Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: grunch on March 11, 2005, 09:59:34 PM
-
The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
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.
fact i found reading about the p40b
-
Because if you fly the P40 you're so good you don't need the aircraft to be any good
:D
-
p40 is in fact a highly underestimated aircraft.
-
:lol stang that true hehehe
and yea its under rated man i do notice a zero can out dive me faster :(
-
P40 is one of the only aircrafts in the game in which I can't score kills.
I've tried a couple times and I'm just a sitting target with it.
Even the 202 looks like a fearsome weapon compared to it.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Even the 202 looks like a fearsome weapon compared to it.
It is in an interly different performance class than the P40B.
-
P40's are ok... as long as you don't stall :D
-
According to the plane performance data i found P40b is 14mph faster than the A6m2 in aceshigh and has a comfortable 10mph head at every altitude below 20k.
I think the A6m2 in ah2 is pretty fast... might be a tad to fast.
Problem with plane performance data is that it always depends on the actual motor power used and configureation of the aircraft.
All the other aircraft you mention are not in ah2.
So the point is that while p40b might be a tad slow in ah the other aircraft of that time are not implemented and the aircraft produced 2 years later were a lot better. Sure it would be a killer against ki 43, but we dont have the ki 43.
-
P40s takes awhile to get to speed.
once it is up to speed, it is a nice bird.
I usually grab to around 14k, then level out. it takes almost 1 sector for it to get up to speed. it is a good diver and turner, for a couple turns, anyway.
the slow acceleration is the main reason, it rarely RTBs.
My 1st kill, when AH2 went live, was in a P40b against a P38. I went on and killed a spit, then RTBed. I was the 3rd or 4th one to land kills, at the time.
-
I wholeheartedly agree.
-
Originally posted by magiccracker
I wholeheartedly agree.
We have a new troll!
-
OK all, enough! It use to be very funny when people would compare AH aircraft to their real world counterparts, but now it's just sad... I'll let you all in on a little secret, so sssshhh! All the Axis aircraft were GARBAGE!!!! Now before you all start in on slamming the messenger rather than the message, I can prove that what I'm telling you is true. In case any of you missed it on the history channel, here's my proof, the Axis powers LOST THE WAR!
Grunch, I agree with you on the P-40B. It is a great fighter and like all the Allied aircraft, it is way under modeled in AH as well as in other sims. I'm sorry to say this, but it has to be that way. If it were modeled to fly just like a real P-40 then we wouldn't have the fun of shooting down Axis aircraft because no one would be flying that garbage. Everyone would be flying Allied rides and where's the fun in that?
Good Hunting all! :aok
-
Oh come on, I figured this guy would be getting the Rodney King treatment about now:D
-
Originally posted by Nockdown
OK all, enough! It use to be very funny when people would compare AH aircraft to their real world counterparts, but now it's just sad... I'll let you all in on a little secret, so sssshhh! All the Axis aircraft were GARBAGE!!!! Now before you all start in on slamming the messenger rather than the message, I can prove that what I'm telling you is true. In case any of you missed it on the history channel, here's my proof, the Axis powers LOST THE WAR!
Grunch, I agree with you on the P-40B. It is a great fighter and like all the Allied aircraft, it is way under modeled in AH as well as in other sims. I'm sorry to say this, but it has to be that way. If it were modeled to fly just like a real P-40 then we wouldn't have the fun of shooting down Axis aircraft because no one would be flying that garbage. Everyone would be flying Allied rides and where's the fun in that?
Good Hunting all! :aok
hehe you need to hang out in the OC
Guys there would just loooove you
-
Gabreski didn't think much of the P40.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52406
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Gabreski didn't think much of the P40.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52406
A lot of the PTO USAAC pilots thought otherwise. Other than the P-38, the P-40 was flown by more USAAC aces than the P-47 and P-51.
ack-ack
-
I worry more when I see a P40 than an La7. Or in fact, any other plane for that matter.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I worry more when I see a P40 than an La7. Or in fact, any other plane for that matter.
