Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: USBP1969 on April 26, 2011, 08:08:49 PM
-
Was happy to see the A6M3 added to the stable, but when I flew it the roll rate is not what I had experienced in other flight sims over the years. The A6M3, because of its clipped wings always exhibited a faster roll rate that its brothers, the A6M2 and A6M5. What I expected was much like the Spit-16 roll rate that is snappier than than the full length winded versions.
Thanks,
USBP1969
-
What other flight sims?
-
Well, having just spent an hour almost dodging constant attackers from higher alts with more speed in the Titanic Tuesday arena, I can say it's pretty snappy and slower speeds.
I was a bit surprised by the nasty handling traits it has. It snap-stalled inverted like a 190 more than once (shouldn't do that IMO) and it was squirrelly left and right even with minor adjustments. Felt more like the I-16 than the A6M2 it should resemble, but definitely fun.
-
It snap-stalled inverted like a 190 more than once (shouldn't do that IMO)
Based on what?
-
Based on what?
he was a ww2 a6m3 ace
-
Well, having just spent an hour almost dodging constant attackers from higher alts with more speed in the Titanic Tuesday arena, I can say it's pretty snappy and slower speeds.
I was a bit surprised by the nasty handling traits it has. It snap-stalled inverted like a 190 more than once (shouldn't do that IMO) and it was squirrelly left and right even with minor adjustments. Felt more like the I-16 than the A6M2 it should resemble, but definitely fun.
I don't know...I flew it for a while and the thing performed insanely awesome, I cant remember any nasty stalls as you describe....That don't necessarily mean it didn't happen for you.
I was thoroughly impressed...just wish they didn't light a fire so easy.....but then again that would be wrong so I like it just fine.
-
Based on what?
he was a ww2 a6m3 ace
Let me interpret for the reading comprehension impaired.
I was flying the A6M3 in the Titanic Tuesday Arena and I was a bit surprised by the nasty handling traits it has. It snap-stalled inverted like a 190 more than once (shouldn't do that IMO) and it was squirrelly left and right even with minor adjustments
I would say it's based on Krusty's experience flying it in the Arena on Tuesday.
Avocados.
wrongway
-
In regards to the other flight sims:
They were: Fighter Ace II & WarBirds. The former is history, but the A6M3 still should be in WarBirds.
As stated in my first post, the clipped winged versions tend to have a faster roll rate. The examples in AH are the Spit-XIV Vs the Spit-XVI and the P-47M Vs the P-47N to a lessor degree.
USBP1969
-
In regards to the other flight sims:
They were: Fighter Ace II & WarBirds. The former is history, but the A6M3 still should be in WarBirds.
As stated in my first post, the clipped winged versions tend to have a faster roll rate. The examples in AH are the Spit-XIV Vs the Spit-XVI and the P-47M Vs the P-47N to a lessor degree.
USBP1969
err, the spit14 and spit16 arent the same airframe. The spit9 and spit16 would be more accurate
-
Let me interpret for the reading comprehension impaired.
I would say it's based on Krusty's experience flying it in the Arena on Tuesday.
Avocados.
wrongway
Okay, let me narrow it a bit... (shouldn't do that IMO)
My point, which I obviously failed to articulate, is "on what does Krusty base his opinion, that the A6M3 shouldn't "snap stall inverted like a 190". There are perfectly good reasons why the A6M3 won't have as good a low-speed, high-alpha performance as the A6M2 or A6M5. I can think of three things straight off the bat.
And, my post wasn't made to call Krusty out, merely to challenge the basis of his opinion.
-
Stoney, just because a wingtip is squared off doesn't mean it snap-stalls like the over-loaded Fw190. You can have bad low-speed handling WITHOUT such behaviors. See the P-39 for example Mushes really bad, lacks power, doesn't snap-stall inverted, now does it? On the A6M3 the wing LOADING is still very light, as evidenced by the weight being barely 200lbs more than the A6M2, the climb rate being better (in-game) than the A6M5, and the turn radius being between the two. The overall performance indicates a plane with very light handling. Instead it's dipping wings like the VERY nasty stalls of the C202 and the Fw190. The kind where you get slow and try to pull a G or two and find yourself instantly upside down? Are you familiar with those? I even got the alternating wingtip stalls that I hadn't seen in most planes since before the airflow recode.
