Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Wmaker on September 23, 2009, 09:58:22 AM
-
Just something I noticed while comparing P-40B's specs with the Hawk75A.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/P40B_weights.jpg)
The P-40B appears to be from ~480 to 420lbs overweight depending on the fuel load. Varying weights can be found from several Internet sources but I consider AHT to be the most reliable that I've ran across. And it seems that HTC uses it as a primary source for weight data for the US fighters aswell. For example, P-40E's take-off weight is the same as given in the AHT to the pound.
-
As you say, the numbers vary from site to site but my reference has the empty weight as 5812 pounds. E model was heavier but 6800 lbs does sound heavy for empty weight for B. Might be some specs over at ww2 aircraft performance.
-
As you say, the numbers vary from site to site but my reference has the empty weight as 5812 pounds.
One thing is that you can't directy compare the weights I posted to the basic empty weight given in different sources because it most probably is listed as weight without the pilot and most (untrapped) oil. Substracting pilot, usable oil, the flares and the mooring kit you have 5990.8lbs basic empty AHT-weight. I added those weights directly to the table so that the weights would be comparable with Aces High weights which obviously have the needed oil, equipment and the pilot already onboard. :)
BTW, what was this source that mentioned 5812lbs?
-
5812 lbs comes from S. Wilson's AC of WW2 (probably refering to C model). Joe Baugher's site has more on the number of modifications made to the various models. He lists P40B as-5590 empty, 7326 gross, 7600 full load. P40C as 5812 empty, 7459 gross and 8058 full max load. One problem is that there seems to be no certain definition of empty, gross and full load etc.. Some sites have dry weight or dry empty weight and a mix of other classifications. You mentioned 86 lbs of oil which would be about 11.5 gallons. Were you refering to residual oil? FAA specifications usually list definitions of what they mean by empty wgt and so forth but I think one just has to dig through a number of sources and make an estimate. I used to know a mechanic that worked on P40's, P39's and P38's but he did not say alot about draining oil etc.. He like to work on the P38 best of all and did not think much of P39's.
Anyway the 7600 lb estimate plus or minus a little does seems better for the P40B.
-
I've been arguing for years that the P-40B is modeled as a P-40C. Same weights, same acceleration, same climb and same speed. The P-40C was plumbed for a centerline drop tank. It had different internal fuel tanks and revised armor. I hope, when they get around to updating the P-40 graphics, they take a look at the performance data I sent and Wmaker's weight data.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Ya hear that HiTech!
UPDATE THE P40'S!
-
Personally, I am just so happy that the P-40 was added and even included the "P-40B" in AVG colors, that I don't mind at all if the best HTC is going to do is give me P-40C weights/performance.
On the otherhand, if they do look into it further, I hope the AVG planes are modeled as their own variant since those aircraft were a mix of parts including "blueprinted" engines that combined with their lower weight made them one of the best versions ever built from a purely aerobatic/dogfighting perspective.
-
You mentioned 86 lbs of oil which would be about 11.5 gallons. Were you refering to residual oil?
That 86lbs is the "untrapped" or usable oil. In addition to that there's 38lbs of trapped oil in the tank which is already factored into the empty weight.
I've been arguing for years that the P-40B is modeled as a P-40C.Same weights, same acceleration, same climb and same speed.
According to AHT, clean P-40C weights 7647.2lbs (Gross) which is almost identical to the P-40B. Also, AFAIK they had the same engine. With the drop tank the weight gets close to the P-40B weight in AH at 8013.2lbs.
-
I agree that it needs a rework of the flight model but I don't see that being done until the shape is updated. Maybe we could add an F or a K at that time but I'm not sure that will really get us much.
-
I agree that it needs a rework of the flight model but I don't see that being done until the shape is updated.
No worries! :) The weight thing was just something I stumbled across. Now that I looked more carefully I also noticed that the Take-off boost was 44", while it's roughly 39" in AH. Anyways, good to hear it's on the list!
