PDA

View Full Version : P-40 Underrated?



Drifter_Bob
03-07-2005, 03:51 PM

LStarosta
03-07-2005, 04:04 PM
Note: Since I fly primarily Western/N. African Front, my experiences and opinions derive from just that. I do not have much experience in the Pacific.

I love this aircraft. I just LOVE it. It can outturn most European opposition, is quite stable if you fly it within limits, but also leaves a lot of room for maneuvers that take advantage of the plane's instability. The later models have excellent armament consisting of 6x M2 HMG's...

The E and M somewhat in cruise speed, top speed, climb rate etc. But this plane is great down low, and I even like it at medium altitudes. It's got some of the best instantaneous elevator response of any plane, which is great against the Bf109 and Fw190. I won't go into detail, but this is one aircraft that is EXCELLENT at evading and syphoning away enemy energy advantages, thanks to the excellent elevator. This aircraft makes a great transition from energy fighting to turning. Simply said, the P40, especially the E and M models are highly underrated. When flown in historical planesets, this plane makes for a dangerous foe for any Luftwaffe pilot.

Chuck_Older
03-07-2005, 04:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Germans respected it's manueverability in Russian hands, the AVG used them to great effect, and the RAF made do very well with them in Africa

Although a bit obsolete in 1941, and never able to emulate performance of other US main fighters, the P-40 held the line quite ably when used correctly. For an 'obsolete' plane, Curtiss sure made an awful lot of 'em

There is something about the P-40 that is attractive, particularly the earlier models

The P-40 got it's bad rep, IMO, from USAAC/USAAF doctrine that was used in the PTO, negating the P-40s advantages and highlighting it's shortcomings against lighter, more nimble Japanese aircraft
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/Salween4.jpg

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">DING HAO!</span>

DangerForward
03-07-2005, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Germans respected it's manueverability in Russian hands, the AVG used them to great effect, and the RAF made do very well with them in Africa

Although a bit obsolete in 1941, and never able to emulate performance of other US main fighters, the P-40 held the line quite ably when used correctly. For an 'obsolete' plane, Curtiss sure made an awful lot of 'em

There is something about the P-40 that is attractive, particularly the earlier models

The P-40 got it's bad rep, IMO, from USAAC/USAAF doctrine that was used in the PTO, negating the P-40s advantages and highlighting it's shortcomings against lighter, more nimble Japanese aircraft
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/Salween4.jpg

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">DING HAO!</span> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the Med it really didn't do as well either. I read JG27 got more P40 kills than any other allied type. I think the loss ratio in the Med was about 1 for 1 in the P40.

mortoma
03-07-2005, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Germans respected it's manueverability in Russian hands, the AVG used them to great effect, and the RAF made do very well with them in Africa

Although a bit obsolete in 1941, and never able to emulate performance of other US main fighters, the P-40 held the line quite ably when used correctly. For an 'obsolete' plane, Curtiss sure made an awful lot of 'em

There is something about the P-40 that is attractive, particularly the earlier models

The P-40 got it's bad rep, IMO, from USAAC/USAAF doctrine that was used in the PTO, negating the P-40s advantages and highlighting it's shortcomings against lighter, more nimble Japanese aircraft
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/Salween4.jpg

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">DING HAO!</span> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are precisely correct, the same reason the P-39 and the Buffalo got a bad rap. In the case of the Buffalo, just one battle ( Midway ) gave it a bum rap and it was mostly due to the green U.S. pilots against veteran Japanese ones!!! And being outnumbered a bit didn't help either. They were quick to judge in it's case.

And the P-40 was a 'bad' fighter simply because it didn't turn like a Japanese fighter. By the time they began the doctrine of exploiting a planes strengths and using different tactics other than turning only, the damage to the P-40s reputation had already been done. I also think to some extent the pilots wanted the latest and hottest plane in the arsenal and the P-40 was not that by 1941, so it was unpopular with some pilots for that reason. It also was difficult to master. But once a good pilot got used to it and gave it a chance, it was very dangerous.

horseback
03-07-2005, 04:26 PM
Depends on whose book you're reading. In the initial combats against the Japanese in the Pacific (as opposed to the AVG in Burma and later, China), it was improperly used and did poorly at first. Once the USAAF pilots discerned its relative strengths and weaknesses, they were much more successful, and it soldiered on into 1944 in the Pacific and CBI.

British and Commonwealth fighter units had made an overall poor showing in North Africa with the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, but I consider that a direct result of poor transition training and bad tactics (they tried to fly it the same way they flew the earlier Hurricane, and concentrated on defensive air to air tactics).

The JGs in North Africa had their way with these units, so the appearance of American flown Warhawks in alte 1942 must have whetted their appetites.

The Americans, however, were long-acquainted with their mounts' strengths and weaknesses, and refused to play the Jagdewaffe's game the way the Desert Air Force had. P-40F/L and K equipped units proved much more successful and did quite well before transitioning to the P-47 or Mustang.

The P-40 was a poor climber, but it could turn well, had a reasonable speed & accelleration below 15,000 ft, excellent firepower, was solidly built and had an awesome dive, which allowed a pretty good zoom recovery.

Its reputation for poor maneuverability was mainly due to comparison to its primary opponents in the Pacific, the Zero and Oscar. Not being able to turn like the Zero or Oscar is like having people say you can't run the football like LaDanian Tomlinson.

It's no indication of how bad you are, it just says that you aren't the best.

cheers

horseback
cheers

PBNA-Boosher
03-07-2005, 04:30 PM
The P-40 is my main American ride, man! It kicks a$$ on any task, any day. It's awesomely sturdy, got great firepower, plenty of ammo, very reliable, and looks TOO **** COOL WITH A SHARKMOUTH! Speed might be a bit slow, but its roll rate and maneuverability makes up for it.