I think it's a pretty obvious statement to say that the model 32 shouldn't do that. It's a zero. It shouldn't do it any more than the spit16 should. They both come from families of planes with VERY docile and forgiving stall characteristics, and if you really really try you can put them in a bad position, but this was a very simple chop throttle and bank 90 degrees and pull up evasive.
It was not indicative of the A6M flight modeling thus far. It was, as I mentioned, more like a I-16 in squirrelyness than it was like a modified A6M. This is based on over 10 years of the flight model HTC built for the other zekes as well as pilot commentary LACKING such comments about it being a nasty stalling unstable disaster.
I'm going to chalk that all up to public knowledge, readily avilable info, personal experience, and pattern recognition up to this point in history. THAT is what I base my opinion upon for the comments about A6M3 "should NOT snap stall like that".
-
I don't think you can base these things on other flight sims, just because they are also a simulation of reality. The only way for you to find out if it performs the way it should perform is by reading it's history.
The examples in AH are the Spit-XIV Vs the Spit-XVI and the P-47M Vs the P-47N to a lessor degree.
I'd like to add to what Tupac said. Spit14 & 16 are completely different airplanes, that's why people don't like the 14 they take it up and expect it to turn better than a 16. I was going to give you a list of things that are different on spit 14 & 16 but the list of things that are the same should be a lot shorter.
Main Gear
Main Fuselage
nothing else
[/hijack]
-
I will add the server itself was kinda funky the other day. Was getting GV lag and the like. I wouldn't think lag would affect stall behavior (that's all client side) but you never know...
-
I'd like to add to what Tupac said. Spit14 & 16 are completely different airplanes, that's why people don't like the 14 they take it up and expect it to turn better than a 16. I was going to give you a list of things that are different on spit 14 & 16 but the list of things that are the same should be a lot shorter.
Main Gear
Main Fuselage
nothing else
[/hijack]
Guns. :p
-
Guns. :p
Well...that just so happened to be the case.
-
I haven't had a chance to fly the Hamp yet but, I can't imagine that it should roll anywhere near what a Spit 16 rolls just because it has the clipped wings. The 16 spins/rolls around like its on ball bearings...It's so quick it doesn't seem realistic to me.
The -3 did roll better than the A6M2 or, 5 but, I think the wing was basically the same and the ailerons might have had a only a little adjustment as well. So, IMO it should be the best maneuvering Zeke of the bunch.....But not like a Spit 16....Ha a Spit 16 shouldn't be like a Spit 16.....
:salute
-
I haven't had a chance to fly the Hamp yet but, I can't imagine that it should roll anywhere near what a Spit 16 rolls just because it has the clipped wings. The 16 spins/rolls around like its on ball bearings...It's so quick it doesn't seem realistic to me.
The -3 did roll better than the A6M2 or, 5 but, I think the wing was basically the same and the ailerons might have had a only a little adjustment as well. So, IMO it should be the best maneuvering Zeke of the bunch.....But not like a Spit 16....Ha a Spit 16 shouldn't be like a Spit 16.....
:salute
1) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is not the best in the game, so I hardly see how you can make the claim that it is so quick as to not seem realistic.
2) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is taken directly from the NACA charts, as is the full span Spitfire's roll rate.
You're "feelings" don't hold water on this.
-
1) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is not the best in the game, so I hardly see how you can make the claim that it is so quick as to not seem realistic.
2) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is taken directly from the NACA charts, as is the full span Spitfire's roll rate.
You're "feelings" don't hold water on this.
Can't blame a man who appears to prefer the gull wings :)
-
Stoney, just because a wingtip is squared off doesn't mean it snap-stalls like the over-loaded Fw190.
Honestly, sometimes I don't know why I even bother. Do you really think I'm that stupid to make a comparison based purely off of that? Why not come in here and say something like "the Hamp display much lessened roll stability and worse low-speed handling characteristics compared to the A6M2 and A6M5. Why is that?"
