Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on October 08, 2004, 11:10:42 PM
-
Really except for low low speed turning the A6M2 is probably only 1/2 as manouverable as the F4F - even at low speeds.
Everyting I read about the zero mentioned finger light controls and a great roll rate at low speeds, but in AH2 the F4F is far more manuverable and changes direction much better even at low speed.
Whats going on?
-
HTC makes all the allied A/C uber and all the axis A/C crap F4U flaps down at 260, A6M 150 WTF in real life u could put flaps down when u wanted to. just like the P51 almost as fast as a 190D-9 and turns like a spit
-
Are you deliberatly trying to destroy this thread?
-
no its TRUE go fly a P51 or a F4U then fly a 190 or 109 and a A6M allied A/C can put thier flaps down 200+mph axis -150
-
is the F4F @ your 6 while diving @ 300-350 mph?
if yes, the F4F can manuver with A6M (for awhile)
-
it makes no since y can allied planes be so much better in AH2 and no1 say the new flight modeling cuz allied A/C got better and axis got worst
-
No I see this when the F4F is infront of me and effotlessly flipping about and cahnging directions in front of me at low speed...
-
no its TRUE go fly a P51 or a F4U then fly a 190 or 109 and a A6M allied A/C can put thier flaps down 200+mph axis -150
109 and 190s never had combat flaps.
btw did N1K had automatic combat flaps? What i know is that it help N1K outturn USN fighters. Otherwise im not sure.
-
The 109 sure as hell had "combat" flaps. THe 109s flaps could bve set to any angle wished by the pilot.
In AH the flap speed is too high for 109..
Anyway, that a different topic. Lets talk about the zero a6m2..
-
its the uber flap on the F4Us by the time u can get 1 noch flaps down on the Zeke the F4U has 3 or 4 down thats the problem HTC needs to make the flaps "life like" meaninu can put them down when u want and it the speed is to high then they jam.
ps. 1k3 109 and 190s did have combat flaps
-
What i know is that don't get in a 1 vs 2 fight with F4Fs. And dont turn in a constangt directivion or the '50cals will "follow" you. @ defensive mode, turn as if you're a "fly".
(sry, i don't know how to explain ACM moves well)
-
CT is hosting a plane set with a6m2 this week....
This is what I have noticed:
So far I've had an SBD out turn me. Never thought I would see the day an SBD out turn a zeke. :eek:
The p40E seems to out class it as well, and the f4f doesn't have much problem turning with it at lower speeds. The zeke is a little better but not by much...
The cannons are pretty much ineffective as well unless your D200.. a good 2 second burst pretty much emptys half your cannon rds...
Being hit by a small burst of 50cal fire pretty much means your dead..
I don't know much about the zeke, so I can't say this is accurately modeled or not.. but it is surpirsing to see it perform that way. I thought it was one of the best early war PTO fighters.. After flying it a few times I must say its one of the worst...
-
On the other hand, was A6M2 really able to dive 540mph (TAS) before it started shedding parts ? (Tested this offline)
-
Since it seems all the Axis crews wanna make the claim of biased Allied modeling in comparison to the Axis birds post some facts. It absolutely amazes me that you folks have the nerve to claim that HTC purposely makes the Allied birds better. Why not just slap them in the face?
Last time I checked HTC was doing alot not only to make this a fun game but to make it as realistic as possible without going into a full fledge flight simulation. Stop whining and find the facts and post them. List all your reference material and I'm sure they'd be willing to fine tune all the airframes that they can get data for.
-
I'm honestly not sure about the low speed handling. It is my experience that the A6M2 will handily outmanuever the F4F-4 once speeds are at 200 or below. But then again.. most of the F4F pilots I've been meeting in the CT this week just take it as a given that they can't manuever with a zeke, so they do a couple half-assed manuevers and then just stick-stir/floppy-fish their way back to ack or friendlies.
I'm just curious as to why the controls aren't locking up when they are stirring... I've got a halfway decent film of some newb in the CT stirring for all he was worth, didn't appear to trigger the "stick stir" code.
-
iv found the A6M2 a great low speed turner a just awful mid high speed turner which it should be
i dont no how you guys are geting outturned
last time i flew it i was facing spit5s and hurr and i was able to outturn them with ease
-
Historically, the A6M2 suffered loss of roll rate as speeds went up beyond 275 mph. Huge ailerons, poor linkage design with little mechanical advantage were the primary contributors. However, the light construction of the control surfaces also led to aerodynamic bending and flexing that reduced their effectiveness even more.
