PDA

View Full Version : What do you experts feel about the P-40E?



ucanfly
05-25-2004, 12:46 PM
I know the P-40 had a bad reputation that may not have been deserved. It just seems that the P-40E in the game is incredible compared to other contemporary aircraft. When you boom and zoom in that thing it takes on all contemporary fighters with ease. I flew a few DCG Tobruk campaigns and racked up the kills (6 at a time) against 109Es and F2s, but when I flew 109s had a much more difficult time against P-40s and spits. I am not a real good virtual pilot, and felt a little cheated since I seemed to get the kills a little too easy in the much maligned P-40.

Sure you have a snap/spin effect but it is quickly correctable and I have not encountered the viscous and unforgiving spin characteristics that were legendary in the craft. Are the P-40s in this game modified Russian variants that had armour and other weight removed?

I don't have IL2compare but does P-40E pass the sanity check WRT climb rate and elevator authority? I luv US planes (that's why I got FB and not IL2) but I don't want to see them under/overmodelled any more than LAs, Yaks, Kis, or LW.

ucanfly
05-25-2004, 12:46 PM
I know the P-40 had a bad reputation that may not have been deserved. It just seems that the P-40E in the game is incredible compared to other contemporary aircraft. When you boom and zoom in that thing it takes on all contemporary fighters with ease. I flew a few DCG Tobruk campaigns and racked up the kills (6 at a time) against 109Es and F2s, but when I flew 109s had a much more difficult time against P-40s and spits. I am not a real good virtual pilot, and felt a little cheated since I seemed to get the kills a little too easy in the much maligned P-40.

Sure you have a snap/spin effect but it is quickly correctable and I have not encountered the viscous and unforgiving spin characteristics that were legendary in the craft. Are the P-40s in this game modified Russian variants that had armour and other weight removed?

I don't have IL2compare but does P-40E pass the sanity check WRT climb rate and elevator authority? I luv US planes (that's why I got FB and not IL2) but I don't want to see them under/overmodelled any more than LAs, Yaks, Kis, or LW.

3.JG51_BigBear
05-25-2004, 01:10 PM
I too think that this plane might be slightly overmodelled but you have to remember that the poor reputation this plane got came from American aviators who tried to take it up against much more nimble aircraft (not even the spit could turn fight with a zero) and from British pilots who tried to fly it at high altitudes against a numerically superior foe. Like the p-39 this aircraft shined on the Russian front where combat took place at low altitudes.

You also have to remember that the p-40 was considered the most maneuverable single engine American fighter even if its wasn't the fastest.

PBNA-Boosher
05-25-2004, 01:14 PM
While it may be a bit overmodeled, diving in this thing is incredible. It had amazing structural stability, and can take a hell of a lot of punishment. While it's regarded in history as, "the best second choice," I would have prefferred it to the P-51! However, if you give me a P-38....

If I'm flying Russian though, The Yak-1 series is my fav.!

karost
05-25-2004, 01:32 PM
p-40 was modify for play in this game with balance the enjoyment , as I read in the book that p-40 have to apply energy tactic for cambat , but in HL I saw almost every p-40 use turning tactic like vvs to dance with Zero only p-38 that look more close to the history combat in energy tactic

there have some joke to give her a new name , that is "p-400" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!

JtD
05-25-2004, 01:33 PM
Bad reputation mainly came from improper use by American pilots. The American fighting the Japanese in China however had huge successes with their P-40.

It was a good aircraft for it's time, but not outstanding.

gates123
05-25-2004, 01:33 PM
To assume the P-40 is overmodeled is just that, an assumption. Have you guys flown one before? It was a great 2nd line fighter and did its job when it had to. Considering that we've recently heard from a Spit pilot that the FB flight models are REALLY close to reality, then lets not assume Oleg overmodeled this A/C either. It still climbs like a brick as it should.

http://www.flightjournal.com/images/index_photos/gunslinging.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

Cragger
05-25-2004, 01:50 PM
The P-40 is mostly a P-36/Hawk 75 with a inline Allision engine and a few more guns. If you look up the P-36/Hawk 75 you will find it to be an extremely nimble aircraft for its time.