THe P-40 is an excellent plane, everyone just talks **** about it b/c they don't take the time to learn its art.

Chuck_Older
03-07-2005, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:


In the Med it really didn't do as well either. I read JG27 got more P40 kills than any other allied type. I think the loss ratio in the Med was about 1 for 1 in the P40. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG27 was a pretty good unit, I hear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
03-07-2005, 04:45 PM
I understand that in the Med. the P-40 did decently well. It was used in the low alt tactical role and it was a good match for turning with the 109s it was up against. Not sure on loss rates...just some readings that I had done.

Its a great plane but you can see why its only useful in some roles. Against the late war opposition, you definately want the P-47 and P-51 on the spoke and not the P-40. Still, a useful weapon in the right hands during that crucial period early in the war when they needed fighters no matter what.

I think it was a scandal after the war with fingers pointed at Curtiss that produced the fighter all the way through but was unable to really improve its performance.

DangerForward
03-07-2005, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
British and Commonwealth fighter units had made an overall poor showing in North Africa with the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, but I consider that a direct result of poor transition training and bad tactics (they tried to fly it the same way they flew the earlier Hurricane, and concentrated on defensive air to air tactics).

The JGs in North Africa had their way with these units, so the appearance of American flown Warhawks in alte 1942 must have whetted their appetites.

The Americans, however, were long-acquainted with their mounts' strengths and weaknesses, and refused to play the Jagdewaffe's game the way the Desert Air Force had. P-40F/L and K equipped units proved much more successful and did quite well before transitioning to the P-47 or Mustang.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The USAAF P40s in the Med had 480 victories for 553 losses, so life wasn't easy. In the game the P40E/M are pretty decent, the real challenge is the Tomahawks, they're much harder to fly. Against the Japanese planes they're not so bad, but against 109s(or KI-61) you're in for a workout.

Drifter_Bob
03-07-2005, 04:49 PM
See my other post about the performance fighting in the Med. The JG 27 did do well against the type, (notably Marsailles who probably shot down 75 Kittyhawks personally) but as somebody already mentioned, this was due to flying defensive tactics, specifically Lufberry Circle, and mostly these were poorly trained Commonwealth pilots, particularly South Africans. Any fighter pilot knows a defensive tactic is a big mistake, especially against good opposition. Training standards for allied pilots at this stage of the war were often sub-par. Those pilots who did reach a high level of competence did very well with the type, like Clive Caldwell who shot down two German Experten among his score of kills.

I think the P-40 was a victim of it's very ubiquity. It was good enough to fight in every part of the world. As a result, it gets its "unmaneuverable" rep from comparisons with the Ki-43 and A6M, (as has been pointed out), and "slow" rep from fighting Bf 109 G and Fw 190 in North Africa and Russia.

In both cases, proper tactics made all the difference when applied.

Also, keep in mind the P-40B and E seen in most sims are very early war models, and the M is one of the worst of the series (like the K). The "Hottest" up engined and stripped P40 F, L and N models reached top speeds of 378 Mph+, and had much improved climb rates, putting them in the league of Bf 109F in terms of speed and dive, while retaining much of the maneueverability of the earlier versions.

(The British were annoyed that they got almost none of the Packard-Merlin engined types)

DB

Drifter_Bob
03-07-2005, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The USAAF P40s in the Med had 480 victories for 553 losses, so life wasn't easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you get this stat? I'm looking for more information on this. Success with the type seemed to vary quite a bit from unit to unit with the Americans as well as the British. The 325th for example did quite well with the type:

http://www.325thfg.org/totalvic.htm

DB

Blackdog5555
03-07-2005, 04:55 PM
Just reading air Command. page 29 a Barrie Davis, p51 pilot of the 325thFG talks about howthe final check out of a 51 pilot was a mock DF with a war weary P40. He stated that a good "innovated" pilot in a P40 could make a P51 'jocky" look outclassed at low altitudes. It really depended on the pilot.

DangerForward
03-07-2005, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Drifter_Bob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The USAAF P40s in the Med had 480 victories for 553 losses, so life wasn't easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you get this stat? I'm looking for more information on this. Success with the type seemed to vary quite a bit from unit to unit with the Americans as well as the British. The 325th for example did quite well with the type:

http://www.325thfg.org/totalvic.htm

DB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was in a comparison between the P39 and P40 in the Osprey "P39 Aces of the MTO ect...".

Drifter_Bob
03-07-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It was in a comparison between the P39 and P40 in the Osprey "P39 Aces of the MTO ect...". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats intereresting! P-40 Aces of the MTO says 592 victories!

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/molesworth.html

Shows you just how much work as yet to be done to actually come up with the real numbers, they still haven't done nearly enough comparing kill claims with the loss records of the other side

What was the gist of the comparison between the P-39 and the P-40?

DB

Yimmy
03-07-2005, 05:16 PM
In the game the P40 does little well. I would say it is slightly inferior to the Ki61 Ko. A Ki43 or Zeke eats it alive, as do most other aircraft.

Drifter_Bob
03-07-2005, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Just reading air Command. page 29 a Barrie Davis, p51 pilot of the 325thFG talks about howthe final check out of a 51 pilot was a mock DF with a war weary P40. He stated that a good "innovated" pilot in a P40 could make a P51 'jocky" look outclassed at low altitudes. It really depended on the pilot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read a lot of anecdotes like that, many similar mock dogfights between the P-40 and P-38, P-47, P-51 (especially) Hurricane and even the Spitfire showed the P-40 to be superior at low altitude, beneath it's critical poop-out point of 15,000 feet.

