Author Topic: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.  (Read 2572 times)

Offline fbWldcat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2011, 11:08:59 AM »
MY BABIES!!! MY BABIES ARE COMING!!! :x



DIE ALL OF YOU! :aok

 :x

I don't care if it is less maneuverable, I love the zeke... Especially if it can dive better on those pesky Brews...  :noid
Landing is overrated.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I: I took the one less traveled by." - Robert Frost
"Uncommon valor was a common virtue." <S>

Offline usvi

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2011, 11:16:14 AM »
A6M3 Type 0 Model 32
In late 1941, Nakajima introduced the Sakae 21, which used a two-speed supercharger for better altitude performance, and increased power to 840 kW (1,130 hp). Plans were made to introduce the new engine into the Zero as soon as possible.

The new Sakae was slightly heavier and somewhat longer due to the larger supercharger, which moved the center of gravity too far forward on the existing airframe. To correct for this the engine mountings were cut down by 20 cm (8 in), moving the engine back towards the cockpit. This had the side effect of reducing the size of the main fuel tank (located to the rear of the engine) from 518 L (137 US gal) to 470 L (120 US gal).

The only other major changes were to the wings, which were simplified by removing the Model 21's folding tips. This changed the appearance enough to prompt the US to designate it with a new code name, Hap. This name was short-lived, as a protest from USAAF commander General Henry "Hap" Arnold forced a change to "Hamp". Soon after, it was realized that it was simply a new model of the "Zeke". The wings also included larger ammunition boxes, allowing for 100 rounds for each of the 20 mm cannon.

The wing changes had much greater effects on performance than expected. The smaller size led to better roll, and their lower drag allowed the diving speed to be increased to 670 km/h (420 mph). On the downside, maneuverability was reduced, and range suffered due to both decreased lift and the smaller fuel tank. Pilots complained about both. The shorter range proved a significant limitation during the Solomons campaign of 1942.

The first Model 32 deliveries began in April 1942, but it remained on the lines only for a short time, with a run of 343 being built.
"Come with me and I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow." -Unteroffizer/Feldwebel Rolf Steiner

~POTW-Second Wing~
http://www.pigsonthewing.org/index.php

Offline fbWldcat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2011, 11:24:35 AM »
Better roll sounds like it could be a better defensive airplane. Snap rolls and barrel rolls. Diving also sounds like it'll be a nice little treat.
Landing is overrated.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I: I took the one less traveled by." - Robert Frost
"Uncommon valor was a common virtue." <S>

Offline StokesAk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3665
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2011, 11:36:15 AM »
To be honest, this A6M will give me more trouble than the others because it will be a little heavier and a whole different monster from the A6Ms we have in game now, I look forward to getting some screen shots of flaming zeros!
Strokes

Offline fbWldcat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2011, 11:43:36 AM »
To be honest, this A6M will give me more trouble than the others because it will be a little heavier and a whole different monster from the A6Ms we have in game now, I look forward to getting some screen shots of flaming zeros!

It's called learning.   ;)

I'll be flying the beauty quite a bit. I imagine it'll be a more maneuverable C.205? I'm not sure what to expect.
Landing is overrated.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I: I took the one less traveled by." - Robert Frost
"Uncommon valor was a common virtue." <S>

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2011, 10:19:47 AM »
Looking at the technical specs, everything suggest that it'll have a smaller turn radius than A6M5b and will therefore be more 'maneuverable'.

Looking at raw weights, it would be (guessing) able to turn tighter than the model 52, but not by much IMO.

Model 11: Weight: 3,704lb empty; 5,313lb loaded
Model 32: weight: 3,984lb empty; 5,609lb loaded
Model 52: weight: 4,136lb empty; 6,025lb loaded

Note that the empty weight of the A6M3 model 22 (with the restored wingtips) jumps up to 4107lb. IMO with such a minimal weight difference between it and the A6M5b I think maybe it might turn a little worse depending on the impact of those wingtips and the loss of lift.

But that's just nitpicking on my part. It's still going to be an early model zero and still going to out turn 95% of the planeset.

Offline Pigslilspaz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2011, 10:30:18 AM »
Looks like a minor B 'n Z Zeke, sounds fun

Quote from: Superfly
The rules are simple: Don't be a dick.
Quote from: hitech
It was skuzzy's <----- fault.
Quote from: Pyro
We just witnessed a miracle and I want you to @#$%^& acknowledge it!

