Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: WTC on September 28, 2006, 01:46:03 PM
-
Why is the *** Zero's armor soo poor when you fire a round it turns into a great ball of fire?
-
lack of armour, lack of self sealing fuel tanks and unarmoured pressurised oxygen supply.
-
When the Japanese designed and built the A6M (zero) they decided that they wanted an agile plane and they got that, they just had to give up armor, and self sealing fuel tanks to reduce weight. It actually worked well for them at the begining of the war as they were the class of the field in the PTO.It seems that it was pretty much a design philosophy used by the Japanese, another good example is the betty bomber or "flying Zippo" as it was called by American aircrews.
SIK1
-
The requirement for speed, range, cannon and agility on a 925hp engine required sacrifices somewhere.
Latter Japanese aircraft carried armor and self sealing tanks.
-
because the zero is made of crap, very very simple answer. Unless theres a monster furball(alot of times zeros are killed first) zero aint no good, unless u get a sucker to turn fight u. The other day i was trackin a red on the radar, thought it was a set of high bombers, it ends up being a zero, i was in a 51b, i came in behind him so fast i almost didnt have time to line up a shot(i was striaght and level, no wep). In ewa it isnt bad, compared to f4f it is good, but with f4fs strong armour and solid 6 50s and its ability to dive imo makes f4f a more desirable fighter. BUt if u want a turn fighter hurrC out classes it big time, they have more armour better guns and for some reason turn better.
But of course since i am a hardcore USN guy(f6f all day long) i dont like anythin with the meatball logos on it.
-
those aren't real japanese plane, they're virtual ones.
those "meatballs" are soy
-
can we refrain from using the word Jap?
it may be offensive, in another game you would be cursed upon to refer to them by this name and it filtered.
The zero is a great plane only solution is to not get hit ;)
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
because the zero is made of crap...
The standard metal for aircraft structures in the era, was duraluminum ( now known as 2000 series), that was developed in Germany prior to WW1. Sumitomo Metals had developed a new alloy called ESD or Extra Super Duralumin (patented 1936) which was a zinc aluminium alloy. The allied aircraft did not use this alloy until the mid-1940's (7000 series). Jiro Horikoshi made extensive use of this alloy in his A6M as this allowed large-scale weigh reductions.
-
A6M= Paper Crane. Real easy to make, just get an engine, some guns, and a bunch of glue and computer paper! Fold on the dotted lines, and BAM! You got a Jappo. (Jappo isnt offensive. It is a combination of the word Japan and Zero. It is comonly used amongst my crowd where I live, and used by a lot of japanese people. Jappo isnt specifically the A6M, it pretty much describes any japanese plane with that big red dot on the side)
-
jappo could also be jap(cuse its a jap fighter) and zippo(cuze it lites up quick). I just dont like when they light up they still fly for another 5 mins, i have seen to much hellcat gun cams to believe it, they flame up they loose controll, just that simple.
I cant stand zeros(again, to much pto docs) but i respect them tons more then the dweeb fighters.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
BUt if u want a turn fighter hurrC out classes it big time, they have more armour better guns and for some reason turn better.
Heh. Hurri IIC doesn't turn better than A6M2. Doesn't even come close, really.
- oldman
-
BK bandit, they were NOT made of crap, esp not the early war ones.
The main contruction was virtually identical to what the US was building.
And if you don't believe me, then ask yourself why so many T6 texan's are painted like Zero's for war movies????
Furball gave you the right answer, lack of armour protection for pilot & vital structures. Lack of self sealing fuel tanks.
As to why it takes so long, well even a fuel fire doesn't melt wings off instantly.
Aluminum has a 2000- 4k melting point, takes time to cause a major structural failure.
-
Control cables, electric wires, fuel hoses (leading to the engine, and other fuel tanks), ammunition magazines, all these do NOT take as long to destroy. Guess what, all of these are in the wing right next to that flaming gas tank. Food for thought. :aok
-
Well, just about every U.S. fighter at the beginning of the war shared the same design characteristics--no armor, no self-sealing tanks, etc. The early wildcats and jugs are good examples. They didn't even deploy the P-47B for combat as a result.
There's a story about a Ki-43 shooting down 2 B-24s in a mission in the CBI. That's like an early zeke without the cannon.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
BK bandit, they were NOT made of crap, esp not the early war ones.
