Admiral Yamamoto's "What Might Have Been"

[bklooste]

At least a zero based  derivative ( though not ideal) would be very easy to service and the part commanality would avoid the fate the Hiens and other planes left on the ground due to lack of parts etc.
 
The A6M8 model 64  which used the Kinsei historically  , while the Kasei is bigger i dont think it will be such a difference as the volume /weight is covered by reducing the fuel tank ( Just like with the new Sakai in the A6M3) .  The only issues is the diameter anyway i have no objection with using the Kinsei in the M4 it certainly will make the A6M8 very easy..
 
Kasei
   Displacement: 42 L (2,567 cu in)
[*]Diameter: 1,322 millimetres (52.05 in)
[*]Dry weight: 780 kilograms (1,719.6 lb)
 
Kinsei
Displacement: 32.3 L (1,970 cu in)
[*]Diameter: 47.9 (1,218 mm)
[*]Dry weight: 545 kg (1,200 lb)

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

At least a zero based  derivative ( though not ideal) would be very easy to service and the part commanality would avoid the fate the Hiens and other planes left on the ground due to lack of parts etc.

The A6M8 model 64  which used the Kinsei historically  , while the Kasei is bigger i dont think it will be such a difference as the volume /weight is covered by reducing the fuel tank ( Just like with the new Sakai in the A6M3) .  The only issues is the diameter anyway i have no objection with using the Kinsei in the M4 it certainly will make the A6M8 very easy..

Kasei
   Displacement: 42 L (2,567 cu in)
[*]Diameter: 1,322 millimetres (52.05 in)
[*]Dry weight: 780 kilograms (1,719.6 lb)

Kinsei
Displacement: 32.3 L (1,970 cu in)
[*]Diameter: 47.9 (1,218 mm)
[*]Dry weight: 545 kg (1,200 lb)

I don't think the fuel tank would be such an issue as the fact that there is only so much room in the A6 structure for engine. It might well take a full rebuild of the forward fuselage, and would certainly require a rebuild of the engine mounts. A 4 inch difference may not sound like much, but it can be a really big difference if the tolerance is low to begin with.

A good analogy would be trying to fit a big block 454 Chevrolet engine in a Yugo...it can be done, but the result isn't going to be pretty and its going to take a lot of redesign internally.

In other words, you'd almost be better off to design a total new airframe to utilize the more powerful engine, at least IMHO.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I don't think the fuel tank would be such an issue as the fact that there is only so much room in the A6 structure for engine. It might well take a full rebuild of the forward fuselage, and would certainly require a rebuild of the engine mounts. A 4 inch difference may not sound like much, but it can be a really big difference if the tolerance is low to begin with.

A good analogy would be trying to fit a big block 454 Chevrolet engine in a Yugo...it can be done, but the result isn't going to be pretty and its going to take a lot of redesign internally.

In other words, you'd almost be better off to design a total new airframe to utilize the more powerful engine, at least IMHO.

The fuel tank in the Zero is behind the tank and obviously quite weighty so the length of the engine can simply take the place of part of the fuel tank this is exactly what they did with the larger Sakei in the A6M3. Agree the 4" dif is a Lot and brings up LOTS of issues though on a positive the development could have been going since the zero prototype as that is what some members of the Jack team are doing....
I see the main issues as balance , pilot visability , drag etc. I dont think it will affect the overall weight as 50 gallons of fuel which is located in the same place will offset the weight ( which should mean front back balance is ok but a larger front fusalage would affect roll) . That said a more powerfull engine will put more stress on the frame probably requiring major changes in structs ie the rebuild of teh forward fusalage as you suggest. I cant see carrier landings being viable in this aircraft ie higher stresses and visability etc but i would push for carriers version of the A6M3i and the A6M8 allong with some Chutai and teh players can decide if they want CV Cap .

