A look ahead to the Pacific

[ShamrockOneFive]

http://www.warbirdsnews.com/warbird-articles/interviews/tale-fighter-ron-cole.html

 

Here is given both internal and external painting, with a close Federal Standard color.

 

Wow. That's outstanding work there and I love the indepth research.

[US103_Baer]

Its almost impossible to do now already. Did a dive on 2 german destroyers on the Kuban map from 2.5k almost vertically and at 1000 meters I was hit by multiple shells: immediately catching fire, losing my wing and killing my pilot. I was picking an approach that should have been incredibly safe IRL. (coming from front over the ships, rolling upside down and doing a steep dive of ~10 seconds length with a pullout almost a kilometer high)

Pilots in The Eternal Zero had same problem, until the central character figured out a way

Ok, joking aside, I don't have much experience in BoX but aggressive slipping and porpoising does help throw off the ai gunners and laser-guided aaa in RoF.

Edited November 6, 2017 by PaulLMF

[sinned]

Thank you gents for your expert knowledge.

Very helpful.

 

I wonder why kites were still in green whereas zero and val were in beige.

 

Thanks

[curiousGamblerr]

I was thinking about the Pacific release over lunch and how hard it will be to wait probably close to two years for it to be released properly. And I was thinking about the dev's rolling early access releases etc. and wondering if we'll end up in a situation where we have Wildcats and Zekes over Stalingrad for a while before we get carriers and a Pacific map.

 

I came to the conclusion that if we get a blank water map, a (heavily WIP) carrier and a plane or two by the end of 2018, I will be more than happy. That way we can play with carrier landings, which are the #1 thing getting me drooling about Pacific. If they managed to do Wildcat and Zeke, it would even be enough for an arcadey Pacific dogfight server. (I guess we don't even the water map, we could just use the vast water on Kuban).

 

It's not unreasonable to expect no carriers til 2019 and mostly planes at first, but I hope they take a different approach and get even a basic carrier representation in the game around the same time as the first carrier aircraft. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Stalingrad Kuban

 

Fixed that for you. Kuban with its green and rich color palette will do for a while. It's not a New Guinea but amount of water, ground and terrain variety is more than enough to recreate few historical battles.  

[Cpt_Cool]

Or a simple island map before carriers perhaps?

[Frequent_Flyer]

I think it will be a mix of dogged determination and plenty of complaining about the F4F not securing enough of an E advantage in dives. I don't think this game will see a more one sided setting though... I am rather concerned it won't be a big seller simply because the point of the title will be to penetrate into the American market. I expect most Americans will want to fly USN and most novice pilots will be miserable doing so.

 

von Luck

You are misinformed.

[sinned]

Thank you for your expertise. Very helpful.

 

I wonder why kites were always in green whereas zeo and vals were white in the beginning. Whitr kite would have been nice too.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Or a simple island map before carriers perhaps?

 

Was thinking that too. I've no idea if it makes sense from a development point of view but an island dogfight setup with a Zero and F4F as the early access types would help establish the Midway scenario well enough for early access folks, possibly people who haven't bought in before, to get an early look at how things are.

[BSS_Vidar]

Really? Disregarding pilot accounts? Watch the video I posted again. This is a living pilot with more hours in a Zero than any human alive or dead. He generalized, but he IS the authority on the Zero folks.

 

I'm a pilot with thousands of flight hours folks. I only see statements like that on PC flight sim forums.  ;-)

 

V

Edited November 7, 2017 by BSS_Vidar

[ZachariasX]

Why should one disregard pilot accounts? Or are you suggesting taking them as a base to model the flight model of the aircraft instead of the designers performance charts?

 

What he tells in the video you posted, is that *down low* the aircraft is very maneuvreable any a delight to fly up to maybe 450 km/h, where restrictions imposed through excessive stick force puts a limit to the aircraft.

 

450 km/h is quick enough to potentially let many simmers yell the the Zeke „is OP“. At altitude, stick forces will be different. Same as in the 109. Still, as flight and combat speed increase, the marked superiority in handling will surely be more balanced with the competition. Also will the official Vne just above 600 km/h hold more of a practical value. But diving to the denser athmosphere will be rather tragic indeed.

