P-40N (and update the other P-40s)

[angelsandair]

From Wikipedia

P-40N (manufactured 1943-44), the final production model. The P-40N featured a stretched rear fuselage to counter the torque of the larger, late-war Allison engine, and the rear deck of the cockpit behind the pilot was cut down at a moderate slant to improve rearward visibility. A great deal of work was also done to try and eliminate excess weight to improve the Warhawk's climb rate. Early N production blocks dropped a .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun from each wing, bringing the total back to four; later production blocks reintroduced it after complaints from units in the field. Supplied to Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk Mk IV. A total of 553 P-40Ns were acquired by the Royal Australian Air Force, making it the variant most commonly used by the RAAF. Subvariants of the P-40N ranged widely in specialization from stripped down four-gun "hot rods" which could reach the highest top speeds of any production variant of the P-40 (up to 380 mph), to overweight types with all the extras intended for fighter-bombing or even training missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war  I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. 

[BnZ]

From Wikipedia



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war  I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. 

I'm with you.

Perhaps all P-plane HAVE to be dumbed down to a certain degree. If they were not at a real disadvantage most of the time under MA conditions, their fame and popularity might ensure them being flown to the absolute exclusion of anything else in the MA. I mean, a P-40 at low altitude was supposed to do everything as well or better than its contemporary 109F except climb. And its American muscle baby! Cool paintschemes and all, the MA would be overun with the things if they could match match a Spit in horizontal turning, as they obstensibly could.

[Kweassa]

Perhaps all P-plane HAVE to be dumbed down to a certain degree. If they were not at a real disadvantage most of the time under MA conditions, their fame and popularity might ensure them being flown to the absolute exclusion of anything else in the MA. I mean, a P-40 at low altitude was supposed to do everything as well or better than its contemporary 109F except climb. And its American muscle baby! Cool paintschemes and all, the MA would be overun with the things if they could match match a Spit in horizontal turning, as they obstensibly could.

 The world is quite lovely when one is ill-informed and ignorant, I must say.

 I'm sure one day, HT will deeply regret his intentional misrepresentation of existing historical evidence and data, and start listening to your sage advice on how the Pursuit planes should all be better than it is currently, since obviously, HT and Pyro seems to have no clue on obtaining historical data and understanding what they mean, according to your point of view on this and similar topics.

 Oh very lovely indeed.


 



 

 

[Noir]

I've seen pearl harbor movie, I know the P40 is better than axis looool

where did you seen that the p40 was equal with a 109F except climb ? history channel ? lmao, really

[BnZ]

The world is quite lovely when one is ill-informed and ignorant, I must say.

 I'm sure one day, HT will deeply regret his intentional misrepresentation of existing historical evidence and data, and start listening to your sage advice on how the Pursuit planes should all be better than it is currently, since obviously, HT and Pyro seems to have no clue on obtaining historical data and understanding what they mean, according to your point of view on this and similar topics.

 Oh very lovely indeed.


 

Okay, you're right. It is impossible for the designers of flight sims to screw up the incredibly complex task of modeling aircrat, either inadverdently, or, deliberately to make things more "balanced." No matter that the latter has been SEEN to happen in other flights sims. Computer modeling>Actual WWII pilot reports and flight tests. Little tidbits of info, like the fact that he P-38 was an uber-plane in another game designed by the same person whereas it is simply decent in AHII do nothing to undermine the infallible nature of sim flight model programers, who are never wrong, even when their results are contradictory.

[BnZ]

I've seen pearl harbor movie, I know the P40 is better than axis looool

where did you seen that the p40 was equal with a 109F except climb ? history channel ? lmao, really

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

"P-40 was 9 mph  faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was."

"By whom?
Granted, the 109 had superior high altitude performance, but that wouldn't have
been a concern on the eastern front.  The P-40 could outroll the Me, outdive it
(although the Me had an initial advantage), outturn it, had comparable speed, a
more rugged airframe, more survivable plumbing arrangement,"

BTW,the 109 in AHII could eke out wins against every piece of American Iron at typical alts with its energy-building ability alone. Especially against the P-40. It doesn't need to have huge maneuverability advantage, too. Don't the 109'ers of AHII deserve "natural enemies" who are worthy adversaries? 

[Anaxogoras]

Okay, you're right. It is impossible for the designers of flight sims to screw up the incredibly complex task of modeling aircrat, either inadverdently, or, deliberately to make things more "balanced." No matter that the latter has been SEEN to happen in other flights sims. Computer modeling>Actual WWII pilot reports and flight tests. Little tidbits of info, like the fact that he P-38 was an uber-plane in another game designed by the same person whereas it is simply decent in AHII do nothing to undermine the infallible nature of sim flight model programers, who are never wrong, even when their results are contradictory.