The main contruction was virtually identical to what the US was building.
And if you don't believe me, then ask yourself why so many T6 texan's are painted like Zero's for war movies????
Furball gave you the right answer, lack of armour protection for pilot & vital structures. Lack of self sealing fuel tanks.
As to why it takes so long, well even a fuel fire doesn't melt wings off instantly.
Aluminum has a 2000- 4k melting point, takes time to cause a major structural failure.
I have seen to much real footage, when they lite up they pretty much lose controll not conitue to fight for 10 mins.
What does it matter what they use in movies, if movies were acurate i could jump a mustang 100 yards over tarrfic and race away(gone in six seconds)
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
I have seen to much real footage, when they lite up they pretty much lose controll not conitue to fight for 10 mins.
What does it matter what they use in movies, if movies were acurate i could jump a mustang 100 yards over tarrfic and race away(gone in six seconds)
So in your very far from infinete wisdom, you conclude that they were made of crap?
They were better made than US aircraft at the start of the war, and of a better alloy. They just lacked armor, which was standard at the time they were built. The Bf109E and Spitfire Mk I were just having armor added as the Battle of Britain got underway.
The B-17 was rejected for combat duty by the RAF due to it's complete lack of protection.
Oh, no WWII fight could sustain direct hits from the main battery of most other WWII fighters for long at all. How long do you think a P-51D would remain flyable while being hit by the guns from an A6M2?
You may have noticed that the Ki-61, Ki-84, N1K2-J and Ki-67 all have protection. The G4M3 version of the "Honorable one shot lighter", aka "Betty", had greatly reduced range in order to have a fully protected fuel system and some armor.
The reasons for the lack of armor on early Japanese aircraft are rational given the ranges they had to operate at (very long compared to Europe) and the lack of power in the engines they had available at that time. I think it was a flawed reason, but it was thought out.
Try doing research before reaching conclusions.
-
Gotta agree with the general trend of this thread. The Zeke is an outstanding fighter but it has it's limits and, as in all aircraft design, tradeoffs were made between performance and protection. Generally speaking I'd prefer a fighter that is hard to hit to one that is tough.
The problem I have with the AH Zeke is it's performance after being torched. I was in a Zeke last night fighting 6v1 (I was the one) in the EWA. I torched another Zeke who managed to re-engage me three or four times before he finally "went away" in a big puff. Being in a Zeke myself, I survived the fight and landed 3 kills but the way this flaming Zeke hung around was pretty ridiculous. I've said this several times before but HT needs to re-look at the fire damage model being used. The fact that a Zeke will burn so easily is accurate but what's unique is that it seems to burn much longer than just about any other AH aircraft. Maybe it's just the fact that the Zeke can get around for another attack so quickly but it just seems too long. A bigger issue though is that HT should drastically increase the drag on all burning aircraft. Aside from the physical destruction, the disruption of airflow from a fuel fire has severe effects on an aircraft's flight characteristics and no burning plane can continue to fly as though it's not damaged as they do in AH.
Mace
-
I agree with that Mace. The effect of fire on buring aircraft isn't as severe as it should be.
-
Not to mention that in real life, you would unass the plane as quickly as possible...
-
karnak its on fire for a half hour thats the complaint. i dont need research to know when the watermelon is on fire it shouldnt be hanging around for so long. These planes are know for liting up(this is a fact) but when they catch fire there longer able to keep fighting. Theres alot of other reasons i dont like the zero, its retarded slow it cant dive and at higher speed ur controlls into mush another thing the kills it is high g turns, i have came in behind some to see them break hard left or hard right and break to pieces. BUt if u read what i posted before i wouldnt be writeing this right now. look at the 10th post.
-
RAF used the B-17c in combat in the summer of 1941
-
About the loss of control...
Remember what a raging fire does to the airflow over a wing surface providing lift.
That much heat, that quickly, covering a significant part of the airfoil, and you lose all control over an aircraft almost immediately.
-
guys like i said before i dont like the zero, BUT this doesnt mean i dont respect the guys that fly it, i respect them 100 times more then the dweeb pilot(u know which planes im talkin about). Slowest plane in the game litely armoured, they have to stick and rubber themselves out of trouble. Another factor that adds to me not likeing it is that i 75% of the time im i a hellcat, its natural for me to not like it, yea i know raf used them against the germans but cmon, hellcat is famous in the pacific.
