Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on October 03, 2006, 11:53:07 PM
-
I've seen some guys mention that the AH2 P-40s can deploy their flaps (first notch) at 350 mph.
One might think that is rather fast, but the reality of it is that the P-40s, specifically the P-40E (actually tested) can deploy flaps at much, much higher speeds than that.
FLS and I tested the P-40E in the TA and discovered the following:
At 3,000 feet, you can deploy flaps to the first setting at 422 mph TAS/398 mph IAS.
Diving from 15,000 feet, leveling at 8,000 feet flaps deploy at:
1st setting: 440 mph TAS
2nd setting: 320 mph TAS
3rd setting: 265 mph TAS
4th setting: 215 mph TAS
Full Flaps: 198 mph TAS/171 mph IAS
Note that the P-40's pilot's manual states that max speed for full flaps is 140 mph IAS at any altitude.
We also checked deployment of the 1st setting at 16,000 feet, which was 450 mph TAS/341 mph IAS.
The above is something that needs to be looked at.
Also, when taking off from a 20k field in the TA, full throttle produces just a 2" increase in MAP from idle (from 10" to 12"). If you let the plane slowly roll, when it attains 5 mph the MAP jumps to 34". You can engage WEP to get 34" MAP to get rolling sooner. However, once rolling, even at 5 mph, you can disengage WEP and maintain 34" MAP. That should be looked into as well.
In addition, I cannot find any reference to a War Emergency Power rating for the V-1710-39 engine in the P-40E. As far as I can determine, WEP capability did not arrive until the V-1710-73 engine in the P-40K. P-40Ns also had a WEP rating.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Was there anything on the pre-WEP P-40s like the wire gate on the throttle that early Spitfires had?
-
Hi Widewing,
>1st setting: 440 mph TAS
>2nd setting: 320 mph TAS
>3rd setting: 265 mph TAS
>4th setting: 215 mph TAS
>Full Flaps: 198 mph TAS/171 mph IAS
That looks quite realistic if you compare it to Messerschmitt data from a graph sheet titled "Me 109E - Zulässige Geschwindigkeit in Abhängigkeit vom Klappenausschlag - nach Jocher 25.7.40" ('Me 109E - Permissible speed in dependence on flap deflection - according to Jocher 25.7.40').
I'm quoting the "n = 6" ('6 G') and "n = 0" curves here.
Flap deflection - 6-G speed - 0-G speed
10° - 770 km/h - n/a
20° - 474 km/h - 490 km/h
30° - 356 km/h - 360 km/h
40° - 292 km/h - 298 km/h
I don't know the exact angles of flap deflection for your P-40 data, but even your relative interval widths follow the same pattern as for the real-world Messerschmitt data, so your P-40 data looks good in my opinion.
>In addition, I cannot find any reference to a War Emergency Power rating for the V-1710-39 engine in the P-40E. As far as I can determine, WEP capability did not arrive until the V-1710-73 engine in the P-40K. P-40Ns also had a WEP rating.
A friendly P-40 researcher who dug into the Australian archives suggested that 44" Hg @ 3000 rpm were the maximum for the standard V-1710-39, though I have found a mention of 45" Hg, too. (For the P-40N, the maximum appeared to be a more generous 57" Hg.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Well, this begs the obvious question, why in God's name would someone feel the need to deploy flaps at 350kts other than to avoid terminal dive speed?
-
Hohun, I think WW's point is:
Originally posted by Widewing
Note that the P-40's pilot's manual states that max speed for full flaps is 140 mph IAS at any altitude.
From a 109 thread:
Originally posted by Pyro
I'm not sure where it came to be thought otherwise, but our flap speed standard has always been based on the figures attained in the pilots manual whenever possible. It has nothing to do with where the flaps would really be damaged because that's beyond knowing for most planes
-
NNNOOOO!!!!! PLEASE DONT MAKE MY P-40 HARDER TO FLY!!!
-
I'm not sure if flaps give any real advantage at high speeds because the flaps tend to give nose down effect and maneuverability might not be limited by lift but other limits like pilot's ability sustain acceleration, elevator authority, structural limits etc.
Maybe braking the speed is most noticeable effect.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
Maybe braking the speed is most noticeable effect.
gripen
Thats what I use them for. To ditch speed. fast.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Thats what I use them for. To ditch speed. fast.
In a P-40, do you really think that's a good idea? I guess in extreme situations but in that particular plane, given a situation, speed is everything. It least that's how I flew it.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
In a P-40, do you really think that's a good idea? I guess in extreme situations but in that particular plane, given a situation, speed is everything. It least that's how I flew it.
Emergency landing at a capped field.
Pilotwound, no ammo, several kills. The quicker I lose speed, the quicker I land, and the sooner I get out of harms way with a few more perk points than can otherwise be expected.
-
It (1 notch flaps) seems to me that it makes do a split S faster---argh, I hope that wep isnt gonna be removed...E cant compete with a spitV in EA as it is-- the only advantage it has is MARGINAL higher speed
-
Originally posted by bj229r
It (1 notch flaps) seems to me that it makes do a split S faster---argh, I hope that wep isnt gonna be removed...E cant compete with a spitV in EA as it is-- the only advantage it has is MARGINAL higher speed
The first P-40K-1s were visually indentical to the P-40E, they just had a more powerful engine. Later, about 500 P-40Ks (-10 and later) were built with the extended rear fuselage seen on the P-40N series. On the P-40K-5, Curtiss introduced a dorsal fillet to the rudder to improve low-speed stability in the longitudinal axis.
Therefore, all HTC has to do is redesignate the P-40E as the P-40K-1.
That, and adjust the P-40B's speed and acceleration... It's currently modeled more like the heavier P-40C, which had revised internal fuel tanks, more armor and provision for a single drop tank (but, not a bomb).
With just 10 hp less, and 800 lb lighter, the P-40B was a bit faster than the P-40E. Likewise, the P-40C was 400 lbs heavier than the P-40B and had the added drag of the fuel tank shackles.
My regards,
Widewing
-
P40s are first generation models for AH. It's a given that they have very buggy flight models compared to the remodeled p51s, spits, 47s, 109s, etc.
No doubt they will receive detailed bug fixes and updates as they are "remodeled", as will the ki67s, the d3as, and all the other "first generation" models we have.
-
Hopefully when they get to the P-40s they'll add the P-40K and P-40N while improving the B (rename it C?) and E FMs alongside the visual upgrades. :)
-
Not only would I like to see the P-40 Performance Specs & Handling Capabilites revised to the Proper & Historically Accurate ones, but I'd also wish that All Models be represented.
They operated best between Sea Level & 15,000', around 350mph IAS, performance started badly falling off above this Alt., w/o the Supercharger that the Brass Hats had removed.
