Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: mariah11 on August 25, 2010, 06:10:28 PM
-
I've notcied when flyin my p40e that the flaps have finally been remodled so now first notch is below 400mph now I wonder if you could remodle the cockpit for me???????? and the others that fly it as well
Eric11 out :salute all
-
I do not recall seeing anything in the change logs about the P40x's receiving any coding mods.
But yes indeed... I will jump on the "please re-model the p40!!!" bandwagon. :D
-
Yup, I want to be thinking "wow, this looks really great" as I'm tumbeling from the sky :devil.
I'll climb onboard for this.
-
#Yeh the P40 cockpit has been left behind abit so i say please remodell it 2 even if we have to wait 6 months :) :D
-
I'm very disappointed with the P40 model in this game, its definitely my favorite WWII plane too...
+1
-
I'm very disappointed with the P40 model in this game, its definitely my favorite WWII plane too...
+1
What's to disappoint? P40E is a really nice plane.
- oldman (not the B, though)
-
I personally think it retains way too much E, like the zeros, hurricanes, and other "first geneation models" -- it's a little too easy to fly in certain circumstances. Other than that and the damage model, it's pretty nice (albeit limited in a late war environment). One of my favorites.
-
Lol Krusty, not supprising it will gain several thousand feet if you take 8400lbs of fighter and point it upward with an initial velocity of 300 mph. And it seems no worse than the spitfires, seeing as they can zoom with a P-51 when they weigh thousands of pounds less.
-
Lol Krusty, not supprising it will gain several thousand feet if you take 8400lbs of fighter and point it upward with an initial velocity of 300 mph. And it seems no worse than the spitfires, seeing as they can zoom with a P-51 when they weigh thousands of pounds less.
Using Krusty's unsupported charge of his self perceived "magical" energy retention of the P-40 and try to explain it away by comparing the energy retention of the Spitfire is so way off base it's not even funny. It shows that you don't know anything at all about any of these planes and how they performed in real life. If you did, you'd know why the Spitfire was able and why Krusty isn't correct.
ack-ack
-
I personally think it retains way too much E, like the zeros, hurricanes, and other "first geneation models" -- it's a little too easy to fly in certain circumstances.
:huh :rofl
-
Using Krusty's unsupported charge of his self perceived "magical" energy retention of the P-40 and try to explain it away by comparing the energy retention of the Spitfire is so way off base it's not even funny. It shows that you don't know anything at all about any of these planes and how they performed in real life. If you did, you'd know why the Spitfire was able and why Krusty isn't correct.
ack-ack
this
-
It shows that you don't know anything at all about any of these planes and how they performed in real life. If you did, you'd know why the Spitfire was able and why Krusty isn't correct.
ack-ack
Stretching things there, but I admit I don't know much about how they preformed IRL. Care to explain why spits can zoom with a heavier plane (and dive with one, never got that either)?
-
No need to attack me on this Ack-Ack. I never threw out case studies, but from overall reputation and from anecdotes and stories I've read, it has never been a superb zoomer, never been a clean airframe (seems to have 10mph top speed range no matter what engine you put in it), never been big on E retention so much.
Much like how the Hurricanes in this game retain E far longer than seems historically proven.
Please note I never drew the spitfire comparison. I had nothing to do with that. Ignoring that, there are issues with the P-40 flight model that I hope are revisited whenever they are remodeled.
-
Another question I would like answered eventually, Krusty. What IS up with the hurri's? When I tested it, the IID gained about 5500 ft compared to the P-38's 6200ft, both brought up to 375mph in a dive to the deck.
-
Another Question ??
Why is it the lighter aircraft always out dive the heavier aircraft.
I.E
The Zero can catch a Spit 8 in the dive when the Spit 8 is heavier.
I mean i have seen the F4U out dive the Zero But the Spit Should aswell as if i remember if the aircraft is heavier than its oppenent then in a dive due to weight and gravity then it accelerates faster doesnt it ????????? :headscratch:
-
Did a zoom climb test with the F4F, P-40B and Hurricane IID:
7852 lbs loaded for the Hurricane (100 fuel). 1200 hp engine. Zoom from Sea Level (@ 100 feet) at 375 TAS gets you @4600 ft. Thats a vertical pullup and hang on the prop at full power.
