F4F-4 vs Zero 21

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Innominate
Between the f4f or fm2 and either zero, there is absolutly no competition in turning ability.  The zero can get inside the f4f with virtually no effort needed.

Anyone know what model zero this was?

Zeke 21 is the A6M2.

My regards,

Widewing

[Squire]

The A6M2 out climbs and out turns the F4F-4 in Aces High. Hard data on both a/c was already shown after extensive tests in AH, and the data posted on the "Midway" forum. Have a read:

http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/pdf/Midway.pdf

Read the A6M2 vs F4F concusion at the very end of the doc. That imho is the final word on the matter, unless somebody wants to do better research.

[brady]

That document is in conflect with that which is stated in the flight test results.

 Not that the testing that was done was bad, it does prove that the Wildcat in AH is faster than it apears that it should be. and that it preforms better than it should up to 5000 feat.

       

[Squire]

Fact remains the F4F is out turned and out climbed by the A6M2 at any alt.

Have a look at this file for speeds, it shows 284mph at sea level for the F4F-4 (FM-1):

http://www.214th.com/ww2/usa/f4f/f4f.pdf

For info, my understanding is the A6M2 did not suffer any neg-g problems, this keeps coming up as a debating point too. Warbirds modelled its A6M2 with the neg-g cut, and then after Pyro did some more historical digging, removed that feature in the next update, so it didnt. Thats all I recall off hand.

[Widewing]

There are many factors to consider in comparing the A6M2 to the F4F-4. Certainly performance must be measured at various altitudes. Moreover there is no lack of data on each type. Nonetheless, everything can be boiled down to simple facts. The A6M2 held a considerable advantage in wing loading. It had a comparable power loading. Bottom line: Advantage Zero.

Naturally, that is not the whole story. Such factors as durability, battle damage resistance and fire power count as well. In these three areas the Zero lagged far behind. Yes, it carried two 20mm cannon. But these were not especially effective except at close range. Supplementing the cannon were a pair of 7.7mm rifle caliber machine guns. On the other side the Wildcat brought six .50 caliber machine guns to the party. In an effort to keep weight to a minimum, the Zero lacked the weight of structure built into the tank-like F4F-4 (a Wildcat weighed more than twice what a Zero did, and was of smaller exterior dimensions). Wing skins were of very light gauge aluminum, and easily wrinkled under the aerodynamic loads of the higher speeds associated with air combat in WWII. Zeros also lacked self-sealing fuel tanks and anything vaguely resembling armor plate. Ultimately, the Zero proved to be a rather frail aircraft, prone to major airframe failures due to relatively minor battle damage. They also proved to be highly flammable, with a single bullet hole in the fuel tanks being enough to turn it into a flying pyrotechnic display. On the other hand, the Wildcat proved durable beyond belief. There was no dive speed redline imposed, simply because it could achieve terminal velocity without over-stressing the airframe. Indeed, the F4F was able to survive loading in excess of 12 g without structural failure. Zeros tended to come apart under just half of that loading. Early Zeros where saddled with a speed redline barely above 400 mph. Wildcats could push past 500 mph without concern.

In AH, there are several aspects to the modeling of the Zero that do not conform to the known facts. Its survivability is vastly better than reality. When set on fire, the aircraft is unaffected and the pilot, apparently clothed in multiple layers of NOMEX can continue to fly and shoot until his aircraft finally explodes (as I recently rediscovered). The reality of this is that any fire within the wing (which is integral to the fuselage) will rapidly fill the cockpit with flame and/or smoke. I have seen Zeros absorb multiple hits from 20mm and fly on without apparent damage. Yet, it has been established beyond question that the Zero was among the worst front line fighters in terms of combat durability, being routinely ripped apart by single mount .30 cal guns of dive bombers and torpedo planes. My view of the damage modeling of the Zero in AH can be summed up in a single word - gamey.

My regards,

Widewing

[brady]

Their are many "gamey" aspects to AH, and most of the damage you were refering to as gammy is ealy assocated with all other aircraft in one way or another, seeing multiple hits of 30mm MK 108 on allied fighters and them being"ok" after word could be described as gammy. I have in my time in AH loged over 1600 kills in the Zero's, i can say withought hesitation that it is the frailest fighter in AH, and that after it starts burning 30 seconds is about all u have till that wing comes of, and it burns easer than any other fighter in AH, even the A6M5 with better fuel tank protection burns quicker than all but perhaps the A6M2.