However you place it against those aircraft at low altitude, the P-40 clearly did best in theaters like Burma, Russia, or North Africa where cloud ceiling, and / or the tactical nature of the combat (i.e. bomber missions) relegated the fighting to lower altitude. I think that is also why it seems good in flight Sims because in most of 'em (especially Il2 series) the fighting is done at a pretty low altitude.

The thing is, I think there WAS a major need for good low altitude fighters, and I also think the P-40 and P-39 both get unfair raps as if they were the only two fighters in the world tht didn't perform well at 20,000 feet plus.

Db

DangerForward
03-07-2005, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Drifter_Bob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It was in a comparison between the P39 and P40 in the Osprey "P39 Aces of the MTO ect...". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats intereresting! P-40 Aces of the MTO says 592 victories!

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/molesworth.html

Shows you just how much work as yet to be done to actually come up with the real numbers, they still haven't done nearly enough comparing kill claims with the loss records of the other side

What was the gist of the comparison between the P-39 and the P-40?

DB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, you're right, I have both those books. I think the sub-500 number is aerial victories, while the 500+ number is air and ground.

As far as the P39 vs. P40 comparison they were trying to explain why the P39 had such a poor victory/loss record in the Med. Their main argument was that since the P39 did mainly air to ground(because of range) missions they took higher losses.

heywooood
03-07-2005, 05:34 PM
use like the AVG used it...get altitude, BnZ, and dont hang around...also this plane is good for stafing mech.columns and airbases inspite of its glass jaw.

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 05:45 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ _______________________
DangerForward posted Mon March 07 2005 15:20
In the Med it really didn't do as well either. I read JG27 got more P40 kills than any other allied type. I think the loss ratio in the Med was about 1 for 1 in the P40.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



The 325th Checker Tails seemed to do pretty good with the P40 :

North Africa was the first place the Hawks and Eagles met, but it was not their last confrontation. On the Russian front Soviet P-40s faced the Luftwaffe's 109s and Focke Wulf 190s with considerable success. In Italy the 325 Fighter Group, known as the "Checker-Tailed Clan" because of the yellow and black checkerboards painted on their tails, scored two impressive victories over German 109s.

On 1 July 1943, 22 P-40s made a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109s surprised the checker-tails, engaging them at moderate altitude where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Germans lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back.

A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40s were bounced by thirty-five 109s. The Germans limped home after losing 21 of their own while the checker-tails came through with only one loss. The Germans lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109s) to the pilots of the checkered-tail P-40s while shooting down only seventeen of the 325th.

Back in North Africa, the most successful engagement by Tomahawks was what has come to be known as the Palm Sunday Massacre. Just before sundown on Palm Sunday, 18 April 1943, P-40s on anti-transport patrol spotted over 60 Ju-52s escorted by 21 fighters off of Cape Bon, making their way to Sicily. Elements of the 57th and 324th as well as the British 92 Squadron intercepted. 11 Spitfires covered 46 P-40Fs as they pounced on the Axis formations, ripping them to shreds. The carnage ended with 59 Ju-52s and 16 fighters crashing into the sea or Tunisian soil for the loss of only 6 P-40s.


___


Captured Zeke vs P40 Flight Test :

Mitsubishi Type 0 Evaluation, Feb 1943. CONFIDENTIAL


Subject airplane is a type Zero Mark 1, Carrier Fighter---is the same as an A6M2 Zero.

I noticed the rated 900hp radial engine didn't produce 900hp and the horizontal and dive speeds were lower than expected. Also interesting is noting at what speed the ailerons and controls are sluggish :

b. Dives - The highest speed attained in diving was 300 m.p.h. indicated.

[Above 200 m.p.h., the Zero became increasingly hard to maneuver], .....

and at 300 m.p.h. requires a great deal of force on the controls for even a gentle turn. At these speeds, the airplane is very stable, and especially so about the longitudinal axis. It has no tendency whatever to roll in a dive, and at 300 m.p.h. it is practically impossible to make it roll.

[Above 226 m.p.h. indicated the P-40 will out maneuver the Zero ]

- thus a Zero airplane pursuing one of our own airplanes in a dive is completely at the mercy of any following P-40's or similar pursuit aircraft. This probably explains why they rarely if ever follow our own aircraft in even a shallow dive where they could keep up for a short while.



Complete Report :

Mitsubishi Type 0 Evaluation, Feb 1943. CONFIDENTIAL.

HEADQUARTERS TWENTY THIRD FIGHTER GROUP

Office of the Commanding Officer.
A.P.O.627
New York, N.Y.
6 February 1943

SUBJECT: General Technical Data and Flight Characteristics of the Japanese Zero Fighter Airplane.

TO: Commanding General, China Air Task Force.

1:- Subject airplane is a type Zero Mark 1, Carrier Fighter, Japanese No. P 5016. All tests were conducted by the undersigned, and such conclusions and remarks contained herein regarding performance as do not involve mathematical rates or measures are the opinions of this officer.

2:- All tests were carried out at Kunming, China, and comparative performance with P-40K and P-43A1 aircraft was tabulated. Insomuch as the elevation of the Kunming airdrome is above 5000 feet, the minimum altitude at which performance tests were run was 10000 feet.

3:- Insomuch as subject airplane is being flown to India this date, and numerous photographs have already been forwarded, technical data given is brief and of a general nature. Proper facilities do not exist at this station for complete disassembly and inspection of parts, or for testing of materials. No dimensions are given as these are already known and have been published by the Air Forces Intelligence Service.

