PDA

View Full Version : Zero outdives Wildcat



Loki-PF
11-28-2004, 09:48 PM
Guys,

A budy and I have been playing online co-ops and dogfights since AEP came out. We both got PF as soon as it hit the shelves and have been having a hoot playing co-ops and DF's in the Pacific. We've noticed however that the Wildcat (F4F3 and F4F4) can't dive away from the A6M3 (42 era vs 42 era) the Zero gains on the Wildcat in its dive. But what's worse is that the Wildcat goes into the hard buffet sooner and breaks up at a lower speed than the Zero.

Can this be right? Here is a track of the event. Are we doing something wrong in this test? Please advise, because I'd love to be wrong here. This is one of the only advantages that early war allied birds had over the Japanese. If we don't have that even, it's going to be pretty grim on early war servers.


F4F3 vs A6M3 Dive test (http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/F4F3_vs_A6M3_Dive.zip)

chris455
11-28-2004, 10:05 PM
This deserves to be brought to Olegs atention.
pf@1c.ru

ElAurens
11-28-2004, 10:09 PM
The entire A6M series in game seems far too good in the dive. At least that is my observation over the last few weeks of flying with and against it.

Loki-PF
11-28-2004, 10:11 PM
Chris,

Did you get a chance to watch the track? I thought about sending this in to 1C, but I wanted some of the more experienced hands here to look at the track and see if I've done anything wrong before bugging (no pun intended!) Oleg with it....

AlmightyTallest
11-28-2004, 10:18 PM
Thanks for the track Loki.

Just remember to tell us wether you used the pf_new executable or the old one.

I noticed when I played my recorded tracks back in an executable that I did not play the mission in, I got a completely different outcome. Don't know if this has anything to do with some of the flight modelling or not.

Seems like this should definately be brought to Oleg's attention as chris suggests. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rebel_Yell_21
11-28-2004, 10:20 PM
Never be afraid to send something in. Worst thing that can happen is that they don't agree.

TAGERT.
11-28-2004, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Guys,

A budy and I have been playing online co-ops and dogfights since AEP came out. We both got PF as soon as it hit the shelves and have been having a hoot playing co-ops and DF's in the Pacific. We've noticed however that the Wildcat (F4F3 and F4F4) can't dive away from the A6M3 (42 era vs 42 era) the Zero gains on the Wildcat in its dive. But what's worse is that the Wildcat goes into the hard buffet sooner and breaks up at a lower speed than the Zero.

Can this be right? Here is a track of the event. Are we doing something wrong in this test? Please advise, because I'd love to be wrong here. This is one of the only advantages that early war allied birds had over the Japanese. If we don't have that even, it's going to be pretty grim on early war servers.


http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/F4F3_vs_A6M3_Dive.zip <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! That dont *feel* right! Question.. Did the guy in the zero save a track file too? Reason I ask is I could use DeviceLink to plot all the numbers of the plane from the PC of the guy who is flying.. but not the other guys plane.. But if he made a track file too.. I could plost both side by side and then we could *see* just what is going on.

The next step, the hard step, is to find some REAL WORLD dive test data that can be used to prove or disprove what the simulation is doing.. I know that from reading WWII pilot accounts that the notion is the F4F was better in a dive.. But is there any real world test data to back that up? With that said is there any real world data that says the ZERO wasnt a good diver?

WUAF_Badsight
11-28-2004, 11:51 PM
my experience fighting A6M2's is that the Wildcat dont stand a chance

its totally out-performed in every way

much better DM tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Slantaye
11-28-2004, 11:54 PM
ive read many books on the pacific war. NO ZERO could EVER OUTDIVE a Wildcat.


NEVER.

BigKahuna_GS
11-29-2004, 12:58 AM
S!

The Zero shouldnt be much of a mystery today as real flyable Zeros exist. One of them is fairly close to where I live and I have seen it fly many times at Planes of Fame in Chino, California. A6m5.

http://www.planesoffame.org/release.php?id=9


There have been flight tests of A6m2 Zeros as recent as 1993 :

Test Pilot Jeffrey Ethel flying the CAF (real Zero airplane) A6m2 in 1993:

"With the nose down and going past 250 knots, all controls get very stiff past 300 knots they are almost immovable. Red line speed in the manual is listed as 340 knots indicated, with a + 7G limit. "

http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=36

Zeros were never known to be good divers but they were known
for their controls locking up at high speed 340-350mph.

Defensive tactics for the F4F Wildcat included high speed dives, high speed rolls and turns that the Zero could not follow becuase of control lock up---there is no high speed control lock up for the Zero and high speed damage does not occur until around 400mph IAS.


Three Saburo Sakai Interviews:

In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans
leading living Ace, I said, "Commander, what was the Zero's top
speed?"

His answer, "The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph. and a
maximum allowable dive speed of 350 mph. It became extremely heavy
on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's
controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll. A further
comment by Sakai was that the skin on the wings started to wrinkle,
causing the pilot great concern, since a number of Zero's had shed
their wings in a dive."



Saburo Sakai on the Zero's maneuverability:

Oh yes, the Zero was incredibly maneuverable, but not over about 250 mph. Above that speed, the stick just gets too heavy because the plane's control surfaces are so huge. You've seen those films of kamikaze plunging straight down into the water far from any U.S. ships, right? The kids in those planes probably put their planes into a dive way too early, and before they realized their mistake, they had too much speed built up to pull out of their dive. They probably died pulling desperately on the stick with all their strength. When I coached those kids [kamikaze pilots], I'd tell them, "If you've gotta die, you at least want to hit your target, right? If so, then go in low, skimming the water. Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."



Interviewer: What would you tell new pilots about the Zero?

Saburo Sakai: I would tell new pilots the following things about the Zero...
Good points: Dogfighting prowess and a quick rate of climb. And the 7.7mm are very reliable.
Bad points: Doesn't perform well in dives. Enemy fire causes fires and easily damages the airframe.


_______

k5054
11-29-2004, 02:29 AM
There is indeed a wartime test, done in San Diego with the Koga Zero 21. It states the F4F-4 and Zero were equal in the dive. I'd guess the model 32 would be a little faster than the 21, and thus likely to beat the wildcat in a straight dive. However, Wildcats did not evade with straight dives. They used the Zero's stiff controls against them, and I don't think the in-game Zero locks up like the real one did, but who can say if it's right?

My calculations show F4F-4 as having a higher ballistic coefficient than Zeke 32 and thus being likely to be a better diver in the zone where both a/c are above their level max speed. The Zeke being a little faster would accelerate quicker in the earlier part of the dive.

bubiH
11-29-2004, 02:37 AM
I have posted on this issue several times: dive qualities are not modelled correctly in this sim. This has been the case since day one.

Why does the Spitfire IX outdive the FW-190A? Why does the Zero A6M5 dive equally with the Hellcat and Corsair? The answer, of course, is that this sim was first developed for one plane, the IL-2 Sturmovik, and dive was not important. After FB, AEP and now PF, we can model most planes from the war, but without realism as far as dive characteristics are concerned. This explains the constant frustration of people who fly, for example, the FW-190 and find it extremely difficult to do well in the game, when everybody knows this was one of the finest planes of the war.

What is annoying about this situation is that this limitation is not acknowledged by Maddox. It should be in the manual, the read-me, etc., so people will not make unnecessary mistakes like trying to dive away from a Zero.

Tvrdi
11-29-2004, 02:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Guys,

A budy and I have been playing online co-ops and dogfights since AEP came out. We both got PF as soon as it hit the shelves and have been having a hoot playing co-ops and DF's in the Pacific. We've noticed however that the Wildcat (F4F3 and F4F4) can't dive away from the A6M3 (42 era vs 42 era) the Zero gains on the Wildcat in its dive. But what's worse is that the Wildcat goes into the hard buffet sooner and breaks up at a lower speed than the Zero.

Can this be right? Here is a track of the event. Are we doing something wrong in this test? Please advise, because I'd love to be wrong here. This is one of the only advantages that early war allied birds had over the Japanese. If we don't have that even, it's going to be pretty grim on early war servers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dear Loki in this game (engine) there is no real dive differencies and it was mentioned 100 times before...thats why all german planes are crippled in some way cause they were excellent divers....enjoy what u got...about Zeke vs Wildcat....well, there was several variants of Zekes..some of them could catch Wildcat in a dive and some of them couldnt....anyway, in PF u know, Zeke is excellent diver compared to the Wildcat BUT Wildcat is also excellent turner compared to the Zeke http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif gameplay baby..cheers

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-29-2004, 07:02 AM
I haven't watched your track yet, but also understand that if you're under 3k there just isn't enough altitude to exploit the seperation in dive characteristics between these two aircraft.

Also, the lack of structural integrity of the Zero wasn't the only reason the IJA and IJN pilots usually decided to avoid following Allied planes in a dive. It simply didn't offer the best chance of survival. So, if the Allied pilot had enough altitude and airspeed, it was a viable (if not foolproof) tactic.

If the Allies were sufficiently outnumbered, oftentimes the Japanese pilots would have a few planes follow the Allies down to press the attack while the others would remain at altitude.

