PDA

View Full Version : The P-40's damage model is simply ridiculous



Luftcaca
10-25-2004, 03:07 PM
Im flying P-40E in a Russian campaign (Rzhev 42-43)

One mission a BF110 hit me with a few shots of small MG's in the tail area. All my controls went down, ailerons, elevators and rudder, and, for some reason, I was leaking oil

Next mission, I attacked a bunch of 111's (I know it is suicide with the P-40) ONE bullet from a turret caught me in the engine, ONE, I had TWO oil leaks, and again, ALL my controls were out, and I repeat, ONE bullet

now lets talk about P-40M-105P VS lagg3
on the Lagg3, the M-105 is made out of concrete, being tougher than any other engines in the game including radial engines. BUT on the P-40, the M-105 is just as weak as the Allison, which means even easier to shut down than the Daimler Benz...go figure

Now I know I dont have recorded tracks to prove it but I swear all I said here was legitimate. I respecfully ask the devs to make amends about these DM's after almost two years...

Vipez-
10-25-2004, 03:53 PM
well, i dont really agree with these claims (except lagg3, DM, where you are right).. Lagg-3 has had the same simple DM since old IL-2.. it does not loose controls, oil leak etc, which is big advantage for Lagg-3..

about loosing all controls, that had to be simply bad luck.. very uncommon to loose all three control on one strike. So Simply, don't get hit.. and you obviously were doing something wrong against the Heinkels, they are the easiest to shoot. Just ddont come in slow from 6 clock. Tip: use 500 m convergence with P-40 and attack from 6clock high and you are absolutely fine, heinkel gunners won't hit you above 300 meters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kwiatos
10-25-2004, 04:05 PM
P-40 in AEP 2.04 is one of the thoughtes planes. It could get many 20mm hits and still flying and fight without havy damages - it was very unrealistic. Now with PF 3.0 P-40 is easier to shoot down - a few 20mm cannons could do job very well. I think in PF weapons are stronger expecially km's. I check it in Hurri MKII with 12 kms and shoting to other planes. I could shoot down Bf's, P-39, P-40, Fw190 after few burst EXCEPT ONE PLANE LAGG3. After few busrt from Hurri Lagg3 hadn't any fuel leak, any oil leak. Even dont had any visual hole. I think Lagg3 should be fixed in DM.

Tater-SW-
10-25-2004, 05:54 PM
Odd, because I started a B-239 campaign in 2.04, and the P-40s I shoot catch fire if I look at them funny.

tater

Luftcaca
10-25-2004, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
well, i dont really agree with these claims (except lagg3, DM, where you are right).. Lagg-3 has had the same simple DM since old IL-2.. it does not loose controls, oil leak etc, which is big advantage for Lagg-3..

about loosing all controls, that had to be simply bad luck.. very uncommon to loose all three control on one strike. So Simply, don't get hit.. and you obviously were doing something wrong against the Heinkels, they are the easiest to shoot. Just ddont come in slow from 6 clock. Tip: use 500 m convergence with P-40 and attack from 6clock high and you are absolutely fine, heinkel gunners won't hit you above 300 meters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me explain you how exactly it happend and after that try and explain me it is normal

First with the 110's:

I had just shot down one 110, and I saw 2 others like 4 KM's away. Theres was clearly a face to face comming up, and I had a lil altitude advantage so instead of trying the face to face, I decided to climb as hell to avoid the face to face and have the altitude advantage for the fight. When the 110's passed under me, I clicked on F2 to have an external view (I like that) and thats when I saw a couple of hits of MG's ON MY TAIL (the 110 managed to climb enough to have a shooting opportunity). Ok, I CLEARLY saw only a couple of hits ON MY TAIL as I said, so, how could these hits damaged my engine? and my ailerons controls???

