Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: angelsandair on July 14, 2008, 12:01:55 PM
-
From Wikipedia
P-40N (manufactured 1943-44), the final production model. The P-40N featured a stretched rear fuselage to counter the torque of the larger, late-war Allison engine, and the rear deck of the cockpit behind the pilot was cut down at a moderate slant to improve rearward visibility. A great deal of work was also done to try and eliminate excess weight to improve the Warhawk's climb rate. Early N production blocks dropped a .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun from each wing, bringing the total back to four; later production blocks reintroduced it after complaints from units in the field. Supplied to Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk Mk IV. A total of 553 P-40Ns were acquired by the Royal Australian Air Force, making it the variant most commonly used by the RAAF. Subvariants of the P-40N ranged widely in specialization from stripped down four-gun "hot rods" which could reach the highest top speeds of any production variant of the P-40 (up to 380 mph), to overweight types with all the extras intended for fighter-bombing or even training missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war :O I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. :aok
-
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war :O I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. :aok
I'm with you.
Perhaps all P-plane HAVE to be dumbed down to a certain degree. If they were not at a real disadvantage most of the time under MA conditions, their fame and popularity might ensure them being flown to the absolute exclusion of anything else in the MA. I mean, a P-40 at low altitude was supposed to do everything as well or better than its contemporary 109F except climb. And its American muscle baby! Cool paintschemes and all, the MA would be overun with the things if they could match match a Spit in horizontal turning, as they obstensibly could.
-
Perhaps all P-plane HAVE to be dumbed down to a certain degree. If they were not at a real disadvantage most of the time under MA conditions, their fame and popularity might ensure them being flown to the absolute exclusion of anything else in the MA. I mean, a P-40 at low altitude was supposed to do everything as well or better than its contemporary 109F except climb. And its American muscle baby! Cool paintschemes and all, the MA would be overun with the things if they could match match a Spit in horizontal turning, as they obstensibly could.
The world is quite lovely when one is ill-informed and ignorant, I must say.
I'm sure one day, HT will deeply regret his intentional misrepresentation of existing historical evidence and data, and start listening to your sage advice on how the Pursuit planes should all be better than it is currently, since obviously, HT and Pyro seems to have no clue on obtaining historical data and understanding what they mean, according to your point of view on this and similar topics.
Oh very lovely indeed.
-
I've seen pearl harbor movie, I know the P40 is better than axis looool
where did you seen that the p40 was equal with a 109F except climb ? history channel ? lmao, really
-
The world is quite lovely when one is ill-informed and ignorant, I must say.
I'm sure one day, HT will deeply regret his intentional misrepresentation of existing historical evidence and data, and start listening to your sage advice on how the Pursuit planes should all be better than it is currently, since obviously, HT and Pyro seems to have no clue on obtaining historical data and understanding what they mean, according to your point of view on this and similar topics.
Oh very lovely indeed.
Okay, you're right. It is impossible for the designers of flight sims to screw up the incredibly complex task of modeling aircrat, either inadverdently, or, deliberately to make things more "balanced." No matter that the latter has been SEEN to happen in other flights sims. Computer modeling>Actual WWII pilot reports and flight tests. Little tidbits of info, like the fact that he P-38 was an uber-plane in another game designed by the same person whereas it is simply decent in AHII do nothing to undermine the infallible nature of sim flight model programers, who are never wrong, even when their results are contradictory.
-
I've seen pearl harbor movie, I know the P40 is better than axis looool
where did you seen that the p40 was equal with a 109F except climb ? history channel ? lmao, really
http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html
"P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was."
"By whom?
Granted, the 109 had superior high altitude performance, but that wouldn't have
been a concern on the eastern front. The P-40 could outroll the Me, outdive it
(although the Me had an initial advantage), outturn it, had comparable speed, a
more rugged airframe, more survivable plumbing arrangement,"
BTW,the 109 in AHII could eke out wins against every piece of American Iron at typical alts with its energy-building ability alone. Especially against the P-40. It doesn't need to have huge maneuverability advantage, too. Don't the 109'ers of AHII deserve "natural enemies" who are worthy adversaries? ;)
-
Okay, you're right. It is impossible for the designers of flight sims to screw up the incredibly complex task of modeling aircrat, either inadverdently, or, deliberately to make things more "balanced." No matter that the latter has been SEEN to happen in other flights sims. Computer modeling>Actual WWII pilot reports and flight tests. Little tidbits of info, like the fact that he P-38 was an uber-plane in another game designed by the same person whereas it is simply decent in AHII do nothing to undermine the infallible nature of sim flight model programers, who are never wrong, even when their results are contradictory.
That was a long time ago. The P-38L was uber in warbirds into version 2.x but was defanged somewhere in there.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war :O I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. :aok
[/quote]
Jeez ever fight FlyinFin in a P40E? He's got the secret man :)
-
http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html
"P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was."
"By whom?
Granted, the 109 had superior high altitude performance, but that wouldn't have
been a concern on the eastern front. The P-40 could outroll the Me, outdive it
(although the Me had an initial advantage), outturn it, had comparable speed, a
more rugged airframe, more survivable plumbing arrangement,"
BTW,the 109 in AHII could eke out wins against every piece of American Iron at typical alts with its energy-building ability alone. Especially against the P-40. It doesn't need to have huge maneuverability advantage, too. Don't the 109'ers of AHII deserve "natural enemies" who are worthy adversaries? ;)
109F and 109E3 are not the same planes....far from it
I've read that pseudo reference, and its just a guy's opinion, and by reading you guys, one can think that a P40 could even out turn a zero.
-
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war :O I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. :aok
yes, apparently...bring in your data
-
109F and 109E3 are not the same planes....far from it
I've read that pseudo reference, and its just a guy's opinion, and by reading you guys, one can think that a P40 could even out turn a zero.
Tell me who has said a P-40 can compete with a Zeke in minimum turn radius? I don't for one minute think a Warhawk could compete with the Zero in minimum turn radius, simply because the pilots who actually flew the darn things make it very clear that it ain't gonna to happen!