There's no way to accurately factor in Pilot attrition and QA at the manufacturing plants.

TB

mortoma
11-29-2004, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
The entire A6M series in game seems far too good in the dive. At least that is my observation over the last few weeks of flying with and against it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You got that sh1t right!!!

A.K.Davis
11-29-2004, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Three Saburo Sakai Interviews:

In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans
leading living Ace, I said, "Commander, what was the Zero's top
speed?"

His answer, "The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph. and a
maximum allowable dive speed of 350 mph. It became extremely heavy
on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's
controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll. A further
comment by Sakai was that the skin on the wings started to wrinkle,
causing the pilot great concern, since a number of Zero's had shed
their wings in a dive."



Saburo Sakai on the Zero's maneuverability:

Oh yes, the Zero was incredibly maneuverable, but not over about 250 mph. Above that speed, the stick just gets too heavy because the plane's control surfaces are so huge. You've seen those films of kamikaze plunging straight down into the water far from any U.S. ships, right? The kids in those planes probably put their planes into a dive way too early, and before they realized their mistake, they had too much speed built up to pull out of their dive. They probably died pulling desperately on the stick with all their strength. When I coached those kids [kamikaze pilots], I'd tell them, "If you've gotta die, you at least want to hit your target, right? If so, then go in low, skimming the water. Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."



Interviewer: What would you tell new pilots about the Zero?

Saburo Sakai: I would tell new pilots the following things about the Zero...
Good points: Dogfighting prowess and a quick rate of climb. And the 7.7mm are very reliable.
Bad points: Doesn't perform well in dives. Enemy fire causes fires and easily damages the airframe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is the same Sakai interview I've seen before, then a negligent error was made in it's reproduction, as Sakai would have been using knots in reference to the Zero, not miles/hour.

Also, the most important point is made here. It's not the pure dive that's important, but the ability to maneuver during a dive. Combine your dive with a roll and see if a Zero can stay with you, even if you are only diving from moderate altitude.

k5054
11-29-2004, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by ElAurens:
The entire A6M series in game seems far too good in the dive. At least that is my observation over the last few weeks of flying with and against it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems compared to what? If you mean the controllability, well, you may be right. If you mean dive acceleration, how are you comparing it or measuring it? Do you have any idea what is right? Perceptions gained solely from pilot stories may not be correct because pilots have a different viewpoint, a different concept of what a dive superiority is.

In the sim I have my doubts about whether stiff controls can be modelled right, and whether prop thrust at really high speeds is modelled right. I'm fairly sure high subsonic mach-related drag rise is not modelled correctly (or wasn't up to and including AEP). And of course your plane should almost never fall to bits by going a little over Vne.

Loki-PF
11-29-2004, 09:29 AM
Guys,

For those of you that haven't watched the track yet. We start at ~25K feet so there is plenty of altitude to "evaluate" what's going on. The most disturbing thing is that the Zero's controls show NO signs of stiffening up when over 275MPH.... The plane is still perfectly controllable which is probably the most disturbing thing.

@ Tagert

We will refly tonight (I set this up as a co-op mission in FMB) and save tracks from both planes so you can do the voodoo that you do, so well

BTW, Not all planes dive the same FYI. As a sanity test we replaced the Mildcat with a Jug and reflew the test, and the Jug left the Zeke in the dust. In fact it hadn't even gone into the hard buffet when the Zero started to come apart. I can post those tracks as well if anyone is interested....

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-29-2004, 10:19 AM
During the first year of the Pacific War, the standard shipboard fighter serving with the US Navy was the Grumman F4F Wildcat. The A6M2 was superior to the F4F Wildcat in speed, climb rate, and maneuverability, but the Wildcat had better firepower and was more robust. In a dive the two aircraft were fairly equal, but the turning circle of the Zero Fighter was very much smaller than that of the Wildcat by virtue of its lower wing loadings.

In the first Japanese attack on Wake Island on December 8, eight Wildcats were destroyed on the ground. The remaining Wildcats fought courageously for two weeks, breaking up a number of air attacks and turning back one seaborne invasion attempt. However, they were overwhelmed by superior Japanese forces and the last two Wildcats were destroyed on December 22.

By the time of the Battle of Midway in June 1942, Wildcat pilots had evolved tactics to deal with the superior performance of the Zero. One of these was the "Thatch Weave", named for LtCmdr John S. Thatch, commander of VF-3. In this maneuver, two Wildcats would criss-cross back and forth, each one alternately covering the other's tail. Whenever possible Wildcat pilots tried to get above their opponents, so that they could then dive through the enemy formation in a firing pass, continuing their dive until they were able to zoom-climb back up to a favorable altitude for another attack. Efforts were made to avoid close-in dogfights, where the Zero clearly had the advantage.

The initial attack on the Philippines was staged by bombers and fighters based in southern Formosa. The range performance of the Zero was such that the attacking planes must have come from aircraft carriers. On December 8, 54 G4M1s and 54 G3M2s escorted by 84 A6M2s staged a raid on Clark Field. Even though Pearl Harbor had been attacked the day before, the American aircraft were still not yet dispersed and few American fighters were up in the air. Total surprise was achieved and 15 US aircraft were destroyed in the air and fifty aircraft destroyed on the ground, essentially crippling US air power in the Philippines in a single day. The first US aircraft shot down over the Philippines was a Curtiss P-40, destroyed that day by a Zero flown by Petty Officer Saboro Sakai. This was his third kill, Sakai having gotten two aircraft in China. Sakai show down the first B-17 two days later. By December 13, the US air forces were essentially gone, and the A6M2s reverted to strafing and ground support. The Zero had established air superiority in only three days.

The Zero Fighter achieved perhaps its greatest success in the Duch East Indies campaign. In about three months, a force of 200 A6M2s defeated all comers, including Brewster Model 339 Buffaloes, Curtiss-Wright CW-21Bs, Curtiss Hawk 75A-7s, and Curtiss P-40s that were thrown against it by the Dutch, British, American, and Australian forces. These fighters were no match for the Reisens, and on March 8, 1942 the Dutch were forced to capitulate.

The Zeros then turned towards New Guinea and the Solomons. During this campaign, the Reisen consistently mastered the Curtiss P-40s and the Bell P-39s and P-400s that the Allies threw against them. The Airacobra was no match for the Zero in air-to-air combat, and Saburo Sakai regarded the P-39 as a relatively easy "kill" for a pilot of any experience.

The only bright spot during these dark days was the American Volunteer Group (AVG), better known as the Flying Tigers. They were first in battle on December 20, 1941 during a Japanese raid on Kunming. The P-40s flown by the AVG were faster than the Zero in level flight, but were much less maneuverable. It was soon concluded that it was suicide to try and out-maneuver a Zero, and AVG pilots found that they were able to take advantage of the superior diving speed and ruggedness of their P-40s. The tactics that most often achieved success were to first make sure the P-40s had a height advantage, dive down on the Zeroes, shoot, and then run as fast as you could. By the time that the AVG was absorbed into the 14th Air Force in early July of 1942, they had been credited with 286 Japanese aircraft destroyed in the air as against 13 pilots killed in aerial action.

Sources:
# Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.
# Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.
# Zero Fighter, Martin Caidin, Ballantine, 1970.
# War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday 1964.
# The Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero-Sen, Rene J. Francillon, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969.
# Mitsubishi A6M5 to A6M8 Zero-Sen, M.C. Richards and Donald S. Smith, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1974.


So it would seem that the Zero and Wildcat were pretty much on par with one another in dive speed. Common sense would say that the Wildcat had high maxspeed dive in the end. It would be the P-40 that was faster in speed as well as dive speed.

HayateAce
11-29-2004, 10:50 AM
I do NOT want to throw the thread off track, but a possible related issue is that 109s are outdiving P47s as well.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BigKahuna_GS
11-29-2004, 10:53 AM
S!


Guess you guys didnt read the artical by test pilot Jeffrey Ethell flying a real A6m2 vs Wildcat and what happened during the dive :
Airshow Dogfight

"The Wildcat was starting to smoke. As it pulled up in front of me in a hard loop, a steady amount of back pressure on the stick easily brought my Zero back into firing position. The harder the Wildcat pilot pulled, the easier it was for me to keep him in my gunsight. Just as I was on the verge of finishing him off,he eased off on the stick, rolled over and pointed his nose toward the earth.
Within seconds the Grumman was extending away from me and out of range. There was no way I could follow €" no Zero could outdive an American fighter."

"He couldn't out run me(Wildcat). I couldn't outdive him(A6m2). The classic duel of two pilots using the strong points of their aircraft, each unable to bring his guns to bear on the other as a result."


__________________________________________________ _______________________
AK-If this is the same Sakai interview I've seen before, then a negligent error was made in it's reproduction, as Sakai would have been using knots in reference to the Zero, not miles/hour.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


AK---300kts equals 345mph and fits right inline
with the Sakai interview and lack of controlability at high speed.

Sakai--"It(A6m2)became extremely heavy
on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's
controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll."