Anyway its a question of the Kasei or the Kinsei...The Kasei would prob be too good on a light ( bu strengthened frame) , while the Kinsei would still provide a significant performance boost even though its only 3" more though about the same weight. The Kinsei gives about the same output as the Sakei in A6M5 , doesnt add to weight , though with a average reduced fuel load we can impr.

eg
Sakei Zero A6M2 940hp
Sakai (22) on the A6M3 1,130 hp (843 kW)
Sakei A6M5 1150 hp ( note the exaust adds 20hp over the A6m3)
Kasei as in Jack 1,357 kW (1,820 hp)
Kensei 62 in the A6M7 1560 hp (obviously not available in 43)
Kensei available in 42 1300 hp Mitsubishi Kinsei 51.

Note a 41 Kasei engine as carried by the Jack would increase power to weight of a A6M2 zero by 90% (incl engine weight ) , lets say 70-80% after strengthening the structure. The jack also had issues with the Kasei in the field resulting in higher maintenance which would prob be there though they should be solved by our 3/43 introduction. Should be a very fast plane prob exceeding 400mph ( would be even higher except for drag) which is prob too nasty... ( consider the same hp than a corsair on a much lighter plane)

A Kinsei 51 would increase power by 38% over the A6M2 or 15% over the A6M3. With a reduction in fuel weight you will prob get a top speed about 10% higher and climb 15%-20% higher than the A6M3.

If the A6M4 uses a Kinsei you can prob bring it forward into 10/41 and the A6M8 would be ready the moment the Kensei 62 is available.

Interesting note the Kensei is based on the Wasp engine which was caried in the Corsairs ( though at higher power levels) .

Lastly if they merged the Jack program it historically the most likely they would have tried to fit the Kasei, so this is the post plausable. However we have no such plane so the realities of fielding one are completely unknown , the Kinsei was used in 45 so we know the behaviour and that it is possible but this was a bit of a rush job due to the Sakai not being available in this case we have a long time.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I don't think the fuel tank would be such an issue as the fact that there is only so much room in the A6 structure for engine. It might well take a full rebuild of the forward fuselage, and would certainly require a rebuild of the engine mounts. A 4 inch difference may not sound like much, but it can be a really big difference if the tolerance is low to begin with.

A good analogy would be trying to fit a big block 454 Chevrolet engine in a Yugo...it can be done, but the result isn't going to be pretty and its going to take a lot of redesign internally.

In other words, you'd almost be better off to design a total new airframe to utilize the more powerful engine, at least IMHO.

The fuel tank in the Zero is behind the tank and obviously quite weighty so the length of the engine can simply take the place of part of the fuel tank this is exactly what they did with the larger Sakei in the A6M3. Agree the 4" dif is a Lot and brings up LOTS of issues though on a positive the development could have been going since the zero prototype as that is what some members of the Jack team are doing....
I see the main issues as balance , pilot visability , drag etc. I dont think it will affect the overall weight as 50 gallons of fuel which is located in the same place will offset the weight ( which should mean front back balance is ok but a larger front fusalage would affect roll) . That said a more powerfull engine will put more stress on the frame probably requiring major changes in structs ie the rebuild of teh forward fusalage as you suggest. I cant see carrier landings being viable in this aircraft ie higher stresses and visability etc but i would push for carriers version of the A6M3i and the A6M8 allong with some Chutai and teh players can decide if they want CV Cap .

Anyway its a question of the Kasei or the Kinsei...The Kasei would prob be too good on a light ( bu strengthened frame) , while the Kinsei would still provide a significant performance boost even though its only 3" more though about the same weight. The Kinsei gives about the same output as the Sakei in A6M5 , doesnt add to weight , though with a average reduced fuel load we can impr.

eg
Sakei Zero A6M2 940hp
Sakai (22) on the A6M3 1,130 hp (843 kW)
Sakei A6M5 1150 hp ( note the exaust adds 20hp over the A6m3)
Kasei as in Jack 1,357 kW (1,820 hp)
Kensei 62 in the A6M7 1560 hp (obviously not available in 43)
Kensei available in 42 1300 hp Mitsubishi Kinsei 51.

Note a 41 Kasei engine as carried by the Jack would increase power to weight of a A6M2 zero by 90% (incl engine weight ) , lets say 70-80% after strengthening the structure. The jack also had issues with the Kasei in the field resulting in higher maintenance which would prob be there though they should be solved by our 3/43 introduction. Should be a very fast plane prob exceeding 400mph ( would be even higher except for drag) which is prob too nasty... ( consider the same hp than a corsair on a much lighter plane)

A Kinsei 51 would increase power by 38% over the A6M2 or 15% over the A6M3. With a reduction in fuel weight you will prob get a top speed about 10% higher and climb 15%-20% higher than the A6M3.

