Author Topic: why is p40b so under powered?  (Read 1764 times)

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2005, 10:20:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by beet1e


 ...not that I flew the Big5 uberset myself, mind you.
 


No, you just flew in the horde and ran from every 1v1 you encountered.  Still flying that Rainbow flag?



ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2005, 10:32:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by CAP1
who had the first helicopters?


Not the Germans.  

1942 - Sikorsky R-4 Helicopter January 14, 1942 the first flights of the Sikorsky R-4 helicopter take place. The R-4 was the first operational single rotor practical helicopter.  It was also the only helicopter to see combat action with Allied forces in the CBU theater of operations.


Quote
they used jets for recon in 39, and 40 i believe[/b]


Nope.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline CAP1

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22287
      • The Axis Vs Allies Arena
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #32 on: March 26, 2005, 11:12:55 PM »
1939 i believe the germans had the very same twin rotor helicopter that is now built by kaman? i can't remember what its called though...<<""The first successful rotorcraft was a gyroplane, designed by Sr. Juan de La Cierva in Spain and flown on 17th of January, 1923. His success created much interest world wide and led to the development of the first successful helicopter, the Focke-Wulf,  Fw 61 which was first flown in June of 1936 in Germany. ""Prof. Heinrich Focke with a model of his Fa 223. Although the first Fa 223 was built in 1939, production did not start until 1942. It was far ahead of its time and was used during WWII to lift heavy canons and guns.>>>http://www.aeroscientists.org/helicopters.html...check out this website...has a nice bit of info on helis.....

 CYALL SOON
john
ingame 1LTCAP
80th FS "Headhunters"
S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning in a Bottle)

Offline Nockdown

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2005, 01:04:47 AM »
Why is it that everytime I discuss Axis airpower, everyone instantly defends the Luftwaffe, but never the Air forces of Japan or Italy, Huh?  The A6M was without a doubt for a brief moment, was an engineering marvel and the Japanese Naval Air Force was a far more threat to the U.S. than the Luftwaffe ever was.  Let us not forget the Italians either.  Their bomber crews were second to none until they were out paced by the production of the Norton bomb site.  Since the Luftwaffe was brought up however, let's discuss it.  This really should be on a new thread but, since we're here...
Eventually, when ever the performance of the Luftwaffe aircraft is put into question, the "if the Germans had done this" or "if they had it just a year earlier" comes into play.  Well let's face it; it didn't, so let us just take that out of the equation OK?  So what does that leave but the last defence.  The Luftwaffe was beaten by the shear weight of numbers.  Again, another misconception.
CAP1, I appreciate your argument, but I must disagree.
When you look at production numbers; yes the US had more fighters than the Germans did by a huge margin.  However when you look at operational numbers, then things quickly even out with the Allies only gaining a slight advantage in early to mid '45.  The reason is simple logistics.  It took the US on average 4 to 6 month to get fighters to the line in Europe because the distance was so large between the factory and the front.  The Germans on the other hand could put a fighter on the front lines in a matter of days because of their close proximity of the frontlines.  You must remember that fighters didn't have the gear to fly to England from the states.  They had to be shipped on a freighter and then reassembled at the front and that took allot of time.  It is that reason that the numbers theory just doesn't hold water.

Now I know that this is stinging some of you very deeply so bare with me because I'm about to stab even deeper.

Now I didn't bring up the numbers game, so remember that when you read the following.

Angola, May 1940

Luftwaffe: 236 single engine fighters and 26 twins (these numbers do not include the Italian Air Force since we're talking Luftwaffe here.  If we were, it would look far worse)

England: 141 single engine fighters and 8 twins

Winner: Draw (England lost the ground war but Germany never controled the sky, the Luftwaffe was never a factor in the fight even though they had the Technological edge.  109Es & Fs vs Gloster Gladiators and Hawker Fury's)

Malta 1940 to 42

Its history is well known and Malta never fell.  At its highest strength it had what, 61 Spits, against lets see, hhmmm, the entire Luftwaffe in the Med and Afrika

Winner:  Do I have to say it?  I don't see Luftwaffe here in the history books.

Let us keep going because it's going to get worse.

Battle of Britian 1940

Luftwaffe:  880 single engine fighters 220 Twins (You can include the 1500 bombers here if you really want to add the weight of numbers here)

England:  554 single engine fighters 110 twins

hummmm, yep it's official, numbers win, NOT!

I can go on and on here, let's face the facts.  The Luftwaffe aircraft were GARBAGE!  In just about every battle the Luftwaffe had a huge numbers advantage and they still lost.  If they were so supierior, why would they wait for the fighters to turn back before they attacked the bombers?  They always had the numbers, as many as 10 to 1 in some cases, yet they waited.  Could it be because they weren't all that great to begin with?  If they were the all terrible that some would want us to believe, why not take out the fighters and then chew the bombers up all the way back to England?
Now before the Rodney King treatment begins, I'd like to add one thing about the 262.  Not all of its losses in combat, contrary to popular opinion, were while it was in the landing pattern.  Most were shot down high above Germany by P47s and P51s and a few were even ran down by P38s.  I have yet to have met a single fighter pilot from WWII that would just stand by and let a 262 tear up a flight of B17s or 24s and then just go hang out by its runway and kill it while it was trying to land.  That's just absurd...