Controls getting very stiff at 250kts:
SPEED CONVERSION
250 Miles (International, nautical) per hour equals 287.695 Miles (statute) per hour

Controls are almost immovable (control lock-up)at 300kts:
SPEED CONVERSION
300 Miles (International, nautical) per hour equals 345.234 Miles (statute) per hour

See below:

There have been flight tests of A6m2 Zeros as recent as 1993 :

Test Pilot Jeffrey Ethel flying the CAF (real Zero airplane) A6m2 in 1993:

"With the nose down and going past 250 knots, all controls get very stiff past 300 knots they are almost immovable. Red line speed in the manual is listed as 340 knots indicated, with a + 7G limit. "

http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=36


_______

crazyivan1970
11-29-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
I do NOT want to throw the thread off track, but a possible related issue is that 109s are outdiving P47s as well.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure about zero outdiving hellcat... but i`ll answer for 109 outdiving P-47...no way in hell my friend. Please get your facts straight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Take it from someone who flies 109 series exclusevly for 3 years.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-29-2004, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
I do NOT want to throw the thread off track, but a possible related issue is that 109s are outdiving P47s as well.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cant say that I have noticed this. Just yesterday I spent several hours flying the JUG using the 3.02b and found that I was easily outdiving 109s. But if you have a track it would help. If it is happening then it needs fixed without doubt because no prop should be outdiving the P-47.


By the end of 1942, most of the troubles with the P-47 had been worked out, the American war machine was coming on line, and P-47Cs were sent to England for combat operations. The 56th FG was sent overseas to join the Eighth Air Force, whose 4th and 78th Fighter Groups were equipped with the Thunderbolt as well.

The 4th FG was built around a core of experienced American pilots who had served with the British Royal Air Force (RAF) before the war in the famous "Eagle Squadron". They were not too pleased to trade their Spitfires for the big Thunderbolt.

Indeed, their British counterparts were astounded when they saw the huge fighter, as it hardly seemed such a big aircraft could get off the ground, much less engage in air combat. The British joked that a Thunderbolt pilot could defend himself from a Luftwaffe fighter by running around and hiding in the fuselage.

Few American pilots were neutral about the Thunderbolt; they either hated it or loved it. On the negative side, there was the unpleasantly long take-off run, and the P-47 was not particularly maneuverable, though it was surprisingly agile at high altitudes. One Thunderbolt pilot compared it to flying a bathtub around the sky. A dead-stick landing with the P-47 was likely an unpleasant exercise.

On the positive side, it was rugged and well armed. It was a stable gun platform and its eight 12.7 Brownings could pour out a heavy volume of lead, and pilots reported targets unlucky enough to be caught in a P-47's crosshairs as simply exploding or disintegrating.

The Thunderbolt could also drop like a brick, which was an advantage in air battles. Luftwaffe pilots would find out that trying to break off combat and dive away was sheer suicide when fighting a Thunderbolt. The P-47 could easily reach 885 KPH (550 MPH) in a dive, and some Thunderbolt pilots claimed it could even break the sound barrier, but it appears that the airspeed indicator simply went crazy at high speeds.

Anyone could see that an aircraft as heavy as a Thunderbolt was likely to be fast in a dive, but more surprisingly it was hard to outclimb it. Even though the P-47 was big and heavy, its big R-2800 engine and huge propeller gave it a remarkable rate of climb. It also had an excellent rate of roll.

The P-47's first combat mission was on 10 March 1943, when the 4th FG took their aircraft on a fighter sweep over France, which was a fiasco due to radio malfunctions. The P-47s were all refitted with British radios, and missions resumed on 8 April 1943. The P-47 first mixed it up with the Luftwaffe on 15 April, with Major Don Blakeslee of the 4th FG scoring the Thunderbolt's first kill, shooting down an FW-190. On 17 August 1943, the P-47 performed its first escort mission, when it guarded a B-17 force on the first leg of a raid on Schweinfurt, Germany.

By the summer of 1943, the P-47 was also in service with the 12th Air Force in Italy. It was also fighting against the Japanese in the Pacific, with the 348th FG flying escort missions out of Brisbane, Australia.


Sources:
# P-47 THUNDERBOLT IN ACTION, by Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications (#67), 1984.

# AMERICAN WARPLANES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, edited by David Donald, Airtime Publications, 1995.

# FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II, by Charles W. Cain and Mike Gerram, Profile Publications, 1979.

# "P-47 Thunderbolt, Part 1: Early Development & Combat In The ETO" by Jon Lake, INTERNATIONAL AIR POWER REVIEW, Volume 1 / Summer 2001, 138:169.

# "P-47 Thunderbolt, Part 2: MTO, CBI, Pacific, & Postwar" by Jon Lake, INTERNATIONAL AIR POWER REVIEW, Volume 7 / Winter 2002, 188:165.

=S=

Loki-PF
11-29-2004, 11:03 AM
@VMF-214_HaVoK


Nice early war summry....Where exactly in that was *anything* said regarding diving performance? Most of the American losses in the early war in the PTO were casued by inexperienced allied pilots trying to dogfight Zero's not BNZing them.

crazyivan1970
11-29-2004, 11:03 AM
That was in my COOP, where Havok dove from me in P-47 like i was standing still... and then when we leveled out... i couldn`t catch him... neither could Korolov... Only RMutt, who came from alt on high speed was able to catch up. Those were G10`s. P-47 has alot of respect in my book now, without doubt.

BigKahuna_GS
11-29-2004, 11:10 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Crazy Ivan---Not sure about zero outdiving hellcat... but i`ll answer for 109 outdiving P-47...no way in hell my friend. Please get your facts straight Take it from someone who flies 109 series exclusevly for 3 years.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Rgr that Ivan I agree. I have flown the Jug alot and I havent had any problems leaving anyone behind in a dive--unless I was damaged.

The Hellcat out dives the Zero for sure in RL. In PF the question is: does the Wildcat out dive the A6m2?

In my previous post during an airshow dogfight with both planes having their nose pointed at the ground the Wildcat pulled away rather easily in the dive.

I have read pilot reports of Martlets(Brit Wildcats)diving with 109's in the Med. Dont know how true that is.

___

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-29-2004, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
@VMF-214_HaVoK


Nice early war summry....Where exactly in that was *anything* said regarding diving performance? Most of the American losses in the early war in the PTO were casued by inexperienced allied pilots trying to dogfight Zero's not BNZing them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"The A6M2 was superior to the F4F Wildcat in speed, climb rate, and maneuverability, but the Wildcat had better firepower and was more robust. In a dive the two aircraft were fairly equal, but the turning circle of the Zero Fighter was very much smaller than that of the Wildcat by virtue of its lower wing loadings."

Dont get me wrong my friend Im a US plane only flyer 99% of the time, but that does not mean that I want nonhistorical FMs. Simply put the Zero outclassed the Wildcat in every aspect of performance. It only became somewhat successfull when pilots started to use tactics and teamwork to outthink the Japanese pilots who have become overconfident with the Zero and skills they had.

But having read that from what one would think is reliable sources I also found this quote from Scott McCusky:
"Unless you tried to fight a Japanese fighter on his terms or did something stupid, you were not at a real disadvantage in the Wildcat. He could climb away from you, but you could dive away from him. In the F4F, we were not going to score a kill in every fight, but we never felt that we were at a disadvantage where we were going to lose."

So I guess without real numbers it is really hard to tell and one would have to settle with taking a persons word on the matter. I would think that in acceleration between the two it would be about equal. And the Wildcat with its stronger design and controls would eventually outdive the Zero with its light controls that would become very stiff and sluggish at high speeds.

Should also be noted that Joe Foss and the late Marion Carl. Given a choice, every one of them stated that they would prefer to go into combat in the Wildcat over any Japanese fighter they faced. Many owe their lives to the superior firepower and rugged design of Grumman's barrel shaped fighter. Those strengths proved to be far more important than the Zero's maneuverability, speed, and rate of climb.

So its still a debate I suppose. If someone like good ole SkyChimp could post some real numbers and max divespeed limits it would greatly help the discussion.

=S=



=S=

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-29-2004, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
That was in my COOP, where Havok dove from me in P-47 like i was standing still... and then when we leveled out... i couldn`t catch him... neither could Korolov... Only RMutt, who came from alt on high speed was able to catch up. Those were G10`s. P-47 has alot of respect in my book now, without doubt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RGRT Ivan...Mutt was in the Dora wasnt he? Once I put myself on the deck like an idiot I was dead for sure. Not too mention Im sure Mutt wanted some vengance after the previous coop (Hellcats vs Zeros)http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

=S=

Diablo310th
11-29-2004, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
I do NOT want to throw the thread off track, but a possible related issue is that 109s are outdiving P47s as well.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure about zero outdiving hellcat... but i`ll answer for 109 outdiving P-47...no way in hell my friend. Please get your facts straight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Take it from someone who flies 109 series exclusevly for 3 years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree with Ivan. If you give me 5000m with a 109 on my tail I will outdive and outrun him everyday if there is no damage to the Jug. It might take a min. or 2 to get the distance but a Jug will flat leave a 109 even in 3.02bm.

crazyivan1970
11-29-2004, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
That was in my COOP, where Havok dove from me in P-47 like i was standing still... and then when we leveled out... i couldn`t catch him... neither could Korolov... Only RMutt, who came from alt on high speed was able to catch up. Those were G10`s. P-47 has alot of respect in my book now, without doubt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RGRT Ivan...Mutt was in the Dora wasnt he? Once I put myself on the deck like an idiot I was dead for sure. Not too mention Im sure Mutt wanted some vengance after the previous coop (Hellcats vs Zeros)http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

=S= <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was in G10... didn`t you hear roar of MK108 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RedDeth
11-29-2004, 11:44 AM
two points.

