Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: USBP1969 on November 27, 2011, 05:56:48 PM
-
Just thought I'd toss in my request into the ring again. At age 69 I too young to have flown a real A6M3 (Wrong country too), but I have flow the three variants (A6M2, A6M3, A6M5) in other flight sims.
When the A6M3 came on line a year or so ago I was excited. (Well, as excited as one almost seventy can be.)
The clipped wing A6M3 was my favotite aircraft in WarBirds and had a much faster roll rate. It was very much like the diference between the Spit-XIV and the Spit-XVI with the clipped wing version having a much snappier roll. Sadly the three Zekes in Warbirds exhibit the same roll rate when I test them (225 MPH at 200 feet SEL) with seven seconds for each for a full roll.
Hoping for a change,
USBP1969
-
the roll rate on the zekes in aces high is based off technical data, what is in warbirds isn't...if you can present evidence that the rollrate for the a6m3 model32 was better than it is portrayed in aces high, then you will get your wish.
-
He's saying that it's impossible that all 3 would have the exact same roll rate because of the differences between them.
-
Zekes can roll as fast as they want, still wont help them put out that fire. :joystick: :D
-
I just wish HTC had used more representative wartime climb rates. It seems they've used some kind of US test data with dubious fuel quality and engine state, as no A6M3 pilots said the climb rate was any better than the A6M2. I say this without knowing because HTC doesn't share which data they use to model which planes. However, other seemingly official numbers can be found saying its rate of climb is less than ours.
Ours actually out-climbs the A6M5b! And that's WITHOUT the extra added thrust the 5b has from ejector stack redesign.
A6M3 is blue in both:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=71&p2=115&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=25&p2=115&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
What about the A6M5c?
20mm*2 and 13mm*2 on wing, 1 13mm on nose.
It has good fire-power but heavy and not so turner though.
-
the roll rate on the zekes in aces high is based off technical data, what is in warbirds isn't...if you can present evidence that the rollrate for the a6m3 model32 was better than it is portrayed in aces high, then you will get your wish.
Gyrene, those statements remind me of some political tatements I have heard over the years for the following reasons:
1) I have no doubt that AH has done it's best to set up the flight models as best they can with the data available. A good example would be the recent significant decrease in performance of the P-40E. They must have come across some more accurate data. In other words, they did their best with the first P-40E, but found that there were mistakes and made the changes. That leads me to believe that the A6M3 could in fact be revised in the future when new, presumably more accurate data is obtained. In other words, because of the changes they have made (to their credit) they are, in fact, saying, "Hey we did our best, but the data was flawed. Now we have made some changes to better reflect the true performance of the aircraft."
2) I have been flying on-line flight sims since 1999 and one of the things WarBirds prided themselves on was that while they had done their best, they also had WW-II pilots critique and contribute to their flight models. For you to state that their flight models are not based on technical data would require information (inside information) on their flight model protocols that I do not think you have.
3) When you wrote that: "if you can present evidence that the rollrate for the a6m3 model32 was better than it is portrayed in aces high..." You of course were presuming that I would not be able to do so and with good reason.
4) When you wrote that: "...then you will get your wish." You were undoubedly presuming that #3 above would preclude me getting my wish. However, unless sir you are on the board of directors of AH, I highly doubt that you can predict what AH will do with data supplied by an ousider.
As a full-time caregiver I have little spare time, and I count myself blessed if I can fly for even a few minutes on-line uninterrupted, but I will take on the task of attempting to prove what I have stated to be true, that clipped wing versions of the same aircraft with out roll the non-clipped wing versions, specifically the A6M3. If am successful in obtaining data to support that the A6M3 roll rate is indeed faster than the non-clipped wing versions I will update this post. As to whether AH would accept that data is truly unknown.
I have been around too long to buy into the "Because the 'high command' says it, that it must be what's best" mentality. After 40 years in government service (USN and USBP) trust me when I say that it often isn't.
Bottom line though, IMO, "Aces High" is the very best in on line flight sims, regardless.
USBP1969
-
USBP, the thing about warbirds is they don't stick to the historical data. Maybe they start with it (sometimes) but they don't always stick to it. From memory of past discussions/scandals on the WB forums they make arbitrary decisions to model plane X better than plane Y just because. Things like that.