Now with the 111's:

By the way dude, I know how to attack bombers, I know it is not a good idea to attack from plain 6 oclock especially with planes such as the P-40 or the 109. I was comming from under, thinking that I wasnt in the bottom turrets radius, obviously I was wrong, I was something like 300m away from the bomber I wanted to bring down (the fourth one of a four bombers flight) I got hit by the bottom turret of another bomber (dunno if it was the third or the second one) . and it was only ONE hit, only one tracer in fact, only one impact sound, and BOOM, 2 oil leakes, and no more controls. How could this bullet, comming from high above, destoyed ALL my controls, especially the tail ones? With the impact angle of the bullet, there is NO WAY this bullet could have damaged BOTH the engine and the tail section.

Are we talking about the magical bullet here? JFK must be rolling in his grave...

chris455
10-25-2004, 10:31 PM
The P-40 was one HELLUVA tough plane.
Don't kid yourself- it is way too glass-jawed in FB. Especially as Luftcaca says, concerning the powerplant.

And I suspect that after all this time, it will stay that way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WUAF_Badsight
10-25-2004, 11:26 PM
P-40 used to have redicously strong controls

& you could pummel it with MG's & she kept on flying

wasnt too weak in 2.04 if you ask me

http://img97.exs.cx/img97/8697/P-40controls.jpg

karost
10-25-2004, 11:59 PM
Wow... , http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2004, 12:49 AM
I've had similar when going into headons (why o why? I ask myself, do I do it?
- Must be the kill fixation)

Single connecting shot from the oncoming plane, on several occasions will take out all my controls in P40 as well.

Is damage calculated on hitboxes or by a dice system?

JtD
10-26-2004, 02:03 AM
I have been flying the P-40 a lot myself and I can cofirm all of it. The P-40 is a very weak very tough plane.

I too lost all controls a number times due to one single hit.

However, I have also flown P-40's like in the screenshot above and still had rudder available.

I have shot down lot's of P-40 by setting their engines on fire with very little effort by small caliber guns.

I also wasted half my ammo on P-40's that refused to go down.

All in all I like the P-40 the way it is. Very tough very weak bird.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-26-2004, 09:53 AM
Hi,

I always found the P40 in FB/AEP to have a weak engine. Attacking bombers was a real pain (from any angle) because a couple of hits to the lump would cause it to die.

Otherwise, my experience from scoring hits on it in a 190 is that it has more of a tendancy to burn/give PKs than suffer structural failure.

Cheers,
Norris

Luftcaca
10-26-2004, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
I have been flying the P-40 a lot myself and I can cofirm all of it. The P-40 is a very weak very tough plane.

I too lost all controls a number times due to one single hit.

However, I have also flown P-40's like in the screenshot above and still had rudder available.

I have shot down lot's of P-40 by setting their engines on fire with very little effort by small caliber guns.

I also wasted half my ammo on P-40's that refused to go down.

All in all I like the P-40 the way it is. Very tough very weak bird. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heh thx for all the answers guys I see Im not the only one...

and I pretty much agree with JdT.
just as though as the P-40 frame is, its the opposite for the engine. You can waste your ammo aiming at wings without clipping em but be sure that in the process the engine will be damaged for some reason. we could say the same about the P-39/P-63. Almost impossible to send him down with a structural failure, but it will always catch on fire...
Back to the P-40...I know it was a tough plane, but was the engine THAT weak? Now it just looks ridiculously weak compared to M-105P on Lagg3 and even Yaks. and about the controls? I dont think we should have much of them controls damages....I read much stories from WWII pilots telling stuff that happened inflight, but I dont remember ever reading: "and I lost my controls after a few hits..."

JtD
10-26-2004, 11:42 AM
I think the engine DM should be changed for the Yak's and LaGG's, not for the P-40's.

Engines were very vulnerable and were usually taken out with very few hits even from small guns. Not immediately, but coolant and oil leaks will stop them within minutes.

The controls thing is a bit strange and imho deseves a look. I'm not surprised about the absence of control damage in pilots reports - most of those who had it probably died.