P-40 no armour or self sealing fuel tanks w/ 2 50s & 4 30s.
P-40B engine upgrade, 1st of the armour & outside coated self-sealing tanks 1/2 way through production.
P-40B/C hybred 100 air frames w/o engines purchased by the Chinese Gov., that the Brits didn't want, for the AVG, as these had Hand fitted Engines because of being out of assembly line specs, placed in storage. These were then Ballanced/Blue Printed & Ported/Polished giving them a Major boost in HP & why the AVG did so well against the Nips outside of the Tactics used.
P-40C engine upgrade, more armour & the 1st of the inside coated self-sealing fuel tanks.
P-40D engine upgrade, heavier, 1st w/ 50 Cals wing mounted, 4 total
P-40E engine upgrade, heavier, 1st w/ 6 50s
P-40F engine upgrade, heavier, experamented w/ wing mounted 20mms
etc.
I'd also like to see the incorperation of Historical Battle Field Mods on the B & E models, such as what some of the FEAF pilots did to thier ships in the Philippians fighting the Nips starting in Dec. of '41 through May of '42.
I've researched WWII Pursuit Ships & Fighters for over 30 years & read thousands of Pilot Combat Reports & those Pilots Personal Statements regarding these A/C, as the Models of most of the A/C flown here are nothing close to the actual Performance capabilities.
-
Originally posted by Col. Flashman
They operated best between Sea Level & 15,000', around 350mph IAS, performance started badly falling off above this Alt., w/o the Supercharger that the Brass Hats had removed.
I've researched WWII Pursuit Ships & Fighters for over 30 years & read thousands of Pilot Combat Reports & those Pilots Personal Statements regarding these A/C, as the Models of most of the A/C flown here are nothing close to the actual Performance capabilities.
Hi,
if you think a P40E was able to reach 350mph IAS in a level flight, i dont know what you did research the last 30 years. :rolleyes:
Actually i doubt that any wartime P40 was able to reach this.
btw, in almost every theatre i saw u writing you state that the AH plane performences are not like the real ones. Could you please explain what was the real performence??
Most AH perfromence datas(Vmax, climb, roll) fit rather good to the known test. Maybe you 1st should find a good joystick setup and get used to the planes?
Greetings,
-
Some more strange P-40B behavior.
Taking off from a 20k field in TA... Full throttle will not produce more than 1 mph of speed. When WEP is selected, RPM and MAP come up to where expected. What makes this extra strange is that the P-40B does not have WEP.....
P-40B max speed as measured over a 10 minute run (diving down from 20k) is 338 mph @ 16,000 feet. Fuel was 25% with zero burn. This is acceptable performance for a fully loaded P-40C/Tomahawk Mk. IIb (345 mph clean), but is 12 to 15 mph slower than the P-40/P-40B/Tomahawk Mk. IIa.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,
if you think a P40E was able to reach 350mph IAS in a level flight, i dont know what you did research the last 30 years. :rolleyes:
Actually i doubt that any wartime P40 was able to reach this.
btw, in almost every theatre i saw u writing you state that the AH plane performences are not like the real ones. Could you please explain what was the real performence??
Most AH perfromence datas(Vmax, climb, roll) fit rather good to the known test. Maybe you 1st should find a good joystick setup and get used to the planes?
Greetings,
Salutations;
Do you always attack & attempt to make fun of those that you do not agree w/, I thought I left the Public School system & it's Jock mentality behind years ago. :p
Explain that to the A.V.G. Pilots that had Hand Fitted, Balanced/Blue Printed & Ported/Polished engines in the Planes that were purchased by the C.K-s. Gov. for them after they took over the order of Tomahawks the R.A.F. rejected, there were No engines available for them, as the ones on the Assembly Lines were already barely filling the back orders. The company offered them the rejects from the Assembly Line that were Out of Spec & would take to much time & money to hand fit under War time conditions.
But the C.K-s. Gov., paid for the extra employees to be hired for this purpose & the Company was glad to get them out of the warehouse. If you've ever had a B&B & P&P engine there is a good jump in performance due to this & this is one of the reasons why the AVG did so well against the Nips, besides the brilliant tactics worked out by Brig. Gen. Claire Chennault that exploited the P-40s Strengths. These were also a P-40B/C hybrid having some features from both models.
This was brought out in books, in previous interviews by those formerly in the A.V.G. & in a recent interview of former AVG, 3rd Pursuit Squadron, Hell's Angels Pilot Erik Shilling, as he was doing a walk around of a P-40C being restored as a B model w/ his Marking on the Olde Girl. He pointed out discrepancies in equipment that was & wasn’t there in the C model being restored from what he actually flew in combat & he refreshed his memory by going back through the diary he kept while in the A.V.G..
The last time I flew, TAS had to be calculated using different variables for C.C. Flying & IAS was what you read off the Air Speed Indicator @ that specific point in time in flight.
I probably should have used Kts. instead of MPH., but I believe U.S.A.A.C & the A.V.G. was using MPH @ that time.
All right, according to what the Crew @ H.T. has written on how these planes should be Flown in the A.H. combat system on the A.H. site & the 3/4s of the A/C I've flown in A.H. so far matches nothing that I've Read in the A/C Performence Specs or Experienced during rides & unofficial Stick time in Piggyback variations of these A/C.
I've done everything that the Game states I should do to Calibrate my "Wingman Force 3D" to the game & so far except for a few A/C, Most of what I've flown in Off-Line Practice Flights does not go over the 200MPH mark @ any Alt. Widewing believes there's a Throttle problem & wishes to work it out w/ me & I'm willing to try that, but it works just fine in all other Flight Sims I've flown in.
Cheers
-
I read that the AVG actually never flew against the Zero. It was the Oscar they fought primarily, which would make sense as the Zero was a Navy fighter and the Oscar was an Army fighter. You got to remember, these guys were in the war well before Pearl Harbor and the Zero was an unpleasant surprise to the US pilots once we entered the war.
I imagine the P40 could do rather well up against the Oscar, which was slower than the Zero and had pitiful guns.
Magoo
-
:O wow i never knew all that stuff lol
-
Originally posted by Magoo
I read that the AVG actually never flew against the Zero. It was the Oscar they fought primarily, which would make sense as the Zero was a Navy fighter and the Oscar was an Army fighter. You got to remember, these guys were in the war well before Pearl Harbor and the Zero was an unpleasant surprise to the US pilots once we entered the war.
I imagine the P40 could do rather well up against the Oscar, which was slower than the Zero and had pitiful guns.
Magoo
Primary fighter opposition for the AVG was the Ki-43 and Ki-27. No Zeros were in Burma or China in late '41 thru July 4, 1942 when the AVG was disbanded and absorbed into the AAF.
