ElBarca

Mitsubishi A6M5

Mod 52 good news. But I cant see in game. 

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lolo time to 6 km alt 7:27 min. WT time: under 5 min

 

100% power though not WEP but yeh.

 

Same for the N1K, most 'data' on Japanese planes seems to be at normal ratings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% power though not WEP but yeh.

 

Same for the N1K, most 'data' on Japanese planes seems to be at normal ratings. 

Imperial Japanese Navy never put into manuals the data for the Overboost performance (It can be compared to US WEP, but hardly). Also the Zero in data climbed like this fully loaded, I suspect that with our game settings (45 minutes of fuel) it will climb to 6000 meters in ... 6 minutes ? 

 

It will perform worse than now, definitely, but not bad. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% power though not WEP but yeh.

 

Same for the N1K, most 'data' on Japanese planes seems to be at normal ratings. 

 

the SL HP gain in WEP is 30 HP. really big deal.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the SL HP gain in WEP is 30 HP. really big deal.

 

Yeh he's right though a lot of the Zeros weight was fuel as well, at lower fuel loads it will climb better.

 

the Zero climb rate has always been to high but really it's the actual FM performance, stall, energy retention, the 15G turns etc that have been more troublesome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the SL HP gain in WEP is 30 HP. really big deal.

 

 

Yeh he's right though a lot of the Zeros weight was fuel as well, at lower fuel loads it will climb better.

 

the Zero climb rate has always been to high but really it's the actual FM performance, stall, energy retention, the 15G turns etc that have been more troublesome. 

Meh, guys, it was just typo.

Now it is correct.

 

The HP gain is 120 HP.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, well - if the 100% climb matches once FM is complete and all other things match when tested as it was tested, then flight model is okay. Climb will be predictably better at lower fuel load and with some use of takeoff power, climb performance is heavily impacted by weight in any airplane.

 

Methods to predict increase in climbrate by increasing horsepower exist and give fairly accurate predictions, provided no unforseen problems happen (eg. propeller efficiency issues, but at 10% HP difference it won't really happen).

 

However, given it's a radial which climbs at fairly low airspeeds there might (or might not) be cooling issues climbing on takeoff power for a prolonged period, depending up to what altitude it can sustain overboost (this mainly depends on supercharger perfromance).

 

Anyway, can hardly wait for realistic Zero flight models, the current ones are quite incomplete by "modern" WT standards.

Edited by Cpt_Branko
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in game M5 time to 6 km alt, wep climb:

 

45 min of flight - 5 min

30 min of flight - 4:35 min

 

the damn thing is over climbing by even more than 1 min to 6 k. I guess that if the M5 could WEP climb to 6 k it would take some 6:20-6:30 mins, so its super over climbing. 

 

and I am not even talking about turn rate, roll, high speed.... hell it turns better than the M3!!

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in game M5 time to 6 km alt, wep climb:

 

45 min of flight - 5 min

30 min of flight - 4:35 min

 

the damn thing is over climbing by even more than 1 min to 6 k. I guess that if the M5 could WEP climb to 6 k it would take some 6:20-6:30 mins, so its super over climbing. 

 

and I am not even talking about turn rate, roll, high speed.... hell it turns better than the M3!!

Climb should not be done at WEP setting.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just did a non-WEP climb test, RB, fully loaded.

 

time to 6,000 m - 5:50 min.

 

overperforming by 1:40 min. 

 

much work to do. gaijin.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ full fuel?

 

Also I'm pretty sure the M5 should not turn better than an M3, it should turn a bit worse IIRC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ full fuel?

 

Also I'm pretty sure the M5 should not turn better than an M3, it should turn a bit worse IIRC. 

 

full fuel yes.

 

by gaijins data sheets, the M2 climbs as good as the M5 to 6k, the M3 being a bit quicker. and as for turning I guess (by weight) M2>M3>M5. the M5 is only faster.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 sec turn performance ... hmpf, that sounds ... bad. For a fast comparison Yak-1 in 1942 configuration with Klimov M105 PF had 17-19 sec turn time at 1000 meters. Yak-9 early with same engine was making 17-18 sec turn time. The first one had wingloading of 168 kg/m2, latter one 167 kg/m2.  They had landing speed of 140 km/h. 

A6M5 in the datasheet has a clean stall speed of 140 km/h, 125 kg/m2 wing loading. 

 

How on earth the turn time went so high ? 

 

*Data for Soviet aircraft based on : "Самолетостроение в СССР - 1917-1945 - Том 2" 

Edited by Hiromachi
  • Upvote 4
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sustained turn rate is a function of thrust (engine power and efficiency, lift, stall speed, drag),

efficiency depends on the blade of the propeller,

lift based on wing loading BUT ALSO Cl curve as function of AoA

drag is based on oswald and AR and Cd0

 

You ennonciated Wing loading. unless both Yak and A6M have the same Cl(AoA) curve, that is only partially relevant.

You also neglected, as I said, the thrust available at sustainable speed (not necessarily the same because the HP are the same between Yak and A6M), and believed that drag profile (and especially induced drag) was the same.

 

That's a lot of "forgotten" points for a wing loading comparison, which is only part of the iceberg.

 

I ain't saying that it is right or wrong, but you definitely don't highlight anything suspicious with only the wingloading being higher and the sustained turn being very close.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is if you assume that is sustained turn. 

But its not written there, hence I didnt take any assumptions. If that would be "sustained turn performance" ...

And neither did I forget about thrust. It was merely for a fast comparison, not detailed analysis. For that time will come when basics will be addressed like the following ->

First thing to notice is a weight, which is higher than manuals indicate. But its already covered in my conversation with SubRyan. Climb rate is also slightly higher than in spec. Not to mention level speed. 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.