And when the people who actually flew the things say that the P-40s, P-38s, and P-51s WERE competitive with their contemporary 109s in turning, I also tend to take that into account. You will note that American pilots were not hopless optimists...they darn well understood that their P-47s were not competitive with the 109s in sustained turning.
-
From Wikipedia
P-40N (manufactured 1943-44), the final production model. The P-40N featured a stretched rear fuselage to counter the torque of the larger, late-war Allison engine, and the rear deck of the cockpit behind the pilot was cut down at a moderate slant to improve rearward visibility. A great deal of work was also done to try and eliminate excess weight to improve the Warhawk's climb rate. Early N production blocks dropped a .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun from each wing, bringing the total back to four; later production blocks reintroduced it after complaints from units in the field. Supplied to Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk Mk IV. A total of 553 P-40Ns were acquired by the Royal Australian Air Force, making it the variant most commonly used by the RAAF. Subvariants of the P-40N ranged widely in specialization from stripped down four-gun "hot rods" which could reach the highest top speeds of any production variant of the P-40 (up to 380 mph), to overweight types with all the extras intended for fighter-bombing or even training missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war :O I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. :aok
To add to that wouldn't that mean the P-40N could go 320mph max? Or more? Im IN IN IN IN IN, i love flying P-40s and quite so HTC did not put the real turning performance of the P-40 into AHII. I would like that to be done.
-RF
-
The saddest thing in this pathetic thread is that many think improved turn performance would help the P-40 vs. the 109F-4.
-
To add to that wouldn't that mean the P-40N could go 320mph max? Or more? Im IN IN IN IN IN, i love flying P-40s and quite so HTC did not put the real turning performance of the P-40 into AHII. I would like that to be done.
-RF
P-40N models (various dash numbers) could manage between 360 mph and 380 mph with WEP depending upon which dash it was and how it was rigged. MIL power speeds were in the 330 mph to 350 mph range. There were stripped down, light weight versions with only four guns. These were the fastest of the lot. Six gun versions, with wing and belly shackles were the slowest.
There was a myriad of variations within the P-40N designation.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The saddest thing in this pathetic thread is that many think improved turn performance would help the P-40 vs. the 109F-4.
Oh, the 109F would still be the dominant airplane. Just like the Fw-190A5 vrs. P-40.
I'm still wondering why you Lufwaffe guys don't want worthy opponents from America...but you're fine with having to fight "hyper-modeled" planes from Britian and Russia ;) :D
And btw, since we were speaking earlier of how sim creators are wiser than us and their flight model engines never produce results that are inconsistent with history, one must explain the turning ability of the Warhawk relative the 109 in Il2 as opposed to AHII. SOMEONE had to have screwed up their modeling, if their is an incosistency, correct?
-
Jeez ever fight FlyinFin in a P40E? He's got the secret man :)
I think so. I like the P-40E alot. It seems to have very frequent stalls though. I just got what I found off of wiki, but somehow... it got to people arguing with it over the 109F?!? :huh I'm just asking for the P-40N, upgrad the other P-40s and update any flight modeling that needs to be updated (which it seems it does). The P-40 is an over all monster.
-
I have never heard of any pilot who was saddend to be transferred from P-40s to P-38s, P-47s, P-51s or Spitfires.
-
BnZ I got nothing against you, but you're coming off as a 2-week squeaker.
FYI: Ubisoft has the crappiest historically accurate flight modeling EVER. Every plane has the same flight model, stall characteristics and handling. Only minor tweaks differentiate these planes from each other. Ubisoft has openly changed things because of players' complaints, first making .50cals weak, then making them super instant killers, then caving in again to players' yelling and making them weak again. They do not have accurate flight data most of the time, and AH has put its emphasis on getting real performance specs for the planes they model.
It's like saying "Well, Al Jazeera says the Taliban killed 50 US troops, but CNN says US troops reported no losses" -- which are you going to believe? One has credibility, one has none. In this case, Ubisoft has no credibility, and your basing your entire premise on ANOTHER game's flight modeling is simply ... forgive me.... stupid.
-
True that, about Il-2. You can tell just by looking at the flap modelling: All aircraft have the exact same four flap positions: Up, combat, takeoff, landing.
One of about a million reasons I can't stand Pacific Fighters, not least of which is because it's a glorified and half-assed expansion pack. It's got some nice features (complex engine management, openable canopies, more detailed damage modelling--I especially like how the R-2800 doesn't conk out if a single .303 round so much as bounces off the cowling as happens in AH) but the only really thing stand-out about the Il-2 series is that it's pretty to look at. Virtually everything else AH2 does better.
Now if only we could get graphics and visual effects like that in AH.... Then again, probably 80% of the player base wouldn't be able to handle it, but it would certainly eliminate many of the squeakers playing on daddy's AOL account. :D
-
BnZ I got nothing against you, but you're coming off as a 2-week squeaker.
Eh, don't worry about offending me. Everyone knows I have been squeaking alot longer than two weeks. :D
FYI: Ubisoft has the crappiest historically accurate flight modeling EVER. Every plane has the same flight model, stall characteristics and handling. Only minor tweaks differentiate these planes from each other. Ubisoft has openly changed things because of players' complaints, first making .50cals weak, then making them super instant killers, then caving in again to players' yelling and making them weak again. They do not have accurate flight data most of the time, and AH has put its emphasis on getting real performance specs for the planes they model.
It's like saying "Well, Al Jazeera says the Taliban killed 50 US troops, but CNN says US troops reported no losses" -- which are you going to believe? One has credibility, one has none. In this case, Ubisoft has no credibility, and your basing your entire premise on ANOTHER game's flight modeling is simply ... forgive me.... stupid.
Yet HTC is immune from making any tweaks based on player base demands or balance? Or, as I theorize, to prevent the MA from being 50% P-51s, 30% P-38s, and 18% P-40s and P-47s (Caveat: One reason I fly the P-47 is that in AHII it does EXACTLY what I would expect a Jug to be capable of, and I can live with that. Fw-190, same way.)
I will tell you though, in Ubisoft, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the planes are pretty similar to AHII, except that the Army planes aren't quite as completely horrible as turners relative everything else.
Forgive the analogy, if the Bible and the Koran disagree, they cannot BOTH be the infallible word of God. And it opens up the strong possibility that NEITHER is infallible. Funny you should mention what troops report, when my complaints are more or less based on that.
