Zeroes and Wildcats over Stalingrad

[BlitzPig_EL]

In a one on one fight between an F4F and an A6M, the Wildcat is outnumbered.

 

Be sure.

[Gambit21]

Yep - but Kitty needs to pick up a book.

[LLv34_Vellu]

Hello!

 

Zero's first air battle was on 13 September 1940 over Mantchuria against Chinese I-15s and I-16.

 

In the pages has more information about these battle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero

 

The biggest reason why Zeros won battle 27 - 0 was their pilots skills because before war Japanese navy pilots were very well trained.

 

Zero was very light plane and following picture we can see quite small plane also.

 

 

 

 

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Hello Vellu. 

It was actually over Chungking, not Manchuria. They indeed engaged I-15bis and I-16s, for details however I recommend myself 

I've written a small article long ago when I was active on other boards: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/175903-debut-of-zero-sen/

 

Size on that picture is somewhat skewed due to perspective, Zero may look small until one stands next to it:

[BlitzPig_EL]

The A6M in the collection of the National Museum of the United States Air Force...

 

[Lusekofte]

In a one on one fight between an F4F and an A6M, the Wildcat is outnumbered.

 

Be sure.

 

When they captured a A6M on the aletuans and managed to repair it, they found its weakness, only good trained pilots made it possible to fight against Zero´s in Midway and numbers, this will not be the case in this game, where you never find organised flying. I bet the Zero´s DM will be oversensitive to compensate this

[BlitzPig_EL]

So, you are saying the devs are engaging in balancing for the sake of game play?

[BeastyBaiter]

It doesn't matter, you don't need tons of armor if you don't get hit in the first place. It should be more subject to pilot kills and fuel tank fires, but most fighters here disintegrate the instant someone looks at them, so it won't be much of a difference.

[Mustang_45]

The Zero had no equal in a dogfight. In fact, even the nimble Spitfire couldn't match the Zero in a dogfight. When Spitfires first encountered Zeros in WW2 the Spitfire pilots were shocked that they weren't able to turn with the Zeros, even though their Spitfires had no problem out-turning Bf-109's and FW-190's. Spitfire pilots had to learn not to dogfight Zeros, but to make use of boom and zoom as well as group tactics similar to what the Americans used. To quote Lt.Gen. Claire Lee Chennault: "The RAF pilots were trained in methods that were excellent against German and Italian equipment but suicide against the acrobatic Japs."

 

All Zeros had an excellent roll rate at low speed. The chart Finkeren posted has been disproved many times. In fact, that chart doesn't even use the same parameters for the Zero as the other fighters in the chart. It clearly states "stick forces unknown" on the Zero's curve, which makes the Zero's curve on that chart meaningless. By the looks of that chart they applied much lower stick forces to the Zero, and nowhere close to full deflection. Most likely nothing other than anti-Japanese propaganda material. Even video footage of 70 year old Zeros (that are flown gently) disproves that chart. The A6M2 was in fact the lightest and most maneuverable of all Zeros and had a similar roll rate to the A6M3.

 

Also, there was a question regarding the power setting at which the Zero's "top speed" was measured. The quoted "top speed" the Japanese used was always at max continuous power. Unlike other nations, the Japanese never used war emergency power in performance data.

 

See the chart I've attached of the actual roll rate of the Zero, compared to the Tomahawk and Spitfire as presented in the RAAF report on the Zero, dated 16 October 1943. Unlike the other chart, all three aircraft's graphs use the same measurement criteria. You will notice that the Zero has an excellent roll rate of up to 120 degrees per second. Roll rates were roughly similar for A6M2, A6M3 and A6M5 Zeros.

 

The videos below discuss and demonstrate the excellent maneuverability of the Zero.

 

A6M2:

 

A6M2:

 

A6M3 Zero:

 

A6M5 with its original Sakae engine, owned by the Planes of Fame Museum:

 

 

Chart of the actual roll rate of the Zero, compared to the Tomahawk and Spitfire as presented in the RAAF report on the Zero, dated 16 October 1943:

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mustang_45

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Most likely nothing other than anti-Japanese propaganda material.

No NACA document is anti-Japanese (or anti-German or any other anti-...) propaganda, NACA was a scientific institution interested in research and technological advance in aeronautics.  

 

 

 

By the looks of that chart they applied much lower stick forces to the Zero, and nowhere close to full deflection.

Data used for roll rate on page 166 of this report (report 868) are based on helix angles indicated at page 165:

 

 

 

 

Helix angles are based on various data available to NACA specialists at given time (from tests, own or captured documents), in regard to A6M2 (called in this research just as Zero which is not precise) helix angles were obtained during Spring and Summer of 1943 when Akutan A6M2 was reviewed. Absence of stick forces is simple - they were not measured. Report states it clearly that no measurements of control forces were made during trials.