1. bubih your wrong. dive fms work in fb otherwise why does a jug dive well and a I-153 not? they can alter fm of a biplane to go 800mph in a dive if they wish. dive fms are not porked.

2. HAVOK your post about the flying tigers vs zeros is incorrect. the flying tigers never shot down one zero.ida never thunk it till i read the books myself but its true.

in fact i believe they never met in combat at all. at least this is what i get from the books i have

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-29-2004, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
That was in my COOP, where Havok dove from me in P-47 like i was standing still... and then when we leveled out... i couldn`t catch him... neither could Korolov... Only RMutt, who came from alt on high speed was able to catch up. Those were G10`s. P-47 has alot of respect in my book now, without doubt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RGRT Ivan...Mutt was in the Dora wasnt he? Once I put myself on the deck like an idiot I was dead for sure. Not too mention Im sure Mutt wanted some vengance after the previous coop (Hellcats vs Zeros)http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

=S= <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was in G10... didn`t you hear roar of MK108 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No that you mention it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif LoL!

=S=

LilHorse
11-29-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
two points.

1. bubih your wrong. dive fms work in fb otherwise why does a jug dive well and a I-153 not? they can alter fm of a biplane to go 800mph in a dive if they wish. dive fms are not porked.

2. HAVOK your post about the flying tigers vs zeros is incorrect. the flying tigers never shot down one zero.ida never thunk it till i read the books myself but its true.

in fact i believe they never met in combat at all. at least this is what i get from the books i have <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the fighter types most often encountered by the AVG were the IJA fighters Ki-27 and Ki-43. To a lesser degree they tangled with Ki-44s. All these types were manufactured by Nakajima. Some of the AVG pilots referred to the Ki-43 as the "Zero-type" since in was more or less the IJA's answer to the IJN's Zero.

As for the Wildcat vs Zero in the dive, I guess the answer here is that while the Zero might stay with a Wildcat through much of the dive it's controls should freeze up and it should be on the verge of shedding its wings. While the Wildcat shoud maintain much of its control authority. The high-speed action advantage should go to the Wildcat.

Oh well, there's always another patch! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-29-2004, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
two points.

1. bubih your wrong. dive fms work in fb otherwise why does a jug dive well and a I-153 not? they can alter fm of a biplane to go 800mph in a dive if they wish. dive fms are not porked.

2. HAVOK your post about the flying tigers vs zeros is incorrect. the flying tigers never shot down one zero.ida never thunk it till i read the books myself but its true.

in fact i believe they never met in combat at all. at least this is what i get from the books i have <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Curtiss-Wright and the Flying Tigers

By William Wraga

In 1941, prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt approved the formation of the American Volunteer Group (AVG) in order to provide some direct military assistance to the beleaguered Chinese. Composed of three squadrons of Curtiss P-40C Warhawk fighter aircraft, the AVG eventually became known as the "Flying Tigers" and chalked up the most remarkable combat record of any flying organization in history.

Japan had invaded China in 1937, and Japanese armies were quickly overrunning that country. Soon, eastern Chinese seaports were occupied or blockaded; the only possible source of supply to China was from Burma in the west, over the nearly impassable Himalayas. The Chinese constructed an overland route, the Burma Road, from Lashio in Burma to Kunming in western China.

The Burma Road had been an ancient trade route between the two countries, little more than a footpath; it was widened and improved to allow the passage of modern truck traffic.

Without benefit of earth-moving machinery, 100,000 Chinese laborers required two years for its completion, all of 1937 and 1938. The Burma Road, 681 miles long, was unsurfaced, one lane wide and switched back and forth through the mountains alongside seemingly bottomless ravines where trucks often slipped and disappeared forever. By 1940 this road had become China's principal supply route.

Burma was then a British colony. Supplies moved from friendly, western countries (mostly the U.S.) to Rangoon, Burma's main seaport, then northward by rail to Mandalay and finally trucked to Lashio and thence to China via the Burma Road. Truck convoys were under constant attack by Japanese aircraft; Kunming, the eastern terminus of the road, was bombed regularly.

The mission of the AVG was to protect the Burma Road.

Chennault himself had arrived in China in 1937 to assess the capabilities of the Chinese Air Force, just prior to the unexpected Japanese invasion. He suddenly found himself the leader of an inept, poorly trained organization of mercenary pilots from all over the world together with Chinese pilots, young men from wealthy families, most of whom had been granted "wings" through political influence. The Chinese Air Force was equipped with a jumbled mess of obsolete foreign airplanes: French Dewoitines, Vultees and P-36 Hawks from the US and Soviet I-15 and I-16 fighters, relics of the Spanish Civil War (the latter oddly enough Wright Cyclone powered).

Legend has it that Chennault personally shot down 75 Japanese aircraft flying these antiques prior to the arrival of the AVG. He began the conversion of the Chinese Air Force into an effective fighting unit. Radar was non-existent in China then, but Chennault established its equivalent--an extended radio and telephone network through which spotters could signal advance warning of the approach of Japanese aircraft. Training procedures and tactics were emphasized. Much of this was to little avail because of the superior training and experience of Japanese pilots and the technical excellence of their airplanes.

The arrival of the P-40 and trained American pilots and support personnel, under Chennault's capable leadership, would give the Chinese air force a new lease on life. Later, during World

War II, large numbers of Chinese airmen were sent to the US for first-class flight training as well.

The 300 some-odd AVG personnel, now civilian mercenaries, left San Francisco in three Dutch transports departing over about a month's time. They were traveling in the guise of tourists, entertainers, students, salesmen, bankers and missionaries.

The operation, supposedly secret, was quickly detected by Japanese spies, and Tokyo Rose, Japan's English speaking radio propagandist, announced their movements to the world, predicting that the Dutch steamers would be promptly sunk by the Japanese navy. As a result, US and Dutch navy cruisers escorted the transports when they reached dangerous waters.

The voyages were utopian: food, drink and accommodations--all first-class in the spotless Dutch ships, a restful trip soon to end when they reached the jungle hell of Burma.

They began arriving at Rangoon in late summer 1941 and were assigned to a partially completed RAF airfield near Mandalay and divided into three squadrons: Hell's Angels, the Adams and Eves and the Panda Bears. Living conditions were appalling. It was monsoon season; torrential downpours occurred several times daily. The area was inundated with mud, infested with snakes and rodents and with insects constantly in their food and beds. A sickening odor prevailed in temperatures that reached 115?. They rarely had electricity or hot water.

Here they met Chennault who pep-talked them into staying. They were, after all, civilians and could get out if they so desired. Ten resigned immediately. Some of these found their way back to the US; others stayed in Rangoon working in black market activities.

Before leaving San Francisco they had been assured that 100 new P-40C's would await them in Burma. When they arrived, only two airplanes were available, neither one combat-ready, lacking gunsights and ammunition. There were no suitable tools, spares or fueling facilities. There was a strong feeling of resentment between Chennault and the Curtiss-Wright sales representative. The factory man did not believe the AVG would be successful against the Japanese.

Most of the AVG fliers had never flown a P-40. Little training instruction was available to them; it was "learn by doing", and many training accidents resulted. Navy pilots, for example, were accustomed to a hard, three-point landing on a carrier deck; the P-40's gear could collapse from such a landing. Runway collisions were common as well as under and overshot landings. One pilot, after wrecking three airplanes and severely damaging two more, painted five American flags on the fuselage of his sixth, proclaiming himself a Japanese ace!

Most of the AVG pilots had been well disciplined, clean-cut Americans with military and naval backgrounds and training. They loosened up after a time in Burma. Since they were civilians, there was no uniform dress, they wore whatever pleased them--Russian boots, short pants or even loincloths, pith helmets, colored shirts and usually a .45 pistol strapped to their waist. The British were in Rangoon, both RAF and army personnel preparing for a Japanese invasion. They frequented a favorite watering hole, the Silver Grill, accessible also to the American pilots, who were usually noisy, boisterous, drunk and obnoxious and made a poor impression on the sedate British and the Burmese civilians.

The AVG pilots were young men, most of them in their early twenties. Anyone a little older was considered ancient and usually nicknamed "Pop" or "Pappy." The well-known Gregory Boyington was one of these. He was 28; hence his nickname "Pappy." Boyington was a marine first lieutenant, languishing in Pensacola when he was offered an AVG transfer. Always ready for a fight on the ground or in the air, he jumped at the chance and eventually became a Flying Tiger ace. He later resigned, rejoined the Marine Corps where he led the famous Black Sheep squadron, was shot down, presumed killed and awarded the Medal of Honor, posthumously. He turned up at war's end in a Japanese prison camp.

