Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: daddog on January 30, 2011, 10:26:09 PM
-
Please push this out.
Just about every Pacific event suffers because we don't have the A6M3. It would fill a huge hole we have had for years. :salute
-
A6M3 is basically a poorer A6M2 Model 21 with A6M5B cannons
-
A6M3 is basically a poorer A6M2 Model 21 with A6M5B cannons
Does it not also have a more powerful engine? Same engine as the A6M5, but without the ejector stacks?
-
Does it not also have a more powerful engine? Same engine as the A6M5, but without the ejector stacks?
it only gained 10-20mph and wouldnt fly like the 5. Too heavy for the airframe and wouldnt turn inside or even with the 5. The Japanese preferred the 2 Model 21s over the 3 Models.
Would be a gap filler as said above though and for that and ONLY that do i :aok
-
Please push this out.
Just about every Pacific event suffers because we don't have the A6M3. It would fill a huge hole we have had for years. :salute
If daddog is begging for something, this would be a time to get it, HiTech.
-
Does it not also have a more powerful engine? Same engine as the A6M5, but without the ejector stacks?
Correct, it used the Sakae 21(sp) over the Sakae 12, I don't remember the horsepower difference in my head but it wasn't a significant increase. Theres also the difference between the two models of A6M3 as far as aerodynamics go.
-
Correct, it used the Sakae 21(sp) over the Sakae 12, I don't remember the horsepower difference in my head but it wasn't a significant increase. Theres also the difference between the two models of A6M3 as far as aerodynamics go.
The new Sakae was slightly heavier and somewhat longer due to the larger supercharger, which moved the center of gravity too far forward on the existing airframe. To correct for this the engine mountings were cut down by 20 cm (8 in), moving the engine back towards the cockpit. This had the side effect of reducing the size of the main fuel tank (located to the rear of the engine) from 518 L (137 US gal) to 470 L (120 US gal).
The only other major changes were to the wings, which were simplified by removing the Model 21's folding tips. This changed the appearance enough to prompt the US to designate it with a new code name, Hap. This name was short-lived, as a protest from USAAF commander General Henry "Hap" Arnold forced a change to "Hamp". Soon after, it was realized that it was simply a new model of the "Zeke". The wings also included larger ammunition boxes, allowing for 100 rounds for each of the 20 mm cannon.
The wing changes had much greater effects on performance than expected. The smaller size led to better roll, and their lower drag allowed the diving speed to be increased to 670 km/h (420 mph). On the downside, maneuverability was reduced, and range suffered due to both decreased lift and the smaller fuel tank. Pilots complained about both. The shorter range proved a significant limitation during the Solomons campaign of 1942.
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
In order to correct the deficiencies of the Model 32, a new version with the Model 21's folding wings, new in-wing fuel tanks and attachments for a 330 L (90 US gal) drop tank under each wing were introduced. The internal fuel was thereby increased to 570 L (137 US gal) in this model, regaining all of the lost range.
As the airframe was reverted from the Model 32 and the engine remained the same, this version received the navy designation Model 22, while Mitsubishi called it the A6M3a. The new model started production in December, and 560 were eventually produced. This company constructed some examples for evaluation, armed with 30 mm Type 5 Cannon, under denomination of A6M3b (model 22b).
A few late-production A6M3 Model 22s had a wing similar to the later shortened, rounded tip wing fitted to the A6M5 Model 52. These were probably a transition model, at least one was photographed at Rabaul-East in Mid-1943.
--------------------------------------
There ya go. ill try to find the link. i literally just took this from a saved word doc that i copied from the internet as a source. <S>
The Model 22 was basically a better model A6M2 Model 21 with an extra 10-20mph max speed while the Model 32 was crap.
-
The Japanese preferred the 2 Model 21s over the 3 Models.
Japanese pilots initially preferred the A5M over the A6M2 and the Ki-27 over the Ki-43 as well, simply because they turned better. Doesn't mean they were better.
-
Japanese pilots initially preferred the A5M over the A6M2 and the Ki-27 over the Ki-43 as well, simply because they turned better. Doesn't mean they were better.
read above
-
To sum up... Less gas, which the japanese hated losing, less wing area (cropped tips) that lost rate of climb and loosened turn radius (which the Japanese hated losing) and while the ENGINE may have been a similar model as the A6M5b, it was not the same performance due to the cowling and exhaust designs.
Overall it monkeys with the FTH and alt bands, but wouldn't be more than 10mph or so faster than the A6M2 we have in-game, would only have 100 rpg (instead of 60 in-game) and the lighter weight from the removed fuel tank was negated in climb rate performance because the wings were cropped.
Same way the Spit8/Spit16 climb the same -- one is lighter but with less wing area so the end result is the same.
EDIT: P.S. This is why those A6M3 skins do NOT belong on the A6M5 airframe in-game. The argument for doing that was the engine was closer to the -5, but the performance and overall history just doesn't match IMO.
-
To sum up... Less gas, which the japanese hated losing, less wing area (cropped tips) that lost rate of climb and loosened turn radius (which the Japanese hated losing) and while the ENGINE may have been a similar model as the A6M5b, it was not the same performance due to the cowling and exhaust designs.
Overall it monkeys with the FTH and alt bands, but wouldn't be more than 10mph or so faster than the A6M2 we have in-game, would only have 100 rpg (instead of 60 in-game) and the lighter weight from the removed fuel tank was negated in climb rate performance because the wings were cropped.