Luftcaca
10-26-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
I think the engine DM should be changed for the Yak's and LaGG's, not for the P-40's.

Engines were very vulnerable and were usually taken out with very few hits even from small guns. Not immediately, but coolant and oil leaks will stop them within minutes.

The controls thing is a bit strange and imho deseves a look. I'm not surprised about the absence of control damage in pilots reports - most of those who had it probably died. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree that the DM'S ofthe M-105 are the ones that should be changed...even if I think that the Allison is maybe a lil too weak...

as for the reports of lost controls...well, I read many reports about pilots that were shot down and managed to bail out and live through it...if controls losts were frequent (as in IL2) I would suspect that at least ONE pilot would have managed to bail out safely and relate his story one day...A friend who read even more things about WWII than I did told me he read ONCE about a B-17 loosing its controls after being badly damaged. You can expect that from a bomber who was known to take several cannon hits b4 going down...but from a fighter?
I reckon that a figter who has been hit enough times to have all its controls damaged would have been going down ANYWAY. know what I mean? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TheJoyStick
10-26-2004, 01:08 PM
A good thing to remember is that infront of (or behind) every tracer is 5, or 10, or however many bullets you can't see..


So if you saw a tracer, it wasn't just ONE bullet.

Luftcaca
10-26-2004, 01:32 PM
eum I know that...for small German MG's, it was one tracer every 3 or 4 bullets isnt it? like, onme Armor piercing, another one, and a tracer something like this

ok lets just say I got hit by 3 bullets, which is the minimum amount of hits the game can support (there was only one hit impact sound)

we suppose these bullets all hit in the same area of the plane since they were in the same short burst. so its logical to say that if the tracer hit the engine, the 2 other bullets hit the engine too

Still that doesnt explain how the hell my controls were all damaged

edit: I was wrong the game does support single bullet hits, so it is possible that this Heikel 111 only hit me with this ONE tracer bullet

SeaFireLIV
10-26-2004, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftcaca:
ok lets just say I got hit by 3 bullets, which is the minimum amount of hits the game can support (there was only one hit impact sound)

we suppose these bullets all hit in the same area of the plane since they were in the same short burst. so its logical to say that if the tracer hit the engine, the 2 other bullets hit the engine too

Still that doesnt explain how the hell my controls were all damaged

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You`re reaching here, m8. Everything you`re now saying is just SUPPOSITION, what you `think` is happening. No way is it enough to prove anything or make changes.

Luftcaca
10-26-2004, 02:53 PM
I was expecting such a comment from you, "m8"
almost everyone here seems to agree that theres something odd with the P-40 Dm, if compared to other inline engine planes

Now you say thats its only supposition.
Would it change something if I would post the track for you to see it?
if YOU would see it, it would become all legitimate and would be enough to recquire amends?

I said the track wasnt recorded, hoping that my fellows here would trust me since they could have experienced something similar

when I say I was hit only by ONE tracer in the Engine, it is NOT a supposition, I saw it, heard the sound, I KNOW it happened

I also know that ONE bullet CANNOT hit both the engine and the tail section if fired from above

and I also know and notice than many peeps here think theres something odd with the controls and the engine damage on some planes including the P-40

so where are the suppositions here?

LuftKuhMist
10-26-2004, 03:02 PM
Anybody who ever shot/flew a P40 knows this is true.

Don't even bother to shoot at the airframe, just hit that TNT filled allison.

As for control damages, it happens way too often in my opinion. Anyway a thing that bothers me is that you just loose ALL controls. Like "Aileron control damaged" It can't be only ONE aileron, they can't just move less... they are just GONE. I can't see where a bullet could end in a plane that would DESTROY all controls in ALL directions... after going through the whole engine.

BUT I know that sometimes you can get hit 3 times between 2 tracers... so....

Snoop_Baron
10-26-2004, 07:45 PM
I have flown the P40 a lot in FB and the engine is definetly very weak. I always try to avoid head ons because of this. I always thought it was because it is an inline engine and so it's weak just like the P51s engine. What makes some inlines tougher than others? Do some of the inline planes have armor around the engine or where more rugged by design?

