Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: EdXCal on January 01, 2006, 08:26:36 AM
-
I'm a huge P-40 fan and I can't beleave I never noticed this before, the climb rate of the P-40B in AH2 is at tops 2100fpm (Soda's webpage posts 2,300fpm but I can't recall ever getting that kind of performance), but in every single book that I have with the P-40, the P-40B model is posted to average 3000fpm to 15,000 feet... The P-40C had a climb of 2650 do to added weight of armor plating and such and thats even higher then what we have now in our P-40B.
I like the P-40B, nimble and oddly enough at 400 or less the guns work very well! But the lack of climb has been the only thing keeping me from this, so maybe HTC may want to look into this. I'm sure the stats can easly be found on the net.
I also wonder about the acceleration, is it really THAT bad? I mean it's so horrable it's almost unbeleavable, though it's funny, you accelerate so slow sometimes in a dive people will out accelerate you and force an overshot! lol
Edward
-
Hmm, never realized how many Michiganders play this here SIM.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by EdXCal
I'm a huge P-40 fan and I can't beleave I never noticed this before, the climb rate of the P-40B in AH2 is at tops 2100fpm (Soda's webpage posts 2,300fpm but I can't recall ever getting that kind of performance), but in every single book that I have with the P-40, the P-40B model is posted to average 3000fpm to 15,000 feet... The P-40C had a climb of 2650 do to added weight of armor plating and such and thats even higher then what we have now in our P-40B.
I like the P-40B, nimble and oddly enough at 400 or less the guns work very well! But the lack of climb has been the only thing keeping me from this, so maybe HTC may want to look into this. I'm sure the stats can easly be found on the net.
I also wonder about the acceleration, is it really THAT bad? I mean it's so horrable it's almost unbeleavable, though it's funny, you accelerate so slow sometimes in a dive people will out accelerate you and force an overshot! lol
Edward
First, you should post this to the Aircraft and Vehicle forum.
Second, I agree with you that the P-40B climbs too slow. However, there is little official test documentation available and HTC does not use website references for flight data unless the reference is an actual AAF test document. My research shows a typical rate of climb of 2,860 fpm from sea level. AVG Tomahawks should do considerably better because they were lighter (than the P-40C) and more powerful than the typical P-40B or P-40C (see below). However, we don't have a true AVG Tomahawk.
The AVG did not fly P-40Bs. They did not fly P-40C. What the AVG did fly was a P-40 built to Chinese specs. The serial numbers were pulled from a British allocation of Tomahawk fighters, designated as H81-A-2 and Curtiss used the data plates originally made for the Brits. However, these numbers were assigned months before actual manufacturing began. What the Chinese received was designated as the H81-A-3. These were hybrid fighters, combining spares from the P-40B run into the Tomahawks, including the externally sealed fuselage fuel tanks. Dan Ford and I have both researched this extensively (and independently) over the past 10 years. Terrill Clements has also come to the same general conclusions and mentions them in his AVG Colors and Markings book.
There was also an issue with engine availability. All V-1710 engines were already allocated to existing contracts. So, Allison set up a special production line to build engines for the Chinese fighters. These engines were quite literally hand built by 12 technicians using a mix of accepted and rejected components from the standard production line. Allison technicians built what they described as "blueprinted" motors, carefully matching parts and holding far tighter tolerances than normally found on the production line. When some of these engines were tested on the dynometer, they typically produced between 150 and 200 more horsepower than the standard production engine. So, the Chinese received hotrodded Tomahawks.
There was a downside to this though. The reduction gear of the early V-1710 engines (V-1710-33) was not engineered for more than 1,100 hp, and the AVG experienced a great many failures of the reduction gear, far in excess of the standard P-40B or C. When the revised P-40D appeared, it introduced a new reduction gear design that could withstand up to 1,400 horsepower reliably (hence the revised nose design of later P-40s).
My regards,
Widewing
-
We need P-40N-5-CU.
An altitude of 14,000 feet could be attained in 7.3 minutes. It a modified cockpit canopy with a frameless sliding hood and a deeper, squared-off rectangular aft transparent section to improve the rearward view. -5 brought back the 6x50cals.. Did 350mph @ 16000 ft.
-
I wasn't talking about the AVG aircraft, that wasn't my point at all, and it wasn't even said in my above post. I'm speaking of the P-40B, the actully USAAF model, and I posted it hear so it was more likly a HTC member like Pyro would see it.
Your comments above were totally unnecessary and rather rude, or atleast thats how it seemed, I know this game isn't totally realistic but it's often close and HTC does seem interested in keeping it that way.
Edward
-
Rude? dam man, if that's rude you're in for a "rude" awakening.