 

In regard to rolling itself, helix angles indicated in NACA 868 only resemble rolls to the right while omitting rolls to the left (which as I said was representing worst case scenario for A6M2). Maximum helix angle pb/2V was recorded at 120 mph indicated  which was 0.12, at 150 mph it decreased to 0.10, at 200 mph to 0.075 and at 250 mph 0.047. Maximum value that could be reached was 0.14. 

 

Interesting thing to note is that there were more than few trials of the aircraft and at least two concerned rolling performance, in which aircraft performed significantly better in second one than in first one and no explanation to that could be found (it was speculated that perhaps different pilot was behind the stick). In March 1943 a simulated combat trial was carried with F4F-3 and XF4F-8 (also known as FM-2) in which it was found that (as indicated in other reports and based on combat pilot observations) that control forces were heavy (no recordings again), maximum roll rate that I could find based on recorded film, was ~1.3 radians per sec (or 74 deg per sec).

Overall NACA evaluation gives perspective but is not accurate enough.

 

I have in my archive a document containing  Mitsubishi Wind Tunnel report # 368 - Test on A6M2 aileron hinge moment - A6M2 trials with and without balance tabs, which as indicated by title contains various measurements of aileron performance under various conditions with and without balance tabs attached. But it is entirely in Japanese and thus is impossible to understand whats in it. 

[Mustang_45]

Yes. However, that chart is not indicative of the Zero's maximum roll rate, which is what some people (wrongly) think it is.

 

If you watch the videos I posted you will see the roll rate demonstrated in them is MUCH higher, even though the aircraft are very old now and no doubt not pushed to their limits.

[Rjel]

I'm currently reading THE CACTUS AIR FORCE. It has definitely piqued my interest in the Pacific. With a little luck maybe Guadalcanal will be part of the upcoming Midway release. Or perhaps a user made map set. With the new strategic element coming, I think some interesting missions could be created. The F4F wasn't a complete slouch against the Zero. I'm most eager to try it out.

[Sokol1]

When they captured a A6M on the aletuans and managed to repair it, they found its weakness, only good trained pilots made it possible to fight against Zero´s in Midway and numbers, this will not be the case in this game, where you never find organised flying. I bet the Zero´s DM will be oversensitive to compensate this

 

 

Looking at Pacific Air War carrier battles scores (on Web) in no one F4F fall like "butterflies on fire" for Zero's.

If I remember well when I did this in one of this battles Zero have 3 or 4 kills on advantage.

 

Perhaps because in these nor Zero or F4F fly with primary task fight other fighters, but intercept attack planes.

 

Of course in online "flight games" this figure will be different. 

Edited November 19, 2016 by Sokol1

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Regardless of how good or bad it will be I just find Wildcat cool warbird. Cockpit perspective isnt all that terrible, though in actual combat it may become an issue:

 

One should ask Kermit how he feels about Wildcat

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

How is the rear visibility of the thing?

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

How is the rear visibility of the thing?

Like any early war Fighter.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

"Any"

 

 

 

 

 

F4F will really lack in rearward visibility, though it wont be as bad as in F4U. But visibility to the front seems to be quite decent, pilot is seated high and can see very well in front of him or to the right\left. Spotting guys sneaking on you six will be a different story IMO, but still, the aircraft I hated the most in old Il-2 or War Thunder was Corsair. If I wanted to look behind me I had to ask someone else to do me a favor and check it. 

[Gambit21]

Like any early war Fighter.

Tell us more about how the Zeke is comparable to a biplane - then tell us how the rearward visibility resembles that of other disparate designes such as the Wildcat.

[Mustang_45]

Another video that demonstrates the A6M Zero's excellent roll rate. Despite her age she's still able to do a complete 360 degree roll in just slightly over 3 seconds. All the rolls are certainly under 4 seconds.

Skip to 2:48 for the first roll, with a couple more rolls starting at 4:35 on the video...

 

[Silavite]

The Zero should by all means roll well at low speeds. The ailerons cover at least half of the span.

 

The downside is that because they're so big, control forces increase quite rapidly with speed. (as is often quoted)

 

If there's one thing that I dislike about the Zero, however, it is the cockpit layout.

 

 

 

 

The airspeed and altimeter are both quite a ways down below the gunsight, and the altimeter uses a single hand with entire kilometers as the base unit.

[Gambit21]

Definitely has barn door ailerons

Edited November 21, 2016 by Gambit21

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The airspeed and altimeter are both quite a ways down below the gunsight, and the altimeter uses a single hand with entire kilometers as the base unit.

 

It has 2 needles, one smaller than the other one which just happens to be below the bigger one in the picture, they follow the same number indicators.

 

 

One curious feature is that the trigger is located in the throttle lever. I wonder if that was to make sure the pilot got his hand in the throttle during combat, or because it was more precise (releasing work from the precision tasked hand at the flight stick).