LOL! You're kidding, right?
When I posted that Gabreski thread, way back in 2003, I predicted that the hoopla was out of all proportion to the actual impact that the P40 would have on the MA. Sure enough, from when it was introduced to the time I hung up my flying helmet, I was killed only three times by a P40.
The thing is - and as someone else said further up - the P40 might have been a good/OK plane when it was deployed in the early stages of the war, but in an MA full of 1945 ubermonsters, it was totally outclassed.
-
It may be outclassed at speeds of the 1945 rides. But get it into a turn fight and it can hang with 90% of the spits and Niks in the MA. I'm talking a turn fight when you use every ounce of flaps...
When you learn to use its stall characteristics it can be a very effective turn fighter.
Its also a good plane to scrub up on your E fighting. When you screw up in a P40... Well, you know you screwed up. Your dead.
-
poor 1000hp engine and heavy weight do it.
The Ki-61 has the same issue. :p
-
so does the mossie:)
-
Beet1e, I'm not kidding. When I see an La7, 99 times out of 100 there's a skilless hack in there. While I might burn energy like crazy, he can't touch me. By the time I get on his six, he's running.
When I see an p40, 99 times out of 100, there's a really good pilot in there. He wouldn't pick it unless he knew what he was doing. That p40 can not be touched except for the few that are better pilots anyway (or dumb luck).
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Beet1e, I'm not kidding. When I see an La7, 99 times out of 100 there's a skilless hack in there.
Yes! Zanth was once talking about this, and his sentence went something like "...unless the LA7 pilot is a complete idiot. Granted, there's a 50/50 chance of that". I thought it was so funny I had it in my sig. for a while. :lol All I can say is, by the time I left, there were a hell of a lot of skilless hacks in the MA.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
When I see an p40, 99 times out of 100, there's a really good pilot in there. He wouldn't pick it unless he knew what he was doing. That p40 can not be touched except for the few that are better pilots anyway (or dumb luck).
Oh! Well I should feel gratified that my career total against the B finished at 18/1 and against the E finished at 15/2 - not that I flew the Big5 uberset myself, mind you.
-
All the Axis aircraft were GARBAGE! Here's my proof, the Axis powers LOST THE WAR!
I'm sure this wasn't due to bad aircraft but due to the lack of numbers.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
When I see an p40, 99 times out of 100, there's a really good pilot in there. He wouldn't pick it unless he knew what he was doing. That p40 can not be touched except for the few that are better pilots anyway (or dumb luck).
I find the P40 jocks usually come in two catagories.
the VERY good
Or
The VERY bad
When going up against one your usually saying "oh chit"
Or your laughing your arse off
-
LOL! You're kidding, right?
When I posted that Gabreski thread, way back in 2003, I predicted that the hoopla was out of all proportion to the actual impact that the P40 would have on the MA. Sure enough, from when it was introduced to the time I hung up my flying helmet, I was killed only three times by a P40.
The thing is - and as someone else said further up - the P40 might have been a good/OK plane when it was deployed in the early stages of the war, but in an MA full of 1945 ubermonsters, it was totally outclassed.
HOly crap!! Look what scragy thing the cat dragged in, quick HT close the thread before he comes back for good. LOLH. :D
Hey beet, it's been a while , how you been bud.
-
I find the P40 jocks usually come in two catagories.
the VERY good
Or
The VERY bad
When going up against one your usually saying "oh chit"
Or your laughing your arse off
HEHEHEH LOLH, yep like Redheads, they are either drop dead beautiful or, well you know.
-
Originally posted by mars01
HOly crap!! Look what scragy thing the cat dragged in, quick HT close the thread before he comes back for good. LOLH. :D
Hey beet, it's been a while , how you been bud.
