A6M3 (Zeke 32)

[Karnak]

Lacks the ejector stacks of the A6M5, so it was 15-20mph slower than the A6M5.

[storch]

also had slightly more cannon ammo

[AirFlyer]

Originally posted by Kweassa
...Seeing how the recent HTC policy in bringing in new variants, have always seen a remodelling of the 3Ds, there's no reason why it should be one or the other for the Zeros.

Give us the A6M3, and redo the A6M2 and A6M5, too...

I second that.

[Kweassa]

The A6M3 is an A6M2 with the A6M5's 1,130hp engine, so what you get is a variant with the power of the M5, but the lame armament of the M2. That really fills a gap we need filled? Where? In the EWA?

 The Bf109G-6 is just a G-2 with the MG17s replaced with MG131 13mms.

 The Spit9('42) is essentially a Spit5 with a better engine.

 The La-7 is a La-5FN that is streamlined in a more aerodynamic fashion.

 The P-38L is a P-38J with boosted ailerons...

 ...rinse and repeat with crapload of all the other planes.

 ...

 So, you tell me where each of the above finds a "use", and then tell me if the A6M3 cannot fill the same "use" any of the above listed can.

[storch]

Originally posted by Kweassa
The Bf109G-6 is just a G-2 with the MG17s replaced with MG131 13mms.

 The Spit9('42) is essentially a Spit5 with a better engine.

 The La-7 is a La-5FN that is streamlined in a more aerodynamic fashion.

 The P-38L is a P-38J with boosted ailerons...

 ...rinse and repeat with crapload of all the other planes.

 ...

 So, you tell me where each of the above finds a "use", and then tell me if the A6M3 cannot fill the same "use" any of the above listed can.

those are all examples of refinement and the answer to your question is of course the same should be applied to the A6M as well as the Ki61 and the Ki84.  

there needs to be interim modifications to the A6M.  

the Ki61 will benefit from earlier models such as the Ki61-I with 2 .303-in. MG in the cowl and 2 12.7mmm in the wings.  this variant was reported to climb much better than the Ki61-I-KAIc we have.  there is also the Ki61-Ib with 4-12.7mm which performed just as well as the -I.  when tested against captured kittyhawks, spits and a Bf109E.  the Ki-61-Ib generally outperformed these aircraft including climb rates.  a small number of Ki-61-Id saw operational service with two wing mounted 30mm cannon.  

with refinements to the airframes and improvements to the Ha-140 engine the Ki-61-II saw squadron service starting in Jan. 1944 the Ki-61-IIa was armed with 2 fuselage mounted 12.7mm MG and 2 wing mounted 20mm Ho-5 cannon.  the Ki-61-IIb was essentially the same airplane with 4 20mm wing mounted Ho-5 cannon.

as you can see there are considerable additions to added to japanese planeset that would fill huge time and performance gaps in the early and midwar arenas right there in the Ki-61 airframe.

adding the Ki-100 which was reported to fly at 367mph at 10,000 feet (compared to the 348mph for the Ki-61) should prove to be a simple addition in terms of modelling as the airframe is the similar to the Ki-61.

[EagleDNY]

Originally posted by Kweassa
The Bf109G-6 is just a G-2 with the MG17s replaced with MG131 13mms.

 The Spit9('42) is essentially a Spit5 with a better engine.

 The La-7 is a La-5FN that is streamlined in a more aerodynamic fashion.

 The P-38L is a P-38J with boosted ailerons...

 ...rinse and repeat with crapload of all the other planes.

 ...

 So, you tell me where each of the above finds a "use", and then tell me if the A6M3 cannot fill the same "use" any of the above listed can.

The difference between everything you have listed and the A6M3 is that we ALREADY HAVE THOSE (and we still don't have cockpit updates on the LA-7).  So before we ask HTC to engage in a 4-month development effort to bring you the A6M3, I humbly submit that there are better uses for the limited development time available.

The P38H is an up-engined P38G - so what?  Maybe if they spent 4 months creating the 38H, we might get a few of the 38 drivers to try it out.  I wonder how many people would actually make it their ride of choice?  Enough to justify the development effort when so many other rides are waiting to be added to the game?

Development time costs money and is limited - HTC should spend it where it will do the most good, and IMHO the A6M3 doesn't fit that bill.

EagleDNY
$.02

[Vudak]

Um...  Eagle...  Those things you speak of us "already having" didn't exist right from the very beginning of this game...  They were all added.  You've been around for at least almost four years.  How'd you miss that?

When ANY plane series gets its facelift, it stands to reason that new models of it, when applicable, should be added.  The staff has all the paperwork and such for the series laying out there in the open, and they're probably more familiar with them at that time than any other.  Why not add other models then and there?

Just saying, you're gonna need a different argument.

----

Anyway,

My favorite plane is already taken care of, so I really don't have a strong personal preference for what is next.  However, if CT is ever in a million years going to be released, I'd think they'd concentrate on upgrading the remainder of the ETO lineup before working on something else.

The Typhoon, Tempest, Ta152, and I believe a few bombers, still need to be upgraded for CT to look nice all around.  I suppose since it's 8th AF, the Typhoon and Tempest could wait, but I also suppose that there will be AI squads flying those, and thus they could use the facelift.

