Author Topic: !!!!!!!!NEW Solomons Map, Friday In the CT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Read 3687 times)

Arlo · « **Reply #30 on:** March 05, 2003, 06:35:04 PM »

Parachutes are waaaaaaay overmodeled. Errrr ... undermodeled. No wait ....

brady · « **Reply #31 on:** March 05, 2003, 06:46:13 PM »

Nice one eskimo.

Jester · « **Reply #32 on:** March 05, 2003, 08:25:28 PM »

I have to agree with the above Brady - you can put spots on it all you want but it is still a A6M2.

Also that the F4F-4 Wildcat is WAY too overmodeled. It seems to have more the FM of it's younger brother the FM-2.

It isn't the damage model it is the manuverability of the a/c. I have put alot of hours in the ZERO vs. the Wildcat and there is just no way it should do some of the moves it does. It just does not add up to the historical performance of the a/c.

Marine Ace Joseph Foss (one of the best Wildcat pilots there ever was) said "There was no way to keep a Zero off the tail of a Wildcat". "When you got one on your tail all you could do was put your feet up on the dash and ride it out till your wingman cleared you or he ran out of ammunition". (The F4F-4's pilot seat armor only came down to calf length was the reason for pulling your feet up.)

The THATCH WEAVE was especially developed by USN pilots for the exact reason that you couldn't keep a Zero off the tail of a Wildcat. The only way to beat it was 2 vs. 1 tactics.

I can pile you up a mountain of historical statistics why the AH F4F-4 is just a little too good. What beat the ZERO's is numbers.

brady · « **Reply #33 on:** March 05, 2003, 09:40:46 PM »

The following is the report of a Zero 21 flown aganst an F4F-4 in the states, the Zero was recovered from Akutan Island in the Alutions and then repaired and sent to to San Diego whear the tests were conducted in Augast of 1942.

p.27 Zero Fighter by Robert C. Mikesh

" The Zero was supiour to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1,000 ft, and was superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutrail blower, the two planes were equil in leval speed. In a dive, the two planes were equil with the exception that the Zeros engine cut out in in pushovers. 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. In view of the foregoing, the F4F-4 type in combat with the Zero was basicaly dependent on mutual support, internal protection, and pull-outs or turns at high speeds where minimum radius is limited by structural or physiological effects of acceleration (assuming that the allowable acceleration on the F4F is greater than that of the Zero.) Howeaver, advantage should be taken where possible, of the superiority of the F4F in pushovers and rolls a high spped, or any combination of the two."

Andi I do personaly agree with your openion of the Wildcat, howeaver from what I have heard HTC does not take anicdotal evidance into account for example the official flight test report sighted above would be inamisable or so I have been lead to beleave I hate to make blanket statements like that since they are not fair but when the shoe fit's...

The above passage is from this thread:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79044&highlight=zero+vs+F4F4

Note F4UDOA's coments through the thread they are very "ilumanating".

The plane set is intended to be primarly the Wildcat vs the A6M2, with buitl in Checks at either end of the pendilum that is the front line Namely the F4U-1a and the Tony so if the Wildcat does domanate we will see the Tony Slaping it back as the front move's toward Buka like wise if it swings the other way the F4U-1a will change it back. Of course this presuposes that the MIlk men have the week off and all things are even:)

Jester · « **Reply #34 on:** March 06, 2003, 12:22:46 AM »

I wouldn't call comments by Major Joseph Foss & Cmdr. Jimmy Thatch - "anicdotal evidence." They probably know more about the Zero and it's strength's and weaknesses vs. the Wildcat than HTC ever will.

Then again HTC always seems to have a high opinion of "their" facts.

Arlo · « **Reply #35 on:** March 06, 2003, 01:33:46 AM »

Yeah ... I'd go with Foss and Thatch's word.

Still ... keep my F4U bases outa enemy hands.

brady · « **Reply #36 on:** March 06, 2003, 02:09:18 AM »

Well Andi I would not either, nor would I refer to an oficial flight test that way as evidanced above, funny thig is HTC gives the wildcat the advantage whear 90% of all combat in AH takes place at or bellow 5 K , when the reality of it acording to the test is quiet different. In AH the Wildcat is beter under 5k and 18mph faster on the deck, acording to the test 1k was the threshold of the preformace diferance and they were equil on the deck. But this was hashed out to no aparent avail, since it does not qualify for admisable evidance.

You could fery that F4U-1a Arlo if you were hard up:), probaly have better luck than I did trying to fery a Komet on Sabre Rhine set up:)

Arlo · « **Reply #37 on:** March 06, 2003, 02:18:53 AM »

Oh ... I'm sure it will be ferried. Unless, of course, the enemy manages to move up.

Us Corsair types will gladly support the brave and intrepid Wildcatters on the front lines ... just keep those front lines moving ... <- thataway.

Löwe · « **Reply #38 on:** March 06, 2003, 07:29:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Oh ... I'm sure it will be ferried. Unless, of course, the enemy manages to move up.