My regards,
Widewing
-
From my website, part of an article written by Erik Shilling, with photos contributed by Tom Cleaver. I added the following as a footnote:
"Recent research appears to support Erik Shilling's strong argument that the AVG aircraft were very close to the P-40B configuration, which the British designated as the Tomahawk IIA. The history of the AVG fighters is nearly as interesting as the story of the AVG itself.
When the Chinese asked the U.S. for assistance, they asked for fighters and bombers. For political reasons, FDR would agree only to fighters, and U.S. law at the time allowed only for cash & carry sales to beligerents. So, a China based corporation was formed to purchase aircraft. However, virtually all U.S. production capacity was allocated for our own build up and existing contracts with friendly nations such as Britain. In order to free up some aircraft for China, the U.S. asked the Brits to exchange later model P-40Ds (Kittyhawk I) for currently ordered Tomahawk IIB fighters. The Brits agreed and 100 of the contracted Tomahawks were transferred to a Chinese contract.
Curtiss saw an opportunity to utilize stock of enternally sealed fuel tanks that had been used on the Tomahawk IIA. The Brits did not like the external sealing and specified internal sealing for future builds. This left Curtiss with over 100 sets of obsolete fuel tanks. This was their chance to use these, and they had already been written off. This would enhance profits. In addition, the Chinese contract, unlike that with the Brits, did not specify plumbing or shackles for an external fuel tank, so this was deleted from the Chinese aircraft. Again, this simplified production and increased the profit margin. The net result is that even though the 100 fighters carried Tomahawk IIB serial numbers, these fighters were very much like the IIA, except that they had IIB armor.
Allison was running at 100% capacity. Simply stated, there weren't any extra engines to be had. Every block and cylinder head was already allocated to an existing contract. But, wait a minute, there were plenty of rejected blocks, cylinder heads and such. Allison realized that most of the rejected engine components were usable if the various parts were hand matched and fitted. They set up a production line and began assembling these engines. Individual parts were reworked and carefully matched. The results of this procedure were engines built to very tight tolerances. Essentially, these were 'blueprinted' engines. Dyno tests revealed that they produced as much as 220 hp more than the production line V-1710-33s going into the RAF Tomahawks and USAAF P-40C fighters. Allison had produced some very powerful and very expensive engines. Fortunately they were allowed to bury the extra cost into contracts for U.S. aircraft. These engines certainly account for the performance of the AVG's Tomahawks. In general terms, the AVG fighters could pull up to 370 mph in level flight, which is reasonable considering that these aircraft had 20% more power and less weight than the British Tomahawk IIB. Another fact not picked up on as significant by historians was the high rate of reduction gear failures in the AVG aircraft. This is easily explained when you realize that the older style reduction gear was rated for no more than 1,100 hp. With as much as 1,250 hp on tap, the reduction gearbox was over-stressed and frequently stripped gears. Later models, with 1,200 hp engines were fitted with a much stronger spur gear design that could handle up to 1,600 hp. This is the major reason that the nose is shorter from the P-40D onward.
Now that the Chinese had airframes and engines, they needed to purchase guns for the fighters. Once again, all production was allocated for existing contracts. Nonetheless, CAMCO (the China based front company) managed to purchase enough .50 caliber Brownings for all 100 Tomahawks. Finding .30 caliber guns (installed in the wings) was more of a problem. Eventually, the 100 Tomahawks were fitted with a mixture of guns. Some were fitted with 7.92mm caliber wing guns, others carried British specification guns in .303 caliber. Still others were armed with .30 U.S. caliber Brownings. This complicated logistics somewhat, but all three calibers were readily available, even 7.92mm, which was the standard for the Chinese Army.
Within the context of this knowledge, we can understand that the AVG fighters were a unique model. For that reason, Curtiss gave them their own special designation. Originally contracted for as the Curtiss H81-2A, these fighters were designated as the H81-3A. Many historians and authors have confused the various Curtiss designations, or figured that these were Tomahawk IIB aircraft based upon the serial numbers. We now know that these were a special model. It should also be noted that the serial numbers were assigned months before actual manufacturing began.
So, a unique group of fighter pilots flew an equally unique version of the Curtiss H81/Tomahawk/P-40."
You can see the article, with photos of the world's only flying Tomahawk, here. (http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-40C.html)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Col. Flashman
I've done everything that the Game states I should do to Calibrate my "Wingman Force 3D" to the game & so far except for a few A/C, Most of what I've flown in Off-Line Practice Flights does not go over the 200MPH mark @ any Alt. Widewing believes there's a Throttle problem & wishes to work it out w/ me & I'm willing to try that, but it works just fine in all other Flight Sims I've flown in.
Flashman, you can send me a private message thru this BBS. Let me know when you can be available and we can get together in the Training Arena and sort out your throttle woes.
In the meanwhile, you can always use the = key for throttle, and don't forget that the P key toggles WEP on and off. You cannot engage WEP unless the engine is at full MIL power. Observe the manifold pressure gauge and make sure you have full RPM (which is controlled by the - and + keys on the number pad).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Magoo
I read that the AVG actually never flew against the Zero. It was the Oscar they fought primarily, which would make sense as the Zero was a Navy fighter and the Oscar was an Army fighter. You got to remember, these guys were in the war well before Pearl Harbor and the Zero was an unpleasant surprise to the US pilots once we entered the war.
I imagine the P40 could do rather well up against the Oscar, which was slower than the Zero and had pitiful guns.
Magoo
True, but the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 11 (A6M Zero-sen) was in service w/ the 12th Combined Rokutai, Hankow region of China Winter '40-'41 & is Listed in Gen Chennaults Reports to U.S.A.A.C. H.Q. in 1940/41 & he was completly ignored & labeled as an alarmist, because No A/C of that era could have those Performance Specs. He'd been in China since early '37 as an Advisor to the C.K-s. Government. The Type 0 Performance Specs & Designs had also been smuggled out of Nippon in early '40 & given the same treatment by U.S.A.A.C. H.Q..
But w/ the Zero operating w/ the 12th Combined Rokutai, it seems that the I.J.A. & I.J.N. were either co-operative some times & flew out of the same bases or the I.J.A.. got there hands on the "Zeke" for themselves.
These A/C below were the main opponents of the C.A.M.C.O.'s A.V.G. & Possibly along w/ some Zero's operating w/ units such as the 12th C.R.
The Army Type 97 Fighter Model A (Ki-27), code name Abdul in the C.B.I. & later changed to Nate, w/ its two 7.7 (0.303-in.) calibre M.G.'s.
The Army Type 1 Fighter 1A Hayabusa (Ki-43) code name Oscar, 1a had two 7.7 calibre (0.303-in), 1b had one 7.7 calibre (0.303-in) & one 12.7 calibre (0.5-in) & 1c had two 12.7 (0.5-in.) M.G.'s.
