Real P-40B?

[Krusty]

I wasn't the one that brought up some issues with the F4u1. Somebody else did, so in my response I used it as an example. They said the F4u1 and F4u1A used the same flight model or something (whatever it was). I just said HTC sometimes re-uses flight models (the P-40M is really a -N as evidenced by the old -Ns gas tanks still being listed in the damage list).


P.S. Way to take a hijack and start insulting somebody for no reason. Lovely hospitality. This topic is about the P-40 line.

[CAP1]

as far as what i said......i insulted no one. it wasn't intended to insult anyone. it's just the way it is when you see a XXX vs ZZZ aircraft thread.


 

[Anaxogoras]

Every man has opinions.  Krusty has more than most, but even some of Krusty's opinions might be true.  Judge the message, not the messenger.  This goes double for those opinions that are accepted based on reputation alone.

[Saxman]

P.S. Way to take a hijack and start insulting somebody for no reason. Lovely hospitality. This topic is about the P-40 line.

I don't see a hijack. Someone asked you to clarify your comments about how a particular aircraft was modeled. I asked you to clarify your comments about another.

[Timofei]

Meanwhile, our P-40E has WEP, which it did not actually have.

Again, incorrect. Read the pilot's manuals.

[Shuffler]

Again, incorrect. Read the pilot's manuals.

Would help if you post where your info came from... <S>

[RufusLeaking]

The P-40B is modeled as a P-40C... Thus, it is too heavy and too slow to perform like a B model should.  Meanwhile, our P-40E has WEP, which it did not actually have. Performance is essentially that of the P-40K.

P-40Cs has provision for an external drop tank and more armor than the B model. Top speed for the P-40C was 342 mph @16k, whereas the P-40B should manage 351 mph @ 16k.

In AH modelling terms, what makes a P-40B instead of a P-40C? 

Without getting into proprietary nuts and bolts, what exactly is modelled?

In my mind, I imagine a set of equations that have a number of variables, like power and weight.  There has to be some Lift/Drag information, but I can't imagine the form.  What got me thinking was the question: why model the P-40B as a C model?  Was C data all that was available in a complete enough set to fill out the flight model variables?

Pardon my ignorance on modelling.  I understand the physics of flight.  How to express them in efficient computer code is beyond me.

[CAP1]

just for the heck of it, i tried the p40d(i think) or whichever was the later one ingame. i tried it off line, shooting at the drones.

 handling? it kinda feels like an underpowered p38 to me. the biggest difference being that it has the torque issues to contend with.


 

[gyrene81]

Again, incorrect. Read the pilot's manuals.

Not exactly sure I would argue the point with Widewing...unless I'm totally mistaken (which admittely happens a lot) the E model had an Allison V-1710-39(?) with a 2 stage supercharger on the engine...not exactly the "war emergency power" system that would use something like a methanol injection.

[Wmaker]

Again, incorrect. Read the pilot's manuals.

The P-40 manual that I have (Pilot training manual for the P-40, 1943) talks about different P-40 variants including the Merlin engined versions and its power setting table for the allision engines doesn't specify which engine variant the table is for.

According to Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand:

P-40E, Allison V-1710-39
Take off: 3000rpm, 46.2", 1150hp
Military: 3000rpm, 1150hp, up to 12000ft
Normal: 2600rpm, 38.7", 1000hp, up tp 10000ft
No War Emergency Power mentoned

As it has been mentioned, the later -73 -Allison of the P-40K had War Emergency powersetting of 1550hp@3000rpm.

[Widewing]

Again, incorrect. Read the pilot's manuals.

Pilot manuals change and evolve. I prefer actual engine documentation. I have a copy of TO 01-25CF-1 (P-40D/E/E-1) pilot's manual of December 1942 and a 1944 addition as well.

There is conflicting data on the engine rating, and it depends upon the general time frame.

As far as I can determine, in late 1942, the P-40E SEFC was updated to include a WEP rating of 56 in/hg. Prior to that, I can find no WEP rating in any documents.

Let's stick to the rating of the P-40E when deliveries began in August of 1941.

Download and read this document:http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/P40E-%20RAAF%20T%27ville%20test.pdf

You'll note that there is no WEP rating.


No WEP rating here either.


Nor here....


Not even here.

Where you find a WEP rating is in the late 1942 manual, reflecting an uprating of the engine.


So, you can argue either side of the coin. However, the uprating does not appear until after all 800 P-40K-1 and K-5 (short fuselage) fighters were delivered with the V-1710-73 (F4R), with a WEP rating of 1,550 hp at 56 in/hg. By 1943, most E models still in service were retrofitted with the -73 (or a remanufactured, upgraded -39) as -39 had long since ceased production. Hence, the uprating in the SEFC.

If you have an SEFC chart dated prior to 1942 showing the V-1710-39 with a WEP rating, please post it. I'd very interested to see it.


My regards,

Widewing



 

[Widewing]

In AH modelling terms, what makes a P-40B instead of a P-40C? 

Without getting into proprietary nuts and bolts, what exactly is modelled?

In my mind, I imagine a set of equations that have a number of variables, like power and weight.  There has to be some Lift/Drag information, but I can't imagine the form.  What got me thinking was the question: why model the P-40B as a C model?  Was C data all that was available in a complete enough set to fill out the flight model variables?

Pardon my ignorance on modelling.  I understand the physics of flight.  How to express them in efficient computer code is beyond me.

The P-40C weighed 152 lb more than the P-40B. That reduced climb rate slightly. Speed was reduced by the permanent drop tank shackles on the belly. One pilot with experience in both models stated that the C was about 7 mph slower than the B. However, that would vary some depending upon the service condition of the aircraft. The AH2 P-40B can manage only 340 mph, whereas test data for the actual aircraft varies between 346 and 351 mph, dependent upon service condition and the facility performing the test.


My regards,

Widewing

[TinmanX]

Fairey Swordfish. I'm an old Royal Navy Brat and I'd be very happy to fly an accurately-modelled Stringbag, even if it'd be the slowest aircraft in the planeset and probably the easiest 'kill'.

Werd!
That was what my Grandfather started out flying in WWII for the FAA and I for one woul love the chance to get in one, even if it is only in this pretend world of ours.

[Timofei]

My manual is scanned so badly that the date is not readable.

The data is:
Take-off: 3000rpm/45,5", time limit 5 min.
Military power: 3000rpm/44,5", time limit 5 min
Maximum continuous power: 2600rpm/38,5".

My definition of WEP is something along the line: "Power that cannot be sustained longer than 5-10min".

For comparison, AH data for P-40E is:
Military 3000rpm/44,6" (this is the "WEP" with 5 min limitation, note that it is labeled correctly by the manual)
Normal 2600rpm/38,5"

So to nitpick, there is no "WEP" labeled as such, but "MIL" power limited (correctly) to 5 minutes.

[RufusLeaking]

I do not think 'MIL' and 'WEP' are interchangeable.

My experience is in jets.  There was a MIL setting at approx 100%, then there was afterburner.  Not a direct comparison, to be sure, but it leads me to believe that 'WEP' was something beyond MIL.  Didn't some engines of the era have nitrous injection?