Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Killer91 on April 01, 2011, 01:24:00 PM
-
Hooray!! getting a remodel and a new plane!!!
-
YIIIIIIIIIIIIHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
So great! It's a rare but a wellcome occasion to have something new in the fighter department these days! :)
It'll be fun when the climb charts get published. :lol
-
Nice mid war AC. Glad to see new IJ planes showing up. :aok
-
Ki 43 will come next, nice planes.
-
Very nice!
-
hopefully they will fix the problem with the cowl guns blocking some instruments and fix the hard to read load out display in the A6M5B.
-
Thanks HTC!
-
Great!
What were the a6m3s specs? I dont know anything about that bird.
-
hopefully they will fix the problem with the cowl guns blocking some instruments and fix the hard to read load out display in the A6M5B.
Move your head?
wrongway
-
Whats the differnce between the 3 and 2B?
-
need more japanese planes that shot down B-29s so we can have a B-29 scenario.
-
need more japanese planes that shot down B-29s so we can have a B-29 scenario.
We have one now for FSO.
-
Very nice. Glad to see the A6M3 make it in. Should make things a little more competitive in late 1942 and early-mid 1943 setups.
-
Specifications Data
Span 36 ft. 2 1/4 in.
Length 29 ft. 9 in.
Height 9 ft. 2 in.
Gross wt. max. load 6,331 lb.
Gross wt. normal load 5,155 lb.
Wt. empty 3,913 lb.
Performance
High Speed 350 mph, at 17,00 ft.
Stalling speed, power off, wheels and flaps up 85 mph.
Stalling speed, power on, wheels down, flaps down 40 deg. 65 mph.
Stalling speed, power off, wheels down, flaps down 40 deg. 78 mph.
Armament
two 7.7mm Type 92 machine guns in the nose
two 20mm Type 99 cannon in the wings
one 500 kg bomb
-
Just when I think HTC Cant get any worse, they do something like this...
AND TOTALY REDEEM THEMSELFS! :aok :aok :aok :aok
(Dumb and Dumber parody quote, I have never disliked anything htc has done :) )
-
350mph is wrong. Far too fast. The Model 32 had a different cowling, setup, and exhaust system than the later A6M5b, which gained significant speed performance with those changes. The -5b is 358mph or so. The Model 32 should be at least 15mph slower (if not more). Some sources online list it as 336mph, which is par with the A6M2 already in-game.
Effectively it was a new model, but from the pilot perspective it wasn't much faster, had less manuverability, and less range (with increased roll rate and slightly better dive speed).
-
Frikkin nice HTC! :banana:
-
^-- agreed there :)
Can't have too many of them, right?
-
:aok
-
Oh lord how sweet!
Thank you HTC!
-
My :pray have been answered. :cry So..... Beautiful...
-
Glad to see the A6M3 Model 32 is being added, though I'm sure a lot will be disappointed when they learn it will not be as maneuverable as the A6M2 or the A6M5.
ack-ack
-
Quite so. That's why they added the wingtips back on the more common models later, to get the wing area back.
From WW2incolor:
In mid-1941, work began on a new version of the Zero Fighter, the A6M3 powered by a 1130 hp Sakae 21. This engine was equipped with a two-speed supercharger instead of a single-speed unit as used on the earlier Sakae 12. The new engine required that the firewall be moved 8 inches further aft, which reduced the fuselage fuel capacity from 21.6 Imp gall to 13.2 Imp gall. The shape of the engine cowling had to be changed in order to incorporate the supercharger air intake in its upper lip.
The first A6M3 flew in June of 1941. Although the aircraft performed satisfactorily, the flight trials of the A6M3 were somewhat disappointing since performance figures fell below the calculated values. In addition, production had to be delayed until sufficient numbers of Sakae 21 engines became available.
The type was placed in production as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 32. Beginning with the fourth aircraft, the ammunition supply for the wing-mounted 20-mm cannon was increased from 60 rpg to 100 rpg. Soon thereafter, in order to simplify production and maintenance, the folding wingtips and the tab balances were removed, reducing the wingspan to 36 feet 1 1/16 inches and wing area to 231.75 square feet. This resulted in a slight increase in the level speed with little adverse effect in the overall maneuverability. Japanese pilots did find that both the maneuverability and climb rate of the new clipped-wing Zero Fighter were slightly poorer than those of the earlier A6M2, but the aircraft was considerably faster in a dive, the ailerons were more effective, and the roll rate was better at high speed.
