Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: AirFlyer on September 08, 2007, 05:01:51 PM
-
The A6M3 saw a large amount of action in the Pacific Theater as well as being one of the most produced A6M's out there. Not to mention it would help fill the gap in the A6M line up, so I'm asking if the Zeke 32 could be added to the game.
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/Zeke32.htm
Heres a site with pictures, and essentially enough detail to let you build one yourself. Everything seems credible from what I've seen. So tell me whats you's all think. :aok
-
That would make a nice addition, but first I want my spit 12!
-
Good choice.
More Soviet/Japanese planes are just what we need.
-
No More Lgays.
-
no
-
Yes, I would like the A6M3.
Also, the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) :
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/ArmyJB&W3/Ki-43-49.jpg
-
OR we could rip the hard points off the clean F4U's. And add that optional center-line bomb rack Sax has been whining about :aok
-
One of the late model zeke's with 4 20mm's would be cool too ;)
-
Originally posted by Badair
One of the late model zeke's with 4 20mm's would be cool too ;)
No such animal.
Final, and heaviest, A6M armament was two 20mm Type 99 Model II cannon and three 13mm machine guns.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
No such animal.
Final, and heaviest, A6M armament was two 20mm Type 99 Model II cannon and three 13mm machine guns.
I had heard of an experimental A6M with a 30mm, but apprently it never panned out, which doesn't surprise me, it would probably rip the plane in half from recoil. :rofl
-
The A6M2 and M5 we have now pretty much are representative of the breed. There is not a lot of difference between the M2 & M3 models. There is also an M6 model (a re-engined M5 with a water/methanol injection WEP capability) we could look at.
Frankly, I'd rather the Zero models we have now get updated cockpit and flight model treatments first.
EagleDNY
-
Originally posted by storch
no
second, I want the italian airforce
-
The A6M2 and M5 we have now pretty much are representative of the breed. There is not a lot of difference between the M2 & M3 models.
Saying the A6M2 and A6M5 is representative of the breed, is like saying the Bf109G-6 is representative for all the 109s, or a P-47D-25 of all P-47s. Why'd HTC bother to model so many P-47s and 109s in the lineup in the first place, when all they'd ever need was a couple of 109s and P-47s?
For some reason people tend to get finicky and sensitive about certain models that were used by either the Western Allies or the Luftwaffe... and yet, dull to the point of indifference, when it comes to Soviet or Japanese aircraft.
Don't be.
Frankly, I'd rather the Zero models we have now get updated cockpit and flight model treatments first.
Seeing how the recent HTC policy in bringing in new variants, have always seen a remodelling of the 3Ds, there's no reason why it should be one or the other for the Zeros.
Give us the A6M3, and redo the A6M2 and A6M5, too.
-
good post kweassa
-
The A6M3 is an A6M2 with the A6M5's 1,130hp engine, so what you get is a variant with the power of the M5, but the lame armament of the M2. That really fills a gap we need filled? Where? In the EWA?
There are a lot of other japanese aircraft I'd like to see modeled first (J2M? Ki-45?), and a lot of flight model and cockpit updates I'd rather see appear before someone spends a lot of development time on the A6M3.
Development time is limited - spend it where it will do the most good.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Lacks the ejector stacks of the A6M5, so it was 15-20mph slower than the A6M5.
-
also had slightly more cannon ammo
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
...Seeing how the recent HTC policy in bringing in new variants, have always seen a remodelling of the 3Ds, there's no reason why it should be one or the other for the Zeros.
Give us the A6M3, and redo the A6M2 and A6M5, too...
I second that. :aok
-
The A6M3 is an A6M2 with the A6M5's 1,130hp engine, so what you get is a variant with the power of the M5, but the lame armament of the M2. That really fills a gap we need filled? Where? In the EWA?
The Bf109G-6 is just a G-2 with the MG17s replaced with MG131 13mms.
The Spit9('42) is essentially a Spit5 with a better engine.