Instead, you instantly revert back to your patented "seat of your pants" aerodynamic analysis tool, and conclude HTC screwed up the plane. Its exasperating.
-
1) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is not the best in the game, so I hardly see how you can make the claim that it is so quick as to not seem realistic.
IIRC, it is the best in the game from 0-250, and 2nd best at around 300, only starting to loose out to certain very high speed rollers like the P-38 and P-47N at 400 and beyond.
-
IIRC, it is the best in the game from 0-250, and 2nd best at around 300, only starting to loose out to certain very high speed rollers like the P-38 and P-47N at 400 and beyond.
F4Us and Fw190s are better for a wide spectrum and the Ki-84s is close to as good. Quite a few are better above 400mph.
-
1) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is not the best in the game, so I hardly see how you can make the claim that it is so quick as to not seem realistic.
2) The Spitfire Mk XVI's roll rate is taken directly from the NACA charts, as is the full span Spitfire's roll rate.
You're "feelings" don't hold water on this.
Can't blame a man who appears to prefer the gull wings :)
LoL, the thing about gull wings is that you can pull the stick as hard as you want to and they won't tear off......Like a Spit's will Ha! LOL
Karnak must not have had his coffee before reading my post.......Don't be so sensitive; I didn't say it was the fastest in the game.......jeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz
-
LoL, the thing about gull wings is that you can pull the stick as hard as you want to and they won't tear off......Like a Spit's will Ha! LOL
Karnak must not have had his coffee before reading my post.......Don't be so sensitive; I didn't say it was the fastest in the game.......jeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz
By claiming it was unrealistic you implied that WWII aircraft couldn't roll that fast, which by extension means the Fw190, F4U, P-38L and perhaps Ki-84's roll rates were also unrealistic.
Based on your more recent post I am guessing you were just uninformed about why it was modeled that way and were unaware that the data comes from wartime tests, not modern calculations.
-
Praise God and Hitech that the A6M3 was NOT introduced as another silly uberplane that can roll and flop like a land trout AND swap ends almost instaneously.
-
Praise God and Hitech that the A6M3 was NOT introduced as another silly uberplane that can roll and flop like a land trout AND swap ends almost instaneously.
Why would it have been? There is no data saying its roll rate was massively boosted.
-
Based on what?
I'm sure it was based on:
(http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww72/imbe/krusty_scale.jpg)
-
I wanted to try the A6M3 tonight but it was disabled?
-
I like this plane!!
-
I have not been able to find data that says roll rate was massively boosted. Only commentary that says roll rate was boosted and superior to the other A6M models.
The early version A6M-3 has the clipped wings and actually smaller ailerons than the A6M-2. So, you would wonder how much more roll ability you would have with less aileron.
The later version A6M-3 has the longer wing but in this case has aileron balancing tabs that reportedly reduced stick forces and probably improved roll rate simply because the pilot could move the stick easier.
I flew the A6M-3 the other day and I would say that from flying the 2 and 5 it seems to fit right in with what I would expect.
It's nice that AH has added this plane. It seems lately there are way too many whiners out there about things that are pretty silly. They've added the Hamp, they added the 29 and I'm sure there'll be more.....What's not to like?!?!?! I'd like to see the Oscar as well but that plane would have a tough time competing in the Late War arena.
I'm looking forward to the next FSO that features Zeke 2's and 3's with G4M's vs. F4U's and F4F's. We had something like that recently but.....I'd fly that all the time if I could.
:salute
-
Hello, this is busa01.
About the roll rate of A6M3
In Japan, there is no data of the roll rate of A6M.
Then, I submit a pilot's testimony and quotation of reportｓ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the handling manual of Zero Mk2 mod.3
When high-speed, the stick force of Mk2 fighter is very light.
(When it compares with Mk1 figter) .
It is necessary to move the control stick of Mk1 fighter with both hands in the case of ACM.
And we have to move it with all one's force.
However, the stick force of Mk2 fighter is very light, and easy handling.