Same way the Spit8/Spit16 climb the same -- one is lighter but with less wing area so the end result is the same.
EDIT: P.S. This is why those A6M3 skins do NOT belong on the A6M5 airframe in-game. The argument for doing that was the engine was closer to the -5, but the performance and overall history just doesn't match IMO.
the lighter/smaller fuel tank negated the heavier engine. the wing design created a poorer flight design in the end. so something that was the same weight (including engine and tank changes) with the A6M3/32 was worse in the end anyways because of the wing. The A6M3/22 was a way of fixing the 32's design flaws and in the end it brought it back to A6M2/21 standards. As i said, the A6M3 was only good for creating ideas for the A6M5/52
-
Yep, that's pretty much what I've described most times folks go calling for the A6M3 believing it to be a super leap above the A6M2. Hell even Busa tried going on and on and on about how the A6M3 was part of the A6M5b family because of the engine, and totally ignored the facts and the real-world performances when I called him out on his A6M3 skins on the A6M5b plane in-game.
The white/grey ones don't belong. No A6M5 had that color as this was done away with (as far as camo) before this aircraft was in production. But that's another topic. I digress.
-
True but if you're going to add an other model of the A6M the only two that I can think of that would be worth the effort are the A6M3 22 or the A6M6c(maybe, I've still yet to see a consistent accurate production figure on this model).
-
The white/grey ones don't belong. No A6M5 had that color as this was done away with (as far as camo) before this aircraft was in production. But that's another topic. I digress.
Don't worry, those skins will soon be gone due to the new model update
-
The A6M series is as important to the Japanese plane set, as the Spit is to the Brits and the 109 is to the Germans. Regardless of the negative comments posted about the bird she would be a great addition for the Special events and any Japanese aircraft fan.
To sum up... Less gas, which the Japanese hated losing,
In the MA and for the special events we wouldn't care
less wing area (cropped tips) that lost rate of climb and loosened turn radius (which the Japanese hated losing)
Its a Zeke, if any plane can afford to lose a little bit in the turn...its this one
but wouldn't be more than 10mph or so faster than the A6M2 we have in-game
I'll take it
would only have 100 rpg (instead of 60 in-game)
Only 200 total rounds vs 120....how could that be a bad thing?
This plane is much need IMO, and I can see from your posting that it is not very much needed IYO. But when you go around saying...its "only" 10mph faster or it "only" has 80 more cannon rounds...well that doesn't make sense.
As a fan of the Japanese plane set I would love to see this addition. :aok
-
HighTone,
Exactly.
Krusty,
Nobody is expecting a superplane, just an A6M that is a bit faster with a bit more ammo. If we can have a Bf109G-2 and Bf109G-6 and have a Spitfire LF.Mk VIII and a Spitfire Mk XVI, then we can certainly afford to have an A6M2 and an A6M3.
-
Given that HTC is presently working on remodeling the existing Zekes, I am quite sure they would add another variant to the planeset.
-
As long as it'd be the A6M3/22 and not the A6M3/32 then im all for it :aok The A6M3/32 was an even poorer model than the A6M2/21 from what i have read
-
Does it still catch on fire as well as the other Zekes?
If so, +1.
Gotta light up the sky somehow... :confused:
-
Does it still catch on fire as well as the other Zekes?
If so, +1.
Gotta light up the sky somehow... :confused:
:cry :ahand :cry :bolt:
-
As long as it'd be the A6M3/22 and not the A6M3/32 then im all for it :aok The A6M3/32 was an even poorer model than the A6M2/21 from what i have read
It's really not the overly poor plane you're making it out to be, it was just different. If I had to give a good reason to pick one over the other it would be the A6M3/22 had more produced then it's clipped wing brother and ends up being a better representative in what people are expecting out of an A6M in both numbers and performance.
-
It's really not the overly poor plane you're making it out to be, it was just different. If I had to give a good reason to pick one over the other it would be the A6M3/22 had more produced then it's clipped wing brother and ends up being a better representative in what people are expecting out of an A6M in both numbers and performance.
that and the 32 had less lift ability (even less than the 5B) and could not turn even with the 5B iirc
So therefore, in terms of A6Ms, the A6M3/32 was crap...
-
I think there is more than just an ammo load difference wrt the cannon - the cannon on the A6M3 were faster-firing than those on the A6M2, IIRC.
+1 for the Model 22.
-
I would vote for the Model 32 just because it WOULD be significantly different in both visual profile and flight characteristics. The Model 32 was also one of the main Zero types encountered by the Cactus Air Force during the first three months of the Guadalcanal campaign, so although it lacked the production numbers of the full-span Model 22, I would argue that historical significance is in favor of the 32.
-
less wing area (cropped tips) that lost rate of climb and loosened turn radius (which the Japanese hated losing)
An aircraft does not lose climb rate due to small reduction of wing area nor does it gain climb rate by increasing the wing area. Actually, the 190hp increase in sea level power output gives A6M3 better power loading and therefore better climbrate than A6M2, not worse.
Having a two speed supercharger which gives you roughly 6000ft higher FTH on the second gear compared single speed of the earlier engine is a clear improvement to any fighter.
-
damn tarnation.. these freaking forums keep eating every other post I try to type. It's brassing me off big time to re-type things so much.
Wmaker, even with the 2-speed SC it was only about 10mph faster at its FTH. What you don't consider is that while 2-stages shifts that FTH up, it usually also introduces a rapid loss of power between the 2 peaks. The single stages are smoother with the power application and drop-off, so there's a good chance that the model 22 will be significantly faster than the A6M3 in the mid-alt range because it does not drop off.
