Slitherine

quote:


A6M3, Type 0 Model 32
A6M3 Model 32.
Enlarge
A6M3 Model 32.

In late 1941 Nakajima introduced the Sakae 21, which used a two speed supercharger for better altitude performance, and increased power to 1,130 hp (840 kW). 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 8 inches (200 mm), 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 litres to 470 litres.

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, manuverability 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.
[edit]

A6M3, Type 0 Model 22

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 litre drop tank under each wing was introduced. The internal fuel was thereby increased to 570 litres in this model, gaining back 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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I found this rather interesting:
(it's from the wikipedia - but don't throw stones just because of that...)

quote:


A6M3, Type 0 Model 32
A6M3 Model 32.
Enlarge
A6M3 Model 32.

In late 1941 Nakajima introduced the Sakae 21, which used a two speed supercharger for better altitude performance, and increased power to 1,130 hp (840 kW). 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 8 inches (200 mm), 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 litres to 470 litres.

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, manuverability 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.
[edit]

A6M3, Type 0 Model 22

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 litre drop tank under each wing was introduced. The internal fuel was thereby increased to 570 litres in this model, gaining back 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.

Does this mean that the A6M2 should have a higher maneuverability rating than the A6M3? it seems to suggest that their respective ratings of 35 & 36 ought to be swithced....Opinions?...


B

quote:

Does this mean that the A6M2 should have a higher maneuverability rating than the A6M3? it seems to suggest that their respective ratings of 35 & 36 ought to be swithced....Opinions?...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Does this mean that the A6M2 should have a higher maneuverability rating than the A6M3? it seems to suggest that their respective ratings of 35 & 36 ought to be swithced....Opinions?...

Not if the game uses maximum speed and ROC to determine maneuverability as some have said.

quote:


The A6M3 did have a much better roll rate which allowed it counter a move by the enemy quicker plus it could dive a little faster which would make it the better aircraft against the Wildcat. Its maximum speed and zoom climb was also a little better than the A6M2 due to its higher HP but the A6M2 had the better sustained ROC plus a higher ceiling.

quote:

Purely based on that, I could see some justification for the A6M3 having better manueverability than the A6M2 due to the high ground advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
The additional horsepower would give it a slight speed edge and better acceleration at that altitude but the A6M2 should still hold a slight edge in turning ability and sustained ROC due to its greater wing area. So I would think its pretty much a wash between the two.

quote:


The way I look at is to ask myself which would I consider to be the more maneuverable aircraft... a WWI biplane fighter or a WWII monoplane fighter? Speed is important in combat but an aircraft doesn't have to be as fast as the next to be more maneuverable. Every aircraft has a best maneuvering speed and it isn't the maximum speed.

quote:

The way I look at is to ask myself which would I consider to be the more maneuverable aircraft... a WWI biplane fighter or a WWII monoplane fighter? Speed is important in combat but an aircraft doesn't have to be as fast as the next to be more maneuverable. Every aircraft has a best maneuvering speed and it isn't the maximum speed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

The additional horsepower would give it a slight speed edge and better acceleration at that altitude but the A6M2 should still hold a slight edge in turning ability and sustained ROC due to its greater wing area. So I would think its pretty much a wash between the two.

I would probably lean towards the A6M2 because most A-A combat was conducted below 20,000 feet. And if it started above that altitude, it almost certainly ended up below it.

You could go either way on these two aircraft for game purposes and be correct. It all depends on what you think constitutes maneuverability.... speed or turning ability.

The way I look at is to ask myself which would I consider to be the more maneuverable aircraft... a WWI biplane fighter or a WWII monoplane fighter? Speed is important in combat but an aircraft doesn't have to be as fast as the next to be more maneuverable. Every aircraft has a best maneuvering speed and it isn't the maximum speed.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

When "fiddling" with manueverabuility, it is important to recognize what it represents in the A to A combat model. The assumptions in the combat model need to be taken into account when defining the input.

Example: How important is manueverability for aircraft executing "Boom and "Zoom"?

If there is no dictinction in the calculations of the combat model and If the weighting of manueverability is such that it assumesd that the norm is dogfighting, then the A to A model would be skewed in favor of a dogfighting aircraft.

What we all think manueverability is and should be is fine, but how it fits into the model is more critical in defining it.

quote:

Example: How important is manueverability for aircraft executing "Boom and "Zoom"?