<S>
-
Some people *really* need to start thinking about angles tactics on a deeper level than "flat turn in one direction."
-
BnZ... you're saying you think the jug and 190 fly like they should, well it doesn't matter one rat's buttocks what you THINK they should fly like. They're modeled based after actual flight tests. They are modeled to meet certain criteria. HISTORICAL criteria.
The completely unrelated coincidence that you LIKE the way they are modeled has nothing to do with the way you're arguing nor with the way P-40s should be modeled.
The FM of the P-40E in-game is said to be closest to that of the P-40K. We're not talking theoretical wiki listings of speed, we're talking complete aircraft testing (climb, power, turns, etc). The 109E is based off a 109E-3/4. We know these aircraft are modeled after the real thing.
The P-40E (as it is in AH2) turns a full 100+ feet wider than the 109E, and is no better than ANY early 109 variant in-game (all based off historical figures)
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/71sqn/turn.JPG)
So go ahead and say you think the P-40 should fly like a zero just so that the US planeset has something that can out-turn 109s, regardless of historic fact. You're not earning any respect (probably the reverse).
-
So go ahead and say you think the P-40 should fly like a zero just so that the US planeset has something that can out-turn 109s, regardless of historic fact. You're not earning any respect (probably the reverse).
Me?! I'm just reading what I got off wiki! :mad:
And then this went to Il-2?! :huh :huh :huh
I'll go put up more info from wiki...
-
Me?! I'm just reading what I got off wiki! :mad:
And then this went to Il-2?! :huh :huh :huh
I'll go put up more info from wiki...
You better do that, even though i'd like the P-40N that doesn't mean your getting much respect, or any at all. Maybe reading the information more might help you do better posts.
:salute
-RF
-
Tomahawk and Kittyhawk squadrons would bear the brunt of Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica fighter attacks during the North African campaign.
P-40s initially proved quite effective against Axis aircraft and contributed to a slight shift of momentum in the Allied favor. Its appearance and gradual replacement of Hurricanes led to the Luftwaffe accelerating retirement of the Bf 109E and introducing the newer Bf 109F, flown by the veteran pilots of elite Luftwaffe units such as Jagdgeschwader 27 (JG27), to North Africa.
The P-40 was considered markedly superior to early versions of the Hurricane, which it replaced as the primary fighter of the Desert Air Force.[6] It was deadly against Axis bombers in the theater, as well as the Bf 110. Among its first claims, during the Syria-Lebanon campaign of 1941, were five Dewoitine D.520s, which are often considered to be France's best pre-war production fighter.[2] The P-40 was superior to early Italian fighter types, such as the Fiat G.50 and the Macchi C.200, although Clive Caldwell is reported to have said that the Macchi C.202 would have been a superior fighter to both the P-40 and the Bf-109, had it been adequately armed;[15] the C.202 had only two 12.7 mm and two 7.7 mm guns. The Bf 109 proved a greater challenge, particularly the later F and G variants. The P-40 was generally considered roughly equal or slightly superior to the 109 at low altitude, and inferior at high altitude. Though this varied depending on the specific variants, the P-40 usually had an edge over Bf 109 in horizontal maneuverability, absolute dive speed, and structural strength; was roughly equal in firepower, slightly inferior in speed and outclassed in rate of climb and operational ceiling.[6][16] However, most of the air combat in North Africa took place well below 16,000 feet, the altitude above which the performance of P-40s tapered off.
In June 1941, Caldwell, serving at the time with No. 250 Squadron RAF in Egypt, recorded in his log book that — as F/O Jack Hamlyn's wingman — he was involved in the first air combat victory for the P-40, a CANT Z.1007 bomber on 6 June.[2] The claim was not officially recognized, as the crash of the CANT was not witnessed. The first official victory occurred on 8 June, when Hamlyn and Flt Sgt Tom Paxton destroyed a CANT Z.1007 from 211a Squadriglia of the Regia Aeronautica, over Alexandria.[3]
Several days later, the Tomahawk was in action over Syria with No. 3 Squadron RAAF, which claimed 19 aerial victories over Vichy French aircraft during June and July 1941, for the loss of one P-40 (as well as one lost to ground fire).[18]
Because DAF P-40 squadrons were frequently used in bomber escort and close air support missions, they suffered relatively high attrition rates.
Some DAF units initially failed to use P-40s according to its strengths and/or utilized outdated defensive tactics, such as the Lufbery circle. However, the superior climb rate of the Bf 109 enabled fast, swooping attacks, neutralizing the advantages offered by conventional defensive tactics. Various new formations were tried by Tomahawk units in 1941–42, including: "fluid pairs" (similar to the German rotte); one or two "weavers" at the back of a squadron in formation, and whole squadrons bobbing and weaving in loose formations.[19] Werner Schröer, who would be credited with destroying 114 Allied aircraft in only 197 combat missions, referred to the latter formation as "bunches of grapes", because he found them so easy to pick off.[19]The leading German expert in North Africa, Hans-Joachim Marseille, has claimed as many as 101 P-40s in his career.[20]
North Africa, c. 1943. A P-40 "Kittybomber" of No. 450 Squadron RAAF, loaded with six 250 lb bombs. (Photographer: William Hadfield.)Caldwell believed that Operational Training Units did not properly prepare pilots for air combat in the P-40, and as a commander, stressed the importance of training novice pilots properly.[21]
The introduction of the Kittyhawk barely offset the strengths of the Bf 109. On 15 July 1942, No. 2 Squadron SAAF, in its first combat with the new P-40E, attacked a formation of six Stukas, and was in turn attacked by eight Bf 109Fs. Neither side suffered any losses in the encounter, and this enhanced the confidence of the German fighter pilots that the 109 remained superior to the P-40.[22] By this time, the frequent use of height in attacks by Bf 109 pilots had resulted in South African commanders instructing their pilots to operate at altitudes as high as 18,000 ft. However, the Bf 109 had an exceptional operational ceiling of 36,000 ft, and the German pilots responded by climbing higher, at an earlier stage of sorties.