All I can say in closing is, I'm glad the Allies won and I'm grateful for all that they did, because had they lost, I doubt we would have the freedom we now have to even be having this discussion.

Good Hunting All! :aok

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2005, 01:39:48 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Not the Germans.  

1942 - Sikorsky R-4 Helicopter January 14, 1942 the first flights of the Sikorsky R-4 helicopter take place. The R-4 was the first operational single rotor practical helicopter.  It was also the only helicopter to see combat action with Allied forces in the CBU theater of operations.



"the first operational single rotor practical helicopter"

Always funny when they use so many qualifiers.



The world's first production helicopter (also the first transport helicopter and armed helicopter):

Fa 223 Drache - First flight 1940. Service delivery 1942.



It was a development of the Fa 61


Hanna Reitsch demonstrated the Fa-61 in the enclosed Deutschlandhalle sports stadium in Berlin in February 1938.




The world's second production helicopter:

Flettner Kolibri - First flight 1939. Service delivery 1942.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2005, 11:13:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Not the Germans.  

1942 - Sikorsky R-4 Helicopter January 14, 1942 the first flights of the Sikorsky R-4 helicopter take place. The R-4 was the first operational single rotor practical helicopter.  It was also the only helicopter to see combat action with Allied forces in the CBU theater of operations.


That's funny. It was definitely the Germans who had first practical helicopters. As mentioned, Focke Achgelis Fa-223 Drache was the world's first helicopter to achieve production status.

"The most successful and best known German rotary-wing aircraft was the Flettner Fl.282 "Kolibri" or Hummingbird, first produced in 1941. An unarmed, single or dual seat convoy escort machine with an open cockpit, (14) its existence was not noted by British Air Intelligence until 1944. The aircraft operated successfully in the Baltic, Mediterranean and Aegean Seas throughout 1943, along with the smaller, submarine-towed single-seat observation Fa.330. Both these aircraft followed in the wake of the successful Focke-Wulf Fw.61 which had flown from 1936 onwards, (16) having been the "first practicable helicopter".


Alongside those other German choppers were used in field in limited numbers, tests were done and their heavyweight lifting capability was not exceeded until the later 1950s.

"Germany made rapid strides in helicopter development in the 1930s and 1940s. The FA-61, designed by Heinrich Focke, flew for the first time on June 26, 1936. The FA-61 was the first practical design for a maneuverable helicopter. In 1937, as a propaganda stunt for the Nazi regime, the renowned female pilot Hanna Reitsch flew the FA-61 inside the city of Berlin’s Deutschlandhalle sports arena. Another German helicopter, the FL-282 Kolibri, was used by the German navy during World War II (1939-1945). It could fly at 140 km/h (90 mph) and reach an altitude of 4,000 m (13,000 ft) with a payload of 360 kg (800 lb). It was the first helicopter design produced in quantity"

" Focke Achgelis Fa61 (Germany)
      Fa-61: Germany stepped to the front in helicopter development with the Focke Achgelis Fa-61, which it has two three-bladed rotor mounted on outriggers and power by a 160 hp radial engine. The Fa-61 had controllable cyclic pitch and set many of records .
    In 1938, Fa-61 made an altitude flight of 11,243 feet and cross-country of 143 miles.In this year, the german aviator Hanna Reitsch became the world's first woman helicopter pilot by flying the Fa-61 in the Deustchland-halle in Berlin. Germany continued its helicopter development during world war two and was the first to place the helicopter,Flettner Kolibri, into mass production. "

" In 1935,  Focke designed and built a prototype of an autogyro which competed in the Luftwaffe contest to develop a utility and liaison aircraft.  The winner was the Fieseler Fi-156 Storch, and only one FW-186, which was essentially a FW-56 Stosser advanced trainer fuselage with  a single rotor assembly and a modified tail and landing gear.  This provides the basis for another kit conversion,  but not here.
    After the FW-186 project,  Focke decided to concentrate on the helicopter.  In true Germanic fashion,  he took an engineering approach, and formulated basic requirements for his aircraft,  which included controllability, reliability,  simplicity of control, adequate performance including reasonable cruising speed,  and ease of maintenance.  With these factors in mind,  he set about to develop a pure helicopter,  and aircraft with the primary power geared directly to controllable rotor blades, which provided both lift and thrust.
    After the concept was established,  Focke test flew a scale  model of the design,  and in 1934,  this model achieved an altitude of 59 feet,  which was equal to the altitude record for previous manned unsuccessful experimental helicopters.
The  first FW-61 prototype,  D-EBVU,  made its first tethered flights in early 1936.  On  26 June  1936, the aircraft made its first free flight  with test pilot Ewald Rohlfs in control.   By 1937,  the aircraft  had set  an altitude record of  1200 feet, and at that point,  Rohlfs cut the throttle, disengaged the clutch, and made the first autorotational descent to landing.  Later the FW-61 was flown to 8000 feet,  setting another record, and the same day an endurance record of 1 hour and 21 minutes and
a speed record of 76 mph  were  set.
    Later in 1937,  famed German woman pilot Hanna Reitsch began flying the aircraft,  setting distance records before her startling demonstration flights inside the Deutschlandhalle area in Berlin,  where she displayed the helicopter in free flight  indoors in an arena area of 100 by 250 feet in front of thousands of people.  Films of these flights were shown in the
United States,  stimulating the development process in this country that led to the Sikorsky helicopters several years later."