4:- GENERAL TECHNICAL DATA
a. The Japanese Navy Zero airplane is a low wing, single radial engine, single seat, all metal, flush riveted monoplane of very light construction. The fuselage is of semi- monocoque design. The thickness of wing and fuselage skin covering is .02 inch, and is unstressed. The landing gear is fully retractable. The weight of the airplane, fully serviced, with belly tank installed is approximately 5600 pounds.
b. Engine: The engine is a 14 cylinder, twin row radial of almost identical design to our own Pratt & Whitney R-1535 series, and is tightly cowled. Accessories and accessory drive are similar to our own engine, the chief differences being in the oil cooler design and the float type carburetor. This engine, contrary to opinion and data expressed elsewhere, will not develop 900 H.P., nor is its altitude performance superior to our own standard fighter craft engines of single stage, single speed, mechanically driven blowers. This engine at full throttle and full r.p.m. with the aid of 160 indicated mph of ram, will hold zero boost only to 16000 feet indicated. Our own P-40K Allison V-1710-73 will, at 3000 rpm, hold zero boost, with benefit of 230 indicated m.p.h. of ram, to 22000 feet indicated. However, it is believed that the propellor on this particular Zero airplane is not set to permit maximum allowable r.p.m. (maximum obtainable r.p.m. was 2075).
c. Fuel System: The fuel system consists of two wing tanks of 55 gallons capacity each, one fuselage tank mounted ahead of the instrument panel of 37 gallons capacity, and one non-streamlined detachable belly tank of 88 gallons capacity (total fuel capacity 235 U.S. gallons). All tanks are non-bullet proof. A motor driven fuel pump of similar design to our own furnishes fuel to the carburetor at a pressure of .33 kg/sq.cm. This is believed to be normal pressure; the pressure increases markedly with positive acceleration forces on the airplane. A wobble pump of similar design to our own supplements the motor driven pump. Two fuel ***** control the selection of tanks (the forward **** is shown in the lower left hand corner of attached cockpit picture, just aft of the two fuel gages). One **** controls selection between the belly and fuselage tanks; its third position is "off". The other **** controls selection between the two wing tanks; its four positions are; "left wing, right wing, both and off". The systems controlled by the two ***** are in parallel, but should not be used simultaneously as fuel will drain from the higher fuselage tank to the lower wing tanks when the two systems are inter-connected. Thus, if such draining fills the wing tanks, the action will continue with fuel running thru the wing tank overflows until the fuselage tank is completely drained. 91 octane fuel was used in the conduct of all tests, and at full throttle at 10000 feet no detonation was experienced. This indicates that timing was probably slow, insomuch as engine is reportedly designed to operate on 100 octane fuel; normal performance probably was still further reduced thereby.

d. Landing gear: The landing gear is retractable and of the conventional full cantilever, laterally braced type. The gear retracts inboard and forms a flush, integral surface with the fuselage. The landing gear lock is of a mechanical finger and recession. The finger, however, abuts against the recession at approximately a 20 deg. angle off of a dead center position. The plate containing the lock recession is an integral part of the strut itself, hence the locking device bears a 20 degree component of the entire lateral forces on the gear, reduced the ratio of lever arms about the main hinge point of the strut. The main wheels are small and there is little clearance between wheels and wheel cowling. The struts are of conventional, telescoping oleo type. The gear is hydraulically actuated. The tailwheel is four inches in diameter and mounts a hard rubber tire. It is fully retractable normally, but on this plane has been slightly damaged so that it does not fully retract. A landing hook, raised and lowered by a lever on the right side of the cockpit, is mounted just ahead of the tail wheel.

e. Propellor: The propellor is a three aluminum blade, hydraulically operated, constant speed type.

f. Engine Accessories:
(1) Boost control: An automatic boost control is provided. A selector lever is provided in order that this control may be thrown in or out of operation as desired. Details of construction and operation of the boost control are unknown.

(2) Mixture control: Two mixture control devices are provided. One is automatic for all normal operations. The other is a manually operated control for leaning the idling mixture - this is operated whenever the engine tends to load up during prolonged periods of idling.
(3) Carburetor: The carburetor is a double barreled, float type. No idle cut-off device is incorporated.
(4) Oil Cooler: The oil cooler is mounted below the engine and is fed thru a duct in the ring cowling, with a butterfly valve shutter mounted in its throat. The cooler consists of a coil of copper tubing.
(5) Other engine accessories are very similar to our own conventional designs.

g. Hydraulic System: The hydraulic system operates the landing gear and flaps. It is very similar to that of our own P-43 aircraft, and its normal operating pressure is about 750 pounds per square inch. The motor driven hydraulic pump is not dis-engagable and supplies continuous pressure to the system. A hand operated pump is provided similar to our own two stroke, piston-type pumps. The wheel system and flap system are in parallel and common selector levers are provided for both systems exactly as in the P-43. In this particular airplane the motor driven pump rotor has been removed for safety (the hose connections of the hydraulic system are slightly deteriorated) and all operations are accomplished with the hand pump.

h. Controls: All air control surfaces, linkages, and operating devices are conventional. Ailerons and elevators are of very small area and the tail must be held down at all warm up speeds in excess of 1?00 r.p.m. Stabiliser skin protrudes as a flap to make a flush joint with rudder and elevator surfaces. Tab control is provided for elevator control surfaces only. The stick is conventional and contains no actuating levers or buttons. Gun trigger and selector levers are mounted on the throttle control. The rudder is controlled by a solid bar instead of individual pedals. Brakes are conventional hydraulic and are toe operated. All engine, propellor, and accessory controls are conventional and conventionally located.

i. Armor:- This airplane contains no armor, bullet proof glass, bullet proof fuel tanks, or any other kind of protection.

