, and shakes more! I half expected that to be the other way around from my general readings on the two aircraft. This sake is what causes things to fall off the plane. The next thing I would like to look at is the roll speeds, but, we will need new tests for that. PS I fixed the kph error, it is not shown in mph and the scale factor data was multiplied by 500 to scale it to the graph.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/DIVETESTS/F4F_VS_ZERO/DT_F4F_VS_ZERO.zip

Also note that I have not had a chance to do the Control Atohroty tests yet, I hope I can get to it by the end of the week.

Enjoy

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 12:58 AM
so they started diving at 18-ish seconds ?

difference in speeds starts around 70-ish seconds ?

they did slight dives ? like 30 degrees or there-abouts ?

k5054
12-02-2004, 02:21 AM
I think we are using the times as 'time units' rather than say they are exact seconds, there may be a slight variation here. Also is the scale of the speed bit right, indicated mph? If so, those planes will outdive first-generation jets. Nice going, Grumman and Mitsubishi. Seriously, this show the F4F moving ahead eventually, just what you might expect. The Zero, with its better thrust/weight, should be better first, than they ought to be about equal, having similar top speeds, then faster than that the greater weight of the F4F will take effect.
And nothing should really fall to bits.

JG53Frankyboy
12-02-2004, 03:41 AM
im with you that something isnt correct in the Wildcat-Reisen stuff !

BUT , Zero isnt like Zero !!
ALWAYS say with Zero model you use !!
they have quit difference performance.

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
I think we are using the times as 'time units' rather than say they are exact seconds, there may be a slight variation here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
that would explain a lot !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
The Zero, with its better thrust/weight, should be better first, than they ought to be about equal, having similar top speeds, then faster than that the greater weight of the F4F will take effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
makes sense!

Tater-SW-
12-02-2004, 07:54 AM
The mph units are probably a typo, that's gotta be kph on the Y axis, BTW.

The problem isn't so much the dive speeds, but rather that the Zero does not lose control authority, and the F4F breaks up earlier (which is insane). Zero pilots would not follow dives because they knew they'd lose control authority, which is why the dives work. The drill was to dive and make a shallow turn to the right. The Zero could follow the dive, perhaps, but would NOT be able to turn at the same rate while doing so, and so the F4F would gain separation.

This really needs some fixing, and maybe a new test where the F4F rolls right, and sees if he can separate.

tater

Loki-PF
12-02-2004, 08:00 AM
Guys and Gals,

Just to answer a couple of questions, and clear up a few things (especially for those of you that havent actually watched the tracks).

The wildcat model is an 1942 F4F3. We chose the F4F3 because it did not have folding wings...We thought it might be more rugged because the Wildcat was coming apart in the dive tests before the Zero!

The Zero model was a 1942 A6M3. We wanted to keep it 1942 vs 1942.

Even though the curves of the dive speed vs time look favorable towards the Wildcat. Keep in mind that the wings an of the Wildcat came off at ~420 to 430 Mph. Everything after that on the chart reflects Fenris's balistic trajectory as he becomes a dirt torpedo!

It would be great to see the first part of the graph in finer detail or granularity.... Say between time 0 and time step 55. Dont know if this is possible or not? Tagert?

Also, the tracks we recorded for documenting control authority are actually quite interesting regarding dive performance. In these tracks we go into a shallower dive in order to get our speed up around 350 Mph so we can start playing with rolls and loops. In this test both planes are only at 100% power, no 110%, no boost. The Zero driver has to take evasive action to avoid ramming into the Wildcat. It's very obvious that the Zero is overtaking the Wildcat.

k5054
12-02-2004, 08:28 AM
You chose a Zero with a two-speed supercharger, which probably has more speed at your entry altitude than the Wildcat. You have a heavier Zero and a lighter Wildcat. This means the weight advantage in the later stages will count for less.

Note that none of this makes your 1942 standard invalid, far from it. But it would be interesting to see the heavier F4F-4 vs the Zeke 21, just to see if the expected differences materialize. That would be a test of the so-called dive modelling. (So-called because the FM has to apply the same formulae to the aircraft regardless of attitude, and level flight is only a special case where dive angle = zero.)

I hope Tagert will eventually show us the relevant part of the flight in a different scale...

Saburo_0
12-02-2004, 08:36 AM
Info on the A6M3 :

* The Model 21 was followed by a new major variant, the "A6M3", which flew for the first time in June 1941. It featured a new engine, the Nakajima NK1F Sakae 21, with a two-speed instead of a single-speed supercharger and 845 kW (1,130 HP); a wider propeller; ammunition supply for the 20 millimeter cannon increased from 60 to 100 RPG; and clipped wings with no folding wingtips, reducing the wingspan by a meter (3 feet 4 inches). The wingtips were removed to improve manufacturability and maintainability. Early A6M3 production had featured the folding wingtips, but pilots suggested that they could do without them and they were deleted.

Aside from the clipped wings, the A6M3 was difficult to distinguish from the A6M2, the most visible difference being that the A6M2 had the supercharger air intake in the lower lip of the cowling, while in the A6M3 the intake was moved to the upper lip. The initial A6M3 variant was designated the "Model 32", and 343 were built.

Integral wing tanks were fitted in the "Model 22". The Sakae 21 engine used in the A6M3 was larger and thirstier than the Sakae 12 used in the A6M2, and led to reduced fuel tankage and range. This resulted in losses of planes and pilots during the battle for Guadalcanal, when aircraft simply ran out of fuel during the long flight down the Solomons chain. The wing tanks gave the A6M3 Model 22 the longest range of all Zero variants. The folding wingtips were restored to reduce wing loading, which had been increasing due to "weight creep" as improvements were added to the Zero.

At least three A6M3 Model 22s were fitted with 30 millimeter cannon in place of the 20 millimeter guns and tested under combat conditions, but nothing came of this exercise. A final variant of the A6M3, the "Model 22a", featured Type 99 Model 2 20 millimeter cannon with longer barrels, higher muzzle velocity, and greater rate of fire. A total of 560 Model 22s and Model 22a's were built by Mitsubishi to summer 1943, and a number were built by Nakajima as well.

Stolen from here: http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html

TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
I think we are using the times as 'time units' rather than say they are exact seconds, there may be a slight variation here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The data was collected at 1sec intervals +/- a certant %.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Also is the scale of the speed bit right, indicated mph? If so, those planes will outdive first-generation jets. Nice going, Grumman and Mitsubishi. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whoops, type-o, my bad, that was kph

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Seriously, this show the F4F moving ahead eventually, just what you might expect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, the interesting, and telling graph in a dive test is the SEPERATION. I didnt have a chance to do that one yet. It is not a recorded variable, but a derived one from existing speed variables.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
The Zero, with its better thrust/weight, should be better first, than they ought to be about equal, having similar top speeds, then faster than that the greater weight of the F4F will take effect. And nothing should really fall to bits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally.. The one graph that didnt make sense to me is the SHAKE graph.. It shows the F4F basically falling apart sooner than the ZERO. That seems A$$ Backwards from the general notion that the F4F could out dive a ZERO.

TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
The mph units are probably a typo, that's gotta be kph on the Y axis, BTW. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. my bad it was kph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
The problem isn't so much the dive _speeds_, but rather that the Zero does not lose control authority, and the F4F breaks up earlier (which is insane). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YES! I noticed that in the SHAKE graph.. It shows the F4F falling apart sooner than the ZERO.. I didnt expect that from the general notion of the F4F being a tougher bird.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Zero pilots would not follow dives because they knew they'd lose control authority, which is why the dives work. The drill was to dive and make a shallow turn to the right. The Zero could follow the dive, perhaps, but would NOT be able to turn at the same rate while doing so, and so the F4F would gain separation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! Well.. exactally the *feeling* I get from what I have read.. ie the general notion.. But I have yet to find any real world data to back up this notion.. Just general pilot statements from combat situations.. Which tend to be not that useful in recreating a test.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
This really needs some fixing, and maybe a new test where the F4F rolls right, and sees if he can separate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, they did some control athority testing.. but they tried to do to many tests in one.. ie rolling and looping. Makes it hard to sync up the data. I hope I can at least extract the roll test they did.. First one the zero was too close.. the second the zero was too far back.. but from the second it look like the zero finished a 360 roll FASTER THAN the F4F at HIGH SPEEDS.. Which again, did not expect that based on the general notion.

Loki-PF
12-02-2004, 08:52 AM
k5054,

The Wildcat has a three stage blower, whats that got to do with anything? The planes were at the same altitude and same speed at the beginning of the test, so not sure if this is relavent or not....

We chose the A6M3 for several reasons. Primarily to keep it 42 vs 42 era. But also because the A6M3 variant had non folding wings as well. Fenris and I weren't sure if Oleg and company were taking into account the structural strength of the wing hinge in the FM/DM, so we wanted to keep it apples to apples. Also FYI Principal difference between A6M3 and its predecessor is installation of a Nakajima€"or Ishikawajima-built Sakae 21 engine €" developed from Zeke€s Sakae 12€"and substituting fixed squared wing tips for the earlier folding elliptical type.

Loki-PF
12-02-2004, 08:55 AM
@TAGERT

Fenris and I are kinda digging this test flight regimine! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If it would make your job of graphing things easier we can do tests again to your specs... Just let us know, we are happy to oblige!

TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 08:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
It would be great to see the first part of the graph in finer detail or granularity.... Say between time 0 and time step 55. Dont know if this is possible or not? Tagert? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, open up the excel file... Oh make a back up first.. but open it up and if you want to zoom in on the first part del some of the data near the end and the graphs will auto adj for you.. NOTE I think there is about 380 lines of data for the F4F and about 400 for the zero.. If you were to goto say line 250 and del all the data down to 380/400 then it would zoom in on the front part of the data.. Same is true in reverse.. but your del data, so make a back up first!

TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
@TAGERT

Fenris and I are kinda digging this test flight regimine! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If it would make your job of graphing things easier we can do tests again to your specs... Just let us know, we are happy to oblige! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to run off to work now.. but in general.. It does not mater how long you record before you start the test.. I can sync the data up later.. But it does make the track bigger! I assume you guys are using voice/coms to say when to start dive/roll? If so, assign a hot key to the quick record button.. Then you guys can get situated, then via voice say start recording.. then via voice say start TEST.

As for dive tests.. I would start a little lower than you did.. And try to do only one test per track.. if you do roll tests and loop tests it makes it real messy to try and sysc up the data.

Also in that roll test.. 1st try you were too close and faster than he was.. 2nd you were too far back.. I would like to see that test done over because it LOOKED like the zero rolled faster than the F4F?!? Also, try rolling at around 325mph (not 300 kph) in that is the point where the zero should be a slower roller.. It would be neat to do 3 roll tests where your on his six.. 150, 250, 350mph. All at the same altitude.. Im thinking something around 15kft.. Not too high.. Not too low.

JG53Frankyboy
12-02-2004, 10:02 AM
as the maon battles 1942 were fought fought between F4F-4 and A6M2-21
Midway
Gualdalcanal (the Model32 has not the range for flying from Rabaul down and back to Gualdacanal
)
Eastern Salomons
Santa Crux

i would compare these two.

its like not Comparing Bf109E-4 vs Spitifre MkI , instead using Spitfire MkII ore Bf109E-7N

JG53Frankyboy
12-02-2004, 10:35 AM
Robert C. Miklish is giving the following dive speedlimitations in his book (that has still some errors, like the negG cut of Sakae12)

A6M2-21
340kt ~ 630km/h / in PF3.02 its ~650km/h

A6M3-32
360kt ~ 666km/h / in PF3.02 its ~720km/h (!)

A6M5-52
360kt also

A6M5a-52Ko
400kt ~ 740km/h / in PF3.02 its ~750km/h

so, only tje A6M3-32 has to high divespeedlimitation

Ruy Horta
12-02-2004, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
as the maon battles 1942 were fought fought between F4F-4 and A6M2-21
Midway
Gualdalcanal (the Model32 has not the range for flying from Rabaul down and back to Gualdacanal
)
Eastern Salomons
Santa Crux

i would compare these two.

its like not Comparing Bf109E-4 vs Spitifre MkI , instead using Spitfire MkII ore Bf109E-7N <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good observation, was about to make the general comment. Coral Sea still featured F4F-3(a)s, but after that the dash-4 quickly took over as the main carrier fighter.

k5054
12-02-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Wildcat has a three stage blower, whats that got to do with anything? The planes were at the same altitude and same speed at the beginning of the test, so not sure if this is relavent or not.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the relevance is (or may be) that at your start alt the Zero has a higher max speed than the F4F. Even though they are co-speed at the start, the Zero has (probably) more excess power, and therefore a better acceleration capability. I can't find any good speed data for A6M3 at heights above 20,000, so my hunch may be wrong, but it will do a lot better than A6M2 at that kind of height. The data I found for F4F-3 makes it a good performer at height. If it really had a ceiling of 39,000ft as quoted in some places, then there is obviously a height at which its excess power becomes better than any Zeke.

Fliger747
12-02-2004, 11:54 AM
Superchargers.....

Actually a TWO STAGE blower, a primary and accesory stage. The primary stage, closest to the engine was not variable in speed. The accesory stage was available in SPEEDS (not stages), neutral, low and high. Neutral added no acessory stage compression, and the other two stages wer adjusted in speed by shifting clutches to change the gearing.

Symantics.... Stages and speeds are different.

The Early Zeke had a float type carbutrator, like the Spitfire, and could cutout in an initial neg G pushover. The Wildcat 'Carb' was really more an injection system, using a venturi to meter airflow and then inject fuel into the primary supercharger stage for distribution, a good system!

The Flight models are not perfect as yet, so thanks for the time consuming flight testing!

JG53Frankyboy
12-02-2004, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
Superchargers.....

Actually a TWO STAGE blower, a primary and accesory stage. The primary stage, closest to the engine was not variable in speed. The accesory stage was available in SPEEDS (not stages), neutral, low and high. Neutral added no acessory stage compression, and the other two stages wer adjusted in speed by shifting clutches to change the gearing.

Symantics.... Stages and speeds are different.

The Early Zeke had a float type carbutrator, like the Spitfire, and could cutout in an initial neg G pushover. The Wildcat 'Carb' was really more an injection system, using a venturi to meter airflow and then inject fuel into the primary supercharger stage for distribution, a good system!

The Flight models are not perfect as yet, so thanks for the time consuming flight testing! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, with PF3.0 the Sake12 had negG cut offs !
as some US tests said !
BUT then oleg got informations , original japanese construktions , that the Sake12 CAN fly negG manouvers ! the americans "just" build the engine wrong (like they had no propper working propeller system)

so, in 3.01 it changed like it now is

also i read US combat reports from Guadalcanal that the Zeros (A6M2-21) came in so high, the F4F-4 cant reach them.
the F4F-4 has indeed a 2 stage supercharger , but it was still no Merlin 60 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
12-02-2004, 04:44 PM
The IJN routinely bombed Henderson from ~27,000ft+ (8000-8500m). The F4Fs would climb to 29k pluss as SOP if they had the warning time. They relied on coas****chers and radar, though the radar was flakey enough they sometimes wound up too low.

Also, the IJN started sending a couple strikes a day with the idea of getting a second package in while the defenders were landing/reloading/climbing.

tater

Blackdog5555
12-02-2004, 05:18 PM
Jeesh. some of you guys are mixing up "acceleration" = change in speed, with maximum speed/terminal velocity = top speed before breakup. T's graph shows the similarities in "acceleration of the A6M2 and F4F in a dive. THAT WAS NEVER IN AN ISSUE IN THE FM OF THE TWO PLANES. The problem with the FM's of both planes is "terminal velocity" or maximum speed in a dive, and proper modelling of the high speed handling of the Zero. A6M2-3. (and 5and 5a for that matter.) As some have correctly pointed out, the A6M2 maximum speed in a dive in PF 3.02bm is set too high. My v\research show max speed for Am62 from 315-350 mph to maybe @400-410mph when the wings shed in a dive. The big point is that after 300mph IAS the plane (Zero)would be extremely hard to maneuver to to the large areas on the control surfaces. The skin on the Zero's wing would start to wrinkle when the planes apprached 400mph. ####The F4F HAS NO REDLINE!#### IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT ITS TERMINAL DIVE VELOCITY SHOULD BE @500MPH for the F4F. IN PF THE ZERO OUTDIVES AND OUTHANDLES THE F4F IN A DIVE. Makes Sense that the Japanese came in high because they knew they were vulnerable if they were caught lower than a F4F because they couldnt follow them in a dive. The above chart is completely irrevelant. F4F's tactic was to dive through the Zero at high speed. not race them in a dive. there is more. There is a lot of info on the web and in my personal library. But do your own research. Im tired of being a beta tester. Most these planes are / have good FM's. but there is always seems to be glaring mistakes. like my typing. Nice graph though, good work...Also the Zero couldnt turn right due to torque...thats not modelled either. And anyone who assumes and accepts face value parenthetical data from a bias party is naive. Check several sources, thats what i do. Cheers

Loki-PF
12-02-2004, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the F4F-4 has indeed a 2 stage supercharger , but it was still no Merlin 60 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea? Well the Nakajima is no Merlin either is it?

JG53Frankyboy
12-02-2004, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the F4F-4 has indeed a 2 stage supercharger , but it was still no Merlin 60 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea? Well the Nakajima is no Merlin either is it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i just wanted to sayt hat the 2 stage supercharger of the F4F-4 still dont made it a highalt fighter - and yes, also true for the A6M2 ore A6M3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


i still think that the maxdive speed for A6M2-21 in PF3.02 with ~650km/h is ok. im not speaking about control, only of reachable speed till parts fell of.
the 720km/h of the A6M3 looks to fast.

and F4F-3/4 , yes, the max dive speed is to slow.

JG51Beolke
12-02-2004, 06:55 PM
I guess we need to factor in 9.8 m/s squared. Wow, I finally used my physics I learned in college. If speed = mass x acceleration, then I would expect the heavier aircraft to be faster in a dive. Seeing that the Zero was very light and nimble, it would only stand to reason that a Corsair or F4F would accelerate faster in a dive. Oh, but then you would have to factor in the powerplant that's pulling it towards the ground and that i'm not sure of.

TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
I guess we need to factor in 9.8 m/s squared. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oleg's FM allready does that. PS that is 9.8m/s^2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
Wow, I finally used my physics I learned in college. If speed = mass x acceleration, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah? Can you get a refund? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Because

speed is NOT equal to mass Ӕ acceleration.
force is equal to mass Ӕ acceleration.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
then I would expect the heavier aircraft to be faster in a dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe, maybe not.. There are more variables in play here. In a vacume, a heavy aircraft would fall as fast as a feather off of a bird.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
Seeing that the Zero was very light and nimble, it would only stand to reason that a Corsair or F4F would accelerate faster in a dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But not for *those* reasons! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
Oh, but then you would have to factor in the powerplant that's pulling it towards the ground and that i'm not sure of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The force of the thrust, the force of gravity, and the force of drag would all play into it.

TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 07:15 PM
PS I updated the graph on page one.. Saw some disturbing things with regards to the SHAKE variable

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 10:43 PM
so this proves that initially , the Zeke can stay with a Wildcat in a dive , but the Wildcat builds speed faster in the top half of their dive speed range ?