343 A6M3s were built by Mitsubishi, with an unspecified number also being built by Nakajima at Koizumi.
[edited out comment about allied code name here]
Following the American landing at Guadalcanal, the A6M3 were forced to operate from bases 560 nautical miles away from the landing force. During this operation, a large number of A6M3s were lost because they had insufficient range. The Sakae 21 engine of the A6M3 had a higher fuel consumption rate than the Sakae 12, and this, acting in concert with the reduced fuel capacity resulting from the installation of the two-speed supercharger, had an adverse effect on range, which had been one of the strong points of the A6M2. In order to increase the range, a 9.9 Imp gall fuel tank was fitted in each wing outboard of the cannon. The folding wingtips were restored. This new version was still known under the short designation A6M3, but bore the new designation of Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 22. It could be externally distinguished from earlier A6M3 models by the rounded-off wingtips. The aircraft was known as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 22A when long-barreled 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 Mk 3 cannon were installed. The rounded-wingtip Model 22 became the prime carrier fighter of the A6M3 series, some 560 being built by Mitsubishi.
Specification of A6M3 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 32:
One Nakajima NK1F Sakae 21 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1130 hp for takeoff, 1100 hp at 9350 feet, 980 hp at 19,685 feet.
Performance: Maximum speed 338 mph at 19,685 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph. Initial climb rate 4500 feet per minute. Radius of turn with entry speed at 230 mph was 1118 feet. Entering a 180 degree steep turn with an entry speed of 230 mph, the fighter could complete
the turn in 6.02 seconds, with an exit speed from the turn of 189 mph. At slower speed, the radius of turn was 629 feet. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 19 seconds. Service ceiling 36,250 feet. Maximum range 1477 miles.
Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 1 1/16 inches, length 29 feet 8 11/16 inches, height 11 feet 6 5/32 inches, wing area 231.75 square feet. Weights: 3984 pounds empty, 5609 pounds loaded.
Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the upper fuselage decking and two 20-mm Type 99 cannon in the wings. A 72.6-Imp gall drop tank could be carried underneath the fuselage.
-
and here all along I thought it was an April fools joke :rofl
-
A6M3 or 6 please and thank you.
Thanks Creationists.
-
Move your head?
wrongway
I don't think there are any other planes with this obstructed view. Looks to me like maybe the guns are too big. I think the remodeled la7 had a cowl latch that was in the way and it was fixed.
-
one 500 kg bomb
Thank you!
an 500kg bomb (about 1100lbs or so) is huge for such a light aircraft, isnt it?
So... a6m2 vs a6m3 is like the spit8 vs spit16 then?
-
Thanks you!
an 500kg bomb (about 1100lbs or so) is huge for such a light aircraft, isnt it?
I wouldn't put any faith in the stats Oakranger posted. The speed I know for sure is off and I have never heard of any Japanese fighter carrying a 500kg bomb.
-
I'm sure a lot will be disappointed when they learn it will not be as maneuverable as the A6M2 or the A6M5.
Looking at the technical specs, everything suggest that it'll have a smaller turn radius than A6M5b and will therefore be more 'maneuverable'.
-
MY BABIES!!! MY BABIES ARE COMING!!! :x
DIE ALL OF YOU! :aok
-
MY BABIES!!! MY BABIES ARE COMING!!! :x
DIE ALL OF YOU! :aok
:x
I don't care if it is less maneuverable, I love the zeke... Especially if it can dive better on those pesky Brews... :noid
-
A6M3 Type 0 Model 32
In late 1941, Nakajima introduced the Sakae 21, which used a two-speed supercharger for better altitude performance, and increased power to 840 kW (1,130 hp). Plans were made to introduce the new engine into the Zero as soon as possible.
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.
The first Model 32 deliveries began in April 1942, but it remained on the lines only for a short time, with a run of 343 being built.
-
Better roll sounds like it could be a better defensive airplane. Snap rolls and barrel rolls. Diving also sounds like it'll be a nice little treat.
-
To be honest, this A6M will give me more trouble than the others because it will be a little heavier and a whole different monster from the A6Ms we have in game now, I look forward to getting some screen shots of flaming zeros!
-
To be honest, this A6M will give me more trouble than the others because it will be a little heavier and a whole different monster from the A6Ms we have in game now, I look forward to getting some screen shots of flaming zeros!
It's called learning. ;)
I'll be flying the beauty quite a bit. I imagine it'll be a more maneuverable C.205? I'm not sure what to expect.
-
Looking at the technical specs, everything suggest that it'll have a smaller turn radius than A6M5b and will therefore be more 'maneuverable'.
Looking at raw weights, it would be (guessing) able to turn tighter than the model 52, but not by much IMO.
Model 11: Weight: 3,704lb empty; 5,313lb loaded
Model 32: weight: 3,984lb empty; 5,609lb loaded
Model 52: weight: 4,136lb empty; 6,025lb loaded
Note that the empty weight of the A6M3 model 22 (with the restored wingtips) jumps up to 4107lb. IMO with such a minimal weight difference between it and the A6M5b I think maybe it might turn a little worse depending on the impact of those wingtips and the loss of lift.