By the middle of 1942 word was filtering back from the combat areas that the the Zero could be defeated by keeping speeds up and using its weaknesses against it.
The AH A6M2 dives way too fast, especially considering that the A6M2 had 410 mph VnE limit. Above this speed, wing skins began wrinkling and by 450 mph, the wings would simply fail.
F4F pilots learned that the easiest way to escape a Zero was to dive until speeds exceeded 300 mph, and then roll left and break turn. Virtually an instant disengagement as the Zero could barely roll at even moderate speeds. If you can't roll, you can't turn. Once into a high-speed dive, Zeros were sitting ducks for any Wildcat that was following.
By the way, the Wildcats were never assigned a VnE limit because they reached terminal velocity before aero loading could overcome the enormous strength of the Grumman airframe (Wildcats could handle G loading in excess 12g without damage to the airframe, although engine A-frames would tend to flex enough to take a permanent set).
In AH2, the A6M2 owns any fighter in a low-speed turning contest. If you are being out-turned by Wildcats at low speeds, I suggest you check out your joystick and its calibration. Either that or you are dogfighting at higher speeds than you think.
In the upcoming Rangoon event, the FM-2 appears to be the choice as the replacement for the Buffalo. If the FM-2 pilots fly to their fighter's strengths, the Zeros are going to be butchered. Consider that the FM-2 turns, climbs and accelerates better than the F4F-4.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The AH A6M-2 definitely outturns the F4F at low speeds. Maybe if the F4F is flying on fumes and the Zeke has a full tank there could be a problem. But it doesn't matter because in a high-energy fight the Zeke is dead, so there is no reason for the F4F to get slow.
ra
-
Hi Widewing,
>There was no dive speed redline imposed, simply because it could achieve terminal velocity without over-stressing the airframe.
It would be more accurate to say that Wildcat was inherently safe in a dive because it had too much drag to reach dangerous speeds in the dive, and the elevator became too heavy to overstress the airframe.
The FM-2 manual states that a stick force of 100 lbs has to be applied and held for a moment before the Wildcat even begins to pull out of a terminal velocity dive. No chance to pull excessive Gs with a flick of the wrist :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I'm not taliking about turning, in fcat I clearly state that the zero turns better at low speed.
My concern is roll sluggishness and control hevyness at those same low speeds. The F4F seems to flip about much more easily that A6M2 at low speeds. Thsi is surprising because the stuff I read from japans pilots said controls were finger light at the zeros intented speeds.
And Urchin brings up a good point too, he is right I am getting all sorts of stick lockups trying to match those F4F in their flopping about alt low speeds in an A6M2... Its just extremely odd...
-
Originally posted by Widewing
...
In the upcoming Rangoon event, the FM-2 appears to be the choice as the replacement for the Buffalo. If the FM-2 pilots fly to their fighter's strengths, the Zeros are going to be butchered. Consider that the FM-2 turns, climbs and accelerates better than the F4F-4.
...
No ... it's not a Buffalo replacement. There's only 12 FM2's, and they're there mainly to keep the M5's honest, just as the M5's are there to keep the P40E's and Spit's honest.
What I experienced in the CT last night was that unless I had about 4K altitude to dump an M2 could stay on the tail of a P40E quite a while. When the IJA had a slight numberical edge, F4F's and P40's were dying quite often - the 20mm kinda suck, but a short squirt up close seemed quite effective and I saw several guys land 3+ kills in the M2. Straight-line acceleration seemed reasonable - probably cuz the M2 weighs about as much as a box of Kleenex.
When the Allied had numbers, it was usually taking 2:1 to finish off stuborn M2's. Well, guess what, in Rangoon it'll be closer to 2:1 the other way. The P40 drivers who kept their cool usually could get in and out of trouble - but getting slow around multiple M2's was pretty much suicide.
-
I found this, no tables showing roll rates or the like nor comparisons to the Wildcat. It compares the Zero to the F4U, whether the information is true, I don't know.
"Zeke Couldn't Turn Right!" (http://www.j-aircraft.com/faq/A6M_pt5.htm)
-
There was a thread that had a comparison test between the A6M2 and some USAAF planes, F4UDOA had posted the link which was in pdf format.
Here's the thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79044&perpage=50&pagenumber=1
-
Here is where I diverge from my squaddies on the axis modelling thing. I think the zeros are both fairly faithfully modelled. The only difference I see from reports I've read is slow speed roll rate. I believe the zero rolled very nicely and smartly below 250 IAS. Don't get me started on the 109s and 190s though.
