A6M2 Type 21 or A6M7 Type 63 Which one (or both)?

[brady]

How about a new Zero variant?

  A6M2 Type 21:

 


  weight: 5,313lb
  wing loading lb/sq ft: 22 power loading
  power loading Lb/sq ft: 5.4
  max spead: 331.5mph @ 14,930 ft
  5 min 50 sec to 16,400ft

  A6M7 Type 63:

   

  weight: 6,600lb
  wing loading Lb/sq ft: 28.9
  power loading Lb/sq ft: 6.7
  max spead: 337 mph @ 20,992ft
  7 min 58sec to 19,680 ft

  The A6M2 had 2 7.7mm type 97 mg's and 2 20mm type 99 mk I cannons.

  The A6M7 had 3 13mm mg's and 2 20mm type 99 II's.

 Either would be great and would be fun for scenarious, personaly I am torn between the heaver aramenent, and the better handeling and climb

[GRUNHERZ]

I say go for the 21 and also add an early P40, early P39/P400, and an F4F2.

[kreighund]

Even though only two were built the A6M8 Model 64 would give a good run for the money and restore the myth of supreme manuverability of the zero or at least make the zero bashers rethink their comments.....

there, that threw the gas on the fire!!!!

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: kreighund ]

[brady]

Or how about an A6M5c, it differs primary from our b by adding 2 13mm mg's in the wings and removing the 7.7mm from the cowl, added better fuel tank protection and armor behind piolet seat.

[allowe]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
I say go for the 21 and also add an early P40, early P39/P400, and an F4F2.

The P40(B or C) would make sense, as would the P39D and/or P400(with 20mm instead of 37mm).  But AFAIK, the earliest F4F model to see combat was usually the F4F3 with 4x.50 M.G.s with about 400 RPG.  Or was it 425?  But I'd not want the F4F4.  Sure, it had 6x.50 M.G.s, but only about 250 RPG.

[Citabria]

a6m3 22 and a6m3 32 were the definitive versions of the zero.

[Sancho]

yep, I'd rather have an A6M3.