Really though I would love to have more Japanese aircraft to enable different scenarios and AvA setups.  It's kind of hard to do things like Rabaul when half the aircraft fighting over it are nowhere to be found in this game (check my sig for why I might want to do such a scenario )

More Russian aircraft would also be great, as would more Italian planes.

But, I remember Air Warrior III, and how we never got a new map or plane for it.  Aces High works great for me in that respect.  I can't even count how many planes have been added in the short time I've been around.

[EagleDNY]

Guys - all I'm really trying to say is that there are so many better things they could be spending the development time on.  I view the wishlist as a list of things to add next.  The A6M3 just isn't on my list of "needed next".

Don't get me wrong - I FLY the A6M5 and I would love for it to get a cockpit revision and flight model update (although I find it flies just fine).  There are few enough of us that actually will take out an A6M in the land of Spit 16s, P51s, and La-7s.  If there was an A6M model that would help me out there, it sure isn't the M3.  If you want to make a case for the M6, or even the M7, go ahead - I might vote yes on that one.  But spending a lot of time creating another hanger queen doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

EagleDNY
$.02

[Tiger]

Originally posted by EagleDNY
But spending a lot of time creating another hanger queen doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

A6M is a hangar queen?  That's news to me, I see them everywhere.  Wish I could get to the stats page here from work to look up how much a 'tower queen' the A6M is.

[AirFlyer]

Originally posted by EagleDNY
Guys - all I'm really trying to say is that there are so many better things they could be spending the development time on.  I view the wishlist as a list of things to add next.  The A6M3 just isn't on my list of "needed next".

Don't get me wrong - I FLY the A6M5 and I would love for it to get a cockpit revision and flight model update (although I find it flies just fine).  There are few enough of us that actually will take out an A6M in the land of Spit 16s, P51s, and La-7s.  If there was an A6M model that would help me out there, it sure isn't the M3.  If you want to make a case for the M6, or even the M7, go ahead - I might vote yes on that one.  But spending a lot of time creating another hanger queen doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

EagleDNY
$.02

The M6 M7 M8 models would seem less important to me for two reasons.

1. Models after the M5 were all essentially designed for Kamakazi role and stacked with bombs and some better gun upgrades, but were hardly ever used for fighting. And since we can't Kamakazi in this game(which I find is a good thing) I don't see much reason for them.

2. Those models were never produced in significant numbers because it was far to late in the war for the Japanese to build many. If I remember it was about 100 M6's created, I can't recall how many M7's and something like 2 M8 prototypes.

[1K3]

Service dates

late 1941 to early 1942:  A6M2
late 1942 to early 1943:  ????????
late 1943 to early 1944:  A6M5

We are missing a variant for late 1942 to early 1943 and that would be the A6M3.

There are 2 types of A6M3: clipped wing (model 32) and full wing (model 22)

If we get the A6M3, it should be the model 32.  Model 32 has the same cannons as the A6M2 (Type 99 Mk I) but with 80 more rounds.  Range shorter than A6M2 because of the big engine and a smaller fuselage tank

[68Hawk]

Yeah it would be a little faster with a little more cannon ammo.  I'll bet the wings were a little stronger too.

It would be nice to have this for midwar special events.  The m2 is too wimpy and the m5 is too overblown.

[EagleDNY]

Originally posted by Tiger
A6M is a hangar queen?  That's news to me, I see them everywhere.  Wish I could get to the stats page here from work to look up how much a 'tower queen' the A6M is.

Look up the stats on kills / sorties in the A6M5 vs the A6M2.  When I see an A6M, it is much more likely to be an M5 than an M2.  If HTC spends a lot of time creating a ride inferior to the M5, how many folks would fly that as opposed to the M5 model?  Would it be enough to justify the development time & expense?  I just don't think so.

They are right (up the thread) that relatively few M6 and M7 models were made.    Most of the kamikazes used the early models first (makes sense, if you are going to plow a plane into a ship, better to plow the older plane and keep the newer one).

[AirFlyer]

Originally posted by EagleDNY
Look up the stats on kills / sorties in the A6M5 vs the A6M2.  When I see an A6M, it is much more likely to be an M5 than an M2.  If HTC spends a lot of time creating a ride inferior to the M5, how many folks would fly that as opposed to the M5 model?  Would it be enough to justify the development time & expense?  I just don't think so.

They are right (up the thread) that relatively few M6 and M7 models were made.    Most of the kamikazes used the early models first (makes sense, if you are going to plow a plane into a ship, better to plow the older plane and keep the newer one).

I would use it, I think it would fit a nice balance between the two. The M2 has to little(to no) armor and few bullets but exellent maneuverability and the M5 its less maneuverable with some armor and a fair amount of bullets. The M3 is about middel on the extremes of both planes, fair ammo amount with a small amount more armor then the M2 and better guns, while still more maneuverable then the M5.

Hell I woulden't mind seeing the M6, giveing me 3x 13mm and 2x 20mm on a Zero would be awesome, but considering the amount of them built and used it dosen't quite seem realistic unless your going to perk it or just use it in scenarios while the M3 can fit in both the MA's and scenarios.

[Bino]

Personally, I'd like to see more early and mid-war planes added, overall.  

So I'm in favor of adding the A6M3.  

And if HTC will add more Japanese planes, please include the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar), the most common of all the fighters used by the IJAAF.