But that's just nitpicking on my part. It's still going to be an early model zero and still going to out turn 95% of the planeset.
-
Looks like a minor B 'n Z Zeke, sounds fun
-
MO with such a minimal weight difference between it and the A6M5b I think maybe it might turn a little worse depending on the impact of those wingtips and the loss of lift.
A6M5b has a slightly smaller wingarea than A6M3 and is heavier.
Will be fun when the climb charts are published.
EDIT/I have hard time understanding how you call a ~400lbs weight difference 'minimal'.../EDIT
-
Model 32: weight: 3,984lb empty; 5,609lb loaded
Model 52: weight: 4,136lb empty; 6,025lb loaded
Because your 400lbs isn't 400lbs.
Most of that is gas weight. Looking at the empty weight you have 172 lbs difference. Most of that probably the weight lost from the wingtips.
-
Looking at the technical specs, everything suggest that it'll have a smaller turn radius than A6M5b and will therefore be more 'maneuverable'.
The plane designers thought the same thing but the improved maneuverability it apparently showed in the specs didn't pan out. It was one of the reasons why on the A6M3 Model 22 that the Model 21's folded wing tips was introduced.
ack-ack
-
Does better diving translate into control surfaces not freezing above 350 mph? The Zero could likely hit 400mph+ very easily in a dive but locks up worse then a 109, at least this is my experience. I don't fly it that much so won't speak too much. Just wondering out loud.
Boo
-
I think it may translate into "the skin doesn't rip off as fast"
But in terms of AH "stiffening controls" I think it will be improved because the shorter wing means less forces to overcome when the controls tighten up. That means (probably, logically) you will retain some control for longer. Not because the forces are less, but because even with those forces you have less mass in the wings to move around given the same deflection.
(in my own words... sorry if that is confusing)
-
The plane designers thought the same thing but the improved maneuverability it apparently showed in the specs didn't pan out. It was one of the reasons why on the A6M3 Model 22 that the Model 21's folded wing tips was introduced.
The roll rate was improved. In WarBirds I remember it being almost 190-like at low speeds. Somehow, I doubt it will be anything like that in Aces High but it'll improved from A6M2 none the less. That alone is quite important considering the overall rather slow roll rate of the Zekes. Nothing I've read has specifically stated that A6M3 was less maneuverable than A6M5. A6M3 has a lower wingloading than A6M5 and same the airfoil. A6M5 has more thrust the amount of the greater exhaust thrust.
Francillons mentions that the designers were dissapointed with the results of the inital flight trials where the performance fell below calculated data. I've never seen any specific mention to turn radius for example or any comparison to A6M5. The wing tips were added to the A6M3a to keep the wing loading from increasing due to the further weight that was added to it.
Overall of course, the differences in turn radius are/will be small compared to the differences found in the 109-series for example.
-
Most of that is gas weight. Looking at the empty weight you have 172 lbs difference.
Do you have the weight schedule at hand for both of these fighters? If the answer in no, then I'd be pretty hesitant in making claims about what weight consists of. Take-off weight is a much better indicator what the plane weighs operationally. Does the empty weight include armament for example? Different companies/countries had different policies on wheather or not certain items were listed in the empty weight.
Most of that probably the weight lost from the wingtips.
Lost from wing tips? A6M5 didn't gain any wing tips at any stage. Do you realize that A6M5 actually has the same wing span of 11 meters as the A6M3? The slightly smaller wing area of the A6M5 (compared to A6M3) comes from the rounded wing tips.
-
My understanding is that the Model 32 saw in increase in the roll rate but that turn rate or maybe the turn radius didn't meet expectations. I'll have to find the thread again in the J-Planes forums that had a pretty good discussion on the Model 32 and 22.
ack-ack
-
Do you have the weight schedule at hand for both of these fighters? If the answer in no, then I'd be pretty hesitant in making claims about what weight consists of. Take-off weight is a much better indicator what the plane weighs operationally. Does the empty weight include armament for example? Different companies/countries had different policies on wheather or not certain items were listed in the empty weight.
Lost from wing tips? A6M5 didn't gain any wing tips at any stage. Do you realize that A6M5 actually has the same wing span of 11 meters as the A6M3? The slightly smaller wing area of the A6M5 (compared to A6M3) comes from the rounded wing tips.
Didn't the A6M5b Type 52b have the same wings at the A6M3 Model 22?
ack-ack
-
Didn't the A6M5b Type 52b have the same wings at the A6M3 Model 22?
