Same thing for the Yaks. Their G-resistance is ridiculous along with their near-UFO flight models.
Cute flag abuse, btw.
8 Likes
That’s universal across most props.
Very old flight models which are most likely pure lies.
2 Likes
The Zeros are all-metal, only the control surfaces are fabric and this was the case for many aircraft.
This is probably just an oversight, and negative Gs aren’t really relevant.
15 Likes
They still had very weak construction. Didn’t one get taken out by a BAR?
Resistance to damage and structural strength are very, very different things.
12 Likes
Because its “ZERO” G obviously.
pretty sure someone lost a heli to an arrow in the amazon (think it was civilian though) and F-22 raptors had a min operational alt of 10,000ft in Iraq and Afghanistan because they where worried a single AK bullet would drop them from the sky.
that’s not to say any of those are bad air frames… just that it doesn’t take much to destroy something if you hit it in the right spot.
5 Likes
its a relatively slow aircraft
no, zeros were know to compress more than other props at the time, and yet in game they dont compress at all
As I said, this is a factor with most props in War Thunder.
There are very few props that compress as they should. Corsairs and F8Fs are coincidentally among those few that compress correctly.
1 Like
Don’t they go hand in hand. I mean an A-10 is structurally pretty solid right? And it can take a hit
kinda it should but in game it kinda just gets shredded because of how damage works
Woah, who could’ve guessed that a plane entirely made around turn fighting would be good at turn fighting, unbelievable thought.
Also literally just looking at that wing loading will tell you why it can turn so hard without ripping., also the total weight. The A6Ms are putting less stress on their wings at 15Gs then those others are putting at 10, lmfao.
10 Likes
No. The Hellcat and Corsair were very solid, but the ‘manual limit’ was 7G, imposed by the Navy.
The Zero was designed for ~6G (numbers vary, I have seen that claim be made for being w/ drop tank and 7G without), with a 2x safety factor instead of the normal 1.5x you usually see - ex. P-51D with 8/12 G respectively.
WW2 pilots were generally limited to 6G anyway without a G-suit, very few exceeded that.
Obviously if you put more weight on it, that number will go down. This is true for any plane, using the P-51D as an example again, at max takeoff weight those dropped to 5.5G safe and 7.7G ultimate load factors.
Speaking of the P-51s, the B models had issues when pulling out of a dive at high speed, high-G, and rolling. This pretty much caused the tail to implode due to asymmetric forces and was later fixed.
4 Likes
By the way, you should check the italian C.200 and C.202 fighters. Some go up to 16.5 G limit!
The WW1 event planes seem to have 20G+ limits.
B-239, F3F, Fokker D.XXI, 190 A1, G.50, most of the Harriers, some I-16s, all have very very high limits too.
2 Likes
Bruh leave that thing alone bruh , it can be easily defeated so it pulling more G is not that big of a deal when you can easily clap it out of the sky . Gaijin already found excuses to severely uptier it , don’t make them find another excuse to uptier it again lol
Bro , these things are so easy to defeat yet dumbass players try to turnfight it and end up complaining on the forums only for gaijin to find an excuse to severely uptier it . Most of the zeros have unfair br and are literally outclassed. Iam saying this as a Japanese main
2 Likes
Then why not add the correct elevator power loss ratio, so that A6M performs like IRL? We already see most of the Japanese airframes to have little Mach effect, and with an elevator power loss ratio of only 1.8 on A6M5 is absolutely broken.
They should compress above 200 knots just like in real life, and downtier it by 1.0-1.3, the A6M5 should be at 3.7 and A6M2 at 2.7.
4 Likes
Pizza planes.
Zero and biplanes are the only one to take advantage of high G though.