j. Armament:- The armament consists of two manually charged 30 caliber, synchronized machine guns firing thru the propellor above the propellor axis, and two twenty mm. cannon, one mounted in each wing just outboard of the propellor arc. Rates of fire are unknown. The wing guns are charged by compressed air from a cylinder reservoir. Ammunition and magazines for the guns have been forwarded under separate cover to the Commanding General, 10th U.S. Air Force. Details of gun operation and ammunition are unknown.

k. No radio equipment was obtained with this airplane.
l. Oxygen equipment has been forwarded under separate cover. The undersigned did not see this equipment.
m. Instruments and Cockpit Controls:- The following instruments and cockpit controls are indicated in the accompanying cockpit photograph.
(1) Artificial horizon - similar to our own.
(2) Bank and turn - similar to our own.
(3) Air speed indicator - one of our own was installed in this plane.
(4) Rate of climb indicator - similar to our own. Graduated in hundreds of meters per second.
(5) Oil and fuel pressure gages - Graduated in kg/sq.cm.
(6) Tachometer - Graduated in hundreds of r.p.m.
(7) Altimeter - Graduated in hundreds of meters.
(8) Cylinder head temperature - One of our own is installed in this plane.
(9) Oil temperature gage - Graduated in degrees centigrade.
(10) Manifold pressure gage - graduated in centimeters of mercury above and below standard atmospheric (standard atmospheric pressure is designated as zero boost on the gage).
(11) Inclinometer - Mercury column indicates a climbing or diving attitude of airplane in degrees. Normal attitude of zero degrees is assumed by airplane at about 190 m.p.h. indicated in level flight at 4000 meters altitude.
(12) Fuel gages - These gages are of the liquidometer type and must be energized by pulling out the small button adjacent to gage and releasing. After energizing, the gages read accurately in level flight for about 15 seconds. The gages are graduated in liters.
(13) Compass - Conventional floating card type with adjustable, course-setting, planar compass rose mounted around periphery of compass bowl. Correction card is mounted underneath.
(14) Oil cooler flap control.
(15) Cowl flap control.
(16) Engine primer.
(17) Ignition switch.
(18) Booster coil control button.
(19) Propellor control lever (full rear position gives high r.p.m.)
(20) Mixture control - Use of this control is not fully understood, as in the rear position of this lever, mixture control is automatic. Movement of the lever to any forward position at any altitude causes no perceptible change in engine operation.
(21) Throttle lever with gun selector and actuating controls mounted thereon - Wing or synchronized guns may be separately fired, or all may be fired simultaneously.
(22) Idling mixture control - This lever is spring loaded with normal position to the rear. Pushing the lever forward leans the idling mixture and prevents fouling of the engine during engine warm up. Apparently there is no thermostatically controlled by-pass around the oil cooler, for it requires about five minutes for the oil to warm up sufficiently for take off (at an air temperature of 50 deg.F).
(23) Fuel wobble pump lever.
(24) Selector button for engaging automatic boost control.
n. Miscellaneous.
(1) Primer. - An engine primer supplies fuel to three cylinders for starting.
(2) Magneto. - Ignition is furnished by a magneto very similar to our own. A magneto booster coil, actuated by a button just above the ignition switch, is used for starting.
(3) Cowl Flaps. - Cowl flaps similar in construction and purpose to our own radial engine cowl flaps are operated by a hand crank on the forward right hand side of the cockpit.
(4) Belly tank. - The belly tank is of excellent construction and is secured to the fuselage beneath the airplane with one connection. It is released by a handle on the left side of the cockpit.
(5) Foot Guards. - A foot guard is provided on each rudder pedal (see cockpit picture) - thus if the pilot loses the use of one leg he can still actuate the rudder.
(6) Canopy. - The canopy is of the standard sliding type with stud and slot type lock. Various slots along the canopy track afford different positions of opening for the canopy. There is no emergency release.
5:- The materials used in the Zero airplane are of excellent quality. Generally, the workmanship of both airplane and power plant is rather mediocre. The most notable feature of the construction of this airplane is its utter lack of sectionalization. Any damage inflicted necessitates a major depot overhaul for repair.

6: - PERFORMANCE:-
a. High speed tests were as follows:
ALTITUDE (Feet) 10000 15000 20000 25000
IND AIR SPEED (mph) 238 219 190 171
TRUE AIR SPEED (mph) 286 289 270 265
R.P.M. 2050 2050 2050 2050
MAN PRESS (cm Hg) +12 +2 -8 -13
Cyl Head Temp (deg C) 235 228 226 225
OIL TEMP (deg.C) 55 55 55 55
OIL Press (Kg/Sq cm) 5 5 5 4.8
FUEL Press )Kg/Sq Cm) 0.42 0.4 0.4 0.38
Notes:
1. All of above performances were run at full throttle and maximum r.p.m. propellor setting.
2. It is believed that oil temperature gage was inaccurate.
3. True air speed was computed by estimating temperature at the various altitudes. A free air temperature gage was not available.
b. Maximum climb tests were as follows:
ALTITUDE (Feet) 10000-15000 15000-20000 20000-25000
AVERAGE I.A.S. 130 125 118
AVERAGE Rate/Climb 2690 Ft./S 2410 Ft./S 1785 Ft./S
c. Estimated normal cruising at 12000 feet indicated is 1700 r.p.m. and -7 cm. Hg. boost. The power output under these conditions is unknown; the indicated air speed was 197 mph, or a true air speed of approximately 245 mph. Fuel consumption under these conditions was 37 gallons per hour. Fuel consumption at other power output conditions was not tested due to limited time and a very limited supply of fuel.
d. Airplane stalls as follows:
FLAPS UP FLAPS DOWN.
POWER ON 62 53
POWER OFF 70 59
Ceiling tests were not conducted on account of lack of proper oxygen equipment.