During the AVG's training and settling-in period, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. It was expected that the Japanese army would soon move on Burma from French Indo-China (now Vietnam) with the ultimate objective of taking India. Thus, the AVG's mission was expanded to the protection of Burma itself as well as the Burma Road. Two squadrons were relocated to Kunming, China, the third to a field near Rangoon to help protect that city. By that time the

P-40's had been painted with the well-known shark nosed motif, inspired by a newspaper photograph from the war in the Mediterranean area.

The AVG's baptism of fire came in late December 1941. The Japanese had taken Indochina and established a bomber base at Hanoi. Ten twin-engine Mitsubishi's flew toward Kunming on what the Japanese expected to be a routine flight; they had been bombing that city, the eastern terminus of the Burma Road, for a year. No fighter escort accompanied the bombers. Kunming, until now, had been defenseless. The bomber pilots, as they neared the city, were stunned to see four fearsome shark-nosed fighters closing on them. They jettisoned their bombs and hightailed it full-throttle back toward Hanoi. Ten more P-40's appeared, and nine bombers went down in flames.

Following this action the Chinese dubbed the AVG, "Flying Tigers," the tiger being regarded by them as the most ferocious of all beasts. Kunming was not bombed again for the duration of the war.

The battle of Rangoon soon began. The Japanese mounted a major raid against Rangoon with 166 airplanes, bombers and fighters, aimed at destroying the dockyard and port facilities. The Hell's Angels Squadron, based near the city, was able to scramble only 9 P-40's but shot down 24 of the enemy with 3 losses of their own. The following day the Japanese returned with 200 aircraft to continue their bombing of the city, expecting to wipe out the remnants of the Flying Tiger Squadron at the same time. This armada was met by the remaining 6 P-40's; 18 enemy planes went down with no losses to the Hell's Angels.

These aerial combats were observed from the ground to the delight and amazement of the population of Rangoon. Overnight the "uncouth" American pilots became the heroes of Rangoon and were welcomed everywhere.

These bombing raids, nevertheless, caused extensive damage to Rangoon and with Japanese ground forces closing on the city, Rangoon fell a few months later. During the ten-week battle, 16 P-40's were destroyed and 6 pilots lost, including one killed by strafing and another captured. The Tigers destroyed 127 confirmed Japanese planes and 43 probables. The Flying Tigers' clashes with the Japanese were usually against extremely high odds, on the average 6: 1.

It was difficult to keep large numbers of the P-40's in the air because of primitive maintenance facilities and chronic shortages of spares, aviation gasoline and oil, all of which were supplied from more than halfway around the world.

Ground crew personnel were competent and well trained, but the aircraft were serviced and repaired outdoors--in the rain, mud, heat and humidity of Burma and the wintry environment of Kunming. This base was at 6,000 feet in the Himalayas with frequent snowstorms and temperatures below zero.

The P-40C was not the latest model of the airplane. The British had originally ordered these but opted instead for the "D" model which was armed with 6 .50 caliber guns. The Flying Tigers airplane was fitted with 4 .30 caliber and 2 .50 caliber machine guns, adequate against the more lightly constructed Japanese planes. The P-40C was very well armored in the cockpit area and equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks. These added weight to the airplane and reduced its maneuverability. The P-40C was, in fact, no match for any of the Japanese fighters in a dog-fight.

Chennault understood this and forbade dogfighting. He devised the tactic of diving on enemy aircraft from high above, where the P-40 could reach speeds near 500 mph, make a passing attack and continue the high speed dive to safety or convert to a rapid climb back to altitude. These tactics initially surprised the Japanese, but in time they became more adept at dealing with them.

Two Japanese fighters were their principal adversaries, the Nakajima 97 and the Mitsubishi Zero. Both were highly maneuverable airplanes and formidable opponents, particularly the Zero. This airplane was introduced in 1940, and remained Japan's best fighter for the duration of the war. It out-classed all Allied fighters in the Pacific for at least 2 years. The P-40 could outperform the Zero only in speed, but its armor and rugged construction made it more difficult to shoot down.

Saburo Sakai, Japan's leading World War II ace, a Zero pilot, wrote in his autobiography after the war that, "a well-piloted P-40 was a match for any Japanese fighter."

Soon after the fall of Rangoon, Burma was overrun by the Japanese army. Lashio was taken, and the Burma Road closed. The Air Transport Command established an airborne cargo route from India to Kunming known as the "Hump" employing mainly Curtiss C-46 "Commando" aircraft. This airlift was China's only means of supply for the next 3 years and the most treacherous air route of World War II. A total of 650,000 tons were delivered with the loss of 600 airplanes and 1,000 flyers. Before war's end, the US Army constructed a new paved road from India, the Ledo Road, joining the Burma Road and establishing an 1,100 mile truck route to China.

By spring of 1942 the situation in China was changing. The US, now at war, could not tolerate a group of American mercenaries. The AVG would have to be disbanded and integrated into the 14th Air Force and accept standard military discipline. Worse, Chennault, now a Brigadier General, was placed under command of an old antagonist from his flying days and could no longer call the shots.

The Flying Tigers were given missions for which the P-40 was entirely unsuited: low-level ground support, leaving them vulnerable to the frisky Zeros. Morale dropped almost to the point of mutiny.

The AVG was disbanded on July 4, 1942. Some men stayed; most left for other services and theaters. The "Flying Tigers" name remained, with units under Chennault's command.

Their record--In their heyday of 7 months, 297 Japanese aircraft destroyed, 300 more probables; 4 AVG pilots killed in aerial combat. The AVG stalled the Japanese invasion of Burma and saved China from an attack from the west.

During the early months of the war, the Flying Tigers' successes were the only good news from any theatre. The press and the movies focused on their exploits, and Flying Tigers became a household term worldwide.

http://www.curtisswright.com/history/images/1937_zero.jpg
The Mitsubishi "Zero" fighter. Pictured is a captured aircraft repaired at the Curtiss-Wright Buffalo plant and flown by a Curtiss-Wright test pilot during the war. At the onset of World War II the Zero was the best fighter of any nation in the Pacific war. It continued in production for five years. Credit: Curtiss-Wright Corporation


=S=

LEBillfish
11-29-2004, 12:18 PM
Loki, what were Radiatiors, throttles, prop pitch set at?...Was boost used? Was Prop pitch or anything else changed during the dive (I myself will kick on boost, move up to 110% throttle, bump rads up to 8, and slowly drop prop pitch)?

Now here is the trick....To manuever roll AND use rudder to turn.....In that way you somewhat make do with "less" elevator.

Though in the end it takes pulling out sooner and more gradually to stay on their 6 as now it's like flying a plane that is less manueverable like a 109G6A/S.

So though I've not seen the track I'd suggest trying re-running it insuring nothing gets changed in the dive then see. To date I've found if I try to stay on their 6, the WIldcat out turns me easily at such speeds. Though getting slow quick puts the Zero back at the advantage.

LilHorse
11-29-2004, 01:05 PM
"Two Japanese fighters were their principal adversaries, the Nakajima 97 and the Mitsubishi Zero. Both were highly maneuverable airplanes and formidable opponents, particularly the Zero. This airplane was introduced in 1940, and remained Japan's best fighter for the duration of the war. It out-classed all Allied fighters in the Pacific for at least 2 years. The P-40 could outperform the Zero only in speed, but its armor and rugged construction made it more difficult to shoot down."

Again, it's stuff like this that perpetuates the myth. The AVG never encountered Zeros. The Nakajima 97 is the IJA designated Ki-27 or "Nate". The Ki-43 or "Oscar" was the "Zero-type" that some of the AVG pilots referred to. The AVG most often battled fighters from the 77th Sentai.

Loki-PF
11-29-2004, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Loki, what were Radiatiors, throttles, prop pitch set at?...Was boost used? Was Prop pitch or anything else changed during the dive (I myself will kick on boost, move up to 110% throttle, bump rads up to 8, and slowly drop prop pitch)?

Now here is the trick....To manuever roll AND use rudder to turn.....In that way you somewhat make do with "less" elevator.

Though in the end it takes pulling out sooner and more gradually to stay on their 6 as now it's like flying a plane that is less manueverable like a 109G6A/S.

So though I've not seen the track I'd suggest trying re-running it insuring nothing gets changed in the dive then see. To date I've found if I try to stay on their 6, the WIldcat out turns me easily at such speeds. Though getting slow quick puts the Zero back at the advantage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEBillfish,

BOTH planes had closed Rads and all trimmed up and flying straight and level. Both planes doing about the same speed, Zero in the lead Wildcat in trail and ever so slowly creeping up on the Zeke. At ~ 200 meters we do the 3,2,1, GO! and both planes go to MAX throttle (Zero gets 110% and boost Wildcat gets only 110%). We are testing dive performance only so no turning or twisting in this track. My comments on controls stiffening up were based on testing we did other than whats in this track. I have those also if you wish to peruse them! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just PM me and Ill either post them or email them to you.

