Page 7 of 21
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 1:34 pm
by Drongo
Daniel Oskar wrote:Early on in this thread there was some dispute as to the performance of the F4F vs the A6M2. Well after much digging I have pulled together some detailed performance data, the forum can decide which aircraft they prefer. Enjoy.
Max Level Speed:
A6M2: 282mph@SL 331mpg@14,930'
F4F-4: 274mph@SL 320mph@18,800'
Best rate of climb:
A6M2: 3150fpm
F4F-4: 1950fpm
Power/wt ratio:
A6M2: 5.7lb/hp
F4F-4: 6.5lb/hp
Wing Loading:
A6M2: 22lb/sqft
F4F-4: 29.9lb/sqft
Sustained Turn rate in deg/sec:
1000' 10000' 15000'
A6M2 27 22 20
F4F-4 21 20 17
Initial Turn rate in deg/sec:
1000' 10000' 15000'
A6M2 40 35 31
F4F-4 33 31 28
Best turn Radius:
initial sustained sustained turning airspeed
A6M2 291' 339' 110mph
F4F-4 369' 519' 125mph
Roll Rate in deg/sec:
150mph 200mph 250mph 300mph 350mph
A6M2 73 61 52 24 17
F4F-4 61 67 72 64 49
I was unable to get hard numbers on the following parameters, but can give an edge to one of the two aircraft:
VNo (never exceed speed): advantage wildcat
Pitch Rate: advantage zero
Climb Angle: advantage zero
Great info, Daniel.
Can I ask where it came from?
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 3:23 pm
by Mr.Frag
Nice facts Daniel, now watch your sources get impeached by the whiners
/sarcasm on
Whaa - thats the F4F-4 before the engine upgrade ...
Whaa - thats the F4F-4, not the faster F4F-3 which was lighter and turned faster ...
Whaa - Whaa - Whaa - USA won the war with better pilots and aircraft and your facts don't mean anything ...
You can go back to a really old UV thread where I posted some identical facts against certain jarheads of the same nature
/sarcasm off
Realistically, USA won the war with self sealing fuel tanks that brought their pilots home after being shot up. This can not be overestimated as a value to fights in an area where you either made it home or swam with the fishies ... I believe you will also find that the USA also had a much better pilot rescue and recovery rate ... again, this puts skilled pilots back in planes to fight again even having been shot down multiple times.
Jarheads
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 5:13 pm
by mogami
Hi, Mr Frag I'd watch using the term Jarhead around Mr Oskar.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:20 pm
by Daniel Oskar
Some of the data for the wildcat came from a reprint of the pilots manual, but most of the numbers were from a friend of mine out at test pilots school in Pax River.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:47 pm
by mdiehl
Early on in this thread there was some dispute as to the performance of the F4F vs the A6M2. Well after much digging I have pulled together some detailed performance data, the forum can decide which aircraft they prefer. Enjoy.
Thanks Daniel. The roll rate numbers provide a small slice of the picture in regard to changing maneuverability with increasing airspeeds. It is why I have consistently pointed out that the "mvr" varies with airspeeds, and why at greater airspeeds the F4F was actually more maneuverable than the A6M. Thus, if someone chooses to claim that the A6M was more maneuverable, they have also chosen to assume that combats only occurred in the sweet range for the Zero. It's also interesting that the Zeke's performance edge really drops off at greater altitudes, quite independently of any loss of Zeke maneuverability with increasing airspeed.
Now at least the naysayers can see for themselves that I've been correct in this matter all along.
Test
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:01 pm
by mogami
Hi, In this test 5 Daitai of A6M2 (27 AC each) Fly a sweep. They are encountered by F2A Buffalo's.
All pilots have 99 morale. Fatigue is under 10 (0 for many)
Skill. Here I am testing the impact of 6 months combat on the Japanese.
2 Daitai are new (raised after Dec 7 1941) The pilot skill is standard Japanese Navy trained pilot (60) this means the 27 pilots range from 69-51 in these 2 groups. 2 of the other groups have 15 pilots each above 80 exp (going into mid 90's. the remaining 12 pilots range from 41-69 (a mix of trained and untrained replacements. The remaining group is a prewar group that has not been in combat so pilots range from 74 to mid 90's.
The F2A are flown by prewar and trained USN/USMC pilots (lowest pilot 51 highest pilot in mid 80's)
108xA6M2
121xF2A Buffalo
Result.
56xF2A Buffalo shot down
30x A6M2 Shot down
Top Japanese pilot 4 kills
Top US pilot 3 kills.
I'm going to repeat this test. Each time changing US aircraft but keeping all other data the same. Next AC F4F-3
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:04 pm
by mdiehl
Keep up the good work, Mogami. (Note to time travellers. Avoid the Brewsters. They're not quite ripe.)
Test
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:22 pm
by mogami
Hi The F4F-3's did not match the Buffalos. The Zeros did about the same.
Next test
108xA6M2
126xF4F-3
55xF4F-3 shot down
20xA6M2 shot down
Top Japanese pilot 2 kills
Top US pilot 3 kills
One of these days I'll run each test 20-100 times each.