Fliger747
12-02-2004, 10:52 PM
To sum up the anecdotal stories from combat aviators and the comparison flyoffs conducted in the US: The Zero had good initial acelleration and none of the US planes had an advantage here; it was in a longer dive that the US aircraft could reach and sustain a higher speed; The US aircraft retained much more manuveability atspeed and could use a combination of factors to escape or prevent a eke from doing so.

This comparison between the planes is not as yet 'perfectly' represented.

TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 11:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
To sum up the anecdotal stories from combat aviators and the comparison flyoffs conducted in the US: The Zero had good initial acelleration and none of the US planes had an advantage here; it was in a longer dive that the US aircraft could reach and sustain a higher speed; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That notion is one I would agree with.. I have no proof, no real world data, but from what I have read that is the *feeling* I walk away with.. But bad thing about feelings is they are different from person to person.. For example, if a pilot said his plane was faster.. Well just how fast is fast? One mans fast is another mans slow.. But had he said it was 23mph faster.. Now there is something you can test to and for. Another thing about pilot war time accounts.. You dont know what the other pilot was thinking.. Maybe you just thought you were faster.. In that the 3 times you encountered the enmy they didnt catch you.. Maybe becase they had beter things to do than chase you? Maybe had tried.. You might have died that day and never lived to write about the time the enmy's plane was faster and killed you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
The US aircraft retained much more manuveability atspeed and could use a combination of factors to escape or prevent a eke from doing so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That notion is also one I would agree with.. In that most of the pilot accounts I have read were about out rolling the zero at high speed.. Not necessarly that it was faster in a dive.. Like the notion of the P47.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
This comparison between the planes is not as yet 'perfectly' represented. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you get a chance, take a look at the Control Athority tests they did.. From the prespective of the ZERO on the six of the F4F they did a roll at high speeds.. And it LOOKS LIKE the ZERO finished a 360 degree roll faster than the F4F. That goes againts the notion! I have not done the plots on that yet.. Im hoping that Loki will redo that test where all they do is the roll.. In that in that test they did several rolls and a few loops.. Makes it hard to plot the data.. For anyone interested in doing tests I highly recomend one test per track file! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 11:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
so this proves that initially , the Zeke can stay with a Wildcat in a dive , but the Wildcat builds speed faster in the top half of their dive speed range ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmmmmmm yes and no.. Reason the graph shows the Wildcat pulling away near the end of the run (ie high speed 500mph+) is because the F4F lost it wings first and did the lawn dart thing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blackdog5555
12-03-2004, 12:59 AM
I need to edit. It tough to get accurate data. I just saw a web site stating that Saburo sakai stated the A6M2 would notgo over306mph andpilotswould not dive it faster thatn 300mph (less than to speed)??? because the wing skin would wrinkle degrading air flow. I also saw some who statedthat max dive in a dive was 350mph before wings would sheer. the A6m5a had tougher wings. The F4F had no redline ina dive!!!! I said I've researched the **** out of this and cant get solid info. One reason is that pilots dont drive the planes to their the wings sheer off. Does anyone have any good data on dive acceleration in the F4F F6F or Am6? I can find test data on climb rate but it goes all over the place too. looking for the best data. Sakai also stated that the Zero was near impossible to maneuver @300+ MPH..was from a first hand interview but who knows?

JG53Frankyboy
12-03-2004, 01:05 AM
the proplem with these Sakai interviews for me is always , did he realy ment miles/hour ?

he flew the Zero with knots in real.

andwith knots these speeds would make more sence - near impoosible to manouver over 300mph ??? less than max horizontal speed.
300knots would make much more sense

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
[Reason the graph shows the Wildcat pulling away near the end of the run (ie high speed 500mph+) is because the F4F lost it wings first and did the lawn dart thing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OH DAMM !

JG51Beolke
12-03-2004, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
I guess we need to factor in 9.8 m/s squared. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oleg's FM allready does that. PS that is 9.8m/s^2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
Wow, I finally used my physics I learned in college. If speed = mass x acceleration, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah? Can you get a refund? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Because

speed is _NOT_ equal to mass Ӕ acceleration.
force is equal to mass Ӕ acceleration.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
then I would expect the heavier aircraft to be faster in a dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe, maybe not.. There are more variables in play here. In a vacume, a heavy aircraft would fall as fast as a feather off of a bird.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
Seeing that the Zero was very light and nimble, it would only stand to reason that a Corsair or F4F would accelerate faster in a dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But not for *those* reasons! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
Oh, but then you would have to factor in the powerplant that's pulling it towards the ground and that i'm not sure of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The force of the thrust, the force of gravity, and the force of drag would all play into it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, It was 30 years ago, and Old Timers is setting in, but I was close...lololol

Fortunately, We can depend on Oleg to get it right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
12-03-2004, 07:33 AM
"To sum up the anecdotal stories from combat aviators and the comparison flyoffs conducted in the US: The Zero had good initial acelleration and none of the US planes had an advantage here; it was in a longer dive that the US aircraft could reach and sustain a higher speed; The US aircraft retained much more manuveability atspeed and could use a combination of factors to escape or prevent a eke from doing so."

It might be as much that given the redline restrictions placed on the Zero and the fact that its controls essentially locked up at high speed Zero pilots may have chosen to break off a dive in a Zero at an early stage, whereas a Wildcat pilot could push it further. This would give the Wildcat a better performance in real world situations but the testing of the flight models may be so artificial as to not reveal this (plus issues about the lack of Zero control lockup at high speed).

In the game, though, if I knew my plane's controls were going to lock solid at 325mph and the wings fall off at 400ish I'd be very careful about diving during an online or offline campaign! I've embarassed myself a couple of times in the P38J and so now I dive more gently in this.

Loki-PF
12-03-2004, 07:49 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.

Loki-PF
12-03-2004, 07:54 AM
Tagert,

The data never lies... One of the things Fenris and I noticed right away (but I forgot to mention in my haste) was that the F4F went into the buffet and then the "hard buffet" sooner. Of course parts begin to come off the aircraft shortly after that... We were on voice comms calling out our speeds etc. and noticed this right away. Good catch

TAGERT.
12-03-2004, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Tagert,

The data never lies... One of the things Fenris and I noticed right away (but I forgot to mention in my haste) was that the F4F went into the buffet and then the "hard buffet" sooner. Of course parts begin to come off the aircraft shortly after that... We were on voice comms calling out our speeds etc. and noticed this right away. Good catch <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks.. On that note, did the ZERO ever loose a wing? I also seem to recal the F4F loosing more parts than the ZERO? Looking at the graph, you see that the F4F is going a little faster than the ZERO, but, note the seperating of the speed is allmost equal to the sepeating of the shake.. That is to say, a few seconds later the ZERO is at the same speed AND nearly the same shake! Put another way, the F4F and ZERO have the SAME SHAKE per SPEED! Which just does not *feel* right.. The next part is given that DEGREE of SHAKE the F4F's DAMAGE MODEL takes less DAMAGE and thus falls apart quicker! Which just does not *feel* right!

With regards to Oleg, just what aspect did he admit was in error? The dive speeds or the roll rates or both? In short, if he just increased the SHAKE/SPEED of the ZERO and adj the DAMAGE MODEL to make stuff start flying at a lower SHAKE number than it would *feel* right to me.. That and make sure the F4F out rolls the ZERO at 300+

TAGERT.
12-03-2004, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It might be as much that given the redline restrictions placed on the Zero and the fact that its controls essentially locked up at high speed Zero pilots may have chosen to break off a dive in a Zero at an early stage, whereas a Wildcat pilot could push it further. This would give the Wildcat a better performance in real world situations but the testing of the flight models may be so artificial as to not reveal this (plus issues about the lack of Zero control lockup at high speed). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ECHO

Loki-PF
12-03-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Thanks.. On that note, did the ZERO ever loose a wing? I also seem to recal the F4F loosing more parts than the ZERO? Looking at the graph, you see that the F4F is going a little faster than the ZERO, but, note the seperating of the speed is allmost equal to the sepeating of the shake.. That is to say, a few seconds later the ZERO is at the same speed AND nearly the same shake! Put another way, the F4F and ZERO have the SAME SHAKE per SPEED! Which just does not *feel* right.. The next part is given that DEGREE of SHAKE the F4F's DAMAGE MODEL takes less DAMAGE and thus falls apart quicker! Which just does not *feel* right!

With regards to Oleg, just what aspect did he admit was in error? The dive speeds or the roll rates or both? In short, if he just increased the SHAKE/SPEED of the ZERO and adj the DAMAGE MODEL to make stuff start flying at a lower SHAKE number than it would *feel* right to me.. That and make sure the F4F out rolls the ZERO at 300+ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert,

I had a couple of back and fourth messages with Oleg regarding this. The last one sums it up nicely though, and Olegs respons is short and to the point! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


My question was

"Just to clarify what you said though, there were 3 big issues regarding A6M vs F4.

1) dive speeds
2) speed at which structural damage happens
3) control authority at high speeds

Are all of these fixed in the coming patch or only some?"

His response, was "All."

Another thing of interest was that the Wildcat seemed *very* prone to loosing its elevator first, which would send it (oddly) rocketing skyward and black out the test pilot in the process. At first we thought it was a wierd anomaly, But it happened a few times in a row. The track we finally settled on as the test track didn't show this, but just another interesting bit. Another interesting thing we found in the tests was that the Zero could easily be recovered from the "hard buffet". All I had to do was let off of the stick presure and the plane would go into a gradual climb and not loose parts. The wildcat on the other hand once entering the "hard buffet" was almost always a lawn dart.

k5054
12-03-2004, 02:27 PM
Loki, You done good. Nicely handled.