If the A6M4 uses a Kinsei you can prob bring it forward into 10/41 and the A6M8 would be ready the moment the Kensei 62 is available.

Interesting note the Kensei is based on the Wasp engine which was caried in the Corsairs ( though at higher power levels) .

Lastly if they merged the Jack program it historically the most likely they would have tried to fit the Kasei, so this is the post plausable. However we have no such plane so the realities of fielding one are completely unknown , the Kinsei was used in 45 so we know the behaviour and that it is possible but this was a bit of a rush job due to the Sakai not being available in this case we have a long time.

Which brings us to this question: Is it really still a Zero if you have to do that much redesign? At what point does it become its own plane owing to the amount of strengthening, enlarging, and other tweaks to the starting fuselage you have to do.

Also, is it even possible to redesign the fuselage of an A6M to accept the large engine? Too much redesign of the forward fuselage could have serious unwanted effects on the balance and performance of the airframe.

[FatR]

I'd stick with earlier introduction of versions using the Kinsei engine, as outlined in my last proposal. At least we know it was techically viable, so the alt version will remain relatively rooted in reality. Kasei will require too much changes. We don't know if attempts to marry it to the modified version of the existing aiframe can succeed. Moreover, Kasei didn't seem to work that well for Jack. It had too much teething troubles and never managed to reach specifications. I believe that an attepmt of marrying it to Zero's airframe will be doomed to prolonged and difficult development as well, even if it is technically possible at all.

Easier to postulate that after A6M8 Zero is deemed to be at the limits of its potential and, with MK9 engine being developed far enough to bet new designs on it, all efforts are concentrated on A7M, which will be available on 45/9, as in vanilla (that's a very optimistic date, but let's assume skipping dead-end projects, like the first version of A7M, helped).

EDIT 1:
And oh damn, I mixed up Kinsei and Kasei engines up in my post #169. Well, as I said, my knowledge of Japanese engines is shallow. Still, what a stupid mistake. Blame my lack of sleep. So, my final proposal:

The land-based fighter line (faster adoption of designs conceptually different from A6M2):
A6M3 (42/1; has type 99-2 cannons, otherwise as in vanilla)
-> A6M3b (42/5-6; resembles A6M3b but more durable in-game due to self-healing tanks and bulletproof glass plates, one of 7.7 MGs is replaced with 13.2)
-> A6M4 (43/3-4; powered by a relatively early version of Mitshubishi Kinsei - Ha-33 in the game - engine, armor 1 - almost no planes in the game have more than 1, 5(8)/6(9) range, speed around 370, MVR around 24, cowling MGs are replaced with 2x13.2 in the wings)
-> some other intermediary version of a land-based fighter, there are lots of ideas in this thread, but I'd prefer a heavier-armed (2x30mm + 2x13.2mm or 4x20mm) version of A6M4 around 43/9
-> A6M8 (44/4). A6M8 is slightly better than in vanilla and has 5(8)/6(10) range.

[bklooste]

I believe its possible like i said the weight distribution is about the same with a lower fuel load , also the frame being over strength for cv landings should be fine. The strengthening would be the force of such an engine pulling through turns this prob would over stress the whole frame. Anyway
However its pure speculation  and could have too much of an impact of the war, its prob  better to use the Kinsei in the A6M4 and use the Kinsei so you can prob bring it forward into 10/41 in significant numbers you could eaven allow a few chutai from the 6/41 . And the A6M8 would be ready the moment the Kinsei 62 is available which would be earlier.   From a Japanese player point of view the earlier introduction and smooth progress of engines to the A6M8 should be better. We can say the A6M4 tried the Kasei at the same time but  the pilots rejected the visability changes. Note however a Kinsei based zero like the A6M4 would be carrier capable. As i said i preffer the Kinsei ( as its more defendable and flew ) but think the Kasei would be historically more likely.
 