[brady]

A couple pasages from: Americas Hundred Thousand.


   p. 490:

     " The peek role rate of the F4F-3 was just under 70 degrees per second at about 250 mph IAS. At 350 mph IAS roll capabality fell off to about 50 degrees per second.
       The F4F-4,with lots of added weight, was much less maneuverable, and was called uncomplimentary names by it's piolets, such as "A TBD-1 with a torpedo; has the feal of a fully-loaded torpedo plane","unresponsive","Generally sluggish, compared even to F4F-3s and F4F-3as", "Pitifully inferiour to the Japanese Zero in Maneuverabaility", and "An overloaded clunker".
  The FM-2, though more powerfull and agile than an F4F-4, had generally similar characteristics. Although the controls were considered effective, it was"heavy to manuaver; needs lighter controls", and had"Heavy controls; heavy elevators in a turn'. In adation "heavy ailerons and slow rolling',and again "Heavy rudder in a turn'. So the general consensus was the controls,were effective and nicely harmonized, were "Heavy".

      Does that sound like our Wildcat?

 "Maximum G limits were (for the FM-2) 7.5g up to 7700pounds and 7.0g up to 8200 pounds gross weight."

[Karnak]

brady,

Not to quibble, but the Mossie burns as easy, and burns faster than the A6M5b.  Once a Mossie is on fire it has about 10 seconds to live.

[brady]

"Fact remains the F4F is out turned and out climbed by the A6M2 at any alt."

   It is not that the Zero does not turn better, it is the degree by which it does than I am interested in, imo, based on my readings the Wildcat turns better, handels better, and preforms better up to 5 thousand feet than it should, acording to the test conducted in  San Dieago the Zero was:

 "The Zero was supiour to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1,000 ft"

 "There was no comparison between the turning circles of the two aircraft due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low staling speed of the Zero."

  The 5 thousand foot isue is important in that most of the combat in AH takes place bellow that height.

  Americas 100k states that Late model Wildcats could make about 285 mph on the deck "With Military Power". (p. 473)

   So Squire, is that speed listed in your chart for 285 on the deck with wep? Is that a player tested figure or did u get it from your chart?

[brady]

I feal your pain Karnak, but I am on  a mishion hear man get a book out and help dude....

[brady]

GRUNHERZ:

   "I do think the Zero is too resitant to fire damage - however I do not think its full flight performance advanatages over F4F4 are fully present in AH. Even US tests showed zero was as fast on deck and starting at 1000ft faster at all alts - not the case in AH at low alts in any strech of the imagination. This gives the F4F4 an added advantage it never had - being able to disengage at will at any altitude. In real life they could only dive away but in AH an F4F4 can simply run away even on the deck. I also think the loe speed manuverability advantage of zero is negligent over a light F4F4 - the wording of the USA test made it clear there was no need to even consider this aspect as the zero had a profound superirity. Roll rate on zero is very sluggish at any speed - this does not match the reports about finger light instant control response at low speed by Saburo Sakai who knew a thing or two about zeros. I feel these discrepencies give the F4?F4 a much greater 1v1 dogfight capability vs zero than what matches the hitorical record - the F4F4 defeated zero by teamwork and slahing diving attacks from a superior altitide position not by individual manouver as is now possible in AH."

[Widewing]

Originally posted by brady
A couple pasages from: Americas Hundred Thousand.


   p. 490:

     " The peek role rate of the F4F-3 was just under 70 degrees per second at about 250 mph IAS. At 350 mph IAS roll capabality fell off to about 50 degrees per second.
       The F4F-4,with lots of added weight, was much less maneuverable, and was called uncomplimentary names by it's piolets, such as "A TBD-1 with a torpedo; has the feal of a fully-loaded torpedo plane","unresponsive","Generally sluggish, compared even to F4F-3s and F4F-3as", "Pitifully inferiour to the Japanese Zero in Maneuverabaility", and "An overloaded clunker".
  The FM-2, though more powerfull and agile than an F4F-4, had generally similar characteristics. Although the controls were considered effective, it was"heavy to manuaver; needs lighter controls", and had"Heavy controls; heavy elevators in a turn'. In adation "heavy ailerons and slow rolling',and again "Heavy rudder in a turn'. So the general consensus was the controls,were effective and nicely harmonized, were "Heavy".