The La-7 is a La-5FN that is streamlined in a more aerodynamic fashion.
The P-38L is a P-38J with boosted ailerons...
...rinse and repeat with crapload of all the other planes.
...
So, you tell me where each of the above finds a "use", and then tell me if the A6M3 cannot fill the same "use" any of the above listed can.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The Bf109G-6 is just a G-2 with the MG17s replaced with MG131 13mms.
The Spit9('42) is essentially a Spit5 with a better engine.
The La-7 is a La-5FN that is streamlined in a more aerodynamic fashion.
The P-38L is a P-38J with boosted ailerons...
...rinse and repeat with crapload of all the other planes.
...
So, you tell me where each of the above finds a "use", and then tell me if the A6M3 cannot fill the same "use" any of the above listed can.
those are all examples of refinement and the answer to your question is of course the same should be applied to the A6M as well as the Ki61 and the Ki84.
there needs to be interim modifications to the A6M.
the Ki61 will benefit from earlier models such as the Ki61-I with 2 .303-in. MG in the cowl and 2 12.7mmm in the wings. this variant was reported to climb much better than the Ki61-I-KAIc we have. there is also the Ki61-Ib with 4-12.7mm which performed just as well as the -I. when tested against captured kittyhawks, spits and a Bf109E. the Ki-61-Ib generally outperformed these aircraft including climb rates. a small number of Ki-61-Id saw operational service with two wing mounted 30mm cannon.
with refinements to the airframes and improvements to the Ha-140 engine the Ki-61-II saw squadron service starting in Jan. 1944 the Ki-61-IIa was armed with 2 fuselage mounted 12.7mm MG and 2 wing mounted 20mm Ho-5 cannon. the Ki-61-IIb was essentially the same airplane with 4 20mm wing mounted Ho-5 cannon.
as you can see there are considerable additions to added to japanese planeset that would fill huge time and performance gaps in the early and midwar arenas right there in the Ki-61 airframe.
adding the Ki-100 which was reported to fly at 367mph at 10,000 feet (compared to the 348mph for the Ki-61) should prove to be a simple addition in terms of modelling as the airframe is the similar to the Ki-61.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The Bf109G-6 is just a G-2 with the MG17s replaced with MG131 13mms.
The Spit9('42) is essentially a Spit5 with a better engine.
The La-7 is a La-5FN that is streamlined in a more aerodynamic fashion.
The P-38L is a P-38J with boosted ailerons...
...rinse and repeat with crapload of all the other planes.
...
So, you tell me where each of the above finds a "use", and then tell me if the A6M3 cannot fill the same "use" any of the above listed can.
The difference between everything you have listed and the A6M3 is that we ALREADY HAVE THOSE (and we still don't have cockpit updates on the LA-7). So before we ask HTC to engage in a 4-month development effort to bring you the A6M3, I humbly submit that there are better uses for the limited development time available.
The P38H is an up-engined P38G - so what? Maybe if they spent 4 months creating the 38H, we might get a few of the 38 drivers to try it out. I wonder how many people would actually make it their ride of choice? Enough to justify the development effort when so many other rides are waiting to be added to the game?
Development time costs money and is limited - HTC should spend it where it will do the most good, and IMHO the A6M3 doesn't fit that bill.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Um... Eagle... Those things you speak of us "already having" didn't exist right from the very beginning of this game... They were all added. You've been around for at least almost four years. How'd you miss that?
When ANY plane series gets its facelift, it stands to reason that new models of it, when applicable, should be added. The staff has all the paperwork and such for the series laying out there in the open, and they're probably more familiar with them at that time than any other. Why not add other models then and there?
Just saying, you're gonna need a different argument.
----
Anyway,
My favorite plane is already taken care of, so I really don't have a strong personal preference for what is next. However, if CT is ever in a million years going to be released, I'd think they'd concentrate on upgrading the remainder of the ETO lineup before working on something else.