Thanks,

Luftcaca
10-26-2004, 07:55 PM
Do some of the inline planes have armor around the engine or where more rugged by design?


I think the IL2 had some armor over its engine or something like that, but the oil cooler was very exposed, but Im not sure maybe someone could bring more light over this

But I see no reason why the M-105p is so tough, especially on the Lagg3
I think it is because of the oil radiator being separated in 5 places or having 5 different radiators something like that but Im not sure and obviously it is not modeled to be damaged so the M-105P apear tougher to damage

Could someone add to my comment or correct it?

WUAF_Badsight
10-26-2004, 10:39 PM
what you see ( Tracers ) , & what you hear ( hit sounds ) are not related to the actual bullets that are fired or being tracked by the games code

you might hear one hitsound . . . . so what

you might see one tracer . . . . . so what

neither are related exactly to what actually hit or passed your A/C in FB

JtD
10-27-2004, 01:19 AM
Look folks, it doesn't matter how often u repeat that "what u see or what u hear is not what u get".

It's possible to take out all three controls with one single hit in an P-40.

If you doubt it, you have no clue. Test it before you spoil ORR with discussions.

WUAF_Badsight
10-27-2004, 02:09 AM
spoil what ?

was i saying he was wrong ? i myself have also had this happen

my post wasnt about the P-40s ability to have that happen to it , im not dis-agreeing here

JtD
10-27-2004, 02:27 AM
Was directed more at joystick and seafire.

clint-ruin
10-27-2004, 03:00 AM
The engine thing - once you get to rifle cal guns a lot of engines respond differently. Personally I would rank every allison/merlin/db6xx/klimov as being very much in the same ballpark for damage taking ability, with a couple of exceptions. The rifle cal guns tend to have some of the most marked differences in damage capability between guns and nations to start with [some fire twice as fast as others, others have no incendiary rounds, etc]. As well as this there are so many different engine components modelled for most planes that all people tend to notice is when the engine switches its visual damage stages. Things like the Hurricanes prop running wild are very hard to pick up on if you're shooting at AI. Other planes like most of the Yak line can lose a good 50% of power output before any visual damage shows at all.

Regarding controls - as far as I'm concerned control loss should be a lot less common, full stop, in all planes we have in FB. Any plane that used wires rather than rods for controls should be near-impossible to get control-kills on simply with rifle rounds, unless it's completely saturated with hits. Losing all 3 controls at once should be very rare indeed - maybe a hit on the cockpit that takes out all lines at once could make this happen.

I think a lot of the funny stuff people have happen like these P-40 issues are to do with pieces of the DM sitting in the wrong place, or interacting badly with the planes collision model itself, etc. If the DM doesn't perfectly line up with the planes visual model then obviously some things are going to get hit more than they should, others less.

NegativeGee
10-27-2004, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoop_Baron:
What makes some inlines tougher than others? Do some of the inline planes have armor around the engine or where more rugged by design?

Thanks, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC the FW-190D had 5mm armoured cowling for the Jumo 213, but I think such substantial protection was pretty rare becuase of the large weight penalty.

Between different engine types thats alot harder to say.... they all worked along similar principles and I guess they share all the same major weaknesses.

Snoop_Baron
10-27-2004, 10:57 AM
Thanks for the feedback guys. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I will say that outside of the engine weakness I find the P40 to be reasonably tough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think clint-ruin is right that the real problem may be that it is to easy to loose controls on many planes not just the P40.

s!

Snoop_Baron
10-27-2004, 10:58 AM
In fact I get *many* control kills when flying the P40 and hitting the wings of many 1939-41 planes from a high angle deflection shot with my machine guns. And it normaly just takes a very short burst of gun fire.

s!