From 26 May 1942, all Kittyhawk units operated primarily as fighter-bomber units,[23] giving rise to the nickname "Kittybomber". As a result of this change in role, many Desert Air Force P-40 pilots were caught low and slow by marauding Bf 109s.
Nevertheless, in the hands of competent pilots the P-40 proved effective against even the best of the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica.[6][24] A total of 46 British Commonwealth pilots reached ace status in P-40s, including seven double aces.[24] Caldwell — who scored 22 of his 28.5 victories flying P-40s in North Africa — is the prime example of a pilot using the strengths of the P-40 to its utmost. On one occasion in August 1941, while flying alone, he was attacked by two Bf 109s, one of them piloted by Schröer. Although Caldwell was wounded three times, and his Tomahawk was hit by more than 100 7.9 mm bullets and five 20 mm cannon shells, he survived the encounter and shot down Schröer's wingman. Some sources also claim that in December 1941, Caldwell killed a prominent German Expert, Erbo von Kageneck (69 kills) while flying a P-40.[25] Caldwell's victories in North Africa included 10 Bf 109s and two Macchi C.202s.[26] Billy Drake of 112 Sqn was the leading British P-40 ace with 13 victories.[24] Canadian James "Stocky" Edwards, who achieved 12 kills in the P-40 in North Africa, shot down German ace Otto Schulz (51 kills) while flying a Kittyhawk with No. 260 Squadron RAF.[24] Caldwell, Drake, Edwards and Nicky Barr were among at least a dozen pilots who achieved ace status twice over while flying the P-40.[24] [27]
I looked up the information from wiki and used that here.
yes, apparently...bring in your data
Read the other quote Noir
-
Because we all know Wiki is the pinnacle of unbiased reporting and carefully scrutinized to ensure the total accuracy of its articles. :rolleyes:
-
Because we all know Wiki is the pinnacle of unbiased reporting and carefully scrutinized to ensure the total accuracy of its articles. :rolleyes:
Yes, but it's the only time I can be wrong, but still have wrong data from a wrong website to prove it's not my fault. :D :lol
-
Yes, but it's the only time I can be wrong, but still have wrong data from a wrong website to prove it's not my fault. :D :lol
You didn't read the whole thing so its your fault, completely.
-
You didn't read the whole thing so its your fault, completely.
Oh, my bad, I only read till a little past half way... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek:
I didn't read the very end.... :rolleyes:
-
So go ahead and say you think the P-40 should fly like a zero just so that the US planeset has something that can out-turn 109s,
I was unaware that HTC had access to actual side-by-side test measurements of the turn radii of all the plane variants in the set. Where may I get this data?
I have never said that the P-40 should turn like the Zero. Exagerating what I say to make a paper tiger is unbecoming.
Nor will I claim a P-40 nessecarily should make a smaller minimum turning circle than can be made by a skillful pilot using both slats and flaps in a 109F, the same can be said for the P-51 vrs. 109G debate. I don't think this is what is happening when American pilots "out-turned" 109s. What I do think is that they were competive ENOUGH in turning ability, that along with their higher speed flaps and better elevator at speeds in the ~280+ that it wouldn't last long enough to come down to who can make the minimum turning circle on the edge of stall, unless they were fighting a very skilled old hare indeed.
I think the biggest advantage 109s have in AHII vrs. how they may have fared historically is that in AHII 109s can pull max Gs all the way up to 400mph IAS, pretty much the limit for what is practical "fighting airspeed" anyway.
"You're not earning any respect (probably the reverse)."
I am indifferent to the matter.
-
Why do we need another P-40? I mean how many times do the 40s in the game come out, then if they do, you've got spits, mustangs, hell i think the 38 could do better than a 40 but hey ya want another one go ahead, just make sure its what you want.
-
BnZ, the bottom line is, if something is wrong, and you can prove it, it will (eventually) be changed.
Heresay, pilot accounts, wikipedias, etc., etc., etc., do not count as proof. At all.
HTC doesn't just pull numbers out of the air. They do have data that they use. What precisely it is, I couldn't tell you (not my thing). If you poke around the aircraft/vehicles threads for awhile, you could probably make a good educated guess.
-
BnZ, the bottom line is, if something is wrong, and you can prove it, it will (eventually) be changed.
Heresay, pilot accounts, wikipedias, etc., etc., etc., do not count as proof. At all.
HTC doesn't just pull numbers out of the air. They do have data that they use. What precisely it is, I couldn't tell you (not my thing). If you poke around the aircraft/vehicles threads for awhile, you could probably make a good educated guess.
We are not talking about wingspan, weight, horsepower, rate of climb, top speed, etc. We are talking about the one bit of data that as far as I know WASN'T exhaustively tested by aircraft manufaturers in a scientific manner. The only data I have ever been able to run across in regards to turning seems to be pilot "feel" in both mock and real dogfights. Believe me, I've looked. If all we've got is an average of pilot "feelings that X plane was better/worse/about equal in turnig, that IMO is still better evidence than computer modeling. At least computer modeling of the complexity that can be run on a home PC.
-
Why do we need another P-40? I mean how many times do the 40s in the game come out, then if they do, you've got spits, mustangs, hell i think the 38 could do better than a 40 but hey ya want another one go ahead, just make sure its what you want.
And you see, just by reading you're post, you underestimated 2 planes, the P-40 and the P-38, go back to your La-7.
-
We are not talking about wingspan, weight, horsepower, rate of climb, top speed, etc. We are talking about the one bit of data that as far as I know WASN'T exhaustively tested by aircraft manufaturers in a scientific manner. The only data I have ever been able to run across in regards to turning seems to be pilot "feel" in both mock and real dogfights. Believe me, I've looked. If all we've got is an average of pilot "feelings that X plane was better/worse/about equal in turnig, that IMO is still better evidence than computer modeling. At least computer modeling of the complexity that can be run on a home PC.
Now, like I said, this isn't my thing, so I'm just making an educated guess here (or at least trying to), until someone who actually knows what they're talking about shows up... But...
If you knew all the other data... IE, drag coefficient, weight, dimensions, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseaum, and you correctly modelled "the world" wouldn't your results be as they were, or at least pretty close?