* Mk2 fighter is Model 32, Mk1 fighter is Model 21 early model not had aileron balancing tab.
* Later model of A6M2b Model 21(Nakajima Avi mass-produced) had aileron balancing tab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Mk2 fighter also has report that the roll is light and it is very advantageous in ACM.
(When it compares with Mk1 figter) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WO Ohara Ryouji of the test pilot of Yokosuka NFG has said like this.
The roll performance of model 32 is better than model 52.
Because, the area of aileron of model 52 is smaller than model 32.
Therefore, model 52 has small aileron effect.
The model 32 had most excellent maneuverability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally I am not testing A6M3 in AH in detail.
Therefore, nothing can be said yet about the performance in AH.
Thank you for reading my poor English.
-
Hello, this is busa01.
About the roll rate of A6M3
In Japan, there is no data of the roll rate of A6M.
Then, I submit a pilot's testimony and quotation of reportｓ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the handling manual of Zero Mk2 mod.3
When high-speed, the stick force of Mk2 fighter is very light.
(When it compares with Mk1 figter) .
It is necessary to move the control stick of Mk1 fighter with both hands in the case of ACM.
And we have to move it with all one's force.
However, the stick force of Mk2 fighter is very light, and easy handling.
* Mk2 fighter is Model 32, Mk1 fighter is Model 21 early model not had aileron balancing tab.
* Later model of A6M2b Model 21(Nakajima Avi mass-produced) had aileron balancing tab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Mk2 fighter also has report that the roll is light and it is very advantageous in ACM.
(When it compares with Mk1 figter) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WO Ohara Ryouji of the test pilot of Yokosuka NFG has said like this.
The roll performance of model 32 is better than model 52.
Because, the area of aileron of model 52 is smaller than model 32.
Therefore, model 52 has small aileron effect.
The model 32 had most excellent maneuverability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally I am not testing A6M3 in AH in detail.
Therefore, nothing can be said yet about the performance in AH.
Thank you for reading my poor English.
Interesting Busa, thanks! :aok
-
That is very cool! Thanks Busa!
:salute
-
Very much like this plane. :aok Been flying it a bit over the last few days...
-
Thanks and :salute for the info Busa. I took it out for a test run on day of release.
I have no clue what was going on, but it wanted to snap roll worse than any other I've flown.
Was trying to make small aileron rolls/right turns. At first ailerons inputs were having little effect,
then would cause almost unrecoverable snap roll to right.
Seemed like it was harder to get plane to do anything I wanted.
Will try it some more.
NO, it wasn't the weed smartaspens. :D
<S> Oz
-
WO Ohara Ryouji of the test pilot of Yokosuka NFG has said like this.
The roll performance of model 32 is better than model 52.
Because, the area of aileron of model 52 is smaller than model 32.
Therefore, model 52 has small aileron effect.
The model 32 had most excellent maneuverability.
Overlaid wing drawings of model 32 and 52. The aileron surface difference is about 4 percent. Not sure if that makes for such a significant roll rate difference as it is modeled in AH
(http://sierra-host.net/bb/32-52-aileron.gif)
-
Here: http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/Zeke32.htm
This should be very clear on the the plane itself
-
Incidentally I think that the roll performance of A6M5 in AH is too bad.
I measured the roll performance of DVD of Model52 (POF).
It was about 120 deg/sec. (About 180 kt IAS)
(Model22(CAF) was about90deg/sec.)
We can refer to A6M5 VS F6F-5, FM2 , P51, P38J-25, P47-D30, and SeafireL.IIc of roll performance comparison.
I want you to observe especially the comparison with Seafire.
A6M5 and Seafire LIIc are equivalent roll performances at under 180mph.
And Masaki Okazaki a pilot of Naval Aviation Test Center had said like this.
The roll performance of A6 was about 360deg/3sec.
I think that these are not contradictory.
I looked at the demonstration flight of A6M5(POF) twice. The maneuverability was light and quicker than A6M5 of AH.
And I think that HiTech should adjust the roll performance of A6M5 as a little inferior in A6M3Model32.
Thank you reading my poor english.