-
Originally posted by EdXCal
I wasn't talking about the AVG aircraft, that wasn't my point at all, and it wasn't even said in my above post. I'm speaking of the P-40B, the actully USAAF model, and I posted it hear so it was more likly a HTC member like Pyro would see it.
Your comments above were totally unnecessary and rather rude, or atleast thats how it seemed, I know this game isn't totally realistic but it's often close and HTC does seem interested in keeping it that way.
Edward
Edward, there was nothing rude whatsoever.... Geez, what is with people these days?:rolleyes:
I simply pointed out that your original post would be better suited to the other forum, which Pyro and Hitech read on a regular basis.
I provided you with the P-40B climb rate reported by the AAF from testing at Wright Field and agreed that the AH2 P-40B climbs too slow.
HTC orginally released the P-40B in AVG colors, thus my comments on the AVG P-40s/Tomahawks.
So, pardon me if I don't understand your problem....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by EdXCal
I wasn't talking about the AVG aircraft, that wasn't my point at all, and it wasn't even said in my above post. I'm speaking of the P-40B, the actully USAAF model, and I posted it hear so it was more likly a HTC member like Pyro would see it.
Your comments above were totally unnecessary and rather rude, or atleast thats how it seemed, I know this game isn't totally realistic but it's often close and HTC does seem interested in keeping it that way.
Edward
Man, if you thought that came even close to rude, you should pack up and go elsewhere now, your skin is mighty thin. The man not only agreed with you, he gave you the AAF data on it, gave you anecdotal evidence that even better performance planes of similar type existed and why. He also pointed out if you wanted HTC's attention, you'd have been better off posting it in another forum that better pertains to specifics about aircraft performance, one that - coincidentally - they read more often.
If anything, while reading this thread, YOU are the one who came off as rude.
-
I am sorry... I was in the middle of a "squad metting" on teamspeak well reading your post, it's my fault for only half reading it at best and repling in slight anger. I do thank you for your reposts and I am sorry about that yet again. 9/10th's of english language, is body language, so sometimes people will miss 9/10's of what the hell is really being said, so I only read about a 3rd of your post, misunderstood and there you go. lol
Also if you read the book 'God is my copilot" Col. Robert Scott talks about a P-40B that they took some P-40E engine parts out of and it became a very fast climbing intercepter, they said they used it as a recon intercepter.
Oh, well I'm thinking of it in the game Pacific Fighters it also performs very well over the AH version. It's very responsive and far more well suited for combat.
I may repost this forum to the other forum for more attention. Who knows
Edward
-
There is nothing wrong with its climb rate. It's a 1941 fighter with a modest, unboosted 1100 hp Allison engine and a loaded weight of @ 7300 lbs.
3000 fpm to 15,000 ft? I doubt a A6M2 Zero could do that. Thats like 15k in 5 minutes flat. A 1944 P-40N couldn't even do that...
It has to be compared to its era in the war, it was a 1940-41 fighter. Its main opposition while with the AVG was the IJAAF Ki-27 Nate.
As for the differences between a P-40B and P-40C they were negligable. Both had armor protection. The P-40C had a different radio, a drop tank rack, and more fuel.
"Also if you read the book 'God is my copilot" Col. Robert Scott talks about a P-40B that they took some P-40E engine parts out of and it became a very fast climbing intercepter, they said they used it as a recon intercepter."
That has nothing to do with a line P-40B fighter. You are talking about a stripped down, hopped up customized recce job.
There is no credible book that gives the P-40B a great climb rate, and it was never known for having one. It was remembered as being able to out dive and be faster than its opponents in China. Not more manueverable (save roll rate), and not better climbing.
I also have IL-2, and it climbs no better in that sim, it does @2200 fpm sustained.
-
I think the roll rate for both P40s is a little slow in AH. Pacific Fighter's P40B definitely has AH's in the dps category. This might give you the impression that PF's warhawk seems to much more nimble than our own warhawk... it does for me. :)
-
First off, I've got 4 books now total that I've found that support the 3000fpm fact, the P-40B was also much lighter then the P-40N models. The P-40N-1 might have been able to sport that kind of climb rate, it had a lightened airframe and only 4x .50cals, but the later N-5-N20 added those guns and some other weight (Namly in armor, the N was heavly used for gournd attack so I found out, and escort A-20's in ground attack) and lost alot of that extra performance but got that awesome frameless cockpit, beautiful!
Second of all, the P-40B that had P-40E engine parts was just something I thought to bring up well we were on the subject, as it seems you didn't notice I didn't try and use it to support the P-40's climb rate.
In Pacific fighters you must just suck because the P-40B I can get around 2800fpm, 3000fpm I start losing to much airspeed.
