P-40 N

[Krusty]

I had to do a little checking to refresh my memory. It didn't help. From what I can gather they flew a rotating CAP of 4 P-40s over the himalayas while cargo planes flew over "the hump" -- and later moved to P-38s and other planes.


did they ever even meet the enemy?

One term did come up, called it a "forgotten war" -- which is probably why I hadn't heard of it 

[gyrene81]

Really? Tell that to the guys in the SWPA and CBI. Especially the 35th and 80th Fighter Squadrons. And I guess the guys like Dick West and 'Cyclone' Davis in the 8th FG who made their names flying the P-40N-5 flying out of Finnschaven didn't exist either? Or the P-40Ns they've recovered from New Guinea and put back in the air for the last 30 years?
(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

Right as always Krusty.

This is supposedly an existing P-40-N5:


P-40E:


P-40F




The differences are tough to see but the fuselage is longer on the N model and the canopy is different...anyone see any other differences in the air frame?

[Plawranc]

Just a plug, Australia has the ONLY P-40 F left flying and I have seen it go.

I want that too 

[PJ_Godzilla]

Trying to figure out if this is for or against?

Let me help, Waystin.

As an impartial observer with no bone to pick with either you or Mr. Krusty, I can report to you, free of baggage, that Mr. Krusty has one overrriding suspicion with respect to all of these wish list items. He reckons, and has stated as much, that the primary reason for a player to request a new ride is that said player thinks it will give him a boost akin to an overdose of levitra at sorority freak-show inititiation night. In short, he thinks people request rides only because they think they are "uber".

Example/
Mr. Krusty: Like the G.55? It's only because you think it's uber. Well, news, pal: it won't make you uber.

Now, some might say that, for Krusty to be narrow-minded w/r to new adds, he'd have to widen his aspect. I think there's about 50% truth to his viewpoint.

Also, Krusty, see my attribution at the end of the last Ki44/KI100 thread - I think I tracked down the origin of the latewar UberHikoki myth.

And, of course, perfunctory salutes to both Mr. Krusty and Waystin, two old salts...

[waystin2]

Let me help, Waystin.

As an impartial observer with no bone to pick with either you or Mr. Krusty, I can report to you, free of baggage, that Mr. Krusty has one overrriding suspicion with respect to all of these wish list items. He reckons, and has stated as much, that the primary reason for a player to request a new ride is that said player thinks it will give him a boost akin to an overdose of levitra at sorority freak-show inititiation night. In short, he thinks people request rides only because they think they are "uber".

Example/
Mr. Krusty: Like the G.55? It's only because you think it's uber. Well, news, pal: it won't make you uber.

Now, some might say that, for Krusty to be narrow-minded w/r to new adds, he'd have to widen his aspect. I think there's about 50% truth to his viewpoint.

Also, Krusty, see my attribution at the end of the last Ki44/KI100 thread - I think I tracked down the origin of the latewar UberHikoki myth.

And, of course, perfunctory salutes to both Mr. Krusty and Waystin, two old salts...

All of this is understood Godzilla.  LOL 

 

[Bronk]

Any new AC is welcome.

As for the clown..... see sig.

[Krusty]

Bronk likes to troll.

Godzilla, you don't understand the entire picture... The entire history of this forum, from day 1, has been wishing for planes with best, better, bestest performance.

90% of all the requests are for super planes. The newbies that have jack-all education on the matter often spout off "I hear plane X was the best in the war! Let's have it!!!"

The G-55 was not uber. It was slower than a lot of other planes in 1943 and later. It wasn't the best turner.

The Ki-100 was not this widely falsified super plane.

Yet these types of stupid (yes, plain old "stupid") posts keep popping up time after time as old newbies learn more, and new newbies rotate in to fill their slots.

I am not narrow minded in the matter. I'm simply sick of folks making false claim that "I want this plane because it was the bestest!" -- when in fact it was worse than what we already have in-game.

Misconceptions, false information (not really anybody's fault, so much is wrong on the internet, i.e. cowl Mg151/20s on the 109K series), and folks not checking up on the plane they want before they request it, make me respond in a similar manner to most of the threads that all follow this type of pattern.

Then there's the minority of spit pilots that intentionally down-play or misrepresent current game models in a plea for something "that can compete" (usually a +2,000 boost spitfire with 50x hispanos and a range of 10,000 miles)

My post was corrective in nature, not vindictive. Sometimes you just gotta club a baby seal until he gets the idea.

P.S. Anybody that knows me knows I'd love to have a G.55 in-game. But I will stand up and defend the facts and state quite plainly it's not the best plane at anything. I do want many non-uber planes in this game, but the posts asking for less-than-super planes are often quite obvious, and earn a different level of response and tone in that response.