I just double checked the Kinsei . and the Kinsei 62 was used on the following prototypes
D4Y3 using a Mitsubishi Kinsei 62 was successfully flown in May 1944
December 1942, two Ki-46-III prototypes (used the Kinsei 62) underwent accelerated flight trials leading to a production order under the designation Army Type 100 Command Reconnaissance Plane Model 3."
The DinahIII went into service on 1/43 with this engine.

So I guess the engine was technically ready for production in first half of 1942 but there were no orders , you could even  use the Kinsei 62 in the A6M4 in 10/42 (instead of 1/43) providing superior performance than the Kasei ( worse climb but lower drag resulting in higher speed and dive) . 
However if it was the case there would be massive changes... Can you see the point of the A6M5, A6M6 or A6M7...when you can have the A6M8 62 except for maybe using existing engine plants ???  Seeing the Kinsei 62 protype is available in 41 i can see no reason to use the 51 , better to use the new engine and delay the A6M4 til 1/43 .
 
Re later  zeros
 Keep the A6M5 ( for engine effeciency) then jump to the A6M8 mod 64 when ( or more likely a A6M8 with a few less features) ??? 
 
Anyway we can take the stats from the A6M8  =  356mph , ceiling 11300 m (37K feet) ,  climb 2880 , Man 29 , Endurance 290 , dur 27 , arm 1 , Max Load 1200.
so what would a A6M4 be with the same engine but designed as a interceptor and lighter ( the A6M* had much more armour than the proposed A6M4 and served as a FB with about the same load as the Lilly  ) .
 
Actually Aircraft of WWII, Stewart Wilson, 1998  states that the air frame limited the performance of the A6M8 as can be seen by the low speed considering the much increased power to weight.  Using the kasei  would make things worse , it would climb VERY fast but top speed would be lower or equal to a A6M2.
 
Comments ...

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

I'd stick with earlier introduction of versions using the Kinsei engine, as outlined in my last proposal. At least we know it was techically viable, so the alt version will remain relatively rooted in reality. Kasei will require too much changes. We don't know if attempts to marry it to the modified version of the existing aiframe can succeed. Moreover, Kasei didn't seem to work that well for Jack. It had too much teething troubles and never managed to reach specifications. Easier to postulate that after A6M8 Zero is deemed to be at the limits of its potential and, with MK9 engine being developed far enough to bet new designs on it, all efforts are concentrated on A7M, which will be available on 45/9, as in vanilla (that's a very optimistic date, but let's assume skipping dead-end projects, like the first version of A7M, helped).

And oh damn, I mixed these engines up in my post #169. Well, as I said, my knowledge of Japanese engines is shallow. Still, what a stupid mistake.

With regard to the Jack the Kasei engine was fine ( it was used in Betties etc) it was probably the limited space and cooling etc unique to the Jack design and trying to fit such a huge engine on the plane.

re Kinei vs Kasei agree ( just wrote my last mail) , and the A6M8 was at the limits mmmm what to do about the other zeros i cant see any reason to build the A6M7. With less effort needed for Zeros we can adopt the George as a formal progam in 43 sometime and work on the A7M or Focus on the Grace ( prob George is better for a dedicated fighter team).

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: bklooste
With regard to the Jack the Kasei engine was fine ( it was used in Betties etc) it was probably the limited space and cooling etc unique to the Jack design and trying to fit such a huge engine on the plane.

This problem won't go away on other fighter frames.

ORIGINAL: bklooste
re Kinei vs Kasei agree ( just wrote my last mail) , and the A6M8 was at the limits mmmm what to do about the other zeros i cant see any reason to build the A6M7. With less effort needed for Zeros we can adopt the George as a formal progam in 43 sometime and work on the A7M or Focus on the Grace ( prob George is better for a dedicated fighter team).

As far as I can tell, by the time A6M7 actually appeared, it was a kamikaze plane above all. Before that Zeros were adopted as fighter bombers because IJN needed a bomber capable of operating from its light carriers, but faster than D3A. Early widespread adoption of George is a more promising idea than A7M, as the latter is doomed to arrive incredibly late.

[bklooste]

Ok so we settle on the Kinsei 62 with a 1/43 introduction of the A64M ?