ROFL! I'm doing OK. :)
Coming to the US next month, but not your bit. :( Looks like I'll be eating grits and drinking beer from long neck bottles. :lol
-
Originally posted by grunch
The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
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.
fact i found reading about the p40b
were is the problem? i think we can find these facts in AH too.
cu chris3
-
""All the Axis aircraft were GARBAGE!!!! In case any of you missed it on the history channel, here's my proof, the Axis powers LOST THE WAR! ""
The axis powers lost the war because they were outnumbered....not due to lack of technology. Who had the first operational jets in combat? who had the first helicopters? who had the first fuel injected aircraft engines? who had the first guided missles? the axis powers..or more exactly..the germans. If i remember right, the 109's were injected, giving a decided advantage in combat. i believe they also had self deploying leading edge flaps? they used jets for recon in 39, and 40 i believe...and of course the 262...which had they used them a year earlier would've been really bad. I can't remember where, but i think i remember reading somewhere that the fw190 was actually equal to the mustang.......had the luftwaffe still had enough veteran pilots to fly em. V1, V2...both were firsts.
Don't get me wrong..i don't think they were right in what they did, or that they shoulda won.......but they were smart bastards.
we simply outnumbered them, and pounded them into the stone age(almost)
i might be wrong on some of these things, but ya hafta give their engineers credit......and almost forgot......the first rocket powered plane. and the only one untill late 2004.....xcor in the mojave desert has a usable rocket plane based on rutans vari ez.
all,
john
-
Originally posted by beet1e
...not that I flew the Big5 uberset myself, mind you.
No, you just flew in the horde and ran from every 1v1 you encountered. Still flying that Rainbow flag?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by CAP1
who had the first helicopters?
Not the Germans.
1942 - Sikorsky R-4 Helicopter January 14, 1942 the first flights of the Sikorsky R-4 helicopter take place. The R-4 was the first operational single rotor practical helicopter. It was also the only helicopter to see combat action with Allied forces in the CBU theater of operations.
they used jets for recon in 39, and 40 i believe[/b]
Nope.
ack-ack
-
1939 i believe the germans had the very same twin rotor helicopter that is now built by kaman? i can't remember what its called though...<<""The first successful rotorcraft was a gyroplane, designed by Sr. Juan de La Cierva in Spain and flown on 17th of January, 1923. His success created much interest world wide and led to the development of the first successful helicopter, the Focke-Wulf, Fw 61 which was first flown in June of 1936 in Germany. ""Prof. Heinrich Focke with a model of his Fa 223. Although the first Fa 223 was built in 1939, production did not start until 1942. It was far ahead of its time and was used during WWII to lift heavy canons and guns.>>>http://www.aeroscientists.org/helicopters.html...check out this website...has a nice bit of info on helis.....
CYALL SOON
john
-
Why is it that everytime I discuss Axis airpower, everyone instantly defends the Luftwaffe, but never the Air forces of Japan or Italy, Huh? The A6M was without a doubt for a brief moment, was an engineering marvel and the Japanese Naval Air Force was a far more threat to the U.S. than the Luftwaffe ever was. Let us not forget the Italians either. Their bomber crews were second to none until they were out paced by the production of the Norton bomb site. Since the Luftwaffe was brought up however, let's discuss it. This really should be on a new thread but, since we're here...
Eventually, when ever the performance of the Luftwaffe aircraft is put into question, the "if the Germans had done this" or "if they had it just a year earlier" comes into play. Well let's face it; it didn't, so let us just take that out of the equation OK? So what does that leave but the last defence. The Luftwaffe was beaten by the shear weight of numbers. Again, another misconception.
CAP1, I appreciate your argument, but I must disagree.