You should also note that the P-40C has more armor and your right, more fuel and the ability to carry a drop tank, how much does the pylon that holds the tank weight? How about the extra fuel tanks and the fuel? The C-model was still heavier and yet again only had a climb of 2,650, still much better then AH. Look it up.
Also, just because it was a 1941 aircarft, doesn't meen it has to have horrable performace because it's 1944 version didn't have better climb. Thats like saying the 109G6 was worse then the 109G2 because it was slower, and climbed less... The 109G6 added more weight do to the upgrade in weapons without any extra HP but had enough firepower to take on it's enemies, it was still a good plane.
Last thing, I said the P-40 was nimble I never said it was like a Zero or anything, but in China the P-40 was still nimble, just you couldn't get in a turning match with Japs... Thats like saying a Zero isn't nimble because it can't turn with a Stearman Bi-plane. Or a spit5 isn't nimble because it can't outturn a Zero. It came close but wasn't really in the range to outturn a zero.
Edward
PS also, as noted in posts above, were not talking about the AVG! Just the P-40B which also served with the British and the Russians so it had more enemies then the Jap aircraft.
-
Well I reread some of the books here, I was slightly wrong, here are some stats I've found.
American Combat Planes: New revised Edition 1968
P-40(first model) weight:
Empty: 5376Ibs
Gross: 6787Ibs
Max: 7215Ibs
P-40 at gross weight:
top speed at 15K: 357mph
Cruising at 15K 277mph
Landing Speed: 80mph
Service Ceiling 32,750 feet
Climb rate: 3080fpm
Climb to 15K 5.3 minutes
Range 650 miles normal, 950-1400 miles max
P-40B weight:
Empty: 5590Ibs
Gross:7325Ibs
Max: 7600Ibs
P-40B at 6,835Ibs (half fuel):
top speed at 15K: 352mph
Cruising at 15K 280mph
Landing Speed: 80mph
Service Ceiling 32,400 feet
Climb to 15K 5.1 minutes
Range 730 miles normal, 940-1230 miles max
P-40C (Tomahawk IIB) weight:
Empty: 5812Ibs
Gross:7549Ibs
Max: 8058Ibs
P-40C at Gross weight:
top speed at 15K: 345mph
Cruising at 15K 270mph
Landing Speed: 86mph
Service Ceiling 29,500 feet
Climb: 2,690fpm
(No stats on climb to 15K or range)
So fiigure all the rest on your own.
Edward
-
Holy ****, you're a feisty one. And you say they came off as rude.
Reread my post, I have no reference to acceleration/climbrate... roll rate and percieved performance is what it concerned:
Oh, well I'm thinking of it in the game Pacific Fighters it also performs very well over the AH version. It's very responsive and far more well suited for combat.
Comparing two seperate games produced by two different companies is not an applicable argument, and I doubt Pyro will alter the P40s FM because game X flies like Y. Which flight model is more accurate is open for debate, and I dont care to offer an opinion on either one. There is no common denominator between the two apparent to the average end user, so comparing the completely subjective feel is apples and oranges. Stick to your stats and try not to be so defensive.
-
Not the P-40 B but still an excellent site.
Thanks Peril.
http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/p40_data.htm
Neil.
-
Awsome!!!!!!!! Site Neil. Ty for posting this link.
-
Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
Not the P-40 B but still an excellent site.
Thanks Peril.
http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/p40_data.htm
Neil.
Actually there is a considerable amount of P-40B/C data on this site. It will be useful in getting the P-40B flight model corrected.
For example, the AH2 P-40B can only manage 332 mph at 15,000 feet (tested). However, the Tomahawk I could reach 365 mph at the same altitude. Since we have the P-40B/Tomahawk IIA, with the additional weight of externally sealed tanks and two additional MGs, plus more armor, it should weight about 370 lb more than the Tomahawk I. No way that difference would reduce speed by 33 mph.
I have seen figures of 355 mph (Wright Field) and 352 mph (Eglin) for the P-40B.
There are also MAP discrepancies between test data and the AH2 FM. Climb rate is off by nearly 600 fpm at sea level.
I will compose a post to the Aircraft and Vehicle forum and send an e-mail with the appropriate test data to HTC.
There may be a argument that the P-40B is hardly worth fixing, because it is rarely flown. However, if the FM was corrected it certainly would get a great deal more use.
We can thank EdXCal for reviving this issue. It should be corrected, just like the Bf 109G-14 should be corrected.
By the way Edward, the material on this website is what historians call "primary source documentation". This is the stuff HTC needs to change flight performance. Books on the topic will not suffice, unless they contain references to original documents or provide copies of that data. Nonetheless, thanks for bringing up the topic again. It needs to be looked into.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Ok, e-mail was sent to HTC with whatever hard data I had. There should be enough to justify reviewing several issues such as these:
AH2 P-40B performance, as measured with E6B, 50% fuel.