The P-40 traded some manueverablity in for more speed by adding the inline engine, this however did push the CoG forward and also gave it some harsh stall and spin habits. You can 'feel' this nose heaviness in the P-40 when you brake while rolling, it almost instantly wants to do a nose stand.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

karost
05-25-2004, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cragger:
The P-40 traded some manueverablity in for more speed by adding the inline engine, this however did push the CoG forward and also gave it some harsh stall and spin habits. You can 'feel' this nose heaviness in the P-40 when you brake while rolling, it almost instantly wants to do a nose stand.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thx for share your knowledge Cragger S~
but harsh stall and spin habits was gone now in this game , same like stall and spin in p-39 in IL2 Sturmovik 1.2 I still remember and respect alot friend who flow that p-39

S!

ucanfly
05-25-2004, 03:28 PM
I agree. What I've read about P-40s is that it could dive and you could point its nose where you wanted to at speed but you had to have a lot of speed to be able to climb well. In the game I can vertical turn fight with biplanes and spits. Seems like it is (relatively speaking) a bit much. Also the rudder was needed continuously in most variants to keep up with changing speed and engine settings. I dont need rudder at all in this thing. I don't want parity I want historical recreation and I have my doubts with this plane. When I reloaded FB I kinda like the original FM better (except for the slow roll rate).

El Turo
05-25-2004, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
I agree. What I've read about P-40s is that it could dive and you could point its nose where you wanted to at speed but you had to have a lot of speed to be able to climb well. In the game I can vertical turn fight with biplanes and spits. Seems like it is (relatively speaking) a bit much. Also the rudder was needed continuously in most variants to keep up with changing speed and engine settings. I dont need rudder at all in this thing. I don't want parity I want historical recreation and I have my doubts with this plane. When I reloaded FB I kinda like the original FM better (except for the slow roll rate).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


All aircraft in IL2FB have "auto rudder" enabled to assist in coordinating flight. Makes the planes less prone to stalling/spinning unless you really push it too far and performance is increased by way of zeroing out slip in turns for you.

As for the P-39 spin-tendencies.. this is largely myth, rumor and exaggeration taken to extreme ends in publication and are in conflict with what actual WWII era combat pilots had to say about them.

Don't get me wrong, they hated the things.. but not because of any boogeyman spin. Poor climb, speed, funky "softball pitching machine" 37mm cannon and extremely substandard ergonomics made the thing incredibly unpopular with it's American and British pilots. The fairy tale spin (more aptly described as a "flop", in actuality) as attempted to be recorded by engineers of the army air corps to no avail over dozens of trials.

Recently, I've had the opportunity to speak with pilots that flew the P39 in Europe and in the Pacific and they all agreed that most of the stories were exaggerated and embellished in an attempt to just get rid of the things because the performance and comfort was not up to par.

It was a perfect fit for the Russians because they didn't need the high-altitude performance and were certainly no strangers to designs lacking in ergonomic consideration.

Best,

~T.

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
Amidst morning clouds
Fork-tailed devil hunts its prey
Lightning strikes, süsse tr¤ume.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-25-2004, 05:06 PM
I fly mainly the P40 and IMHO the P40 has become a bit more heavy, now. By that, it loses a lot more energy than prior to the patch in tight turns and can only successfully fight, if the enemy is stupid enough to turn and dive with the P40. At same altitude the P40 loses speed much quicker, now, and especially E-versions to tend to roll a lot faster, as it was in RL, too. (That is why the M has a longer tail.)
The high dive speeds is the key element of the P40's original design. It was designed as a pursuit fighter, diving at high speeds and take the energy into battle. This is no modell-flaw.
In early WW2 the P40 had great success with the AVG in China. They had only a few losses, yet shot down over 500 planes in just 3 month of service. Most of these a/c were transporters, though.
During the war, the allready outmodelled design was soon abandoned and replaced by more modern fighters to keep up with the developement. ( It wasn't suited for pacific carrier-ops and had bad flight-characteristics on high altitudes, where most axis & allies - sorties were flown in. - However, as it was mentioned many times before, the eastern front was somewhat different and mainly took place low and slow. There, the P40 was quite a match, as well as the P39)

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://www.imageshack.us/img1/7182/1703abcdefg.gif

ucanfly
05-25-2004, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by H_Butcher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
I agree. What I've read about P-40s is that it could dive and you could point its nose where you wanted to at speed but you had to have a lot of speed to be able to climb well. In the game I can vertical turn fight with biplanes and spits. Seems like it is (relatively speaking) a bit much. Also the rudder was needed continuously in most variants to keep up with changing speed and engine settings. I dont need rudder at all in this thing. I don't want parity I want historical recreation and I have my doubts with this plane. When I reloaded FB I kinda like the original FM better (except for the slow roll rate).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


All aircraft in IL2FB have "auto rudder" enabled to assist in coordinating flight. Makes the planes less prone to stalling/spinning unless you really push it too far and performance is increased by way of zeroing out slip in turns for you.