7:- - RELATIVE PERFORMANCE WITH P-40K AND P-43A-1 AIRCRAFT
a. Climb - The Zero airplane maintains a higher rate of climb than the P-40K-1 at all altitudes in excess of 10000 feet. However, it is believed that below 5000 feet, the P-40K-1 would climb faster. The P-43 A-1 will maintain a higher rate of climb than the Zero at any altitude above 12,500 feet. In climb tests with this airplane, the P-43 was operated at 2500 r.p.m. and 42" Hg., and with this output did not achieve the advantage in climb until 12,500 feet was reached. However, with maximum allowable output of the P-43 engine (2700 r.p.m. and 48.5 in. Hg.) it is believed this airplane would outclimb the Zero at any altitude. The P-43 was not operated at maximum engine performance on account of the extreme importance of conservation of equipment in this theatre.

b. High Speed and Acceleration - Both the P-40K-1 and the P-43A-1 are considerably faster than the Zero at any altitude. Acceleration tests were run at 13000 feet indicated with the following results:
(1) P-40K-1 versus Zero. Airplanes were flown side by side at 200 m.p.h. indicated. On signal, both engines were given full throttle and full r.p.m. For seven seconds the two planes accelerated equally, at which time the P-40 began to pull away very rapidly. Twelve seconds after acceleration signal was given, the differential speed was estimated at ten m.p.h.

(2) P-43 A-1 vs. Zero. The same test was performed as with the P-40K-1, but at an initial speed of 190 m.p.h. indicated. After signal was given, Zero gained about one quarter plane length on the P-43, after which P-43 pulled away, but not as rapidly as the P-40. Again the P-43 was operated at 42 in.Hg. and 2500 r.p.m. - as compared to 3000 r.p.m. and 41 in. Hg. with the P-40.

c. Individual Combat. - Several dog fights were carried out with both the P-40K-1 and P-43A-1, using various tactics. The Zero is, of course, vastly superior in maneuverability. It was found that the P-40 can, however, effectively fight the Zero without necessarily diving away. This is accomplished by proceeding away from the Zero on initial pass at high speed until approximately one and a half miles away, at which time a maximum turn is begun back into the path of the pursuing Zero. This turn can be completed just in time for the P-40 to pass thru the path of the Zero and barely miss a collision. If the Zero does not dodge from his own attack, the P-40 can fire a very effective head on burst in this manner. Of course, the Zero can take evasive action, but he cannot maneuver into such a position as to get effective fire into the P-40 without also getting return fire.
With the P-43, the same tactics can be used, but head on runs are not advisable with this airplane due to lack of both fire-power and protection. It is believed that the best tactics for engaging the Zero in individual combat with the P-43 is to climb away from the Zero and attempt to gain an advantageous position for a diving attack. The P-43 has a slight advantage in rate of climb, as before mentioned, and has a considerably higher best climbing speed.
It is advised never to engage in a turning fight with the Zero with either a P-40 or P-43 type airplane - but the above tactics may be effectively used provided the combat involves only two single airplanes.

8:- FLYING CHARACTERISTICS
a. Maneuverability - The Zero is very maneuverable. It will turn a little shorter than our own P-36A, but is slightly slower than this airplane and has a lower rate of climb. At altitudes below 12000 feet, the P-36A has a much better rate of climb and is almost as maneuverable.
b. Dives - The highest speed attained in diving was 300 m.p.h. indicated. Above 200 m.p.h., the Zero became increasingly hard to maneuver, and at 300 m.p.h. requires a great deal of force on the controls for even a gentle turn. At these speeds, the airplane is very stable, and especially so about the longitudinal axis. It has no tendency whatever to roll in a dive, and at 300 m.p.h. it is practically impossible to make it roll. Above 226 m.p.h. indicated the P-40 will out maneuver the Zero - thus a Zero airplane pursuing one of our own airplanes in a dive is completely at the mercy of any following P-40's or similar pursuit aircraft. This probably explains why they rarely if ever follow our own aircraft in even a shallow dive where they could keep up for a short while.

c. Stalls - The Zero stalls very smoothly, even in tight turns. It has no tendency to whip on stalling, nor does it have any €œsquashing€ tendencies like the P-26. At speeds above about 200 m.p.h. indicated, it is believed impossible to exert enough pressure on the elevators to cause the airplane to stall. This was not actually tried, however, for fear of a structural failure.

d. Landing - The airplane glides at 85 m.p.h. with flaps down and lands at about 65. It is very easy to land and has no ground looping tendencies whatever. The tail wheel is non-steerable and non-lockable.

e. Generally, the Zero is a very simple and easy airplane to operate. It has a high power loading and is consequently easy to get out of €œtight spots€ or difficult situations. It is structurally very weak, however, and must be handled with respect. It would be very foolish to attempt a forced landing with the Zero in any but very smooth terrain.

9:- REMARKS
a. Visibility is very poor directly ahead and down. Otherwise, visibility is good.
b. Best engine warm-up speed is 900 - 950 r.p.m.
c. The engine will not run under any conditions of negative acceleration, inverted, or in a steep skid. A Zero is unable to follow any airplane which does a sharp pushover unless it rolls and it cannot roll at high speed.
d. The Zero is manufactured of excellent materials, but it exhibits mediocre workmanship throughout.
10:- A more detailed technical report will be submitted on this air-plane in the near future.