Luftcaca
10-27-2004, 11:27 AM
I think clint-ruin is right that the real problem may be that it is to easy to loose controls on many planes not just the P40.



well the IL2 for instance
whats the point of having a flying tank if you loose your controls at the first FLAK hit?

Serieusly I agree it happens on many planes but the P-40 and Il2 are even worse
and I dont recall having ever lost my controls in a Lagg3
it does happen sometimes on the 109 and the 190...

NegativeGee
10-27-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoop_Baron:

I think clint-ruin is right that the real problem may be that it is to easy to loose controls on many planes not just the P40.

s! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I bagged a spit IX last night with a single 7.7mm hit just in front of the windshield at 600m range. That was a jammy bit of shooting if there ever was!

Luftcaca
10-27-2004, 05:32 PM
Ahhh good Im done flying the "made-out-of-paper-controls & TNT engine" P-40 in my career http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Now is the time for the "10-rounds-per-cannon" Spit VB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Carnage2681
10-31-2004, 11:23 AM
Try fly a Me-109 against some Plane with rear gunner, he will show you what weak means http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NIGHTBARON
10-31-2004, 02:56 PM
The 109's is def too weak even after PF install, Well... almost all aircraft actually, Only 1 get tougher and thast the Mustang, Crossed some reading material that stated that the mustang Actually can be brought down by a single-three rifle round sized hits in its engine cooling.

Philipscdrw
10-31-2004, 06:41 PM
It is possible to lose ailerons and elevator in one shot if you hit the control column!

This P-40 control loss problem is probably a bug. I don't know how the Il-2 damage engine works, but it it uses hit boxes then maybe the hitboxes for the controls are too large, or something like the rudder hitbox also takes out the elevator and ailerons.

(BTW regarding the elevator and flammable inline engines: Do not use the elevator in the event of fire.)

NegativeGee
11-01-2004, 03:34 AM
More on the flimsy Warhawk here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=4371065632)

Oh and lol Philipscdrw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Vipez-
11-02-2004, 11:59 AM
you should add other plane to ur list of ridiculous DM, that is the COrsair.. just check how many 30mm hits she can absortb (from KI-84C)

Luftcaca
11-02-2004, 02:09 PM
the Corsair OVERALL is all screwed up, being too easy to fly, especially the early models....meh

PF was simply rushed, not being as good as anticipated...lets hope the patch will ease the pain...

rugame
11-02-2004, 02:39 PM
That corsair is tough.

I was in a Ki84B,unloaded with cannon after aiming with my mg's, saw hits from inside 500 all over right wing, canopy and engine, nothing.

Chuck_Older
11-03-2004, 09:57 AM
Early P-40s seem a tad slow, and too sluggish to accelerate in a dive.

I'm flying a lot of H81/P-40B and C missions and I marvel at the way Zekes can stay on my tail after I dive from 10K feet. I don't mind that the Zero climbs so well, but the #1 escape manuever of the P-40 seems pointless- the A6M can always catch me in a dive. All i do is loose precious altitude.

It seems very wrong, but not drastically wrong. It seems the P-40's inability to acclerate when straight and level carries over to the dive acceleration for the early marks to me.

As for ruggedness, it's weird. I think Clint might be on to something with control loss- these aircraft had a redundancy of systems, I wonder if many people know that. Oleg certainly does, I'm sure...but it seems not modelled very well.

the engine...well, I think the DM has too many limitations concerning the engines in all planes. In my opinion, the engine is always a weak point, but does it have to catch fire so much in the P-40? It seems to me that other inlines usually don't catch fire as much as the P-40s Allison.

For me, if the early P-40s/H 81 had just a little more speed, and more acceleration in a dive, they would match what I have read about them pretty closely. Especially the dive characteristic seems a little wrong. that's hard to quantify, but the Zeroes must be carrying rocks to keep up with my P-40 in a dive.

