A6M3

[1Nicolas]

They are finally adding the A6M3!

[Wmaker]

To sum up... Less gas, which the japanese hated losing, less wing area (cropped tips) that lost rate of climb and loosened turn radius (which the Japanese hated losing)

The climb charts are here.

Here you go Krusty:


A6M3 climbs much better than the A6M2. Not the other way around.

[Krusty]

As I've learned recently, HTC's climb charts are utterly useless. They don't often rely on useful loaded weights.

I also read a comment in another thread where somebody said "All that and it only weighs 100lbs more than the A6M2" -- which I need to check but cannot. Can anybody confirm 100% fuel no DT weights with E6B?

It definitely seems a bit off, after having flown it for an hour last night.

[Wmaker]

As I've learned recently, HTC's climb charts are utterly useless. They don't often rely on useful loaded weights.

I also read a comment in another thread where somebody said "All that and it only weighs 100lbs more than the A6M2" -- which I need to check but cannot. Can anybody confirm 100% fuel no DT weights with E6B?

It definitely seems a bit off, after having flown it for an hour last night.

Instead of backpedaling, I suggest that you eat your humble pie and make an attitude adjustment.

[Krusty]

I suggest you read the other threads about AH's charts and how they are inaccurate and misleading because they use "convenient" weight loadouts that have nothing to do with actual in-game loadouts.


See Fw190F8 vs Fw190A8. This was also in the Seafire vs SpitV thread. I learned a valuable lesson. Maybe you can too.



EDIT: Have you even flown the plane yet? Or are you just trying to pick up a tidbit, a morsel of data in some lame attemt to (in your eyes) knock me down a peg? Well, it would help if you actually checked on that morsel of data you were trying to use before you make yourself look foolish in the process. You see the chart and leap to the instant thought "ah-ha! To rub in Krusty's face!" -- without actually checking to see if the chart is representative or not.

If you have actually flown the plane I would gladly share with you why I think it is "off" in-game.

[Wmaker]

I suggest you read the other threads about AH's charts and how they are inaccurate and misleading because they use "convenient" weight loadouts that have nothing to do with actual in-game loadouts.


See Fw190F8 vs Fw190A8. This was also in the Seafire vs SpitV thread. I learned a valuable lesson. Maybe you can too.

I'm well aware of the identical weights of those climb charts. Same basic airframes and power outputs. Those charts however are rather the exception and not the rule. Unlike the planes you speak about, A6M2 and A6M3 have different engines in addition to the different weights.

[Krusty]

Yes, I know they do. I'm not saying you're WRONG, period... I'm saying you're wrong to only go off the charts. If you actually test them in-game, then great. If the testing matches the charts, good.

If you just see the chart and leap at the chance to try to rub something in? Tsk tsk.

HTC apparently has a bad track record for what weights they choose to run their charts at. That makes all the climb charts suspect, and useless to compare to each other.

EDIT: I used to believe in those charts, too. It was a rude awakening to learn the truth.

[Wmaker]

HTC apparently has a bad track record for what weights they choose to run their charts at. That makes all the climb charts suspect, and useless to compare to each other.

Just because two planes use identical weights instead of "normal take off weights" it doesn't mean the rest of the climb charts are useless. Based on my testing, the charts are normally very accurate to "normal take off weight" ie. 100% fuel without any external stores.

[Krusty]

Just because two planes use identical weights instead of "normal take off weights" it doesn't mean the rest of the climb charts are useless. Based on my testing they are normally very accurate to "normal take off weight" ie. 100% fuel without any external stores.

Actually, they aren't very accurate. Not unless you can categorically go through all 100-or-so planes in this game and verify every individual weight in the E6B, they are useless. I also recall an issue many years back when claims were made the charts in-game were based off of 25% fuel loads in some planes. Also, accurate in what loadout? Fw190A8 with 400lbs of extra weight from outboard guns? Mossie with overload ammo?

The A6M2 and A6M3 are similar, as you mention. In-game it does seem to climb a little better.

But 500fpm?

You do realize that according to the charts the model 32 out-climbs the model52, right?



That shouldn't be the case. Japanese pilots mentioned it had nothing to show over the model 21 except dive speed. They didn't say "It blows the previous model away in climb rate!" or any comments to that effect. In fact the engine should not be producing that much thrust in a climb. It had a less efficient cowling, and the model 52's redesigned exhaust stubs and cowling accounted for most of the extra power it has over previous models. Yet here in-game it's even outclimbing the more effective, more efficient model 52 according to this chart.


Question is, can I trust the chart?    (answer is probably "no" until the chart is tested in-game to verify it)

So it may very well be that HTC has modeled it this way. It may be the charts are misleading. It may be both. The point remains that whatever the in-game modeling you really can't trust the charts just by themselves.

[Krusty]

The above is not to detract from the nice gift HTC has given us. As I mentioned I'm more than willing to share why I think it's "off" in-game once you have a bit of time to fly if (if you have not already).

[Wmaker]

Don't talk about the experiences of the "Japanese pilots" unless you can actually quote them or point to a source. I already said this once on this thread.

I don't find it at all hard to believe that A6M5 and A6M3 are very close when it comes to climb rates. When looking at the shaft power output, they should be identical at sea level. A6M3 is lighter and therefore has the better shaft hp/weight ratio and A6M5 has more exhaust thrust. It doesn't surprise me at all that their climb rates are very close. In fact, I have mentioned that fact before in this thread.

[321BAR]

you two go back and forth like husband and wife...

[Krusty]

He may have this thing with my ankles... some unhealthy obsession.


WMaker: Unless you can proide a source that DOES say "This new model 32 climbs SO MUCH better than my old bucket" from a Japanese pilot, you're not one to talk. There is an absence of such commentary. In fact there is enough time-to-climb data to suggest that the model 21 and the model 32 had almost identical climb rates.

I had also provided in some since-devolved thread some of the quotes about the plane and the references the webpage in question pulled them from. It didn't change your mind, you seem to ignore it if it doesn't help you counter my point. I've read similar comments from more than one source, and yet... interestingly enough, NONE of them claim the model 32 climbed much better than the model 21. Only ones that claimed this were the US testing, and that cannot be trusted in any way, as it does not represent authentic IJN conditions of repair and use.

I wonder if HTC just used the US testing for the climb rate?


Time to climb for model 21 is listed as 7.3 minutes to 6000m in many places, and listed as 7m 27s or so in others.
Time to climb for model 32 is listed as 7m 19s (or thereabouts) in more than one place.

The ONLY place that seems to suggest the Model 32 climbed better than the Model52 is Aces High. Makes me wonder.

Nothing I can do about it, and I doubt HTC will change it, but it is far from the real world examples



P.S. I'll bottom-line it: Are you just picking a fight because of the name tied to me posts (Krusty)? Or do you have actual real comments in ANY of your books (you seem to be suggesting you have a massive library, no?) that suggest the Model 32 was a far superior climber than the model 21?

Are you just blowing smoke to flamebait, or do you have a legitimate reason to think otherwise? There's enough commentary and evidence to suggest what I have described. Nowhere have I read the contrary. Prove me wrong, if you have anything to show.

[FLS]

Krusty I don't think your chart supports your argument. Your chart shows that they each have a small advantage at different altitudes.