PDA

View Full Version : P-40B v. P-40E



3.JG51_BigBear
05-19-2005, 11:09 AM
I freely admit I know relatively little about these planes other than some basic development history and a few pilot acounts but I can't believe that these two planes were as radically different in real life as they are in game. I tried both out last night and the two planes handle nothing alike. The early P-40s seem very realistic in my opinion. Decent roll, good elevator and rudder authority, poor climb to altitude and poor sustained climb, decent zoom climb and a need for frequent retrimming. The P-40E on the other hand, dives and climbs like a bandit, it turns surprisingly well and has a very fast rate of roll. The P-40E also needs far less attention on the trim tabs and just has a more nimble feel all the way around.

I suppose a more powerful engine could help a lot but still the planes handle very little alike. Any thoughts?

mortoma
05-19-2005, 11:43 AM
All I know is that both versions of the plane should handle pretty much alike. And you're right, they don't. The earlies differ from the later one only in that the engine and prop were mounted higher on the later ones. This made the nose of the later ones straighter and it no longer drooped down as much. However I believe this was accomplished without changing the weight or the balance of the aircraft. So given the fact the wing loading and basic stuff remained close to the same, both should handle mostly alike. The later ones had more power though, which changes the speed and zoom capabilites some, but not the overall handling. At least I wouldn't think so. So yes, I agree something is screwy since they feel like completely different planes when you compared them. I also agree that the early ones seem more realistic for a P-40 type.

VW-IceFire
05-19-2005, 11:53 AM
May have to do with the relative age of the FM modeling for each of the planes. The P-40E came in FB1.0 and the P-40B/Cs were introduced in Pacific Fighters.

Nonetheless, I don't see a huge difference between them. The P-40E is definately better...faster and more responsive, although this may be a result of the redesign of the aircraft to try and get it upto the performance of its competitors.

I fly them the same way essentially...

Art-J
05-19-2005, 04:08 PM
The differences between "B" and "E" were much more significant than the new engine with higher gear reductor. There were modifications in armor, guns, undercarriage, fuel systems, redesigned aft fuselage section... Result: "B" had empty weight of 5590 pounds, "E" was much heavier (6350 empty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif), so I guess this is why it dives and zoom-climbs better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. The weight increase was common problem with every new version put into production, and no engine modifications could simply solve it - thus later desperate weight-reduction attempts, from simple ones (guns, armor and magnesium/aluminium replacements on P-40N) to seriously redesigned airframe (P-40Q prototype).

I don't use them very often in PF. Maybe You're right and later, heavier variants should be more like "dogs" to fly? I don't expect many/any changes here with 4.0 patch, but as the FM are not so totally "porked", I can live with them.

VW-IceFire
05-19-2005, 07:09 PM
Then again, despite the increased weight the power of the Allison engine went up too. At least, thats what I remember.

The RNZAF campaign I'm doing with the P-40 right now has got me finding some interesting things. Chiefly, that RNZAF ace Geoffrey Fisken with 11 or 12 kills under his belt (mostly in his P-40M) considered the P-40 that he flew a magnificent machine that was far better and more capable than the Buffalo that he flew in Singapour. This is in stark contrast to the USAAF pilot reports who said it was a lead weight. He seemed to like it. He did once get into a turn fight with a Zero and quickly decided it was a bad idea and dove for home...so he never claimed it to do impossible things either. Just that it was a very good machine to be in.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the later models (P-40F, M, N) flew better than the earlier ones.

han freak solo
05-19-2005, 09:38 PM
In the game here.......

After finishing the When Tigers Could Fly campaign with the early P-40 and then jumping back to an unfinished El Alamein campaign with the P-40E, I noticed something. I couldn't fight in the d@mn thing!

With the P-40E, I'm stalling at 190mph on the speed bar in a turn. I didn't have that problem with the P-40B/C. If I remember right, I could take the P-40B/C to 150mph before needing flaps in a turn.

I think it has to do with the retractable canopy of the P-40B/C.

Somehow, when open, it lowers the stall speed. The canopy is therefore an airflow control device, remote controlling airflow over the wing roots. The air comes rushing into the canopy then bounces back in a compression wave headed for the leading edge of the wings. That wave forces the disrupted air on the wing to smooth out under pressure from the wave. It's a pulsing wave that the pilot can barely feel on the stick due to the speed of the wave. Except for the fact his lips are alternately sucked away from his teeth and slammed back again. This too has a benefit.