Speed at 12,000 feet: 321 mph (between 19 and 21 mph too slow)
Speed at 15,000 feet: 332 mph (between 20 and 23 mph too slow)
Max MAP: 38 in/hg (should be 40.5 in/hg at sea level)
Max climb rate at sea level: 2,100 fpm (should be 2,680 fpm, minimum at 100% fuel)
Time to 15,000 feet: 7.3 minutes (should be 6.1 minutes)
Just remember that HTC is up to their ears in getting TOD online, so this will be back-burner stuff. Don't expect it to be addressed in the near term.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The Q. I would have comparing the P-40B and the P-40C would be "wep" output for the engines, as it appears the AH2 P-40B does not have a wep rating.
Also, Neils docs shows the P-40Bs Allison engine as 1040hp max, with no overboost available, either.
That has to be the reason the AH P-40B performs as it does. 1040 hp engine with no wep in a 7300 lb airframe is not going to climb very fast, compare it to a Bf 109E-4 that is 1500 lbs lighter, and has an unboosted climb rate of @ 2700 fpm, with a higher hp engine (1100hp).
The FMs have to follow the laws of physics. Why would a P-40B that is 1500 lbs heavier climb as well as a Bf 109E? When the engine is no better?
The A6M2 climbs at @ 2700 fpm as well, with a 950 hp engine (unboosted) and a weight almost 2,000 lbs lighter.
So far nobody has made any comparisons and asked that question.
-
Well thanks for the informations, I know the information I gave isn't official, but it's the best I could do at the time, I have many books I could use to post and all say ALMOST the same thing, speed seems to change a little from book to book but are in the same 10 mph ballpark. The Climb rate stay's pretty much the same and thats what I was gunnin' for. The reason I posted that book is because it had the most information and seemed to match up with the rest of my books then the rest.
I really do hope that AH touchs up the flight model, with a little better climb and speed, more people would be willing to fly and as you said, may become more popular.
Edward
-
Originally posted by Squire
The Q. I would have comparing the P-40B and the P-40C would be "wep" output for the engines, as it appears the AH2 P-40B does not have a wep rating.
First, the P-40C was an improved B model. It added a bit more armor, internally sealed fuel tanks and the plumbing and shackles for an external fuel tank. Both were powered by the V-1710-33 engine, neither having a WEP setting. However, the P-40C's increased weight cut into climb and the increased drag, combined to small extent with the extra weight, reduced speed.
I had always felt that the AH2 P-40B model was lacking in both speed and climb.
Think about this... A Merlin powered P-40F made 1,100 hp at MIL power @ sea level. A P-40B had 1,040 hp available at sea level. Now, the P-40F was 1,300 lb heavier than the P-40B, so one would generally conclude that the B model should climb as fast or faster than the F model, IF the F model used just MIL power. But, our P-40B climbs far slower than an F model at MIL power. There's no doubt in my mind that the AH2 P-40B climbs considerably slower than it should when below Critical Altitude.
Add to that, it's also at least 20 mph slower at Critcal Altitude than it should be. If that doesn't point to a problem with the flight model, I don't know what does.
Also, I tested rate of roll and found that at 280 mph the AH2 P-40B rolls left at 101 dps and 98 dps to the right. We saw a document that shows the P-40 rolling at 110 dps at 30 lb stick force. Even that seems slow when we look at the roll chart in Dean's America's Hundred Thousand, where we see a roll rate of 135 degrees per second at 360 mph. No stick force is provided. If you read this report (http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allied%20AC%20rollrate.pdf) you will see that the P-40's ailerons were extremely effective and considered substantially better than the Spitfire's or Hurricanes.
So, there's several issues that should be reviewed by HTC as time allows.
My regards,
Widewing
-
According to the AH chart, the P-40B outclimbs the P-40E (we dont have an F), when both just use MIL power, not by a lot, but it does.
...and you still have not addressed the rate of climb of the 109E, Spit IA, and A6M2 using MIL power, all of which are MUCH lighter a/c with similar hp outputs.
A6M2 does @2700 fpm initial, just how close to climb rate do you think a P-40B is going to be, when it does 2200 fpm already, weighing 2000 lbs more??? We supposed to beleive it could climb as well? because it had a sharkmouth?
At some point gravity has to be addressed.
Personally I think a lot of the Curtiss data looks very optimistic, to say the least. I think HTC based the FM on more reliable, and beleivable data than some sources claim. They have not said what they used, but then they usually don't.
I like the P-40, I think it had a very good record in combat in the Pacific and CBI, and it has some great qualities, and I think it tends to be under rated in some histories...but it never climbed as well as its contemporaries, allied or axis.
