A6M3

[Noah17]

I haven't had a chance to fly the Hamp yet but, I can't imagine that it should roll anywhere near what a Spit 16 rolls just because it has the clipped wings. The 16 spins/rolls around like its on ball bearings...It's so quick it doesn't seem realistic to me.

The -3 did roll better than the A6M2 or, 5 but, I think the wing was basically the same and the ailerons might have had a only a little adjustment as well. So, IMO it should be the best maneuvering Zeke of the bunch.....But not like a Spit 16....Ha a Spit 16 shouldn't be like a Spit 16.....
 

[Karnak]

I haven't had a chance to fly the Hamp yet but, I can't imagine that it should roll anywhere near what a Spit 16 rolls just because it has the clipped wings. The 16 spins/rolls around like its on ball bearings...It's so quick it doesn't seem realistic to me.

The -3 did roll better than the A6M2 or, 5 but, I think the wing was basically the same and the ailerons might have had a only a little adjustment as well. So, IMO it should be the best maneuvering Zeke of the bunch.....But not like a Spit 16....Ha a Spit 16 shouldn't be like a Spit 16.....
 

1) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is not the best in the game, so I hardly see how you can make the claim that it is so quick as to not seem realistic.
2) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is taken directly from the NACA charts, as is the full span Spitfire's roll rate.

You're "feelings" don't hold water on this.

[EskimoJoe]

1) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is not the best in the game, so I hardly see how you can make the claim that it is so quick as to not seem realistic.
2) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is taken directly from the NACA charts, as is the full span Spitfire's roll rate.

You're "feelings" don't hold water on this.

Can't blame a man who appears to prefer the gull wings 

[Stoney]

Stoney, just because a wingtip is squared off doesn't mean it snap-stalls like the over-loaded Fw190.

Honestly, sometimes I don't know why I even bother.  Do you really think I'm that stupid to make a comparison based purely off of that?  Why not come in here and say something like "the Hamp display much lessened roll stability and worse low-speed handling characteristics compared to the A6M2 and A6M5.  Why is that?"

Instead, you instantly revert back to your patented "seat of your pants" aerodynamic analysis tool, and conclude HTC screwed up the plane.  Its exasperating.

[BnZs]

1) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is not the best in the game, so I hardly see how you can make the claim that it is so quick as to not seem realistic.

IIRC, it is the best in the game from 0-250, and 2nd best at around 300, only starting to loose out to certain very high speed rollers like the P-38 and P-47N at 400 and beyond.

[Karnak]

IIRC, it is the best in the game from 0-250, and 2nd best at around 300, only starting to loose out to certain very high speed rollers like the P-38 and P-47N at 400 and beyond.

F4Us and Fw190s are better for a wide spectrum and the Ki-84s is close to as good.  Quite a few are better above 400mph.

[Noah17]

1) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is not the best in the game, so I hardly see how you can make the claim that it is so quick as to not seem realistic.
2) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is taken directly from the NACA charts, as is the full span Spitfire's roll rate.

You're "feelings" don't hold water on this.

Can't blame a man who appears to prefer the gull wings  

LoL, the thing about gull wings is that you can pull the stick as hard as you want to and they won't tear off......Like a Spit's will Ha! LOL

Karnak must not have had his coffee before reading my post.......Don't be so sensitive; I didn't say it was the fastest in the game.......jeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz

[Karnak]

LoL, the thing about gull wings is that you can pull the stick as hard as you want to and they won't tear off......Like a Spit's will Ha! LOL

Karnak must not have had his coffee before reading my post.......Don't be so sensitive; I didn't say it was the fastest in the game.......jeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz

By claiming it was unrealistic you implied that WWII aircraft couldn't roll that fast, which by extension means the Fw190, F4U, P-38L and perhaps Ki-84's roll rates were also unrealistic.

Based on your more recent post I am guessing you were just uninformed about why it was modeled that way and were unaware that the data comes from wartime tests, not modern calculations.

[BnZs]

Praise God and Hitech that the A6M3 was NOT introduced as another silly uberplane that can roll and flop like a land trout AND swap ends almost instaneously.

[Karnak]

Praise God and Hitech that the A6M3 was NOT introduced as another silly uberplane that can roll and flop like a land trout AND swap ends almost instaneously.

Why would it have been?  There is no data saying its roll rate was massively boosted.

[BaldEagl]

Based on what?

I'm sure it was based on:

[BaldEagl]

I wanted to try the A6M3 tonight but it was disabled?

[icepac]

I like this plane!!

[Noah17]

I have not been able to find data that says roll rate was massively boosted. Only commentary that says roll rate was boosted and superior to the other A6M models.

The early version A6M-3 has the clipped wings and actually smaller ailerons than the A6M-2. So, you would wonder how much more roll ability you would have with less aileron.

The later version A6M-3 has the longer wing but in this case has aileron balancing tabs that reportedly reduced stick forces and probably improved roll rate simply because the pilot could move the stick easier.

I flew the A6M-3 the other day and I would say that from flying the 2 and 5 it seems to fit right in with what I would expect.

It's nice that AH has added this plane. It seems lately there are way too many whiners out there about things that are pretty silly. They've added the Hamp, they added the 29 and I'm sure there'll be more.....What's not to like?!?!?! I'd like to see the Oscar as well but that plane would have a tough time competing in the Late War arena.
I'm looking forward to the next FSO that features Zeke 2's and 3's with G4M's vs. F4U's and F4F's. We had something like that recently but.....I'd fly that all the time if I could.
 

[busa]

Hello, this is busa01.

About the roll rate of A6M3

In Japan, there is no data of the roll rate of A6M.
Then, I submit a pilot's testimony and quotation of reportｓ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the handling manual of Zero Mk2 mod.3
When high-speed, the stick force of Mk2 fighter is very light.
(When it compares with Mk1 figter) .
It is necessary to move the control stick of Mk1 fighter with both hands in the case of ACM.
And we have to move it with all one's force.
However, the stick force of Mk2 fighter is very light, and easy handling.

* Mk2 fighter is Model 32, Mk1 fighter is Model 21 early model not had aileron balancing tab.
* Later model of A6M2b　Model 21(Nakajima Avi mass-produced) had aileron balancing tab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Mk2 fighter also has report that the roll is light and it is very advantageous in ACM.
(When it compares with Mk1 figter) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WO Ohara Ryouji of the test pilot of Yokosuka NFG has said like this.
The roll performance of model 32 is better than model 52.
Because, the area of aileron of model 52 is smaller than model 32.
Therefore, model 52 has small aileron effect.
The model 32 had most excellent maneuverability.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally I am not testing A6M3 in AH in detail.
Therefore, nothing can be said yet about the performance in AH.

Thank you for reading my poor English.