Loki-PF
12-04-2004, 10:06 AM
Thanks Kilo 5054!

Actually thank Fenris too as he was the hapless pilot of the wildcat most of the time and doing his impression of a dirt torpedo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RocketDog
12-04-2004, 10:19 AM
Yes, thanks for doing this Loki and Fenris. I also emailed a summary to 1C but didn't get any response. Looks like it's going to be sorted, anyway.

Regards,

RocketDog.

BigKahuna_GS
12-04-2004, 10:30 AM
S!

This was a simulated dogfight between the Wildcat & Zero while flying real aircraft in 1993. Both planes are being flown by expert pilots. Notice what happens when both the Grumman F4F and A6m2 Zero point their noses down in a dive. The Grumman F4F pulls away rapidly and these are REAL PLANES.

Also from testing roll rates, I am getting a second and half to 2 seconds faster roll rate @ 370-380mph nose down vs 250mph in the A6m2-21 which was physically impossible. The ailerons were so huge and such a large part of the wing. The simple facts are that all Zeros had control issues at high speed and the early and mid war models suffered the most from this.


http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=36

"With the nose down and going past 250 knots, all controls get very stiff past 300 knots they are almost immovable. Red line speed in the manual is listed as 340 knots indicated, with a + 7G limit. I can't imagine that the pilot could move anything at that speed. This was the real achilles heel of the Zero."

Just as I was on the verge of finishing him off, he eased off on the stick, rolled over and pointed his nose toward the earth. Within seconds the Grumman was extending away from me and out of range. There was no way I could follow €" no Zero could outdive an American fighter.

Of course, all this is below 200 knots, where it (the Zero) handled the Wildcat quite easily on all terms. Once above that speed, things change rapidly.

If we got below 200 knots, I could eat him up (Zero over Wildcat). When he put the nose down, I was left behind trying, without much success, to muscle the Zero through a corkscrew trailing descent.



Zero Pilot

Flying the CAF's A6M2 Zero and dogfighting with a Wildcat
by Jeff Ethell

http://rwebs.net/dispatch/dspcvrs/dc182.jpg
Copyright 1993 by the Confederate Air Force and Jeff Ethell. All rights reserved.

Originally published in The Dispatch magazine, Volume 18, Number 2, Summer, 1993 edition. If you are interested in subscribing to The Dispatch please write to The Commemorative Air Force, ATTN: Dispatch Editor, PO Box 62000, Midland, TX 79711-2000 or call (432) 563-1000. Reproduced with permission.



The Wildcat was starting to smoke. As it pulled up in front of me in a hard loop, a steady amount of back pressure on the stick easily brought my Zero back into firing position. The harder the Wildcat pilot pulled, the easier it was for me to keep him in my gunsight. Just as I was on the verge of finishing him off, he eased off on the stick, rolled over and pointed his nose toward the earth. Within seconds the Grumman was extending away from me and out of range. There was no way I could follow €" no Zero could outdive an American fighter.

But he couldn't dive forever, we were barely above 1,000 feet. He would have to pull out. As soon as he did I was on him. Again he pulled up and started a tight turn. With little effort I pulled tighter and, again, had him in my sights, smoke billowing out of his cowling. Just as I was about to fire he dumped the nose and pulled away. He was good, very good. After a few more clashes, each of us using his aircraft's strong points to keep the other at bay, we broke off. He couldn't out run me. I couldn't outdive him. The classic duel of two pilots using the strong points of their aircraft, each unable to bring his guns to bear on the other as a result.

I wasn't over the Pacific, it was Ellington Field during the "Tora, Tora, Tora" dogfight portion of the Confederate Air Force Wings Over Houston Airshow. Col Randy Wilson was in the Wildcat and I had been asked to fly the Zero when sponsor/pilot Col John Kelley couldn't get the weekend free.

Walking up to a real Zero, knowing you are actually going to fly it, is overwhelming €"after all, there are only two flying and there is only one seat. Having studied this legend for so many years, listening to Japanese and American combat pilots describe their impressions, I had a swirl of history in my mind. To experience such history first hand has always given me much sought after depth in researching the World War II history I write.

A close examination of the external airframe shows Jiro Horikoshi's obsession with keeping the airframe light and streamlined. At a gross weight of 5,313 pounds, packed into a 29-foot-8.75-inch length and a 39-foot-4.5-inch span, the fighter weighs about the same as an AT-6 advanced trainer.

With its long landing gear legs, getting one's foot into the lowered step, pulling up with the rod-like hand hold, then stepping onto the extended foot bar and onto the wing walk is quite a feat €" much the same impression as mounting a P-47, which really says something considering there is virtually no size comparison. Once up on the wing the airplane becomes quite small. That impression is reinforced by stepping into the cockpit. Clearly the office was designed for smaller pilots.

In general the cockpit is well laid out, though it has been thoroughly modernized with radios, Loran, electrical switches, engine starting switches and other items where the gun breeches would normally protrude into the cockpit. The two 7.7 mm Type 97 cowl mounted machine guns were manually charged from inside. I can't imagine what the cockpit must have smelled like in combat. Two 20 mm Type 99 cannon were mounted in the wings. Most of the fixtures are authentic, including throttle quadrant, stick, seat and instrument panel, which carries the original Japanese lettering. A replica gunsight, complete with good luck tea bag, finishes everything off.

Engine start up was quite easy, standard for any 1830. The first thing I noticed was that little throttle movement produced a great deal of change in power. Kelley had warned me to watch that. Like a Spit, it wouldn't be hard to nose over with excessive power. With the engine running smoothly, the first thing to check, after oil pressure, is hydraulic pressure. The entire aircraft has the original hydraulic Japanese system installed.

Chocks away, a slight burst of power and the Zero moves away without any coaxing it even feels light on the ground. Braking is limited at best with the brakes prone to overheating quickly, and to accumulating engine oil and exhaust residue from their inflight location behind the exhaust stacks. If a new Zero pilot can't fly without depending on the brakes, he should pass it up. They are good for changing direction with a tap and for coming to a complete stop from a slow taxi, that's about it.

Pre-take-off: set elevator trim (the only trim installed) to zero with the big wooden wheel on the left, cockpit checklist complete. Taxi out onto the runway, which disappears completely in front of the very round cowling.

Slowly up on the power and keep it moving forward to get immediate rudder effectiveness. Before I have full power, 45 inches and 2700 rpm, the Zero is pulling mightily to the left but a good boot of rudder holds it down the middle with very little effort, even less than some rudder trim equipped fighters €" immediate relief. Apparently rudder trim just wasn't considered that important. Even though the tail flies up a bit, it is mandatory to make a smooth three point take off, applying the rest of the power after lift off.

As the Zero breaks ground at around 650 feet, its 4,500 fpm climb rate is immediately evident. It claws for altitude, even at a climb power setting of 34 inches and 2450 rpm, at something like a 45 degree angle. The slightest forward pressure on the stick drives the airspeed up. Got to get the gear up before 105 knots.

Unlike every other stock World War II fighter I've flown, the Zero had an EGT (exhaust gas temperature gauge) for optimum leaning and the manual is very specific in telling the pilot how to use it. No wonder the Zero had such fantastic range, figuring 10 minutes at combat power, the manual gives the A6M2 a normal range of 1,025 miles. Those figures weren't seen again until the Merlin powered P-51. American pilots refused to believe Zeros over the Philippines and Guadalcanal were not flown from carriers.

Visibility from the cockpit is outstanding for this period in the war. Though there are several canopy braces to get in the way, compare the Zero's canopy shape, particularly toward the rear, to the F4F, P-40 and razorback P-47 and P-51. After a few quick glances around, I found the bracing almost unnoticeable since I had excellent rearward visibility. This had to be a significant advantage for Japanese fighter pilots.

The next impression I had was being cramped. I was never able to stretch out, and on a long cross country that can generate a fair amount of fatigue, as it did flying the relatively short 1.3 hour hop to Houston from Dallas for the airshow. A shorter pilot probably wouldn't notice this but those six hour plus missions flown by the Japanese pilots would have been agony in this somewhat hunched up position.

My first turn was effortless €" look at how much of the trailing edge of the wing is taken up by aileron. A quick reverse €¦ I almost banged my head on the canopy. Nose up slightly, roll €¦ zap! The machine goes around instantly. Into a near 90 degree bank €¦ pull €¦ the same thing. It almost turns on itself and I would imagine could easily keep up with a Spitfire V, its contemporary. Slightly nose down, pull. It loops the same way and can loop out of cruise as low as 150 knots quite easily. Of course, all this is below 200 knots, where it handled the Wildcat quite easily on all terms. Once above that speed, things change rapidly.

With the nose down and going past 250 knots, all controls get very stiff past 300 knots they are almost immovable. Red line speed in the manual is listed as 340 knots indicated, with a + 7G limit. I can't imagine that the pilot could move anything at that speed. This was the real achilles heel of the Zero. Col. Claire Chennault, Jimmy Flatley and others who knew the Zero ordered pilots not to maneuver with Japanese pilots but revert to dive and slash attacks. Much to the horror of the Imperial Japanese Navy's fine pilots, this virtually neutralized the Zero's superiority. Everyone was warned about trying to turn with or outmaneuver a Zero €" it couldn't be done. After fighting Wilson in the Wildcat, I experienced both sides of the coin. If we got below 200 knots, I could eat him up. When he put the nose down, I was left behind trying, without much success, to muscle the Zero through a corkscrew trailing descent.

Stalls are barely worth mentioning. The Zero is docile throughout the stall series with no tendency to snap or spin at all. The pilot can pull as hard as he wants straight into the stall without having to worry about spinning out or losing control. The aircraft is so light the power off stall speed with gear and flaps down is 60 knots.

