View Full Version : engine cutout due to negative g

07-06-2007, 05:53 PM
I haven't flown the A6M2 or A6M2-21 much at all. So today I flew both off line to test to see whether these two aircraft behaved like the prototype aircraft when pushing the nose over. If modeled correctly the engine should cut out due to negative g load on the carburator. This was tested and documented by N. A. C. A. during the early part of the war on the captured Aleutian Zero and others. After testing these two aircraft I see that there were no adverse effects from pushing the stick forward regardless of how fast or how long I held the stick in this matter. I assume that this is not part of the flight model of these aircraft? It would explain some things that I have seen during game play online.

07-06-2007, 06:09 PM
The Zero originally had the negative g cutout when it was introduced into the game. IIRC, the cutout was removed from the game when documentation was provided to Oleg from Japanese sources which was said to prove that this was an error. As I recall the story posted here, the captured Zero engine was said to have been incorrectly assembled and therefore suffered cutout.

That's how I recall it anyway...if I'm wrong others will be along shortly to correct me.

Here is a link to a post by Oleg stating that the cutout was wrong and will be corrected:



Posted Tue November 02 2004 06:05

It seems that US trials really was wrong.
I got the scheme from Japane and description of Japanese karburater comparing to SPitfire MKI carburater that told ther that Spit carburater is outdated....

So the Negative G function will be removed from A6M2 in a patch.

07-06-2007, 07:14 PM
Then I guess all of the N. A. C. A. tests were wrong and we never assembled any of the aircraft correctly. That would be the assumption. If we screwed up one we could have screwed them all up.

Does that mean that the N. A. C. A. tests for the Ki-84 were wrong?

They did not fly this plane in any type of combat configuration ( stripped of its paint, no armour, no armament or ammunition and American 100+ Octane aviation gas ). Are these the figures that Oleg used when giving the Ki-84 its top speed in the game of 426.88 MPH / 687 Kph ( read it when viewing objects at the main game window ) at approximately 20,000 feet? JAAF pilots interviewed stated that due to poor fuel quality and lower octane, poor design and operation and maintenence conditions of its supercharger its top speed ranged from 392 - 400 MPH and that it was horrible above 20,000 feet. It was a superb aircraft down low and had a great climb rate at the lower altitudes and was highly maneuverable. The general consensus I have read from various sources seems to put the top speed of the aircraft at 392 MPH which would coincide with what the JAAF pilots stated. These pilots surely did not over estimate the performance of the aircraft which is usually the charge leveled against pilots.

Sorry for the sarcasm.

07-06-2007, 08:14 PM
Its an old discussion but yes apparently the trials were wrong. Actually the problem was that the trail aircraft was partially damaged and reassembled. I think we even managed to find some anecdotal evidence of experienced Wildcat pilots telling the rookies to not believe any word about the Zero's inability to go negative G with them.

I also thought this thread was about the Zero and negative G. The Ki-84 doesn't really factor in to that topic.