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
About the loss of control...
Remember what a raging fire does to the airflow over a wing surface providing lift.
That much heat, that quickly, covering a significant part of the airfoil, and you lose all control over an aircraft almost immediately.
not to mention what it does to the pilot. a burning plane may fly on for a while but a burning pilot is not long for the world.
-
maybe,
maybe not
http://www.battle-of-britain.com/BoB2/Battle_personnel/VC/victoria_cross.htm
-
A6M2 actually does extremly well in early war and if the pilot builds up some alt eaven more so. BTW Zero has verry good acceleration if you try to dive away with an F4F from one that is right behind you he gets you. In a long dive the zero has to break of because of bad high speed handling though.
-
Originally posted by icemaw
not to mention what it does to the pilot. a burning plane may fly on for a while but a burning pilot is not long for the world.
Read up about Nicholson, and then try and google Geoffrey Page.
Some guts around there man....
-
Is there any way to extinguish a burning plane?
-
None at all in AH. In RL there are a few, very limited, options. Small general aviation aircraft typically have hand-held cockpit fire extinguishers. For engine fires they are usually limited to cutting off the fuel. Some high end general aviation planes and all military fighters have both fuel cutoff and engine compartment extinguishers. If you have the altitude, you could possibly dive fast enough to extinguish an engine fire but that would be a last ditch effort. There's no way to extinguish a wing fire due to battle damage except possibily a high-speed dive but since the wings burning and has battle damage it would probably just rip off. The best options are to ditch if you're low and slow (with a prop plane) and if you're high (or in a jet) bailout or eject.
Mace
-
a6m2 = stunt plane wit gunz
-
just say its a perfect kamikaze plane
-
Originally posted by WTC
just say its a perfect kamikaze plane
Except that it is a poor kamikaze plane compared to something like a P-51.
The A6M is slow, underpowered and has poor control at high speed.
-
thats tue i belive it cant even reach 250mph
-
Soooo... it's NOT made of crap?
That's too bad, I was hoping to fly a plane made of crap in cartoon WWII land.
It's on my list.
-
Originally posted by WTC
thats tue i belive it cant even reach 250mph
A6M2 tops out at 316mph at about 20,000ft.
Sea level I think tops out at 270ish.
-
it is made out of crap just pretend it has aluminum armor
-
No they weren't.
At the time of its introduction the A6M2 was about THE most formiddable fighter plane ever. Some Asian reviewers and sources even refer to the Zero as a "freak of nature", in disbelief that the Japanese would come up with such a formiddable plane during that time - a country without substantial advances in aircraft engine technology.
The traditional philosophy of emphasizing agility in horizontal maneuvering was common among every major airforce in the world during that time. The basic principle of the Zero was for the pilot to fly and maneuver as aggressive as possible - as long as the offensive advantage of being in a better turning plane was never lost, sacrificing pilot protection or internal armoring was justified upto an extent.
Link to my own post on similar debate about Japanese planes;
Integrity of Japanese planes (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=174736&highlight=integrity)
If the Zero was made of crap, there are loads of contemporary Western fighter planes that could probably well be referred to as either 'made from garbage' or 'conceptually outdated'. Bear that in mind.
-
To undestand the Zekes construction n philosophy we can look at the Iconic Japanese warrior, the Samurai. His offensie weapon (sword) is also his defensive weapon. No 30kg metallic shield there.
The Zero was designed to have extreme agility, lethal guns, fantastic maoeverability and long range. All offensive traits that when used correctly can also be good defence. Suppose its the ultimate example of "attack is the best defence".
Im a P38 nut, so usually Zekes are my targets, but a well flown A6M2 can offer a better challenge than a poorly flown SpitV. You just gotta love it for that. Like so many other planes, the plane only amplifies what the pilot's all about.
Besides, how many other planes were capable of ever being launched off a Submarine???
-
Originally posted by Hazard69
To undestand the Zekes construction n philosophy we can look at the Iconic Japanese warrior, the Samurai. His offensie weapon (sword) is also his defensive weapon. No 30kg metallic shield there.
The Zero was designed to have extreme agility, lethal guns, fantastic maoeverability and long range. All offensive traits that when used correctly can also be good defence. Suppose its the ultimate example of "attack is the best defence".