 

You say, compressibility at 220 knots... you have that at such low speeds? I would assume you just require more force to put these barn doors into the slipstream?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It's not disregarding pilots, but merely recognizing what those pilot's have said themselves. Flying museums dont push their machines to the limits and do not fly them like pilots in combat would. Not that they cant, they simply refuse because there is no need for it.

 

Also, you have thousands of hours in what type of machines ? What is their relation to high performance world war 2 aircraft ? I have no flying experience and I do appreciate the fact that there are among us real pilots who are kind enough to share their experiences, but that does not mean that one is an expert in all kinds of flying machines.

All you have said so far is based on your opinion, that guys opinion and experience and general view of "pilots". Doesnt make your point any more valid because of that.

[Feathered_IV]

Thank you for your expertise. Very helpful.

 

I wonder why kites were always in green whereas zeo and vals were white in the beginning.

Japanese aircraft were not painted white. Not in the beginning, nor later on. You are confusing them with the national flag.

[sinned]

Japanese aircraft were not painted white. Not in the beginning, nor later on. You are confusing them with the national flag.

Whatever pedantic crayola.

[Herne]

Japanese aircraft were not painted white. Not in the beginning, nor later on. You are confusing them with the national flag.

 

Are you sure ?

 

[bzc3lk]

Are you sure ?

 

 The white fuselage stripes are a different colour  when compared to the base aircraft colour, even on this restored example.  Actual aircraft pieces still in the original colours found in the link below.

 

http://modelingmadness.com/earlya6mcolors.htm

 

Feathered IV was correct with his colour description  "Ameiro". (abstract Genyou Ame-iro)

Edited November 7, 2017 by bzc3lk

[Feathered_IV]

Are you sure ?

 

 

 

Hi Herne.  That is a restored version with a non-historical paint scheme.  It definitely does not reflect the pre-war or wartime colour schemes that were applied to Japanese aircraft.  It is another example of people getting confused by the Japanese flag.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Here is a photo I tool of the A6M2 at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.  It is the correct color...

 

 

Note the contrast between the white bands on the fuselage and tail, compared to the overall color of the aircraft.

[PatrickAWlson]

Hi Herne.  That is a restored version with a non-historical paint scheme.  It definitely does not reflect the pre-war or wartime colour schemes that were applied to Japanese aircraft.  It is another example of people getting confused by the Japanese flag.

They are not getting confused by the national flag, just light grey vs. white.

[Jade_Monkey]

Are you sure ?

 

Not sure what your point is. That pic clearly shows a "cream" colored plane with white bands.

[sinned]

Oh god, this reminds me girls going pedantic psycho when i say "light blue" for tiffany. Whats funny is they usually dont even know how to spell turquoise nor its etymology.

 

I speak japanese pretty fluently from oversea work experience and it is funny to see some guys go gaga over "zero isnt white! It is Ameiro!"

 

 

Careful guys.. going forward, expect to be corrected if you call zero color white! its ameiro! Not white! Dont get confused with the color of Japanes flag!

... oh man, here comes another good one. "its not white! Its cream! Whats your point!"

[Cpt_Cool]

white vs off white vs cream sure

 

But why were they painted that color instead of green? 

And i will add that in this instance, calling them white is more in order to differentiate from the green ones as related to the original question. Not to declare how vibrant and pure snow white is the paint on the zero.

[ZachariasX]

Ok. Ameiro. Learned something. I have to find out if my wife knows that one.

 

I can imagine how that will go: „What kind of color for the pillow set?“ - „Definitely ameiro.“ - „Such a light color? I‘d go for something more lilac. Mauve is much better.“

Edited November 7, 2017 by ZachariasX

[Gambit21]

It's not even close to white.

[Cpt_Cool]

Its clearly blue and black. If you see white and gold you are crazy.

 

haha anyone remember The Dress?

[sinned]

Yap definitely not white because it is ameiro! How can someone say white when it is not even close to white?

 

Lets talk about "green" kite because someone must be mistaken its color with that of a traffic light.

[Herne]

thanks for the answers guys, I wasn't trying to be a dick, but white, or a light cream is pretty much the same to these old eyes

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Yap definitely not white because it is ameiro! How can someone say white when it is not even close to white?