With regard to later planes we prob want a dedicated interceptor in 44 some time.. The A64M is not great for this  nor was the George ..  All these were trialed. Should we leave this roll to the IJAAF  or steal one of their planes ? The planes in the table below are all very intresting but not viable have a look at the J7W 4* 30mm...and look at the shape.






J3K1
Kawanishi
Navy Experimental 17-Shi Otsu (B) Type Interceptor Fighter


J4M1
Mitsubishi
Navy Experimental 17-Shi Otsu (B) Type Interceptor Fighter Senden


J5N1
Nakajima
Navy Experimental 18-Shi Otsu (B) Type Interceptor Fighter Tenrai


J6K1
Kawanishi
Navy Experimental 18-Shi Otsu (B) Type Interceptor Fighter Jinpu


J7W1/J7W2
Kyushu
Navy Experimental 18-Shi Otsu (B) Type Interceptor Fighter Shinden


J8M1/J8M2
Mitsubishi
Navy Experimental 19-Shi Rocket-Powered Interceptor Fighter Shusui



edit the J7W1 is in the game.....must be because of its looks as only a handfull were produced.

[bklooste]

John are you happy where this is going ?

[PaxMondo]

Thought I'd chime in here with some gun data.  There are always 2 schools of thought in fighter design: design around powerplant or design around armaments.  Not suggesting one is better over the other, but most discussion here has been about powerplants.  So, here is some armament thoughts.

From my research, the best JAP gun is the Ho-5 in terms of bang for buck, where 'bucks' are measured in killing power/kg gun weight.  While not as powerful as the later hispano mkIV, it is very comparable to the ShVak (high praise), and at 37kg, one of the lightest 20mm cannons used in WWII.  The Type 99-1 is very light (24kg, lightest of any 20mm widely used in the war), but the projectile used had little punch.  The 99-2 was a significant upgrade in stopping power, but the weight climbs up to almost the H0-5, but without the power of the H0-5 projectile.

I don't have data on the 30mm.  The 40mm Ho-301 was a complete dog and is clear why it was never widely used.  The projectile had little punch and the gun was too heavy.

So, looking at the armament arsensal for JAP, you would want to use the Ho-5 to the largest extent.  C/L armament mountings offer the greatest accuracy, so twin Ho-5's would be a standard arrangement.  The ROF of the 20mm offer no issues to prop syncing and that location minimizes wing weight and rigidity challenges.  Add a couple more to the inboard wing and you now have 4xHo-5.  Equivalent to 10 Browning 50 cal's, but at 50% the weight and MORE accurate due to the mounting.

If you wanted to add 12.7, the Ho-103 is the best choice, but a pretty big step down from the Ho-5.

For example, just examining the armaments that were used on the Tojo, you could easily outfit the B model with 4xHo-5 based upon weight and have a much more powerful result.  I think the JAP designers realized this by about '43 as later designs really incorporated the Ho-5.  What we could say is that this realization happens earlier.

This above analysis summary is based upon data (both actual and theorectical) from various sources including Williams, Gustin, and Ruch amoung others.  The comparisons of cannon efectiveness against rifled gun (browning 50 cal) are conservative by their claims, but at least offer some basis for discussion.

Here is a table summarizing key aspects:

[PaxMondo]

Now, if we want to take this a step further, we could talk about 30mm cannon developemnt.  The Germans were the class.  the Mk108 and Mk103 are the 30mm developments of wwii.  A friend of mine, belly gunner on B-24 in Africa and the Italy tells me that 2 and 3 FOOT holes would be knocked out of the aircraft when hit by FW-190's ... that's a big hole.  And that is why cannons were used to knock down bombers as opposed 12.7mm rifled guns.

The MK108 is what ends up in the FW190, and this could have been used by JAP (build under license?).  At 60 kg each, so 120 kg for a pair, not many JAP designs will handle the weight.  Maybe the George, or more likely a twin engine bomber killer like the Ki-93.  2 of these have the knockdown power of 19 12.7mm.  And that is a conservative estimate.

