Author Topic: why is p40b so under powered? (Read 1789 times)

Howitzer · « **Reply #45 on:** March 31, 2005, 10:48:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by jodgi
Politics...

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.

Its still the Indian, not the arrow that makes the difference. =)

Stang · « **Reply #46 on:** March 31, 2005, 11:25:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by jodgi
Politics...

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.

Bah!!!

P40 pwns!!

jodgi · « **Reply #47 on:** March 31, 2005, 12:34:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Howitzer
Its still the Indian, not the arrow that makes the difference. =)

But the bow.... what about the bow?!

Howitzer · « **Reply #48 on:** March 31, 2005, 12:40:58 PM »

That is a good point... I have no clue how the bow fits into this =)

jodgi · « **Reply #49 on:** March 31, 2005, 12:47:23 PM »

All I know is that if the arrow tries to string up the indian on the bow for a shot, things tend to crap up.

Howitzer · « **Reply #50 on:** March 31, 2005, 01:01:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jodgi
All I know is that if the arrow tries to string up the indian on the bow for a shot, things tend to crap up.

A great example of this can be found by late night tower jumping to watch various enemies coming in with 190s to pork the troops only to watch the barracks explode 100 ft. in front of their face before they smash into the ground with a greater explosion on top of the wreckage of the aforementioned barracks. =)

paulieb · « **Reply #51 on:** March 31, 2005, 03:34:29 PM »

Hey, here's a thought: we know that the P-40 was a tough airframe. We know that it suffered greatly in terms of speed, climb, and sustained turn. Aren't these problems that could be solved with (Tim Allen voice) More Power?

For example, the specs for the P-40B are posted elsewhere in this thread, with a 1150 horse Allison. What if Curtiss had been able to secure the 2035 horsepower RR Griffon 65? Or the 2350 horse Griffon 88? Any computer savvy folks care to speculate on what the P-40's performance data would have been with either of those two powerplants? Seriously... I've always been curious about that....

dedalos · « **Reply #52 on:** March 31, 2005, 04:23:21 PM »

OK, here is the secret. I was not kidding when I said the p40 sucks. It does. This is why the US came up with the p51 and did not fight the war with P40s only. However, in the MA, people have not been going against p40s a lot. They lack the experience of fighting against them. Now, given that most of the times - if you have been here for a couple of years or more - you will be engaging someone with less experience, and he would proly be surprized the p40 tried to turn with his spitV, you will get the kill. You will also die a lot but that does not show in the text buffer. What does show is your succesfull landings in it and people get fulled into thinking that you know what you are doing. In fact, and talking about myself here, it was luck. I either bounced someone or surprized someone with less experience.

There, no more p40 myths

stantond · « **Reply #53 on:** March 31, 2005, 06:25:49 PM »

I call the P40's high SA planes. You need to be in the attacking horde vulching or somewhere so only one enemy is around to attack. Because afterwards, you will probably be low and slow. The P40 is an early war plane (1940-41). All the planes got much better as the years progressed during WW2. Its weakness are:

1. It accelerates poorly when not in a dive (P40B moreso than the E model).

2. It is slow and will not extend or run away from most planes.

3. Ammo load out is light and .303's really take some dedication to kill with.

4. Climb rate is typical of early warplanes and requires some patience.

5. The canopy blocks some of the view.

Regards,

Malta

BaDkaRmA158Th · « **Reply #54 on:** April 01, 2005, 03:02:24 AM »

Meh,the planes fine, give us the N then watch people fear.

The B is gutless, but the cowling .50's are NICE, i can do more dmg in a few x2 50 hits than most longer* range six fifty shots.
the x4 .30's just keep the guy ducking and weavein'

E is faster, good typical guns, wep so shes gets up and go's from 100 to 235+ quicker,after that the rate slows to a slow speed crawl. "takes days to get her goin' 300"

If we had the N, we would have a diffrent story, stronger engine,lighter frame, x2 less fiftys.

Give us a RUSSIAN "heck every nation" p40-n!!
ffs man!

Not to mention the N could carry x2 more bombs,leaveing room for the belly fule tank "more range duh". makeing it a great early war fighter/bomber for the Tod.