The manual recommends 70 to 72 knots on short final for what it calls a spot (carrier) landing. The original aircraft had a crosshair display index on the left gearshield for this purpose, a precursor to angle of attack indicators. The manual recommended, "Turn the face gradually to the left side and look at the spot landing points on the right hand chart positions." Fascinating. This delicate device has long since disappeared. I would have loved to have tried it.

Since the Zero is so light, too much speed is not healthy. Hold about 80 to 85 knots on short final, eventually bleeding the speed down to 75 knots. Once over the numbers pull the throttle all the way to idle and pull the stick back. The fighter flares into a beautiful three point landing and is near viceless on the ground, thanks in large measure to the effective rudder and wide landing gear. It can be wheeled on but, like the Spitfire, it doesn't like it since there is fat less control. It wants to float and skip down the runway on the edge of positive control.

There is really no need for brakes at all on a long runway unless you want to make a sharp turn. Off the active runway, stop. Silence. The brain is incredulous. Ethell, you have flown a pinnacle in aviation history, a very rare privilege indeed.

Sitting in that cockpit for several hours, pushing the Zero back and forth across its performance envelope, did more to open up the Pacific air war than anything in recent memory. The basics of air combat in that theater sorted themselves out in real terms almost immediately as I made the Zero do things for which it was superbly equipped, and tried to do things to which it could not hope to aspire. It is one of the few military aircraft I have flown that matches almost everything written about it, good and bad, from both sides. Though it can be exhausting to fly, its basic docile nature and ease on the controls had to give its pilots great confidence. Indeed, the Zero ruled the skies €¦ but not long enough.



To e-mail a link to this article, please copy and paste the following URL:
http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=36

BigKahuna_GS
12-05-2004, 01:38 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
My question was

"Just to clarify what you said though, there were 3 big issues regarding A6M vs F4.

1) dive speeds
2) speed at which structural damage happens
3) control authority at high speeds

Are all of these fixed in the coming patch or only some?"

His response, was "All."
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Exactly what I emailed Oleg also.

Thank You Oleg for correcting the flight model and making it historically accurate !

__

Saburo_0
12-05-2004, 02:17 AM
Kahuna,
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifWow! Great read, really glad you posted that!!

BigKahuna_GS
12-07-2004, 12:23 PM
S!

Glad you enjoyed that Saburo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The response I got from Oleg was that he is changing the Wildcat but not changing the Zeros flight model (too much control authority over 300kts).

The Zeros in Pacific Fighters have too much high speed control authority from all who have tested them on the forums.

The Pafic Fighters roll rate test showed the A6m2-21 having a faster roll rate at 360-370mph than at 250mph. That goes against the NACA roll rate charts which showed a major reduction in roll rate above 300kts.

I talked to the pilot who flew this A6m5 this last Saturday 12/4/04 in Chino, California. He said the roll rate satarted slowing above 200kts and above 300kts is very restricted. He also said engine power and climb dropped off rapidly once over 22,000ft.

http://www.planesoffame.org/press-releases/images/thumbnails/tn-
A historic and rare Aircraft, this Mitsubishi A6M5 Zero fighter will be in action over the Chino Airport during the Remembering Pearl Harbor event. Click on the image to download a high-res Press sized photo.
Photo by Britt Dietz.

http://www.planesoffame.org/
http://www.planesoffame.org/release.php?id=9

http://www.planesoffame.org/release.php?id=9

_____

DRB_Hookech0
12-07-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
The response I got from Oleg was that he is changing the Wildcat but not changing the Zeros flight model (too much control authority over 300kts). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait.....your saying that the flawed Zero will not be fixed but that the pretty good Wildcat will be reworked? Huh? Did I miss something here?

BigKahuna_GS
12-07-2004, 01:44 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________
DRB_Hookech0
Wait.....your saying that the flawed Zero will not be fixed but that the pretty good Wildcat will be reworked? Huh? Did I miss something here?
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Unless something has changed in the last couple of days, the last email I recieved from Oleg was ---Change the Wildcat, Leave the Zero alone.

Why not fix the Zeros excessive high speed control authority over 300kts ?

hmmm.


___

Loki-PF
12-07-2004, 02:58 PM
WTH?!?!?

What good is it to fix the wildcat if we dont fix the *OVERPERFORMANCE* of the Zero regarding it's high speed agility. I sure as hell know it can be done, just try and put a Lighting into a shallow dive!

AlmightyTallest
12-07-2004, 03:14 PM
I'm with you on that Loki, I would like to see the Zero fixed the way it actually behaved in real life. Not changing it's high speed handling seems to be going against everything published and tested about this plane.

I hope it gets fixed and is more accurate in the next patch.

Saburo_0
12-07-2004, 03:56 PM
I'm tellin' ya..I think the Zero goes from such incredible handling at low speed to such ****e handling at higher speeds that the ol'e FB engine can't cope with it.
Did you see the posts stating that in fact the Zeke outturned the I-153 !@?

stathem
12-07-2004, 04:20 PM
Thank you guys for sorting this out, i was about to give up flying altogether. Got my *** waxed over and over in greatergreen earlier today(F4F vs A6M2-21). I'm mean, i know I'm not good, and the other guy (there were only two of us) was top notch, but, I couldn't see him first, or lose him once he'd seen me, whatever I tried ( fast spiral dives, 250mph + scissors, etc). This gives me hope I'm not completely useless...

pourshot
12-07-2004, 04:24 PM
I must say fixing the wildcat instead of the zero is a strange solution, after all I fly the p40 so how will that help me?

Does Oleg think the only enemy the zero faces in PF is the wildcat?

RocketDog
12-07-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
The response I got from Oleg was that he is changing the Wildcat but not changing the Zeros flight model (too much control authority over 300kts).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope this isn't true. The Zeros in PF seem far too agile at high speeds compared to the historical data. If it doesn't get fixed it's going to turn into a long drawn out disappointment and give rise to the sort of struggle we had with the P-47 roll rate before Maddox would change it. Not impressed, but let's see what happens in the patch.

Regards,

RocketDog.

HayateAce
12-07-2004, 05:59 PM
Oh man, say this isn't so.

That would seem to be the worst solution possible. I appreciate that I don't know squat about Oleg's game code, but surely the Zero can be corrected instead of falsely boosting the Wildcat just to compete with it!

Allied pilots still have to battle these things with Mustangs, Corsairs and Hellcats to name a few. Hmm, maybe we can get Oleg to boost all those AC back to norm as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Loki-PF
12-07-2004, 08:48 PM
609IAP_Kahuna,

Dude this is serious. Gotta ask you to do some cutting and pasting of those messages to and from Oleg regsrding this....

Loki-PF
12-07-2004, 08:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
I must say fixing the wildcat instead of the zero is a strange solution, after all I fly the p40 so how will that help me?

Does Oleg think the only enemy the zero faces in PF is the wildcat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell Pourshot... It won't even fix the problem with the Wildcat... If Oleg doesn't change the highspeed dive and control authority of the Zeke, then fixing the cat will DO NO GOOD. They will still just dive with the cat and shoot it full of 20 mike mike. So much for "Authentic", "Realistic" and "Historic".

TAGERT.
12-07-2004, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
I must say fixing the wildcat instead of the zero is a strange solution, after all I fly the p40 so how will that help me?

Does Oleg think the only enemy the zero faces in PF is the wildcat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell Pourshot... It won't even fix the problem with the Wildcat... If Oleg doesn't change the highspeed dive and control authority of the Zeke, then fixing the cat will _DO NO GOOD_. They will still just dive with the cat and shoot it full of 20 mike mike. So much for "Authentic", "Realistic" and "Historic". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well we did the dive test.. And change came.. Sounds like it is time to do the roll tests I talked about.. roll rates at 4 different speeds 100, 200, 300, 400. And maybe 2 different alts, 5000ft 20,000ft. For a total of 8 tests.

PS I dont know of any data that shows the ZERO could not pull out of a dive at high speeds.. like the 109 tests.. I only know of tests of the ZERO's poor roll rate at high speeds.. like the 109 tests too. Thus when you say "high speed control athority" be sure to distingush between roll rates (aka aliron) and pull outs (aka elevator).

Loki-PF
12-07-2004, 09:54 PM
We'll fly em you graph em?

TAGERT.
12-07-2004, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
We'll fly em you graph em? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm I got some bad news.. I dont think we have accesses to any roll information via the DeviceLink. We have the roll and pitch inputs.. But no outputs of what the plane is doing on the roll axis. The only variable that comes close is the ANGULAR_SPEED.. But I think that is in the pitch axis? In short.. I dont think I would have anything to graph.. I dont see any variable I could even intergrate to find the position.. unless ANGULAR_SPEED is in the roll axis.. But I think it is in the pitch axis. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

So.. the best we could do is visually time how long it takes to do a 360 roll with a full aliron input. That would not be too hard to do from an external view post flight by viewing the track file. It also wouldnt require you to both be flying at the same time.. That is to say you could do this offline and just make sure your airspeed and alt is the same for both planes.

BigKahuna_GS
12-08-2004, 03:26 AM
S!

Here it is Loki:

__________________________________________________ _______________________

Oleg-We changed F4F, but not A6M which is close to real Japanese data.

"Check the roll rate test of NACA with captured A6M2. We model very close to this. Even a bit better".

Better here means that we have more precise data from Japan - maximum possible roll rate digit measured on 500 km/h speed (period).
NACA curve roll rate given with constant force pressure on the control column. I hope you understand that you don't feel the force on the joystick the same way as the pilot feel it on the real aircaft - its from where you get differences (for all aircraft).