The Typhoon, Tempest, Ta152, and I believe a few bombers, still need to be upgraded for CT to look nice all around. I suppose since it's 8th AF, the Typhoon and Tempest could wait, but I also suppose that there will be AI squads flying those, and thus they could use the facelift.
Really though I would love to have more Japanese aircraft to enable different scenarios and AvA setups. It's kind of hard to do things like Rabaul when half the aircraft fighting over it are nowhere to be found in this game (check my sig for why I might want to do such a scenario :D )
More Russian aircraft would also be great, as would more Italian planes.
But, I remember Air Warrior III, and how we never got a new map or plane for it. Aces High works great for me in that respect. I can't even count how many planes have been added in the short time I've been around.
-
Guys - all I'm really trying to say is that there are so many better things they could be spending the development time on. I view the wishlist as a list of things to add next. The A6M3 just isn't on my list of "needed next".
Don't get me wrong - I FLY the A6M5 and I would love for it to get a cockpit revision and flight model update (although I find it flies just fine). There are few enough of us that actually will take out an A6M in the land of Spit 16s, P51s, and La-7s. If there was an A6M model that would help me out there, it sure isn't the M3. If you want to make a case for the M6, or even the M7, go ahead - I might vote yes on that one. But spending a lot of time creating another hanger queen doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
But spending a lot of time creating another hanger queen doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
A6M is a hangar queen? That's news to me, I see them everywhere. Wish I could get to the stats page here from work to look up how much a 'tower queen' the A6M is.
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Guys - all I'm really trying to say is that there are so many better things they could be spending the development time on. I view the wishlist as a list of things to add next. The A6M3 just isn't on my list of "needed next".
Don't get me wrong - I FLY the A6M5 and I would love for it to get a cockpit revision and flight model update (although I find it flies just fine). There are few enough of us that actually will take out an A6M in the land of Spit 16s, P51s, and La-7s. If there was an A6M model that would help me out there, it sure isn't the M3. If you want to make a case for the M6, or even the M7, go ahead - I might vote yes on that one. But spending a lot of time creating another hanger queen doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
EagleDNY
$.02
The M6 M7 M8 models would seem less important to me for two reasons.
1. Models after the M5 were all essentially designed for Kamakazi role and stacked with bombs and some better gun upgrades, but were hardly ever used for fighting. And since we can't Kamakazi in this game(which I find is a good thing) I don't see much reason for them.
2. Those models were never produced in significant numbers because it was far to late in the war for the Japanese to build many. If I remember it was about 100 M6's created, I can't recall how many M7's and something like 2 M8 prototypes.
-
Service dates
late 1941 to early 1942: A6M2
late 1942 to early 1943: ????????
late 1943 to early 1944: A6M5
We are missing a variant for late 1942 to early 1943 and that would be the A6M3.
There are 2 types of A6M3: clipped wing (model 32) and full wing (model 22)
If we get the A6M3, it should be the model 32. Model 32 has the same cannons as the A6M2 (Type 99 Mk I) but with 80 more rounds. Range shorter than A6M2 because of the big engine and a smaller fuselage tank
(http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/zeke32/pic1_web.jpg)
-
Yeah it would be a little faster with a little more cannon ammo. I'll bet the wings were a little stronger too.
It would be nice to have this for midwar special events. The m2 is too wimpy and the m5 is too overblown.
-
Originally posted by Tiger
A6M is a hangar queen? That's news to me, I see them everywhere. Wish I could get to the stats page here from work to look up how much a 'tower queen' the A6M is.
Look up the stats on kills / sorties in the A6M5 vs the A6M2. When I see an A6M, it is much more likely to be an M5 than an M2. If HTC spends a lot of time creating a ride inferior to the M5, how many folks would fly that as opposed to the M5 model? Would it be enough to justify the development time & expense? I just don't think so.