When you look at production numbers; yes the US had more fighters than the Germans did by a huge margin. However when you look at operational numbers, then things quickly even out with the Allies only gaining a slight advantage in early to mid '45. The reason is simple logistics. It took the US on average 4 to 6 month to get fighters to the line in Europe because the distance was so large between the factory and the front. The Germans on the other hand could put a fighter on the front lines in a matter of days because of their close proximity of the frontlines. You must remember that fighters didn't have the gear to fly to England from the states. They had to be shipped on a freighter and then reassembled at the front and that took allot of time. It is that reason that the numbers theory just doesn't hold water.
Now I know that this is stinging some of you very deeply so bare with me because I'm about to stab even deeper.
Now I didn't bring up the numbers game, so remember that when you read the following.
Angola, May 1940
Luftwaffe: 236 single engine fighters and 26 twins (these numbers do not include the Italian Air Force since we're talking Luftwaffe here. If we were, it would look far worse)
England: 141 single engine fighters and 8 twins
Winner: Draw (England lost the ground war but Germany never controled the sky, the Luftwaffe was never a factor in the fight even though they had the Technological edge. 109Es & Fs vs Gloster Gladiators and Hawker Fury's)
Malta 1940 to 42
Its history is well known and Malta never fell. At its highest strength it had what, 61 Spits, against lets see, hhmmm, the entire Luftwaffe in the Med and Afrika
Winner: Do I have to say it? I don't see Luftwaffe here in the history books.
Let us keep going because it's going to get worse.
Battle of Britian 1940
Luftwaffe: 880 single engine fighters 220 Twins (You can include the 1500 bombers here if you really want to add the weight of numbers here)
England: 554 single engine fighters 110 twins
hummmm, yep it's official, numbers win, NOT!
I can go on and on here, let's face the facts. The Luftwaffe aircraft were GARBAGE! In just about every battle the Luftwaffe had a huge numbers advantage and they still lost. If they were so supierior, why would they wait for the fighters to turn back before they attacked the bombers? They always had the numbers, as many as 10 to 1 in some cases, yet they waited. Could it be because they weren't all that great to begin with? If they were the all terrible that some would want us to believe, why not take out the fighters and then chew the bombers up all the way back to England?
Now before the Rodney King treatment begins, I'd like to add one thing about the 262. Not all of its losses in combat, contrary to popular opinion, were while it was in the landing pattern. Most were shot down high above Germany by P47s and P51s and a few were even ran down by P38s. I have yet to have met a single fighter pilot from WWII that would just stand by and let a 262 tear up a flight of B17s or 24s and then just go hang out by its runway and kill it while it was trying to land. That's just absurd...
All I can say in closing is, I'm glad the Allies won and I'm grateful for all that they did, because had they lost, I doubt we would have the freedom we now have to even be having this discussion.
Good Hunting All! :aok
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Not the Germans.
1942 - Sikorsky R-4 Helicopter January 14, 1942 the first flights of the Sikorsky R-4 helicopter take place. The R-4 was the first operational single rotor practical helicopter. It was also the only helicopter to see combat action with Allied forces in the CBU theater of operations.
"the first operational single rotor practical helicopter"
Always funny when they use so many qualifiers.
The world's first production helicopter (also the first transport helicopter and armed helicopter):
Fa 223 Drache - First flight 1940. Service delivery 1942.
(http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Fa_223/DI52G1.jpg)
It was a development of the Fa 61
(http://www.pilotfriend.com/century-of-flight/Aviation%20history/helicopter%20history/images/27.jpg)
Hanna Reitsch demonstrated the Fa-61 in the enclosed Deutschlandhalle sports stadium in Berlin in February 1938.
The world's second production helicopter:
Flettner Kolibri - First flight 1939. Service delivery 1942.
(http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Rotary/flettner/HE6G1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Not the Germans.
1942 - Sikorsky R-4 Helicopter January 14, 1942 the first flights of the Sikorsky R-4 helicopter take place. The R-4 was the first operational single rotor practical helicopter. It was also the only helicopter to see combat action with Allied forces in the CBU theater of operations.