-
I don't recall seeing any info that indicated the A6M2 Zero had a great roll rate, and all the data I have seen always points to its very sluggish roll rate at speeds above 250 IAS. It had a great climb rate and good speed, as well as sustained turn ability, thanks to its wing area and light weight. It had its drawbacks as all designs did (incl the 109 and 190 Storch, shocking as that may seem), but over all it was an excellent fighter for 1940-42. SBDs dont out turn it (make me laugh), and F4Fs are handled well if its flown to its strengths, and not down low trading front quarter shots with a bunch of enemy fighters in a "I dont care if I die I want a kill" style most fly it.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
My concern is roll sluggishness and control hevyness at those same low speeds. The F4F seems to flip about much more easily that A6M2 at low speeds.
I've not noticed this, grunherz, but I'll pay closer attention tonite. Otherwise, I've never seen ANY plane that can dogfight with the a6m2 (hurri I comes closest).
- oldman
-
The problem is exacerbated by the over toughness of the F4F.
I also notice that the Allied and Axis fliers in this thread keep talking past eachother.
The Axis fliers keep talking about it's roll rate under 250mph and the Allied fliers keep talking about it's roll rate over 250mph.
GRUNHERZ's question was not about roll rate at 250mph or 300mph or 350mph. It was about the roll rate at 125mph or 150mph.
My personal feeling is that the A6M2 is about right, except for the cannon's damage which suffer the MG/FF and Type 99 Model I issue and the dive speed being too high. However I feel that the F4F-4 is modeled a bit optimistically in roll, turn, durability and high speed handling. I do not believe HTC intentionally over models or under models anything. I'd be insulted by the accusation if I were in their place.
I recall a WWII pilot watching us fly F4Fs against A6M2s and commenting that it looked neat, but if they'd ever turned like that against Zeroes, they'd have died.
-
..are not necessarily combat flaps. There is first the question of limiting speed and then the question of drag. A high drag flap is not a very good combat flap. I've never been convinced the AH model takes these into account.
-blogs
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The 109 sure as hell had "combat" flaps. THe 109s flaps could bve set to any angle wished by the pilot.
In AH the flap speed is too high for 109..
Anyway, that a different topic. Lets talk about the zero a6m2..
-
There is no multiposition in the 109, the pilot can literally dial in with his flap wheel any angle from full up to the max down. As for flap type the Bf109 has identical plain flaps as P51.. And there is record of Bf109 pilots letting down some flap to help in combat..
So the only issue is allowable speeds, and I have seen some data on this board that suggests AH flap speed for 109 is too high now.
As for drag from flaps, yea I'm kinda surprised how little full down flaps seem to hinder some planes after they use them...
But again this is thread about A6M2 being sluggish to manouver at low speeds, especially roll.
Why does everyone want to ignore that by talking about other topics or manouverability at higher speeds...
-
The A6m was designed for combat speed over 140mph and below 275mph. i think. So, it is reasonable to assume that it should not be flown past these areas. in my opinion. However i have found that with the use of flaps and rudders, it can make up for the bad aileron response. usually
Have fun:aok
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But again this is thread about A6M2 being sluggish to manouver at low speeds, especially roll.
Why does everyone want to ignore that by talking about other topics or manouverability at higher speeds...
I have a theory about that, but it would be rude to actually say it.;)
-
Nice point from Oldman:
"I've not noticed this, grunherz, but I'll pay closer attention tonite. Otherwise, I've never seen ANY plane that can dogfight with the a6m2 (hurri I comes closest). !
This was the case when the RAF fough on in Burma.
They had slippertank equipped 12 Gunned Hurricane Mk II's
Lots of stuff and armour and in the air they were no match for the Japanese planes, be it A6m, Oscar or Nate (?)
Anyway, some field mods were made, slipper tanks off, guns off and god knows what else.
Good old Hurry with the engine of the MkII lightened up like this (down to 4 guns actually in some cases) was a good match for the Jap planes, it was faster, climbed very well or better,turned on par and 303's were quite enough in that theater....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Nice point from Oldman:
"I've not noticed this, grunherz, but I'll pay closer attention tonite. Otherwise, I've never seen ANY plane that can dogfight with the a6m2 (hurri I comes closest). !
This was the case when the RAF fough on in Burma.
They had slippertank equipped 12 Gunned Hurricane Mk II's
Lots of stuff and armour and in the air they were no match for the Japanese planes, be it A6m, Oscar or Nate (?)