I ask this because there is a hidden RV8 in this game (not sure if you're aware or if it was before your time). A plane that HiTech personally owns, and has personally flown many times, and has personally modelled into the game to test how IT works in the game versus in real life.
So basically, what I'm asking... Is if HiTech finds that his RV8 feels "correct" in this game, and he has modelled it in this game using the same statistics that he has to model other aircraft, isn't it logical, that assuming his statistics are correct, they too would feel "correct?"
This is the way I'm looking at it... Where's one of the technical guys to solve the issue?
-
So basically, what I'm asking... Is if HiTech finds that his RV8 feels "correct" in this game, and he has modelled it in this game using the same statistics that he has to model other aircraft, isn't it logical, that assuming his statistics are correct, they too would feel "correct?"
What, you CAN'T fly the RV anymore?
But, to answer your question, no, not nessecarily. Let me digress abit...
"X-Plane" is a pure civillian simulator. There is no combat, missions, communications, damage models etc, to be concerned with. It is sittting there doing NOTHING but calculating how your hypothetical aircraft is flying many, many, many times per second through an enviroment and rendering that on-screen. And the latest version of X-Plane is a LOAD for the sort of marginal PCs like mine that I easily run AHII on. And X-Plane STILL doesn't do certain corners of the envelope that are just too hard to calculate well (post-stall behavior, trans-sonic, etc.)
So while with enough computing power and data you might be able to simply calculate how any aircraft flies from its various dimensions, power stats, with very little chance of departure from reality, I am skeptical of how infallible anything that runs on a desktop PC can be.
-
I looked up the information from wiki and used that here. Read the other quote Noir
That is NOT data, just a collection of stories, hardly any FM info. And the objectiveness of the text is arguable.
On the side note, its been discussed numerous times, HT won't change the FM of the planes over a few glorified memories of veterans. And I agree with HT (cf chuck yeager)
-
Vudak, hit the nail on the head.
On the other hand, why is it so many planes in aces high are "mixed" planes?
Why is it a p40E is realy a p40K so on and so forth?
eh?
Perhaps the data is just is not there.
-
HTC has data from probably 2 decades now. It was a matter of getting a plane into a young fledgling game to round out the planeset, and using the data they already had filed away (which I guess was a P-40K dataset).
BnZ you can find plenty of info on P-40s. Just not from Hitech. They keep their info to themselves, but in many cases (some 190s, etc) you can pretty much line up the power curves and climb rates to pinpoint which test they used as the basis for their flight model.
As for side-by-side? Those are rare. But they do test "alone" very often. You have a report on a P-40E that says it turns with a 648-foot, and a separate report of a 109F that says it turns with a 591-foot radius, and you don't need them in the same report.
There's no mystical conversion there, they're both using units of measure. It's not brain surgery to say x > y or y > x based on the info.
You're looking for a shooter on the grassy knoll, coming off as a fool, and you say you're not interested in what others think. Okay, no skin off my back. But don't expect folks to give you time of day next time you come up with a dumb thought.
-
As for side-by-side? Those are rare. But they do test "alone" very often. You have a report on a P-40E that says it turns with a 648-foot, and a separate report of a 109F that says it turns with a 591-foot radius, and you don't need them in the same report.
I have not come across any report saying in so many words "Plane A has a minimum turning circle of X feet."
I was not aware such existed, especially not for all the planes modeled in AHII.
Where may I find them?
In the one specific case that I know of some sort of "turn ranking" being compiled, the HTC's P-51 disagrees sharply with the RAF's test. Not just tests vrs. the 109G, which may be problematic as evidence, but also in the matter of the P-51's turn as compared to the P-47, Typhoon, and Tempest.
Who is closer to reality? I'm betting on the WWII RAF.
P.S. I'm not indifferent to other people's thoughts...I am indifferent to respect or disrespect garnered on the internet forum over my opinions regarding modelling of WWII fighters in a video game. If you are going to disrespect me, please do it over something that matters. :devil
-
This thread has losts its entire point of getting a new P-40 and updating the old P-40s... :cry
-
From Wikipedia
P-40N (manufactured 1943-44), the final production model. The P-40N featured a stretched rear fuselage to counter the torque of the larger, late-war Allison engine, and the rear deck of the cockpit behind the pilot was cut down at a moderate slant to improve rearward visibility. A great deal of work was also done to try and eliminate excess weight to improve the Warhawk's climb rate. Early N production blocks dropped a .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun from each wing, bringing the total back to four; later production blocks reintroduced it after complaints from units in the field. Supplied to Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk Mk IV. A total of 553 P-40Ns were acquired by the Royal Australian Air Force, making it the variant most commonly used by the RAAF. Subvariants of the P-40N ranged widely in specialization from stripped down four-gun "hot rods" which could reach the highest top speeds of any production variant of the P-40 (up to 380 mph), to overweight types with all the extras intended for fighter-bombing or even training missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war :O I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. :aok
Sthing else that I've noticed with the p-40E (brilliant plane, I love it...) is that it had a rubber sealing fuselage, but it seems to be one of the most common damages (besides the left flap...)
-
And you see, just by reading you're post, you underestimated 2 planes, the P-40 and the P-38, go back to your La-7.
i dont fly las theyre horrible i fly the spit and mustang
-
BnZ... you're saying you think the jug and 190 fly like they should, well it doesn't matter one rat's buttocks what you THINK they should fly like. They're modeled based after actual flight tests. They are modeled to meet certain criteria. HISTORICAL criteria.
The completely unrelated coincidence that you LIKE the way they are modeled has nothing to do with the way you're arguing nor with the way P-40s should be modeled.
The FM of the P-40E in-game is said to be closest to that of the P-40K. We're not talking theoretical wiki listings of speed, we're talking complete aircraft testing (climb, power, turns, etc). The 109E is based off a 109E-3/4. We know these aircraft are modeled after the real thing.
The P-40E (as it is in AH2) turns a full 100+ feet wider than the 109E, and is no better than ANY early 109 variant in-game (all based off historical figures)
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/71sqn/turn.JPG)
So go ahead and say you think the P-40 should fly like a zero just so that the US planeset has something that can out-turn 109s, regardless of historic fact. You're not earning any respect (probably the reverse).