Im a P38 nut, so usually Zekes are my targets, but a well flown A6M2 can offer a better challenge than a poorly flown SpitV. You just gotta love it for that. Like so many other planes, the plane only amplifies what the pilot's all about.
I love to fly the A6M2 in H2H, and I often find myself up against P-38's in arenas with more skilled pilots.
Let's just say that the P-38 (J, F, or even L) doesn't have an easy time against the Zero. When you fly it correctly, it's absolutely fantastic in combat.
-
if your good and quick at the stick some maps have forest you can fly through and out fly your enemy:aok
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
if your good and quick at the stick some maps have forest you can fly through and out fly your enemy:aok
If you're good enough, you won't need ground obstacles to out-fly your opponents. All it takes with the Zero (A6M2, not A6M5B) is quick thinking, fast reflexes, and proper timing.
Once you've flown it long enough, you can do some very nice fakes to give you the upper hand in combat. My favorite's acting like a sitting duck, letting an opponent close in, and pulling the throttle to 0% while simultaneously extending the flaps and turning (which direction depends on the angle of the attacker) quickly. If the attacker's air speed isn't too high, you'll be able to pull around and take a few pot shots at him with the 20mm.
Of course, there are the more taxing maneuvers when you're in a furball, but I'll save those for later.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
If you're good enough, you won't need ground obstacles to out-fly your opponents. All it takes with the Zero (A6M2, not A6M5B) is quick thinking, fast reflexes, and proper timing.
Once you've flown it long enough, you can do some very nice fakes to give you the upper hand in combat. My favorite's acting like a sitting duck, letting an opponent close in, and pulling the throttle to 0% while simultaneously extending the flaps and turning (which direction depends on the angle of the attacker) quickly. If the attacker's air speed isn't too high, you'll be able to pull around and take a few pot shots at him with the 20mm.
Of course, there are the more taxing maneuvers when you're in a furball, but I'll save those for later.
well if your out of ammo its a good thing 2 do
-
Originally posted by Fruda
My favorite's acting like a sitting duck, letting an opponent close in, and pulling the throttle to 0% while simultaneously extending the flaps and turning (which direction depends on the angle of the attacker) quickly. If the attacker's air speed isn't too high, you'll be able to pull around and take a few pot shots at him with the 20mm.
I do that in a P38L all the time. Friendlies assume I am not paying attention and I will get check 6's like crazy.
-
Originally posted by Raptor
I do that in a P38L all the time. Friendlies assume I am not paying attention and I will get check 6's like crazy.
I've tried to sneak up on a few P38's who happen to be acting like they're not aware. I've lived about half the time when that happens.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
I've tried to sneak up on a few P38's who happen to be acting like they're not aware. I've lived about half the time when that happens.
How do you 'act' like you are not aware?
-
Fly level or as if you don't know there is a bogie behind you. This well give the attacker a false sense that he's suprised his victim when he tries to make his bounce.
ack-ack
-
Nice design analysis of the Zero, http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/Zeke32.htm
-
Originally posted by Hazard69
To undestand the Zekes construction n philosophy we can look at the Iconic Japanese warrior, the Samurai. His offensie weapon (sword) is also his defensive weapon. No 30kg metallic shield there.
You don't know much about medieval history. First, knightly shields weighed no more than fifteen pounds, and were made mostly of wood. The heaviest shield known to have been used in battle was the Roman infantry shield, which weighed about twenty pounds. No shield ever made for being carried into battle weighed anything approaching sixty pounds. Secondly, the Samurai's offensive weapon was the bow. They were horse archers. Their secondary weapon was the spear, and the sword was their tertiary weapon.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Well, just about every U.S. fighter at the beginning of the war shared the same design characteristics--no armor, no self-sealing tanks, etc. The early wildcats and jugs are good examples. They didn't even deploy the P-47B for combat as a result.
There's a story about a Ki-43 shooting down 2 B-24s in a mission in the CBI. That's like an early zeke without the cannon.
They were often mistaken for the Navy Type 0 model 11 Fighter (A6M Zero-sen) Allied code name "Zeke".
Army Type 1 Fighter Model 1A and was named Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon) Allied code name "Oscar".
Specification of Ki-43-Ia:
(http://forum.axishistory.com/files/ki-43.jpg)
One Army Type 99 (Nakajima Ha-25) fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 980 hp for takeoff and 970 hp at 11,555 feet driving a two-bladed propeller.