That's funny. It was definitely the Germans who had first practical helicopters. As mentioned, Focke Achgelis Fa-223 Drache was the world's first helicopter to achieve production status.
"The most successful and best known German rotary-wing aircraft was the Flettner Fl.282 "Kolibri" or Hummingbird, first produced in 1941. An unarmed, single or dual seat convoy escort machine with an open cockpit, (14) its existence was not noted by British Air Intelligence until 1944. The aircraft operated successfully in the Baltic, Mediterranean and Aegean Seas throughout 1943, along with the smaller, submarine-towed single-seat observation Fa.330. Both these aircraft followed in the wake of the successful Focke-Wulf Fw.61 which had flown from 1936 onwards, (16) having been the "first practicable helicopter".
Alongside those other German choppers were used in field in limited numbers, tests were done and their heavyweight lifting capability was not exceeded until the later 1950s.
"Germany made rapid strides in helicopter development in the 1930s and 1940s. The FA-61, designed by Heinrich Focke, flew for the first time on June 26, 1936. The FA-61 was the first practical design for a maneuverable helicopter. In 1937, as a propaganda stunt for the Nazi regime, the renowned female pilot Hanna Reitsch flew the FA-61 inside the city of Berlin’s Deutschlandhalle sports arena. Another German helicopter, the FL-282 Kolibri, was used by the German navy during World War II (1939-1945). It could fly at 140 km/h (90 mph) and reach an altitude of 4,000 m (13,000 ft) with a payload of 360 kg (800 lb). It was the first helicopter design produced in quantity"
" Focke Achgelis Fa61 (Germany)
Fa-61: Germany stepped to the front in helicopter development with the Focke Achgelis Fa-61, which it has two three-bladed rotor mounted on outriggers and power by a 160 hp radial engine. The Fa-61 had controllable cyclic pitch and set many of records .
In 1938, Fa-61 made an altitude flight of 11,243 feet and cross-country of 143 miles.In this year, the german aviator Hanna Reitsch became the world's first woman helicopter pilot by flying the Fa-61 in the Deustchland-halle in Berlin. Germany continued its helicopter development during world war two and was the first to place the helicopter,Flettner Kolibri, into mass production. "
" In 1935, Focke designed and built a prototype of an autogyro which competed in the Luftwaffe contest to develop a utility and liaison aircraft. The winner was the Fieseler Fi-156 Storch, and only one FW-186, which was essentially a FW-56 Stosser advanced trainer fuselage with a single rotor assembly and a modified tail and landing gear. This provides the basis for another kit conversion, but not here.
After the FW-186 project, Focke decided to concentrate on the helicopter. In true Germanic fashion, he took an engineering approach, and formulated basic requirements for his aircraft, which included controllability, reliability, simplicity of control, adequate performance including reasonable cruising speed, and ease of maintenance. With these factors in mind, he set about to develop a pure helicopter, and aircraft with the primary power geared directly to controllable rotor blades, which provided both lift and thrust.
After the concept was established, Focke test flew a scale model of the design, and in 1934, this model achieved an altitude of 59 feet, which was equal to the altitude record for previous manned unsuccessful experimental helicopters.
The first FW-61 prototype, D-EBVU, made its first tethered flights in early 1936. On 26 June 1936, the aircraft made its first free flight with test pilot Ewald Rohlfs in control. By 1937, the aircraft had set an altitude record of 1200 feet, and at that point, Rohlfs cut the throttle, disengaged the clutch, and made the first autorotational descent to landing. Later the FW-61 was flown to 8000 feet, setting another record, and the same day an endurance record of 1 hour and 21 minutes and
a speed record of 76 mph were set.
Later in 1937, famed German woman pilot Hanna Reitsch began flying the aircraft, setting distance records before her startling demonstration flights inside the Deutschlandhalle area in Berlin, where she displayed the helicopter in free flight indoors in an arena area of 100 by 250 feet in front of thousands of people. Films of these flights were shown in the
United States, stimulating the development process in this country that led to the Sikorsky helicopters several years later."