As for the P-39 spin-tendencies.. this is largely myth, rumor and exaggeration taken to extreme ends in publication and are in conflict with what actual WWII era combat pilots had to say about them.

Don't get me wrong, they hated the things.. but not because of any boogeyman spin. Poor climb, speed, funky "softball pitching machine" 37mm cannon and extremely substandard ergonomics made the thing incredibly unpopular with it's American and British pilots. The fairy tale spin (more aptly described as a "flop", in actuality) as attempted to be recorded by engineers of the army air corps to no avail over dozens of trials.

Recently, I've had the opportunity to speak with pilots that flew the P39 in Europe and in the Pacific and they all agreed that most of the stories were exaggerated and embellished in an attempt to just get rid of the things because the performance and comfort was not up to par.

It was a perfect fit for the Russians because they didn't need the high-altitude performance and were certainly no strangers to designs lacking in ergonomic consideration.

Best,

~T.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting, but I was talking about the P-40. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

El Turo
05-25-2004, 05:22 PM
All aircraft in IL2FB have "auto rudder" enabled to assist in coordinating flight. Makes the planes less prone to stalling/spinning unless you really push it too far and performance is increased by way of zeroing out slip in turns for you.

That was your P40 snippet.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
Amidst morning clouds
Fork-tailed devil hunts its prey
Lightning strikes, süsse tr¤ume.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
05-25-2004, 05:48 PM
the P40 is a very good fighter even up to 1943 servers but after that its just to slow in level combat.
i agree the P40 is a bit heavy and looses E quick but dang she can turn&burn with the best of them ,even against a 109G2 she can hold her own and those 6 50cals do the job just fine now and she roles very good

to sum it up:
its a lovely dogfighter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

RAAF_Edin
05-25-2004, 06:08 PM
I love the P-40, it just has "character" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

At first there was the high speed explosion bug, then it rolled too slow and it climbed just a tad too good.

Now, I think, the P-40 is just right.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Jumoschwanz
05-25-2004, 08:17 PM
If you read pilot's accounts of flying the P-40 in WWII, like the famous "God is my Co-Pilot", they all pretty much agree that the plane was good for coming down from high alt on an enemy and then using the speed to get up and away from danger. The last thing the WWII pilot's wanted to do was end up in any kind of a turning contest with anything. The P-40 in FB on the other hand has been my secret weapon for shooting down Ki-84s in turn fights. I have gotten in many head-on, QMB style dogfights online in the P-40 against the Ki and shot them down with ease in a turn fight. AS the Ki approached I would be at half throttle with combat flaps on. As soon as the first pass was there I would nail the throttle and start turning, the P-40 could turn easily with this Ki and I would end up on their tail and pepper the $hit out of them with the spray and pray fifties.Once they were commited to a turn fight the P-40 could stay with them if they tried to climb away too. I shocked the **** out of a number of Ki pilot's this way. I also shot down quit a few spitfire mk5s in turn fights with the P-40.
Compared to what the actual WWII pilot's said and how they used their P-40s, the FB P-40 flight model is way off in turning and climbing ability. If you do the zoom and boom with the P-40, the tactic that was gospel to the Flying Tigers and any other successful WWII pilot, it would not make much difference if it had half the horespower it does now, you would be getting your speed from the dive. Often in a zoom and boom on the way down I have the throttle all the way off so I don't gain so much speed I cannot pull out and my wings come off.

IF the P-40 in FB were historically accurate why would it be able to be used in the sim in ways it was not in real life? It should no way be able to outurn and shoot down one of the Japanese most deadly fighters in a turn fight, let alone stay with it if it tried to out spiral climb and get away. I would like to see the P-40 accurat in FB, good for zoom and boom only, and not able to climb or turn with japanese fighters or spit mk5s. I am sure they would have liked the FB P-40 in WWII, but they did not have it, read the history books.