 

Lets talk about "green" kite because someone must be mistaken its color with that of a traffic light.

 

Just [Edited] already.

 

"Pedantic" seems like your word of the day - go ahead and define "Sophomoric" for us too.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Bearcat

[sinned]

Hello manga guy, nope! the word of the day is ameiro!

 

Remember, its not even close to white.

 

And you should watch your profanity. I see you tend to respond to my past comment with "FUCK" a lot, only to delete your own comment soon afterwards.

 

Dont delete it this time.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Hello manga guy, nope! the word of the day is ameiro!

 

Remember, its not even close to white.

 

And you should watch your profanity. I see you tend to respond to my past comment with "FUCK" a lot, only to delete your own comment soon afterwards.

 

Dont delete it this time.

 

Holy [Edited], bud. Are you that triggered over a color? Talk about pedantry.

 

I don't delete anything I say. Any other baseless accusations to make? And who is manga guy?

Edited November 15, 2017 by Bearcat
Profanity

[Art-J]

If "ameiro" sounds too confusing, or difficult to remember, one can call it just olive-gray, because that's what it actually was. Or light olive-gray to give a better idea. Simple as that, problem solved.

 

Back to the green question, first - it's not "kite" but "Kate", second - B5Ns, being torpedo/bomber planes, were cruising and approaching the targets at the lowest altitudes of all three types. I guess Japanese figured these were the ones which needed the darkening camo against sea & terrain surface the most. If I recall correctly, Kates were being field-overpainted already before Pearl Harbour, based on combat experiences from China.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Art-J

[HagarTheHorrible]

I hope the dev's take a cue from CFS 2 for the background menu music.  I still have fond memories, 10 years on.

 

https://youtu.be/BFVOuCWww_g

[BSS_Sniper]

It's not disregarding pilots, but merely recognizing what those pilot's have said themselves. Flying museums dont push their machines to the limits and do not fly them like pilots in combat would. Not that they cant, they simply refuse because there is no need for it.

 

Also, you have thousands of hours in what type of machines ? What is their relation to high performance world war 2 aircraft ? I have no flying experience and I do appreciate the fact that there are among us real pilots who are kind enough to share their experiences, but that does not mean that one is an expert in all kinds of flying machines.

All you have said so far is based on your opinion, that guys opinion and experience and general view of "pilots". Doesnt make your point any more valid because of that.

 

When someone starts asking what types of aircraft someone has flown as a basis of their knowledge overall, it shows they themselves are clueless. I mean, how do you respond to someone who's only experience in flying is on their computer? Vidar flew in the Navy prior to his professional civilian career. He and I both have flown aircraft that have less power/performance, the same or more than their WWII counterparts. You just can't discount thousands of hours of flying because he hasn't flown a zero. lol There are way too many "experts" in these forums who read a book...I told him not to even come in here, too many gamers that think they are all knowing but if they were standing with a group of pilots, they'd get ignored, why? Because they aren't pilots. The fact of the matter is that the Zero did have a problem diving and rolling counter to the torq because of its small control surfaces. It's always been well known and all one has to do since you won't believe a guy that actually flies them, is too put your google foo to work. This wasn't meant to be a "we're better than you because we fly" post. It's frustrating for guys like us and other professional pilots in the BSS when we read the mostly pure BS in here from people that would be lucky to taxi a plane to the runway without crashing it, but would positively get themselves killed trying to take off in it. The responses in this thread are the reason I stay away from here and have turned chat off in multiplayer.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Let me reverse that for you - when someone starts questioning data indicated by an aviation engineer who designed the very airframe we discuss on the basis of a video from youtube, it shows how misguided he is. I can very well dispute his argument because he is using experiences of another pilot as basis of his message and when argued, he brings argument in form of his own experience. 

So yes, you can diminish opinions of members like me who choose different career in their lives from yours or his, and call us gamers. We dont fly, we just read books. We'd be ignored by real pilots. Perhaps by pilots of your kind, but I never was ignored by pilots that I've met in my life. Particularly not when they were my clients.   

 

The fact is that he brought opinions and claims, and was countered by factual data. Nobody denies Zero had problems with diving, neither that it struggled in terms of roll rate at certain range of speeds. It wasn't even disputed.