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2011, 01:42:09 PM »
MO with such a minimal weight difference between it and the A6M5b I think maybe it might turn a little worse depending on the impact of those wingtips and the loss of lift.

A6M5b has a slightly smaller wingarea than A6M3 and is heavier.

Will be fun when the climb charts are published.

EDIT/I have hard time understanding how you call a ~400lbs weight difference 'minimal'.../EDIT
« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 01:55:49 PM by Wmaker »
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2011, 04:09:07 PM »
Model 32: weight: 3,984lb empty; 5,609lb loaded
Model 52: weight: 4,136lb empty; 6,025lb loaded


Because your 400lbs isn't 400lbs.

Most of that is gas weight. Looking at the empty weight you have 172 lbs difference. Most of that probably the weight lost from the wingtips.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2011, 04:16:45 PM »
Looking at the technical specs, everything suggest that it'll have a smaller turn radius than A6M5b and will therefore be more 'maneuverable'.

The plane designers thought the same thing but the improved maneuverability it apparently showed in the specs didn't pan out.  It was one of the reasons why on the A6M3 Model 22 that the Model 21's folded wing tips was introduced.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline mthrockmor

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2649
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2011, 04:21:32 PM »
Does better diving translate into control surfaces not freezing above 350 mph? The Zero could likely hit 400mph+ very easily in a dive but locks up worse then a 109, at least this is my experience. I don't fly it that much so won't speak too much. Just wondering out loud.

Boo
No poor dumb bastard wins a war by dying for his country, he wins by making the other poor, dumb, bastard die for his.
George "Blood n Guts" Patton

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2011, 04:28:11 PM »
I think it may translate into "the skin doesn't rip off as fast"

But in terms of AH "stiffening controls" I think it will be improved because the shorter wing means less forces to overcome when the controls tighten up. That means (probably, logically) you will retain some control for longer. Not because the forces are less, but because even with those forces you have less mass in the wings to move around given the same deflection.


(in my own words... sorry if that is confusing)

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #42 on: April 04, 2011, 05:24:50 PM »
The plane designers thought the same thing but the improved maneuverability it apparently showed in the specs didn't pan out.  It was one of the reasons why on the A6M3 Model 22 that the Model 21's folded wing tips was introduced.

The roll rate was improved. In WarBirds I remember it being almost 190-like at low speeds. Somehow, I doubt it will be anything like that in Aces High but it'll improved from A6M2 none the less. That alone is quite important considering the overall rather slow roll rate of the Zekes. Nothing I've read has specifically stated that A6M3 was less maneuverable than A6M5. A6M3 has a lower wingloading than A6M5 and same the airfoil. A6M5 has more thrust the amount of the greater exhaust thrust.

Francillons mentions that the designers were dissapointed with the results of the inital flight trials where the performance fell below calculated data. I've never seen any specific mention to turn radius for example or any comparison to A6M5. The wing tips were added to the A6M3a to keep the wing loading from increasing due to the further weight that was added to it.

Overall of course, the differences in turn radius are/will be small compared to the differences found in the 109-series for example.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #43 on: April 04, 2011, 05:49:10 PM »
Most of that is gas weight. Looking at the empty weight you have 172 lbs difference.

Do you have the weight schedule at hand for both of these fighters? If the answer in no, then I'd be pretty hesitant in making claims about what weight consists of. Take-off weight is a much better indicator what the plane weighs operationally. Does the empty weight include armament for example? Different companies/countries had different policies on wheather or not certain items were listed in the empty weight.


Most of that probably the weight lost from the wingtips.

Lost from wing tips? A6M5 didn't gain any wing tips at any stage. Do you realize that A6M5 actually has the same wing span of 11 meters as the A6M3? The slightly smaller wing area of the A6M5 (compared to A6M3) comes from the rounded wing tips.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.
« Reply #44 on: April 04, 2011, 05:50:46 PM »
My understanding is that the Model 32 saw in increase in the roll rate but that turn rate or maybe the turn radius didn't meet expectations.  I'll have to find the thread again in the J-Planes forums that had a pretty good discussion on the Model 32 and 22.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song