I always loved flying the Zero in msfs ever since A2A released one for fs2000 or was it fs2002. It also flew well in the later FSX.

Lands and takes off almost as easy as a Cessna, just like in real life. Zooms through canyons doing stunts way down low without a worry because it handles so easily. This was a big reason the Japanese naval pilots in the '40s (IJN) loved them. This was not an "Ensign Eliminator" like the difficult to master Corsair. To make a realistic Zero, it has to be very easy to fly. The AH version certainly is that.

Airplane Heaven says it is not native 2024. I've been flying it now a lot last 2 days and no problems to report. Except the targeting reticle does not work and just blocks the forward view in 2024 (it works in 2020). Not to worry, you can just remove it with a hard to find icon on the right side panel down low, right next to the flap lever when the flaps are deployed (down). Just above and to the left of the handle). I think the pop notice is "Turn the Reticle Off: Removed or Installed with left mouse click).

It is satisfying to master a difficult plane like the Flying Iron Spitfire or Big Radials P40. But there was nothing difficult in  real life flying the Zero.

 

 

We need it in FS 2024 too !!!

31 minutes ago, Fielder said:

Lands and takes off almost as easy as a Cessna, just like in real life. Zooms through canyons doing stunts way down low without a worry because it handles so easily. This was a big reason the Japanese naval pilots in the '40s (IJN) loved them. This was not an "Ensign Eliminator" like the difficult to master Corsair. To make a realistic Zero, it has to be very easy to fly. The AH version certainly is that.

  .............. .........

It is satisfying to master a difficult plane like the Flying Iron Spitfire or Big Radials P40. But there was nothing difficult in  real life flying the Zero.

?

No WW2 single seat fighter ever flew like a Cessna. The combination of an eleven hundred horsepower engine driving a seven foot prop in an airframe roughly the same size as a Cessna meant substantial primary training was required before anyone was put in the cockpit of these things...unless it was a one way trip on behalf of the Emperor.

With the required training none of these aircraft were especially difficult to fly either. Every airforce had to have planes that could be flown by the 'average pilot' too.

As a matter of historical fact the Zero wasn't an especially pleasant plane to fly in combat. Over two hundred knots the aileron controls became heavy which precluded combat maneuvering.  It also didn't like to turn right due to the torque characteristics of the engine.

These characteristics were quickly discovered by US naval pilots who exploited these weaknesses to good effect....and shot them down in droves....

10 minutes ago, jcomm said:

We need it in FS 2024 too !!!

I fly it in FS2024. No issues at all.

I thought it is from Blackbird. So will we have two Zeros?

4 hours ago, History said:

I thought it is from Blackbird. So will we have two Zeros?

Not this one, which is Aeroplane Heaven.

Blackbird showed it live in sim on their live stream last month. It didn't fly, and unfortunately Colin wasn't able to figure out his controls, so...

I can't remember exactly, but they implied it's coming "soon". Which in Blackbird-time means anything from a month to a year+ 😆

While AH make beautiful models, their add-ons have never really reviewed well in terms of functionality / bugs / flight model.

So yes, after 0 Zeroes for a decade or two, we'll finally have not just 1, but 2!

The better news is that they're different variants, IIRC, so for those who truly love them, they're different.

We already have had a msfs 2020 Zero for over a year. It works for me in 2024 It's on Simmarket and probably also at Just Flight, Orbx and Contrails. By Romantic Wings. However, it received bad reviews. I bought it and didn't like it. The graphics look like FS2000. So Blackbird will make three. I don't recommend Romantic Wings Z. But I do really love the one from Airplane Heaven.

7 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

As a matter of historical fact the Zero wasn't an especially pleasant plane to fly in combat. Over two hundred knots the aileron controls became heavy which precluded combat maneuvering.  It also didn't like to turn right due to the torque characteristics of the engine.

These characteristics were quickly discovered by US naval pilots who exploited these weaknesses to good effect....and shot them down in droves....

It was quite a bit more complex than that.

1 v 1, the Allied contemporary aircraft were really no match for the Zero in the early war years, especially for anyone foolhardy enough to dogfight against it (and really, the "never dogfight a Zero" rule never went away for the entire war).

Hurricanes, Buffalos, Wildcats and even Warhawks were all disadvantaged.

Speed, climb, turn rate and sheer firepower were mostly in the Zeros favor, sometimes all of them, depending on the Allies fighter.