As for its top speed at FTH, that may be off, I would like to see some more on USAAF tests on it. I can certianly beleive that it could have done @ 350 mph as an inline design with a 1000 hp engine.
They can review it as they see fit, I would be curious to hear their take on it.
-
Were giving you realistic stats and your trying to compair the P-40B to other planes in the game?! Can you find any reports against that climb rate? I havn't found anything stating the climb being that low.
Now, as for the 109, the 109E-4 only had 174.05 sq feet of wing area at a weight of 5,875Ibs with 1175hp and climbed at 3,510fpm with full power and WEP.
The P-40B (From what I can find, not the game stats) with 236 sq feet of wing area at ( at 50% fuel, only stats I've got) 6,835Ibs with 1040hp climbed 15k in 5.1 minutes (roughly 3,000 fpm).
So, the P-40B does have a larger wing area at 1,000-1,300Ibs heavier, with about 100hp less, I think that 3000fpm climb isn't that unrealistic, though 2,690fpm does seem a little more realistic.
Edward
-
It woudnt be the first time that HTCs data did not reflect #s from a book, that doesnt mean that they are wrong. If only a/c research was that easy.
As for the 109E, it climbs @ 2700 fpm in MIL power, with WEP it does 3500 fpm initially.
Spitfire IA does @ 2600 fpm initially in MIL power, and @ 2900 fpm in WEP. < 1000 lbs lighter than a P-40B.
A6M2 Zero is 2000 lbs lighter, and climbs at 2700 fpm in MIL power.
All three are 1000-2000 lbs lighter with similar (or better) engines.
And your 3000 fpm quote you keep using is from the P-40 prototype, and are Curtiss #s.
The P-40B does not have an overboosted engine (WEP) and so its climb rate should be about where it is. *IF* it had WEP which-it-does-not, I could see 2600 fpm on it, in MIL power only, at 7300 lbs, 2200 fpm (at sea level) is as much as I can beleive it would climb.
To sum up, HTC is right, and your not.
-
First off, I can't even find stats for the prototype XP-40, atleast not in climb rate. It was actully faster, and had a more powerful engine. But in order to make it "cheaper" the super turbo charger was removed, making it a far less powerful engine. The prototype engine was an Allison V-1710-19, 1160hp at SL and 1000hp at 10k.
And so far all you can state is comparisons with game aircraft stats and saying that I'm wrong, not a single shred of proof, not from the net, from books, offical USAAF documents. Nothing... Widewing and I have mounted much information and a few other people have posted P-40 webpages with much information to support what we've said, so why are you still fighting this...? And just because you feel like "HTC is right and I'm wrong" doesn't make it true.
Edward
-
I have XP-40 stats at home, will post them for you later. I cant guarantee they are right though, just published.
The thing with getting info out of books is, most publishers dont seem to verify the author's data. It's expected that he did that himself. And more and more often we are finding out that they didnt, or simply relied on data published by someone else. So you get a whole string of books that can be published with erroneous data. The more that get published, the harder it is to get folks to believe its not factual. Thats why (as Widewing pointed out), HTC wont use information from books or the internet to make changes to their FM's, unless they reference original test data as their source (and hopefully provide photocopies of the original documents as well). Even some very well respected authors have published books with incomplete or jsut plain wrong data because it was accepted as fact when the book was written. There are even a few out there who have been known to "stretch the truth" a little, when it suited them or their story.
-
That is true, but I would find it odd that so many of my books have the same stats, but we area talking about a plane thats been around almost 70 years. I wish I could find a P-40 pilot, actully I do know of one whom is still alive, I spoke of him in an ealier post, his name is Col. (Now Gen. from what I know) Robert Scott, he flew side by side with the flying Tigers and them became the commanding officer of the 23rd fighter group in China. He still lives in Georga with his wife and heads a flying group called the Twin Tigers, I met one of the guy who's part of that group on AH2, there a flight training school and an acrobatic team. Maybe if we could somehow get ahold of him, he may either be able to support our climb rate idea's or be able to find us USAAF reports on the subject.
Edward
-
Originally posted by Squire
The P-40B does not have an overboosted engine (WEP) and so its climb rate should be about where it is. *IF* it had WEP which-it-does-not, I could see 2600 fpm on it, in MIL power only, at 7300 lbs, 2200 fpm (at sea level) is as much as I can beleive it would climb.
To sum up, HTC is right, and your not.
You're negotiating, not referencing or calculating. Sources?
-
Uh... negotiating? wth? Doesn't look like that to ME.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Uh... negotiating? wth? Doesn't look like that to ME.
When start seeing words like "I believe" and "I can't accept" and the like in reference to this kind of discussion, it's certainly not arguing the facts. What would you call it?