I still love flying it though

k5054
11-03-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It seems very wrong, but not drastically wrong. It seems the P-40's inability to acclerate when straight and level carries over to the dive acceleration for the early marks to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And why would it not? You only add the effect of gravity, which is the same for both a/c. To get the real life dive advantage, you need to be going at a speed higher than the Zero's level max. Then you should walk away from him. But it may take a while to get there, and if you dive steeply you may get too low first. To get the dive advantage keep your speed up before entry and dive shallow enough to have time for the acceleration difference to work in your favour.

Chuck_Older
11-03-2004, 10:51 AM
So the P-40's weight has nothing to do with it?

k5054
11-04-2004, 02:22 AM
The P-40's weight alone is not the important factor, it's the combination of the weight and the drag. Below level max, an aircraft will accelerate. Diving adds the effect of gravity. Above level max (in the dive) a component of the weight acts to accelerate the a/c, and the drag reduces that acceleration. For a period the faster a/c will accelerate better. Then as both a/c are above their level max, a heavier plane with equal drag will win. A heavier plane with less drag will win big.

The drag (flat plate area) of a P-40B is 4 sq ft.
The drag of a A6M2 is 5.27 sq ft.

Both at zero lift, by my own calculation, but using the 317mph top speed for the zero and 352 for the P-40, these figures would change if using the RAF's 338 for the P-40 and the sometimes seen 331 for the Zeke, which would make the drag pretty much equal. The P-40 always manages to be heavier.

Chuck_Older
11-04-2004, 11:53 AM
But this goes right into my other observation, that the P-40B/C in PF is just a little too slow, doesn't it?. I can get it close to it's top speed (cockpit off) but never quite there, I estimate 10-15 mph slower, which could make the difference in my examples

Chuck_Older
11-04-2004, 02:16 PM
Perhaps the problem is we still can't adjust fuel mixture in US planes *at all*? Or at least in any US fighter I've seen in the FB series

Take a look at the P-40B's throttle quadrant area. there's a handle marked "M"...and you can't adjust it, even though there's an "emerg" setting.

This has been a problem for some time in planes like the P-51...I'm not sure how this gets overlooked, but why can't we adjust mixture in US planes, exactly?

NegativeGee
11-04-2004, 04:01 PM
Some US planes in PF have mixture control like the Wildcat, IIRC. Others have a rather limited mixture control (100% and 120% settings only like the Corsairs) or none at all.

Can I explain this? nope! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

clint-ruin
11-04-2004, 05:02 PM
The last time mix settings were looked at [somewhere around fb1.00 > 1.1] it was determined that the engine could provide realistic performance with auto-mix, or manual mix, but not both for the same aircraft. So that's that. I wonder if it would be useful to have "120%" mix as a throttle or WEP style setting that would belch smoke if engaged too low instead.

Danschnell
11-06-2004, 07:59 AM
My 2 cents...

The P-40 is modelled the opposite of what you'd expect in every way.

It should be tough to kill... in PF it is weak and easily damaged.

It should be quite easy to stall so not too agile... in PF it doesn't stall easily, even when doing very tight turns.

It should be very slow, probably bleeding energy almost instantly in a turn. US pilots found it sluggish in that way. It should be faster than most Japaneese planes, but in PF it always has the speed advantage because it doesn't bleed energy as well as being faster than the Japs.

I think the KI-61 flight modelling would be more appropriate for the P40.

The P40 was famously bad for a US fighter.

chris455
11-06-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
My 2 cents...

The P-40 is modelled the opposite of what you'd expect in every way.

It should be tough to kill... in PF it is weak and easily damaged.

It should be quite easy to stall so not too agile... in PF it doesn't stall easily, even when doing very tight turns.

It should be very slow, probably bleeding energy almost instantly in a turn. US pilots found it sluggish in that way. It should be faster than most Japaneese planes, but in PF it always has the speed advantage because it doesn't bleed energy as well as being faster than the Japs.

I think the KI-61 flight modelling would be more appropriate for the P40.