Maybe we could add an F or a K at that time but I'm not sure that will really get us much.
Any new variants are great and they add variety! Being selfish, I'd love to see Hawk75A because of it's use in the Finnish Air Force. :) However, I do realize that us Finns have pretty much used up our "begging points" with the Brewster. :D What is true tough, that Curtiss Hawk with a possible addition of the He-111 would together make an entire new scenario possible; The Battle of France.
3d-model-wise, Hawk's cockpit is essentially same as the P-40B sans the armored glass. The fuselage is essentially the same aswell from the windshield aft with couple of small differences like the shape of the aft plexiglass windows and the tail wheel fairing which, unlike in the P-40B, protrudes out from the ventral fuselage.
Well, I can dream! :)
-
Any new variants are great and they add variety! Being selfish, I'd love to see Hawk75A because of it's use in the Finnish Air Force. :) However, I do realize that us Finns have pretty much used up our "begging points" with the Brewster. :D What is true tough, that Curtiss Hawk with a possible addition of the He-111 would together make an entire new scenario possible; The Battle of France.
I would also like to see the P-36. It was a more capable fighter than the M.S.406.
A P-40 with a Yak engine might be interesting, too.
-
I would also like to see the P-36. It was a more capable fighter than the M.S.406.
A P-40 with a Yak engine might be interesting, too.
The P-36 would be a good addition for the EW plane set and would be great for scenarios.
ack-ack
-
I agree that it needs a rework of the flight model but I don't see that being done until the shape is updated. Maybe we could add an F or a K at that time but I'm not sure that will really get us much.
I used to think the performance differences might have been worth having different models in-game... Then not too long ago I went through and refreshed my memory.
Posted here:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271506.0.html
There's almost no difference between the different models as far as performance goes (oh, and the most common N models come out as being even slower!).
The only reason to have multiple models post-B/C is to have different weapons packages (underwing bombs, underwing+centerline bombs, etc), or to move the FTH up a few thousand feet, which really won't help the plane any.
-
A point to consider in regard to the P-40L, while it was not much faster, it was significantly more maneuverable than the other late model P-40's. Specifically the 99th Squadron (part of the 332nd Fighter Group) was instructed to engage 109's and 190's in a flat turning fight as soon as possible. This was the SOP at forward training facility's in North Africa for the P-40L.
-
A point to consider in regard to the P-40L, while it was not much faster, it was significantly more maneuverable than the other late model P-40's. Specifically the 99th Squadron (part of the 332nd Fighter Group) was instructed to engage 109's and 190's in a flat turning fight as soon as possible. This was the SOP at forward training facility's in North Africa for the P-40L.
Why would the L be more maneuverable than the M or K? Some blocks of the N were lighter. For example, the P-40N-25 was more than 100 lb lighter than the P-40L-1. The most powerful was the P-40K with the V-1710-73 engine, and it was just 40 lb heavier than the L.
My regards,
Widewing
-
A point to consider in regard to the P-40L, while it was not much faster, it was significantly more maneuverable than the other late model P-40's. Specifically the 99th Squadron (part of the 332nd Fighter Group) was instructed to engage 109's and 190's in a flat turning fight as soon as possible. This was the SOP at forward training facility's in North Africa for the P-40L.
That wouldn't be only for the L... All models of P-40 had a fairly small turn radius, but generally (like hurricanes) was their best defense because they were slow.
-
Perhaps I'm looking at a field modded P-40L but it was 375 pound lighter than the F at 5,900 pounds empty weight. From what I've gathered and I don't have much on the other late war models, but it was my understanding that the L was known as the "Gipsy Rose Lee" after the famous stripper due to it's light weight. So it appeared to me that it was lighter than most every other model.
I apologize if I have incorrect data, but to me a lighter short-tail P-40 would be more maneuverable seemed pretty logical.
-
You are right in that they stripped it down to 4 guns, 200 rounds per gun, and it saved 250 lbs weight, but this netted only a 4mph gain in top speed, at a noticable loss of combat efficiency.
