A6M3

[LLogann]

Which match burns better?  Atlas or Diamond?

[321BAR]

P.S. I would not trust a US test of a zero of any type. They seriously didn't know what the hell they were doing half the time. Actual japanese power settings were often lower and slower and the real war-time performance was not what US test showed in several cases.

Wmaker... the Japanese at the war's end used 87 octane fuel while the US used 100 octane. All of the US tested Japanese planes performed above and beyond what they could actually do during the war just because of the octane difference. I remember reading somewhere in these forums earlier this month that the KI-84 on 100 octane could keep near P51 mustang speeds. This would completely ruin any comparison of US test planes and actual Japanese aircraft used during the war. The Japanese at the end of the war were even using pine oil as an additive to fuel.

Resume your bashing

[Wmaker]

Wmaker... the Japanese at the war's end used 87 octane fuel while the US used 100 octane.

Not as simple as that at all.

First of all, higher octane fuels only helps at producing more power if you push the engine beyond its normally rated setting which were set with the lower octane fuels in mind.

In that US flight test report it says:

"The principal results are as follows. All flight tests were performed at rated power and no data is available at maximum emergency power, 2600 RPM and 40" Hg. manifold pressure."

So the tests were performed 36"@2400rpm setting. In Aces High, A6M5's Sakae 21 runs at 41" all out, which is close to the Japanese sources regarding to the +300mm power setting which produces that 1130hp -figure. So, the US tests were actually performed at lower power setting than what the Japanese could use in combat.

Obviously this becomes more complex when one digs further. It is totally possible that Pyro completely remodels the flight models of the Zeros from scratch like he did for the Mosquito. We'll have to wait and see. However, one thing is certain regardless what the exact performance figures will be. If HTC adds A6M3 its climb rate will be closer to the A6M5 than A6M2. Physics can't be fooled.

[Kazaa]

Trust me, there's two more A6M models coming.

[Karnak]

Trust me, there's two more A6M models coming.

What makes you say that?

[HighTone]

Trust me, there's two more A6M models coming.

I hope so 

[Volron]

Now that they are remodeling the Zero's, which plane is in DIRE need of a remodel?  Isn't the B-26 we currently have not been updated since it was introduced?

I am hoping they remodel the B-26 and/or the Ju-87 next. 


Either way, I drool at what the A6M2 is going to look like....*drools*

[Krusty]

What good is an A6M2 without something shooting it down? I would like hurricanes/p40s/wildcats to go along with it!


(but that's just personal wishing)

[B4Buster]

+1 to the OP. As far as performance goes...Krusty, you make good points. The 3 is heavier. You seem to ignore the fact that the 3 also had more hp as wmaker said, though. I am a bit over my head in discussing the zero, but maker posted power to weight ratios, and they favor the A6M3. Is that not good enough? (Asking sincerely, I have little knowledge of the zeke)

[Krusty]

Your defense is basically "you don't know how to read"???

You are saying that clipping wingtips will not affect climb rate. You are saying, explicitly, that a plane with more weight and less wing area will climb better with a mere 100 hp or so?

Japanese pilots thought the climb rate was worse than the model 21. Time to climb numbers seem to indicate the Zeke32 took more time to get to alt thand the model21 did.

I gave you a nearly perfect example which you ignored:

In-game we already have the perfect example of how clipping wingtips affects climb rate. Spit8 and Spit16.

Even the clipped-wing early model with reduced main fuel tankage weighed more than its predecessor. Once the pilots decried the poor range (made worse by the new engine sucking gas faster than the previous engine) and the lack of manuverability, the fuel was upped and the wingtips restored. This jumped up to 220kg more than the model22! It weighed almost as much as the later A6M5b but without the actual performance to go with it.

So, 100 [edit: 150?] extra horsepower overcomes 500lbs extra weight plus less lifting capacity due to clipped wings?

You're going to have to prove that one, Wmaker, before others buy your hunch.

[SectorNine50]

There is hardly a difference between the 16 and 8 and climb rates:





Hell, the 16's is even slightly better until you get above ~22,000 feet.

Not to mention the 16 is faster than the 8:

Even the clipped-wing early model with reduced main fuel tankage weighed more than its predecessor. Once the pilots decried the poor range (made worse by the new engine sucking gas faster than the previous engine) and the lack of manuverability, the fuel was upped and the wingtips restored. This jumped up to 220kg more than the model22! It weighed almost as much as the later A6M5b but without the actual performance to go with it.