[Bronk]

Then there's the minority of spit pilots that intentionally down-play or misrepresent current game models in a plea for something "that can compete" (usually a +2,000 boost spitfire with 50x hispanos and a range of 10,000 miles)

Don't forget the tards who whine about light speed bombers.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Bronk likes to troll.

Godzilla, you don't understand the entire picture... The entire history of this forum, from day 1, has been wishing for planes with best, better, bestest performance.

90% of all the requests are for super planes. The newbies that have jack-all education on the matter often spout off "I hear plane X was the best in the war! Let's have it!!!"

The G-55 was not uber. It was slower than a lot of other planes in 1943 and later. It wasn't the best turner.

The Ki-100 was not this widely falsified super plane.

Yet these types of stupid (yes, plain old "stupid") posts keep popping up time after time as old newbies learn more, and new newbies rotate in to fill their slots.

I am not narrow minded in the matter. I'm simply sick of folks making false claim that "I want this plane because it was the bestest!" -- when in fact it was worse than what we already have in-game.

Misconceptions, false information (not really anybody's fault, so much is wrong on the internet, i.e. cowl Mg151/20s on the 109K series), and folks not checking up on the plane they want before they request it, make me respond in a similar manner to most of the threads that all follow this type of pattern.

Then there's the minority of spit pilots that intentionally down-play or misrepresent current game models in a plea for something "that can compete" (usually a +2,000 boost spitfire with 50x hispanos and a range of 10,000 miles)

My post was corrective in nature, not vindictive. Sometimes you just gotta club a baby seal until he gets the idea.

P.S. Anybody that knows me knows I'd love to have a G.55 in-game. But I will stand up and defend the facts and state quite plainly it's not the best plane at anything. I do want many non-uber planes in this game, but the posts asking for less-than-super planes are often quite obvious, and earn a different level of response and tone in that response.

Mr. Krusty, you are entirely correct on the Ki-100, see the post to which I referred. I think I tracked down the source of said annoying myth - and it ties back to N1K2 - and it was only four kills. As for the rest, keep fighting the good fight. As I said, I think there is a decent factual basis for this desire for best, better, uber - and, by transit, your suspicion.

Finally, I like the fact that you're looking for fact. As a prof once told me, data without theory is noise, theory without data is bull. I have no inclination to remember your post as "vindictive".

[Krusty]

Don't forget the tards who whine about light speed bombers.

Or the ones that defend them as being historical?

[PJ_Godzilla]

Here we are, Mr. Krusty - and I agree that this hardly makes the N1K2 uber - much less the Ki-100, which never did such a thing:

"According to "Genda's Blade 343 Kokutai Japans Squadron of Aces" the event occurred on the 16th feb, and that in fact 10 Japanese pilots fought against the F6F's in this battle shooting down 4, the military propaganda machine needed a hero and Muto was their man!.....the 12 to 1 myth has evolved into fact.

Ensign Kaneyoshi Muto was an 8 year veteran and an Ace in his own right with around 30 victories he would not return from a mission on the 24th July 1945 and is Missing in Action.
"
The guy was Muto, his ride a Nikkie (george). This, I believe, is the source of the myth of the uberHikoki.

[Masherbrum]

I'm for a couple more P-40s, I'm just bursting the false bubble of illusion that the P-40N was a hot-rod, and a super-P-40. It was not.

The "Hot Rod N's" were the one's that were stripped of two of the six guns.   Yes, those WERE the fastest 40's (that actually saw Action in WWII), five sources confirm this.   But not all of the N's were of the four gun package though.   The "Hot Rod N" could hit around 375-380mph, depending on the source.  


Moving elsewhere in the thread.   The Merlin equipped "F" was more efficient and packed a little more punch than the Allison's.   But the "F" was still slower than the "Hot Rod N".  

[Bronk]

Or the ones that defend them as being historical?

Ohh they are tards also. However not as big as light speed whiners... cus they fly fighters firewalled also.

[firemike]

+1..............................................................................................                                                      Somebody finally asks!

[Infidelz]

...SNIP...

P-40F
(Image removed from quote.)



The differences are tough to see but the fuselage is longer on the N model and the canopy is different...anyone see any other differences in the air frame?

The top of the cowling on the F does not have the air intake and the lower intake is moved slightly forward (from the E version). Early versions of the F were shorter and later had a plug added for roll ?? stability (F-5 and on long tail). And of course there is a Merlin under the hood for better altitude performance.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?p=1503596


Here is a table that shows the performance capabilities. Its from the internet so ...

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p40_warhawk.html