I don't believe you are accurate in your assessments of the wing area and horsepower. You might be comparing the later A6M5b horsepower, but the M3 did not have the redesigned aerodynamics nor the redesigned thruster stacks on the exhaust to increase actual forward speed. The engine was still in an inefficient state and installation, and could not produce the speed and performance of the M5b we have in-game.
Your are saying that wing area has nothing to do with climb whatsoever, which is just wrong. We have examples of how this is wrong. We have had many previous discussions on these forums on the matter, and it all plays into the rate of climb (weight, speed, excess thrust, lift, drag, etc) and a general concensus might be that excess thrust is what really dictates climb rate. However, the A6M3 did not have that much more thrust than the Model 22 it replaced.
Then let's see about your comment that clipping the wings would change nothing. We know that's not the case because we have 2 nearly identical planes in AH right now. The spit 8 and 16 share the same airframe and the same engine. Their climb rate charts are nearly over-laid duplicates of each other. However, one has clipped wings and one has 280 lbs of extra gas onboard.
Surely you're not denying that heavier planes climb slower, right?
Identical power planes, identical airframes (sans 1-2 minor points) and yet the extra wing area on the spit 8 is more than enough to make up for 300lbs of extra weight and drag. Or, to state it the other way around, clipping the wings on the 300-lb-lighter spit16 drops it down to "merely" the climb rate of its heavier, draggier, brother. That alone tells you that clipping wings reduces climb rate to some extent. You can't totally ignore it.
-
Wmaker, even with the 2-speed SC it was only about 10mph faster at its FTH. What you don't consider is that while 2-stages shifts that FTH up, it usually also introduces a rapid loss of power between the 2 peaks. The single stages are smoother with the power application and drop-off, so there's a good chance that the model 22 will be significantly faster than the A6M3 in the mid-alt range because it does not drop off.
Don't tell me what I consider/ I don't consider, ok? I'm well aware how a 2-speed supercharger works. It is just like I said, having 6k higher FTH is a major improvement. Especially in the real war were the altitudes the combat took place were higher.
I don't believe you are accurate in your assessments of the wing area and horsepower. You might be comparing the later A6M5b horsepower, but the M3 did not have the redesigned aerodynamics nor the redesigned thruster stacks on the exhaust to increase actual forward speed. The engine was still in an inefficient state and installation, and could not produce the speed and performance of the M5b we have in-game.
Your are saying that wing area has nothing to do with climb whatsoever, which is just wrong. We have examples of how this is wrong. We have had many previous discussions on these forums on the matter, and it all plays into the rate of climb (weight, speed, excess thrust, lift, drag, etc) and a general concensus might be that excess thrust is what really dictates climb rate. However, the A6M3 did not have that much more thrust than the Model 22 it replaced.
The shaft hp output for both the A6M3 and A6M5 are indentical 1130hp for take off. Yes, the exhaust thrust was less than A6M5's. The only way how the wingarea can make a difference to the climbrate is how much drag the wing contributes to the overall drag of the aircraft. When wingarea is decreased, climbing at the same climb speed as before the change should produce more induced drag but less parasitic drag as before the change. On the other hand, increasing climb speed reduces the induced drag and slightly increases the parasitic drag. It is a non issue no matter which way you look at it especially when the difference between the wing areas is only 1 sqm. A6M3 is heavier but like I said, has 190 more hp which gives it a clearly better power loading (2,3kg/hp vs. 2,5kg/hp). A6M3 climbs better than the A6M2, not the other way around.
-
Climb rate of the A6M2 in AH:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=71&p2=-1&pw=2>ype=2]http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=71&p2=-1&pw=2>ype=2)
Data from US testing of a captured A6M3: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/hamp-eb201.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/hamp-eb201.html)
AH's A6M2 initial rate of climb is ~2800ft/min. The A6M3 in US testing achieved 3260ft/min.
The difference is about what I'd expect considering the difference in power loading.
A6M3 has a better climb rate than A6M2.
-
So you're saying that heavier planes don't climb slower all other things being equal?
You're saying that weight and wing area have NO impact on rate of climb?
Well... 10 years of reading this forum beg to differ with you. :rolleyes:
P.S. I would not trust a US test of a zero of any type. They seriously didn't know what the hell they were doing half the time. Actual japanese power settings were often lower and slower and the real war-time performance was not what US test showed in several cases.
P.P.S. That test claims high peak FTH was only 15k. Same as on the model 22 in AH. Other sources and you yourself point out it should be 19k FTH, so you can't even use that test as a valid example. Other sources claim 336 or 338 mph top speed while A6M2 is 331 mph a scant 4k lower.
-
So you're saying that heavier planes don't climb slower all other things being equal?
Never said anything that would suggest this. You again seem to have big troubles with reading comprehension.
You're saying that weight and wing area have NO impact on rate of climb?
Again, never said that weight doesn't have an impact on the rate of climb. You truly have troubles regarding reading. Once again, as you can see, the only way for the wing to affect the climb rate is through drag. And as I said before, the climb speed can change due to change in drag and/or wing loading. But any effect the ~1sqm difference makes to these values of the A6M is neglible compared to the clear difference in power loading.
Well... 10 years of reading this forum beg to differ with you. :rolleyes:
Reading anything for 10 years won't do much good if the said person doesn't understand what he's reading.