B. K. HOLLOWAY
Lt. Col., Air Corps
Commanding.

bird_brain
03-07-2005, 05:56 PM
The P-40 is a great aircraft if you can pick your fight. It ain't easy to sucker the enemy into a low altitude B&Z contest. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am afraid it was doomed to be a second line fighter when they left off the supercharger. Most of the front line fighters had better high altitude performance which gave them the high ground and left the P-40 open to attack from above. It had good speed, it was tough and it was quite maneuverable, but if you get low & slow, you are shark chum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

There must be a good reason that it is the only US fighter that stayed in production from before WWII started until it was over. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

All this aside, it is definately my favorite ride. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Drifter_Bob
03-07-2005, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bird_brain:
The P-40 is a great aircraft if you can pick your fight. It ain't easy to sucker the enemy into a low altitude B&Z contest. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am afraid it was doomed to be a second line fighter when they left off the supercharger. Most of the front line fighters had better high altitude performance which gave them the high ground and left the P-40 open to attack from above. It had good speed, it was tough and it was quite maneuverable, but if you get low & slow, you are shark chum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, I think this is the conventional wisdom (perhaps spread by some British historians) but I don't think it's necessarily true. It reallyt all depends on A) the cloud ceiling, and B) the type of bombing missions being flown. Fighters are there to stop or protect bombers, or to bomb themselves. So in battles where medium or heavy bombers are bombing cities and railyards (i.e. strategic) then yes the P-40 has no mission due to it's lack of high altitude supercharger. But on the tactical battlefield, where the bombers (and fighter bombers) are coming in trying to knock out ships, or tanks and bridges and supply columns, and perform close air support, then the P-40 is in it's element.

If I'm escorting B-25's skip-bombing your transport ships or harbor facilities, or Il2's on the way to wipe out your tank column, you HAVE to come down to fight at my altitude if you want to catch them. If you are defending Stukas or Vals or Bettys flying at low to medium altitude trying to take out tactical targets , similarly you are going to have to fight "my" fight.

Thats why in areas where the fighting was at low altitude, like North Africa or Burma or Russia, the P-40 was actually the better fighter than many other alternatives which have better high altitude performance (like the Hurricane or I would even say the Spit 5)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There must be a good reason that it is the only US fighter that stayed in production from before WWII started until it was over. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, see above... but then again, not necesssarily .. I'm not sure why the Stealth Bomber or the B1 are still in production and I doubt the pentagon does either...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
All this aside, it is definately my favorite ride. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mine too!

DB

Drifter_Bob
03-07-2005, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bird_brain:
The P-40 is a great aircraft if you can pick your fight. It ain't easy to sucker the enemy into a low altitude B&Z contest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, from a strictly in-game perspective, I find the P-40 is hardly so limited. I "flew" it for about a year on the Ubisoft server, always in the more realistic rooms (spins on!, and sometimes no external views or maps)

I always found that regardless, I could actually do quite well against most types of enemy planes unless I was badly outnumbered or had a really bad E disadvantage. Hurricanes, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, P-39 Yak 9 Yak 7 Yak 1 LaGG 3 etc. all easy victims. On equal starting E terms (i.e. a head on pass) I found the earilier 109 marks (E,F, up to G-6) fairly easy prey unless the pilot was very, very good. Later marks are so much faster they can BnZ but that is a tricky game i know well... Early Spits an easy kill, IX Spit about even, any later Spit, or Yak 3 or La 7 was very tough but those are very advanced planes! Ki-84C and jets were basically impossible so I didn't fly against them if i had a choice. Gladiator, and I-153 could give me a very hard time if i didn't keep a careful eye on them, but with a bit of patience easily BnZ. FW hard to catch and very dangerous if it blindsides you but easy to evade by turning if you know it's coming and if i could get anywhere near them, dead meat. Zeroes I could usually handle if I kept my speed up.

I haven't got the hardware upgrade I need for PF so I haven't tried out the P-40 against the new USN and IJN planes yet... I also haven't flown on the hyperlobby server yet.

In short though, i always found that the P-40 could hold its own quite well online, even against a variety of approaches. The fast dive speed, the ability to break and out turn most attacks, the large amount of ammo and the durability (allowing me to survive hits which would kill me 3 times over in a spit) all led to a pretty good record in that plane.

DB

ImpStarDuece
03-07-2005, 09:09 PM
I think that with the current dogfighting regime that most pilots tend to stick to in the game the P-40 is in the best section of its envelope, and the results show it. I do not think, however, that the P-40 was quite as of a machine in real life as reflected by it results in the sim.

Most dogfights online occur between 1000 and 4000 meters, at engagement speeds usually less than 450 km. In the heavier air and at medium speeds the Allison performs very well and the P-40 is an easy bird to fly.

Most fights, although this is dependent somewhat on the server type, seem to quickly degenerate into low altitude slugging matches where speed and climb take a secondary role to instantaneous turn, sustained turn, ruggedness and acceleration. Here is where the P-40 tends to win out. With its very good rate of roll, good sustained turn, comparatively gentle stall characteristics and ability to absorb glancing hits it makes an excellent machine to be in a T'n'B fight in a European type setting.

Its major European opponents are usually LW types: FW 190A4, Me 109F and G and Me 110. It can turn and dive with the 109, is much tougher and has superior forward vision. The 109 does out climb the P-40 and I would feel more confident in a sustained slow speed fight in the 109 because of its superior climb and acceleration. In a coequal E situation I would choose the 109 because of its ability to use vertical climbs to build an energy advantage. In a down and dirty turn fight I would choose the P-40, but pray for a wingman.

VS the 190 the P-40 is in a similar situation to a Spitfire; it lacks the speed to dictate the terms of engagement but has significant maneuverability advantages. However, unlike the Spitfire it can't threaten the 190 with superior slow speed climb, but is roughly equal with the Wurger in a dive and has similarly good handling at high speed. The FWs armament is good enough however to be almost assured of a kill with a good pass, something that the 109 lacks. Co energy I would put the advantage to the P-40 unless the FW driver has some brains and simply extends and booms him. Short of suckering the 190 into a low alt stall fight a P-40 pilot has little chance if caught by a faster or higher FW driver. Low and slow the 190 is probably meat, the P-40 very good roll, dive and turn mean that even a good scissoring FW pilot will have a hard time.