Krusty, you realize that the P-40E had a lower wing loading than the Bf 109F, right?
It should turn better... Even tho it doesn't in game.
There's lots on anecdotal evidence that indicates that the P-40 was at least equal to the 109 in turn radius, with the P-39 doing likewise. Our P-40s have some modeling issues.. Always have. Plus, the 109's flaps are a bit over done in the game, IMHO.
Where the 109 should be and is superior is in the vertical.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Okay, you're right. It is impossible for the designers of flight sims to screw up the incredibly complex task of modeling aircrat, either inadverdently, or, deliberately to make things more "balanced." No matter that the latter has been SEEN to happen in other flights sims. Computer modeling>Actual WWII pilot reports and flight tests. Little tidbits of info, like the fact that he P-38 was an uber-plane in another game designed by the same person whereas it is simply decent in AHII do nothing to undermine the infallible nature of sim flight model programers, who are never wrong, even when their results are contradictory.
P-38 was hardly uber in WB, at least when I played it wasn't. It was like the P-38 in here, in the hands of the average player it was an average plane. In the hands of someone that knew how to fly it, it was deadly.
ack-ack
-
BTW,the 109 in AHII could eke out wins against every piece of American Iron at typical alts with its energy-building ability alone. Especially against the P-40. It doesn't need to have huge maneuverability advantage, too. Don't the 109'ers of AHII deserve "natural enemies" who are worthy adversaries? ;)
They do, Spitfires, LA-5s, LA-7s, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings...
ack-ack
-
I have never heard of any pilot who was saddend to be transferred from P-40s to P-38s, P-47s, P-51s or Spitfires.
Actually, in the PTO there were quite a few USAAF squadrons that weren't happy when they transitioned to the P-47 from the P-40, even some that were mad about losing their P-40s when they switched to P-38s. Some pilots in the 49th FG thought that their old P-40 mounts were just as capable as the Lightning that replaced their Warhawks.
ack-ack
-
WW, I think a lot of things in-game react differently because of massive over-use of the flaps and how they are modeled. Still, even if maybe the P-40K is heavier, and maybe that worsens the turning radius, that data set, whatever it is, is based off of some flight test somewhere that HTC has stored away in a file cabinet.
Also, if we had a real E, I think you mentioned (or somebody else) that the -E didn't have any WEP, so it wouldn't have the raw horsepower to haul itself around in turns like some planes can. It might have a tighter radius (as many slower planes do) but a slower turn rate. Or something.
-
I was in fact aware of the facts regarding the P-40's wingloading. I did the math, Warhawk is lighter by maybe a very small margin, both at 75%.
However, I didn't mention it, because the discussion had already turned abit sour, and anyway, IMO, the mounds of pilot reports and impressions from actuall combat trumps us sitting here at our desks trying to calculate the turn radius of these aircraft.
It is not a matter of proving who is 2% better in turn radius. It is the fact that planes with similar wingloadings are completely out of the ball-park in relation to one another. The fact is, if we believe what the pilots had to say, P-40s, late P-38s, and P-51s were all at least somewhat competitive with their contemporary 109s in turning. But are not in AHII.
The P-47 was NOT terribly competive with the 109 in turn radius, both American and German pilots understood this. I posted a quote from a German pilot on a thread awhile ago to the effect that "The P-47 was not so bad, we could out-climb it and out-turn it..." but apparently the P-51 was a tougher nut to crack.
Compare this to the P-51/P-47 in AHII. The P-47 doesn't lag too far behind the Pony without flaps, and actually out-turns it with them.
This is a result that flat disagrees with historical tests, and the opinion not just of American pilots, but of their German counterparts. So sorry guys, I'm still not planning on doing any penance because I dared to question the infallibility of the flight models.
Krusty, you realize that the P-40E had a lower wing loading than the Bf 109F, right?
It should turn better... Even tho it doesn't in game.
There's lots on anecdotal evidence that indicates that the P-40 was at least equal to the 109 in turn radius, with the P-39 doing likewise. Our P-40s have some modeling issues.. Always have. Plus, the 109's flaps are a bit over done in the game, IMHO.
Where the 109 should be and is superior is in the vertical.
My regards,
Widewing
-
It's not that you questioned a specific detail. You said the entire thing is untrustworthy, as a blanket statement.
The flaps in the P-51 seem to have issues.
Also, you can't only rely on pilot anecdotes, either. Many times a pilot is not flying their plane to its full extent and lead an enemy to feel it was an inferior plane. Look at the spitfire pilot that can't pull back on the stick hard enough to out-turn a 109... 109 pilot might say "I easily out turned him, it was not even close" but other data point to the opposite.
Other flight data and records point to the opposite of the P-40. Let's not forget some pilots grew irrationally fond of planes that got them home alive, regardless of their flight performance after that.
Historically, the P-40 was ... (to phrase it my own way) dog meat. Countless P-40s fell over the desert in N. Africa to 109Fs and other LW planes. It was not competitive in the way it was flown. Nor is it competitive in the AH arenas. It is an underdog, and historically has been considered a workhorse but inferior to other designs.
Like the P-47. It broke the LWs back, so to speak, but was NOT a better dogfighter than the P-51, Spitfire, 109, etc.
-
It's not that you questioned a specific detail. You said the entire thing is untrustworthy, as a blanket statement.
What I mistrust is the ability of a program that easily runs on a $500 dollar desktop computer from Wal-Mart to be able to calculate how well a given aircraft will turn purely from the aircraft's physical dimensions, wing-loading, power-loading, etc, so perfectly that there is no chance of boo-boos.
The flaps in the P-51 seem to have issues.
And have had these issues for how long? It has been abit of time now since AHII debuted "the worst P51 in any sim, ever"(tm), and we've gotten some new airframes, some new vehicles, had old cockpits redone, and had an AI introduced. But the issues remain. And I'm sorry, call me crazy, I still can't help but wonder if some of the "issues" with P-planes and lack of "issues" with certain planes (like the very generous extent to which 109 controls function at high IAS) might be deliberate to somewhat balance the enormous popularity that American planes will always have with your average customer, which they would retain even if they flew like dump trucks.
