Updating the Zero

[Saxman]

The Zero is one of several aircraft in need of update. In addition, there's some room to expand the roster a bit:

A6M2 Model 21 - As we have now.

A6M3 Model 32 - Although fewer were produced than the full-span Model 22, using the clipped-wing variant would set it apart from the others more. Additionally, the clipped-wing "Hamp" was encountered in rather large numbers during the Guadalcanal campaign. Whether the Model 32 or 22, however, the A6M3 would be invaluable for the mid-war period which currently substitutes the much less appropriate A6M5b (closer in vintage to our F4U-1A, c.1944).

A6M5 Model 52 - The A6M5 could be modeled like the I-16 with several armament options:

• Model 52 - 2x7.7mm and 2x20mm; Mk3 drum magazine with 100rds/gun for the 20mm
• Model 52a - 2x7.7mm and 2x20mm; Mk4 belt feed with 125rds/gun for the 20mm (125rds/gun for all subsequent gun options)
• Model 52b - 1x7.7mm, 1x12.7mm and 2x20mm (as we have now)
• Model 52c - 3x12.7mm (one in the cowl and two in the wings) and 2x20mm

This would especially allow some flexibility for special events, by including early and late armament options.

A6M6 Model 53c - The changes over the Model 52 were the addition of fully self-sealed fuel tanks and a different engine. The Sakae 31a engine on the Model 53 added water-menthol injection, which would give it a small performance increase (by about 80hp) over the Model 52 because of WEP (the only Zeke that would have it). The self-sealing fuel tanks would also be a BIG change to the Zero by making it less likely to light on fire. Armament and ordinance loadout options are the same as the Model 52c. More performance information SHOULD be available, as one of the three remaining (original) Zeros still in flyable condition is an A6M6.

The addition of WEP and self-sealing fuel tanks should set the A6M6 apart from the rest of the Zeros enough to warrant its inclusion.

[Masherbrum]

Update the Ki-61 first.

[AirFlyer]

The Zero is one of several aircraft in need of update. In addition, there's some room to expand the roster a bit:

A6M2 Model 21 - As we have now.

A6M3 Model 32 - Although fewer were produced than the full-span Model 22, using the clipped-wing variant would set it apart from the others more. Additionally, the clipped-wing "Hamp" was encountered in rather large numbers during the Guadalcanal campaign. Whether the Model 32 or 22, however, the A6M3 would be invaluable for the mid-war period which currently substitutes the much less appropriate A6M5b (closer in vintage to our F4U-1A, c.1944).

A6M5 Model 52 - The A6M5 could be modeled like the I-16 with several armament options:

• Model 52 - 2x7.7mm and 2x20mm; Mk3 drum magazine with 100rds/gun for the 20mm
• Model 52a - 2x7.7mm and 2x20mm; Mk4 belt feed with 125rds/gun for the 20mm (125rds/gun for all subsequent gun options)
• Model 52b - 1x7.7mm, 1x12.7mm and 2x20mm (as we have now)
• Model 52c - 3x12.7mm (one in the cowl and two in the wings) and 2x20mm

This would especially allow some flexibility for special events, by including early and late armament options.

A6M6 Model 53c - The changes over the Model 52 were the addition of fully self-sealed fuel tanks and a different engine. The Sakae 31a engine on the Model 53 added water-menthol injection, which would give it a small performance increase (by about 80hp) over the Model 52 because of WEP (the only Zeke that would have it). The self-sealing fuel tanks would also be a BIG change to the Zero by making it less likely to light on fire. Armament and ordinance loadout options are the same as the Model 52c. More performance information SHOULD be available, as one of the three remaining (original) Zeros still in flyable condition is an A6M6.

The addition of WEP and self-sealing fuel tanks should set the A6M6 apart from the rest of the Zeros enough to warrant its inclusion.

+100 It's been on the top of my list for a while to see the Zero get updated. Not a big deal but worth noting that no Zero has a .50 caliber gun, rather the 13.2mm is often mistaken for them.

That aside my vote would be for the A6M3 Model 22 but I'd be happy with the 32 as well. The nice thing about the 22 would be that some of them were built with the Type 99 Mk. II 20mms using drum feed system instead of the MK. I's that the A6M2 use. I don't think the A6M6c was produced heavily enough to merit it's introduction. Production amounts become pretty sketchy after the A6M5 series but I believe perhaps a handful of the A6M6c's were made. The A6M5c would be interesting if there is enough modeling data, the armament on it is particularly lethal IMO but at the same time the weight from all the upgrades could make it handful to fly.

Again, great wish and I'm all in favor of it.

[Karnak]

A6M5 Model 52 has no armor.

A6M5 Model 52a, 52b and 52c have an armored windscreen and some fire suppression equipment.

Because of that, I don't think they can be done like the I-16.

[BrownBaron]

+1

[Saxman]

I'm sure there had to be at least as many A6M6s produced as P-47Ms, our current record hold for rarest type with what, 100 examples? Certainly more than there were Wirblewinds or Ostwinds. Besides, as I mentioned it would be a big change from the earlier models with WEP and being more survivable.

Regarding the A6M3, the reason I went with the 32 was it would stand out from the 21 and 52 more. It would certainly be different: higher rate of roll and dive speed sacrificing some maneuverabilty, range and rate of climb.

Masher,

Why? Y'know, because considering that the A6M is arguably the main Japanese fighter I'd say it needs the update--oh, and the Ki-43 needs to be ADDED before looking at the Tony.

Karnak,

The various I-16 models represented by the gun packages also had engine differences, IIRC. The F4F-3 had longer range and was lighter and faster than the -4, yet is represented by a gun package. Best example is the B-239 representing the B-339/339E and F2A-3 with a gun package (3x.50 and 1x.30cal) despite weight differences in all three models.