----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Bateman
To: Oleg Maddox
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:54 PM
Subject: [SPAM 05.60] Fw: F4F vs Zero Fix from Oleg ---Thank You


S! Oleg,

Saw this at the Forums Oleg and this is exactly the point I was trying to make to you.
I was also part of this testing process. Thank you for addressing this !


Subject: F4F vs Zero Fix from Oleg


I sent an email exactly like this to Oleg . Oleg response to both of us was almost indentical :

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8281056742&p=3

My question was

"Just to clarify what you said though, there were 3 big issues regarding A6M vs F4.

1) dive speeds
2) speed at which structural damage happens
3) control authority at high speeds

Are all of these fixed in the coming patch or only some?"

Oleg's response, was "All."

Thanks, Keith
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Here is what I am finding :

Take an A6m2-21 with 100% fuel and start 7500m and go into a gentel dive.
At
SPEED CONVERSION
400 Kilometers per hour equals 248.548 Miles (statute) per hour

I am getting on average 71/2 seconds roll rate

then at

SPEED CONVERSION
600 Kilometers per hour equals 372.823 Miles (statute) per hour

I am getting a little under 6 second roll rate while nose down in a gentle dive power off--I actually hit 380mph briefly.

So I am consistently getting a 1-11/2 second faster roll rate at a
100kph faster speed.

All of this does not seem to make any sense-go way above 300kts (control authority problem speed) and get a faster roll rate ?


______

RocketDog
12-08-2004, 04:22 AM
For reference, here's the famous NACA roll-rate figure reproduced many times in the forums. I think this version originally came from the book America's Hundred Thousand.

It shows the Zero dropping to ~ 30 degrees per second roll rate at high speed (i.e., 12 seconds for a complete roll). Significantly, the Allied aircraft all maintain roll rates two or three times faster.

Reading from the graph, the roll rate at 10,000 feet altitude corresponds to a time to roll of:

5.1 sec at 180 mph IAS

7.2 sec at 250 mph IAS

8.0 sec at 300 mph IAS

10.3 sec at 340 mph IAS

12 sec at 380 mph IAS

12.8 sec at 390 mph IAS

In the quote above, Maddox claims "we model very close to this. Even a bit better".

Yet from Kahuna's test, at 380 mph the Zero rolls once in less than 6 secs. In other words, the Zero in the game rolls almost exactly twice as fast as the one in the NACA test.

I don't understand the difference, and Maddox's English is hard to follow at times. Does he mean that the roll rate will be fixed in the next patch to follow the NACA data? I hope so.

Regards,

RocketDog.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Rollrategraph.gif

BigKahuna_GS
12-08-2004, 05:29 AM
S!

Great graph RocketDog!

Refer back to the original statement:

"Oleg-We changed F4F, but not A6M which is close to real Japanese data."

The Zero is what it is.

I have tried every way possible to effectively communicate that the
roll rate is faster at high speed. I dont know if this is a bug or
simply an oversite or a language barrier. I have sent 2 tracks showing what I experienced and timed it again.


This seems to be the problem speeds.
Can someone else try timing the roll rate of the A6m2-21
at these speeds to confirm what I found.
If I could I would post my track here.

10.3 sec at 340 mph IAS

12 sec at 380 mph IAS

12.8 sec at 390 mph IAS

_____

BigKahuna_GS
12-08-2004, 06:33 AM
S!

Ok, I timed it again.


A6m2-21 roll rate 370mph IAS @ 6.26seconds 10,000ft altitude

vs

10.3 sec at 340 mph IAS

12 sec at 380 mph IAS

12.8 sec at 390 mph IAS


___

Saburo_0
12-08-2004, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

Great graph RocketDog!

Refer back to the original statement:

"Oleg-We changed F4F, but not A6M which is close to real Japanese data."

simply an oversite or a language barrier. I have sent 2 tracks showing what I experienced and timed it again.



_____ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you ask Oleg for the source of the Jpanaese data ?
I don't mean to come down on the side of the Zero but US data has been wrong on the Zero before. And you can't convince Oleg if you don't know what data he is looking at.

Also, I would like to know the new Wildcat's roll rate at speeds & how they compare to the Zero A6M2-21. Hopefully the Wildcat will be superior by enough to make historic tactics valid (online anyway-AI FM makes for a very tough campaign!)

Ps. From Wildcat pilot accounts 1 on 1 the 'Cat wasn't a match for the Zero- it was slower & it's climb rate was inferior giving the Zeke all the advantages.
Oh & last night i read an article from usenet where Saburo Sakai told Erik Schilling that the Zero's (model not specified) top speed was 309. Schilling an Army pilot who is not fond of the Japanese of their planes took this to mean MPH- which I think is obviously wrong. If its knots,as I suspect any good naval aviator would use, that comes out to 355 mph. Pretty fast.

BigKahuna_GS
12-08-2004, 11:53 AM
S!

Hya Saburo,

The question that needs to be asked is:

Why does the Zero roll faster at 370-380mph IAS that at 250-300mph IAS ?

That seems to go against all allied & Axis pilot reports including Sakai's, and tests flights of captured Zeros.

Three Saburo Sakai Interviews:

In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans
leading living Ace, I said, "Commander, what was the Zero's top
speed?"

His answer, "The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph. and a
maximum allowable dive speed of 350 mph. It became extremely heavy
on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's
controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll. A further
comment by Sakai was that the skin on the wings started to wrinkle,
causing the pilot great concern, since a number of Zero's had shed
their wings in a dive."



Saburo Sakai on the Zero's maneuverability:

Oh yes, the Zero was incredibly maneuverable, but not over about 250 mph. Above that speed, the stick just gets too heavy because the plane's control surfaces are so huge. You've seen those films of kamikaze plunging straight down into the water far from any U.S. ships, right? The kids in those planes probably put their planes into a dive way too early, and before they realized their mistake, they had too much speed built up to pull out of their dive. They probably died pulling desperately on the stick with all their strength. When I coached those kids [kamikaze pilots], I'd tell them, "If you've gotta die, you at least want to hit your target, right? If so, then go in low, skimming the water. Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."



Interviewer: What would you tell new pilots about the Zero?

Saburo Sakai: I would tell new pilots the following things about the Zero...
Good points: Dogfighting prowess and a quick rate of climb. And the 7.7mm are very reliable.
Bad points: Doesn't perform well in dives. Enemy fire causes fires and easily damages the airframe.


That also goes against modern day pilot reports such as Jeff Ethell's
in 1993 while flying real aircraft A6m2 vs Wildcat.

Is there something about the roll rate and control authority of the Zero that the japanese knew in WW2 but modern aviators couldnt possibly know by 1993 ?

Zero Pilot
Flying the CAF's A6M2 Zero and dogfighting with a Wildcat
by Jeff Ethell

http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=36

"With the nose down and going past 250 knots, all controls get very stiff past 300 knots they are almost immovable. Red line speed in the manual is listed as 340 knots indicated, with a + 7G limit. I can't imagine that the pilot could move anything at that speed. This was the real achilles heel of the Zero."

Just as I was on the verge of finishing him off, he eased off on the stick, rolled over and pointed his nose toward the earth. Within seconds the Grumman was extending away from me and out of range. There was no way I could follow €" no Zero could outdive an American fighter.

Of course, all this is below 200 knots, where it (the Zero) handled the Wildcat quite easily on all terms. Once above that speed, things change rapidly.

If we got below 200 knots, I could eat him up (Zero over Wildcat). When he put the nose down, I was left behind trying, without much success, to muscle the Zero through a corkscrew trailing descent.

Then in the Report of Joint Fighter Confrence :

In flight tests of captured Zeros at high speeds:
Zeke type 52

Airlerons light at low speed - froze at high speed. pg.311

Rudder light at low speed- froze at high speed. pg.311

Overall-"Very poor performance at high speeds-stiffness of controls. pg.310


What has changed in this consistant description of reduced control authority over the last 50 years from 1940's to 1990's when Jeff Ethell flew a real A6m2 vs a Wildcat ?

Nothing. The same high speed control problems found in 1940's was found in the 1990's. The same consistant flight model report.

___

Saburo_0
12-08-2004, 12:13 PM
"The question that needs to be asked is:

Why does the Zero roll faster at 370-380mph IAS that at 250-300mph IAS ?"
----------------------------
That IS the real problem.

As for the Sakai interview: Interesting but:

Bet you $100 that Sakai was speaking thru an interpreter. American sources always conflate knots with MPH. 309 mph would make the zero slower than the Oscar ?????

http://rwebs.net/ghostsqd/a6m2.htm
Just one source but a quick search will turn up many.


Sakai was a Naval Aviator the Zero's speedometer was in KNOTS do you really think he would convert to MPH ? Kilometers maybe as thats what they use in Japan today, but mph no. MANY American books give false figures because of this kind of sloppiness.

IMHO The Wildcat & the Zero are both Navy aircraft & all test should be done in Knots to avoid confusion.

BigKahuna_GS
12-09-2004, 06:49 AM
S!


The translation of the Saburo Sakai interview with the combining of mph/kts has been brought up before and is probably an error in relation to speed in some form. I am more concerend on how the Zero flys as according to Japanes pilots and modern day flight tests.

There is a third modern flight test with the CAF Zero you show with the same conclusions as before. Once over 200kts the roll rate slows and as speed increases high speed athority decreases.

A web link of perserved Zeros world wide.
http://mitsubishi_zero.tripod.com/preserved.htm

Allied code names for Japanese fighters/bombers and Japanese translations of aircraft names.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/japdes.html



Early A6m2 captured and Test Flown in China

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.