[PaxMondo]

This is last step, and what I have been working on in my private mod.  In AE, I don't see much difference between armaments, particularly in 4E air battle outcomes.  So, I've been testing mods to the device tables based upon the above data.  So far, just using a linear normalization to the browning M2 50, I'm getting good results, or at least results that seem to better match my expectations based upon my readings of air battle outcomes.

The results, as I have tweaked things are:

• The Zero is a bit better, although far from great, against 4E, enough so that unescorted 4E raids are pretty costly (particularly given the low replacement rate in early war).  Oscar remain highly ineffective against 4E.  The IJA has to wait until later Tojo's.  This keeps Rebaul and the SRA safe until '43 when the Lightnings show up. It also keeps the IJ from using IJA air units in the SRA. The player is constrained to use IJN air units to keep the 4E's at bay.
• The UK can decimate IJ bombers with 'Canes or Spits if unescorted.  The Hispanos are just deadly to Netties.  Fighter sweeps have to be maintained by IJ.

[bklooste]

I believe there was a Japanese version of the 108 .. Questions when was the Ho5 introduced and when was the Japanese version of the 108 or other 30mm ?

Note the 108 is NOT as accurate as the 20mm 2 and doesnt have the range it is great at taking out bombers.

[JuanG]

The 30mm Type 2 was tried in '42 on the A6M3b, and was a scaled up Oerlikon, not a copy of the Mk108. The later 30mm Type 5 was an original design. The Type 5 was only 70kg, slightly more than the Mk108, and had a good ROF and much higher MV.

The Ho-5 was designed in '42 and saw service from late '43 onwards as it replaced the Ho-1 and Ho-3 in the newer fighters, but note that this was an army weapon, not a navy one.

The Ho-155 was 30mm scaled up version of the Ho-5 and was introduced late in the war. This was also an army weapon.


I've also noticed the issue of underrated cannons, or rather overrated HMGs, and my scenarios contain simple changes to correct this somewhat. I've worked on a more extensive redefinition of all aircraft weapons for the next version.

[bklooste]

OK going back to our last proposed line.
 

The main line (carrier-capable, more conservative design decisions): A6M2 -> A6M5 (42/10) -> A6M5b (43/4) -> A6M8, modified as stated in the post #119 (44/4)

 
Is stll  fine . When is the A6M8 available i would say 43/6-8.

The interceptor line (land-based, faster adoption of designs conceptually different from A6M2): A6M3 (42/1; has type 99-2 cannons, otherwise as in vanilla) -> A6M3b (42/5-6; resembles A6M3b but more durable, one of 7.7 MGs is replaced with 13.2) -> A6M4 (43/3-4; Mitshubishi Kasei engine, armor, even less range than A6M3; cowling MGs are replaced with 2x13.2 in the wings; flight charactertics proposed in the post #165 seem to be about right) -> A6M4i (43/9; the upgunned interceptor, the possible variations include 2x30mm + 2x13.2mm and 4x20mm) -> A6M8 (44/4). The player, again, can choose to stick with the interceptor version or to allow the upgrade to the well-rounded A6M8 model.

 
A6M3b +7 durability.
A6M4 Carrier Capable , introduced 43/1 , armour 1 , + 6 durability ( compared to A6M3 not the B) , flight characteristics of A6M8 mod62 ( but futher reduced range and greater climb due to power to weight) .
2 * type 99-2 and 2 * 13.2mm wing mounts.
A6M4i  43/9   2x30mm + 2x13.2mm .
 
Note the 30mm Ho-155 is 50kg and the Type 2 cannon is 51kg.
 
Issues.
Fighter Bomber ???
A6M8 varients for 44.
 

[JuanG]

I think +7 durability may be over the top (it would bring the A6M on par with the F4F - not likely). My suggestion would be to go from 22 to 26 for A6M3b, and then remain there plus armour for the follow ons in the interceptor line.

Regarding cannons, the Type 2 has higher MV and a heavier shell than the Ho-155 however, while retaining a similar ROF. The Ho-155 II has a higher ROF - on par with that of the Type 5.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

I think +7 durability may be over the top (it would bring the A6M on par with the F4F - not likely). My suggestion would be to go from 22 to 26 for A6M3b, and then remain there plus armour for the follow ons in the interceptor line.