Also, you can't only rely on pilot anecdotes, either. Many times a pilot is not flying their plane to its full extent and lead an enemy to feel it was an inferior plane. Look at the spitfire pilot that can't pull back on the stick hard enough to out-turn a 109... 109 pilot might say "I easily out turned him, it was not even close" but other data point to the opposite.
You can't trust a single account implicitly, no. But when enough of them report the same phenomena, you cannot dismiss them either.
Historically, the P-40 was ... (to phrase it my own way) dog meat. Countless P-40s fell over the desert in N. Africa to 109Fs and other LW planes. It was not competitive in the way it was flown. Nor is it competitive in the AH arenas. It is an underdog, and historically has been considered a workhorse but inferior to other designs.
You'll get no arguement from me on this one. Just history proving once again that the energy fighter trumps the angles fighter. The 109 pwning the P-40 is no more surprising than the F6F pwning the Zero, and happened for similar reasons.
Like the P-47. It broke the LWs back, so to speak, but was NOT a better dogfighter than the P-51,
I'm glad you said that, because it brings us right back to what I have been sayin...in AHII, the Jug IS equal/better than the Mustang as a dogfighter. If you don't overload it, it will drop flaps and follow La7s, Tempests, and 109s around in turns that would have the pony buffeting and saying "no way, Jose!" This is a complete inversion of historical performance, although it could be argued that with the Pony you get an a-historical ability to dive like a jug without stiffening controls or much fear of structural failure...but ah, that is another issue.
-
However, I didn't mention it, because the discussion had already turned abit sour, and anyway, IMO, the mounds of pilot reports and impressions from actuall combat trumps us sitting here at our desks trying to calculate the turn radius of these aircraft.
Eh, I don't hold actual pilot accounts that useful in terms of aircraft performance capabilities... Two main reasons:
1. There is absolutely no way any real life pilot is getting the most out of his aircraft. If he ever tried to learn how to do that, he'd be dead long before he was able to reach that level and report about it.
(Great example - I'm transitioning equipment right now and trying to relearn the edge of my planes... And am averaging about 30 horrific fatal crashes per hour doing so)
2. Real life pilots never had the useful "System: You have shot so and so down." Like it's so often said, it's the pilot, not the plane. In many accounts, we just have no way of knowing the various experience levels, etc. Also the fact that there's no film with nifty trails and a running speed/altitude ticker in the top right corner doesn't help.
-
Yet HTC is immune from making any tweaks based on player base demands or balance? Or, as I theorize, to prevent the MA from being 50% P-51s, 30% P-38s, and 18% P-40s and P-47s
You really think HTC has "balanced" against the Pursuits that badly and that the Pursuits were that dominant over every other nation and service's fighters?
You sound more biased that the worst "Luftwhiner" we ever had.
-
WW, I think a lot of things in-game react differently because of massive over-use of the flaps and how they are modeled. Still, even if maybe the P-40K is heavier, and maybe that worsens the turning radius, that data set, whatever it is, is based off of some flight test somewhere that HTC has stored away in a file cabinet.
Also, if we had a real E, I think you mentioned (or somebody else) that the -E didn't have any WEP, so it wouldn't have the raw horsepower to haul itself around in turns like some planes can. It might have a tighter radius (as many slower planes do) but a slower turn rate. Or something.
In the game, with both at max fuel, the P-40E has a lower wing loading. As fuel burns off, the ratio of weight to wing area improves more for the P-40 than the 109. Thus, at 25% fuel, the P-40E will be even better.
In the real world, the P-40 could out turn the 109 at and below corner velocity. Granted, it lacked the power to sustain this advantage for very long. However, that wasn't the only flight characteristic where the P-40 held an advantage. It had a faster rate of roll. It didn't stiffen at higher speeds (below critical Mach) and it could deploy flaps at higher speed.
Countering those advantages were the 109's superior acceleration, speed and climb. In the game, we can add the 109's super-uber flaps.
I've seen mention in this thread how the 109s dominated the P-40s in North Africa. Many of these losses were Tomahawk IIB types, which were overweight and could barely manage 340 mph clean. Kittyhawks were another matter. However, while they suffered much less than the old weary Tomahawks, they still suffered lopsided kill to loss ratios against the Luftwaffe's 109s. What wasn't mentioned was why they did. Tactics. The P-40s were assigned sorties largely in close support of ground troops or flying interdiction missions. They flew low most of the time, which gave the Luftwaffe the advantage of altitude. Another issue was the relatively low air to air combat skill levels of the P-40 pilots. The bulk of RAF Tomahawk and Kittyhawk pilots were raw, fresh from training with little to no combat experience. There were, sprinkled in amongst the rookies, some very good Commonwealth fighter pilots. "Killer" Caldwell being one example. Caldwell shot down at least ten 109s in his P-40s (Tomahawks and Kittyhawks).
When USAAF P-40 units began deploying in North Africa, they brought along many experienced pilots. When the Luftwaffe began encountering American P-40s, they noted that this new enemy had vastly better combat discipline, and were generally encountered at higher altitudes. By mid January of 1943, the American P-40s had established a record of two kills for each loss against the Luftwaffe and the Regia Aeronautica, and those losses included those by all causes (operational, flak, etc). This was not only due to better tactics, discipline and training, it was also due to occasionally having P-38s as high cover on long range missions and Spitfires as high cover for shorter ranging assignments. That said, even without fighter cover, the P-40s were now holding their own and then some.
P-40s were still in combat in Italy into mid 1944. Despite being borderline obsolescent, they proved very effective against the Luftwaffe, who was now suffering from a lack of experienced pilots itself. A study of 12th Air Force P-40 operations in Italy will surprise most people.
Krusty, the P-40K's gross weight was 120 lb greater than the P-40E. Not significant, being well within the variance we will see in fuel states.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You really think HTC has "balanced" against the Pursuits that badly and that the Pursuits were that dominant over every other nation and service's fighters?
You sound more biased that the worst "Luftwhiner" we ever had.
1. I believe it is possible there is a certain amount of tweaking going on to encourage people to fly different planes, yes.