Jumoschwanz

LeadSpitter_
05-25-2004, 08:30 PM
oh please the p40 was an excellent dogfighting aircraft, outdated means, range, alt, topspeed not manueverability.

look at the i16 i153 j8m g.50 cr.42 they are even more deadly when bnzinging then the p40

look at the g2 which is running rings around the p40 also. Check out the north african campaign, aluetians, p40b in burma/india and the austrialian p40 N and later models.

It was know as the most underestimated fighter like the p36 and h75.

The zero is superior in climb speed and manueverability in turn fighting. Ucanfly i think your using 25% fuel vs 100% fuel zeros.

Crazyivan will defend this seeing me in the m2 and m5 zeros

maybe people are not flying them right low alt with 120 mix, wep, supercharger1 low below 2800m and stage two past 3000m, you can pretty much run 110 trottle with the zeke and radiator 6 8 or open and not over heat.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

ucanfly
05-25-2004, 08:30 PM
I too have read some on the P_40 and was trying to recreate tactics described by real pilots. Against Zeroes I at first tried to dive away and high speed turn and come up for another pass - wrong! I found that I really couldn't extend that well, so I chose to pull up sharply after merge and then it became much easier. Only problem was I found I was still pulling alot on the stick and still getting kills, and it felt like I could outclimb them most in steep climbs , but could not extend too well in shallow high speed ones (the opposite of what I've read).

Perhaps uniform high speed dive accel (across most planes) and an undermodelled zero climb rate are at fault , but the P-40E stacks up well against many later planes as well.

ucanfly
05-25-2004, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
oh please the p40 was an excellent dogfighting aircraft, outdated means, range, alt, topspeed not manueverability.

look at the i16 i153 j8m g.50 cr.42 they are even more deadly when bnzinging then the p40

look at the g2 which is running rings around the p40 also. Check out the north african campaign, aluetians, p40b in burma/india and the austrialian p40 N and later models.

It was know as the most underestimated fighter like the p36 and h75.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow - you saying that the biplanes are better BNZers? That is news to me. I got to try those again. The G2 seems to be rather "special", but I don't know if that is historically accurate.

Jumoschwanz
05-25-2004, 08:54 PM
The fact stands, the actual WWII pilots did not use the P-40 as a dogfighter. It was slow and could not turn as well as it's contemporaries And if I had to get into a turn and burn fight in FB, zero vs. 109g2 vs. Ki vs. P-40, in that plane set I would take the P-40. In WWII, I am sure the pilot's choice would take the Ki first and the P-40 last.

This is not me, go argue with Clair Chennault or one of the Flying Tigers

Jumoschwanz

Cragger
05-25-2004, 09:10 PM
Jumo read up on what the German and Italian pilots said about the P-40 in the African theatre. It could and would hang with a 109 or MC in a turn fight. The P-40 was no slouch at being able to bring the nose around.

However, the P-40 vs. the Japanese planes could not turn with it. Suddenly the P-40 was at the other end of the spectrum much like the P-47 was in the European Theatre and the pilots that flew it adjusted their tactics accordingly.

And even IF it turns better than its RL counterpart it is still disadvantaged in that its still slower than what it should be in level flight.

I really wish people would stop this 'this plane, that plane' bull**** when %90 of them haven't even touched the plane. I hope Oleg puts a label on his BoB sim "These flight models accurate to our standards and are not debatable" and leaves them alone.

This constant adjusting **** has turned IL2FB's planes all into vanilla just with different toppings since the original IL2. NO SIMULATION WILL EVER GET REAL LIFE PERFECT! If it did then there is no longer a difference between reality and virtuality.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

ElAurens
05-25-2004, 10:22 PM
I think some of you need to read more.

Below 15,000ft. the P40 could out turn the Spitfire, and Bf109. It could not however, out turn the A6m series or the Ki43. Neither could the Spitfire. In the Med, the P40 in the hands of the USAAF was quite successful agianst the LW and Regia Aeronautica types that it faced. The P40 was not without fault, no aircraft was or is. But it is not the flying brick that certain revisionists would have you believe.