They are right (up the thread) that relatively few M6 and M7 models were made. Most of the kamikazes used the early models first (makes sense, if you are going to plow a plane into a ship, better to plow the older plane and keep the newer one).
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Look up the stats on kills / sorties in the A6M5 vs the A6M2. When I see an A6M, it is much more likely to be an M5 than an M2. If HTC spends a lot of time creating a ride inferior to the M5, how many folks would fly that as opposed to the M5 model? Would it be enough to justify the development time & expense? I just don't think so.
They are right (up the thread) that relatively few M6 and M7 models were made. Most of the kamikazes used the early models first (makes sense, if you are going to plow a plane into a ship, better to plow the older plane and keep the newer one).
I would use it, I think it would fit a nice balance between the two. The M2 has to little(to no) armor and few bullets but exellent maneuverability and the M5 its less maneuverable with some armor and a fair amount of bullets. The M3 is about middel on the extremes of both planes, fair ammo amount with a small amount more armor then the M2 and better guns, while still more maneuverable then the M5.
Hell I woulden't mind seeing the M6, giveing me 3x 13mm and 2x 20mm on a Zero would be awesome, but considering the amount of them built and used it dosen't quite seem realistic unless your going to perk it or just use it in scenarios while the M3 can fit in both the MA's and scenarios.
-
Personally, I'd like to see more early and mid-war planes added, overall.
So I'm in favor of adding the A6M3.
And if HTC will add more Japanese planes, please include the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar), the most common of all the fighters used by the IJAAF.
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/ArmyJB&W3/Ki-43-85.jpg)
-
EagleDNY,
Why do you keep refering to how much work it would be for HTC to add it?
True, it would take some, but most of it would overlap with the updating of the A6M2 and A6M5b. It isn't as though they'd be adding it from scratch.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
EagleDNY,
Why do you keep refering to how much work it would be for HTC to add it?
True, it would take some, but most of it would overlap with the updating of the A6M2 and A6M5b. It isn't as though they'd be adding it from scratch.
LOL - probably because I own a computer company myself and have done software development (as well as run online games). Because of this, I have a little understanding of what it is like on the HTC side of the game.
Online games are fun, but it is a little different when you are buying $20K servers, making payroll and whipping out $6K a month for bandwidth. If it took HTC 4 months to introduce a new ride (the B-25s), I figure that game addition cost $45K or so (just in payroll time for 2-3 guys).
The way I look at it is that there is a limited amount of resources at HTC for development. Every hour they spend on development costs real money - I want to see them use that money wisely and work on the things that will really help the game instead of working on rides that only a few of us do (or would) fly.
EagleDNY
$.02
CAVEAT: of course if HT or Skuzzy hit the powerball lotto and have 200 million in the bank then:
1. to hell with my worrying about their development budget, and
2. get to work on the A6M3, J2M, Ki-45, Me262a-2, He-162, Me-410, P-39, G.55, and all the other updates we need you slackers. ;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
EagleDNY,
Why do you keep refering to how much work it would be for HTC to add it?
True, it would take some, but most of it would overlap with the updating of the A6M2 and A6M5b. It isn't as though they'd be adding it from scratch.
It's not a big deal, everyone has there own opinions. Hell if I diden't want to hear them I woulden't of asked in the beginning of this thread. :D
Not that that would stop anyone but you get my point.
:noid
-
EagleDNY,
Not really my meaning. It seemed you were taking the developement of the A6M3 as a whole, new airplane and not part f the A6M upgrade which will, most likely, happen sometime.
I have also worked in the software industry. I know a little about it.
Now if you're take is that there are more important things to do than update the A6Ms, well, that is different.
-
no more zekes
good planes but theyre over-used and abused because of their simplicity.
i'm sorry but i'm against it...
-
I don't know that I've ever seen any of the A6ms in the top 5 planes by kills.
So how is that overused? As to abused, I don't see how you can possible rank the poor A6m's into the same category as any of the perk planes.