~S~
Loki

Loki-PF
11-29-2004, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

But having read that from what one would think is reliable sources I also found this quote from Scott McCusky:
"Unless you tried to fight a Japanese fighter on his terms or did something stupid, you were not at a real disadvantage in the Wildcat. He could climb away from you, but you could dive away from him. In the F4F, we were not going to score a kill in every fight, but we never felt that we were at a disadvantage where we were going to lose."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HaVoK,

Based on this quote you seem to be saying the Wildcat *should* outdive the Zero. I am concerned with historic FM's too, hence taking the time to test and see whats going on in the game so that we can compare it to what happend in real life. Everything I've ever read said that early war Wildcats had nothing over the Zekes except diving. If you (or anyone else for that matter) can find any documentation or first hand account that says otherwise, I'm all ears! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~S~

RocketDog
11-29-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
Again, it's stuff like this that perpetuates the myth. The AVG never encountered Zeros. The Nakajima 97 is the IJA designated Ki-27 or "Nate". The Ki-43 or "Oscar" was the "Zero-type" that some of the AVG pilots referred to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, also pointed out here recently by the appropriately named Mr Nakajima. The AVG could not possibly have encountered Zeros.

Regards.

RocketDog.

Maple_Tiger
11-29-2004, 03:25 PM
I find that hardest plane to out zoom climb is the Zero. AI KI-84, no sweat.

Aaron_GT
11-29-2004, 03:30 PM
"If it is happening then it needs fixed without doubt because no prop should be outdiving the P-47."

Until we get the Tempest anyway (which should outdive even the P47)

VC81_GLIDER
11-29-2004, 03:31 PM
I cannot find it at the minute but I have a book about the War in Alaska which has an entire Chapter on the Zero that was found on one of the Aleutian Islands. It had tried to make an emergency landing (engine trouble) after the attack on Dutch Harbor. Unfortunately for the pilot he tried to land in a wetland and the A/C flipped, killing him (broke his neck???). It was found by the US and had only minor damage. It was sent to California (San Diego if I remember right) where it was secretly repaired and extensively tested in late '42 early '43. One of the more immediate and significant results of the testing was a recommendation sent to all Pacific Squadrons. It advised them push into a dive and then hard roll to the right to get 'out of plane' as the zero could not follow this maneuver if correctly performed. According to the book the Zero, at least the one tested, did not have an inverted fuel system. By pushing forward with negative G's the Zero's engine would cut out causing a momentary loss of power. As soon as the a/c reached higher speeds the zero apparently had great difficulty trying to roll to the right. If the american pilot combined these two actions it went a long way towards insuring his escape. If I can find the book (I think it is called the "Forgotten War") I will quote exactly what it says. The implementation of this tactic, along with the Thach Weave, helped to increase the Wildcat/FM2 pilots chances of survival significantly. One note- I do not know which model of the Zero was found and tested.

Having said this I have been flying the FM2 in single pilot campaign and mulitplayer coop/df missions. I have tried this maneuver (push hard, gain speed, roll hard right) several times without any luck. The Zero, whether AI or live player, stays with me with no problems whatsoever. Personally I agree with Loki that there is an issue here that should be looked at by the developement team. I am new to IL2/PF and am not the top dogfighting ace out there by any means.

Overall I am very impressed with the game. Graphics are absolutely amazing! From my own limited experience and from what I have read in the forums it appears as if some of the A/C could use a little tweaking though.

~S~

ICDP
11-29-2004, 04:33 PM
The A6M Zero did have an inverted fuel system. There has been a discussion on these boards in the past that proved the carbueretor was installed incorrectly by the US technicians on this particular repaired Zero.

HayateAce
11-29-2004, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
That was in my COOP, where Havok dove from me in P-47 like i was standing still... and then when we leveled out... i couldn`t catch him... neither could Korolov... Only RMutt, who came from alt on high speed was able to catch up. Those were G10`s. P-47 has alot of respect in my book now, without doubt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alrighty Ivan, this was a bit closer range to begin with and maybe 3k. No track, but I have also flown the Jug quite a bit and this was a first. Maybe the dude out-accelerated me in the initial phase, of which I still think the Jug should pick up speed like a rocket when it's pointed towards mother earth.

I shall keep an eye on this.

VC81_GLIDER
11-29-2004, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
The A6M Zero did have an inverted fuel system. There has been a discussion on these boards in the past that proved the carbueretor was installed incorrectly by the US technicians on this particular repaired Zero. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is interesting ICDP. I would be prone to question that not having seen anything to support it other than this forum. But it might be true as I am certainly not an expert on the Zero. How would the US get this wrong? After all the zero was found intact and the technicians would have a 'correct' installation to compare it to? If the carb was installed improperly why would it work at all vs. only malfunctioning when it is inverted? I will admit that I am not that familiar with WW2 era Japanese engine technology. Does anyone have a link for the discussion referenced here? Also I have read more than one book that spoke of this issue. Is there some contrary info out there? Please let me know. I am not trying to be argumentative... just skeptical until proven otherwise. I would appreciate any enlightenment on this subject. If anyone has a copy of Jiro Horikoshi's Book "Eagles of Mitsubishi" perhaps it has some info? I have only recently found out about this book and have ordered it. Look forward to reading it.

As for the roll rate at higher speeds I don't think anyone can dispute the shortcoming the Zero had in this aspect. I will try some flight tests tonight and check roll rate in a high speed vs. and F4F dive.

I am continually amazed at how much worthwhile information one can find on these forums. ~S~

RedDeth
11-29-2004, 09:21 PM
yes like lil horse said. ive got a huge book on the flying tigers that recounts every plane shot down and every plane the avg claimed to have shot down. and none are zeros.

otherwise the avg might have had a harder time of it. the zeros were needed elsewhere more.

Loki-PF
11-29-2004, 09:44 PM
OK faithfull listeners....

I redid the test tonight with both my M8 and I recording tracks. Bit of a rushed job as my M8 had to work *very* early tomorrow so he could only take enough time to do it once before bed. (Hey that didn't sound too good) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tagert have at it. We tried to start recording the tracks at the same instant, but due to coms delay and human reflexes (well mine anyway!) there may be a slight difference in where frame 1 of both tracks is in reference to global time ingame.

Like I said we only had one shot at this tonight...If this is bad we can do it again tomorrow night and take more time and be more careful.

Here is the updated link that contains a new ZIP file with the two tracks

F4F3 vs A6M3 Dive test (http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/F4F3_vs_A6M3_Dive.zip)

WUAF_Badsight
11-29-2004, 10:04 PM
hmmm

Tater-SW-
11-29-2004, 10:20 PM
OMFG http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif , that's not an Oscar. Look at the landing gear covers (on the struts there is no rear triangle bit, and it has midline secondary doors which the Ki-43 lacked). Look at the low exhaust stack.

That picture is of the "Tiger Zeke" captured in China. It is an A6M2-21.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/WarPrizes.htm

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/additional_photos_for_zero_war_p.htm

Man, those Curtis guys sure are stupid.


tater

A.K.Davis
11-29-2004, 10:59 PM
However, the capture of this Zero in China is not an argument that this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Two Japanese fighters were their principal adversaries, the Nakajima 97 and the Mitsubishi Zero. Both were highly maneuverable airplanes and formidable opponents, particularly the Zero. This airplane was introduced in 1940, and remained Japan's best fighter for the duration of the war. It out-classed all Allied fighters in the Pacific for at least 2 years. The P-40 could outperform the Zero only in speed, but its armor and rugged construction made it more difficult to shoot down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...is true. I have read elsewhere a compelling argument that this Zero and several others were lost during a ferry flight down the China coast. One Zero on a beach does not refute the large body of combat records indicating the AVG did not fight IJN Zeroes (or IJN units in general).

Tater-SW-
11-29-2004, 11:02 PM
I never suggested that the AVG fought Zeros. This Zero was in fact found on the beach (details and many pictures, including the wreck on the beach in the links I posted).

It was merely a response to a typical forum post suggesting some other source is idiotic compared to the poster's superior knowlege http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

tater

A.K.Davis
11-30-2004, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I never suggested that the AVG fought Zeros. This Zero was in fact found on the beach (details and many pictures, including the wreck on the beach in the links I posted).

It was merely a response to a typical forum post suggesting some other source is idiotic compared to the poster's superior knowlege http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Responding to the original poster, who I quoted.

Tater-SW-
11-30-2004, 08:27 AM
Doh!

tater

NawlinzVoodoo
11-30-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bubiH:
I have posted on this issue several times: dive qualities are not modelled correctly in this sim. This has been the case since day one.

Why does the Spitfire IX outdive the FW-190A? Why does the Zero A6M5 dive equally with the Hellcat and Corsair? The answer, of course, is that this sim was first developed for one plane, the IL-2 Sturmovik, and dive was not important. After FB, AEP and now PF, we can model most planes from the war, but without realism as far as dive characteristics are concerned. This explains the constant frustration of people who fly, for example, the FW-190 and find it extremely difficult to do well in the game, when everybody knows this was one of the finest planes of the war.