P.S. I would not trust a US test of a zero of any type. They seriously didn't know what the hell they were doing half the time. Actual japanese power settings were often lower and slower and the real war-time performance was not what US test showed in several cases.
P.P.S. That test claims high peak FTH was only 15k. Same as on the model 22 in AH. Other sources and you yourself point out it should be 19k FTH, so you can't even use that test as a valid example. Other sources claim 336 or 338 mph top speed while A6M2 is 331 mph a scant 4k lower.
The FTH's could have been all over the place for a number of reasons. If the power output at sea level corresponds to the usually given power output figures (A6M3: 1130hp vs. A6M2: 940hp) then the initial climb rate values are comparable.
-
Which match burns better? Atlas or Diamond?
-
P.S. I would not trust a US test of a zero of any type. They seriously didn't know what the hell they were doing half the time. Actual japanese power settings were often lower and slower and the real war-time performance was not what US test showed in several cases.
Wmaker... the Japanese at the war's end used 87 octane fuel while the US used 100 octane. All of the US tested Japanese planes performed above and beyond what they could actually do during the war just because of the octane difference. I remember reading somewhere in these forums earlier this month that the KI-84 on 100 octane could keep near P51 mustang speeds. This would completely ruin any comparison of US test planes and actual Japanese aircraft used during the war. The Japanese at the end of the war were even using pine oil as an additive to fuel.
Resume your bashing :aok
-
Wmaker... the Japanese at the war's end used 87 octane fuel while the US used 100 octane.
Not as simple as that at all.
First of all, higher octane fuels only helps at producing more power if you push the engine beyond its normally rated setting which were set with the lower octane fuels in mind.
In that US flight test report it says:
"The principal results are as follows. All flight tests were performed at rated power and no data is available at maximum emergency power, 2600 RPM and 40" Hg. manifold pressure."
So the tests were performed 36"@2400rpm setting. In Aces High, A6M5's Sakae 21 runs at 41" all out, which is close to the Japanese sources regarding to the +300mm power setting which produces that 1130hp -figure. So, the US tests were actually performed at lower power setting than what the Japanese could use in combat.
Obviously this becomes more complex when one digs further. It is totally possible that Pyro completely remodels the flight models of the Zeros from scratch like he did for the Mosquito. We'll have to wait and see. However, one thing is certain regardless what the exact performance figures will be. If HTC adds A6M3 its climb rate will be closer to the A6M5 than A6M2. Physics can't be fooled.
-
Trust me, there's two more A6M models coming.
-
Trust me, there's two more A6M models coming.
What makes you say that?
-
Trust me, there's two more A6M models coming.
I hope so :pray
-
Now that they are remodeling the Zero's, which plane is in DIRE need of a remodel? Isn't the B-26 we currently have not been updated since it was introduced?
I am hoping they remodel the B-26 and/or the Ju-87 next. :x
Either way, I drool at what the A6M2 is going to look like....*drools*
-
What good is an A6M2 without something shooting it down? I would like hurricanes/p40s/wildcats to go along with it!
(but that's just personal wishing)
-
+1 to the OP. As far as performance goes...Krusty, you make good points. The 3 is heavier. You seem to ignore the fact that the 3 also had more hp as wmaker said, though. I am a bit over my head in discussing the zero, but maker posted power to weight ratios, and they favor the A6M3. Is that not good enough? (Asking sincerely, I have little knowledge of the zeke)
-
Your defense is basically "you don't know how to read"???
You are saying that clipping wingtips will not affect climb rate. You are saying, explicitly, that a plane with more weight and less wing area will climb better with a mere 100 hp or so?
Japanese pilots thought the climb rate was worse than the model 21. Time to climb numbers seem to indicate the Zeke32 took more time to get to alt thand the model21 did.
I gave you a nearly perfect example which you ignored:
In-game we already have the perfect example of how clipping wingtips affects climb rate. Spit8 and Spit16.
Even the clipped-wing early model with reduced main fuel tankage weighed more than its predecessor. Once the pilots decried the poor range (made worse by the new engine sucking gas faster than the previous engine) and the lack of manuverability, the fuel was upped and the wingtips restored. This jumped up to 220kg more than the model22! It weighed almost as much as the later A6M5b but without the actual performance to go with it.
So, 100 [edit: 150?] extra horsepower overcomes 500lbs extra weight plus less lifting capacity due to clipped wings?
You're going to have to prove that one, Wmaker, before others buy your hunch.
-
There is hardly a difference between the 16 and 8 and climb rates:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/d/d1/Spit16clmb.jpg)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/e/e4/Spit8clmb.jpg)
Hell, the 16's is even slightly better until you get above ~22,000 feet.
Not to mention the 16 is faster than the 8:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/e/e0/Spit16spd.jpg)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/9/9e/Spit8spd.jpg)
Even the clipped-wing early model with reduced main fuel tankage weighed more than its predecessor. Once the pilots decried the poor range (made worse by the new engine sucking gas faster than the previous engine) and the lack of manuverability, the fuel was upped and the wingtips restored. This jumped up to 220kg more than the model22! It weighed almost as much as the later A6M5b but without the actual performance to go with it.
I'm pretty sure the wingtips and fuel load were restored on the 22, not the 32. They couldn't just add more fuel capacity to the 32, the engine was pushed backwards due to the supercharger which is why the fuel capacity dropped to begin with.
-
Please push this out.