 

The gunsight may look a bit saturated but I like it a lot, nice for deflection shooting.

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Definitely has barn door ailerons

You could always add balance tab to make it more interesting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The gunsight may look a bit saturated but I like it a lot, nice for deflection shooting.

There were actually few versions of it, someone made a proper mod and fixed it since original Pacific Fighters contained only simplified version (and there was no Army sights as well). Proper view looks more like this:

[Silavite]

It has 2 needles, one smaller than the other one which just happens to be below the bigger one in the picture, they follow the same number indicators.

 

 

One curious feature is that the trigger is located in the throttle lever. I wonder if that was to make sure the pilot got his hand in the throttle during combat, or because it was more precise (releasing work from the precision tasked hand at the flight stick).

 

The gunsight may look a bit saturated but I like it a lot, nice for deflection shooting.

 

Huh! Guess it shows that I don't fly the Zero a lot in 1946. I flew the Betty quite a bit, however, and one of the things that really irritated me about that plane was the single-hand altimeter. Made it difficult to get an exact altitude reading for level bombing. I looked for a picture of the Zero's cockpit and assumed it had the same setup. Learn something new every day, I suppose.

 

You could always add balance tab to make it more interesting

 

 

 

 

Interesting! Considering that control forces at speed was one of the Zeroes major drawbacks, it surprises me that they didn't go about with adding flettner tabs. The Germans did it with the Bf 109 K, although the majority of aircraft were produced with the standard G-series ailerons (at least, that is what a cursory Google search reveals).

[Feathered_IV]

A6M2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np4pfMeiupE

A pasty white guy in a hachimaki headband just looks so wrong.

I remember going skiing once and a "cool guy" had kitted himself out for the snow, complete with Japanese ceremonial headband to tie back his luxurious mullet. When he strutted past the young girls and on past a group of Japanese tourists, the Japanese quite literally fell about laughing. They were hanging onto each other and almost sobbing with laughter. Poor cool guy. He was utterly crushed.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Feathered_IV

[Finkeren]

Another video that demonstrates the A6M Zero's excellent roll rate. Despite her age she's still able to do a complete 360 degree roll in just slightly over 3 seconds. All the rolls are certainly under 4 seconds.

Skip to 2:48 for the first roll, with a couple more rolls starting at 4:35 on the video...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM1CLDTsr_c

Looks alright.

 

Looks to be just slightly slower than the MiG-3 in this video (1:18):

 

 

Still a lot worse than the I-16 is able to perform.

[Mustang_45]

The I-16 had an excellent roll rate, but overall it was completely outclassed by the Zero.

 

"On 13 September 1940, the Zero scored its first air-to-air victories when 13 A6M2s led by Lieutenant Saburo Shindo attacked 27 Soviet-built Polikarpov I-15s and I-16s of the Chinese Nationalist Air Force, shooting down all the fighters without any loss to themselves."

 

That Mig-3 is looking very nice by the way... I've always liked the Mig-3's sleek lines.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Interesting! Considering that control forces at speed was one of the Zeroes major drawbacks, it surprises me that they didn't go about with adding flettner tabs. The Germans did it with the Bf 109 K, although the majority of aircraft were produced with the standard G-series ailerons (at least, that is what a cursory Google search reveals).

Not as much all control surfaces as ailerons. Elevator and rudder were getting progressively heavier with increase of airspeed but aircraft retained controlability. It's ailerons that were concern from the beginning and early A6M2s (1940-1941) actually received balance tabs to reduce forces on stick, but this were abandoned since April 1941 after a tragic accident of Lt. Shimokawa when they were claimed by some pilots and engineers to be a reason of it. This wasn't correct but due to pilots reluctance they decided to add adjustable on ground tabs only, at least for now. Mitsubishi returned to the balance tabs in December 1942 in their A6M3 model 22 fighters and all 550+ of them were equipped with those. Nakajima maintaining production of A6M2 also added them at some point.

They could actually work as balance tabs but when flaps are dropped their operation is prevented not to overbalance and keep precision of movement at low speeds (especially important with carrier borne aircraft). Here is an article that describes that pretty well for A6M3 model 22 :

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/185354-1.html

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/185520-1.html

 

Keep in mind not all the equipment is original as obvious this days and that author makes couple of mistakes here and there and incorrect assumptions.

 

 

 

Still a lot worse than the I-16 is able to perform.

Well, roll is the last thing left for I-16. Without it dodging in game would be a huge problem.  

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, we haven't really talked about the F4F yet. Being a Naval Fighter it should also be able to pull quite small Radii I guess it won't win any Climb Contests. Firepower and Tankability should be equal to P-40. Does it carry a good Bombload?