-
FYI: according to WRG:
"Climb to 14,000 ft.: 6 minutes 42 seconds
Service Ceiling: 31,000 ft. (9450m)"
Do the math, 14000 / 6.75 = 2074.074...
This is a plane with a weaker engine than its contemporaries, yet it was massively heavier than its contemporaries. HT has mentioned before in one of those long winding technical threads that climb is a product of excess power. Well this plane wouldn't have any. Even if it weighed as little as a spitfire or 109 it still wouldn't climb anywhere near as well because it has a weaker engine (without boost, to boot) with a draggier design.
The p40 was considered obsolete in most cases. Hell the P40B didn't even have bomb shackles or a GUNSIGHT. It had a ring-and-ball sight, which AH did away with (good call).
I don't think this plane would EVER do 3000 fpm. The physics don't add up when considering lighter planes with more powerful engines were barely reaching 3000 fpm.
-
Umm. Krusty. This is an airplane, not a boat. Power to weight ratio is not the only factor involved in ROC. I'm not going to pretend to know off the top of my head what kind of drag a P40 has, nor do I know how much lift the wings produce. Many things seem improbable at first glance, but work just fine in spite of that. Lets get some facts on the physics of the design and not just opinion? Anyone?
-
Hey, I'm just recounting what HT himself posted. He posted this a couple months back if I'm not mistaken but I can't remember in which thread.
-
I understand that sir. But you need to broaden your idea of what constitues "energy".
-
Krusty,
You forgot the "Divine Favor" trait that American aircraft are all granted by God. :p
-
In fairness it had a reflector gunsight, the ring and bead was a backup just like it was in other designs, like the A6M2. As for lack of bomb racks, it wasn't designed as a fighter-bomber.
The rest of it I agree with, it has an unboosted engine and weighs 1000-1500lbs more than a Spit IA or a Bf 109E, and so there is simply now way it can climb as fast.
The production P-40s did not have turbo superchargers, same as the P-39s, and for the same reason its performance was sub par. The unboosted Allison was simply in no way a contemporary of a Merlin or a DB601.
The info I have is that the YP-40 had a 3000 fpm climb rate, but does not say (as I suspect) that that was with a non standard supercharger installed, and a lighter design than a P-40B.
They said the same thing about the YP-39, it was fast and had pretty good performance, and then the design they built for the USAAC had no supercharger, and added weight, and was a dog as a result above 10k.
Imho its unforgivable that the USAAC agreed to recieve th P-40 and P-39 with unboosted engines, what they were thinking I have no idea. Hell of a thing to save money on in a fighter.
-
I found one source that listed the XP-40 stats, it had only 4 guns (2x 50cal under cowling, 1x 30cal in each wing) and it had a supercharged engine, which was NOT on the production model.
-
Originally posted by Squire
In fairness it had a reflector gunsight, the ring and bead was a backup just like it was in other designs, like the A6M2. As for lack of bomb racks, it wasn't designed as a fighter-bomber.
The rest of it I agree with, it has an unboosted engine and weighs 1000-1500lbs more than a Spit IA or a Bf 109E, and so there is simply now way it can climb as fast.
The production P-40s did not have turbo superchargers, same as the P-39s, and for the same reason its performance was sub par. The unboosted Allison was simply in no way a contemporary of a Merlin or a DB601.
The info I have is that the YP-40 had a 3000 fpm climb rate, but does not say (as I suspect) that that was with a non standard supercharger installed, and a lighter design than a P-40B.
They said the same thing about the YP-39, it was fast and had pretty good performance, and then the design they built for the USAAC had no supercharger, and added weight, and was a dog as a result above 10k.
Imho its unforgivable that the USAAC agreed to recieve th P-40 and P-39 with unboosted engines, what they were thinking I have no idea. Hell of a thing to save money on in a fighter.
All Allisons were supercharged. Allison's V-1710-33 and -35 had a single stage, single speed supercharger. So, they were "blown". Both had critical altitudes of 12,000 and 15,000 feet respectively. That is the altitude where they make max rated power. Performance fell off above that level, but was still adequate up through 17,000 and 20,000 feet, again, respectively. Those are the altitudes where performance really was suffering to extent that they were no longer competitive. You can't make max power at 15k without a supercharger. By the way, the XP-40's Allison V-1710-19 was rated at 10,000 feet for critical altitude.