Just about every Pacific event suffers because we don't have the A6M3. It would fill a huge hole we have had for years. :salute
Yes, please. :salute
PTO events would benefit from a more complete IJN and IJA plane set.
-
Bump.
A6M3 please. Either the 22 (full span) or 32 (clipped wing) model. Be happy with either.
Its also not about wether or not it was a "huge leap" over the A6M2 its about having the aircraft in the game that flew in WW2.
Far as im concerned the additional 20mm ammo is reason enough to include it. In any case it was a common varient in the 1942-43 Solomons air battles. If you want a super duper IJ fighter for the MA go fly a Ki-84 or an N1K2.
-
You are saying that clipping wingtips will not affect climb rate.
If you go and check my first post on this thread you'll see what I said. I said that a small change won't make a difference, especially considering the topic; A6M2 vs. A6M3. Obviously, if you remove the wing area completely the aircraft won't do much climbing... :neener:
You are saying, explicitly, that a plane with more weight and less wing area will climb better with a mere 100 hp or so?
It all depends on how big of a change occurs for each of these parameters but normally, the more excess thrust the better the climb rate. Simply because there's more power available per the weight that is being lifted against gravity. I've already explained this earlier in this thread. But if you don't believe me, read here about climb performance (http://books.google.com/books?id=LIr3dZZPROgC&pg=SA10-PA7&lpg=SA10-PA7&dq=wing+area+climb+rate&source=bl&ots=f1IzNFc00e&sig=mYEaqixWNAy6VKFMOkZIRsYZUAc&hl=fi&ei=tvZKTZXzCsHzsgbFyYm5Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=wing%20area%20climb%20rate&f=false). And try to pay attention. Like I've said many times on this thread, the hp difference between Sakae 12 and 21 is 190hp, not 100hp or 150hp.
Japanese pilots thought the climb rate was worse than the model 21.
If you stating this as an argument, I'm sure you can then quote these Japanese pilots here, right? Sources, please.
Time to climb numbers seem to indicate the Zeke32 took more time to get to alt thand the model21 did.
The climb times given in Rene Francillons book say just the opposite. What is your source which claims that it took A6M3 longer to climb to any specific alt?
I gave you a nearly perfect example which you ignored:
In-game we already have the perfect example of how clipping wingtips affects climb rate. Spit8 and Spit16.
The reason I ignored it is because we are talking about Zeros here. I'm not gonna start double checking Spit figures to humor you. Lets keep the discussion in the planes this topic is about.
Once the pilots decried the poor range (made worse by the new engine sucking gas faster than the previous engine) and the lack of manuverability, the fuel was upped and the wingtips restored. This jumped up to 220kg more than the model22! It weighed almost as much as the later A6M5b but without the actual performance to go with it.
I know the range was reduced. Has nothing to do with the discussion about the climb rate though. Hmm...Model 22 (also refererred to as A6M3a) came after the A6M3 (Model 32). Model 22 actually weighed more than the A6M3 (Model 32), not the other way around.
Loaded weights from Francillon:
A6M2 (Model 21): 5313lbs
A6M3 (Model 32): 5609lbs
A6M5 (Model 52): 6025lbs
A6M3a (Model 22) weight in Japanese literature is listed as 5906lbs, 297lbs more than the Model 32.
So, the difference in weight between the A6M2 and A6M3 (Model 32) is 134kg.
So, 100 [edit: 150?] extra horsepower overcomes 500lbs extra weight plus less lifting capacity due to clipped wings?
As you can see above, my figures tell a different story.
Compared to the A6M2, A6M3 (Model 32) gained 295lbs in weight, not 500lbs and had 190hp more power, not 100hp or 150hp.
These translate to power loadings:
A6M2: 2,57 kg/hp
A6M3: 2.25 kg/hp
You're going to have to prove that one, Wmaker, before others buy your hunch.
It's you who has "a hunch" and it's you who hasn't provided any proof.
-
Trust me, there's two more A6M models coming.
I truly hope so. Zero was the backbone of the entire IJN throughout the Pacific War. It certainly deserves four variants. IMO both Model 32 and Model 22 could both be added. I'd like to even see a Rufe thrown in but I'm guessing that's a pipedream.
-
Dug through what I have on it (Robert Mikesh) and it would appear that the A6M3 Model 32 had the best power-weight ratio of any of the Zero series. Climb to 19,690 feet in only 18 sec slower than the A6M5 does. 7 min 19 sec to 7 min 1 second. The A6M5 climbed faster due to the gain from the ejector stack thrust.
VS A6M2:
More ammo.
Better roll rate.
Higher service ceiling.
Faster climb.
Faster? yes, @ 7mph. Not a huge gain but its still faster.
It wasn't what the IJ pilots wanted because it was not the "better" plane they were promised vise a vie the opposition but thats not saying it was not an improvement over the A6M2 series as a weapon of war.
-
Spitfire Mk XVI and Spitfire Mk VIII have the exact same engine in AH, Merlin 66, and thus the same horsepower. The A6M2 and A6M3 do not have the same engine and do not produce the same horsepower. The A6M3 has a mere 19.39% more power than the A6M2, If I recall the Sakae 12's rated power correctly and using Wmaker's 190 horsepower.
As to speed, what is the difference at what altitude? A Spitfire Mk IX isn't much faster than the Spitfire Mk V at sea level, but is about 40mph faster when looking at best alts for both.