The P40 was famously bad for a US fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hold your horses there buddy.
I agree that the P-40 should be tough to take down. I agree that in Fb (or PF) it simply isn't, and that is bad and should be addressed ASAP.
Everthing else you say is highly questionable:

"It should be quite easy to stall"

Sez who? Did you know that under 10,000ft, a P-40 will handily outmaneuver a P-51? Didn't know that? It's true! It had a power-on stall speed
(Flaps & gear up) of 85 mph. PLUS it had NO TENDANCY to go into a spin from a stall. (re: P-40 actual pilots manual)
Turns? Don't compare the P-40 to a Zero and think it couldn't turn. Compared to alot other US aircraft the P-40 was turning fool. It didn't stall as easily as some might think.

"It should be very slow"

It should? Are we talking about the P-40B here, at 344 mph? Or the P-40N at 380 mph? If the P-40 was "slow" are we prepared to rate all other aircraft that were slower than these speeds as "very very slow"? Take any given P-40 variant and reference it's speed with it's contemporary adversaries, and in terms of speed the P-40 will be competetive, or superior, nearly every time. Fact.

"The P40 was famously bad for a US fighter".

The P-40 served in every theater that the allies fought in during WWII. It represented an enormous headache for the axis. It was there, it was there in large numbers, and it did a great job of damaging and destroying the enemy.
What it lacked in performance (and it's performance was never considered "bad")was made up for by the superb training of it's pilots, teamwork, numbers, and ruggedness. The P-40 was famous for alot of things, like being the main A/C of the AVG for example. Or like inflicting stunning defeats on the enemy, such as the Palm Sunday Massacre, for another. "Famously bad"? I don't think so.
There were other aircraft that did much worse than the P-40, such as the P-39 or Brewster Buffalo, but even these aircraft performed brilliantly in the hands of brave pilots from other nations.

The P-40 kicked a$$ no matter whose flag it flew under.

My 2 cents.

clint-ruin
11-06-2004, 12:04 PM
Any plane [P-36, C21, F4F, F2A, P-39, P-40] that has the misfortune to be a plane newly created USAAF ot USN units learned to fight in seems to have ended up with a bad rep. Early war planes means - most of the time - early war pilots to go with them. Honest evaluation of the type such as ..

The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was.

Over here: http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html

Tells a different story. You could be highly successful with a modern P-40 mark in any theatre in any year of the war - Russian dive bomber units protecting convoys over ice floes, the jungle, the desert, whereever.

A lot of the conventional wisdom about WW2 fighter planes is .. well .. just plain wrong. Erik Shilling should hopefully be considered a good enough source for the pilot account fans :>

k5054
11-06-2004, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Take any given P-40 variant and reference it's speed with it's contemporary adversaries, and in terms of speed the P-40 will be competetive, or superior, nearly every time. Fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, this is fine , and the Erik Shilling quote too, but in fact the P40B is a contemporary of the 109F-4, 390mph, the Spitfire Vb, 375 or whatever, and only a few months before the 190A, 380-408 depending on who you believe. It's later than the MiG-3, 398mph. The contemporary US fighter for Spit I and 109E is the P-36.

Having said that, the germans considered it a good turner and diver, and tough. No mention of the controls being shot away completely by some Zero pilot just looking at you a bit hard.

Chuck_Older
11-06-2004, 05:47 PM
Plus it's a d@mn good looking place for a pilot to sit

NS38th_Aristaus
11-07-2004, 03:23 AM
the P-40 was a very rugged A/C with better armor, armement and speed. although it could not out turn a zero it could out fight it.
The slash and burn tactics used by the AVG in China resulted in an 8.5 to 1 kill/loss ratio for the P-40.
Between DEC of 41 and JUL of 42 the AVG destroyed 297 enemy A/C for a loss of 35 owing to Jap action.
The USAAF granted Curtiss a modification contract for the P-36 in april of 38 which resulted in the P-40.
Another interesting bit of History of Curtiss is that in 1940 Curtiss sold the wind tunnel test data for the XP-46 to another A/C company. This company also had access to the XP-46 plans. The result was the North American P-51A.
Although they deny it the fact that they bought the data and the early P-51 looks allot like the XP-46 leaves some to wonder just how much influence Curtess had on N.A.