You keep arguing that the P-40B was too heavy and underpowered to climb well. Of course, you haven't provided one fact to support that, just opinion. Well here's another fact you might not like. A standard P-39D-5, with a 1,150 Allison V-1710-35, weighing 7,631 pounds could climb at 2,400 to 2,500 fpm from the deck up thru 12,000 feet. I'm looking at the AAF climb chart now. It could also attain 365 mph at 12,000 feet, which is faster than the Spitfire Mk.I or the Bf 109E-4. Meanwhile, the P-40B was slightly faster than either of these two at 15,000 feet (352-355 mph) as well. Tomahawks began delivery in September of 1940, as the BoB was winding down. The first P-39C/D types were delivered in January of 1941, before the Spitfire Mk.V entered production.
When it went into combat (December 7, '41 at Pearl Harbor), the P-40B was not the best fighter in the world by any measure, but it was capable of holding its own, which it did.
I don't care who argues what, the fact remains that the Aces High P-40B flight model is incorrect, being at least 20 mph too slow at critical altitude. This is indisputable.
Climb is less than any flight data I have seen, and I've done some digging.
Unless someone has some data that differs from what I've seen, and what I presented to HTC, this debate is hollow.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Krusty
FYI: according to WRG:
"Climb to 14,000 ft.: 6 minutes 42 seconds
Service Ceiling: 31,000 ft. (9450m)"
Do the math, 14000 / 6.75 = 2074.074...
This is a plane with a weaker engine than its contemporaries, yet it was massively heavier than its contemporaries. HT has mentioned before in one of those long winding technical threads that climb is a product of excess power. Well this plane wouldn't have any. Even if it weighed as little as a spitfire or 109 it still wouldn't climb anywhere near as well because it has a weaker engine (without boost, to boot) with a draggier design.
The p40 was considered obsolete in most cases. Hell the P40B didn't even have bomb shackles or a GUNSIGHT. It had a ring-and-ball sight, which AH did away with (good call).
I don't think this plane would EVER do 3000 fpm. The physics don't add up when considering lighter planes with more powerful engines were barely reaching 3000 fpm.
Krusty, the Allison V-1710-33 made 1,060 hp at 15,000 feet. That is very competitive with the Merlin III and Merlin XII. The DB 601A made about 1,150 hp, which is the same as the V-1710-35... It was only inferior at higher altitudes. In 1941, the P-40 was something to be reckoned with at lower altitudes.
People forget that the Allison was a very advanced design, having pentroof-type combustion chambers with four valves per cylinder, overhead camshafts with forked roller cam followers actuating pairs of valves in each cylinder.
P-40s had reflector gunsights. When it was introduced, the P-40 was not obsolete. It was still serving in front line combat units well into 1944, and maintained a positive kill to loss ratio, even againt the Luftwaffe in Italy. It wasn't great, but it was adequate when adequate was enough.
My regards,
Widewing
-
"Of course, you haven't provided one fact to support that, just opinion"
Actually I have provided comparisons of the A6M2, P-40B, Bf 109E and Spit IA engines and weights and climb specs.
As far as its comparison to what date it saw service or how long it saw service, thats irrelevent to the topic, I dont care.
The P-40 had no turbosupercharger, and neither did the P-39. GE could not make enough of them so they went to other designs. That was a USAAC call.
As far as proof goes the onus is on you to prove its climb rate is too slow in AH2, since it has a 2200 fpm initial climb rate in the game.
Its a 1050 hp engine at MILITARY power, in a 7300 lb airframe. If you still want to claim that it had a climb rate of an A6M2 Zero go ahead, wave your pom poms, but good luck convincing HTC.
-
Originally posted by Squire
"Of course, you haven't provided one fact to support that, just opinion"
Actually I have provided comparisons of the A6M2, P-40B, Bf 109E and Spit IA engines and weights and climb specs.
You provided numbers extracted from pulp aviation books substantiated by opinion. That's not research, that's humbug.
You keep going on and on about the wonderfull Allison engine, except that your the only one that thought it was great.
I said that the Allison was very advanced, which is a fact.
The P-40 had a supercharger, but I will quote what I have on it "in May 1940 the first P-40s began to come off the production line, the initial 3 being used for testing. These differed from the XP-40 with a less powerfull supercharged Allison V1710-33 engine". In other words, the stats for the XP-40 are not the stats for a P-40 or a P-40B.
The XP-40 was powered by the V-1710-19, which was rated at 1,150 hp at 10,000 feet. At 15,000 feet, the V-1710-33 made 1,050 hp, but the V1710-19 had dropped off to 910 hp at that height. At sea level both engines made 1,050 hp. there's no significant difference. What is your source? Also, did you know that the XP-40 was not flush riveted? Production P-40s incorporated flush rivets, which reduced drag enough to gain 12 mph in max speed. That's right, the P-40B was 12 mph faster than the lighter, but draggy XP-40.
snip-
The fact that is soldiered on in Burma untill 1944 has Jack to do with anything. It faced the Japanese, where their slower and underpowered Ki-43s could still be faced with an obsolete design.