      Does that sound like our Wildcat?

 "Maximum G limits were (for the FM-2) 7.5g up to 7700pounds and 7.0g up to 8200 pounds gross weight."

A few points.

If we read Dean's other book, Report of the Joint Fighter Conference, from which many of the comments you quote originated, we find the following for the FM-2 after all pilots had test flown the aircraft.

Rudder: 4 reported high force required, one thought force was average, two others found them light. Four others said "good".

Ailerons at high speed: 6 thought effort was high, one thought it was light. Two others simply said "good". Effectiveness was rated as good by 5, fair by 3.

Elevators received glowing reports, everyone thought they were very good.

Scanning the individual pilot reports I find that some pilots found it heavy on the controls, others thought the opposite. All very subjective.

Ultimately, however, it was concluded that the FM-2 was the best American dogfighter below 10,000 feet. This is especially noteworthy when we look a the other planes tested, which included the P-51D, P-47M, F7F-1 and XF8F-1, as well as several Corsairs.

Virtually every fighter received mixed reviews, wih the exception of the two new Grumman fighters, the F7F-1 and XF8F-1. These completely wowed the test pilots. The only significant complaint about either was the poor rear vision of the Tigercat. Grumman's Bearcat prototype left most of the test pilots in complete awe. The general concensus was that all the Bearcat needed was some improvement in directional stability. Grumman promptly added a dorsal fin to the XF8F-1 and eventually increased the rudder area of the F7F to enhance low speed control.

I have found several accounts by Japanese pilots who were very much surprised by the vastly improved performance of the FM-2. They thought that they were fighting F4Fs, but the older Wildcats never turned or climbed like this new one!

In the game, the F4F-4 can't compete with the FM-2. The later model is lighter, faster and climbs far better.

My regards,

Widewing

[brady]

So It could be said that in Americas 100K we have the distilled asesment of his findings from that and posably other sources, which post dates the earler work you sighted.

 Saying it handled best out of all American Fighters is also some what subjective, American Fighters are not realy know for their handeling.

 Well I did use FM-2 to dogfight 2 at time  N1K2-J's which neaded to use flaps, and got them both, and I have used it aganst other Georges suxcesfully as well. But this is as "subjective" as the Japanese piolts saying that the FM-2 was a better turner than the F4F-4.

[Sox62]

A good book is Eric Bergurud's  "Fire in the Sky,Airwar in the South Pacific"

 In it he shows that the Wildcat was not nearly as inferior to the zero as everyone thinks.The first generation U.S. fighters more then held their own.

The F4F could (if they had any alt) ALWAYS dive away from the zero by diving steep in a slow turn.

Add to this self-sealing fuel tanks,and armor that the zero NEVER had.

There is an anecdote from a Japanese ace where he unloaded into an F4F,and was amazed because it simply flew away.He also stated,"You could always tell if it was a Japanese or American fighter that crashed into the ocean.The Japanese fighter would leave a fire on the water,the American fighter an oil slick."

Another ace(I can't remember which one) hated the cannon the zero had-low rate of fire and muzzle velocity.He stated he wished his zero had .50's.

The book is an interesting read.

[brady]

"In it he shows that the Wildcat was not nearly as inferior to the zero as everyone thinks.The first generation U.S. fighters more then held their own."

  Well it is not being disputed that men like those in VMF 121 did good, the issue at hand is how well did AH do in modeling the Wildcat, at present this is in dispute. It is also widely held even by the US Navy/marines that the wildcat was "decidely inferiour" to the Zero.


 "The F4F could (if they had any alt) ALWAYS dive away from the zero by diving steep in a slow turn. "

  Anyplane with suficnt alt to acheave a break away spead could dive past and break away from another plane, heck give me 20 K and will pull away in a C47:), the above test clearly staets that given an equile start the wildcat could not dive away.

 "Add to this self-sealing fuel tanks,and armor that the zero NEVER had."

 Later models did have this feature.