The F4u-1c back in the day, that was abused. 2 out of every 3 planes you saw were cannon hawgs. That was imbalancing to the game in the extreme, hence it was perked to compensate. At times I've seen the Nik come close to that description, but never the poor Zeke.
So the only conclusion I can possibly come to is that the A6m has been killing you of late.
-
Originally posted by trigger2
good planes but theyre over-used and abused because of their simplicity.
Especially the simplicity of being transformed into a roman candle...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
EagleDNY,
Not really my meaning. It seemed you were taking the developement of the A6M3 as a whole, new airplane and not part f the A6M upgrade which will, most likely, happen sometime.
I have also worked in the software industry. I know a little about it.
Now if you're take is that there are more important things to do than update the A6Ms, well, that is different.
Truthfully, I did some more reading on the M3, so I must admit it isn't as much of a dog as I first thought - the 100 cannon rpg vs 60 of the M2 is a big improvement which I didn't see on my first pass. I still like my M5b, but I'd fly the M3 in scenarios.
Really I'd like to see the A6Ms and the Nikis get the cockpit / flight model treatment before I see any new models. After flying the Ki-84, you realize how bad the cockpits on the other japanese rides look. I'd really like to see how the Niki and A6M do with the updated flight model as well.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
I don't know that I've ever seen any of the A6ms in the top 5 planes by kills.
So how is that overused? As to abused, I don't see how you can possible rank the poor A6m's into the same category as any of the perk planes.
The abuse comes from people upping A6Ms at capped bases out of desperation, and then getting rudely shot down again and again.
If anything, the A6M is underused - if more people flew it, I'd say it should move up the "next to be updated" list considerably, and I'd be a lot more likely to back the M3, M6 and/or floatplane models being added.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Some actual data:
In last tour (91) the A6M5 had 2.7 % of all plane deaths & kills combined, which ranked it at #10
The A6M2 got 0.5%, resulting in rank #46 (It's usually only used in gerater numbers when Ndisles is up in EW)
-
Originally posted by Badair
One of the late model zeke's with 4 20mm's would be cool too ;)
A little late for this but I think I found what you were talking about, I was looking at some specs of the Zero and found that there was prototype A7M's built. The one I beleive you meant was the A7M2. There was never close to enough of these made to think about adding them but I thought it was interesting and wanted to clear that up.
Powerplant...
One Mitsubishi MK9A eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 2,200 hp for take-off, 2,070 hp at 1,000 m and 1,800 hp at 6,000 m, driving a four-blade constant-speed metal propeller.
Armament...
Four wing-mounted 20 mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon.
External Load - Two 250 kg bombs or two 350 litre drop tanks.
Dimensions...
Wing Span - 14.00 M
Length - 11.00 M
Height - 4.28 M
Wing Area - 30.9 M(squared)
Weights..
Empty - 3,226 Kg
Loaded - 4,720 Kg
Wing Loading - 152.9 Kg/M(squared)
Power Loading - 2.1 Kg/Hp
Performance...
Max Speed - 339 Knots at 6,600 M
Cruising Speed - 225 Knots at 4,000 M
Climb Rate - 6,000 M in 6 Min 7 Sec
Service Ceiling - 10,900 M
Production...
7 A7M2 prototypes and Service trials aircraft.
There was also some other interesting ones such as the A7M3-J with an armament of Two fuselage-mounted oblique-firing 30 mm Type 5 cannon and four wing-mounted 30 mm Type 5 cannon(HO machine?) or the A7M3 with an armament of Six wing-mounted 20 mm Type 99 Model 2 cannons. I'm not going to type the rest of the specs for these planes as well as it would just take way to long but you can get them "here." (http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/a7m.htm)
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
I don't know that I've ever seen any of the A6ms in the top 5 planes by kills.
So how is that overused? As to abused, I don't see how you can possible rank the poor A6m's into the same category as any of the perk planes.
