Author Topic: Was A6M2 really this sluggish?  (Read 1416 times)

Offline simshell

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2004, 09:29:52 AM »
iv found the A6M2 a great low speed turner  a just awful mid high speed turner which it should be

i dont no how you guys are geting outturned


last time i flew it i was facing spit5s and hurr and i was able to outturn them with ease
known as Arctic in the main

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2004, 10:44:07 AM »
Historically, the A6M2 suffered loss of roll rate as speeds went up beyond 275 mph. Huge ailerons, poor linkage design with little mechanical advantage were the primary contributors. However, the light construction of the control surfaces also led to aerodynamic bending and flexing that reduced their effectiveness even more.

By the middle of 1942 word was filtering back from the combat areas that the the Zero could be defeated by keeping speeds up and using its weaknesses against it.

The AH A6M2 dives way too fast, especially considering that the A6M2 had 410 mph VnE limit. Above this speed, wing skins began wrinkling and by 450 mph, the wings would simply fail.  

F4F pilots learned that the easiest way to escape a Zero was to dive until speeds exceeded 300 mph, and then roll left and break turn. Virtually an instant disengagement as the Zero could barely roll at even moderate speeds. If you can't roll, you can't turn. Once into a high-speed dive, Zeros were sitting ducks for any Wildcat that was following.

By the way, the Wildcats were never assigned a VnE limit because they reached terminal velocity before aero loading could overcome the enormous strength of the Grumman airframe (Wildcats could handle G loading in excess 12g without damage to the airframe, although engine A-frames would tend to flex enough to take a permanent set).

In AH2, the A6M2 owns any fighter in a low-speed turning contest. If you are being out-turned by Wildcats at low speeds, I suggest you check out your joystick and its calibration. Either that or you are dogfighting at higher speeds than you think.

In the upcoming Rangoon event, the FM-2 appears to be the choice as the replacement for the Buffalo. If the FM-2 pilots fly to their fighter's strengths, the Zeros are going to be butchered. Consider that the FM-2 turns, climbs and accelerates better than the F4F-4.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2004, 10:53:39 AM »
The AH A6M-2 definitely outturns the F4F at low speeds.  Maybe if the F4F is flying on fumes and the Zeke has a full tank there could be a problem.  But it doesn't matter because in a high-energy fight the Zeke is dead, so there is no reason for the F4F to get slow.

ra

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2004, 10:54:11 AM »
Hi Widewing,

>There was no dive speed redline imposed, simply because it could achieve terminal velocity without over-stressing the airframe.

It would be more accurate to say that Wildcat was inherently safe in a dive because it had too much drag to reach dangerous speeds in the dive, and the elevator became too heavy to overstress the airframe.

The FM-2 manual states that a stick force of 100 lbs has to be applied and held for a moment before the Wildcat even begins to pull out of a terminal velocity dive. No chance to pull excessive Gs with a flick of the wrist :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2004, 11:32:41 AM »
I'm not taliking about turning, in fcat I clearly state that the zero turns better at low speed.

My concern is roll sluggishness and control hevyness at those same low speeds. The F4F seems to flip about much more easily that A6M2 at low speeds.  Thsi is surprising because the stuff I read from japans pilots said controls were finger light at the zeros intented speeds.

And Urchin brings up a good point too, he is right I am getting all sorts of stick lockups trying to match those F4F in their flopping about alt low speeds in an A6M2...  Its just extremely odd...

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2004, 11:34:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
...

In the upcoming Rangoon event, the FM-2 appears to be the choice as the replacement for the Buffalo. If the FM-2 pilots fly to their fighter's strengths, the Zeros are going to be butchered. Consider that the FM-2 turns, climbs and accelerates better than the F4F-4.

...


No ... it's not a Buffalo replacement. There's only 12 FM2's, and they're there mainly to keep the M5's honest, just as the M5's are there to keep the P40E's and Spit's honest.

What I experienced in the CT last night was that unless I had about 4K altitude to dump an M2 could stay on the tail of a P40E quite a while. When the IJA had a slight numberical edge, F4F's and P40's were dying quite often - the 20mm kinda suck, but a short squirt up close seemed quite effective and I saw several guys land 3+ kills in the M2. Straight-line acceleration seemed reasonable - probably cuz the M2 weighs about as much as a box of Kleenex.

When the Allied had numbers, it was usually taking 2:1 to finish off stuborn M2's. Well, guess what, in Rangoon it'll be closer to 2:1 the other way. The P40 drivers who kept their cool usually could get in and out of trouble - but getting slow around multiple M2's was pretty much suicide.

