Author Topic: Hurricane MK I  (Read 627 times)

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
Hurricane MK I
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2002, 12:22:51 PM »
sik why do you do this?  I hope widewing does not fall for it.  I hate it when you turn threads into lit cited pages.  I am a biologist so I understand the importance of referencing information, but there is a place for everything.  If he said p40s had pink elephants popping out of their exhaust pipes, okay, I would like to see a reference.  Anecdotal references to performance of a plane not even mentioned in the thread header on the other hand......  Now, if you seriously want to start lobbying htc for a p40 and would like to send widewings references to pyro, that is a different story.....

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Hurricane MK I
« Reply #16 on: April 01, 2002, 01:09:00 PM »
I would like to see the P-40 in AH. The reason I ask widewing is that what he's stated seems to go against what I've come to understand about both the P-40 and the Ki-61. I could be totally wrong about this, and that's why I don't call Widewings info crap. He could be right as rain, and it wouldn't hurt me in the least. I've just never heard such a comparrison, and I wonder where it comes from. I don't think that anyone is ever hurt by coming up with some basis for stating things, especially when they are stating them to make a case. I do respect Widewings input, as I stated. That was not sarcasm. I'm not baiting him, as you would suggest. I'm honestly curious.
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
Hurricane MK I
« Reply #17 on: April 01, 2002, 01:19:33 PM »
Okay sik, I retract my sour remarks.;) I have always felt that the p40 was better than many have modeled it.  Hopefully, since this game is trying to model planes by stats and not 'well if the ki ever ran into the 38 it was toast, so as long as the 38 is better than the ki we are doing it right' type modeling, the p40 shouldnt be the roadkill it was in AW.  With 11,000 of the little beasts built, it should be in here no matter how it performed (according to the box of the 27" wingspan p40 guillow model i am building! now if that isnt the most respected source I dont know what is!;) ).  

If anything I think the hurri 1 shows how an old wood and canvas pea shooter (unless they give us the 50s) like the p40 can have a place in a game like this.

Offline Ossie

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Hurricane MK I
« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2002, 02:16:05 PM »
Quote
the p40 shouldnt be the roadkill it was in AW.


Er, hijacking thread here.
In my experience the P40 was nowhere near roadkill in AW. It could outturn and outroll most of the other planes as long as the speed was up over 200 ias. You could still get away with a lot down to about 175. Aside from that, it would retain exceptional maneuverability at speeds where just about everything else was compressed. I would argue that its durability exceeded that of the P47. The drawbacks, rightfully so, were climbrate and low speed handling. Acceleration wasn't spectacular.
That plane was awesome, it just took a lot patience to get it up into combat alts/speeds, and took some work to keep it there. I would argue against the notion that it was roadkill, but I will state that it was the most underrated and overlooked fighter in the game. That just made getting kills all the more satisfying :) For the most part I'm referring to FR arena fighting, but it still seemed to hold up well in RR the few times I ventured there.

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
Hurricane MK I
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2002, 02:22:25 PM »
yeah in fr it was probably a much better ride.  i tried it once in a while in rr but the problem was the post attack.  All you could really do is bnz, and if you gave up too much alt  you were toast.  It was not near fast enough to get away from incoming opponents, so you may escape whoever you attacked but if somebody else notices, ouch.  

It did handle like a dream at very high speeds, but I have a feeling you would rip your wings off in AH.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
Hurricane MK I
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2002, 02:29:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sikboy


While I respect and appreciate your advice and input regarding gameplay and tactics, I do wonder what you base this Ki-61/P-40 comparison on?

-Sikboy


Fair question.

Several years ago, I was researching an article on the 49th Fighter Group in the SWPA during 1943-44. During most of that period, the 7th and 8th Fighter Squadrons flew the P-40, while the 9th FS (with whom Bong flew) went from P-40s to P-38s to P-47s and finally back to P-38s again.

Anyway, the 7th and 8th had many encounters with the Ki-61 and most of the pilots I interviewed agreed that it was an even match for their P-40s. The difference being better training and better tactics. Bob DeHaven would tell you that the two aircraft were a very close in combat capability, with the pilots being the deciding factor. Mr. DeHaven fought some epic battles against the Tony and barely survived some of them.

Peformance can be compared.

P-40K-1: Weight was roughly 6400 pounds empty, 8400 pounds gross, and 10,000 pounds max. Maximum speed of the P-40K was 320 mph at 5000 feet and 362 mph at 15,000 feet. Cruise speed was typically 280 mph. A climb to 15,000 feet took 7.5 minutes at Military power, 7.2 minutes with Combat power.

P-40N-1: 6000 pounds empty, 7400 pounds gross, and 8850 pounds maximum, the N-1 was the fastest P-40 variant and was engineered for for combat at higher altitudes than previous models. Maximum speed was 378 mph at 10,500 feet and service ceiling was 38,000 feet. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be attained in 6.6 minutes at Military power, 5.8 minutes using Combat power.

Ki-61-1b: 4872 pounds empty, 6504 pounds loaded, 7165 pounds maximum. Maximum speed 368 mph at 15,945 feet. Cruising speed 249 mph at 13,125 feet. An altitude of 16,400 feet could be reached in 5 minutes 31 seconds. Service ceiling 37,730 feet.

There exists a TEAC test of the Ki-61, but I don't have a copy handy. Perhaps someone has it on hand and can provide details.
I do, however, have a report by 5th AF technical personel, which  states that their impression of the Tony is that it at least the equal of the P-40, being inferior in some areas, as well as having some minor advantages as well. I have better sources in my collection at home, but I'm in the office today.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Hurricane MK I
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2002, 03:19:05 PM »
I think I can see where my error lies. I'm thinking of the P40c-e, where I don't think there is much parity with the Ki-61, whereas the latter models (such as the N) have gone on a crash diet to lose weight. This makes more sense now. Thanks for falling into my trap Widewing [Just kidding ergRTC :)]

-Sikboy
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.