The P-51A with the Allison went to the ETO in 1942 and was also rejected for fighter duty out of hand. Only when it got a Merlin in 1943 did it get serious consideration as a ETO fighter.
I guess you missed the part where I mentioned that P-40s served with distinction in Italy. P-40s were in front line service in Italy well into 1944. Indeed, P-40s performed much of the medium altitude patrols over the Anzio beachhead. There were 3 groups operating the P-40 in Italy, all with the 12th AF. It wasn't until mid summer of '44 that all P-40s in Italy were replaced by newer model fighters. Even the RAF was flying Kittyhawks in Italy until July of '44. P-40s more than held their own against the Luftwaffe, maintaining a 3.5/1 kill to loss ratio against Axis aircraft.
As far as proof goes the onus is on you to prove its climb rate is too slow in AH2, since it has a 2200 fpm initial climb rate in the game.
Its a 1050hp unboosted engine, in a 7300 lb airframe.
IT'S NOT "UNBOOSTED"!! Or don't you understand what "boosted" means?
Both USAAF and Curtiss test data state that the climb rate should be at 2,680 fpm, at the least. I have submitted documentation to HTC establishing that the FM is incorrect. On the other hand, you have quoted nothing but third order sources to argue that the climb rate is correct as it is. Perhaps this never dawned in you, but since the maximum speed of incorrect by a substantial amount, don't you think that the equation used may also directly impact climb and acceleration? I'll wager that it does. So, if they add another 23 mph to max speed, you can bet that the climb rate will increase, as will the rate of acceleration. I have no idea why you insist on arguing this point. We have PROVEN that the flight model is incorrect simply by testing the plane and finding it 20-23 mph slower than it should be.
So, as I said before, unless you have some document that shows an initial climb rate of 2,100 fpm (the best rate I've measured), you're wasting your time arguing.
My regards,
Widewing
-
WEP, whatever you want to call it...
Btw the P-38G does @ 2700 fpm at MIL so like I said, good luck with that.
Must have special anti-g thrusters in that P-40B.
-
Well lets see, Widewing has used the USAAF and Cuirtis data for fact and all you can do is "comparisons" of other aircraft that have far more facters then power to weight ratio that effect climb.
Posting what another plane can do in comparason has nothing to do with the fact that Widewing has the only actully facts here, you havn't shown a single shred of REALLY documented proof against the P-40's climb rate. Another planes climb has NOTHING to do with the P-40, you have drag, weight (Gravity), lift (overall wing area) and power to worry about... Weight and power are half of the ratio, not to mention the prop or gear rations in the engine... Or the airfoil of the wing, look at the P-51, do to it's airfoil it was horrable at low speed even with 233sq ft of wing area, even the lighter models were bad at low speed yet they were a dream at high speeds.
Basicly it comes down to, do you agree with the USAAF and Cuirtis data on the aircraft? If not post your actully documentation that that will prove otherwise... Not comparasons, not quotes, offical documentation, weather it be from USSR, RAF, RAAF, China or USAAF, they all used the P-40 and so they should have some kind of info on the plane, search for it as Widewing did.
Edward
-
Also I too tested the P-40B in AH2, it took me 8 minutes and 15 seconds to reach 15k and once at alt I could only get to 331mph with full fuel. The posted speeds I've seen are 352mph at 15k, so it seems that at the very least I agree that it's if nothing else far to slow, I wonder if this happend in the trasfer from AH1 to AH2?
Edward
-
Originally posted by Squire
WEP, whatever you want to call it...
Btw the P-38G does @ 2700 fpm at MIL so like I said, good luck with that.
Must have special anti-g thrusters in that P-40B.
"War Emergency Power" and "boost" and "supercharger" and "turbosupercharger" are not all interchangeable terms. "WEP" in game terms implies something you can turn on and off, or runs out after a time limit. Like nitrous oxide injection, or methanol/water injection systems. Just because a plane didnt have what you might think of as WEP, does not mean it did not have "boost". A simple turbo provides "boost" without anything other than air and fuel. So does a supercharger. So does a turbosupercharger. None of those require "WEP" as you may think of it. Some engines have multi-stage superchargers for different altitudes. Just because the P40 was relegated to a mid-alt fighter by its lack of a high alt supercharger, does not mean it was obsolete, or incapable. It was merely limited. But within those limits it did its job quite well.
-
I was pointing out that it didnt have a Turbo-supercharger (my error in spelling) Which it did not. Also the XP-40 had a better engine than the P-40B.
Its not rated for war emergency power > as well as point above.
That the P-40B was some total POS? I never said anything remotely like that. If you want to beleive it had a climb rate of 3,000 fpm, well, good for you.
Yes, I can agree it might be too slow, depending on the flight tests.