What is annoying about this situation is that this limitation is not acknowledged by Maddox. It should be in the manual, the read-me, etc., so people will not make unnecessary mistakes like trying to dive away from a Zero. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your comments got lost in all the history lesson that were posted here, but I agree 100% with ya Bubi.

LilHorse
11-30-2004, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NawlinzVoodoo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bubiH:
I have posted on this issue several times: dive qualities are not modelled correctly in this sim. This has been the case since day one.

Why does the Spitfire IX outdive the FW-190A? Why does the Zero A6M5 dive equally with the Hellcat and Corsair? The answer, of course, is that this sim was first developed for one plane, the IL-2 Sturmovik, and dive was not important. After FB, AEP and now PF, we can model most planes from the war, but without realism as far as dive characteristics are concerned. This explains the constant frustration of people who fly, for example, the FW-190 and find it extremely difficult to do well in the game, when everybody knows this was one of the finest planes of the war.

What is annoying about this situation is that this limitation is not acknowledged by Maddox. It should be in the manual, the read-me, etc., so people will not make unnecessary mistakes like trying to dive away from a Zero. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your comments got lost in all the history lesson that were posted here, but I agree 100% with ya Bubi. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, these comments were addressed almost immediately after they were posted. What do you think the side-track about the Jug was about? The answer, in case you missed it, is that there are indeed differences in dive speeds amoung the a/c in this game. The Jug drops in a dive like a brick (believe me, it's futile to try to follow one in a 109 from altitude, they pull away from you like you're standing still). Try to out-dive a 109 in an I-153. No dice.

That's why the points brought up here are worth looking into. If the other planes model the relative differences in dive amoung them then the same should be done for the Zero vs. the Wildcat if the in-game results depart from technical/ historical information.

Saburo_0
11-30-2004, 11:49 AM
Wildcat should be able to reacher a higher speed in the dive & should manuever better at high speeds.
The Zero A6M2-21 should accelerate better than the Wildcat in level flight & I would think in the intial part of the dive as well.(?) The problem with the Zero is if you pull on the stick or hit the rudder at 300-350 knots (from memory) it will break apart.

So it's not quite as simple as the 'Cat can out dive the Zeke. The Wildcat airframe can take alot more stress than the Zero, & can out manuever the Zero at speed- too bad the only way to get that speed is to go down.

P.S. The Corsair wasn't necessary, the FM-2 could've won the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BigKahuna_GS
11-30-2004, 12:17 PM
S!

Try a simple high speed roll rate test of the A6m2-21.

I took 100% fuel and from 5000meters went into a gentle dive. I got up to 380mph IAS and I could roll 2 seconds faster than I did at 250mph IAS.

There seems to be no high speed control lock up for the A6m2-21 above 300kts.

Could someone else please try this. The A6m2-21 maneuvers too well (roll rate & turn)in speeds excess of 300kts.



Test Pilot Jeffrey Ethel flying the CAF (real Zero airplane) A6m2 in 1993:

"With the nose down and going past 250 knots, all controls get very stiff past 300 knots they are almost immovable. Red line speed in the manual is listed as 340 knots indicated, with a + 7G limit. "

http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=36


____

Willey
11-30-2004, 12:24 PM
Zero dives better that Wildcat... but Wildcat is 30kph faster on the deck. Both should be the other way round. The Wildcat can even climb with the Zero, if not a tad better. Olso wrong.

Blackdog5555
11-30-2004, 12:28 PM
After reading the posts here I did a test "flight" on the zero models in the game and a test dive on the F4F. Then i did a web search on RL info. The Game has the A6M2 breaking up at @400mph (but still contollable). the A6m5a could go to 450mph in a shockingly "contollable" dive before damage. The F4F did worse that the the A6M5a in a dive and started to break apart @440 and brake apart at @450mph. But the Zero was just as controllable as the F4F in the dive. (ahhhh-wrong) You guys "or gals" can do your own web search. (google F4F- dive speed) I found that the F4F had no Redline in a dive but had an estimated terminal dive speed of @500mph. The AM62 shold break @380-395 and the A6M5 @400+ but should be completely uncontrolable at those speeds. I could cut and paste a hundred pages of web info here but do your own research/testing. The "oversights" are not minor. the F4F was a POS. the only thing it did better that the Zero was dive and high speed handling. Without that advantage ther is no Thatch Weave", and this game is a Doom III pretender. The original poster is right. The Zero in this game dives about 20-40mph faster than it should and the F4F dives 40mph less than it should. This is not a minor oversight. The handling issue is a major consideration also. Hopefully it should be corrected. The Zero also couldnt turn right very well due to torgue. thats missing. But,---- and this is a big but. What i found is that the zero, at optimum speed could do a 360 tun in @6 sec., and the best i could do in the game was 8 sec. the Zero can out turn the Russian I153 and I16 and, FA, in RL, the zero decimated the I15's in China during its initail testing. (yes in China!) The game has the I153's and I16s outturning the Zeros. I hope that gets fixed too. The Zero should turn like it should. heeh hee. The Zero need to turn quicker. Just the facts

Loki-PF
11-30-2004, 01:56 PM
@Blackdog5555

Like I said..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seriously, since most DF servers maps are small the combatants tend to be co-E. If the Wildcat can't get seperation by diving away whats the point?

Willey
11-30-2004, 02:08 PM
Cherry!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Loki-PF
11-30-2004, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"If it is happening then it needs fixed without doubt because no prop should be outdiving the P-47."

Until we get the Tempest anyway (which should outdive even the P47) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holy KR@P!!

The more I read about the Tempest the more I want one!

RocketDog
11-30-2004, 03:14 PM
A quick test with the Zero last night revealed that it does indeed seem able to dive almost as fast as the Wildcat, and it certainly doesn't lock solid at high speed in the roll axis - in fact it can still roll almost as fast as the Wildcat. I've posted up in the ORR about this in the hope it might get looked at for a future patch.

Those with relevant facts and figures please post them up there if you get chance.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Saburo_0
11-30-2004, 03:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

Try a simple high speed roll rate test of the A6m2-21.

I took 100% fuel and from 5000meters went into a gentle dive. I got up to 380mph IAS and I could roll 2 seconds faster than I did at 250mph IAS.

There seems to be no high speed control lock up for the A6m2-21 above 300kts.

Could someone else please try this. The A6m2-21 maneuvers too well (roll rate & turn)in speeds excess of 300kts.



Test Pilot Jeffrey Ethel flying the CAF (real Zero airplane) A6m2 in 1993:

"With the nose down and going past 250 knots, all controls get very stiff past 300 knots they are almost immovable. Red line speed in the manual is listed as 340 knots indicated, with a + 7G limit. "

QUOTE]

Looks like they fixed the Zero's low speed roll but screwed up the high speed roll, er fix one thing break another. Sounds like the Wildcat is breaking up way too early as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Probably won't be able to test anything myself for atleast another day or so...work is bad!
OH BTW what patch are you guys using ?
(I'm still at 3.01m)
Funny thing is I never noticed as I haven't taken the Zero over about 280 knots. It used to break apart real good.

Tdavart
11-30-2004, 03:51 PM
Here's an interesting article:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm

When I cranked up PF for the first time, I set up an F4F v Zero engagment. I was shocked to find I couldn't outdive the A6M2. The only way I've found to get away is a climbing turn (against AI). I'm sure if you tried that in RL, you'd be fried rice.

Loki-PF
11-30-2004, 04:20 PM
All test were done with 3.02-"BM" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blackdog5555
11-30-2004, 06:20 PM
Loki..you ask; what's the point? Well, if all we are doing is playing "Sky Quake," then there is no point. Just get in your 84-c with unlimited ammo / easy settings and blow up the world. Yipee.
But, if your a modeller/ Simmer who plays or tries to play this game for its realism then you want things right. The Zero should turn tighter at optimmum speed as in RL and it should break apart (AM62)in a dive at @370-mph (400 for the AM65a) as in RL. The point is specific; F4F pilots faught the Zero the only way they could. Get some altitude, split S and dive through em at @400 MPH. Zero's couldnt follow em through the dive...Are you serious are Trolling for a goof argument? BTW, the Zero should be able to out turn the I-153 and it can't in this game. If the Zero can dive quicker and faster than the F4F then it has all of its own virtures and all of the F4F's virtures too. PF should stand for Physics Forgotten or Pacific Fantsy. Thatch said tat the poor performance of the F4F was a Hazard to the moral of its flyers. It had one virtue; Its ruggedness in a dive. F4F should hold together to about @480-500mph.

Blackdog5555
11-30-2004, 06:22 PM
jeez, my typing sucks

BigKahuna_GS
11-30-2004, 09:30 PM
S!



Without the ability to dive away and out maneuver at high speed, the entire
engagement is an exercise in futility. The Wildcat's main advantage over the early Zeke was dive speed and roll ability in a high speed dive.. without that all Wildcat drivers are suicide pilots.