Performance: Maximum speed 308 mph at 13,125 feet, climb to 16,405 feet in 5 minutes 30 seconds. Service ceiling 38,500 feet. Maximum range 745 miles.
Weights: 3483 pounds empty, 4515 pounds loaded, 5695 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 37 feet 6 5/16 inches, length 38 feet 11 3/4 inches, height 10 feet 8 3/4 inches, wing area 236.81 square feet. Armament: Two 7.7 mm Type 89 machine guns in the engine cowling. Two 33-pound bombs could be carried underwing. Two 44-imp-gall drop tanks could be carried.
The next version was the Ki-43-Ib which differed from the Ia in having a heavier armament in which one of the Type 89 machine guns was replaced by a 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine gun.
The Ki-43-Ic which followed it had two 12.7-mm Type 1 machine guns, and was the major production variant of the Model 1 series.
Ki-43-II
(http://www.kitparade.com/gallery01/images/ki43iifl_1.JPG)
Nakajima_Ki-43-IIa
In pursuit of better performance, five Ki-43-I airframes were modified in February of 1942 to be powered by the 1150-hp Type 1 engine (which was the Nakajima Ha-115, a development of the earlier Ha-25).
This engine had a two-speed supercharger and drove a three-bladed constant-speed metal propeller.
The supercharger air intake was moved from underneath the cowling to its upper lip, with the carburetor intake remaining underneath the cowling.
The wingspan was decreased by two feet and the wing area by 6.46 square feet to improve speed at low and medium altitudes.
The windshield and cockpit canopy were raised slightly and a new reflector gunsight was fitted.
The wing attachment points were strengthened to carry 551-pound bombs. In response to complaints from the field that the Hayabusa was too vulnerable to superficial combat damage, some rudimentary armor protection was provided for the pilot and self-sealing tanks were installed in the wings.
The improved Hayabusa model entered production as the Army Type 1 Fighter Model 2A (Ki-43-IIa). As the Model 2A entered production, the earlier Model 1 was progressively phased out, until the 716th and last Model 1 left the line in February 1943.
Specification of Ki-43-IIb:
(http://forum.axishistory.com/files/ki-43-ii.jpg)
One Army Type 1 (Nakajima Ha-115) fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1150 hp for takeoff and 980 hp at 18,375 feet driving a three-bladed propeller.
Performance: Maximum speed 329 mph at 13,125 feet, climb to 16,405 feet in 5 minutes 49 seconds. Service ceiling 36,750 feet. Normal range 1095 miles. Maximum range 1990 miles.
Weights: 4211 pounds empty, 5710 pounds loaded, 6450 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 35 feet 6 3/4 inches, length 29 feet 3 5/16 inches, height 10 feet 8 3/4 inches, wing area 230.34 square feet.
Armament: Two 12.7-mm Type 1 machine guns in the engine cowling. Two 66-pound or 551-pound bombs could be carried underwing. Two 44-imp-gall drop tanks could be carried.
Specification of Ki-43-IIIa:
(http://www.paolopizzi.com/paolopizzi/reviews/ki-43ii/ki-43-iii.jpg)
One Army Type 1 (Nakajima Ha-115-II) fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1300 hp for takeoff and 1230 hp at 9185 feet driving a three-bladed propeller.
Performance: Maximum speed 358 mph at 21,920 feet. Climb to 16,405 feet in 5 minutes 19 seconds. Service ceiling 37,400 feet. Normal range 1320 miles. Maximum range 1990 miles.
Weights: 4233 pounds empty, 5644 pounds loaded, 6746 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 35 feet 6 3/4 inches, length 29 feet 3 5/16 inches, height 10 feet 8 3/4 inches, wing area 230.34 square feet.
Armament: Two 12.7-mm Type 1 machine guns in the engine cowling. Two 66-pound or 551-pound bombs could be carried underwing. Two 44-imp-gall drop tanks could be carried.
(http://airwar.hihome.com/gwp/ki-43/ki-43-1.jpg)
-
ki43-IIIb pwns em all
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
can we refrain from using the word Jap?
it may be offensive, in another game you would be cursed upon to refer to them by this name and it filtered.
The zero is a great plane only solution is to not get hit ;)
It's just shortening the name of their nationality, I don't see how it is offensive.
I wouldn't consider 'Aussie' to be offensive and it's the same thing... just syllabal dropping.