Anyway, some field mods were made, slipper tanks off, guns off and god knows what else.
Good old Hurry with the engine of the MkII lightened up like this (down to 4 guns actually in some cases) was a good match for the Jap planes, it was faster, climbed very well or better,turned on par and 303's were quite enough in that theater....
Interesting Angus. I have never heard of this. Could you direct me to where I might read up on this?
-
Hi Angus,
>Good old Hurry with the engine of the MkII lightened up like this (down to 4 guns actually in some cases) was a good match for the Jap planes, it was faster, climbed very well or better,turned on par and 303's were quite enough in that theater....
Well, from what I've read, the 12-gun-setup was reduced to an 8-gun-setup on a regular basis, and the Hurricane II had some good strengths compared to the A6M. I don't think turning was one of them, though.
At Singapore, the key to success in the Hurricanes was the Japanese predictability. The Hurricanes would climb to 32000 ft (courtesy of the Merlin XX) and then dive through the Japanese formations firing all the way, continuing the dive until just above treetop level and running away.
Though the firing passes weren't particularly effective that way, the pilots reasoned that they were doing a lot more harm to the Japanese that way than vice-versa. The Japanese, by technical inferiority of the A6M and perhaps also by lack of tactical flexibility, never found an answer to the Hurricane attacks.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Try rolling a "manueverable" Spitfire I at the same speeds and ask the same question. Compare it to the A6M2. I did.
It has a slow roll rate as well, why? large wings with that much lift with large ailerons of that type produced better sustained turners but not great rollers.
Many of the earlier fighters had lackluster roll rates compared to later types, this isnt news.
I have a theory as to why nobody has asked it about the Spitfire I, I but it would be rude to actually say it...lol.
-
190s did have combat flaps
According to the Flugzeug-Handbuch they could be deployed at 500kph and below. Right now HTC has them autoretracting at the speed the handbuch warns the pilot NOT to retract the landing gear or the take off flaps at or below due to sinking.
Of the 3 FW-190 pilots I have interviewed ALL of them used flaps in the turn.
Here is an excerpt about using the flaps in an FW-190A2:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097445880_pt1engflaps.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097445944_pt2engflaps.jpg)
The Japanese, by technical inferiority of the A6M and perhaps also by lack of tactical flexibility,
As a gross generalization based on history and living for 4 years in Japan, the Japanese are extremely inflexible when it comes to "thinking outside the box". Just try and get away with not filling in EVERY block on any Japanese form not matter how useless the information. As long as the block was filled in with something, they were happy.
Good example is when Japanese Airfield's in the Phillipines were captured. The Japanese had experienced an acute shortage of aircraft during the campaign. Yet the US Army found almost 1000 fighters laying around the fields. They were all down for maintenance, most with minor problems. The Japanese never instituted any kind of scavaging program so hundreds of fighters were taken out of the fight.
Crumpp
-
Heard about stuff like this before Crumpp.
Don't generalize tooo much though, - the Japanese also showed excellent tactics vs the rather stiff British army system in their advance in 1941/42......................etc
Anyway, Storch, the stuff I posted was from memory. An excellent book is "Hurricanes over Burma". I can post the ISBN if you like, or dig in closer. Many interesting features in that book.
(That is mostly where it was from, pilots modding Hurricanes)
I belive "Bloody Shambles" is a better book of that theater of the war, however it's quite expensive, or was the last time I looked.
Getting into the roll business, I belive our Spit I's and 109E's are pretty accurate. The A6M2 is probably too good in AH in my opinion.
The Spit I had fabric ailerons. They would stretch and bulge under great stress. I am not sure what hampered the 109E, but it got cured by a different (and gunless) wing.
The A6M had metal ailerons from the start however, but they were very big (enabling very good roll at slow speed?) and bent from stress.
Well, anyway, very nice thread
;)
-
Hi,
Not to ditract from this conversation by talking about data... but the A6M2 and A6M5 both roll in > 5 sec in AH2. That roll rate is higher than alot of fighters. Plane speed does not seem to make a significant difference with a similar roll rate seen at 175, 200, and 225 IAS.
Hence, I must agree with your statement regarding the sluggish roll rate. However, I will not make any general claim regarding axis vs allied planes. Carry on.
Malta
p.s. amazing what a stop watch and a little patience will yield.
-
the rather stiff British army system in their advance in 1941/42......................etc
And that is why the Japanese won early on. That and the Western unwillingness to enter the Jungle.
Keep in mind though it is a gross generalization. As you say, can't go to far with it.
Crumpp