These could be considered weak, but were deadly under the control of a Talented Pilot.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
From my website, part of an article written by Erik Shilling, with photos contributed by Tom Cleaver. I added the following as a footnote:
My regards,
Widewing
This is rather Amusing, as I was originally going to C&P this into my post, but it made it to long I believed.
So I was going to put it into another reply instead & you beat me to it.:p :aok :lol
So when can we expect to be able to Fly these Hybred A.V.G. P-40s in a Special Arena?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Flashman, you can send me a private message thru this BBS. Let me know when you can be available and we can get together in the Training Arena and sort out your throttle woes.
In the meanwhile, you can always use the = key for throttle, and don't forget that the P key toggles WEP on and off. You cannot engage WEP unless the engine is at full MIL power. Observe the manifold pressure gauge and make sure you have full RPM (which is controlled by the - and + keys on the number pad).
My regards,
Widewing
Looks good to me, boy-o.
As soon as I can co-ordinate w/ the family some free time, you're on.
That didn't seem to have any effect, but I'll give it another try.
-
Originally posted by Col. Flashman
Salutations;
Do you always attack & attempt to make fun of those that you do not agree w/, I thought I left the Public School system & it's Jock mentality behind years ago. :p
Cheers
Hi,
actually its somewhat funny to see someone stating the P40B/C could fly 350mph IAS, specialy if he claim to have 30 years of experiences(reaserches etc).
As you maybe can see in the article that Widewing posted, even the very good AVG P40´s only did reach 370mph TAS and thats probably in best altitude. Thats far away from 350mph IAS!!
Eric Schilling already is known as a P40 fan, but i never saw him claiming speeds of 350mph IAS for the P40.
350mph IAS would be good above 400mph TAS in 3000m altitude.
Greetings,
-
Laugh it up, Fussball.
As I stated before, T.A.S. is a CALCULATED Air Speed that takes all variables into consideration for Cross Country Flying & unless I'm foregetting what an A/C Air Speed Indicator actually does, it certainly does not do those calculations for you. Especially back during W.W. II w/ what can be considered rather primitive Instruments compared to today’s.
Indicated Air Speed is just that, the I.A.S. you see on an Air Speed Indicator @ that specific moment in time w/o taking Any variables into consideration, such as Cross, Head, Tail Winds, etc., as your T.A.S. can be Faster or Slower or Anywhere in Between from what you actually see for an I.A.S. on your A.S.I..
Once again, I stated that these speeds were I.A.S., Not T.A.S., as you can not expect a Fighter Pilot to Stop to Calculate what his T.A.S. is in a Running Dogfight. They write in their reports what they SAW @ the Time being Indicated on their Instruments. The actual T.A.S. could very well have been Faster, Slower or Somewhere in Between the speed that was being Indicated @ that particular moment in time & so the I.A.S. is what was reported.
Have ever you spoken w/ Erik Shilling @ an Air Show or any where else?
Interesting conversation, wish you could have been there, lo those many years ago.
A.V.G. P-40 Pilot 1st, Fan second & you wish you could've been him.
-
Originally posted by Col. Flashman
As I stated before, T.A.S. is a CALCULATED Air Speed that takes all variables into consideration for Cross Country Flying & unless I'm foregetting what an A/C Air Speed Indicator actually does, it certainly does not do those calculations for you. Especially back during W.W. II w/ what can be considered rather primitive Instruments compared to today’s.
Indicated Air Speed is just that, the I.A.S. you see on an Air Speed Indicator @ that specific moment in time w/o taking Any variables into consideration, such as Cross, Head, Tail Winds, etc., as your T.A.S. can be Faster or Slower or Anywhere in Between from what you actually see for an I.A.S. on your A.S.I..
Hm... You are somehow mixing various speed units; TAS is not same as ground speed. TAS does not depend wind while ground speed depends on wind.
gripen
-
Then my Flight Instructor screwed the Pooch when I was in Flight School, because he used the two of them interchangably.
-
Originally posted by Col. Flashman
Then my Flight Instructor screwed the Pooch when I was in Flight School, because he used the two of them interchangably.
I wouldn't use them interchangably... At sea level, 350 mph IAS is, essentially for a Standard Day, 350 mph TAS. But, at 12,000 feet, 350 mph IAS is actually closer to 434 mph TAS, depending upon OAT (outside air temperature) variables. An error of about 2% can exist if I use the typical .02 OAT correction factor. Actually knowing OAT would optimize the calculation.
That's the beauty of modern flight computers and the so-called glass cockpits. Modern systems sample OAT and provide very accurate TAS info.
Back during WWII, a pilot in actual air combat will not be paying much attention to instruments. He will be flying the aircraft more on feel as his full attention is outside the cockpit. That makes it virtually impossible to accurately recall speeds or altitudes. The best he can do for a debrief is provide an estimate, which could be close or far away from what actually existed.
I once asked Bob Johnson how fast he was going while chasing one particular 190 in dive. He said, "Pretty damn fast, my Thunderbolt was beginning to buffet". At the altitude he was at, the P-47 will begin buffeting right around 350 mph IAS (somewhere near 27,000 feet). Bob didn't glance at his airspeed until he was passing 10,000 feet and it showed 450 mph IAS (about 540 TAS), he began his pullout and the shaking Jug leveled out at 4,000 feet, just above a low overcast. The riddled 190 was still diving straight down when it entered the cloud cover, doubtless diving into the ground.
As a footnote; because Johnson didn't see the 190 actually crash, he claimed it as a probable. Recent analysis of Luftwaffe records shows that one 190 involved in that fight was never seen again (near Nancy) and that it was very likely that this was Johnson's victim.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Col. Flashman
Laugh it up, Fussball.
As I stated before, T.A.S. is a CALCULATED Air Speed that takes all variables into consideration for Cross Country Flying & unless I'm foregetting what an A/C Air Speed Indicator actually does, it certainly does not do those calculations for you. Especially back during W.W. II w/ what can be considered rather primitive Instruments compared to today’s.
Indicated Air Speed is just that, the I.A.S. you see on an Air Speed Indicator @ that specific moment in time w/o taking Any variables into consideration, such as Cross, Head, Tail Winds, etc., as your T.A.S. can be Faster or Slower or Anywhere in Between from what you actually see for an I.A.S. on your A.S.I..
Once again, I stated that these speeds were I.A.S., Not T.A.S., as you can not expect a Fighter Pilot to Stop to Calculate what his T.A.S. is in a Running Dogfight. They write in their reports what they SAW @ the Time being Indicated on their Instruments. The actual T.A.S. could very well have been Faster, Slower or Somewhere in Between the speed that was being Indicated @ that particular moment in time & so the I.A.S. is what was reported.