[AirFlyer]

It's been awhile since I looked at production numbers for the Zero, looking at it now their might have been a good few of them made. If I recall the A6M6c started in early '45 and it seems the production numbers for Zero is about a 1,000 during that year(Sounds questionably high to me though). Now I can't say those are A6M6c's or if a lot of them are just A6M5b's but it does give the model a but more credibility. Actually if anyone has any detailed info on the production numbers I'd be interested to hear it. That aside, I'm questionable of it's performance, armor, more armor, guns, ammo, etc is a lot of weight to throw on a plane that is already fairly slow by most standards. The Sakae 31 wasn't really any different from the Sakae 21 in terms of performance except the WEP. It wasn't until the A6M8 with the Kinsei-62 that it saw a sizable increase in engine power. All this of it's performance is moot when it comes to qualification to be modeled or not though, just food for thought.

[Masherbrum]

Masher,

Why? Y'know, because considering that the A6M is arguably the main Japanese fighter I'd say it needs the update--oh, and the Ki-43 needs to be ADDED before looking at the Tony.

In this game, the Ki-61 doesn't have the correct turn radius for starters.   

[Nisky]

Im all for this update of the a6ms. P-47M had a 130 produced.

[StokesAk]

+1

The A6M doenst even have a stick.

[Karnak]

I'm sure there had to be at least as many A6M6s produced as P-47Ms, our current record hold for rarest type with what, 100 examples? Certainly more than there were Wirblewinds or Ostwinds.

Current and long term champion, unlikely to be unseated, is the Ta152 with 47 built.

The various I-16 models represented by the gun packages also had engine differences, IIRC. The F4F-3 had longer range and was lighter and faster than the -4, yet is represented by a gun package. Best example is the B-239 representing the B-339/339E and F2A-3 with a gun package (3x.50 and 1x.30cal) despite weight differences in all three models.

True.

[Saxman]

Wow, didn't realize that few 152s were built. Thought it was somewhere just under 200.

Still not sure on total numbers of the Model 53 produced, but it does appear than numbers of A6M5c's were upgraded in the field to the same standards as the A6M6c. This is in addition to aircraft that were manufactured at the factory AS A6M6's, so I think there's enough to warrant inclusion. Presumably most of what came off the assembly lines in 1945 would have been built to A6M6 standards, even if they started as 5c's re-engined and equipped with the self-sealing fuel tanks before being shipped out.

[edge12674]

YES, THE ZERO NEEDS AN OVERHAUL!!  The main fighter of a major Axis power doesn't even have a redone cockpit.  It is like leaving out an upgrade for a  P-51 or Spitfire.

Tshark
=Ghosts=
 

[Krusty]

While I'm all for the addition of the A6M3, folks should recognize that it was not a major step up from the Model 22, performance wise.


The 32 had clipped wings, a different engine, and the different engine mounts necessitated removing an internal gas tank to make room for it. Pilots did not like the loss of lift from the wingtips, relying almost entirely on manuverability to get their job done. On top of that, the reduced fuel range was disliked as well for obvious reasons (these are CV planes, range = GOOD!).

Later versions added the wingtips back, and also added another internal gas tank, essentially restoring it to almost the same plane as a Model 22.

It's less than 10mph faster, despite having a different engine, and the only real difference would be 100 rounds per cannon instead of 60.


That said, it's good to round out the swiss-cheese Japanese planeset, but don't expect a war-winner by requestiong the Model 32 (just for those reading that think it will have a giant leap over the US planes)


EDIT: P.S. I'd love to see a late-ware A6M5C as well!!

[Saxman]

While I'm all for the addition of the A6M3, folks should recognize that it was not a major step up from the Model 22, performance wise.


The 32 had clipped wings, a different engine, and the different engine mounts necessitated removing an internal gas tank to make room for it. Pilots did not like the loss of lift from the wingtips, relying almost entirely on manuverability to get their job done. On top of that, the reduced fuel range was disliked as well for obvious reasons (these are CV planes, range = GOOD!).

Later versions added the wingtips back, and also added another internal gas tank, essentially restoring it to almost the same plane as a Model 22.

It's less than 10mph faster, despite having a different engine, and the only real difference would be 100 rounds per cannon instead of 60.


That said, it's good to round out the swiss-cheese Japanese planeset, but don't expect a war-winner by requestiong the Model 32 (just for those reading that think it will have a giant leap over the US planes)


EDIT: P.S. I'd love to see a late-ware A6M5C as well!!

Krusty,

As I said, though, it's important as a gap filler for the mid-war period as the A6M5b is more accurately a late-war bird with how our arena plane sets are split up. And I chose the Model 32 specifically because it would be more distinct from the A6M2 Model 21 and A6M5 Model 52 than would the Model 22 (I think you have your models reversed on the A6M2 and full-span A6M3).

The same approach as the A6M5--using multiple gun packages to represent several variants--could also be used on a number of other Japanese aircraft. IE, the Ki-43:

Ki-43-I

• Ki-43-Ia - 2x7.7mm
• Ki-43-Ib - 1x7.7mm and 1x12.7mm
• Ki-43-Ic - 2x12.7mm, would also serve as a Ki-43-IIa with this armament configuration if you give the Ki-43-I the option for 1100lbs of bombs

Ki-43-III - Uprated engine and drop tank provisions

• Ki-43-IIIa - 2x12.7mm
• Ki-43-IIIb - 2x20mm

That's five different variations of the Ki-43, (six if you consider a 2x12.7mm package with bombs to be a Ki-43-IIa) with only two actual models if you use gun package options. The Japanese plane set appears to REALLY be much more flexible in this regard than many other nation's plane sets.