Us Corsair types will gladly support the brave and intrepid Wildcatters on the front lines ... just keep those front lines moving ... <- thataway.

Oh Great VF-27, and the Jolly Rogers!!!! AHHHHHHHHH, I need more saki!!!

Hey Oboe , Hey 13th Sentai, you up for this?

: "Duty is as heavy as a mountain. While death is a light as a feather."

Oughta be fun no matter , at least I can light my cigars with my A2M2:D

Sabre · « **Reply #39 on:** March 06, 2003, 08:00:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
Wildcats turn, turn, turn
Mean Tigersharks Boom and Zoom
Zeros Brightly Burn

eskimosan

He's a poet,
But don't know it.
His feet show it;
They're Longfellows

Author unknown

Sabre
CT Staff

Nifty · « **Reply #40 on:** March 06, 2003, 10:48:08 AM »

hey guys who whine about the Zero. Your arguments are always based on "by the time you saddle up on a Wildcat enough to hurt him, his buddy is ripping you to pieces." Uhmm, that's exactly how they did it back then. They couldn't take a Zeke 1 v 1 in a turn fight with a Wildcat. They blew through for one pass and kept on going. Sticking around without help was suicide. So they started flying in tandem and Thach came up with his weave idea. They 2 v 1'd a Zeke and knocked it down, moved onto the next one. This is exactly what you're saying is why the Zero inferior to the Wildcat! The fact it's you vs more than 1 'Cat or 'Hawk.

1 v 1 in AH, and only 1 v 1. How many of you have shaken a A6M2 off your 6 in a F4F-4 without diving and outrunning it low?

Yeah, the F4F is a tank, cuz that's what it was in real life. Smacking the fuselage of the 'Cat with the old Type 99 I 20 mm ain't gonna do much good. Best bet is to hit wings or stabs and hope the 20 mm goes through a support spar.

I've downed 5 'Cats in a snapshot in a A6M2 before, so the ammo load is more than enough if you're lucky.

Squire · « **Reply #41 on:** March 06, 2003, 11:17:36 AM »

Btw the F4F had a 3-2 kill-death ratio vs the A6M2 in 1942.

In AH the F4F is slower to climb and does not turn as well, as in real life.

Speed data:http://www.214th.com/ww2/usa/f4f/f4f.pdf Shows the AH #s are correct at sea level.

Performance data in AH: http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.u.../pdf/Midway.pdf shows the F4F does not turn nearly as well as the A6M2.

As for Thach and Foss, neither one of them has reveiwed the FM data in AH that I know of.

The A6M series was not a superplane, and finding small errors in the FM data does not prove anything. There is no ac in AH that matches all its "published" #s, not a single one.

brady · « **Reply #42 on:** March 06, 2003, 02:23:58 PM »

"In AH the F4F is slower to climb and does not turn as well, as in real life."

I think most would find that statement a bit funny.

"Speed data:http://www.214th.com/ww2/usa/f4f/f4f.pdf Shows the AH #s are correct at sea level."

This is the very data that is in sharp contrast to the flighttest data shown above and that in the abovementioned post was shown to be inconclusive since various sources seam to be contradactiory or sighting preformance for models other than the F4F-4 as the above tread shows if you read it through.

"Performance data in AH: http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.u.../pdf/Midway.pdf shows the F4F does not turn nearly as well as the A6M2."

That data in the PDF shows the very info that is in dispute in the formentioned thread, it also shows data that is not based on AH aircraft preformance.

"As for Thach and Foss, neither one of them has reveiwed the FM data in AH that I know of."

Well they actualy faught the Zero and I should think their coments regarding how it preformed would be of interest.

"The A6M series was not a superplane, and finding small errors in the FM data does not prove anything. There is no ac in AH that matches all its "published" #s, not a single one."

It does prove imo that F4F-4 is Optimasticaly modeled in AH in terms of is prefomnace bellow 5K and in it's handeling which by most acounts is better than it was in real life. Shure prety much anyone can find somthing to squeak about when it comes to how a certain plane preformes, the issue hear is it is realy glaring when we look at the Wildcat and A6M2, in this match up those little diferances are creating a preception of preformance in spead and handeling which is in sharp contrast to History.

Skyfoxx · « **Reply #43 on:** March 06, 2003, 02:42:52 PM »

You know Nifty, speaking the truth ain't gonna make you popular around this crowd.

Squire · « **Reply #44 on:** March 06, 2003, 06:26:38 PM »

I guess we can all pick what data to ignore eh? You seem to feel that your quote from the flight test in your post, which btw is rather vague and does not give exact speeds or turn rates is somehow much more reliable than the other data posted, which does give exact speeds at sea level. Just not the #s you wanted to see.

The rest of the so called evidence is anecdotal "I dont beleive xyz because it doesnt feel right".

Its a free country, grind what axes you want to grind.