I'm not trying to stir **** here, i'm just saying...
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
It's just shortening the name of their nationality, I don't see how it is offensive.
I wouldn't consider 'Aussie' to be offensive and it's the same thing... just syllabal dropping.
I'm not trying to stir **** here, i'm just saying...
aussietralian, lol thanks for the shot of wisdom from the most apple shaped continent:D
-
Is that IAS or TAS for the top speed of the Hayabusa?
-
Hi,
the datas of the Ki-43 are not always realy good and probably got mixed up a bit.
Such datas normaly cant display good values:
............................. ..... 980 hp at 18,375 ............................. ...............
............... Maximum speed 329 mph at 13,125 feet.....................
But this datas are the "normal" datas in books etc.
The best speed should be archived above rated altitude, otherwise its missleading.
A captured tested Ki43II show a Vmax of 506km/h(314mph) in 2800m(9180ft) and 536km/h(331mph) in 6000m(19680ft).
Climb to 5000m was 4,8min.
I dont know the condistions of this particular plane, but in general the captured planes are not perfect.
But id this engine realy had 980hp in 5700m, i have no coubt that this light plane could a go a bit faster(compare this with the HurriIa).
Greetings,
Knegel
-
It's just shortening the name of their nationality, I don't see how it is offensive.
Just like the word "n i g g e r" and "c h i n k" is nothing but a slighly corrupted form of the word "negro" and "china", each a racial and national identity. Why would African-Americans or Asians ever be offended about such a word?
....
The point is that whether a certain term is offensive or not depends on the social context of things. You could call someone by a million good things and if he is offended by it, then you should be careful about it.
Many Japanese people do not like it when someone calls them a "Jap". So common courtesy demands that we call them "Japanese" as they would prefer, just like how some "William"s or "Richard"s would be preferred to be called "William" and "Richard", not "Bill" or "Dick".
-
ABSTRACT
Popular works on World War Two history, such as Dr. Rene J. Francillon's tome Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, generally state that the Japanese Nakajima Type 1 Model 1 fighter (Ki 43-I), Hayabusa, was produced successively in three versions ko, otsu, and hei (Ki 43-IA, -IB, and -IC) armed, respectively with 2x7.7 mm machine guns; 1x7.7.mm machine gun and 1x12.7mm machine cannon; and 2x12.7 mm machine cannon. It is generally reported that the version with two 12.7 mm machine cannon (Ki 43-IC) was the major production version.
This paper presents evidence that while the twin 7.7mm version and twin 12.7mm version were introduced prior to the mixed armament version, the latter was introduced very early in the production run (prior to the outbreak of the Pacific War), was undoubtedly the major version of this aircraft to see action, and examples of operational aircraft with the alternative armaments are both relatively rare and may well have been retrofits. However, due to the ready inter-changeability of the two weapons types and absent direct evidence, the exact number of production types and retrofits could not be determined.
The complete article at,
http://www.warbirdforum.com/rdunn43.htm
-
Hi Milo,
thats a article only about the Ki43-I, but the Ki43 was going a very similar way like the A6M. The Ki43-II got a shorter wingspan and the more strong engine. Nakajima produced around 716 Ki43-i´s and 2492 Ki43-II´s, my source dont say exact, if the 2629 planes (Ki43-I and -II), produced by Tachiakawa are already included(i guess no).
The Ki43-IIIa got produced in late 1944, the main different to the Ki43-IIb was a more powerfull engine(higher rated alt) and more internal fuel and some changings regarding the hardpoints for droptanks etc.
Already the Ki43-II(in service since late 1942) got selfsealing tanks and pilot amor!!
Greetings,
Knegel
-
hmmm...
Interesting that how people think the plane is made of crap, while every plane designed post '41 was designed to outperform the zero. the zeke was the standard by which all US aircraft in the PTO were judged, and thankfully the allied went to work to do just that.
In AH, it takes patience to both get kills, and to get home in a zeke. I'm a birdcage hog driver primarily, and I get my kicks getting in an early zeke. I love that ride, actually, and very, very few players can beat a highly skilled zeke pilot in a knife fight.
-
109 vs zeke is fun. 109F vs a6m in AH1 was a blast!
-
I found very rare videos of Jpn Navy planes are Zeros
日本軍用機集 海軍篇 1/6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFTj6K83RsY)
And some Imperial Army Aircraft Inventory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMWGFtdiidM&mode=related&search=)
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
hmmm...