________

JG53Frankyboy
12-09-2004, 08:06 AM
wasnt the "No. P 5016" the one that had a not correct working propeller , cant mantain full RPM , and the wrong installed carburator, had negG cut offs, ?

but, this only in the view of the max speeds that are given in the test !

that has nothing to do with the handling !
nevertheless, reading this test the allied pilots must have been rather dumb fearing the Zero in the first half of 1942 , ore flew rather stupid tactics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif !

Saburo_0
12-09-2004, 12:57 PM
Kahuna, I don't disagree that the stick should feel like it's in thicker & thicker concrete as speed increases.

But
If you want Oleg to change it yu have 2 problems when using these American reports.

1. They have known problems-like the engine cut-out & the fact that the condition of the planes is questionable. I've read an account where Curtiss test pilots flew the Zero & rated it's performance very poorly. Then gave it to the Army & they got much higher speeds, better handling etc. The plane was not properly set up by the Curtiss people. Of course company pride may have played a role here, they didn't want to admit the Japanese had built a better plane. It was also necessary to convince American pilots that they were not going into combat in inferior machines- this would be a priority in time of war, even tho it might cost lives it has happened before. Just saying that all these things must be kept in mind when reading these reports.

2. You need to know what data Oleg is using. From what I've heard he has been given Japanese data. Ask for it & see what it says, assuming it's available in English. If it isn;t then it may be possible to get someone to translate it.

#2 is what's important to get a change.

BigKahuna_GS
12-10-2004, 07:41 PM
S!


Rgr that Saburo.

I have been in contact with Oleg all along thru this. Infact he has this very report and was citing it as the way for the P40 to dogfight the Zero.
The only problem is the P40 had about triple the roll rate at speed over the Zero, much faster diving ability and was actually more manueverable than the Zero over 226mph IAS (see report). The P40 was not inferior to the Zero when flown with it's strengths of higher speed, roll rate and dive.

Oleg is using a combination of the NACA charts and japanese docs from
I dont know where. Oleg also says the japanese docs show a 3x faster roll rate over the NACA charts. If that is true then the Zero should have a
4 second roll rate at 380mph IAS---ahem not likely or plausible.

NACA chart 12second roll rate at 380mph IAS divided by 3 times faster roll rate in japanese docs = 4 second Zero roll rate @ 380mph IAS.

So do the japanese docs show the Zero roll rate to be 4 seconds at 380mph
IAS ?

Any possibility of the japanese docs being wrong or am I looking at this wrong ?

Now I have books on japanese aircraft manufactures and it wasn't uncommon to slightly overate engine performance & other specs, etc. Unless these NACA charts are way way out of line it would be impossible for a Zero to have a roll rate of 4 seconds at 380mph IAS.

From Rocketdog:

For reference, here's the famous NACA roll-rate figure reproduced many times in the forums. I think this version originally came from the book America's Hundred Thousand.

It shows the Zero dropping to ~ 30 degrees per second roll rate at high speed (i.e., 12 seconds for a complete roll). Significantly, the Allied aircraft all maintain roll rates two or three times faster.

Reading from the graph, the roll rate at 10,000 feet altitude corresponds to a time to roll of:

5.1 sec at 180 mph IAS

7.2 sec at 250 mph IAS

8.0 sec at 300 mph IAS

10.3 sec at 340 mph IAS

12 sec at 380 mph IAS

12.8 sec at 390 mph IAS


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Rollrategraph.gif


___

Saburo_0
12-11-2004, 09:35 AM
kahuna,
Really appreciate all your work & the way you're going about it.

One thing I stumbled on that might explain some differences in US & Japanese reports.

Strange Devices
Roll rate is enhanced by "servo tabs" on the ailerons. These deflect opposite to the aileron, and make the control force much lighter. The disadvantage is that they reduce the maximum roll effect at full travel.
In fact, the roll control forces were so light the designers felt it might be too sensitive on carrier approaches and landings, so they did a very clever thing, something I've never seen before. Through a series of small bellcranks and pushrods in between the outboard end of the flaps and the inboard end of the aileron, these servo tabs convert themselves to anti-servo tabs as the flaps extend!
These are nowhere mentioned in any of the ship's documents. I happened to discover this quite by accident, fumbling around in the cockpit during familiarization and practice drills. I moved the stick, and noted the tabs moving opposite to the ailerons, and thought to myself, "yup, servo tabs, makes sense." Later, with the flaps down, I moved the stick again, and saw them move with the ailerons. After a double-take, I thought, "Hmm, those are 'anti-servo' tabs, and I could swear they were servo tabs a few minutes ago." For a moment, I thought I was losing it. That little red warning light came on in my brain, and caused me to investigate further. There is no aileron trim in the cockpit at all, so it was natural for them to be one or the other, but not both!
Then it got even more bizarre, because during flap extension, one moves UP first, the other doesn't, then the first goes down, then they both go down, but one goes much more than the other. I didn't think that could be right, and I made a mental note that it appeared the airplane would be very right-wing heavy with the flaps up and very left-wing heavy with them down. Sure enough, that turned out to be true. It would be quite a chore to fly this bird for more than 30 minutes, due to the heavy stick force required. We'll get that little bit of rigging sorted out before the next flight.
-------------------------------
taken from : http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185354-1.html

Seems that even today's restorers missed some things. This guy is a sharp test pilot.

I don't understand these Servo tabs too well perhaps one of our pilots could jump in with an explanation ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifSee if i can track one down.
I find it hard to believe that the roll rate would be 3 times what NACA had! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Perhaps just at one particular speed? could Oleg have mispoken? (Scratches head) But then again almost all I've ever read was based on the American tests of Koga's Zero.

Test pilots always refer to the stick feeling like it's in cement at high speeds but never give any darn numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

OH BTW looking at the 2 Japanese books I have they both list the Zero 21s top speed at 288knots. This is the PF equivalent of 100% power. The 309 Knots Sakai gave was with what PF calls 110% power. I'm also wondering if the Tainan planes being land based had any carrier equipment removed, or if that was forbidden by regulations in case they were needed on cariers? Still we know pilots removed radios, cut off radio masts & flew with out parachutes to lighten their planes.
Oh if ya get hold of any Japanese docs lemme know.Ain't Japanese (the nickname goes back to EAW) but speak a bit & can read with the help of my electronic dictionary for the Chinese characters.

Blackdog5555
12-12-2004, 01:46 AM
Oleg knows the Zero wrong. He is not dumb. You would have to be a moron to believe the zero (A6M2) could do a super controllable 400mph low altitude dive. He modeled the game this way to make it playable. Playability over accuracy. Simple as that. The Hellcat had a 19-1 kill ratio for a reason. If the game was modeled accurately it wouldn't be fun for those who like to fly the zero. I have a hard time believing this but its the only reasonble conclusion left. Oleg doesnt have any phoney Japanese data. I've researched the **** out of this. The data from japanese flyers supports the data from the American test. Playability over accuracy.

BigKahuna_GS
12-14-2004, 04:43 AM
S!

Hi Saburo,

This was the third modern day flight of an actual flying Zero that I was referring too. I had a series of emails from CAF Pilot John Deaken and his evaluation after flying this Zeke. I forgot to ask John if this was the same A6m2 that Jeff Ethell flew in 1993---I dont think it is.
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/185334_zero_deakin.jpg

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/jdeakin.jpg
About the Author ... John Deakin

When AEP came out the A6m5 Zero was heavily porked. Then the next patch it was trimmed. Well some joker went on a crusade to change the roll rate back to where it was originally and he even said the Zeke had the same roll rate as a P40 at 250-300mph IAS--not even close.

That is when I emailed John Deaken and posted his emails for all to see at the forums. While not exact defenitive numbers were recorded, John stated that at speeds of 180-190mph IAS the roll rate started to drop off. And as speed increased the roll rate continued to get worse. Just as every other recorded evaluation of the Zero's high speed manueverability has said.

Now John will be the first one to tell that this is a rare/exspensive/60year old plane and that he did not want stress the airframe. So John did not go much over 200kts. Nor did John dogfight a Wildcat as Jeff Ethell had.

SPEED CONVERSION
200 Miles (International, nautical) per hour equals 230.156 Miles (statute) per hour

But John didnt need to go any faster than this to tell how the Zero was going to respond--reduced control authority as speed increased. It would ne nice to plug some exact numbers in.

____

Blackdog5555
12-15-2004, 01:18 AM
and again... the photo shows a plane with the guns removed and no ammo.. thats a big deal. But...The early zeros could run circles around the I116 and I153 as they did in China. a Squad of Zeros wiped out 13 of China's I153s without a loss--A A6m2 was tested doing a 360 turn in under 7 sec (170mph).. Olegs games has the I16 and I153 turning circles inside the zero. Politcal..bad data...bad beta testing. I dont know. Maybe intentional for better game play.

k5054
12-15-2004, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> a Squad of Zeros wiped out 13 of China's I153s without a loss--A A6m2 was tested doing a 360 turn in under 7 sec (170mph).. Olegs games has the I16 and I153 turning circles inside the zero. Politcal..bad data...bad beta testing. I dont know. Maybe intentional for better game play. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know the I-153 could not turn as tight as the Zero. Wing loadings being around the same, but advantage 153, it would seem the 153 was a very good turner.

How do you know the zero scored 13-0? Is this encounter recorded from the Chinese side? 13-0 is a very good score, and does not seem like the result of a turning dogfight, where there's a chance of the other guys getting lucky.

How many g are needed to do a 7 sec turn at 170mph? Indicated or true? What was the speed after 360 degrees? At what altitude? Where is the text of the report?

TAGERT.
12-25-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3.03 readme:
FM and aircraft performance

1. Additional minor individual tuning of flight models and aircraft performance were made (Dive speed F4F for example).
2. Reworked physics model of automatic multi-stage supercharger (most visible result - on FW-190A/F, P-51s and some others). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice work Loki! By the way, I found that we can graph the roll rate.. if your still interested in those tests with the new FM?