[Aap]

I think that the point of question was not about how exotic name the color had, but why that color was chosen. 

The color with the exotic name really does not seem to be good for camo, so why was it chosen? Didn't the Japanese think of camo or was it against their bushido code or was there some practical reason like ID'ing or what? Or was it considered as good camo over the ocean?

[Feathered_IV]

I'm not sure why the colour was chosen.  It's use on carrier borne aircraft and floatplanes was pretty much universal during the earlier phases of the war in the Pacific however.  The D3A, A6M, B5N, F1M and E13's all seemed to carry it as standard. 

[HagarTheHorrible]

I think that the point of question was not about how exotic name the color had, but why that color was chosen. 

The color with the exotic name really does not seem to be good for camo, so why was it chosen? Didn't the Japanese think of camo or was it against their bushido code or was there some practical reason like ID'ing or what? Or was it considered as good camo over the ocean?

 

Not a million miles away:

 

The first link shows the evolution, from a grey/white to "Elsan" poo coloured( RAF aircraft toilet) to grey

 

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.squadronprints.com%2F%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2Fregular%2F138606319671492.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.squadronprints.com%2Fitem%2FSP149CU_NimrodMR1NimrodMR2_0_0_2106_1.html&docid=ylgJvSE78W0SsM&tbnid=519wDZGXUMRXAM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwit5Nnlw67XAhVMuBoKHVy8BwEQMwhyKCowKg..i&w=717&h=478&client=firefox-b&bih=622&biw=1038&q=raf%20nimrod&ved=0ahUKEwit5Nnlw67XAhVMuBoKHVy8BwEQMwhyKCowKg&iact=mrc&uact=8

 

second link shows it in the flesh

 

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbook.manchesterairport.co.uk%2Fmanweb.nsf%2FAttachmentsByTitle%2Faircraftnimrod.jpg%2F%24FILE%2Faircraftnimrod.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbook.manchesterairport.co.uk%2Fmanweb.nsf%2FContent%2Fconcordeaircraft&docid=pFcoftV4BRVdRM&tbnid=6r_3UupY3O0qWM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwit5Nnlw67XAhVMuBoKHVy8BwEQMwioAShgMGA..i&w=740&h=248&client=firefox-b&bih=622&biw=1038&q=raf%20nimrod&ved=0ahUKEwit5Nnlw67XAhVMuBoKHVy8BwEQMwioAShgMGA&iact=mrc&uact=8

 

One assumes the RAF also thought the colour was good for maritime ops, to merge into the murky haze, or at least when you're in the shit it might help looking like it !

Edited November 8, 2017 by HagarTheHorrible

[ZachariasX]

BSS_Sniper, one has to be careful in making sense out of data. First hand accounts and "pilot experiance" is also such data. Now how to make sense of those data? Especially when they seem to be mutually exclusive.

 

Just technical data seems easy. The difficulty is they makes only sense when one has understood the precise conditions as well as the assumptions that were the base of the following measurement and readout. This already is a pitfall for all of us. Pilot or not.

 

Then there are pilot anectotes. What do you do when they mutually exclusive? Are both wrong? Especially when both coming from extremely experienved pilots? Most people just pick the impression of their pet pilot and are happy with that, raging against "the other nonsense" in places like this here. What you can do, is check whether they are really mutually exclusive. Maybe check fot the  conditions, under wich the "experience" of the respective pilot has aquired his impressions.

 

In your case, I don't think it makes too much sense, just comparing the experience of an experiened pilot today with test pilots of that plane type back then and simply dismissing the latter. Flying at airshows and for personal joy gives you rather different mission parameters.

 

Anyone who has ever flow aircraft knows that the handling of an aircraft is a tremendously variable item. It changes at different speeds, loadouts, altitude, etc. Only when normalizing these conditions, it is possible to make some sense about wether statements are exclusive or not. Being a pilot today gives you a good ability to ballpark what may be reasonable assumptions covering the the vast absence of data between individtal datapoints given by these accounts.

 

Disqualifying someone that is better at reading books than piloting a plane I find not helpful. The bookworm may get you further bona fide info on your subject of interest. Especially when that info originally comes from someone very, very proficient as well.