-
Gyrene, those statements remind me of some political tatements I have heard over the years for the following reasons:
1) I have no doubt that AH has done it's best to set up the flight models as best they can with the data available. A good example would be the recent significant decrease in performance of the P-40E. They must have come across some more accurate data. In other words, they did their best with the first P-40E, but found that there were mistakes and made the changes. That leads me to believe that the A6M3 could in fact be revised in the future when new, presumably more accurate data is obtained. In other words, because of the changes they have made (to their credit) they are, in fact, saying, "Hey we did our best, but the data was flawed. Now we have made some changes to better reflect the true performance of the aircraft."
you assume that war time documents that have a tendency to disappear over time will suddenly appear, especially from a country that did not do as good a job of maintainging wartime documentation as the u.s. and britain. and my statement was based on fact, not whimsy. i've seen it happen.
2) I have been flying on-line flight sims since 1999 and one of the things WarBirds prided themselves on was that while they had done their best, they also had WW-II pilots critique and contribute to their flight models. For you to state that their flight models are not based on technical data would require information (inside information) on their flight model protocols that I do not think you have.
so you have been playing flying games on the internet for 12 years and you somehow associate that with flight experience or something? whatever warbirds started out being long before you got there, it's been a fantasy since. i know the supposed pilots you're referring to and none were japanese, russian, italian, french, belgian, norwegian, etc...etc...etc... i stuck around long enough to see actual historical data get ignored and flight models get tweaked based on someone's perception "of how it should be". now there are people who can barely figure out the source code and don't know squat about aeronautics messing with things, sounds like a recipe for historical accuracy to me. how do i know all that? because i'm a nosey a-hole.
3) When you wrote that: "if you can present evidence that the rollrate for the a6m3 model32 was better than it is portrayed in aces high..." You of course were presuming that I would not be able to do so and with good reason.
no, actually i thought you might be able to find and present some valid data, not derived from warturds.
4) When you wrote that: "...then you will get your wish." You were undoubedly presuming that #3 above would preclude me getting my wish. However, unless sir you are on the board of directors of AH, I highly doubt that you can predict what AH will do with data supplied by an ousider.
as i stated above, yes i can and i'm just a lowly subscription payer like yourself. it has happened, not just in flight models but many aspects of the game. you can even do a search in this part of the forums using the keywords "wish granted" posted by hitech.
As a full-time caregiver I have little spare time, and I count myself blessed if I can fly for even a few minutes on-line uninterrupted, but I will take on the task of attempting to prove what I have stated to be true, that clipped wing versions of the same aircraft with out roll the non-clipped wing versions, specifically the A6M3. If am successful in obtaining data to support that the A6M3 roll rate is indeed faster than the non-clipped wing versions I will update this post. As to whether AH would accept that data is truly unknown.
I have been around too long to buy into the "Because the 'high command' says it, that it must be what's best" mentality. After 40 years in government service (USN and USBP) trust me when I say that it often isn't.
Bottom line though, IMO, "Aces High" is the very best in on line flight sims, regardless.
USBP1969
to assist you in your search, be sure you are looking at the correct model. the a6m3 model 32 vs a6m3 model 11, 21, 22.
and when you step off that rather high horse you rode in on, i don't disagree that the roll rate isn't quite correct but lacking sufficient historical data (and i have searched) the possiblity that a change will occur based on the information in your original post, is nil.
-
Not all model-3 zeros had clipped wings, either. (I assume the model 32 is one that didn't, as it is modeled in-game with what apears to be the standard wingtip that also collapses/folds only ~3-feet from the tip for carrier storage. If this is a mistake though, it will be corrected in-game if you can proove it is the case).
-
Our model 32 has clipped wings.
Here's an image showing the difference.
(http://pacificstorm.net/Articles/Jp_fighters/Image/10_2.jpg)
EDIT: And the screenshot from the news page way back:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/stories/news/a6m/a6m3-3.jpg)
-
Well, hello.... Tuesday just got interesting.
Perhaps a review of the data may be in line. Either the clipped wing really didn't make much a difference (who has the data? *shrug*), or something may of been overlooked.
Gah, hug forum/server fart/lag.
Edit 2or3: I thought our A6M3-32 did roll comparatively faster in-game already?
-
It does. The original post is a little confusing. He sounds like he's comparing WarBirds to AH. Maybe he's using the wrong names for the games (which is a major blunder) and calling Aces High by the wrong name?
It shouldn't roll like a spit16, though. It rolls "better"... not "best."