2. I believe if the Pursuits, particularly the P-51D were closer to EQUAL to most fighters in the MA, not superior, but close enough that say the average P-51 stick merging in a Co-E dogfight with the average 109 stick stood 50/50 shot, they might see use in such huge numbers that there would be balance issues. The P-51 is rather mediocre compared to the other 4 top planes, yet there it is, tour after tour, in the top 4. I believe that if the P-51 were as good as it was, there could be a good argument for perking it, yet perking the P-51 might be problematic from a business model issue. And I'm sure the P-40's popularity use would go up alot if it were a better t'n'ber
Personally, I'd love to see a better P-51D with a 5 point or so perk price, leave the B model free on account of its weaker firepower.
There would be no reason to perk a better P-40, since what you would have would be alot like an early Spit with less engine power and no Hispanos.
-
In the game, with both at max fuel, the P-40E has a lower wing loading. As fuel burns off, the ratio of weight to wing area improves more for the P-40 than the 109. Thus, at 25% fuel, the P-40E will be even better.
In the real world, the P-40 could out turn the 109 at and below corner velocity. Granted, it lacked the power to sustain this advantage for very long. However, that wasn't the only flight characteristic where the P-40 held an advantage. It had a faster rate of roll. It didn't stiffen at higher speeds (below critical Mach) and it could deploy flaps at higher speed.
Countering those advantages were the 109's superior acceleration, speed and climb. In the game, we can add the 109's super-uber flaps.
I've seen mention in this thread how the 109s dominated the P-40s in North Africa. Many of these losses were Tomahawk IIB types, which were overweight and could barely manage 340 mph clean. Kittyhawks were another matter. However, while they suffered much less than the old weary Tomahawks, they still suffered lopsided kill to loss ratios against the Luftwaffe's 109s. What wasn't mentioned was why they did. Tactics. The P-40s were assigned sorties largely in close support of ground troops or flying interdiction missions. They flew low most of the time, which gave the Luftwaffe the advantage of altitude. Another issue was the relatively low air to air combat skill levels of the P-40 pilots. The bulk of RAF Tomahawk and Kittyhawk pilots were raw, fresh from training with little to no combat experience. There were, sprinkled in amongst the rookies, some very good Commonwealth fighter pilots. "Killer" Caldwell being one example. Caldwell shot down at least ten 109s in his P-40s (Tomahawks and Kittyhawks).
When USAAF P-40 units began deploying in North Africa, they brought along many experienced pilots. When the Luftwaffe began encountering American P-40s, they noted that this new enemy had vastly better combat discipline, and were generally encountered at higher altitudes. By mid January of 1943, the American P-40s had established a record of two kills for each loss against the Luftwaffe and the Regia Aeronautica, and those losses included those by all causes (operational, flak, etc). This was not only due to better tactics, discipline and training, it was also due to occasionally having P-38s as high cover on long range missions and Spitfires as high cover for shorter ranging assignments. That said, even without fighter cover, the P-40s were now holding their own and then some.
P-40s were still in combat in Italy into mid 1944. Despite being borderline obsolescent, they proved very effective against the Luftwaffe, who was now suffering from a lack of experienced pilots itself. A study of 12th Air Force P-40 operations in Italy will surprise most people.
Krusty, the P-40K's gross weight was 120 lb greater than the P-40E. Not significant, being well within the variance we will see in fuel states.
My regards,
Widewing
Wow, great read WW. And you can make the strongest point out here. :aok
-
This thread should have been closed when this blasphemy against the p40 started. It's an infinitely more capable plane than it is given credit for both in MA and in ww2.
Average MA P40 flying (note the teeth)
http://www.mediafire.com/?z5z3bpjv2sf (http://www.mediafire.com/?z5z3bpjv2sf)
-
This thread should have been closed when this blasphemy against the p40 started. It's an infinitely more capable plane than it is given credit for both in MA and in ww2.
Average MA P40 flying (note the teeth)
http://www.mediafire.com/?z5z3bpjv2sf (http://www.mediafire.com/?z5z3bpjv2sf)
I wasn't aware this was a religious subject....
And the P-40 was always an also ran compared to the top end fighters of WWII. That is not surprising given its development timeline and history.
-
The P-40 IS undermodeled, plain and simple, I hope we can all agree on that.
And yes, there are those 'uber' planes out there.
BUT.
I find it to (yes! this is true!) be MORE of the pilot than the plane.
I'll-be-it it's hard to get a spit XVI with a 109g-2, you just gotta work advantages, and know how to use your disadvantages to your advantage...
With my personal experiance in the P-40 (I flew it for about 4 1/2 tours, so, not a pro, but I got to learn it) it was amazing.
You guys are complaining about it's 'Inability to TnB' which is COMPLETLY false.
With my P-40E I RARELY got shot down in a TnB fight.
You DO have to change up your manuvering style with the P-40 though which is what I think you guys are complaining about, you DON'T know how to use it right.
In the P-40 you can't lock the stick back in a turn like you can with the spittys, you gotta be CONSTANTLY changing your airspeed, your flaps, your direction, and even have to take some extremely risky moves (split S manuver at 200 feet... that's tough to pull off) and even so, locking the stick back isn't a good idea.
I've learned a few great manuvers with the p40, one of my favorites, lock the stick, make 'em think you're getting into a TnB, get 'em on your 6, chop throttle to about 25% and do a barrel roll over the top of 'em, instant overshoot and gun position... sounds cheap, sounds 'Oh, but what if they get a shot on you', the thing with this manuver, is ALL timing, you utilize the p40's LOWER airspeed.
Another one of my favorites in the p40 IS TnB'n them.
I've got spitty kills under my belt in 'em, and I love watching p51 pilots thinking they can outturn it, it's MORE the stick, than it is the plane...
Let me say that AGAIN!
It's MORE the PILOT than it is the PLANE.
Learn the planes before you start suggesting they're 'overmodeled' or 'can't do this or that' or even 'they need fixed' (although, in this case, I do agree that the P-40 needs fixed...)
And if you guys think the p-40 is 'too uber' as it is because of it's K/D ratio in RL, check out the Flying Tigers...
P40B's (later on, E's) vs KI's and other Jap planes... with MINIMAL losses...