-
Karnak: I'm not saying the A6M2 and the A6M3 have the same engine. I'm saying that given nearly identical planes, one with clipped wings will have less climb rate. That's proved by our spitfires in-game. The wings do make a noticable impact.
Imperial Japanese pilots were less than thrilled with the model 32 type Zero because it climbed and turned marginally worse than the model21 it was replacing.
These 2 examples suggest a clipped wing zero would have no better (and possibly worse) climb rate when added down with hundreds of pounds of additional weight, clipped wings, and only a slight boost in power.
So you can see I'm not drawing a direct corrolary between the spits and the zekes. I'm using them as an perfect example of why the model 32 won't climb like a rocket, like some seem to be suggesting.
-
Of course it won't climb like a rocket. It should, given the power difference, climb a bit better, but not as much better as just sticking a Sakae 21 on an A6M2's airframe would do. No A6M is going to climb like a Bf109K-4 or Spitfire Mk XIV.
-
Dug through what I have on it (Robert Mikesh) and it would appear that the A6M3 Model 32 had the best power-weight ratio of any of the Zero series.
I came to an exactly same conclusion.
It wasn't what the IJ pilots wanted because it was not the "better" plane they were promised vise a vie the opposition but thats not saying it was not an improvement over the A6M2 series as a weapon of war.
I haven't read what Japanese pilots thought about the plane (nor have I seen any actual quotes posted here...lot of talk about them but no quotes...still waiting) but looking at the figures, but again I've come to the same conclusion again. "The dissapointment" that was behind the A6M3 was that the real plane didn't perform as well as the designers had calculated (Francillon).
Saying that the A6M3 was worst performer of the operational A6M series is complete nonsense.
-
Don't know where Krusty has gotten his dislike of Japanese planes, or why he is making some of these things up. Does it have anything to do with being a radioactive member?
Bring on the Zeke three in all it's uberness. Krusty said it climbs like a rocket, dives like a geisha girl, and can out run and out range a pony.
See how silly it looks when you post something that is just not right?
-
Don't spout your BS on me hightone. I said none of those things, and if you bothered to read 1 post of mine in this thread before trolling a reply you'd notice I was taking the exact opposite stance.
As for time to climb, the A6M2 was reported making the same alt in 6 minutes and change.
Edit: Wait, I'd have to check again, might have been 16-17k range.. still, what I was looking up had the model 21 outclimbing the model32.
EDIT: Wmaker, I too read the comment "dissappointing comapred to predicted numbers" but also have read, specifically, pilots did not like that it climbed and turned marginally less than the plane it was replacing. You're thinking of a different reference than I am.
-
EDIT: Wmaker, I too read the comment "dissappointing comapred to predicted numbers" but also have read, specifically, pilots did not like that it climbed and turned marginally less than the plane it was replacing. You're thinking of a different reference than I am.
As I already asked on several occasions...when you claim something, post your sources.
-
HighTone,
Unless a thread is about American or German aircraft, all Krusty ever posts is disparaging comments. Either justifications for the unit in question to be mediocre (anything Russian or Japanese), or complaints that it is overmodeled (Spitfires) in AH, or reasons why a requested change won't make any difference (20mph speed gain on the Mosquito).
-
Karnak, one might look up the bulk of all the posts you've ever made and see mostly insults or attacks or snide comments. I don't think you're one to speak.
My comments are not disparaging. They're an attempt to moderate extreme optomism by certain people on certain subjects, to bring them back down to earth.
-
Karnak: I'm not saying the A6M2 and the A6M3 have the same engine. I'm saying that given nearly identical planes, one with clipped wings will have less climb rate. That's proved by our spitfires in-game. The wings do make a noticable impact.
Did the graphs I just posted about the Spitfires mean nothing...? :confused:
-
I've never once read a post from Karnak which had been directed to me in such tones.
-
My comments are not disparaging. They're an attempt to moderate extreme optomism by certain people on certain subjects, to bring them back down to earth.
There was never any extreme optimism in this thread.
EDIT:
Nobody got snippy with you until you starting making unsupported claims that not only would the A6M3 not be a massive improvement, which nobody claimed it would be, but that it would actually be worse than the A6M2. Never mind the numbers, never mind the engine change. It would just be worse because you said so. You started attacking others for the perceived sin of excessive optimism.
-
Been wanting the A6M3 for years and I still want it. Along with a couple of versions of the KI-43, I'd also love to see the Ki-44, J2M, D4Y and HE-111.
These would add some flavor to special events and the AVA. :aok
-
My comments are not disparaging. They're an attempt to moderate extreme optomism by certain people on certain subjects, to bring them back down to earth.
Extreme optimism?? From where. Folks on here were posting why they would like to see it. Yes we know, not as good as the Zeke 5, but better than the Zeke 2. That's all I have seen on here about it.
So you can see I'm not drawing a direct corrolary between the spits and the zekes. I'm using them as an perfect example of why the model 32 won't climb like a rocket, like some seem to be suggesting.
LOL, your funny. So wait.....it won't climb like a rocket? I would like to see the post where someone said it would.
