ElBarca

Mitsubishi A6M5

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

On that matter, I am quite sure that ALL the turn times, in WT forum AND any testing IRL, are made for a sustained turn.

 

Mostly because adding a descending / ascending component is just a "shift" in the energy level of the plane, but can be reduced to level sustained turn anyway, and that is not relevant for comparison purpose to compare something else that best sustained level turn (best turn being determined by stall speed and G-limit)

Long live the E-M theory !

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Considering most A6M3s and A6M5s (bar the A6M5 hei which some sources state use a later model Sakae) used pretty much the same model of engine, the performance increases they managed to pump out of the Zero were quite impressive.

There were actually no performance increases between the series, slight differences in speed and climb can be more attributed to changes in the wing shape and engine cowling. All three models used Sakae 21 and there was no reason for them to have drastically different performance. And that is the case in the manual they have used. JICPOA Item 5981 was written somewhere in October 1943 and was presenting a general data and performance of A6M2 to A6M5 models. The differences between model 22 to model 52 were between 1 to 4 knots. Why ? Because they were principally the same. A6M5 had new type of wing and more streamlined cowling but on the other hand it also had two gun barrels sticking out of the wings, so speed increase due to more aerodynamic profile was partially negated. It was also heaviest of all three so the climb time was inferior if compared to model 22 and model 32. 

 

 

What made difference was an addition of individual exhaust stacks producing the exhaust thrust. The way Mitsubishi did it was not best, if you take a look at Ki-43-III or FW-190 they had a lot more advanced design. But nonetheless the performance gain was noticeable, about 20 km/h speed increase as well as improved rate of climb (top speed between 302 to 305 knots) . I've provided later spec sheet from 1944 indicating higher top speed, but seems so far nobody bothered to fix that. Anyway, first 200 A6M5s were produced without that system : 

image002.jpg

This is how earliest model 52 looked like, Serial no. 3904 to 4103. It would be a machine of this type that JICPOA Item based its performance data on.

 

Most likely first A6M5 with individual exhaust pipes was aircraft no. 4104 built between 18th and 29th October 1943 (exact date unknown). It was looking like this :

image004.jpg

 

The A6M5 we have in game is even a bit later model since it has anti-heat patches (Heat insulators) under each exhaust pipe. 

 

 

-------

Conclusion is that A6M5 we have in game is not the same the manual was based on, and our is lacking the exhaust thrust. As usual lack of sufficient research leads to wrong application of data. 

 
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xKJPCFn.jpg

A6M5 shouldn't have them reinforced wings. It shouldn't have that 750km/h dive speed.
As you can see it should have 565km/h at military top speed and its the time to 6000m should be 7:01 Edited by Laurelix
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.