I'm pretty sure the wingtips and fuel load were restored on the 22, not the 32.  They couldn't just add more fuel capacity to the 32, the engine was pushed backwards due to the supercharger which is why the fuel capacity dropped to begin with.

[Bino]

Please push this out.
Just about every Pacific event suffers because we don't have the A6M3. It would fill a huge hole we have had for years. 

Yes, please.   

PTO events would benefit from a more complete IJN and IJA plane set.

[Squire]

Bump.

A6M3 please. Either the 22 (full span) or 32 (clipped wing) model. Be happy with either.

Its also not about wether or not it was a "huge leap" over the A6M2 its about having the aircraft in the game that flew in WW2.

Far as im concerned the additional 20mm ammo is reason enough to include it. In any case it was a common varient in the 1942-43 Solomons air battles. If you want a super duper IJ fighter for the MA go fly a Ki-84 or an N1K2.


 

[Wmaker]

You are saying that clipping wingtips will not affect climb rate.

If you go and check my first post on this thread you'll see what I said. I said that a small change won't make a difference, especially considering the topic; A6M2 vs. A6M3. Obviously, if you remove the wing area completely the aircraft won't do much climbing...

You are saying, explicitly, that a plane with more weight and less wing area will climb better with a mere 100 hp or so?

It all depends on how big of a change occurs for each of these parameters but normally, the more excess thrust the better the climb rate. Simply because there's more power available per the weight that is being lifted against gravity. I've already explained this earlier in this thread. But if you don't believe me, read here about climb performance. And try to pay attention. Like I've said many times on this thread, the hp difference between Sakae 12 and 21 is 190hp, not 100hp or 150hp.

Japanese pilots thought the climb rate was worse than the model 21.

If you stating this as an argument, I'm sure you can then quote these Japanese pilots here, right? Sources, please.

Time to climb numbers seem to indicate the Zeke32 took more time to get to alt thand the model21 did.

The climb times given in Rene Francillons book say just the opposite. What is your source which claims that it took A6M3 longer to climb to any specific alt?

I gave you a nearly perfect example which you ignored:

In-game we already have the perfect example of how clipping wingtips affects climb rate. Spit8 and Spit16.

The reason I ignored it is because we are talking about Zeros here. I'm not gonna start double checking Spit figures to humor you. Lets keep the discussion in the planes this topic is about.

Once the pilots decried the poor range (made worse by the new engine sucking gas faster than the previous engine) and the lack of manuverability, the fuel was upped and the wingtips restored. This jumped up to 220kg more than the model22! It weighed almost as much as the later A6M5b but without the actual performance to go with it.

I know the range was reduced. Has nothing to do with the discussion about the climb rate though. Hmm...Model 22 (also refererred to as A6M3a) came after the A6M3 (Model 32). Model 22 actually weighed more than the A6M3 (Model 32), not the other way around.

Loaded weights from Francillon:

A6M2 (Model 21): 5313lbs
A6M3 (Model 32): 5609lbs
A6M5 (Model 52): 6025lbs

A6M3a (Model 22) weight in Japanese literature is listed as 5906lbs, 297lbs more than the Model 32.

So, the difference in weight between the A6M2 and A6M3 (Model 32) is 134kg.

So, 100 [edit: 150?] extra horsepower overcomes 500lbs extra weight plus less lifting capacity due to clipped wings?

As you can see above, my figures tell a different story.

Compared to the A6M2, A6M3 (Model 32) gained 295lbs in weight, not 500lbs and had 190hp more power, not 100hp or 150hp.

These translate to power loadings:

A6M2: 2,57 kg/hp
A6M3: 2.25 kg/hp

You're going to have to prove that one, Wmaker, before others buy your hunch.

It's you who has "a hunch" and it's you who hasn't provided any proof.

[Wmaker]

Trust me, there's two more A6M models coming.

I truly hope so. Zero was the backbone of the entire IJN throughout the Pacific War. It certainly deserves four variants. IMO both Model 32 and Model 22 could both be added. I'd like to even see a Rufe thrown in but I'm guessing that's a pipedream.