I have also found it quite interesting that the places where the P40 had it's most success were the places with the most abysmal conditions. China/Burma, New Guinea, Alaska, North Africa.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Cragger
05-25-2004, 10:37 PM
Rugged construction, Rugged Allison engine. Intrestingly though the Russians disliked the Allison because of the finer oil it required (Which caused numerous problem with the P-39, when running their standard stuff) compared to their engines. Yet China could aparently get it with 'relative' ease.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

karost
05-26-2004, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:

IF the P-40 in FB were historically accurate why would it be able to be used in the sim in ways it was not in real life? It should no way be able to outurn and shoot down one of the Japanese most deadly fighters in a turn fight, let alone stay with it if it tried to out spiral climb and get away. I would like to see the P-40 accurat in FB, good for zoom and boom only, and not able to climb or turn with japanese fighters or spit mk5s. I am sure they would have liked the FB P-40 in WWII, but they did not have it, read the history books.

Jumoschwanz<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it good to see alot of good P-40's pilot who respect in history FM share his idea S~

now I see maney friends change to fly on P-38,P-47 with more difficult and more challenging.

I not a real pilot , I don't know what the real FM it look like , just read from the book but I wonder if FP release with same problem like this post , how we can tell a kinds about what is the real FM in history difference from the game.

S!

jurinko
05-26-2004, 01:41 AM
Comment of American pilot on P-40:
"In Africa, I flew some 150 combat missions in it and don´t want to see it anymore. It is not a bad aircraft, but save fixed baloon you will shoot down nothing else."

Comment of Japanese pilots after WWII:
"The most formidable enemy up high - P-38, in all altitudes - F4U Corsair, at low altitudes - P-40."

My comment http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - a plane with character and fun to fly. With good tactics still usable in 1943.

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

JtD
05-26-2004, 02:36 AM
ElAurens, the P-40 is underpowered and heavy if compared to Bf 190's and Spitfires. Both qualities do not aid turning ability.

If it really could outturn both, it can not have been continous level turning.

You seem to be very sure about this, do you happen to have a test or some calculations to support your opinion? Which Spitfire models and which 109 types exaclty were outturned by which P-40's?

RAAF_Edin
05-26-2004, 02:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
The fact stands, the actual WWII pilots did not use the P-40 as a dogfighter. It was slow and could not turn as well as it's contemporaries And if I had to get into a turn and burn fight in FB, zero vs. 109g2 vs. Ki vs. P-40, in that plane set I would take the P-40. In WWII, I am sure the pilot's choice would take the Ki first and the P-40 last.

This is not me, go argue with Clair Chennault or one of the Flying Tigers

Jumoschwanz<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't know what you are talking about. P-40 was one of the most nible aircraft of USAF. The reason why Flying Tigers did not turn with it is because the Zero was even more nible! Against the 109 the P-40 is a good machine to fight in. So, better keep quiet and think through before making these statements and saying P-40 was unmanouverable.

Also people who make enagements tactics according to how AI tactics, should think again and maybe try same thing against real people flying the enemy machine. Then I would like to see anyone stating how P-40 will easily out-turn a Ki-83 or Zero.
--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Jumoschwanz
05-26-2004, 07:17 AM
I will fly the P-40 against anyone in any Jap plane online on Hyperlobby and shoot you down. I am on HL at least every other night, and am willing to back up what I say. So get to HL, say hello and we will go. I have shot down many Ki-84s with the P-40 in turn and burn fights. If you don't believe me then you will have no problem flaming me and you can post the results here. I said I had beat many Ki-84 ONLINE in QMB STYLE fights, that means head on at same alt. Any panzy can beat AI. Maybe all the ki-84 jocks have switched to the I-185 or some other latest and greatest, I don't know, I don't play arcade that often. But I have been on servers where tha Ki pilots have been flying around dominating the server, until I slide into the seat of the P-40 and outurn and burn them. Pretty funny. After I shot down one well known relentless Ki-84 jock on HL three times in a turn fight with the P-40 they jumped into a P-40 too! Then I jumped into an I-153, hee hee hee. On another server the same thing, a Ki-84 was flying around and shooting up everyone's 109g models, until i jumped into the P-40, outurned him and filled him full of the spray and pray fifties.
I have had a lot of fun online this way.

Even if the P-40 could handle with a 109 or mk5 spit, it sure as he!! should not be outurning ki-84s in dogfights three out of four times, therefore in FB it does turn too well, end of story. I will see you online right?

