P-40B Climb rate to low...

[EdXCal]

I'm a huge P-40 fan and I can't beleave I never noticed this before, the climb rate of the P-40B in AH2 is at tops 2100fpm (Soda's webpage posts 2,300fpm but I can't recall ever getting that kind of performance), but in every single book that I have with the P-40, the P-40B model is posted to average 3000fpm to 15,000 feet... The P-40C had a climb of 2650 do to added weight of armor plating and such and thats even higher then what we have now in our P-40B.
I like the P-40B, nimble and oddly enough at 400 or less the guns work very well! But the lack of climb has been the only thing keeping me from this, so maybe HTC may want to look into this. I'm sure the stats can easly be found on the net.
I also wonder about the acceleration, is it really THAT bad? I mean it's so horrable it's almost unbeleavable, though it's funny, you accelerate so slow sometimes in a dive people will out accelerate you and force an overshot! lol

Edward

[Masherbrum]

Hmm, never realized how many Michiganders play this here SIM.

Karaya

[Widewing]

Originally posted by EdXCal
I'm a huge P-40 fan and I can't beleave I never noticed this before, the climb rate of the P-40B in AH2 is at tops 2100fpm (Soda's webpage posts 2,300fpm but I can't recall ever getting that kind of performance), but in every single book that I have with the P-40, the P-40B model is posted to average 3000fpm to 15,000 feet... The P-40C had a climb of 2650 do to added weight of armor plating and such and thats even higher then what we have now in our P-40B.
I like the P-40B, nimble and oddly enough at 400 or less the guns work very well! But the lack of climb has been the only thing keeping me from this, so maybe HTC may want to look into this. I'm sure the stats can easly be found on the net.
I also wonder about the acceleration, is it really THAT bad? I mean it's so horrable it's almost unbeleavable, though it's funny, you accelerate so slow sometimes in a dive people will out accelerate you and force an overshot! lol

Edward

First, you should post this to the Aircraft and Vehicle forum.

Second, I agree with you that the P-40B climbs too slow. However, there is little official test documentation available and HTC does not use website references for flight data unless the reference is an actual AAF test document. My research shows a typical rate of climb of 2,860 fpm from sea level. AVG Tomahawks should do considerably better because they were lighter (than the P-40C) and more powerful than the typical P-40B or P-40C (see below). However, we don't have a true AVG Tomahawk.

The AVG did not fly P-40Bs. They did not fly P-40C. What the AVG did fly was a P-40 built to Chinese specs. The serial numbers were pulled from a British allocation of Tomahawk fighters, designated as H81-A-2 and Curtiss used the data plates originally made for the Brits. However, these numbers were assigned months before actual manufacturing began. What the Chinese received was designated as the H81-A-3. These were hybrid fighters, combining spares from the P-40B run into the Tomahawks, including the externally sealed fuselage fuel tanks. Dan Ford and I have both researched this extensively (and independently) over the past 10 years. Terrill Clements has also come to the same general conclusions and mentions them in his AVG Colors and Markings book.

There was also an issue with engine availability. All V-1710 engines were already allocated to existing contracts. So, Allison set up a special production line to build engines for the Chinese fighters. These engines were quite literally hand built by 12 technicians using a mix of accepted and rejected components from the standard production line. Allison technicians built what they described as "blueprinted" motors, carefully matching parts and holding far tighter tolerances than normally found on the production line. When some of these engines were tested on the dynometer, they typically produced between 150 and 200 more horsepower than the standard production engine. So, the Chinese received hotrodded Tomahawks.

There was a downside to this though. The reduction gear of the early V-1710 engines (V-1710-33) was not engineered for more than 1,100 hp, and the AVG experienced a great many failures of the reduction gear, far in excess of the standard P-40B or C. When the revised P-40D appeared, it introduced a new reduction gear design that could withstand up to 1,400 horsepower reliably (hence the revised nose design of later P-40s).

My regards,

Widewing

[Morpheus]

We need P-40N-5-CU.

An altitude of 14,000 feet could be attained in 7.3 minutes. It a modified cockpit canopy with a frameless sliding hood and a deeper, squared-off rectangular aft transparent section to improve the rearward view. -5 brought back the 6x50cals.. Did 350mph @ 16000 ft.