Interesting that how people think the plane is made of crap, while every plane designed post '41 was designed to outperform the zero. the zeke was the standard by which all US aircraft in the PTO were judged, and thankfully the allied went to work to do just that.
In AH, it takes patience to both get kills, and to get home in a zeke. I'm a birdcage hog driver primarily, and I get my kicks getting in an early zeke. I love that ride, actually, and very, very few players can beat a highly skilled zeke pilot in a knife fight.
Mitsu Zeros back then are like today's new Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX and Nakajima "Hayabusa" and "Hayate" are like the modern day Subaru WRXs and Nissan Skyline GTRs respectively (in terms of handling:D )
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
hmmm...
Interesting that how people think the plane is made of crap, while every plane designed post '41 was designed to outperform the zero. the zeke was the standard by which all US aircraft in the PTO were judged, and thankfully the allied went to work to do just that.
In AH, it takes patience to both get kills, and to get home in a zeke. I'm a birdcage hog driver primarily, and I get my kicks getting in an early zeke. I love that ride, actually, and very, very few players can beat a highly skilled zeke pilot in a knife fight.
Hi,
if you look to the war results even in 1942/43, where the F4F was the main fighter on the US CV´s and if you compare the performence of the P38, P47, SpitIXc(or VIII) or other 1943 planes with the A6M5, i only can get the impression that the Zero was a poor plane at this time.
In 1941/42 it was up to date, but it was the main fighter(together with the Ki-43-II) until late 1944, thats like keeping the SpitII and 109E7 that long.
Already vs the SpitV the A6M5 dont had much to offer, as long as the Spit pilot did use B&Z or hit and run tactics. The weakness of the construction(resulting in bad highspeed handling and easy damages by MG fire) was a much to high price for a not needed turn performence at slowspeed. Much to late the Japanese HQ saw that extreme turnfighting, specialy in very weak planes, is the biggest disadvantage someone can think off.
Even the high praised Ki-61 wasnt much more than a 109F2, and that in 1943/44/45.
No wonder they did decide to make kamikaze attacks, better to die with the possibility to cause something, than to fly around as a sitting duck(to surrender would have been the best sulution in such a hopeless situation anyway, but thats not easy possible with so big ideological discrepancys.).
Greetings,
Knegel
-
BK has a point,I too have seen some guncam footage.I think tho the loss of control is Bcuz the pilot is about to bail and has let control go,or pilot is out cold or dead.Since this is a sim only blackouts can be reproduced,so the sim pilot can fly until he bails or explodes.Unfortunately the guncams only show 1 point of view and not whats happening inside the cockpit.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,
if you look to the war results even in 1942/43, where the F4F was the main fighter on the US CV�s and if you compare the performence of the P38, P47, SpitIXc(or VIII) or other 1943 planes with the A6M5, i only can get the impression that the Zero was a poor plane at this time.
In 1941/42 it was up to date, but it was the main fighter(together with the Ki-43-II) until late 1944, thats like keeping the SpitII and 109E7 that long.
Already vs the SpitV the A6M5 dont had much to offer, as long as the Spit pilot did use B&Z or hit and run tactics. The weakness of the construction(resulting in bad highspeed handling and easy damages by MG fire) was a much to high price for a not needed turn performence at slowspeed. Much to late the Japanese HQ saw that extreme turnfighting, specialy in very weak planes, is the biggest disadvantage someone can think off.
Even the high praised Ki-61 wasnt much more than a 109F2, and that in 1943/44/45.
No wonder they did decide to make kamikaze attacks, better to die with the possibility to cause something, than to fly around as a sitting duck(to surrender would have been the best sulution in such a hopeless situation anyway, but thats not easy possible with so big ideological discrepancys.).
Greetings,
Knegel
I believe also that the evolution of wingman tactics and a better understanding of E states gives the allies an advantage. Too few films of Japanese gun cam footage survived, therefore, we see a largely unbalanced historical account of Japanese ACM.
The zeke was a top aircraft prior to 1942, and I agree that there were serious issues in the vertical plane, but I still believe that if the zeke pilot can survive long enough to get in the saddle with any aircraft, then he becomes a very difficult plane to shake. Snapshot not withstanding, once he gets within cannon range, it's usually a done deal.
Ever read Roy Fuchida's book? Interesting read