Have ever you spoken w/ Erik Shilling @ an Air Show or any where else?
Interesting conversation, wish you could have been there, lo those many years ago.
A.V.G. P-40 Pilot 1st, Fan second & you wish you could've been him.
Hi,
i did understand you, that you did state 350mph IAS as level Vmax for the P40 is what i consider as funny. I dont wrote that you wrote 350mph TAS, that would be ok.
There is simply no way that a P40 could do 350mph IAS in a level flight, at least not for long and thats the point where your critic on the AH FM simply fail.
IAS is related to the thrust, drag etc, not to wind, thats clear and tests show very exact that 350mph IAS need a bit more power than the P40 had or a much more smal plane(Yak3 maybe).
Even the 1800hp FW190´s had problems to reach 350MPH IAS and the 1800HP Bf109 just was a bit faster. According to my datas the fasttest IAS is at sea level (at least for most planes) and here the P40´s had problems to reach 300mph IAS.
If the P40B/C in 1940/41 would have been able to reach 350mph IAS with its 1100-1200HP engine, the P51 never would have seen the light and Mr. Messerschmitt would have been executed, cause he wasnt able to make the 109F that fast with more power, a smaler airframe and smaler wingarea.
Of course i didnt talk to Mr. Schilling, but i doubt that this would bring me much forward and i dont think it make your statements regarding the Vmax more valid than official testdatas. I did talk to several german WWII pilots, and i did read many satements of WWII pilots, but like Bob Johnson, they in general dont give usable speed datas, only extreme dive speeds or cruize speeds, but they rarely state the related powersetting or the dive/climb angle.
More interesting are their impressions about the relative performence between different planes, but also here its always important, if the combat result is related to the plane performence, or pilot skill, or team skill, therefor its not that easy to take any pilot story to make conclusions, without to make researches about the exact circumstances.
Greetings,
-
Originally posted by Col. Flashman
Then my Flight Instructor screwed the Pooch when I was in Flight School, because he used the two of them interchangably.
Hi,
i would look for a new instructor,or your instructor only fly without any wind!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_airspeed
Greetings,
-
Hi Widewing,
>That's the beauty of modern flight computers and the so-called glass cockpits. Modern systems sample OAT and provide very accurate TAS info.
Late in WW2, the Luftwaffe jets were equipped with combined IAS/TAS indicators, the IAS part being used only for low indicated air speed, while the TAS part showed medium to high true air speed values. Apparently, it compensated automatically for differences in air density and air temperature, though with which accuracy, I don't know.
It seems these indicators were favoured by the Luftwaffe over Mach indicators, though I don't know the reason for this preference. The Mach indicators was in use, too, at least for flight testing - some years back, a Me 163 prototype cockpit shot was posted on this board, showing a Machmeter installed on the dashboard.
Post-war, Machmeters (or at least Mach limit hands on the standard airspeed indicators) have been preferred, following the practice developed by the Allies.
(The TAS indicator played an important role in Fähnrich Mutke's - mad! - claim to have broken the sonic barrier in a Me 262 near the end of the war. As he apparently did not note the altitude, his claim is pretty sorry as even if he actually reached the stated TAS figure, he might have done so at an altitude where it's equivalent to much less than Mach 1.0.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
i'm almost positive i remember read somewhere that Seafires had a crude TAS indicator that was just an ASI geared to the altimeter, or something like that <--- lol anecodtal evidence of something someone may have read a long time ago. anyway TAS is pretty easy to figure out on your E6b whiz wheel
-
Not in the middle of combat its not.
-
That's what I get for having a 60+ year old F.I. @ the time, go figure & explains some difficulties I had on my F.T. while taking it.
Glancing @ your I.P., not studying it, especially your A.S.I. & Alt., while doing the Swivle around in the cockpit during combat, from what Boyington, Galland, Scott, etc., have stated while @ Air Show's, in thier books & during Interviews, one of things pounded into Cadet Pilot Training Program in U.S.A.A.C. (speed & alt. = survival), what I've found myself doing in Sim's is only natural after having it pounded into you.
Some flight data will stick because of the improbability of it & some will keep you flying because if you do not keep track of your I.A.S. & Alt. (speed & alt. = survival), you could be joining the Catapiller Club.
-
My air speed indicator also shows TAS. Not sure if any did in WWII but wouldn't be suprised if some had the setting dial to do the conversion.
HiTech
-
I owned A.S.I.'s out of a P-40F, P-47D & P-51B never saw any indication of a T.A.S. needle being there, only an I.A.S. needle.
-
Either way the speed you posted can only be resonable if it is TAS. And best performace speeds are normaly shown in TAS. Infact have never seen one other wise.
HiTech
-
AFAIK the WW2 aircraft showed IAS and there were converion charts around for the TAS.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Either way the speed you posted can only be resonable if it is TAS. And best performace speeds are normaly shown in TAS. Infact have never seen one other wise.
HiTech
Don't know what to tell you, olde son, as I'm not making statements about what is written down in a Performance Spec Sheet issued by the Company.
If the Air Speed Indicator is only set up to give an Indicated Air Speed read out w/o a way to give a True Air Speed read out, then the speeds are just what the A.S.I. is reading @ that moment in time when the Pilot is looking @ it, an Indicated one & not a True one being measured by the Pito Static Tube.
-
Originally posted by Angus
AFAIK the WW2 aircraft showed IAS and there were converion charts around for the TAS.
You cannot read a conversion chart while in a Combat situation while Swiveling around inside the cockpit looking for Bogies, Glancing @ your I.P., attempting to make a Kill & Jinking your A/C about so as not to be a Sitting Duck, all @ the same time. :aok
-
They operated best between Sea Level & 15,000', around 350mph IAS, performance started badly falling off above this A
Don't know what to tell you, olde son, as I'm not making statements about what is written down in a Performance Spec Sheet issued by the Company.
So what are you posting your research from?
Because I have no doubt that a p40 could not do 350 mph IAS in level flight.
And if almost any pilot told you it did 350 mph he would be talking TAS.
And that is based on how often I talk speeds of todays planes that a lot of us fly.
HiTech
-
Anyone reading this thread who would like a quick and easy refresher on the various types of airspeed, can brush up with the following notes, and a few comments about their impact on this thread.
Airspeed is measured by determining the difference between 2 air pressures about the aircraft. One pressure measurement is taken on the side of the aircraft, or on the side of the pitot-static tube (e.g. a small tube sticking out of the aircraft with its axis parallel to the direction of flight ), and indicates the static air pressure at your current altitude. The other pressure measurement is taken in the front, open end of the pitot tube, and indicates the total air pressure acting on your aircraft as you fly thru the air mass. The difference in these 2 measurements is indicated airspeed (IAS). Airspeed gauges are only calibrated for sea-level, standard-day atmospheric conditions. So. unless you are at sea level and the atmospheric conditions match standard day conditions, your airspeed indicator is not indicating true airspeed (TAS), ie your true speed with respect to the air mass. That's why this value is called IAS, it’s what is indicated on the airspeed gauge.