[EdXCal]

I wasn't talking about the AVG aircraft, that wasn't my point at all, and it wasn't even said in my above post. I'm speaking of the P-40B, the actully USAAF model, and I posted it hear so it was more likly a HTC member like Pyro would see it.
Your comments above were totally unnecessary and rather rude, or atleast thats how it seemed, I know this game isn't totally realistic but it's often close and HTC does seem interested in keeping it that way.

Edward

[Morpheus]

Rude? dam man, if that's rude you're in for a "rude" awakening.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by EdXCal
I wasn't talking about the AVG aircraft, that wasn't my point at all, and it wasn't even said in my above post. I'm speaking of the P-40B, the actully USAAF model, and I posted it hear so it was more likly a HTC member like Pyro would see it.
Your comments above were totally unnecessary and rather rude, or atleast thats how it seemed, I know this game isn't totally realistic but it's often close and HTC does seem interested in keeping it that way.

Edward

Edward, there was nothing rude whatsoever.... Geez, what is with people these days?

I simply pointed out that your original post would be better suited to the other forum, which Pyro and Hitech read on a regular basis.

I provided you with the P-40B climb rate reported by the AAF from testing at Wright Field and agreed that the AH2 P-40B climbs too slow.

HTC orginally released the P-40B in AVG colors, thus my comments on the AVG P-40s/Tomahawks.

So, pardon me if I don't understand your problem....

My regards,

Widewing

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by EdXCal
I wasn't talking about the AVG aircraft, that wasn't my point at all, and it wasn't even said in my above post. I'm speaking of the P-40B, the actully USAAF model, and I posted it hear so it was more likly a HTC member like Pyro would see it.
Your comments above were totally unnecessary and rather rude, or atleast thats how it seemed, I know this game isn't totally realistic but it's often close and HTC does seem interested in keeping it that way.

Edward

Man, if you thought that came even close to rude, you should pack up and go elsewhere now, your skin is mighty thin.  The man not only agreed with you, he gave you the AAF data on it, gave you anecdotal evidence that even better performance planes of similar type existed and why.  He also pointed out if you wanted HTC's attention, you'd have been better off posting it in another forum that better pertains to specifics about aircraft performance, one that - coincidentally - they read more often.  

If anything, while reading this thread, YOU are the one who came off as rude.

[EdXCal]

I am sorry... I was in the middle of a "squad metting"  on teamspeak well reading your post, it's my fault for only half reading it at best and repling in slight anger. I do thank you for your reposts and I am sorry about that yet again. 9/10th's of english language, is body language, so sometimes people will miss 9/10's of what the hell is really being said, so I only read about a 3rd of your post, misunderstood and there you go. lol

Also if you read the book 'God is my copilot" Col. Robert Scott talks about a P-40B that they took some P-40E engine parts out of and it became a very fast climbing intercepter, they said they used it as a recon intercepter.

Oh, well I'm thinking of it in the game Pacific Fighters it also performs very well over the AH version. It's very responsive and far more well suited for combat.

I may repost this forum to the other forum for more attention. Who knows

Edward

[Squire]

There is nothing wrong with its climb rate. It's a 1941 fighter with a modest, unboosted 1100 hp Allison engine and a loaded weight of @ 7300 lbs.

3000 fpm to 15,000 ft? I doubt a A6M2 Zero could do that. Thats like 15k in 5 minutes flat. A 1944 P-40N couldn't even do that...

It has to be compared to its era in the war, it was a 1940-41 fighter. Its main opposition while with the AVG was the IJAAF Ki-27 Nate.

As for the differences between a P-40B and P-40C they were negligable. Both had armor protection. The P-40C had a different radio, a drop tank rack, and more fuel.

"Also if you read the book 'God is my copilot" Col. Robert Scott talks about a P-40B that they took some P-40E engine parts out of and it became a very fast climbing intercepter, they said they used it as a recon intercepter."

That has nothing to do with a line P-40B fighter. You are talking about a stripped down, hopped up customized recce job.

There is no credible book that gives the P-40B a great climb rate, and it was never known for having one. It was remembered as being able to out dive and be faster than its opponents in China. Not more manueverable (save roll rate), and not better climbing.

I also have IL-2, and it climbs no better in that sim, it does @2200 fpm sustained.