The F4u-1c back in the day, that was abused. 2 out of every 3 planes you saw were cannon hawgs. That was imbalancing to the game in the extreme, hence it was perked to compensate. At times I've seen the Nik come close to that description, but never the poor Zeke.
So the only conclusion I can possibly come to is that the A6m has been killing you of late.
in other words
it's too simple, it's easy and takes hardly any practice.
dweebs get in em (along with spitfires...) and have totally ruined the plane.
if i see an experianced pilot in one...i know to go the other way
i respect the truely experianced zero pilots, but 99.9% of em are dweebs who need to learn a plane rather than pick the easy kills.
if there would be more experianced people flyin em, i'd be all for it, but i just see it as another dweeb plane that's not needed.
-
Though I will agree that the A6M is an easy plane to fly, Im going to have to disagree when you put it with the Spit. Why? A few main reasons.
One, unlike Hispanos, the Japanese 20mm's have overall crappy trajectory.
Two, it bursts into flames if you sneeze at it.
Three, it's very slow, unlike the Spit. It also compresses at like 350.
Factually, its not 'simple' at all. You have to have good SA or your screwed and you have to watch your airspeed carefully or your going to hit the deck, literally. Although it is an easy plane to fly.
-
Originally posted by trigger2
in other words
it's too simple, it's easy and takes hardly any practice.
dweebs get in em (along with spitfires...) and have totally ruined the plane.
if i see an experianced pilot in one...i know to go the other way
i respect the truely experianced zero pilots, but 99.9% of em are dweebs who need to learn a plane rather than pick the easy kills.
if there would be more experianced people flyin em, i'd be all for it, but i just see it as another dweeb plane that's not needed.
There is no such thing as "easy kills" in a zero - far too many disadvantages.
And if you have read my post above - how can a plane responsible for only 2.7 % of all aerial kills & deaths (and a K/D of only 0.95!) ruin the game?
-
Originally posted by Lusche
There is no such thing as "easy kills" in a zero - far too many disadvantages.
And if you have read my post above - how can a plane responsible for only 2.7 % of all aerial kills & deaths (and a K/D of only 0.95!) ruin the game?
the reason for the low kill/death ratio is probably because of the players who choose to fly this airframe.
last night I was one of three players (I was in a 110G full fuel and full eggs) defending V46 Rooks from the onslaught of the shedders. all the shedders who numbered six players in aircraft and three players in LVTs. the flying players were initially in F6Fs. the F6F proving no match for a 110 and two woobiecanes were soon switched to seafires. the seafires not producing the desired results were soon swapped for A6M2s.
I promise you the problem is never the ride but the driver. there are a lot of new guys playing and bless their hearts they are just climbing that steep learning curve.
I commend these guys because at least they fight and put forth effort in obtaining their objective. sadly the effort is being channelled by the "veterans" with the low numbers next to their names and these guys are helpless, clueless tooltardlings.
the future of the game seems worrying to me. I fear it will all be about a low number next to your cpid.
-
Originally posted by Motherland
...
the Japanese 20mm's have overall crappy trajectory
...
If HTC modeled it correctly (and I believe they did), the A6M2 armament should be very, very similar to the Messerschmitt Bf-109E-3. In Real Life, both the German MG-FF and the Japanese Type 99 were based on the Oerlikon FF. And there was not much difference between a German 7.9mm MG17 and a Japanese 7.7mm Type 97.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
There is no such thing as "easy kills" in a zero - far too many disadvantages.
True enough, I can easily name a few them...
1. The guns trajectory and over-all killing power is bad.
2. It's slow, very slow, i've been out run by bombers in it.
3. It can't go fast, 400 is the max untill your essentially completely unmovable in it, even 350 is about the max you want to be going.
4. It has about 0% armor, from pilot armor to self sealing tanks it has neither, although I've taken pleanty of hits from .50 Cals and 7mm's all it takes is 1-2 bullets through one of the tanks to finish it.