Next US AC F4F-4
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:36 pm
by mdiehl
Let's hope those F4F-3 results are an extreme statistical outlier. If they're repeated, Matrix has a problem there.
Test #3
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:38 pm
by mogami
Hi, In the two prior test 1 Daitai was getting lost (unable to locate target) in test 3 it made it.
135xA6M2
126xF4F-4
66xF4F-4 shot down
28xA6M2 shot down
top pilot both sides 2 kills.
Next AC F6F-Hellcat
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:42 pm
by mdiehl
All right. Twice in a row proves that there is a glaring flaw in the F4F model or the A6M model. Since the result with the F2s strikes me as plausible, I'd say the problem is in the mvr ratings for the F4F.
If you don't mind and have the time, would you try editing the F4F mvr stats by changing them to be identical to the A6M and see what you get?
Test 4
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:49 pm
by mogami
Hi
135xA6M2
106xF6F
45xF6F shot down
31xA6M2 shot down
Top Japanese 3
Top US 2
Next US AC the Corsair
Factors I am not recording are group leader ratings. I'll have to test impact of leaders. Also the Japanese pilots overall in these tests are higher then USN pilots. I'll go back and raise the US pilots from 65 avg to 75 avg once I cycle all AC
I'll also change the F4F mvr rating for a test. (I guess I'll do that next)
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:53 pm
by mdiehl
Anomalous results on the F6F too? Wups reread the last msg. What are you trying to test here, the aircraft or the pilots? If aircraft, set the EXP of all the pilots to be identical and give them the same morale, leaders and fatigue. Then you can ignore all that and test the aircraft models... if that's your goal.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:59 pm
by TIMJOT
Just curious what kind of results you might get if you test more plausible numbers. Lets say 50 a/c to a side. Certainly the F2 shouldnt be doing better than the F4Fs. Maybe Mdiehl is correct and its has something to do with the manuever rateings. Some versions of the F2 were very manuevable but I believe the USN/USMC version was a dog due to increased wiegtht from amour and armorment. Regardless it looks to me that the F2 and F4F results should be at the very least reversed.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:05 pm
by mdiehl
Mogami doesn't have control over his experiment. He's letting too many variables float. Numbers engaged. Leaders. Exp. If you're trying to test the a/c model you have to hold all of those things constant (and equal) and vary the a/c. If you're trying to test the EXP model you should hold everything else constant (for example F4Fs vs F4Fs or Zekes vs Zekes) and vary EXP and so on.
Test #5
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:08 pm
by mogami
Hi improved F4F-4 (same rating as A6M2)
135xA6M2
116xF4F-4
50xF4F-4 shot down
38xA6M2 shot down
Top Japanese 2 kills
Top US 4 kills
Prehaps I am trying to test too many things at once. I began looking to see what impact the 6 months of combat would have on Japanese groups facing
'normal' USN/USAAF groups.
I will make all Groups 75 exp. (I can't assign pilots just average, pilots are assigned randomly except certain pilots are hardcoded to certain groups)
Also the A6M2 are flying in normal range. (I've turned Shortlands and Lunga into super airfields. ) The Japanese are flying from Shortland to Lunga. At some point I was going to add radar to Lunga's support unit.
Thanks for remaining calm. These are ALPHA version tests.
Tests
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:10 pm
by mogami
Hi, Mdiehl just post what test you want to see and I will set them up according to your parameters.
(anyone that has a test they would like to see ran can do the same.)
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:32 pm
by TIMJOT
If you have time. I would like to request a test with more realistic numbers. I ask because it has been my UV expirence that if I do get strange results its usually when unusually high numbers of aircraft are involved. I am thinking about 50 a/c to side with similar EXP, Morale, fatigue rateings.
Thanks
ANOTHER VOICE
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:47 pm
by Mike Scholl
And I would like to see you run the test TIMJOT suggest 10 times with each
aircraft and give us mean, mode, and extreme for each. One thing that keeps
striking me is the overall losses for both sides in these encounters seem high.
Secondly, I'm with whomever thought the Brewster's performance was awfully
good. I've yet to see an after-action account that had any Allied pilots
singing it's praises---though I have run into a number of testimonials to what
a fine little aircraft it was by folks who hadn't yet tried to fly it against a Zero.
Test results
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:47 pm
by mogami
Both Avg exp 75 (but there remain a number of Japanese above 84)
A6M2 Zero x 135
F4F-4 Wildcat x 111
56xF4F-4
39xA6M2
Because of number of hardcoded Japanese pilots I raised US to 85 avg
A6M2 Zero x 135
F4F-4 Wildcat x 121
41xF4F-4
50xA6M2
OK TMJOT I will reduce number of AC involved to 2 Daitai (54 max) versus 2 USMC/USN groups (48 max) Then I will run test again adding 24 more (max) USN ac.
Mike I've read a RAAF pilots account of Buffalo-I and he said it was a good aircraft and he flew it in combat against Japanese Navy. (But he said maintenence problems plagued his group and they were always outnumbered.)
But he liked the plane.
I also think the loss rates are too high. I think too many planes actually get shots and too many get to shoot too many times (there are always plenty of pilots with 2-4 kills after actions)