A6M3

[Karnak]

HighTone,

Exactly.

Krusty,

Nobody is expecting a superplane, just an A6M that is a bit faster with a bit more ammo.  If we can have a Bf109G-2 and Bf109G-6 and have a Spitfire LF.Mk VIII and a Spitfire Mk XVI, then we can certainly afford to have an A6M2 and an A6M3.

[Plazus]

Given that HTC is presently working on remodeling the existing Zekes, I am quite sure they would add another variant to the planeset.

[321BAR]

As long as it'd be the A6M3/22 and not the A6M3/32 then im all for it The A6M3/32 was an even poorer model than the A6M2/21 from what i have read

[SectorNine50]

Does it still catch on fire as well as the other Zekes?

If so, +1.

Gotta light up the sky somehow...

[321BAR]

Does it still catch on fire as well as the other Zekes?

If so, +1.

Gotta light up the sky somehow...

[AirFlyer]

As long as it'd be the A6M3/22 and not the A6M3/32 then im all for it The A6M3/32 was an even poorer model than the A6M2/21 from what i have read

It's really not the overly poor plane you're making it out to be, it was just different. If I had to give a good reason to pick one over the other it would be the A6M3/22 had more produced then it's clipped wing brother and ends up being a better representative in what people are expecting out of an A6M in both numbers and performance.

[321BAR]

It's really not the overly poor plane you're making it out to be, it was just different. If I had to give a good reason to pick one over the other it would be the A6M3/22 had more produced then it's clipped wing brother and ends up being a better representative in what people are expecting out of an A6M in both numbers and performance.

that and the 32 had less lift ability (even less than the 5B) and could not turn even with the 5B iirc

So therefore, in terms of A6Ms, the A6M3/32 was crap...

[oboe]

I think there is more than just an ammo load difference wrt the cannon - the cannon on the A6M3 were faster-firing than those on the A6M2, IIRC.

+1 for the Model 22.

[Saxman]

I would vote for the Model 32 just because it WOULD be significantly different in both visual profile and flight characteristics. The Model 32 was also one of the main Zero types encountered by the Cactus Air Force during the first three months of the Guadalcanal campaign, so although it lacked the production numbers of the full-span Model 22, I would argue that historical significance is in favor of the 32.

[Wmaker]

less wing area (cropped tips) that lost rate of climb and loosened turn radius (which the Japanese hated losing)

An aircraft does not lose climb rate due to small reduction of wing area nor does it gain climb rate by increasing the wing area. Actually, the 190hp increase in sea level power output gives A6M3 better power loading and therefore better climbrate than A6M2, not worse.

Having a two speed supercharger which gives you roughly 6000ft higher FTH on the second gear compared single speed of the earlier engine is a clear improvement to any fighter.

[Krusty]

damn tarnation.. these freaking forums keep eating every other post I try to type. It's brassing me off big time to re-type things so much.

Wmaker, even with the 2-speed SC it was only about 10mph faster at its FTH. What you don't consider is that while 2-stages shifts that FTH up, it usually also introduces a rapid loss of power between the 2 peaks. The single stages are smoother with the power application and drop-off, so there's a good chance that the model 22 will be significantly faster than the A6M3 in the mid-alt range because it does not drop off.

I don't believe you are accurate in your assessments of the wing area and horsepower. You might be comparing the later A6M5b horsepower, but the M3 did not have the redesigned aerodynamics nor the redesigned thruster stacks on the exhaust to increase actual forward speed. The engine was still in an inefficient state and installation, and could not produce the speed and performance of the M5b we have in-game.

Your are saying that wing area has nothing to do with climb whatsoever, which is just wrong. We have examples of how this is wrong. We have had many previous discussions on these forums on the matter, and it all plays into the rate of climb (weight, speed, excess thrust, lift, drag, etc) and a general concensus might be that excess thrust is what really dictates climb rate. However, the A6M3 did not have that much more thrust than the Model 22 it replaced.

Then let's see about your comment that clipping the wings would change nothing. We know that's not the case because we have 2 nearly identical planes in AH right now. The spit 8 and 16 share the same airframe and the same engine. Their climb rate charts are nearly over-laid duplicates of each other. However, one has clipped wings and one has 280 lbs of extra gas onboard.

Surely you're not denying that heavier planes climb slower, right?