Offline Kaz

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1063
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2004, 12:43:18 PM »
I found this, no tables showing roll rates or the like nor comparisons to the Wildcat. It compares the Zero to the F4U, whether the information is true, I don't know.

"Zeke Couldn't Turn Right!"
« Last Edit: October 09, 2004, 12:46:46 PM by Kaz »

Offline Kaz

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1063
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2004, 01:40:08 PM »
There was a thread that had a comparison test between the A6M2 and some USAAF planes, F4UDOA had posted the link which was in pdf format.

Here's the thread:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79044&perpage=50&pagenumber=1

storch

  • Guest
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2004, 01:45:50 PM »
Here is where I  diverge from my squaddies on the axis modelling thing.  I think the zeros are both fairly faithfully modelled.  The only difference I see from reports I've read is slow speed roll rate.  I believe the zero rolled very nicely and smartly below 250 IAS.  Don't get me started on the 109s and 190s though.

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2004, 08:21:27 PM »
I don't recall seeing any info that indicated the A6M2 Zero had a great roll rate, and all the data I have seen always points to its very sluggish roll rate at speeds above 250 IAS. It had a great climb rate and good speed, as well as sustained turn ability, thanks to its wing area and light weight. It had its drawbacks as all designs did (incl the 109 and 190 Storch, shocking as that may seem), but over all it was an excellent fighter for 1940-42. SBDs dont out turn it (make me laugh), and F4Fs are handled well if its flown to its strengths, and not down low trading front quarter shots with a bunch of enemy fighters in a "I dont care if I die I want a kill" style most fly it.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9473
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #25 on: October 09, 2004, 09:51:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
My concern is roll sluggishness and control hevyness at those same low speeds. The F4F seems to flip about much more easily that A6M2 at low speeds.  

I've not noticed this, grunherz, but I'll pay closer attention tonite.  Otherwise, I've never seen ANY plane that can dogfight with the a6m2 (hurri I comes closest).

- oldman

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #26 on: October 09, 2004, 10:09:49 PM »
The problem is exacerbated by the over toughness of the F4F.

I also notice that the Allied and Axis fliers in this thread keep talking past eachother.

The Axis fliers keep talking about it's roll rate under 250mph and the Allied fliers keep talking about it's roll rate over 250mph.

GRUNHERZ's question was not about roll rate at 250mph or 300mph or 350mph.  It was about the roll rate at 125mph or 150mph.


My personal feeling is that the A6M2 is about right, except for the cannon's damage which suffer the MG/FF and Type 99 Model I issue and the dive speed being too high.  However I feel that the F4F-4 is modeled a bit optimistically in roll, turn, durability and high speed handling.  I do not believe HTC intentionally over models or under models anything.  I'd be insulted by the accusation if I were in their place.

I recall a WWII pilot watching us fly F4Fs against A6M2s and commenting that it looked neat, but if they'd ever turned like that against Zeroes, they'd have died.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2004, 10:12:56 PM by Karnak »
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
multi-position flaps...
« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2004, 10:24:18 PM »
..are not necessarily combat flaps. There is first the question of limiting speed and then the question of drag. A high drag flap is not a very good combat flap. I've never been convinced the AH model takes these into account.

-blogs

Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The 109 sure as hell had "combat" flaps.  THe 109s flaps could bve set to any angle wished by the pilot.

In AH the flap speed is too high for 109..

Anyway, that a different topic.  Lets talk about the zero a6m2..

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2004, 10:33:20 PM »
There is no multiposition in the 109, the pilot can literally dial in with his flap wheel any angle from full up to the max down. As for flap type the Bf109 has identical plain flaps as P51..  And there is record of Bf109 pilots letting down some flap to help in combat..

So the only issue is allowable speeds, and I have seen some data on this board that suggests AH flap speed for 109 is too high now.

As for drag from flaps, yea I'm kinda surprised how little full down flaps seem to hinder some planes after they use them...

But again this is thread about A6M2 being sluggish to manouver at low speeds, especially roll.

Why does everyone want to ignore that by talking about other topics or manouverability at higher speeds...
« Last Edit: October 09, 2004, 10:35:41 PM by GRUNHERZ »

Offline superpug1

  • Probation
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
Was A6M2 really this sluggish?
« Reply #29 on: October 09, 2004, 11:06:03 PM »
The A6m was designed for combat speed over 140mph and below 275mph. i think. So, it is reasonable to assume that it should not be flown past these areas. in my opinion. However i have found that with the use of flaps and rudders, it can make up for the bad aileron response. usually
Have fun:aok