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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And where is this on the FM files? How many planes have these?
ElevatorPowerLoss is meaningless. There are other factors at play even beyond mach effects.
That’s not what the person who is far more familar with the Zeros than anyone else says.
In real combat, the Spitfires got absolutely demolished by both Zeros and Ki-43s until they completely changed tactics and stopped dogfighting altogether. In the end they never saw much success in the Pacific.
But in-game, the MkVs have little issue keeping up with Zeros even well below those 200kt.
Already the case with Ki-43-II vs A6M. The Ki-43s are experts at throwing away all their speed after a single turn.
Mock combat is neither here nor there. The Ki-100 beat the Ki-84, a pair of F-106s beat a pair of F-16As twice in a row, and in the modern age you have all kinds of funny stuff like an Alpha Jet shooting down one of the eurocanards.
If this was true then it would be the Ki-43s at 5.0 and not the Zeros. Armament is not a factor as the -III Otsu gets nose-mounted 20mms with comparable firepower.
Where Mach effect been defined in blkx:
Where tests state Spit MkV will defeat A6M3 using high G pull above 200mph, even starting at a disadvantage:
Already the case with Ki-43-II vs A6M. The Ki-43s are experts at throwing away all their speed after a single turn.
It’s mainly about the Ki-43 I.
Can you guess which is which? And no cheating!
I will say Ki-43I vs.ki-43II, and you are pulling with instructor activated.
And yet 1. the ki-43ii with 2.0 powerloss and 400kph threshold, this one does not out-pull A6M2 with same powerloss and only 10kph higher threshold at high speed. 2. ki-43i pulls much more than ki-43ii.
And the cause? Here’s the reason:
For the same reasons I generally disregard most mock combat, I also disregard most captured aircraft tests. Like this one, they’re skimpy on details and don’t say exactly what each aircraft is doing. I assume this is a british pilot in the Zero, in which case he’s not familiar at all with it nor has received training on the Zero; its condition is also unknown.
This last part is very significant if you want to go look up tests of Bf 109s in particular, an often-quoted series of tests for the 109 E involved a severely mistreated example.
That’s an entirely different subject and not really comparable.
Isn’t this exactly what you said should happen, but somehow doesn’t in-game?
I told you this was already the case.
This does nothing. All Ki-43s can still pull max Gs at high speed. The -1 is limited by its weak wings, the -2s will happily reach 13G.