[ShamrockOneFive]

Well, we haven't really talked about the F4F yet. Being a Naval Fighter it should also be able to pull quite small Radii I guess it won't win any Climb Contests. Firepower and Tankability should be equal to P-40. Does it carry a good Bombload?

 

Some F4Fs could carry a pair of 100lb bombs. So not really packing much of a punch. I'm not even sure if the F4Fs were so equipped during the Battle of Midway (or surrounding time period). The later model FM-2s sometimes carried four HVAR rockets.

 

I'm a real fan of the Wildcat. Its almost constantly underestimated and overshadowed by the Hellcat but its a great fighter in its own right. I am curious to see if we'll be getting only the F4F-4 or if the F4F-3 will also be available. Primary differences are the F4F-4s had folding wings and an extra pair of .50cal machine guns making them somewhat heavier but with a heavier weight of fire (though not strictly necessary against most Japanese aircraft) and the folding wings allowed for more fighters to be operated from the carriers. The F4F-3 is actually the better performer.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, it's Top Speed Matches the I-16, and Climb Speed at 16.5m/s should put it ahead of the P-40 in that Characteristic, at least according to Grumman. They Give 3300ft/min in one Test and 1850 in others. Against BoM Aircraft it should be able to hold itself, but the BoS ones will completely dominate it. 

[Finkeren]

Well, it's Top Speed Matches the I-16, and Climb Speed at 16.5m/s should put it ahead of the P-40 in that Characteristic, at least according to Grumman. They Give 3300ft/min in one Test and 1850 in others. Against BoM Aircraft it should be able to hold itself, but the BoS ones will completely dominate it.

Pretty much yes. Performance-wise it's kinda comparable to the LaGG-3, albeit slower, but its handling across the speed range should be much better.

[Gambit21]

And it faces the Zeke - which is pretty much the best matchup anywhere you care to look in WWII.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I am always mindful of the advice from the day...

 

In a one on one engagement against a Zero, the Wildcat is outnumbered.

 

I still really like the F4F, and had many good times flying it in original IL2, but you had better have a good wingman or six with you.

 

Another thing to remember.   The US Navy originally picked the Brewster Buffalo over the Wildcat, based solely on it's performance advantage in the trials.

 

Food for thought.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Good point El. Yep, you'll have to bring a good wingman to make the Wildcat into the best it can be.

 

Going to be some interesting dogfights in the future!

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Surely hope not..

I hope that if we get planes from pacific theatre that they will not be allowed to be mixed with other planes (historically innaccurate match ups should be blocked even in the mission generator as all it will lead to is crying then a demand to balance aircraft for the "game" ignoring the real planes stats (like WT)

[ShamrockOneFive]

Surely hope not..

 

I hope that if we get planes from pacific theatre that they will not be allowed to be mixed with other planes (historically innaccurate match ups should be blocked even in the mission generator as all it will lead to is crying then a demand to balance aircraft for the "game" ignoring the real planes stats (like WT)

 

Unless they do something different... it'll all be in the same game and IMHO, flight simming is a sandbox experience. If you want to pit a-historical aircraft against each other you should be able to do that in your own sandbox (single player, multiplayer, etc.). I wouldn't want to see a Bf109 flying of a Midway campaign mission which I have no worries about ever happening but if someone wants to run a quick mission that way, I think they should be allowed to do so.

 

Though there are some accusations of balancing the game, I see no evidence of that with this series nor do I see the developers caving in and balancing anything. They are focused on delivering aircraft at the performance levels that they should have historically and we as the community have been scrutinizing every last detail. There are controversies to be sure but this is not War Thunder and allowing planes to mix is not going to change the focus here.

[BlitzPig_EL]

F4Fs did operate in the European Theater you know.

 

What people do with the missions they build for themselves, or their friends, are their business, and no one else's.  Certainly not in a historical campaign, but it can be a fun diversion to have disparate aircraft against each other.

 

Heh, the first Me 262 I saw when they were released in the original IL2 I shot down...   With a Brewster.

 

I'll never forget that.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Surely hope not..

 

I hope that if we get planes from pacific theatre that they will not be allowed to be mixed with other planes (historically innaccurate match ups should be blocked even in the mission generator as all it will lead to is crying then a demand to balance aircraft for the "game" ignoring the real planes stats (like WT)

I hope that people will be able to do whatever they want with the product they paid for and others dont get to tell them what to do with their game. Frankly, if someone has a desire to set a server with Soviet and Japanese aircraft, he should have no problem doing so. You will have a freedom of deciding whether you like such setup or you dont and whether you wish to join such server or not. But why restrict such person ? Because of your subjective opinion ? 

 

I'm personally a fan of historical matchups and missions trying to recreate actual events. But I dont feel entitled to make decisions for other people or prevent them from playing game the way they wish to as long as it brings no harm to other players or playerbase. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Well said Hiromachi.