Chuck_Older
11-07-2004, 06:52 AM
Welll....yes North American did benefit from the Curtiss data gained from the NACA tests, but it's misleading to say that this resulted in the P-51, which did not come out of P-40 deveolpment, it simply used the data to avoid some of the pitfalls the P-40 encountered

NS38th_Aristaus
11-07-2004, 09:47 AM
They needed the test data because North American had no idea on how to build a fighter.
The P-51 did not come out of P-40 development. N.A. used the test data and the basic design of the XP-46 to do that.
Besides I never stated that the P-51 was an exact copy, but u hav to admit they both seem to have the same pappy.
chk out.....
www.glennhcurtiss.com (http://www.glennhcurtiss.com)
scroll to bottom of page and clk pics 1931-45, then scroll dwn till u hit North American P-51.
There are some excellent photos of Curtiss planes and a short explanation of how North American "A Curtiss affiliate company" came about producing the P-51

k5054
11-07-2004, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They needed the test data because North American had no idea on how to build a fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess they, being a new company, had no idea how to build a trainer either. So they went ahead and did the T-6 and family, one of the most famous and most-produced trainers of all time, with retractable gear, flaps and everything that would be in a contemporary fighter, even guns in some models.
And they didn't know how to build a bomber either. B-25 anyone?
Just after the war they didn't know how to build a jet fighter, so after a false start with the P-86, they went on to build the F-86, the best of the second-generation jets.

All this in the space of ten years. First service supersonic fighter in the West, they did that next.

Curtiss, after the P-40, had a whole bunch of failed fighter prototypes, the best of which was XP-40Q. The SB2C, a disappointment, then a swift decline. Wasn't the world's first six-engine fighter a Curtiss?

I'm not saying they didn't look at the P-46 data, but the idea that NAA needed a headstart from Curtiss is risible.

NS38th_Aristaus
11-07-2004, 03:52 PM
lol
I never said they didn't build A/C, although N.A.A. started out as a holding company and didn't produce its first A/C untill the mid thirties.
As for the rest of ur post a bomber is about as diff fm a figther as a trainer.
I stated they didn't have any idea on how to build a figther and they didn't. Thats not to say they didn't learn and become a succesfull A/C company. As for Curtiss/wright the company is still going strong, still into aviation, and deversivied.
www.curtisswright.com/history/ (http://www.curtisswright.com/history/)

k5054
11-08-2004, 02:36 AM
Well, the 109 was Messerschmitt's first fighter. They did OK. The Spitfire was Supermarine's first production fighter. There is no logical link that says a competent aircraft designer in the late 30's couldn't build a good fighter at his first try. They were all perfectly well-informed about modern technology. In the US, NACA would help by providing laminar-flow wings, for instance. Further, NAA was in the LA clutch of manufacturers. They could get staff from Lockheed, Douglas or Northrop without the workers having to move house. I don't see why any form of cheating is needed for NAA to make a fighter. The mystery is why Curtiss could not make another fighter after P-40 despite all those attempts. And when you look at the prototypes, you have to wonder WTF they thought they were doing.

chris455
11-08-2004, 09:45 AM
They were making tons of money producing the P-40 and the C46 and the Helldiver http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

k5054
11-08-2004, 01:03 PM
Yes but the job of the design department is not to count the money, but to develop the replacements. I understand Don Berlin the P-40 designer left after problems with the direction the whole thing was taking.
Curtiss produced, after the P-40, XP-46, abandoned by the AAF as it was no better than P-40, XP-55, hopeless, late, the P-60, 5 models, late, useless, the XP-62, ugly, late, useless, the XF14C, uglier, late, slow, useless.
The idea that this sad lot accidentally designed the P51 and lost it is hard to credit.