Identical power planes, identical airframes (sans 1-2 minor points) and yet the extra wing area on the spit 8 is more than enough to make up for 300lbs of extra weight and drag. Or, to state it the other way around, clipping the wings on the 300-lb-lighter spit16 drops it down to "merely" the climb rate of its heavier, draggier, brother. That alone tells you that clipping wings reduces climb rate to some extent. You can't totally ignore it.

[Wmaker]

Wmaker, even with the 2-speed SC it was only about 10mph faster at its FTH. What you don't consider is that while 2-stages shifts that FTH up, it usually also introduces a rapid loss of power between the 2 peaks. The single stages are smoother with the power application and drop-off, so there's a good chance that the model 22 will be significantly faster than the A6M3 in the mid-alt range because it does not drop off.

Don't tell me what I consider/ I don't consider, ok? I'm well aware how a 2-speed supercharger works. It is just like I said, having 6k higher FTH is a major improvement. Especially in the real war were the altitudes the combat took place were higher.

I don't believe you are accurate in your assessments of the wing area and horsepower. You might be comparing the later A6M5b horsepower, but the M3 did not have the redesigned aerodynamics nor the redesigned thruster stacks on the exhaust to increase actual forward speed. The engine was still in an inefficient state and installation, and could not produce the speed and performance of the M5b we have in-game.

Your are saying that wing area has nothing to do with climb whatsoever, which is just wrong. We have examples of how this is wrong. We have had many previous discussions on these forums on the matter, and it all plays into the rate of climb (weight, speed, excess thrust, lift, drag, etc) and a general concensus might be that excess thrust is what really dictates climb rate. However, the A6M3 did not have that much more thrust than the Model 22 it replaced.  

The shaft hp output for both the A6M3 and A6M5 are indentical 1130hp for take off. Yes, the exhaust thrust was less than A6M5's. The only way how the wingarea can make a difference to the climbrate is how much drag the wing contributes to the overall drag of the aircraft. When wingarea is decreased, climbing at the same climb speed as before the change should produce more induced drag but less parasitic drag as before the change. On the other hand, increasing climb speed reduces the induced drag and slightly increases the parasitic drag. It is a non issue no matter which way you look at it especially when the difference between the wing areas is only 1 sqm. A6M3 is heavier but like I said, has 190 more hp which gives it a clearly better power loading (2,3kg/hp vs. 2,5kg/hp). A6M3 climbs better than the A6M2, not the other way around.

[Wmaker]

Climb rate of the A6M2 in AH:


Data from US testing of a captured A6M3: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/hamp-eb201.html

AH's A6M2 initial rate of climb is ~2800ft/min. The A6M3 in US testing achieved 3260ft/min.

The difference is about what I'd expect considering the difference in power loading.

A6M3 has a better climb rate than A6M2.

[Krusty]

So you're saying that heavier planes don't climb slower all other things being equal?

You're saying that weight and wing area have NO impact on rate of climb?

Well... 10 years of reading this forum beg to differ with you. 


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.

P.P.S. That test claims high peak FTH was only 15k. Same as on the model 22 in AH. Other sources and you yourself point out it should be 19k FTH, so you can't even use that test as a valid example. Other sources claim 336 or 338 mph top speed while A6M2 is 331 mph a scant 4k lower.

[Wmaker]

So you're saying that heavier planes don't climb slower all other things being equal?

Never said anything that would suggest this. You again seem to have big troubles with reading comprehension.

You're saying that weight and wing area have NO impact on rate of climb?

Again, never said that weight doesn't have an impact on the rate of climb. You truly have troubles regarding reading. Once again, as you can see, the only way for the wing to affect the climb rate is through drag. And as I said before, the climb speed can change due to change in drag and/or wing loading. But any effect the ~1sqm difference makes to these values of the A6M is neglible compared to the clear difference in power loading.

Well... 10 years of reading this forum beg to differ with you.  

Reading anything for 10 years won't do much good if the said person doesn't understand what he's reading.

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.

P.P.S. That test claims high peak FTH was only 15k. Same as on the model 22 in AH. Other sources and you yourself point out it should be 19k FTH, so you can't even use that test as a valid example. Other sources claim 336 or 338 mph top speed while A6M2 is 331 mph a scant 4k lower.

The FTH's could have been all over the place for a number of reasons. If the power output at sea level corresponds to the usually given power output figures (A6M3: 1130hp vs. A6M2: 940hp) then the initial climb rate values are comparable.