Test Pilot Jeffrey Ethel flying the CAF (real Zero airplane) A6m2 in 1993:

"With the nose down and going past 250 knots, all controls get very stiff past 300 knots they are almost immovable. Red line speed in the manual is listed as 340 knots indicated, with a + 7G limit. "

http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=36


______

LeadSpitter_
12-01-2004, 12:38 AM
dont forget early p40s vs ki43s and zekes ki61 vs corsair zekes vs both cats and many others ki84 vs all. Also the high speed manueverabily needs to be looked at as well.

Im hopeful these matters are just a part of the beta patch and will be corrected in future patches.

Saburo_0
12-01-2004, 07:11 AM
patch 3.01m
Did some brief dive tests & the F4-3 & 4 broke up at 400 knots indicated (or there abouts) not much of a margin on the A6m2-21. The elevator authority "seemed" better on the 'cats but the Zero rolled atleast as well & maybe better. Sorry not stop watch.

I'd expect the 'cats to be able to go a bit faster than that, but don't have a good source on Wildcat performance. Anyone ?
The Zero should be less manueverable at speed IMHO. i hopt this isn't a limit of the game engine- the difference between the excellant performance of the Zero's at low speeds & their horrible performance at high speeds is much larger than in most aircraft.
TACTICS
In RL US Navy & Marine pilots did try to attack from above make diving passes & so they could easily outdive the Zero. The Thatch Weave was very effective because the Zeros could easily be knocked out of action while the Wildcats could take a lickin' & keep on tickin'. In equal E situations a Wildcat alone was in deep trouble, diving for the deck & the protection of your own flak seems like the only choice.
Online in the Wildcat grab teamspeak & a wingman, head away from the action & gain altitude etc....

LilHorse
12-01-2004, 09:18 AM
I'd think it's not a game engine limitation. There are other planes that at very high speed lose their control authority. Pull the stick to get out of a dive...no joy. It just needs to be applied to the Zero at the right speeds.

Loki-PF
12-01-2004, 08:52 PM
Ok Guys and Dolls,

Here are the definative test of the Wildcat (F4F3) vs Zero (A6m3). These are some tracks that a buddy and I created by doind some flight testing tonight. Will be sending these on to Oleg and company. Hopefully this can be fixed before the big patch in two weeks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Setup
Both panes at 100% fuel
Default loadouts
starting at about 28K ft Altitude
PropP at 95%
Dive test throttle settings on both planes are max
Crimea Map
12:00 Noon
Good weather

Summary

Zero is faster in a dive
Wildcat breaks apart sooner ~430Mph
Zero has better aileron authority at above 350Mph
Wildcat has marginally better elevator authority after 350 Mph

Evidence

In each link is a ZIP file with TWO (2) NTRK's one from each plane/pilot in the test. HINT HINT TAGERT!!

The first track is the dive test. In this track you will see the Zero creep up on the Wildcat and then the Wildcat break up before the Zero.

Dive test link (http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/Dive_test.zip)

The next tracks are control authority test at speed over 300Mph. Before you see the roll happen you will see the Zero pilot have to take evasive action to kepp from ramming into the tail end of the wildcat because its overtaking it in the dive. You will see the Zero roll far faster than the wildcat at over 350 Mph. We also test elevator authority by doing a max stick deflection loop.

Control Authority Test Link (http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/Control_Authority_at_Speed.zip)

Regards
Loki and Fenris

AlmightyTallest
12-01-2004, 09:13 PM
Nice detective work Loki. Glad you guys could send this in to Oleg and team for evaluation.

Blackdog5555
12-01-2004, 09:33 PM
But remember. The A6m2 is much more fragile in a dive that the A6M5a. should break apart @40mph sooner. the A6M2 was scary fragile in a dive, thats why the new model. so its not so simple as saying "Zero v Wildcat". Hope u made zips of both Zeros. (really should do all).

TAGERT.
12-02-2004, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Ok Guys and Dolls,

Here are the definative test of the Wildcat (F4F3) vs Zero (A6m3). These are some tracks that a buddy and I created by doind some flight testing tonight. Will be sending these on to Oleg and company. Hopefully this can be fixed before the big patch in two weeks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Setup
Both panes at 100% fuel
Default loadouts
starting at about 28K ft Altitude
PropP at 95%
Dive test throttle settings on both planes are max
Crimea Map
12:00 Noon
Good weather

_Summary_

Zero is faster in a dive
Wildcat breaks apart sooner ~430Mph
Zero has better aileron authority at above 350Mph
Wildcat has marginally better elevator authority after 350 Mph

_Evidence_

In each link is a ZIP file with TWO (2) NTRK's one from each plane/pilot in the test. _HINT HINT TAGERT!!_

The first track is the dive test. In this track you will see the Zero creep up on the Wildcat and then the Wildcat break up before the Zero.

http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/Dive_test.zip

The next tracks are control authority test at speed over 300Mph. Before you see the roll happen you will see the Zero pilot have to take evasive action to kepp from ramming into the tail end of the wildcat because its overtaking it in the dive. You will see the Zero roll far faster than the wildcat at over 350 Mph. We also test elevator authority by doing a max stick deflection loop.

http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/Control_Authority_at_Speed.zip

Regards
Loki and Fenris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who's your buddy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8281056742&r=8281056742#8281056742

Loki-PF
12-02-2004, 07:37 AM
Thanks Tagert!

JG51Beolke
12-02-2004, 10:10 AM
Thank You. I thought the Zero was too good in a dive as well. Especially against a heavier aircraft. I'm going to try the Zero against a P-47 and see what happens.

darkhorizon11
12-02-2004, 07:30 PM
There have been many posts regarding this sort of thing. A long time ago someone explained that the engine of the IL2 series of games fails to incorporate complex diving characteristics such as accelerations terminal velocities and advanced aerodynamics.

Maybe we'll just have to blame this inadequecies on that and wait for BoB.

Loki-PF
12-02-2004, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
There have been many posts regarding this sort of thing. A long time ago someone explained that the engine of the IL2 series of games fails to incorporate complex diving characteristics such as accelerations terminal velocities and advanced aerodynamics.

Maybe we'll just have to blame this inadequecies on that and wait for BoB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be wrong darkhorizon11. Dive charecteristics are modeled in PF, it's just that certain aircraft's dive profiles are off. If you don't believe do the test I described with a FW-190 or a P-47 instead of a Wildcat.

Blackdog5555
12-03-2004, 01:21 AM
Common sense experience show that all planes in PF show different dive acceleration, wind buffet, control siezing, and DP in a dive. the A6M5a performs beyter than the A6M2 in PF as it should in RL but the data is all wrong. The formularies are there, just bad data input and poor beta testing. Maybe the algorithms have clitches. Maddox has been quiet on the data used to create his profiles. And the wings on the F4f should almost never sheer off. just google "F4F dive speed".... i know it (F4F)didnt have unlimited speed in adive but terminal wa estimated at 500mph.(close to 200mph faste than the Zero)...Also the Zero turning radius is to big/slow at 175 mph.....This info is not a secret and its easy to find.

Loki-PF
12-03-2004, 07:55 AM
Great news Folks,

I've had some email correspondances with Oleg and crew over the last couple of days regarding this. They are aware of the problem and already have it fixed for the next patch! Woot woot!

Diving beer kegs with wings here I come!

I will update other posts as well.

MiszaNC
12-03-2004, 10:08 AM
Thank you and thank to Oleg!
Looks like the next patch (new or just 3.02 after 3.02beta) will bring quite a few new things.
Thanks guys!

Saburo_0
12-03-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
just google "F4F dive speed".... i know it (F4F)didnt have unlimited speed in adive but terminal wa estimated at 500mph.(close to 200mph fasteR than the Zero. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The A6M3 will be slowed down I'm sure,but i wonder how much the Wildcat dive speed will be increased.IIRC the 'cat came apart on me at 400 knots = 460 mph INDICATED AIRSPEED. Can someone put that into TAS for me ?
Or was the 500mph terminal velocity IAS ?

RocketDog
12-03-2004, 10:42 AM
This is good news. I've not wanted to fly the Wildcat recently because of this fault, the Hellcat window murk puts me off flying that one and the non-recoverable spin of the Beaufighter puts me off that one so the only new Allied aircraft left unbugged in PF have been the Corsair and the A-20.

If they can fix the F4F/Zero/Beaufighter FM and clean up the Hellcat glass it will be like a whole new game.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Fliger747
12-03-2004, 10:45 AM
The conversion between INDICATED airspeed, CALIBRATED airspeed and true airspeed is quite complicated, especially at high airspeeds. I cann'athinkof any US aircraft of the era had their wings come off in dives, a few lost their tails at high mach numbers.

The Calibrated/Indicated problem at high speeds comes from compressibility, this difference can be LARGE. At lower speeds the difference due to angle of attack and position error of the pitot tube is smaller. At high angle of attack, near the stall, indicated speed is quite a bit lower due to the angle at which the airflow impinges the pitot.

Then there is the issue of ATLTITUDE. AT high altitude, true airspeed is much higher than indivcated airspeed. Almost all of the aircraft of the era were mach limited in the low .7's.

You can work back from that and figure what a realistic true airspeed max would be. It will have litle relation to any cockpit indications.