A6M3 & A6M3a

A6M3 & A6M3a (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Big B -> A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 2:00:18 AM)
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

Herrbear -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 6:00:31 AM)
Speaking of manueverability, is the difference between 35 and 36 treated the same as the difference between 25 and 26? Does the game see it as 1 point difference?

GaryChildress -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 6:31:24 AM)
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 Going off the article (and it certainly sounds on the face of it that the author knows his stuff), it sounds to me like they ought to be switched. And I say this reluctantly since I'm playing Japanese in my PBEM. VSWG is giving me a big enough "run for my money" as it is! [:D]

ChezDaJez -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 7:51:45 AM)
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. 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. The differences were real but it depends on what you believe comprises the maneuverability rating in the game in order to determine which was better. Chez

Drongo -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 9:47:22 AM)
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. As some have said.... Which then immediately falls apart when the A6M3 is compared to the A6M5 for these game stats. [;)] 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. Chez, You don't think the 2 speed supercharger would give the A6M3 a handy edge over the A6M2 above 15,000 ft? According to Francillon, the difference in manueverability overall between the two was "negligible" but the A6M3's larger engine was rated for 980 hp at 20,000 ft while the A6M2 topped out at 930 hp at 14,000 ft. Purely based on that, I could see some justification for the A6M3 having better manueverability than the A6M2 due to the high ground advantage. Cheers

ChezDaJez -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 11:01:33 AM)
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. 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

Drongo -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 1:21:17 PM)
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. OK. I was assuming that the additional hp over the 15,000 ft mark (probably over 100 hp equivalent at 20,000) would have allowed the A6M3 to keep the speed above stalling longer than the A6M2 while in a sustained turn, even allowing for the A6M2s slightly larger wing area (and lower wing loading). 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. Agreed. I generally view maneuverability as a combination of an aircraft's ability to accelerate/decelerate, change direction (vertical, horizontal) and the speed band over which it does it best. I'd also have thrown in altitude ratings but.......[:'(] Things get a bit more complicated in WITP due to the fact that an aircraft's listed maximum speed has a sizeable influence on combat results. So to avoid "over-kill", I normally look at a WITP aircraft's maximum speed first to see what advantage that gives before then deciding how much to reward the aircraft for it's maneuverability at "best maneuvering speed". Otherwise, you can end up with 400 mph+ uber-fighters like....umm, the name escapes me at the moment. Cheers

RevRick -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 3:18:54 PM)
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. Yeah. But the gods of AAC don't see it that way in WitP, or in some of the mods I've been seeing. Speed and rate of climb are everything, and heaven forbid that the AC should have two engines. The formula must work. P-38s are gauged by the same formula as a B-18 despite the fact that the engines aren't lugging around this great bloody hulk of a fuselage between them. What we need to do is put one of them in a dogfight with a Mig 21, and give them the choice of a F-104 or a F-16. I know, different era, but... the formula must be correct and rule. Sounds to me like the A6M3 was a bit of a mess, and they corrected it because it didn't live up to expectations. Therefore, it should not be a good an aircraft as the A6M2. Seems rather straightforward to me. But, then again, who am I to fathom the impenetrable depths of the air data base - even though the Hellcat was operational four months before the game gets it, the RAF wrote that the P-39 was more maneuverable than a Spitfire at low altitude (where it usually plays in the Pacific), and the US really wasn't producting P-26s in 1941.

Big B -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 5:15:48 PM)
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 Not that it matters to most folks, but I think I'll go with the maneuver change. In my mod I decided to "weight, or bias" maneuverability more towards Wing Loading. I do not disagree with the merits of Roll Rate, Speed, and HP granting more maneuverability - but the approach I took towards wing loading allows all Japanese fighters (pretty much) to maintain a maneuverability lead over all Allied fighters (lowered them to a max of 34). The Allied fighters are already faster and tougher. Also, if maneuverability was based on an aircraft's best performance at it's best combat speed - then I believe most Allied fighters would have a higher maneuverability rating than a Zero, for example, where P-40s and Wilcats hold a clear edge over 300 mph. The designers obviously did not intend to take that approach. B

denisonh -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 7:28:30 PM)
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.

Big B -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 7:46:22 PM)
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. I agree, that's why I'm looking at changing it...and seeing what the effect will be.

ChezDaJez -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/24/2006 11:20:36 PM)
quote: Example: How important is manueverability for aircraft executing "Boom and "Zoom"? Unfortunately with a single maneuverability rating being used to define all aspects of air combat irrespective of altitude and airspeed, you will never be able to accurately portray comparative aircraft capabilities with any degree of realism. Boom and zoom also had some major altitude restrictions. As an example, the P-40E, which was an excellent boom and zoomer, could not perform that tactic below 5000 feet at speeds above 375mph. It had a horrible tendency to mush ( that is the nose comes up but the plane continues downward) when pulling out of a high speed dive and often took 4000-5000 feet to just level off. The P-40B didn't have this problem to any great degree due to its lighter weight. In order to model aircraft combat performance more realistically for WitP, there probably be ratings for 5000', 15000' and 25000' at a minimum. But we are stuck with what we have <sigh>. Chez

denisonh -> RE: A6M3 & A6M3a (8/25/2006 3:54:45 AM)
So true Chez, But that highlights the point that manueverability is an aggregated value encompassing a number of factors. It looks like HardSarge is "stratifying" AA to combat in the reworking of BTR/BoB to allow for specific aircraft altitude performance. Maybe there is a way to do the same for WitP since GG is the "father" of both and there may be enough simitliarity to allow the change.....

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.1875