Loki-PF
12-25-2004, 01:47 PM
Tagert,

Merry Christmas! Thanks, yea I saw that also... Was talking to Fenris this afternoon to wish him and his a merry Christmas and of course share the news about 3.03.... We are very eager to do some more flight tests. We are gonna try to get the kids down and the wives snacked packed and racked early so we can get a few quality hours of stick time tonight to do some testing.

We'll use the same SOP as last time (ie voice coms, dual tracks etc.) with the exception of recording shorter tracks (just the good bits) and only one test type per track.... I'll post the results ASAP.

Hoping for the best!

PS Am I the only one to notice that some if the US planes (only tested the F4U-1D so far) seem to be a little less stall happy in this cut? Also very eager to test the P-38 as it is one of the models likely to be positively affected by the coding change to turbosupercharfers!

JG53Frankyboy
12-25-2004, 04:54 PM
F4F is still breaking around 750km/h IAS .
btw, F2A-2 can reach some km/h more in a dive .

didnt compare the highspeed handling betwenn F4F and A6M2.

and, no, the P-38 should be not effected by the change in supercharger modelling . there is no shifting with a Turbosupercharger.

RocketDog
12-25-2004, 05:25 PM
From a very quick test, the high-speed handling seems unchanged. The Zero can still roll with the Wildcat at high speed. The Wildcat still comes apart at ~ 370 KIAS, the early Zero at maybe 10-20 KIAS slower. Hard to see that much has changed, but I will need to do a more careful evaluation later - in particular for dive acceleration. The roll rates are still quite different from the chart earlier in this thread.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Loki-PF
12-25-2004, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
F4F is still breaking around 750km/h IAS .
btw, F2A-2 can reach some km/h more in a dive .

didnt compare the highspeed handling betwenn F4F and A6M2.

and, no, the P-38 should be not effected by the change in supercharger modelling . there is no shifting with a Turbosupercharger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frankyboy,

I thought the changes that were made in 3.03 had to do with planes that had automatic shifting... planes like the P-38. I could be wrong though....

hawkmeister
12-25-2004, 08:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
I thought the changes that were made in 3.03 had to do with planes that had automatic shifting... planes like the P-38. I could be wrong though.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no shifting, automatic or otherwise, with the turbosuperchargers in the P-38 and P-47.

Shifting is a function of multi-speed mechanical superchargers - not exhaust gas-driven turbosuperchargers.

-Bill

Loki-PF
12-27-2004, 11:28 AM
Folks,

Well the news isn't great. Can't say for sure if anything has even changed since 3.02... I will post the tracks tonight for diagnosis by everyone when I get Fenris' tracks. Here is the brief update

Wildcat goes into Hard buffet at ~420Mph
Looses parts very shortly after. This is about the same time the Zero looses parts, however the Zero onlylooses aelerons and survives, the Wildcat looses entire wing and crashes.

Here is the really wierd part... When we did the roll tests, the Zero rolled SLOWER than the Wildcat at slow speed (about 180Mph) but FASTER than the Wildcat at high speeds (over 300 Mph).

I'll get the tracks together and post/host them for everyone to see. It's wierd... It's almost like they switched the two FM's

Loki-PF
12-27-2004, 02:32 PM
OK,

As promised, here are the links to the tracks that Fenris and I recorded last night. We did three seperate tests.

1) Dive Test LINK (http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/A6m-vs-F4F3-Dive-tests.zip)

2) Low speed Roll test LINK (http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/Low_speed_Roll_Test.zip)

3) High speed Roll test LINK (http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/High_speed_Roll_Test.zip)

To summarize,
*Wildcat won't outdive an A6M.
*Wildcat rolls faster at slow speeds
*Zero rolls faster at high speeds

Roll tests were done with max stick deflection only, no rudder input at all.

RocketDog
12-27-2004, 03:47 PM
It's exasperating that the FMs for the two key early-war fighters are so far from any data we have available. I really had hoped this would be fixed.

Loki, can you email the tracks and results to Oleg Maddox as before? With luck, gentle but sustained pressure might bring about a result.

Maybe in 3.04.

Regards,

RocketDog.

ElAurens
12-27-2004, 04:06 PM
I can verify, but not as scientifically. BlitzPig_Void and I did some dive tests with the F4F 3 and A6M2. No tracks or fancy collection system, just did it. From 10.000ft and a starting speed of 180mph IAS, the A6M2 out accelerated the F4F every time in the dive. Even though the Wildcat held together a bit longer (not by much), in a combat situation the Zero would have caught and killed the F4F long before Vdamage would have occured.

Loki-PF
12-27-2004, 04:28 PM
@RocketDog,

Yea I will be sending this to Oleg... Just wanted this out in the community for others to see and check out as sort of a sanity test to make sure Fenris and I didn't do something stoopid.

@ELAurens,

Yes I agree also if this isn't fixed it will be pretty tough to host any kind of early war server....There will be no point.

@Fenris

Once again we salute you for being the brave captain of the SS Dirt torpedo!

RocketDog
12-27-2004, 05:02 PM
Thanks Loki. I guess that the FM changes Oleg mentioned didn't make it into 3.03.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Saburo_0
12-27-2004, 06:13 PM
Keep at 'em guys!

Fenris459
12-27-2004, 10:54 PM
From the testing that Loki and I have done. It almost seems as though the FM's are switched (I.e. Zero has the Wildcat FM and the Wildcat has the Zero FM) I gotta tell ya, feeling that Wildcat come apart around me and knowing the earth and I are about to get really really up close and personal has been interesting to say the least.( and we've done it over and over and over and over ....) Really hope we can get Oleg and company to take a look at this. (before my face is forever flattened). I've a real soft spot for early war missions and with things as they are your chances have gone from slim to none (as it really was) to none and none (not my favorite way to pass an evening)

Gibbage1
12-28-2004, 02:24 AM
I did some quick testing in 3.03, and the results are rather...disturbing.

All roll test was done with a single 360 degree roll with no rudder.

At 200MPH, it rolls in about 7 seconds
at 300MPH, it rolls in about 11.5 seconds
at 400MPH, it PICKS UP speed and rolls in about 7.5 seconds?

Physically and aerodynamically speaking, thats impossible. Because forces will increase the faster you go, not decrease once you pass some sort of threshhold! Is anyone else picking up this sudden increase after you reach some set speed?

RocketDog
12-28-2004, 02:28 AM
It's a pain, isn't it? For me it's made early-war scenarios unflyable. I just don't want to play a "sim" where historic tactics don't work. Unfortunately, at the moment we have aircraft that just look like a Zero and F4F, but don't actually fly like them.

Regards,

RocketDog.

ICDP
12-28-2004, 02:57 AM
This problem with A6M rollrate REALLY needs fixed, it just defies all logic and historical data.

Saburo_0
12-28-2004, 07:22 AM
from sim hq:
"I installed the "unoffical" 3.03m patch. Just downloaded the "offical" patch from Ubi and noticed different file sizes:

unoffical - 105,037,319
offical - 80,196,868

Does anyone have any idea what the extra 24,840,451 mb consists of?"

Did you test with the official patch or the unofficial one?
(just hoping)

Loki-PF
12-28-2004, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Saburo_0:
from sim hq:
"I installed the "unoffical" 3.03m patch. Just downloaded the "offical" patch from Ubi and noticed different file sizes:

unoffical - 105,037,319
offical - 80,196,868

Saburo-o,

Going to uninstall and do a complete reinstall just to make sure..... I caught that too. This just seems too wierd
Does anyone have any idea what the extra 24,840,451 mb consists of?"

Did you test with the official patch or the unofficial one?
(just hoping) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RocketDog
12-29-2004, 03:07 AM
Bump.

Iffy350
12-29-2004, 03:08 PM
I installed the 80mb official patch and now the game won't run!!! Can someone tell me how to uninstall the latest patch?

RocketDog
12-29-2004, 06:24 PM
You should just be able to re-install 3.02b over the top of 3.03 (I think).

Regards,

RocketDog.

stelr
01-01-2005, 10:29 PM
Loki,

You've done some yoeman's work here my friend. My hat's off to you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I noticed in the string above you mentioned you were sending the tracks to Oleg. Can you say if he responded yet? Will 1C be taking a look at this data?

This is even more disturbing than the F4U posts.

Loki-PF
01-01-2005, 11:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stelr:
Loki,

You've done some yoeman's work here my friend. My hat's off to you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I noticed in the string above you mentioned you were sending the tracks to Oleg. Can you say if he responded yet? Will 1C be taking a look at this data?

This is even more disturbing than the F4U posts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope Nada..... But then they did say that they were on vacation all week and it being the holidays and all.....

fordfan25
01-01-2005, 11:22 PM
good work Loki. my ford raceing hat is off to you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AlmightyTallest
01-02-2005, 10:56 AM
Thanks for taking the time to get so much hard data on all this Loki. A thank you also to your friends that are helping you out with all this data. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
01-02-2005, 11:37 AM
S!

Happy Holidays All !


Props to Loki and Tagert for all the testing !


What we need to find out is what japanese sources Oleg is citing for the zero roll rate. Oleg told me he's using the NACA chart + , but the japanese docs show almost 3 times the roll rate rate over NACA. That would be a mighty fast roll rate at 400mph--just hard to belive that would be correct.

Goes against all past and modern data for high speed zero roll rates.

I hope we really get these issues fixed:

*Correct high speed control/rollrate of zero (reduced)

*Correct dive speed of F4F

*Correct thrust/acceleration of US radial fighters

*Correct F/M of the P38, the most undermodeled plane in this sim.

___