It's fascinating stuff, how the German choppers were about a decade ahead, when compared to for example the Sikorsky choppers. The German choppers were able to operate relatively high, could transport artillery pieces in mountain conditions and carry light vehicles. They even made tests with armed choppers. In one test a chopper was easily able to evade attacks by four Me 109s, showing how agile they were.
-
P40s suck. They could not even killa Spit9
-
So... what did we ever settle on as far as p40s go? I think they are nice, but are they modelled wrong?
-
Roll rate should probably be better but the speed and acceleration seem about right... just good enough to hook unwitting la7 tardlings.
;)
-
I have to wonder why there is such a noticeable performance difference between the P40B and the P40E. The E model had different guns and WEP, but the airframe was basically the same. As such, I have to wonder why the P40B enters accelerated stalls so easily. Both the B and E models are slow, but the B model won't turn with an E model more than 180 degrees. The P40B is just a death trap whenever I have flown it.
I kind of like the P40E.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by stantond
I have to wonder why there is such a noticeable performance difference between the P40B and the P40E. The E model had different guns and WEP, but the airframe was basically the same. As such, I have to wonder why the P40B enters accelerated stalls so easily. Both the B and E models are slow, but the B model won't turn with an E model more than 180 degrees. The P40B is just a death trap whenever I have flown it.
I kind of like the P40E.
Regards,
Malta
Almost switched to the B the other day cause I thought it turned better. I'll give it another try. Could be that the Spit driver was new.
-
I flew the B last night and I liked it. Just looks fatter than the E. Not sure it turns better, but it doesn't fly bad. If I had to compare planes with the ENY of 60, my first choice would be the 202. Fun to tinker around with though.
-
Originally posted by Howitzer
I flew the B last night and I liked it. Just looks fatter than the E. Not sure it turns better, but it doesn't fly bad. If I had to compare planes with the ENY of 60, my first choice would be the 202. Fun to tinker around with though.
Yeah, I don't know if by turns better I mean more stable (allows you to pull harder on stick). I'll give it another try.
202 needs to be perked. 3 Las and 1 51 in one run last night :D with ammo for atlist 2 more left.
-
The 202 is one of the sweetest handling planes in the game, it's great fun to fly because you have to go to town on a bandit to bring it down hehe.
-
Originally posted by Roshko
p40 is in fact a highly underestimated aircraft.
Politics...
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I worry more when I see a P40 than an La7. Or in fact, any other plane for that matter.
LOL more politics...
Seriously guys, the P40's are easy to beat in most half decent rides in the MA. Even if the P40 flyer is excellent it only takes a half decent stick in a spit or whatever to beat the P40.
I've had several fights against guys who probably are better AH pilots than me, and still won the fight with a fair margin. Even a non-über plane like the C202 has enough advantage over the P40's to control and win the fight.
If you love to fly the P40, that's more than ok. The performance of the plane is still poor, compared to most of the MA planes. This is quantifiable.
Continue to express your love for the P40's, it is IMO one of the coolest looking planes in AH, but you don't have to pretend it is a better plane than it is.
-
Originally posted by jodgi
Politics...
LOL more politics...
Seriously guys, the P40's are easy to beat in most half decent rides in the MA. Even if the P40 flyer is excellent it only takes a half decent stick in a spit or whatever to beat the P40.
I've had several fights against guys who probably are better AH pilots than me, and still won the fight with a fair margin. Even a non-über plane like the C202 has enough advantage over the P40's to control and win the fight.
If you love to fly the P40, that's more than ok. The performance of the plane is still poor, compared to most of the MA planes. This is quantifiable.
Continue to express your love for the P40's, it is IMO one of the coolest looking planes in AH, but you don't have to pretend it is a better plane than it is.