Nope. :)
-
Nope. :)
Which wings did it have? Thought the Model 52 had the same wings that were used on the Model 22 which were taken from the A6M2 Model 21, except the wings were a little thicker (to allow for higher diving speeds) and the wing tips were non-folding? Or am I getting consfused by the "non-folding" part when it may actually mean that the folding wing tips were removed like on the Model 32 but instead of being squared off, were rounded?
ack-ack
-
Which wings did it have? Thought the Model 52 had the same wings that were used on the Model 22 which were taken from the A6M2 Model 21, except the wings were a little thicker (to allow for higher diving speeds) and the wing tips were non-folding?
It had it's own wings. :) The wings themselves weren't any thicker...that actually wouldn't be good for diving speeds. They were made out of thicker gauge sheet metal to handle the stress loadings better. This is nothing special in it sself same thing happened to many aircraft like the 109s for example.
Or am I getting consfused by the "non-folding" part when it may actually mean that the folding wing tips were removed like on the Model 32 but instead of being squared off, were rounded?
This is basically what happened. The airfoil stayed the same and the aspect ratio remained the same. Basically the same basic wing structure with thicker skin panels and rounded off non-folding wingtips. The difference is clearly seen in AH where A6M2 has the same span as the Modell 22 had. The A6M5's wings look clearly 'stubbier', it almost gives the optical illusion that the aspect ratio has changed while it really isn't.
-
Which wings did it have? Thought the Model 52 had the same wings that were used on the Model 22 which were taken from the A6M2 Model 21, except the wings were a little thicker (to allow for higher diving speeds) and the wing tips were non-folding? Or am I getting consfused by the "non-folding" part when it may actually mean that the folding wing tips were removed like on the Model 32 but instead of being squared off, were rounded?
ack-ack
52 means wing change/model number 5 and engine change/model number 2. it was the fifth A6M wing design and had the A6M3's engine with very few modifications enginewise once the A6M5s were introduced. over the A6M3 the 5 had moved stuff around inside to make more room for fuel, add another 20 rounds per Type 99 cannon, etc. Overall the 5 and 3 are somewhat similar in design, different in performance (due to the better design of the 5). Simple in explanation
-
This is basically what happened. The airfoil stayed the same and the aspect ratio remained the same. Basically the same basic wing structure with thicker skin panels and rounded off non-folding wingtips. The difference is clearly seen in AH where A6M2 has the same span as the Modell 22 had. The A6M5's wings look clearly 'stubbier', it almost gives the optical illusion that the aspect ratio has changed while it really isn't.
Thanks for clearing it up.
ack-ack
-
WMaker, you're mis-reading what I typed, I think. Regardless, you don't need weight loadout breakdowns to know that the major change with the Model 32 was the new engine and its mounting frame, which necessitated removing/downsizing one of the fuel tanks. This means a lot less internal fuel. It was a major problem with pilots and it cost the Japanese a lot of planes until they added more tankage to make up for it on the Model 22.
Which means the dry weights are the better to compare. When you compare the P-47N with the P-47M you might come to the conclusion that the P-47M is massively superior in every way. Well, that is only true when both craft are loaded to the max. You load the plane with more gas out to a similar setting and the gigantic gap between the 2 planes becomes a much smaller one.
On paper the P-47N climbs worse than the D40. In reality as long as you're not taking 100% internal fuel the N will outclimb the D40.
So you can't compare the Model 52 max weight to the Model 32 max weight with such different gas tankage. They were much closer than you give them credit for.
AckAck: The clipped wings were originally to save on production time. The end result was faster roll rate, something the Zero lacked. Pilots liked this. When they did the Model 52 they kept that shorter span but redesigned it to be rounded. In the end the 52 has shorter wings than the 21, although at a glance follows the same shape.
-
WMaker, you're mis-reading what I typed, I think. Regardless, you don't need weight loadout breakdowns to know...
A6M3 had 100 litres less internal fuel capacity than A6M5. 100 liters of fuel weighs ~160lbs.
-
A6M3 had 100 litres less internal fuel capacity than A6M5. 100 liters of fuel weighs ~160lbs.
Hrm... Good point. However, max loaded weight would also account for more ammo, heavier caliber ammo... That's an interesting point to ponder. I'm going to do a little web searching to see if I can find a weight breakdown like I've seen on some other planes. Don't know if I'll find it or not, but worth a shot.
-
Interestingly enough, I was about to give up hope when I ran across a weight chart for the A6M3 on ww2aircraft.net forums.
Only problem is.... er... well... I don't read Kangi (or whatever the term is for Japanese writing).
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/schematics/extremely-detailed-zero-schematics-13714-8.html#post775276
I've saved it for myself, but unless we have any fluent speakers....? then I'm out of ideas. It was the only source I could find online that (supposedly -- remember I can't read it) breaks down the weights by items.