That was a long time ago.  The P-38L was uber in warbirds into version 2.x but was defanged somewhere in there.

[BillyD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war  I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. 

[/quote]


Jeez ever fight FlyinFin in a P40E? He's got the secret man  

[Noir]

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

"P-40 was 9 mph  faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was."

"By whom?
Granted, the 109 had superior high altitude performance, but that wouldn't have
been a concern on the eastern front.  The P-40 could outroll the Me, outdive it
(although the Me had an initial advantage), outturn it, had comparable speed, a
more rugged airframe, more survivable plumbing arrangement,"

BTW,the 109 in AHII could eke out wins against every piece of American Iron at typical alts with its energy-building ability alone. Especially against the P-40. It doesn't need to have huge maneuverability advantage, too. Don't the 109'ers of AHII deserve "natural enemies" who are worthy adversaries? 

109F and 109E3 are not the same planes....far from it

I've read that pseudo reference, and its just a guy's opinion, and by reading you guys, one can think that a P40 could even out turn a zero.

[Noir]

And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war  I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. 

yes, apparently...bring in your data

[BnZ]

109F and 109E3 are not the same planes....far from it

I've read that pseudo reference, and its just a guy's opinion, and by reading you guys, one can think that a P40 could even out turn a zero.

Tell me who has said a P-40 can compete with a Zeke in minimum turn radius? I don't for one minute think a Warhawk could compete with the Zero in minimum turn radius, simply because the pilots who actually flew the darn things make it very clear that it ain't gonna to happen!

And when the people who actually flew the things say that the P-40s, P-38s, and P-51s WERE competitive with their contemporary 109s in turning, I also tend to take that into account. You will note that American pilots were not hopless optimists...they darn well understood that their P-47s were not competitive with the 109s in sustained turning.

[Rambo Fan]

From Wikipedia

P-40N (manufactured 1943-44), the final production model. The P-40N featured a stretched rear fuselage to counter the torque of the larger, late-war Allison engine, and the rear deck of the cockpit behind the pilot was cut down at a moderate slant to improve rearward visibility. A great deal of work was also done to try and eliminate excess weight to improve the Warhawk's climb rate. Early N production blocks dropped a .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun from each wing, bringing the total back to four; later production blocks reintroduced it after complaints from units in the field. Supplied to Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk Mk IV. A total of 553 P-40Ns were acquired by the Royal Australian Air Force, making it the variant most commonly used by the RAAF. Subvariants of the P-40N ranged widely in specialization from stripped down four-gun "hot rods" which could reach the highest top speeds of any production variant of the P-40 (up to 380 mph), to overweight types with all the extras intended for fighter-bombing or even training missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war  I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. 

To add to that wouldn't that mean the P-40N could go 320mph max? Or more? Im IN IN IN IN IN, i love flying P-40s and quite so HTC did not put the real turning performance of the P-40 into AHII. I would like that to be done.

-RF

[Anaxogoras]

The saddest thing in this pathetic thread is that many think improved turn performance would help the P-40 vs. the 109F-4.

[Widewing]

To add to that wouldn't that mean the P-40N could go 320mph max? Or more? Im IN IN IN IN IN, i love flying P-40s and quite so HTC did not put the real turning performance of the P-40 into AHII. I would like that to be done.

-RF

P-40N models (various dash numbers) could manage between 360 mph and 380 mph with WEP depending upon which dash it was and how it was rigged. MIL power speeds were in the 330 mph to 350 mph range. There were stripped down, light weight versions with only four guns. These were the fastest of the lot. Six gun versions, with wing and belly shackles were the slowest.

There was a myriad of variations within the P-40N designation.

My regards,

Widewing

[BnZ]

The saddest thing in this pathetic thread is that many think improved turn performance would help the P-40 vs. the 109F-4.

Oh, the 109F would still be the dominant airplane. Just like the Fw-190A5 vrs. P-40.

I'm still wondering why you Lufwaffe guys don't want worthy opponents from America...but you're fine with having to fight "hyper-modeled" planes from Britian and Russia 

And btw, since we were speaking earlier of how sim creators are wiser than us and their flight model engines never produce results that are inconsistent with history, one must explain the turning ability of the Warhawk relative the 109 in Il2 as opposed to AHII. SOMEONE had to have screwed up their modeling, if their is an incosistency, correct?