-
Been wanting the A6M3 for years and I still want it
<Sigh> its all about YOU isn't it Shifty? ;)
-
<Sigh> its all about YOU isn't it Shifty? ;)
LOL if it's not, it should be. :D
-
Still have my fingers crossed for the A6M3. And again the cockpit of the updated Zeke 5 looks great. I love the detail in it. :airplane:
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/A6M3_Type32_Tainan_Kokutai_V174_s.jpg)
:pray
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/A6M3.jpg)
:pray
(with a different paint job of course)
-
My fingers are crossed for it, (and the J2M) :D
-
Hey 321, those A6M's that have the A6M5 wing but the A6M3 engine package are actually very early A6M5s, not production transition machines. The decision to move from an exhaust collector to individual stacks came after the introduction of the M5 series ( I have forgotten where I got that tidbit of information but you can probably find it at www.j-aircraft.com if you're so inclined). The A6M3, model 22 (enunciated "two-two" for those of you not familiar with Japanese zero model designations) means that for the A6M3 model there have been two engine changes and two airframe changes since the 12-shi (prototype). the model 52 had five airframe changes and two engine changes since the 12-shi, one of those being the shorter, rounded wing.
All A6M3's were built by Mitsubishi while Nakajima was still cranking out A6M2 model 21's (aka A6M2b). Both factories built the A6M5's but there are distinct differences between the makers that allow the easy identification and distinction between factories.
-
Despite the performance/characteristics controversy I think we can all agree the A6M3 would fill a nice hole that has needed filling for years.
Since they are reworking the other models my hope is it would not be a stretch for HTC to add another variant.
-
Despite the performance/characteristics controversy I think we can all agree the A6M3 would fill a nice hole that has needed filling for years.
Since they are reworking the other models my hope is it would not be a stretch for HTC to add another variant.
Same here daddog :aok
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/A6M3_Model32-common.jpg)
:pray
-
Despite the performance/characteristics controversy I think we can all agree the A6M3 would fill a nice hole that has needed filling for years.
Since they are reworking the other models my hope is it would not be a stretch for HTC to add another variant.
Absolutely DD... I think it would see a ton of use in Special Events and the AVA :aok
-
A6M3 is basically a poorer A6M2 Model 21 with A6M5B cannons
Wonder if it can dive like an A6M2 (which dives better than A6M5)?
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/A6m3321.jpg)
:pray
-
Still holding out in hopes that we get the A6M3 sometime this year.
:pray
-
Did the A6M3 have a good rate of roll? (Was just looking at the squared wingtips)
-
Did the A6M3 have a good rate of roll? (Was just looking at the squared wingtips)
Good can be such a relative term. I would go with better a roll rate.
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/a6m3_model_32_again.jpg)
:pray
-
A6M3 :pray
Thanks HTC for the updated A6M5. Shes a beaut :cheers:
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/a6m3-22a-1.jpg)
or the model 22 :pray
-
Congratulations, HighTone.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/stories/news/a6m/a6m3-1.jpg)
-
Congratulations, HighTone.
No. You're supposed to say:
WISH GRANTED
wrongway
-
But.... Whose wish? Surely not Hightone? Who was the first person.... ever.... to ask for the A6M3 on these HTC forums? :P
-
Needless to say I am very very happy. I say again very happy.
I wasn't the first to ask, but I was the last...lol.
Thanks HTC for the early birthday gift.
-
Hitech, can we have the A6M3 model 32?
Hehehehe, sorry Hightone :)
-
Trust me, there's two more A6M models coming.
I can tell you what's coming next but I don't want to spoil the suprise.
J2M5
:noid
-
Very cool.
Thanks HTC! :)
-
Hitech, can we have the A6M3 model 32?
Hehehehe, sorry Hightone :)
LOL...I'm with ya Krusty :cheers:
-
Some stats at the end of this link on performance.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4665576/Aircraft-Profile-190-Mitsubishi-A6M3-ZeroSen-Hamp
-
Looks like this wish came true.
-
Will be fun to compare the climb charts between A6M2 and A6M3. :rofl
-
They are finally adding the A6M3! :aok
-
To sum up... Less gas, which the japanese hated losing, less wing area (cropped tips) that lost rate of climb and loosened turn radius (which the Japanese hated losing)
The climb charts are here. :D
Here you go Krusty:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=71&p2=115&pw=2>ype=2)
A6M3 climbs much better than the A6M2. Not the other way around.
-
As I've learned recently, HTC's climb charts are utterly useless. They don't often rely on useful loaded weights.
I also read a comment in another thread where somebody said "All that and it only weighs 100lbs more than the A6M2" -- which I need to check but cannot. Can anybody confirm 100% fuel no DT weights with E6B?
It definitely seems a bit off, after having flown it for an hour last night.
-
As I've learned recently, HTC's climb charts are utterly useless. They don't often rely on useful loaded weights.
I also read a comment in another thread where somebody said "All that and it only weighs 100lbs more than the A6M2" -- which I need to check but cannot. Can anybody confirm 100% fuel no DT weights with E6B?
It definitely seems a bit off, after having flown it for an hour last night.
Instead of backpedaling, I suggest that you eat your humble pie and make an attitude adjustment.
-
I suggest you read the other threads about AH's charts and how they are inaccurate and misleading because they use "convenient" weight loadouts that have nothing to do with actual in-game loadouts.
See Fw190F8 vs Fw190A8. This was also in the Seafire vs SpitV thread. I learned a valuable lesson. Maybe you can too.
EDIT: Have you even flown the plane yet? Or are you just trying to pick up a tidbit, a morsel of data in some lame attemt to (in your eyes) knock me down a peg? Well, it would help if you actually checked on that morsel of data you were trying to use before you make yourself look foolish in the process. You see the chart and leap to the instant thought "ah-ha! To rub in Krusty's face!" -- without actually checking to see if the chart is representative or not.
