I was not talking about dives:
Source:
Stiffening of Controls for the A6M/A7M series | Aircraft of World War II - WW2Aircraft.net Forums
Reports:
US Army Air Force Informational Intelligence Summary 59 from 4 September 1942
US Navy Technical Aviation Intelligence Brief No 3 from 4 November 1942
US Army Air Force Informational Intelligence Summary 85 from December 1942
In order to counter a BnZ attack you need a high speed and a very tight turn. The issue is the absence of this control stiffening in wt which allows A6Ms to dodge high speed attacks whilst they are quite fast. You dive and they increase their airspeed with a dive followed by a tight turn. Based on these reports they should be unable to behave like currently implemented.
As a result it takes ages to push an experienced A6M pilot low - as soon as they can’t pick up speed in a dive they become a free kill.
to be fair similar buffs exist in many planes like 109s for example also your almost never flying at those speeds unless your diving plane barely exceeds 300mph in straight line at sea level usually youll be dogfighting around 200-220 mph due to low engine power
109s should not be turning nearly well as they do at high speeds 400Mph plus
im not gonna talk about yaks i know there overperforming i just cant prove it
Holy moly asking AI about flight models instead of doing actual research is so based.
I mean, it’s the search functionnality of the Ai. it’s not that bad, especially since he linked the direct source from ww2 aircraft and official reports.
He did not simply ask Chatgpt if he was right
1 Like
He edited it to add sources. Previously it was just Grok AI reference.
4x .50 cals, has better climb rate for worse dogfight performance.
just gotta be accurate with your shots it works well M20APIT is goated i could have 2 and still love them so lazer accurate
Try Re.2005 mister. This is also an overtiered plane with similar role in 6.0, except it’s good at high altitudes.
You’re gonna face quite a few noobs in zeros, but not in Tier 4 BRs like 6.0
im gonna get the VDM so ill tell ya then
1 Like
So I’ve actually read the sources that he lists.
Source 1 is just the WW2 Aircraft Forums and just the results of Lauelix Grok search.
Source 2 only mentions the following in regards to dive performance.
Source 3 only mentions passingly mentions that the only advantage that US planes have in terms of maneuverability is in terms of roll rate.
Source 4 provides the following advice for fighting against A6M2.
It’s important to keep in mind that there are no definitive figures in any of these documents on roll rate or even clarification of what fuel state the plane was in. An A6M with nearly full fuel is going to performance noticeably different than one on a minimum fuel state.
This is actually modeled in game as well where roll rate reduction due to speed is much more pronounced in planes with full wing tanks.
1 Like
i do believe there was a flight sim that asked a actual zero pilot how it flew to design zero i dont remeber its name maybe you could find more there
No Japanese plane is ever balanced until it can outturn AND outrun everything it faces.
If you read the thread that is linked on WW2 Aircraft forums, there is another link to a video with a pilot interview in regards to the A6M5.
The excerpt here seems to indicate that the A6M5 has a superior roll rate to the F6F in spite of it’s ailerons beginning to stiffen at 200kts indicated airspeed. The A6M5 features a smaller wing than the A6M2 that is referenced in the previous reports.
Here is a clip in-game of the A6M2 vs the F4U-1 in terms of roll rate at around 650kph. The F4U-1 is much superior in terms of roll rate at higher fuel states.
So this idea that Gaijin has not at least attempted to model the roll rate compression and differences doesn’t really hold any water. One can make the argument that they haven’t done it accurately, but in order to do so, one would have to produce a specific degrees per second number under specified conditions.
WTH are you talking about
I think nobody claimed that
-Japanese plane needs to dominate the match,
-And it is what ‘balanced’ means.
I think, YOU are not productive here.
3 Likes
A6M zeros are really easy to use and get kills in but they uptier it so far to like super prop territory that even if they make mistake vs a6m zero the a6m need to work a bit hard to get that kill unless you have massive energy advantage every 5.0 to 6.3 outclass you in all but the a6m insane turn performance but turn doesn’t do you much when you fighting planes faster than you by at least 60km+ so all in all at best the a6m5 is 4.3/4.7 br material and the a6m3 are like 3.3/3.7 ect… I’m with this topic +1
This person always appear in Japanese themes and talking that any Japanese vehicle is bias, all Japanese players want bias vehicles and etc. He just hates Japan so just ignore him
3 Likes
disagree. As best turn fighters they should be slower than most of the enemies. Making them lower makes them keep up with speed, making them not just best turnfighters, but a good speed planes also. And that shouldnt be like that to let airtrains be competitive.
This is NACA report regarding roll rates vs indicated air speed. The reference zero would be the A6M2.
No A6M should really be above 4.3
If you seriously need a D Mustang or Dora to be able to “outspeed” a Zero: you are the reason ARB is so tragic
