Stoney, just because a wingtip is squared off doesn't mean it snap-stalls like the over-loaded Fw190. You can have bad low-speed handling WITHOUT such behaviors. See the P-39 for example Mushes really bad, lacks power, doesn't snap-stall inverted, now does it? On the A6M3 the wing LOADING is still very light, as evidenced by the weight being barely 200lbs more than the A6M2, the climb rate being better (in-game) than the A6M5, and the turn radius being between the two. The overall performance indicates a plane with very light handling. Instead it's dipping wings like the VERY nasty stalls of the C202 and the Fw190. The kind where you get slow and try to pull a G or two and find yourself instantly upside down? Are you familiar with those? I even got the alternating wingtip stalls that I hadn't seen in most planes since before the airflow recode.
I think it's a pretty obvious statement to say that the model 32 shouldn't do that. It's a zero. It shouldn't do it any more than the spit16 should. They both come from families of planes with VERY docile and forgiving stall characteristics, and if you really really try you can put them in a bad position, but this was a very simple chop throttle and bank 90 degrees and pull up evasive.
It was not indicative of the A6M flight modeling thus far. It was, as I mentioned, more like a I-16 in squirrelyness than it was like a modified A6M. This is based on over 10 years of the flight model HTC built for the other zekes as well as pilot commentary LACKING such comments about it being a nasty stalling unstable disaster.
I'm going to chalk that all up to public knowledge, readily avilable info, personal experience, and pattern recognition up to this point in history. THAT is what I base my opinion upon for the comments about A6M3 "should NOT snap stall like that".