This slamming effect of the lips breaks up any calcium deposits under the gum line, therefore preventing gingivitus and halitosis. Anecdotal evidence supports the fact that any pilot flying the P-40B/C in the game has healthier gums. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HotelBushranger
05-20-2005, 01:46 AM
I fly the P-40s most. I would not say there would be much of a difference, except for things like stall speeds, which Han mentioned. But that's just naturally to do with the new engine, redesigned body etc. The E/M accelerates faster in a zoom IMO, is more responsive, but perhaps a teeny bit easier to stall. But I want the canopy openable for the E/M(/and I wish N)! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

ElAurens
05-20-2005, 05:56 AM
As mentioned the later the model of P40 the heavier they got. Also the the early planes had significantly higher roll rates in real life. I too find the B/C and H 81 in game to be more maneuverable than the later E/M, while the later ones are faster in the dive.

I still do not think that any version we have in game is properly modeled in terms of top speed. They are all too slow.

horseback
05-20-2005, 10:23 AM
re the US pilots complaining about the P-40: B!tching is a traditional competitive event in the US Military. It is expected, possibly even subtly encouraged, and the lack thereof is often viewed with suspicion by senior NCOs & officers. The P-40 drivers in question may have simply been upholding tradition.

OR...he'd been brought up flying the P-36. With a similar airframe, but a much lighter radial engine, the P-36 was much more maneuverable and responsive, with markedly better climb. It was, however, also quite a bit slower and more lightly armed.

OR...he'd been flying against experienced Japanese opposition, had seen another outfit (composed entirely of useless hotdogs and bullsh!tters) get P-38s, and the P-40 that had seemed okay to that point had suddenly lost its former sex appeal.

cheers

horseback

HotelBushranger
05-24-2005, 03:10 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Who exactly here is the US pilot b!tching about the P40?

horseback
05-24-2005, 12:01 PM
Read Icefire's post. IRL, many US combat pilots did b!tch about the Warhawk, and for good reasons, as well as the tradition I cited.

cheers

horseback

Skoshi Tiger
05-24-2005, 06:17 PM
I think it was a case of "Horses for courses!".

A lot of the early complaints about the P40's came from the European theatre. Were they were outclassed by the German fighting aircraft at high altitude.

**** Quick edit to remove erroneous statements caused by excessive alcohol consumption *****

Durring a flyoff between a P40E and a Spitfire MkV(fitted with a vokes filter)in 1942 in Australia showed that the P40-E was faster in level flight up to about 16000 feet, had better acceleration and could commence a fight and disengauge from combat on their own terms.

Above that height and the advantage went to the spitfire.

MS_Siwarrior
05-24-2005, 11:42 PM
P-40E all the way
I love my P-40E "Sweet Promise" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Although the P-40B is a good plane if you know how to fly it

horseback
05-25-2005, 12:07 PM
P-40s saw very little use in the ETO. The RAF got their first few Hawk 81s in the French ordered versions with 7.7mm MGs and the 'backwards' throttle, and like the Hawk 75s, decided that they weren't suited for the ever increasing altitudes fighter combat over the Channel was taking place at.

They just designated them Tomahawks and forgot about them for the most part during the BoB. They were then relegated to Army cooperation squadrons, and except for a few quick runs across the Channel for low-level harassment, spent most of their time training and were soon replaced by the much more capable Mustang Mk I.

When the RAF did use the Tomahawk / Hawk 81 in North Africa, it was used as a direct replacement for the Hurricane, without the extended familiarization periods that would have occurred later in the war. Pilots who were relatively inexperienced and those who attempted to fight in it with 'Hurricane reflexes' were easy meat for the experienced pilots of JG 27 and later, JG 77, and the introduction of the P-40E/K Kittyhawk did little to improve its reputation within the Commonwealth air forces in North Africa, even though a few luminaries like Caldwell found that they could exploit the aircraft's virtues.

American units arriving in North Africa in late '42 and early '43 had much fewer problems fighting in the Warhawk. Part of this was because they were well-versed in what it could and couldn't do and were accordingly aggressive, part was because the Germans who faced expected them to use the same primarily defensive tactics seen from the Commonwealth Kittyhawks, and part was because they had the more effective Merlin engine in their P-40F and L Warhawks, which gave them better performance up to about 18,000ft (as opposed to the Allison, which started dropping off around 13-15,000ft).

All in all, American operated P-40 units provided a nasty surprise for the Jagdewaffe (and the people they were supposed to be protecting) in the Mediterranean. There were a number of USAAF aces flying the P-40 in North Africa and the early phases of the Italian campaign, and not all of them earned their spurs shooting down transports or Stukas.

cheers

horseback

Skoshi Tiger
05-25-2005, 06:10 PM
What was the quote

"Dammed by words, Flown to glory" or something like that.