But then again, if used properly there is pleanty of ways to over-come the short comings except against some of the better pilots who always manage anyways.
1. Get close, 400 or closer for the cowlings and 200 or closer for the 20mm's
2. Get them slow, theres pleanty of info on Netaces and the Hitech training site on how to do it.
3. See #2
4. It turns better then anything else in the game, keep it moveing to keep there gun solution off you.
So is it an easy plane to fly? Yes and no.
Although newer pilots may be able to pick it up easily because its turning rate allows for the easy 6 o'clock shots, turning alone will never let a Zero live long because it will simply be BnZ'ed untill a fuel tank is hit or it breaks apart completely.
The Zero require a large sense of SA to be able to fly it properly. As well as well managed tactics to allow them to be able to kill the alt-monkeys E state. It also requires a a fair skill of aiming (just like any other plane) and is harder to aim then other planes due to the guns trajectory. There are pleanty of other factors to put into play here but writting it all would take to long and yous all can think for yourselves. All in all the Zero is no easier to fly then a P-38, P-51, Spit, Corsair, Hellcat or any other plane, but rather requires a different set of tactics to allow survivability.
-
Originally posted by trigger2
in other words
it's too simple, it's easy and takes hardly any practice.
dweebs get in em (along with spitfires...) and have totally ruined the plane.
if i see an experianced pilot in one...i know to go the other way
i respect the truely experianced zero pilots, but 99.9% of em are dweebs who need to learn a plane rather than pick the easy kills.
if there would be more experianced people flyin em, i'd be all for it, but i just see it as another dweeb plane that's not needed.
So in translation, "Only BnZ is a valid combat tactic and all fighters tuned to other styles of combat aren't "real" fighters and ought to be removed. Then we can have P-51s and Fw190s running away from eachother and it will be the bestest game ever!"
trigger2, you have a lot to learn. Your defining of certain aircraft as "dweeb planes" is complete bull****.
-
Did the a6m3 have Type 99I or Type 99II cannons? If it's the II, I'd take it!
-Sik
-
the A6M-3 (model 32) had the type I cannon with 65 rounds per gun. it had a more powerful engine (nakajima sakae 21 1130 hp with a two stage supercharger) it had inferior range to the A6M2 but the clipped wings gave it better turning abilities over the -2. the -3 was faster, climbed faster and had slightly more cannon plus it out turned the -2.
-
Originally posted by storch
the A6M-3 (model 32) had the type I cannon with 65 rounds per gun. it had a more powerful engine (nakajima sakae 21 1130 hp with a two stage supercharger) it had inferior range to the A6M2 but the clipped wings gave it better turning abilities over the -2. the -3 was faster, climbed faster and had slightly more cannon plus it out turned the -2.
Really, I always thought the M2 turned better, fine by me, as far as I see it thats one more reason to make it my Zero of choice when/if we get it.
-
Originally posted by AirFlyer
Really, I always thought the M2 turned better, fine by me, as far as I see it thats one more reason to make it my Zero of choice when/if we get it.
there were two variants of the -3 the model 32 with the clipped wings and the model 22 with the folding wing tips and the additional fuel the model 22 did not turn as well as -2 but the 32 did according to what I've read up on them in any event this is a good place to start (http://www.vectorsite.net/avzero.html)
-
Originally posted by storch
there were two variants of the -3 the model 32 with the clipped wings and the model 22 with the folding wing tips and the additional fuel the model 22 did not turn as well as -2 but the 32 did according to what I've read up on them in any event this is a good place to start (http://www.vectorsite.net/avzero.html)
The Zeke 32 was the one I was talking about from the beginning, not the Model 22. Also thanks for link, a lot of useful information.
-
Also on a side note (and this is more just wishful thinking on my part, flameing replys not required) does any of HiTech have any comments on this thread? It's always nice to get a bit of feed back from the top of the chain of command and hear there thoughts. :D