-
the a6m3 model32 was supposed to have a higher roll rate than the model 11 and 21, but suffered in maneuverability and range. the model 22 improved the maneuverability and range but i haven't seen any data that says anything about the roll rate being better or worse than the model 32 or the a6m2 and a6m5.
-
Almost every resource I have ever read says that the model 32 with the clipped wings had reduced manuverability (we'll define that as turning radius, as the Japanese pilots were thinking in this way) and due to the engine framework had less gas internally (reduced range).
Pilots disliked both aspects, as that range is the reason the fighter was so effective from carriers, and the tight turn radius is the main key to victory against all allied fighters.
The result was the wingtips were put back, another fuel tank was shoe-horned back into place, and there was no real difference between the A6M2 and the new version of the A6M3. It was a few mph faster but otherwise the guns were the main difference. Time to climb and speed and manuverability were mostly the same and pilots didn't mind because the A6M2 was solid (if slow) to begin with.
HTC somehow decided to give it the horsepower and thrust of the A6M5b. While it had the same engine, it did not have the same horsepower and thrust. It had a different cowling, a different exhaust system, and different excess thrust at climb speed. It should not be outclimbing the A6M5b like that, and in-game it's just a hair short of the Ki-84's climb rate. Very unhistorically modeled, IMO.
Other than that, it "feels" like a zeke overall. I notice the roll rate improvement over the A6M2 definitely when flying it, and I've bagged 3+ late-war rides in a number of sorties in the MAs with it. Got 2x P-47Ns tag teaming me once, landed both kills.
-
I've logged plenty of sorties in the Zeke 3 since its introduction, (Thanks HTC!!) and I have to agree with Krusty in one area, it doesn't feel like it has the same horsepower or thrust that the 5b does. For me its in the acceleration department that it shows. While the climb rate may be slightly better at a few different alts and it does have better roll rate, the slow speed handling and upper end acceleration are still just a bit worse than the 5b. Which is where I think it should be. I think HTC did a great job with the Zeke 3, I thank them for it.
Ki-43? :pray
-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/hamp-eb201.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/hamp-eb201.html)
PERFORMANCE FLIGHT TEST OF A JAPANESE HAMP (A6M3)
-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/hamp-eb201.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/hamp-eb201.html)
PERFORMANCE FLIGHT TEST OF A JAPANESE HAMP (A6M3)
CORRECTION:
"Performanace test of a crashed, captured, rebuilt, A6M3 Hamp flown using US fuel"
It even states:
"No horsepower data is given because no correlation could be obtained between variouos sources of data on engine power output for given conditions of engine RPM and manifold pressure"
You can't take that with any credibility, especially considering how almost every US test of a captured japanese plane yielded performance 10% higher than the Japanese could attain (often due to fuel used for the test!).
Look at Japanese numbers. Look at Japanese pilot comparisons. You can't use US numbers for Japanese planes, or else our Ki-84 would be some 30-40mph faster.
-
Two pages - I expected maybe 2 or 3 comments. Great!
The last time all I got was that the A6M3 did roll faster which was not an accurate statement. Maybe some good will come from this discussion. (Sure miss the old skins though.)
----------------------------------------------------
gyrene: o you have been playing flying games on the internet for 12 years and you somehow associate that with flight experience or something?
Not a lot. Got my Private Single Engine Land rating on 5/5/65. Just Cessna 172's and 182's.
and when you step off that rather high horse you rode in on
No "High Horse" for me, too far to fall from a high horse. Also, please note that my response to you was in no way a "personal" attack. Yours, however, was. :old:
----------------------------------------------------
krusty: Gee, didn't seem confusing to me. The A6M3 in WarBirds has a much higher roll rate than the A6M2 or the A6M5. In Aces High it doesn't. Also, I was trying to make an analogy between the A6M3 and the other AH Zekes by comparing the Spit-14 and the Spit-16 (clipped wing) so that reader of the post had some point of reference.
----------------------------------------------------
Hightone: Amen brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ki-43. I miss it and the Yak-3 from the lineup, but the Ki-43 most.
Respectfully,
USBP1969
-
As promised: I did a quick search for “A6M3 Roll Rate” and came up with the site: http://www.jplanes.com/zero%20page.html
Couple of very interesting quotes in re: the A6M3:
“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 Hamp, before realizing 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 360 knots (670 km/h). On the downside, maneuverability was reduced, and range suffered due to both decreased lift and the smaller fuel tank. Pilots complained about both.