 

What we are doing here, is trying to get an idea how an aircraft (or in this case the Zeke) is doing across the entire envelope. That is what you need in order to create a vealid FM for the plane. That the plane supposedly has certain issues, so what? Would you hard code a FM around some "issues" that you think are important?

 

You seem to agree that the Zeke, in all, is just an airplane. As any other. Therefore, we can make assumptions based on general principles of aerodynamics. Just to paraphrase you here:

You just can't discount thousands of hours of flying because he hasn't flown a zero.

 

So then, let me find out what you think is important. I start here.

The fact of the matter is that the Zero did have a problem diving and rolling counter to the torq because of its small control surfaces.

It has a problem diving? If you mean high elevator forces at speeds past 220 knts., maybe so. But always? Any altitude? You don't specify.

 

...problem rolling counter the torque... Does it? In the video, the pilot says he outrolls the Corsair at low speeds such that 1/3rd stick deflection gives about the full roll rate of the Corsair. So, what do you mean? Small controlls? Ailerons? It has much larger ailerons than most fighters, especially the Wildcat.

 

Or you mean, it would torque-roll just like that? Why would it do so more than e.g. the Wildcat? You torque roll only when your wing cannot support the twist imposed by the propeller. And this one only depends on the power of engine and the lenght of the wing (and area). Both the Wildcat and the Zero have about 3 kN/m torque at full power. The Zero has a larger wing and larger controls. It should be able to counter the torue better and even at lower speeds than the competition. Or are you really saying it would torque roll at a speed, where the Wildcat is still fully controllable?

 

If anectotal statements are in opposition to basic physics, then you really have to ask for what they really mean when they made the statement.

 

 

It's frustrating for guys like us and other professional pilots in the BSS when we read the mostly pure BS in here from people that would be lucky to taxi a plane to the runway without crashing it, but would positively get themselves killed trying to take off in it.

What discussions are mostly about, is getting complete performance charts. Individual sories are really, really, nice and one can read them over a cup of coffee. So we have airshow pilots telling their story, we have designer data, we have test data. Now who is right? We have to assemble a puzzle here. No less. and it is just tyring if someone claims "to know it all".

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

Not a million miles away:

 

...

 

One assumes the RAF also thought the colour was good for maritime ops, to merge into the murky haze, or at least when you're in the shit it might help looking like it !

As long as it is a dull and light color it will be hard to spot against the sky. The individual color hue matters much less than one might think for real life spoting. So for the Zekes that were not exclusively used over the blue ocean, it is not a bad compromise for a paint. I bet it would be as hard to spot as sky grey used on fighters, especially lower down wehere the air is more humid. 

[xvii-Dietrich]

This thread has thoroughly bifurcated.

 

 

@ZachariasX -- good write up on the issues of data, anecdotes, etc.. Another way of considering it is that the WWII pilot is a data point. It may be accurate or precise or both. But it may also be biased or stale. The armchair-historian does not have first hand experience, but they might have more sources of data. Armed with statistics, they can put individual reports in a bigger context and reduce data noise by comparing different accounts (measurements) and different source types (measurement techniques). This is why big data engines (Google, Bing, Duckduckgo, etc.) are so powerful... they have no first experience with your topic, but they can statistically arrive at a good answer for you.  Actual WWII pilot accounts are valuable data. Piecing those data together is equally valuable. Unfortunately on forums, such careful scientific method required in handling both of these aspects is not pursued.

 

 

 

 

Regarding camouflage and colouring. One of the questions emerging here is why was beige/white/cream/whatever chosen, when it is quite a light colour and would surely stand out. However, sometimes it might be to match the background brightness. If we are assuming the sea is dark, beige seems silly. But what about against a hazy sky or parked on a concrete strip? The camouflage might not be for the "heat-of-battle" moment, but for other reasons.

 

On similar lines, I am reminded of the Canadian camouflage lights. These were put on aircraft to match the brightness of the background sky, and hence make the aircraft blend into the background at long distances. In particular it was used for attacking U-boats. The American airforce later adopted them and called them Yehudi Lights. At first thought though, putting lights on an aircraft does seem rather counter intuitive if you are trying to avoid being seen.  Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehudi_lights