In a Pacific situation things are very different. The P-40 faces opponents that are more agile, climb better and are equal in speed but very lightly constructed. However the P-40 has dive acceleration and sustained dive advantages, zoom climb advantages, and an absolute advantage in high-speed controllability, at least until faced with the Ki-61. VS a A6M or a Ki-43 the P-40 should be limited to E fighting or B'n'Z regime. Its opponents are too agile and maneuverable at low speed and medium altitude for it to reasonably expect to survive a turn fight. They can outclimb, out turn and out accelerate the P-40 meaning that an allied pilot is in trouble if he is low or slow.

If the community based its fighting above 4000m I feel that the P-40 would struggle. At altitude is really doesn't have the advantage that are exploited on the deck. The way it€s used at the moment however makes it a very nice ride. I think it€s generally outperformed but does everything (turn, speed, climb, roll, dive) well enough that it can be pressed into any situation with reasonable expectations of success.

Bearcat99
03-07-2005, 09:28 PM
It is one of my all time favorite aircraft..... Wen I was 4 or 5 my cousin had a Cox P-40..... that was the first Warbird I ever saw... The Tomahawk is nice too...... I like te sound of the guns... at first I thought it was a dog but like most planes in thei sinm you just have to learn it to do better in it.

civildog
03-07-2005, 09:45 PM
Funny, most of the pilot biographies I have read about the P-40 say that while it was definitely not a cutting-edge fighter (and until the Mustang came out where ANY US planes ever really "cutting edge" compared to the German and British designs?), it could hold it's own against almost any opponent in the hands of a pilot who knew how to fly it.

Of course, this could also describe almost any plane in WW2 other than the Mustang, Spitfire, Focke-Wolfe, or 109. Those planes seemed to always be getting reworked to advance their design. P-40's just kept getting longer tails and bigger engines.

civildog
03-07-2005, 09:48 PM
Oh, and must admit that having the P-40 B/C (and the export versions, incl. the Hawk) was about the only reason I bothered with Pacific Fighters.

Except for the annoying reflector gunsights on the early planes they seem just as accurate as can be.

Drifter_Bob
03-07-2005, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think that with the current dogfighting regime that most pilots tend to stick to in the game the P-40 is in the best section of its envelope, and the results show it. I do not think, however, that the P-40 was quite as of a machine in real life as reflected by it results in the sim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good analysis and interesting post. I agree with much of your specific points, but would add one two points to your observation, first from the historical and then the in-game perspective. First, I just want to re-iterate my point that the altitude of the fighting in Il2 and many flight Sims reflects that of many actual WW II battlefronts, if not most of them, including the Russian front. If the air force is being used in a more tactical manner, i.e. close air support and interdiction, then the fighting is going to be at low altitude. By contrast, the ONLY time the fighting is really going to be at high altitude is when you have strategic bombing going on. It just so happened that most historians believe the most important air combat which went on in WW II was the German (BOB & Blitz), then British, then US / British strategic bombing campaigns.

The Russian perspective is different, since they believe that they acutally won the war and we were more of a sideshow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It remains to be seen what people will think 100 years from now.


Second, as somebody who "flew" P-40's in the Il2 Sim almost every day for about a year, I did encounter a lot of people flying using BnZ tactics, including Me 109, Fw 190, and La 7 to mention a few types. Bnz is a difficult tactic, requiring superb discipline and good flying ability. With each pass, you are playing a game that you can either sneak up behind your opponent, or do your vertical turn quickly enough that he cannot pull his nose up to point it at you in time, preferably.

Basically, BnZ works much better on those servers with no external visibility, in which case without a wingman it is much easier to get blindsided.

The P-40 is a good fighter to use to defend against BnZ though. It has pretty good forward firepower, enough to risk head on passes from all but the most heavily armed opponents (the heaviest armed Fw basically or the semi-mythical Ki84C) it's good turn and roll rate and the fact that as you say, it can take a few hits, makes it very good at getting it's nose pointed in the right direction. Once you realise you are being treated to the BnZ, all you have to do is make sure not to let yourself get "roped" into trying to chase the other plane into a climb and lose your E. You just level off and head toward your home base and watch him, and when he makes a pass you turn to face him. When he goes by, you turn again and try to catch him until it's obvious that you either can or cant. If he got away, you level off again and let him go.

One mistake on the part of the boom and zoom pilot, especially on extending, and he is doomed. This is especially true when and if their E gradually drops off and they are forced to dive after their pass to extend. Only a really good pilot flying a plane with a really good rate of climb can preven this.

As the BnZ "victim" you can also sucker them into turning a little and following you into dives, and again this is something the P-40 excells at due to the fact that seemingly, the faster it dives the better it handles and turns...

Either way, the more the BnZing aircraft is relying on diving AFTER their pass, the more likely I am to catch them. And I usually could catch them, again unless they were a truly brilliant pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

When you are really doomed in this situation is when you are alone and have two or more determined Bnz pilots who know how to work together...

DB

Drifter_Bob
03-07-2005, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As the BnZ "victim" you can also sucker them into turning a little and following you into dives, and again this is something the P-40 excells at due to the fact that seemingly, the faster it dives the better it handles and turns...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This same trait (the good dive speed and great high speed handling) is also what makes it relatively easy for the P-40 to BnZ Japanese planes like the Zero or the Ki-43. You can dive and turn and they simply cannot follow you. If they try to follow you in a dive you can actually out turn them and circle behind them and shoot them down!

DB