Also: “The A6M5 was a modest update of the A6M3 Model 22, with non-folding wing tips and thicker skinning to permit faster diving speeds, plus an improved exhaust system (four pipes on each side) that provided an increment of thrust. Improved roll-rate of clipped-wing A6M3 was now built-in."
Interesting that the A6M3’s improved roll rate was “Built into” the A6M5.
The search continues as time permits……..
Also, thanks for the links.
Respectfully,
USBP1969
-
Took another break from caregiving. Here’s something interesting from the AH forum that came up on a Google search. (Bold = mine)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=311923.25;wap2
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.
Interesting indeed.
Respectfully,
USBP1969
-
Point of order: In Aces High it DOES have a faster roll rate! It's noticably better. I'll have to do some testing when I get home but if you search the forums you may find folks already have discussed it.
-
Krusty - All I can go is by the stop watch times I posted originally. Maybe at a different altitude or speed I'd be able to tell some difference. This was 225 MPH at 200 feet SEL. (Seven second for a full roll.)
The difference I have experienced before wasvery noticeable. It was very much like the B-239 Brewster is now in AH.
USBP1969
-
CORRECTION:
"Performanace test of a crashed, captured, rebuilt, A6M3 Hamp flown using US fuel"
The subject line was off the official document. You call it what you want. :)
-
Our Am63 does have a much better roll rate. Maybe not as pronounced as Warbirds, but it it very noticeable.
-
As promised: I did a quick search for “A6M3 Roll Rate” and came up with the site: http://www.jplanes.com/zero%20page.html
Couple of very interesting quotes in re: the A6M3:
Also:
Interesting that the A6M3’s improved roll rate was “Built into” the A6M5.
The search continues as time permits……..
Also, thanks for the links.
Respectfully,
USBP1969
So the M3 and M5 should have the same roll rate?
-
That page is a 100% plagarism of the wikipedia entry. I wouldn't trust wikipedia on an off-hand comment like that. I think it means they designed a shorter wing to improve the roll rate on the 5b, but not that it was identical. The 5b does have shorter wings, thus less force to overcome when rolling the plane.
EDIT: not 100%, but it looks like they stole and older version and the wiki has been updated since, there are tons of pages that do this now and it's very annoying. They just spam the internet with bad info most times.
-
Wasn't the improved roll rate more from the larger ailerons than the shorter wing?
-
Since the aileron wasn't changed, just the folding wingtip was left off and faired over, I would think "No."
The 5b had the shorter spawn but also rounded tips, so it's got different aileron size (smaller, slightly).
-
So far, it looks like Busa01 has presented the best info with pilot quotes from WW-II in regards to the A6M3's performance.
Respectfully,
USBP1969
-
Since the aileron wasn't changed, just the folding wingtip was left off and faired over, I would think "No."
The 5b had the shorter spawn but also rounded tips, so it's got different aileron size (smaller, slightly).
I wouldn't say left off, they later put it back on the Model-3 I thought. They tried it without in an attempt to simplify production, increase strength and improove performance. Performance-wise it didn't do much, and strength-wise and production-wise... well the folding wingtip is litteraly the last 3-feet (generous estimate) of the wingtip, so again its obmission had negligable impact ot the netire aircraft's production or structural integrity of the entire wing during combat conditions.
-
So far, it looks like Busa01 has presented the best info with pilot quotes from WW-II in regards to the A6M3's performance.
Respectfully,
USBP1969
you do understand that "pilot quotes" are very subjective don't you?
unfortunately people sometimes forget that when it comes to allied pilot test flight reports of foreign aircraft...
-
Since the aileron wasn't changed, just the folding wingtip was left off and faired over, I would think "No."
The 5b had the shorter spawn but also rounded tips, so it's got different aileron size (smaller, slightly).
I thought I'd read that the ailerons were bigger but I can't find any reference to it.
So far, it looks like Busa01 has presented the best info with pilot quotes from WW-II in regards to the A6M3's performance.
Respectfully,
USBP1969
The only roll rate I've seen posted is 56 degrees per second at 160 mph. I don't know the original source for this. This is 6.4 seconds for a full roll.
-
I thought I'd read that the ailerons were bigger but I can't find any reference to it.
The only roll rate I've seen posted is 56 degrees per second at 160 mph. I don't know the original source for this. This is 6.4 seconds for a full roll.
That would be slower than the worst roller of WW2 (typhoon)
-
Fly these planes at historic altitudes and airspeeds and you will find roll rates closer to the published stats.