If you have actually flown the plane I would gladly share with you why I think it is "off" in-game.
-
I suggest you read the other threads about AH's charts and how they are inaccurate and misleading because they use "convenient" weight loadouts that have nothing to do with actual in-game loadouts.
See Fw190F8 vs Fw190A8. This was also in the Seafire vs SpitV thread. I learned a valuable lesson. Maybe you can too.
I'm well aware of the identical weights of those climb charts. Same basic airframes and power outputs. Those charts however are rather the exception and not the rule. Unlike the planes you speak about, A6M2 and A6M3 have different engines in addition to the different weights.
-
Yes, I know they do. I'm not saying you're WRONG, period... I'm saying you're wrong to only go off the charts. If you actually test them in-game, then great. If the testing matches the charts, good.
If you just see the chart and leap at the chance to try to rub something in? Tsk tsk.
HTC apparently has a bad track record for what weights they choose to run their charts at. That makes all the climb charts suspect, and useless to compare to each other.
EDIT: I used to believe in those charts, too. It was a rude awakening to learn the truth.
-
HTC apparently has a bad track record for what weights they choose to run their charts at. That makes all the climb charts suspect, and useless to compare to each other.
Just because two planes use identical weights instead of "normal take off weights" it doesn't mean the rest of the climb charts are useless. Based on my testing, the charts are normally very accurate to "normal take off weight" ie. 100% fuel without any external stores.
-
Just because two planes use identical weights instead of "normal take off weights" it doesn't mean the rest of the climb charts are useless. Based on my testing they are normally very accurate to "normal take off weight" ie. 100% fuel without any external stores.
Actually, they aren't very accurate. Not unless you can categorically go through all 100-or-so planes in this game and verify every individual weight in the E6B, they are useless. I also recall an issue many years back when claims were made the charts in-game were based off of 25% fuel loads in some planes. Also, accurate in what loadout? Fw190A8 with 400lbs of extra weight from outboard guns? Mossie with overload ammo?
The A6M2 and A6M3 are similar, as you mention. In-game it does seem to climb a little better.
But 500fpm?
You do realize that according to the charts the model 32 out-climbs the model52, right?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=115&p2=25&pw=0>ype=2)
That shouldn't be the case. Japanese pilots mentioned it had nothing to show over the model 21 except dive speed. They didn't say "It blows the previous model away in climb rate!" or any comments to that effect. In fact the engine should not be producing that much thrust in a climb. It had a less efficient cowling, and the model 52's redesigned exhaust stubs and cowling accounted for most of the extra power it has over previous models. Yet here in-game it's even outclimbing the more effective, more efficient model 52 according to this chart.
Question is, can I trust the chart? :uhoh (answer is probably "no" until the chart is tested in-game to verify it)
So it may very well be that HTC has modeled it this way. It may be the charts are misleading. It may be both. The point remains that whatever the in-game modeling you really can't trust the charts just by themselves.
-
The above is not to detract from the nice gift HTC has given us. As I mentioned I'm more than willing to share why I think it's "off" in-game once you have a bit of time to fly if (if you have not already).
-
Don't talk about the experiences of the "Japanese pilots" unless you can actually quote them or point to a source. I already said this once on this thread.
I don't find it at all hard to believe that A6M5 and A6M3 are very close when it comes to climb rates. When looking at the shaft power output, they should be identical at sea level. A6M3 is lighter and therefore has the better shaft hp/weight ratio and A6M5 has more exhaust thrust. It doesn't surprise me at all that their climb rates are very close. In fact, I have mentioned that fact before in this thread.
-
you two go back and forth like husband and wife... :rolleyes:
-
He may have this thing with my ankles... some unhealthy obsession.
WMaker: Unless you can proide a source that DOES say "This new model 32 climbs SO MUCH better than my old bucket" from a Japanese pilot, you're not one to talk. There is an absence of such commentary. In fact there is enough time-to-climb data to suggest that the model 21 and the model 32 had almost identical climb rates.
I had also provided in some since-devolved thread some of the quotes about the plane and the references the webpage in question pulled them from. It didn't change your mind, you seem to ignore it if it doesn't help you counter my point. I've read similar comments from more than one source, and yet... interestingly enough, NONE of them claim the model 32 climbed much better than the model 21. Only ones that claimed this were the US testing, and that cannot be trusted in any way, as it does not represent authentic IJN conditions of repair and use.
I wonder if HTC just used the US testing for the climb rate?
Time to climb for model 21 is listed as 7.3 minutes to 6000m in many places, and listed as 7m 27s or so in others.
Time to climb for model 32 is listed as 7m 19s (or thereabouts) in more than one place.
The ONLY place that seems to suggest the Model 32 climbed better than the Model52 is Aces High. Makes me wonder.
Nothing I can do about it, and I doubt HTC will change it, but it is far from the real world examples
P.S. I'll bottom-line it: Are you just picking a fight because of the name tied to me posts (Krusty)? Or do you have actual real comments in ANY of your books (you seem to be suggesting you have a massive library, no?) that suggest the Model 32 was a far superior climber than the model 21?
Are you just blowing smoke to flamebait, or do you have a legitimate reason to think otherwise? There's enough commentary and evidence to suggest what I have described. Nowhere have I read the contrary. Prove me wrong, if you have anything to show.
-
Krusty I don't think your chart supports your argument. Your chart shows that they each have a small advantage at different altitudes.