Calibrated airspeed (CAS) is IAS corrected for what is called "position error". This error is due to local airflow effects about the static measuring source. As the aircraft moves through the air, it changes the pressure field around itself. So, you don't get an accurate static pressure reading from the static source. This error is different for every aircraft type, and usually changes for each aircraft with airspeed and configuration (e.g. gear up or down) changes. Through flight test, you can determine what these position errors are, and then determine the necessary corrections to get CAS from IAS. The reason this is called CAS, is because this is what you would read if the airspeed indicator was "calibrated" perfectly, i.e. no position errors.
Equivalent airspeed (EAS) is CAS corrected for what is called "compressibility effects". As you go higher and/or faster, individual air molecules can be compressed as they come to rest inside the pitot tube. This "compressing" has the effect of causing the pressure sensor inside the pitot tube to indicate a total pressure higher than the actual value. These compressibility corrections are independent of aircraft type, and depend only on CAS and pressure altitude. They only come into play if you exceed 0.6 Mach number and/or 30,000 ft pressure altitude. The reason this is called EAS, is because this is your TAS equivalent at sea level. That means, take whatever value this is at your current altitude, Star Trek transport your aircraft to sea level, and this will be your TAS. The term is important because for a given angle of attack (AOA), an aircraft behaves the same aerodynamically (ie. it generates the same amount of lift, drag, etc.) at a given EAS regardless of altitude, discounting Mach number effects.
TAS is EAS corrected for air density at your current altitude. Air density is a function of pressure and temperature. Ground speed is TAS corrected for wind velocity.
At sea-level, standard-day atmospheric conditions (and for our purposes we can a just say sea level period, if Aces High models standard-day atmospheric conditions) all of these airspeed measurements will be equal, well except for IAS which is still dependant on those position errors, which are different for each aircraft type. An easy way to remember how their magnitudes relate to one another at higher altitudes is by using the square root symbol:
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/Speedtype.jpg)
IAS and CAS are usually very close to one another. For most aircraft, usually within 10 to 20 knots or less. EAS is always less than CAS. For airspeeds of Mach 1.0 or less, the maximum difference will be 30 knots. TAS is always greater than all the other airspeeds, at altitudes above sea level.
An important note, IAS/CAS tells the pilot how the aircraft will behave regardless of what altitude he's at. The same aircraft at 200 KCAS at sea level behaves just like it does at 200 KCAS at 30,000 feet. Remember what I said about a given AOA and EAS above? IAS/CAS is very close to EAS, much closer than TAS even at moderate to low altitudes, much less high altitudes. Therefore, since the aircraft behaves the same for the same airspeed even at vastly different altitudes, this makes flying one a lot easier when referencing IAS/CAS which is why when pilots talk speed, they talk IAS/CAS and in WWII that would have just been IAS. On the other hand if you want to compare different aircraft or know which aircraft is faster you need to know their TAS and so aircraft data and performance reports are normally provided in TAS.
As a side note, because TAS is normally arrived at through corrections for position error, compressibility effects, and air density corrected to standard day atmospheric conditions, values of TAS may vary significantly from the IAS recalled by pilots flying real aircraft in non standard conditions, even when we do our own conversions. It doesn’t mean anyone is necessarily wrong, just that everyone is talking about different things.
Hope that helps…
Badboy
-
They operated best between Sea Level & 15,000', around 350mph IAS, performance started badly falling off above this Alt., w/o the Supercharger that the Brass Hats had removed.
LOL, a new alternate history.:eek:
Maybe you should take another closer look at the Allison and RR engines used in the P-40.
Using this link the P-40 at 15000' doing 350mph is doing 450mphTAS.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html
Isn't a/c speed data given in TAS?
-
HiTech
As I stated previously, from Discussions w/ Actual W.W. II Combat Pilots @ Air Shows, reading the Books they've Written, Reading the Interviews that they Gave to A.I.P. Reporters & other Newsman of the time, reading their Combat & De-briefing Reports.
Yes, I've read the Performance Spec Sheets for the P-40 & other W.W. II A/C that were assembled under controlled conditions while Test Pilots were wringing them out.
If W.W. II Combat Pilots are reporting the Air Speed they Saw, that was being Indicated on the A.S.I. @ a Specific point in time during a flight, how could it possibly be T.A.S., as the A.S.I. only gave I.A.S. read-outs?
Typical question.
Interviewer:
How fast were you going @ the time?
Typical Answer.
Combat Pilot:
When I glanced @ my A.S.I. the read-out was or the needle was pointing @ 250 or 275 or 300 or 325 or 350;
Or whatever the Read-out @ that Specific point in time was when they were looking @ the Air Speed Indicator. Whether the A.S.I. was calibrated for American Standard or Metric or Knots. Yes, I'm deliberatly rounding off the numbers as more than likely they did themselves.
How can that possibly be T.A.S.?
Are they going to even think about looking @ a Conversion Chart to see before giving a Report or an Interview?
I don't believe so.
Unless you've flown in an actual Combat Situations, using the same A/C & Equipment they were issued & experiencing the same adrenalin rush that the W.W. II Combat Pilots had while an Enemy Pilot &/or Ground Forces were trying their hardest to Kill them, your current experiences w/ modern A/C & Equipment in None Combat Situations is hardly the same thing.
Though if you've Current Combat Pilot experience, you've an Idea of what the W.W. II Combat Pilots went through.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
LOL, a new alternate history.:eek:
Maybe you should take another closer look at the Allison and RR engines used in the P-40.
Using this link the P-40 at 15000' doing 350mph is doing 450mphTAS.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html
Isn't a/c speed data given in TAS?
Always have to nasty & sarcastic don'tcha.
1st bit of actual usefull information you've give todate since I signed up.
Doesn't it all depend on the Particular A/C you're Flying, as each ones Performance is going to be different because of the many variables involved such as how it was put together @ the Plant, condition upon Delivery & then disassembled for shipment & then Re-assembled & Maintained & what tweeking the Crew Chief does to it to make it possibly perform better @ the Aerodrome?
For Performance Specs Sheet I believe.
But so far Not in the Combat Pilot Reports & De-briefings I've read, it's all been I.A.S. & I'm not stating that they All listed the around 350mph either., only some did.
-
Hey, under PERFECT conditions, could a P-40E come to a complete landing (full stop) inside of 100 yards?