Regarding cannons, the Type 2 has higher MV and a heavier shell than the Ho-155 however, while retaining a similar ROF. The Ho-155 II has a higher ROF - on par with that of the Type 5.

For the A6M4 ? Or A6M3b ?

For the A6M4 it has a strengthened structure (similar to the A6M8 with dur 27) , carries 2* the armour of a P39 or P40. which still has a higher rating and equal armour...

For the A6M3b ?

The zero was easy to damage because of the fuel tanks , it should be a huge improvement and the P39,P40 is still higher and have armour, taht why i kind of like the armour but leave low durability.

A6M3b 29 dur , 0 armour

vs
P38 1 armour , 37 dur
P39 1 armour , 32 dur
P40 1 armour , 29-31 dur.
P400 1 armour , 32 dur.
F4f 1 armour , 29 dur.

Replaced interceptor
J2M2 Jack 30 dur , 1 armor ( note the jack is tougher than the F4F)

I still think its better treating it as 1 armour and 24 dur, maybe we should just add 120kg armour like the P39 , we still wont make up the difference with the Jack but it will be closer. I will do some calcs on the weights tommorow.

[John 3rd]

Damn guys...

I am VERY fine with what you guys are bouncing around. Thanks for asking BK!

It would appear that we are darned close to closing this topic.
1. The Naval Line looks excellent. Just to make sure on this line, we have the M2, replaced by M5 in Oct 42---so no M3a model---until we see M5b in 4/43, and finally the M8 in 4/44. Is this accurate?

2. Looks like we're close regarding the IJN Land-Based versions:
a. M3 in January 42 with 2 Type-92 Cannon and no other changes

b. A6M3b in June 42 that resembles A6M3b but more durable, one of 7.7 MGs is replaced with 13.2

c. A6M4 in March 43 with Mitshubishi Kinsei engine, armor, even less range than A6M3; cowling MGs are replaced with 2x13.2 in the wings, max speed 371mph , climb 3,100 ft/min , manuever values 20% less than A6M3a for 0-20000 , the same above 20000 ft. Max Alt 36,500 Feet.

d. A6M4i in Sept 43 the upgunned interceptor, the possible variations include 2x30mm + 2x13.2mm OR 4x20mm

e. A6M8 in April 44 where the player, again, can choose to stick with the interceptor version or to allow the upgrade to the well-rounded A6M8 model.

MY NOTES:
1. We need to settle on the armament for A6M4i: Cannon and Fifites or just Cannon?
2. Need to settle of the interceptor version of the M8. Think we're not far apart here so we should be able to do that pretty easily.

JUAN DESIGN QUESTIONS:
1. Once we have decided on everything including specifications and timeline how hard will it be to change over the Research and Development plants in Japan. Strikes me as fairly easy but I haven't messed with that side of the Editor.

2. What levels do we set the R&D at?

OTHER NAVAL AIRCRAFT:
As said in my first posts, we shall see the Naval Aircraft deployment dates move up across the board. Think I listed that at the beginning but don't plan to changing anything here except for when these planes come in...

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

c. A6M4 in March 43 with Mitshubishi Kasei engine,

Mitsubishi Kinsei, one that was eventually installed on A6M8. Don't follow my bad example of confusion, please).

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
armor, even less range than A6M3; cowling MGs are replaced with 2x13.2 in the wings, max speed 371mph , climb 4,800 ft/min ,

If that's what the game measures climb in, the number is too high. In AE only Shusei has climb greater than 4000.

Otherwise, I support your plan.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
OTHER NAVAL AIRCRAFT:
As said in my first posts, we shall see the Naval Aircraft deployment dates move up across the board. Think I listed that at the beginning but don't plan to changing anything here except for when these planes come in...

Don't overdo it, even with better directed development Japanese industry cannot jump above its head. B6N, D4Y and G4M2 all can be moved slightly (1-3 months) forward as all these planes suffered the long transition from prototypes to production, the same goes for George. The latter (particularly N1K2-J) can be perhaps moved forward more significantly if A7M is abandoned in favor of it. But just handing out signfificantly earlied availability across the board will stretch plausibility.