Jumoschwanz

Kwiatos
05-26-2004, 07:27 AM
P-40 now is very good modelled in FB. Maby P-40 E climb little too good but other hand should outurn Bf's but can't.

geetarman
05-26-2004, 08:09 AM
I love the P-40 but I tend to agree with what Jumo mentioned in his post. The TnB performance of the plane seems a bit hopeful.

ZG77_Nagual
05-26-2004, 08:30 AM
Golodnikov on the p40 (http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part2.htm)

Very informative archive on the P40 (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p40.html)

horseback
05-26-2004, 09:35 AM
First of all, let's make a few things clear:

The P-40 had a very good horizontal turn and excellent dive capability by European standards right up to the end of 1943. The Warhawk always had good firepower. It did not perform well in sustained climb or at altitudes above 4500-5000m (call it around 15,000 ft.). Flown by pilots experienced in its strengths and weaknesses(not the Commonwealth pilots who initially introduced it in the Western Desert), it was quite successful in the Med, particularly in view of its secondary role of ground attack.

On the Eastern Front, the Soviets didn't like it as much as the P-39, but that may be at least partly because of its immense size & wing armament compared to their perception of how a fighter should be built. The Airacobra is a lot closer in size to the YaKs and LaGGs they flew, and it had nose mounted guns. Both aircraft had 'interesting' stall/spin characteristics, and good performance up to 4500m, so it was a tossup there. Maybe if Pokryshin had gotten the Warhawk instead...

Successful pilots in the type usually tried to keep the fight in the horizontal plane against the Germans and Italians when they had to dogfight-remember, most kills were scored by ambush, or the sudden bounce- and used their advantages in endurance (both flight and firing time) to make their opponent go look for an easier kill or run for home. While the P-40 enjoyed a slight advantage in dive speed, it had to be used more judiciously in the Med than against the Japanese.

In the Pacific and CBI, the Japanese held a huge advantage in the horizontal plane in the A6M Naval types and the Army's Ki-27 and Ki-43 fighters, but they were all much slower (and lightly armed, in the case of the Army fighters) than the P-40, and couldn't dive worth a lick. On the other hand, they had excellent climb and accelleration compared to the P-40.

Therefore, after the initial reverses in Java and the Phillipines, USAAF and Commonwealth pilots adopted the Flying Tigers' tactics of zoom and boom: get up high, dive down through the enemy, and use the speed built up to extend away and above to hit them again. The lightly built Japanese aircraft with their poorly protected fuel tanks made this an ideal tactic; one pass on a target at medium altitudes usually set that target on fire or badly damaged him if you hit him, and gave you the speed to escape regardless.

It is interesting to note that pilots in China were initially disappointed in the P-51A and B model Mustangs, because their guns tended to jam if sharp maneauvers caused the slightest wing flex; if the Oscar or Tojo saw them coming, his immediate reaction was a sharp horizontal or climbing turn to spoil the firing solution for his attacker.

A Warhawk had sufficient maneauverability to counter this tactic much of the time, and the guns worked afterwards. The razorback Mustangs weren't quite as good at this, even after the ammo feed problem was fixed, and some old P-40 hands never did reconcile themselves to the pony.

Simply put, P-40 pilots, like every combat pilot, had to adjust their tactics to their opponents' strengths and weaknesses relative to their own. In the Med, successful Warhawk drivers kept the fight in the horizontal plane when forced to dogfight, and in the Pacific, they avoided the turn fight like the plague, knowing that they had a big energy advantage in the (downwards) vertical.

I cannot compare the P-40 in the game with the real thing; relative strengths and weaknesses are affected by pilot skill (and smarts) as much as the Flight Model. But if the FM is wrong, someone should be able to demonstrate that the climb or roll or turning circle or top speed is wrong. The performance of the guns is a little harder to quantify.

The P-40's capabilities are well documented, so instead of complaining, it would behoove the persons unhappy with its FM to demonstrate that is over or undermodelled. Oleg and his people are generally responsive to a well reasoned arguement, considering language and cultural differences. Make a good case, and you'll be heard (unless you're talking about the forward view in the FW).

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Jumoschwanz
05-26-2004, 09:36 AM
Those are some great links Nagual, I visited and read them both. It was interesting that the Flying Tiger said the P-40 was more manueverable than the zero because it's rate of roll was three times that of the japanese craft. He did state, as most would guess that the zero could turn small circles better and that was the only area of performance the zero could best the P-40 in.