-
easily
-
Well your 30 years of study didn't help you much with the Allisons, did it? :) So, when it comes to you and your babbling Col, be sure. I am always suprised when some people don't think their anul excreations don't stink.
You ain't no angel when it comes to comments either.:eek: The comment to Knegel were uncalled for. Laugh it up, Fussball.
So what P-40 data spec sheet gives a 450mph speed?
Btw, 270mphIAS is ~350mphTAS which is what the data sheet speed listed for most P-40s at 15kft. The only way a P-40 is doing 350IAS(450TAS) is going downhill.
-
or if something clogs the static port at high alt
-
Hi,
Originally posted by Col. Flashman
If W.W. II Combat Pilots are reporting the Air Speed they Saw, that was being Indicated on the A.S.I. @ a Specific point in time during a flight, how could it possibly be T.A.S., as the A.S.I. only gave I.A.S. read-outs?
Typical question.
Interviewer:
How fast were you going @ the time?
Typical Answer.
Combat Pilot:
When I glanced @ my A.S.I. the read-out was or the needle was pointing @ 250 or 275 or 300 or 325 or 350;
Or whatever the Read-out @ that Specific point in time was when they were looking @ the Air Speed Indicator. Whether the A.S.I. was calibrated for American Standard or Metric or Knots. Yes, I'm deliberatly rounding off the numbers as more than likely they did themselves.
I think noone told something different!
Originally posted by Col. Flashman
How can that possibly be T.A.S.?
Are they going to even think about looking @ a Conversion Chart to see before giving a Report or an Interview?
I don't believe so.
A pilot could mix up IAS datas with TAS datas that got calculated afterward out of the IAS speed he saw in this particular situation.
If a P40 pilot told you that his plane had a normal speed of 350mph IAS between 0 and 15000ft, he made a mistake or he made a joke with you.
Or he told you that 350mph IAS was good possible between 0 and 15000ft, but he didnt mean Vmax level flight, but then i dont undertsand the 15000ft limitation.
There is no piston engined WWII plane i know that had a that constant IAS between 0 and 15000ft anyway! In general the Vmax IAS decrease with increasing altitude. Even the Spitfires with their Merlins, which are known to have a steep increasing power curve up to rated alt, show a decreasing Vmax IAS.
Greetings,
-
Originally posted by Badboy
At sea-level, standard-day atmospheric conditions (and for our purposes we can a just say sea level period, if Aces High models standard-day atmospheric conditions) all of these airspeed measurements will be equal, well except for IAS which is still dependant on those position errors, which are different for each aircraft type. An easy way to remember how their magnitudes relate to one another at higher altitudes is by using the square root symbol:
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/Speedtype.jpg)
IAS and CAS are usually very close to one another. For most aircraft, usually within 10 to 20 knots or less. EAS is always less than CAS. For airspeeds of Mach 1.0 or less, the maximum difference will be 30 knots. TAS is always greater than all the other airspeeds, at altitudes above sea level.
It should be noted that in reality the conditions have quite large effect on these even at sealevel. Assuming standard conditions at sea level and also that the airspeed indicator is calibrated to these conditions, then:
CAS = EAS (and EAS = TAS as Badboy noted)
But if temperature is below normal conditions (the density altitude being the same), then:
CAS > EAS
If temperature is above normal conditions (the density altitude being the same), then:
CAS < EAS
Same way also density differences can cause large error despite the pressure altitude remains the same.
gripen
-
So, say that I was a wealthy adventure seeker in WW2 who got his hands on a P-40 airframe and a RR Griffon engine, rated at 2200 HP (IIRC). Anybody wanna guess what that P-40's performance would be THEN?
I've always been curious as to whether the P-40's lack of speed could be solved by simply throwing more power at it.
-
Originally posted by paulieb
So, say that I was a wealthy adventure seeker in WW2 who got his hands on a P-40 airframe and a RR Griffon engine, rated at 2200 HP (IIRC). Anybody wanna guess what that P-40's performance would be THEN?
I've always been curious as to whether the P-40's lack of speed could be solved by simply throwing more power at it.
Good question. Next, change the .30s for 20mm...
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Well your 30 years of study didn't help you much with the Allisons, did it? :) So, when it comes to you and your babbling Col, be sure. I am always suprised when some people don't think their anul excreations don't stink.
You ain't no angel when it comes to comments either.:eek: The comment to Knegel were uncalled for. So what P-40 data spec sheet gives a 450mph speed?
Btw, 270mphIAS is ~350mphTAS which is what the data sheet speed listed for most P-40s at 15kft. The only way a P-40 is doing 350IAS(450TAS) is going downhill.
The only thing I still keep seeing out of your posts is your continuous vomiting of what you perceive to be witty pithiness’ & caustic remarks w/ only a drop of usefull information.
He stated that it made him laugh, so I quoted Han Solo's comment to Chewbacca, " Laugh it up, Fussball". If you find dialog out of "Star Wars" being used here as Offencesive, then that's just pure Childishness on your part.
And as I keep stating, A.S.I.'s only give I.A.S. readings in those W.W. II A/C & if a Combat Pilot states that's what he saw that was being Indicated @ the Point in Time, who are you or I to say that he didn't see it, hmmmmm?
I'm NOT quoting Data Sheets & only a Marooone (a bugs bunny quote) would keep bringing it up when discussing statements from W.W. II Combat Pilot & their written reports.
And I'm not going to go digging through my collection to attempt to find them for you, as you've so far proven you've no interest in any thing different then what you believe can only be the truth as you perceive it.
It would be like trying to teach a Pig to Fly. It's a waste of time & it'll only annoy the Pig.
-
They operated best between Sea Level & 15,000', around 350mph IAS, performance started badly falling off above this Alt., w/o the Supercharger that the Brass Hats had removed.
Flashman: Is this a direct quote from somthing or are you interpitation other quotes.
Beacuse let us say it is a direct quote, there is still nothing false about the quote.
Part 1.
They operated best between Sea Level & 15,000'
Do not belive anyone realy disputes that.
Part 2.
around 350mph IAS,
Still nothing inacurate, the 350 could be Vne or any thing else beside best level speed and once again could a true statement.
Part 3.
performance started badly falling off above this Alt.
Once again a perfectly true statement.
The real problem comes when you interpet that statement to meen it had a level speed of 350 IAS at any alt. Because that number is so far from belivibilty , You would litterly have to renvent physics to ever have a plane with the HP and size of the P40 achieve that speed in level flight.
HiTech
-
Flashman....maybe the P40is your favourite plane...but:
Look at the P40, it's THICK wings, it's weight and power.
Where on earth can you get to the conclusion that it's a speedmonster?
P40 is rugged, packs a punch, and has a good rate of roll.
