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.
Gaijin won’t be looking at this tree since they have uptiered it so much that only experienced or dedicated players mostly play it .
Very few aircraft in this game compress the way they should. 109’s can also pull out of 650kph dives like it’s nothing. They used to do compress very well but then whining players stated they couldn’t BnZ with them and now we have these Frankenstein flight models.
Probably because Gaijin doesnt give a shit to low tier atp and is just gonna keep their wrong data for another decade.
1 Like
bf109s were assigned with elevator loss ratio greater than 2, it pulls 9G instead of 10+G. The A6M will pull 12+G like nothing, it has a very low compression ratio of only 1.8, which is equivalent to F4U, and this thing has little wing mach effect, the CLmax doesnot drop much with increasing Mach number as it should be on other aircrafts like IRL.
We can accept A6M to pull 8-9G at 500kph in corporation with the game experience , but definitely not 12G. In comparison the army ki43 is more accurate on its high speed load factor, though its climb rate is definitely too high and shall be investigated.
3 Likes
They’re still never reaching those G limits though. Maybe the A6M3s with their bigger wings, but the late Zeros like the A6M6 Hei you mentioned are never gonna go that far.
Do you think this will get them to go down in BR?
The Ki-43-III Otsu was once a very competitive fighter at 4.0 when it had the old 1500hp engine - it got corrected to the 1100hp Ha-115 and despite having much worse flight performance, it hasn’t moved down in BR at all despite this nerf happening years ago.
Too low. Up to 450kph it still had a significant advantage over everything else that flies, at just below 500kph is where the tables turned. This is according to Planes of Fame and their almost-all-original Zero, restored with the help of the designer.
The US-captured A6M2 which is most quoted, is suspect due to suffering a quite bad crash which killed the pilot.
I’ve had this discussion in the past, the ElevatorPowerLoss parameter is not the end-all-be-all. Many planes have high-speed performance completely contrary to what that number would have you believe. The Ki-96 has the same 1.8 ElevatorPowerLoss value, yet it turns into a brick at high speed.
a fun little game:
In the below chart are two very similar planes. Both have “ElevatorsEffectiveSpeed” set to 400kph. One of these has “ElevatorPowerLoss” at 2.0 and the other at 2.8.
Can you guess which is which? And no cheating!
Climb rate? They’re lighter than a 109 E-4 and make about the same power, so climb rates should be similar (and they are).
As for load factor… tell me you’re never played the Ki-43s without telling me you’ve never played the Ki-43s.
2 Likes
Thing is that Gaijin tends to ‘‘correct’’ things without sending the aircraft to the proper BR afterwards. And all of sudden nobody plays the aircraft anymore and you have less and less variety.
So it’s very likely that instead of having A6M5’s (roughly a 4.0-4.3 plane) that are able to pull 12G’s at 5.3 (lol), you will instead have Zeroes that pull 7G’s and compress instantly at… yes 5.3 still (lol).
In your example it’s the A6m6c which is probably a mid 3.7 aircraft if anything that’s sitting at 5.0 cuz yes.
The Re.2005 is probably the best example we can get. A plane that’s pretty much worse than the Spitfire Mk IX (4.3) in every aspect that magically sits at 6.0 due to it’s legacy performance n BR, and because your average player will still turn fight it.
Gaijin will nerf some aircraft historically with compression or atrocious rudders, while others don’t have it - due to lack of data. Imo none should suffer from these then. For gameplay purposes.
If they moved A or B planes accordingly after a buff or nerf it wouldn’t be a problem at all, sadly that’s not the case. So it’s very hard to support historical nerfs for a plane that’s already butchered BRwise.
3 Likes
a fun little game:
In the below chart are two very similar planes. Both have “ElevatorsEffectiveSpeed” set to 400kph. One of these has “ElevatorPowerLoss” at 2.0 and the other at 2.8.
Bro just read my post on wing mach effect, the aircraft high speed pull depends on 1. elevator effectvie speed 2. elevator power loss coefficient 3.wing mach curve. Now we know that A6M in game is assigned with — 1.8 on its 25lbs/G elevator, same as F4U’s 8lbs/G elevator. And its CLmax does not drop significant as other planes beyond Mach 0.3. That’s the reason A6M overpulls everybody in the game.
In reality the A6M will meet a significant drop on CL with increased Mach, and this is why most reports tell that the turning of A6M is inferior compared to Wildcats, Hellcats, Corsairs and Spitfires above 200knots or 20000ft, due to wing Mach effect and Reynolds effect, combined with its excessive stick force. This conclusion had been drawn for all A6M involved, from both USN, USAAF tests on A6M2 and A6M5 and RAAF tests on A6M3 Hap and mock combat between Spitfire MkV and A6M3.
Climb rate? They’re lighter than a 109 E-4 and make about the same power, so climb rates should be similar (and they are).
Climb rate does not depend on P/W ratio solely, Cd0 and L/D ratio, combined with prop efficiency matters more. It was a clear conclusion IRL that the A6M2 will always outclimb an ki-43I, and non of the Ki-43 were able to be compared with contemporary A6Ms in aerodynamic efficiency. The A6M will always turn inside the Ki-43 and outclimbs it. It was repetitively proved in mock combats between IJAAF and IJNAS, it was also proved in real combat above Yokosuka, where a group of Ki-43s fighting A6Ms with both positional and numerical advantages, ended up with one Ki-43 been shot down by A6M2.
In game it is completely the opposite, the Ki-43 outclimbs Zero and will out-turn it in a rate fight.