Its still the Indian, not the arrow that makes the difference. =)
-
Originally posted by jodgi
Politics...
LOL more politics...
Seriously guys, the P40's are easy to beat in most half decent rides in the MA. Even if the P40 flyer is excellent it only takes a half decent stick in a spit or whatever to beat the P40.
I've had several fights against guys who probably are better AH pilots than me, and still won the fight with a fair margin. Even a non-über plane like the C202 has enough advantage over the P40's to control and win the fight.
If you love to fly the P40, that's more than ok. The performance of the plane is still poor, compared to most of the MA planes. This is quantifiable.
Continue to express your love for the P40's, it is IMO one of the coolest looking planes in AH, but you don't have to pretend it is a better plane than it is.
Bah!!!
P40 pwns!!
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Howitzer
Its still the Indian, not the arrow that makes the difference. =)
But the bow.... what about the bow?!
-
That is a good point... I have no clue how the bow fits into this =)
-
All I know is that if the arrow tries to string up the indian on the bow for a shot, things tend to crap up.
-
Originally posted by jodgi
All I know is that if the arrow tries to string up the indian on the bow for a shot, things tend to crap up.
A great example of this can be found by late night tower jumping to watch various enemies coming in with 190s to pork the troops only to watch the barracks explode 100 ft. in front of their face before they smash into the ground with a greater explosion on top of the wreckage of the aforementioned barracks. =)
-
Hey, here's a thought: we know that the P-40 was a tough airframe. We know that it suffered greatly in terms of speed, climb, and sustained turn. Aren't these problems that could be solved with (Tim Allen voice) More Power?
For example, the specs for the P-40B are posted elsewhere in this thread, with a 1150 horse Allison. What if Curtiss had been able to secure the 2035 horsepower RR Griffon 65? Or the 2350 horse Griffon 88? Any computer savvy folks care to speculate on what the P-40's performance data would have been with either of those two powerplants? Seriously... I've always been curious about that....
-
OK, here is the secret. I was not kidding when I said the p40 sucks. It does. This is why the US came up with the p51 and did not fight the war with P40s only. However, in the MA, people have not been going against p40s a lot. They lack the experience of fighting against them. Now, given that most of the times - if you have been here for a couple of years or more - you will be engaging someone with less experience, and he would proly be surprized the p40 tried to turn with his spitV, you will get the kill. You will also die a lot but that does not show in the text buffer. What does show is your succesfull landings in it and people get fulled into thinking that you know what you are doing. In fact, and talking about myself here, it was luck. I either bounced someone or surprized someone with less experience.
There, no more p40 myths :)
-
I call the P40's high SA planes. You need to be in the attacking horde vulching or somewhere so only one enemy is around to attack. Because afterwards, you will probably be low and slow. The P40 is an early war plane (1940-41). All the planes got much better as the years progressed during WW2. Its weakness are:
1. It accelerates poorly when not in a dive (P40B moreso than the E model).
2. It is slow and will not extend or run away from most planes.
3. Ammo load out is light and .303's really take some dedication to kill with.
4. Climb rate is typical of early warplanes and requires some patience.
5. The canopy blocks some of the view.
Regards,
Malta
-
Meh,the planes fine, give us the N then watch people fear.
The B is gutless, but the cowling .50's are NICE, i can do more dmg in a few x2 50 hits than most longer* range six fifty shots.
the x4 .30's just keep the guy ducking and weavein'
E is faster, good typical guns, wep so shes gets up and go's from 100 to 235+ quicker,after that the rate slows to a slow speed crawl. "takes days to get her goin' 300"
If we had the N, we would have a diffrent story, stronger engine,lighter frame, x2 less fiftys.
Give us a RUSSIAN "heck every nation" p40-n!!
ffs man!
Not to mention the N could carry x2 more bombs,leaveing room for the belly fule tank "more range duh". makeing it a great early war fighter/bomber for the Tod.