That's it though, - compare it to a Spit VIII which was operating in the med at the same time. Even a Spit V, not to mention a 109F or G, - once above some 15K the P40 is an UNDERDOG. Fights were taking place up to 30K+, and the one that has the alt holds the cards. 15K is medium alt. A flock of 109F's at 22K will have a P40 for breakfast.
Even the humble Hurricane was used as an escort for P40's in the med, and I put my money on the reason being altitude performance.
Then ponder on this from HiTech:
"The real problem comes when you interpet that statement to meen it had a level speed of 350 IAS at any alt. Because that number is so far from belivibilty , You would litterly have to renvent physics to ever have a plane with the HP and size of the P40 achieve that speed in level flight."
Top speed is the highest achievable speed at level flight. Look at the AH charts to see that it is not a constant. Then realise the difference between IAS and TAS.
And as a final note, Milo knows his stuff. Don't remember errors from his shop, but be aware, he has a hot temper. Reading your text makes me understand his response.
Chao.
-
Not hot tempered Angus, just have no patience for babbling nonsence.
He still has not acknowledged that the Allisons did have a supercharger. The Brass Hats removed the TURBOcharger from the P-39. He is a wee bit confused.
Graham White:
"With the exception of the B model, ALL V-1710s were supercharged by way of the engine-driven geared supercharger."
The B model was used in airships.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Not hot tempered Angus, just have no patience for babbling nonsence.
He still has not acknowledged that the Allisons did have a supercharger. The Brass Hats removed the TURBOcharger from the P-39. He is a wee bit confused.
Graham White:
"With the exception of the B model, ALL V-1710s were supercharged by way of the engine-driven geared supercharger."
The B model was used in airships.
:aok
-
H.T. & Angus
Thank'ee for such mature & articulate responses, these are the type of exchanges I've been looking for here, well, for the most part Angus.
It's from an article in Air Power or W.W. II A/C or...., from the '70's & the "Impression" I got was that to get to "Around 350mph A.I.S.", that it had to be "worked @ in order to be achieved" for level flight & not for very long @ higher Alt's & not achievable @ all Alt's. I seem to remember that 370 was mentioned as Vne/redline in the article, but...... Though I believe Pilots flew past Vne & Vd a tick or 2 in Combat Situations some what regularly, but not always to their benefit.
I believe it was a former F.E.A.F./B.F.F.D. Pilot, that was being interviewed.
There was, as I recollect, a mention of field modifications by Crew Chief's & Pilot's to lighten the P-40B's & E's by removing the 02 system (ordered not to fly over 15,000'), Radio system (towers destroyed in 8 Dec. attack, faded out after 25 miles from base before that & ship to ship communications sporadic @ best) & two of each of the Outboard .50's on the P-40E's to achieve parity w/ the Oscar's & Zeke's.
Though now I'm unable to find this particular magazine to consult as the wife cleaned up in my home office & I'm unable to locate it @ present.
I also seem to recall on more than one occasion coming across statements pertaining to that fact that Crew Chief's in all T.O.'s would do what ever Field Mods that they could get away w/ in order to achieve the best performance out of the A/C they were in charge of in order to give the Pilots the best chance they had in Combat.
Angus, M.M. "may know his stuff", but he has come across in Every response to me to date as impatient, immature, childish & pithily, using what he believes to be wit. Though I no longer care.
-
Field mods are a thing on its own, and were done to countless aircraft types.
I remember when the RAF in Burma was equipped with Hurricane IIB, set up as a 12 gun ship with a fixed belly tank.
Was like flying a brick the pilots said, so they removed the tank and stripped the guns down to 8 and even 4, - 4x303 was enough to kill the Ki27 (I think they were), and with this improvement the Hurricane was vastly faster and better in the vertical.
In the N-African theater, Spitfires were modded, such as removing the outboard .303's, adding a tube that directed air into the windscreen to keep it from icing when diving between atmosphere layers, and so on.
The 109's sometimes had a windshield spray to clean oil from the windshield, - they used petrol.
There are many many more. Milo will surely know some, and Guppy, etc etc.
-
Vne – never exceed speed. The IAS which should never be intentionally exceeded in a dive in smooth air.
Sure Col, the P-40s were moded to get an speed increase of ~70mphIAS, ~25% increase.:rofl No amount of mods will achieve such an increase without a VERY substantial increase in HP.
The only way a P-40 would get a 350mph IAS is by diving
The P-40E only had wing mgs, so the only mgs that could be removed were in the wings.
Keep babbling Col.
-
Originally posted by Col. Flashman
H.T. & Angus
It's from an article in Air Power or W.W. II A/C or...., from the '70's & the "Impression" I got was that to get to "Around 350mph A.I.S.", that it had to be "worked @ in order to be achieved" for level flight & not for very long @ higher Alt's & not achievable @ all Alt's. I seem to remember that 370 was mentioned as Vne/redline in the article, but...... Though I believe Pilots flew past Vne & Vd a tick or 2 in Combat Situations some what regularly, but not always to their benefit.
Hi Col,
Vne´s for all WWII planes i know are listed in Mach or in a list of IAS values in combination with corelated altitudes, simply cause the Vne of this planes is/was related to problems which occur only at high mach numbers, independed from a constant IAS and TAS.
So i dont think Vne 370mph say something in this relation.
Vne´s in MPH, KM/H or Knots normaly are only important for planes with a very weak airframe, where the 'noraml' drag or turbolences already cause enough power to destroy the airframe.
As a TAS value its to slow for a P40 and as a IAS value it only would count for a related altitude(or better sayed air temperature and presure).
Anyway, if i see the lot of datas, available in Books or in museums, it still looks very strange to me to conclude a "normal" speed of 350mph IAS for a P40B/E.
You never saw datas of the Bf109F, SpitIXc, P38J or P47C and did wonder why this planes, which didnt reached such high IAS values in a levelflight, got preferred to the P40 as a fighter???
After 30 years of researched you never did stumble over official tesdatas??
Milo,
he was referring to the OUTER pairs of the wingguns, i dont see a hint to other guns than wingguns.
But was they realy going out to fight Ki-43´s with only 2 x .50cal??
Actually at least the AVG rarely saw Ki43´s anyway, mainly they fought Ki-27´s, which was a so incredible slow but nimble plane, that removing guns or anything else dont would bring a advantage. Even without any gun the Ki-27 and also Ki-43-I was more light. The advantage of the P40 in the pacific was a highspeed dive(less weight = less dive acceleration at highspeed and less inertia after the dive) and a devasting firepower in relation to the weak oponets, to get a kill with a snapshot without the need to turn behind the enemy.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
LMAO milo,was waiting to see that,doh maybe a turbosupercharger,cuz the alli did have a charger but a single speed 1 .......anyhoos think it went over someones head........
-
what is your point?
do you speak english?