It's fascinating stuff, how the German choppers were about a decade ahead, when compared to for example the Sikorsky choppers. The German choppers were able to operate relatively high, could transport artillery pieces in mountain conditions and carry light vehicles. They even made tests with armed choppers. In one test a chopper was easily able to evade attacks by four Me 109s, showing how agile they were.

Offline dedalos

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8052
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #36 on: March 30, 2005, 10:48:50 AM »
P40s suck.  They could not even killa Spit9
Quote from: 2bighorn on December 15, 2010 at 03:46:18 PM
Dedalos pretty much ruined DA.

Offline Howitzer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1579
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #37 on: March 30, 2005, 02:48:09 PM »
So... what did we ever settle on as far as p40s go?  I think they are nice, but are they modelled wrong?

Offline Stang

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6127
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #38 on: March 30, 2005, 04:43:40 PM »
Roll rate should probably be better but the speed and acceleration seem about right... just good enough to hook unwitting la7 tardlings.

;)

Offline stantond

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 576
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2005, 04:53:31 PM »
I have to wonder why there is such a noticeable performance difference between the P40B and the P40E.  The E model had different guns and WEP, but the airframe was basically the same.  As such, I have to wonder why the P40B enters accelerated stalls so easily.  Both the B and E models are slow, but  the B model won't turn with an E model more than 180 degrees.  The P40B is just a death trap whenever I have flown it.

I kind of like the P40E.



Regards,

Malta

Offline dedalos

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8052
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #40 on: March 31, 2005, 08:18:18 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by stantond
I have to wonder why there is such a noticeable performance difference between the P40B and the P40E.  The E model had different guns and WEP, but the airframe was basically the same.  As such, I have to wonder why the P40B enters accelerated stalls so easily.  Both the B and E models are slow, but  the B model won't turn with an E model more than 180 degrees.  The P40B is just a death trap whenever I have flown it.

I kind of like the P40E.



Regards,

Malta


Almost switched to the B the other day cause I thought it turned better.  I'll give it another try.  Could be that the Spit driver was new.
Quote from: 2bighorn on December 15, 2010 at 03:46:18 PM
Dedalos pretty much ruined DA.

Offline Howitzer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1579
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #41 on: March 31, 2005, 08:48:03 AM »
I flew the B last night and I liked it.  Just looks fatter than the E.  Not sure it turns better, but it doesn't fly bad.  If I had to compare planes with the ENY of 60, my first choice would be the 202.  Fun to tinker around with though.

Offline dedalos

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8052
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #42 on: March 31, 2005, 09:18:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Howitzer
I flew the B last night and I liked it.  Just looks fatter than the E.  Not sure it turns better, but it doesn't fly bad.  If I had to compare planes with the ENY of 60, my first choice would be the 202.  Fun to tinker around with though.


Yeah, I don't know if by turns better I mean more stable (allows you to pull harder on stick).  I'll give it another try.

202 needs to be perked.  3 Las and 1 51 in one run last night :D  with ammo for atlist 2 more left.
Quote from: 2bighorn on December 15, 2010 at 03:46:18 PM
Dedalos pretty much ruined DA.

Offline Stang

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6127
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #43 on: March 31, 2005, 09:20:11 AM »
The 202 is one of the sweetest handling planes in the game, it's great fun to fly because you have to go to town on a bandit to bring it down hehe.

Offline jodgi

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 696
      • http://forum.mercair.net
why is p40b so under powered?
« Reply #44 on: March 31, 2005, 10:39:37 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Roshko
p40 is in fact a highly underestimated aircraft.


Politics...

Quote
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I worry more when I see a P40 than an La7. Or in fact, any other plane for that matter.


LOL more politics...

Seriously guys, the P40's are easy to beat in most half decent rides in the MA. Even if the P40 flyer is excellent it only takes a half decent stick in a spit or whatever to beat the P40.

I've had several fights against guys who probably are better AH pilots than me, and still won the fight with a fair margin. Even a non-über plane like the C202 has enough advantage over the P40's to control and win the fight.

If you love to fly the P40, that's more than ok. The performance of the plane is still poor, compared to most of the MA planes. This is quantifiable.

Continue to express your love for the P40's, it is IMO one of the coolest looking planes in AH, but you don't have to pretend it is a better plane than it is.