They tried the same thing on the first 500 P-40Ns, stripping the guns down. Pilots wanted them back! And then some. They wanted the missing guns back, they wanted additional bomb shackles under the wings, and in the end, the needs of combat made the majority of P-40Ns even slower than their predecessors.
Might be interesting to have something comparable to the E (E/F/etc) and then an N model with ground attack capabilities, hypothetically-wishing-for-revamp-of-AH-P-40s-wise. :D
-
Bringing this up for Pyro in case he's revamping the P-40 flight models.
-
P-40N Kittyhawk :D
-
:salute
The P-40L would be a great historical addition to AH Event scenerios, Squad Ops, and Snapshots for the MTO.
Most P-40 squadrons in the MTO flew the Fs or Ls with the greater number flying the "L". The exception was the 57th FG who flew the K with some success. The 325th FG was the only group to keep their Fs until their rotation to P-47s. They only supplemented their numbers with Ls when they had to. They wanted the six 50 cals. for the extra punch.
Most flew the L for its greater combat survivability. The four 50s didn't help its combat effectiveness, but more pilots lived
through engagements with the 109 F/G and 190 A/G.
33rd FG 42/43 - P-40F/L
57th FG 42/43 - P-40F/K
79th FG 43/44 - P-40F/L
324th FG 43/44 - P-40F/L
325th FG 43/44 - P-40F/L
(http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/p40/p40g01.jpg)
-
I agree that it needs a rework of the flight model but I don't see that being done until the shape is updated. Maybe we could add an F or a K at that time but I'm not sure that will really get us much.
I have to say it is an awful lot of fun to shoot down people in the MA with a P-40B. The F and K models would both be good additions, but I look forward to just having the updated interior and flight model on the B and E.
-
I have never really flown the p40 before but have had an interest. The update is just perfect timing, I hope I can hold out for the patch before I try one, dont want to get useto the old flight model and then have to adjust for the updated one. :joystick:
-
Noticed that the weight is unchanged in the new version. Just wondering if any changes on this department are expected in any patches? :)
-
Noticed that the weight is unchanged in the new version. Just wondering if any changes on this department are expected in any patches? :)
I have not seen the flaps being hit as much, that's not performance wise, but it does seem different
-
I noticed it's weaker. I had a glancing hit from a N1K2 in the MAs. I took a hit almost directly in front of my tail wheel underneath my tail, and I lost the TOP of my tail (the V-stab). In the same pass I took a single hit in front of my cockpit and lost both oil and the engine was disabled as well.
I floated down very annoyed. The P-40 used to take loads of punishment. I remember limping home half the time missing half my parts more often than not in one. Now, we'll see but so far it doesn't seem to be that way.
-
Most flew the L for its greater combat survivability. The four 50s didn't help its combat effectiveness, but more pilots lived
through engagements with the 109 F/G and 190 A/G.
That doesn't follow. You say it was better because they didn't get killed. You can't prove that, and there are so many other reasons, environmental and otherwise, that you can't make that conclussion at all.
I am reminded of the magic rock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdBn5G7Y2RA
:D
The P-40L was not some miracle plane. They reduced the gas and lowered the ammo to 200 rpg. That's about 200lbs and change weight savings. Looking at that, 200lbs is 33 gallons. Out of a 140 gallon internal storage. So that's a little less than the difference between taking 100% and taking 75%.
We're not talking miracle performance. The actual performance specs were not much different. It was a disappointing venture because it didn't pay off. Many were built, yes. Out of need for airframes rather than because it was better than what it replaced.
EDIT: The P-40E had 148gal, but looking it up now the P-40F that the L was based on was more like 157gallons. That means the impact on fuel weight was less significant than before.
-
From the patch 2 notes.
The skin and sound folder names for the P-40B has been changed to p40c in advance of some upcoming changes to the P-40 lineup.