In particular, Allied pilots were less trained and inexperienced vs the years of "pre-war" combat experience the Japanese pilots had accumulated.

Fighting a Zero was like going up against a Samurai swordsman, and the Allies were sending in high school boxers to go toe to toe.

And predictably, it didn't go well at all.

If not for several enormously lucky breaks early in the war, the Japanese might've owned the Pacific for quite a long time.

To vastly over-simplify: Similar to the ETO, it wasn't necessarily that the Axis hardware was lacking vs the Allied hardware, it was largely that the Axis Powers couldn't replace their combat losses in machines or skilled pilots as fast as the Allies could.

 

Edited May 28, 20251 yr by UrgentSiesta

12 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

It was quite a bit more complex than that.

1 v 1, 

Not really. The Americans really did learn very quickly how to deal with the zero's advantages.

'Dogfighting' for the most part is a figment of Hollywood imagination and pilots with memoirs to sell.

By engaging in a dogfight all tactical advantage is given up to a throw of the dice. The art of fighter piloting in the age of the flying gun didn't change between 1915 and the early 70's;  creep up behind your victim and blow his brains out before returning to a position of tactical advantage.

1 v 1 was always a rare event in every theatre.

The 'experten' of the IJA largely swam with the fishes after early June 1942. Axis fighter development also effectively became frozen in time after 1941 for a whole raft of technical, political and resource related reasons.

"It lands and takes off just like a Cessna", obviously another winner from Areoplane Heaven....

12 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Not really. The Americans really did learn very quickly how to deal with the zero's advantages.

'Dogfighting' for the most part is a figment of Hollywood imagination and pilots with memoirs to sell.

By engaging in a dogfight all tactical advantage is given up to a throw of the dice. The art of fighter piloting in the age of the flying gun didn't change between 1915 and the early 70's;  creep up behind your victim and blow his brains out before returning to a position of tactical advantage.

1 v 1 was always a rare event in every theatre.

The 'experten' of the IJA largely swam with the fishes after early June 1942. Axis fighter development also effectively became frozen in time after 1941 for a whole raft of technical, political and resource related reasons.

"It lands and takes off just like a Cessna", obviously another winner from Areoplane Heaven....

Yes and no...

You're casting this like it was just a matter of tactics changing and then it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Hardly the case.

And I'm not saying that 1v1 was common, but rather that directly comparing the Allied and Axis fighters 1v1 shows how lopsided the aerodynamic state of the art was in so many ways in the critical first part of the war.

I.e., it wasn't just that we figured out better tactics to use against the "inferior" Zero - no. The early Axis aircraft had decided advantages, and many of them remained competitive until the end of the war.

Yes, the Allies learned better tactics, paid for over time and in blood, and also eventually brought competitive aircraft piloted by much more highly trained pilots to the front lines in numbers the Axis couldn't match.

But it was never easy.

And of course the idea is to ambush your foe whenever possible. But it frequently isn't possible, and that's when experience & tech become a major factor. And the Allies were lacking both in the beginning.

Again, the early war Allied fighters were at significant disadvantage when compared directly, and it was only evolved tactics that allowed the Allies to survive, rather than thrive.

We came from significantly behind the state of the art, got a bunch of luck, and were able to keep the gained advantages until the US industrial complex came fully online.

Anyhow, just don't want folks to think it was a small thing like turning right instead of of left that allowed eventual victory.

Edited May 28, 20251 yr by UrgentSiesta

12 hours ago, Fielder said:

By Romantic Wings.

Yeah, I don't even count his add-ons because they're always so far below par.

It's a shame because his subject matter is genuinely interesting, but his execution is so poor...

I'm glad the AH is working well for you! Id be happy to buy it if the news remains good. 👍

Vintage Simulations just now posted this:

 

 

His text: "And I have to say, I’m glad I bought it. It’s not perfect, but it looks great and is a ton of fun to fly. If you’re into aerobatics and warbirds, I can highly recommend the Zero. Like the real one, it’s one of the most agile warbirds around. It’s very easy to fly, takeoff and land and the custom ground handling feels great too."

In other words, very realistic, as the real Zero was. As a bonus this is the early Zero: A6M-2 which the Japanese pilots loved because it was not ridiculously fast and hard to handle, and a sweetheart to fly. Very fast, but not fast enough to be a sword hanging over your head, ready to kill you if you made a mistake. 

Edited May 31, 20251 yr by Fielder