The FB P-40 seems to be pretty close to how it is in the Flying Tigers article except for that one point, in FB the P-40 can turn with the japanese fighters at least toe to toe.
I just got offline on HL where I tried to get into some good fights in the P-40, I did not find any Ki as I have in the past, but I did have two Spit mk9s attack me from the same and higher alt. I simply split Sed with combat flaps and started turning at them, I followed both through two and three complete loops, all the time gaining. I got lead and flamed them both.
I had an I-185 attack me from behind and it faired worse than the spits, it did not seem to handle as well and I got on it's tail and shot it down. I had a 109k4 attack from behind, same thing, I did one loop with combat flaps and got on his tail and caught him at the top of a zoom and hit him, he ran away. An La7 attacked from above and behind, a good smart pilot who turned his speed back into alt, eventually he got greedy and stayed low with me. The La7 could not turn inside me to pull lead and shoot, and I could not turn enough to turn the tables on him, I had some problems blacking out that put me into the sand eventually after a long chase.
Did the russians have anything to say about the P-40 being able to turn with an la-7? Maybe Nagual can dig up something on that too?

FB is the best wwII flight sim in the world. Surely they have done a brilliant job on the planes, and surely some of them need tweaking. Most are close to eye witness accounts by the pilots that flew them, as is the P-40, except in the one area where it does turn small circles toe to toe with the FB japanese planes. The coders and programmers and modelers might someday agree with this, or not. There is as much a chance that there are so many planes and features to fine tune in FB that they may never look at them all again before it is obsoleted by the next generation of sims and all work on FB stops.
I will admit that after reading Nagual's links that it was a great fighter early in the war, completely competent to it's contemporaries. But the Flying Tiger in the link backed up what I said about it not being able to steady-state turn, in small circles with the jap planes. So the P-40 in FB is probably the best P-40 sim in the world. But it does turn too well compared to the FB jap fighters. Maybe the modelers will tweak this, or maybe they never will with the increasing time they must be spending on projects for the next generation of sims.
For now I will continue to have fun in the FB P-40, surprising the living $hit out of Ki, la7 and Spit pilots, and filling them with spray and pray fifty calibre ammo.

Jumoschwanz

carguy_
05-26-2004, 09:46 AM
I dunno how P40 performed in RL but in FBAEP it`s no threat to speeding LW aircraft.Ofcourse it will out maneuver most LW but who flying them turns with P40,eh?

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

B1izard
05-26-2004, 10:12 AM
Here is a funny comic I found regarding P-40 vs Zero.
http://www.planestuff.com/p40vszero.html

ElAurens
05-26-2004, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
First of all, let's make a few things clear:

The P-40 had ...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent post horseback. You have covered the salient points better than I ever could.

S!

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

FI-Aflak
05-26-2004, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
p-40 was modify for play in this game with balance the enjoyment , as I read in the book that p-40 have to apply energy tactic for cambat , but in HL I saw almost every p-40 use turning tactic like vvs to dance with Zero only p-38 that look more close to the history combat in energy tactic

there have some joke to give her a new name , that is "p-400" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have to use energy tactics, against a zeke.

Against contemporary german and russian (early war) aircraft, the P-40 is in the running turn-wise. As it should be.

VW-IceFire
05-26-2004, 09:55 PM
The P-40 only ever gets compaired against the Zero in the average history book. Against the Zero the P-40 has only two advantages...toughness of construction and dive speed.

While the P-40 had a number of problems with it...not all of them were strictly combat related but there were things like the nasty stall and spin characteristics, the narrow track landing gear, the poorer performance above 20,000 feet are all examples of where this plane falls short.

But for all these problems it was one of the most produced fighters of the war, it carried around decent levels of firepower, it was more than capable of beating the Japaense using boom tactics and it was going to get beat every time it got into a turning fight with a Zero.

This doesn't mean that it isn't a decent turner and I've read that against the Bf 109's it could turn well enough to fight with the 109's in a variety of encounters. The 109 is still the better fighter (manuverability, top speed, climb rate, etc.) but in typical combat conditions, not the ones we see in a dogfight server, its quite obvious how the P-40E is sufficient and where it is not.

Its an average fighter with a bad reputation amongst a crowd of aircraft that were considered its superior and yet it still managed to fight on nearly all fronts at some point in huge numbers.

Above all else, like the Grumman Wildcat...while better fighters were being developed the P-40 held the line.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"