[Octavius]

I think the roll rate for both P40s is a little slow in AH.  Pacific Fighter's P40B definitely has AH's in the dps category.  This might give you the impression that PF's warhawk seems to much more nimble than our own warhawk... it does for me.

[EdXCal]

First off, I've got 4 books now total that I've found that support the 3000fpm fact, the P-40B was also much lighter then the P-40N models. The P-40N-1 might have been able to sport that kind of climb rate, it had a lightened airframe and only 4x .50cals, but the later N-5-N20 added those guns and some other weight (Namly in armor, the N was heavly used for gournd attack so I found out, and escort A-20's in ground attack)  and lost alot of that extra performance but got that awesome frameless cockpit, beautiful!

Second of all, the P-40B that had P-40E engine parts was just something I thought to bring up well we were on the subject, as it seems you didn't notice I didn't try and use it to support the P-40's climb rate.
In Pacific fighters you must just suck because the P-40B I can get around 2800fpm, 3000fpm I start losing to much airspeed.

You should also note that the P-40C has more armor and your right, more fuel and the ability to carry a drop tank, how much does the pylon that holds the tank weight? How about the extra fuel tanks and the fuel? The C-model was still heavier and yet again only had a climb of 2,650, still much better then AH. Look it up.

Also, just because it was a 1941 aircarft, doesn't meen it has to have horrable performace because it's 1944 version didn't have better climb. Thats like saying the 109G6 was worse then the 109G2 because it was slower, and climbed less... The 109G6 added more weight do to the upgrade in weapons without any extra HP but had enough firepower to take on it's enemies, it was still a good plane.

Last thing, I said the P-40 was nimble I never said it was like a Zero or anything, but in China the P-40 was still nimble, just you couldn't get in a turning match with Japs... Thats like saying a Zero isn't nimble because it can't turn with a Stearman Bi-plane. Or a spit5 isn't nimble because it can't outturn a Zero. It came close but wasn't really in the range to outturn a zero.

Edward

PS also, as noted in posts above, were not talking about the AVG! Just the P-40B which also served with the British and the Russians so it had more enemies then the Jap aircraft.

[EdXCal]

Well I reread some of the books here, I was slightly wrong, here are some stats I've found.

American Combat Planes: New revised Edition 1968

P-40(first model) weight:

Empty: 5376Ibs
Gross: 6787Ibs
Max: 7215Ibs

P-40 at gross weight:

top speed at 15K: 357mph
Cruising at 15K 277mph
Landing Speed: 80mph
Service Ceiling 32,750 feet
Climb rate: 3080fpm
Climb to 15K 5.3 minutes
Range 650 miles normal, 950-1400 miles max

P-40B weight:

Empty: 5590Ibs
Gross:7325Ibs
Max: 7600Ibs

P-40B at 6,835Ibs (half fuel):

top speed at 15K: 352mph
Cruising at 15K 280mph
Landing Speed: 80mph
Service Ceiling 32,400 feet
Climb to 15K 5.1 minutes
Range 730 miles normal, 940-1230 miles max

P-40C (Tomahawk IIB) weight:

Empty: 5812Ibs
Gross:7549Ibs
Max: 8058Ibs

P-40C at Gross weight:

top speed at 15K: 345mph
Cruising at 15K 270mph
Landing Speed: 86mph
Service Ceiling 29,500 feet
Climb: 2,690fpm
(No stats on climb to 15K or range)

So fiigure all the rest on your own.

Edward

[Octavius]

Holy ****, you're a feisty one.  And you say they came off as rude.  

Reread my post, I have no reference to acceleration/climbrate... roll rate and percieved performance is what it concerned:

Oh, well I'm thinking of it in the game Pacific Fighters it also performs very well over the AH version. It's very responsive and far more well suited for combat.

Comparing two seperate games produced by two different companies is not an applicable argument, and I doubt Pyro will alter the P40s FM because game X flies like Y.  Which flight model is more accurate is open for debate, and I dont care to offer an opinion on either one.  There is no common denominator between the two apparent to the average end user, so comparing the completely subjective feel is apples and oranges.  Stick to your stats and try not to be so defensive.

[Neil Stirling1]

Not the P-40 B but still an excellent site.

Thanks Peril.

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/p40_data.htm

Neil.