7721 lbs loaded for the F4F (75 fuel). 1200 hp engine. Zoom climb from S.L. at 375 TAS gets you @4800 ft. Same type climb.
7831 lbs loaded for the P-40B (75 fuel). 1150 hp engine. Zoom climb from S.L. at 375 TAS gets you @4700 ft. Same type climb.
Small weight and drag differences between the three but they are in the same ballpark. You might get slightly better or worse results there is always some error depending on how the test is flown.
So I would way there is nothing "up" with the Hurricane IID. It climbs like it should. Your test didnt look very detailed. What type of P-38? starting alt was the deck? 1000 feet? I certainly can't get 5500 feet with any of them from 100 feet at 375 TAS in a vert climb.
Don't know why you would test "zoom" climbs anyways...if you want to know how well an a/c is modelled in the climb in AH you do a sustained climb test. Zoom climbs make reading the data harder because you are inserting extra energy in the climb test and thats just going to muddy the data.
-
Even if they don't redo the performance model, the graphics and frame on the P-40s and Hurricanes should be next up for a major overhaul. Both really showing their ages, especially next the their stablemates, the P-39s and Spits. All arguing about their performance 'issues' aside, I think we can all agree on that.
-
Absolutely I hope they do the P-40 soon. :aok
-
The deck was 500 ft, it was a P-38J, and both aircraft were carrying 25% fuel minus whatever it took to up, and climb to 6k.
-
Yes the old flight models and plane models need to go, i look at the c-47 and imagine how many players fly it every day, capturing bases and rearming tanks and such, not to mention the poor state of the ground troops.
To see plane models that old and highly used in such sad state,is wrong.
Would be nice to have another plane version of the p-40 added as well. :rock :pray :salute
-
No need to attack me on this Ack-Ack. I never threw out case studies, but from overall reputation and from anecdotes and stories I've read, it has never been a superb zoomer, never been a clean airframe (seems to have 10mph top speed range no matter what engine you put in it), never been big on E retention so much.
Much like how the Hurricanes in this game retain E far longer than seems historically proven.
Please note I never drew the spitfire comparison. I had nothing to do with that. Ignoring that, there are issues with the P-40 flight model that I hope are revisited whenever they are remodeled.
You keep throwing this crap out yet never provide anything to back it up. I guess we can call it your "Krusty's Theory of Advanced Aerodynamics according to Krusty".
ack-ack
-
Another question I would like answered eventually, Krusty. What IS up with the hurri's? When I tested it, the IID gained about 5500 ft compared to the P-38's 6200ft, both brought up to 375mph in a dive to the deck.
LOL! The Hurricane's energy retention is average and nowhere near the vertical or energy retention of the P-38. Starting at a co-energy/co-alt state the P-38 can easily out zoom a Hurricane.
ack-ack
-
Stretching things there, but I admit I don't know much about how they preformed IRL. Care to explain why spits can zoom with a heavier plane (and dive with one, never got that either)?
In a nutshell, the Spitfire not only has excellent energy generating capabilities it also has excellent energy retention.
ack-ack
-
LOL! The Hurricane's energy retention is average and nowhere near the vertical or energy retention of the P-38. Starting at a co-energy/co-alt state the P-38 can easily out zoom a Hurricane.
ack-ack
as you know I flew the hurri almost exclusively for years, and you are dead on, no friggin way can the hurri climb with the 38.....well unless the hurri dropped down from 15K feet, and found a 38 climbing up, then and only then will the Hurri climb with it, but that goes for any plane, I never understood why people say the hurri is over modeled, as far as I ever read the hurri was a very stable, yet slow, and a better handling plane than its cousin the spit, in real life,
I have read many pilots preferred the hurri to the spit.
-
OK, then why does the spitfire have good energy retention? I thought that was a weight thing? Is it just that the spitfire has a good power to weight ratio?
-
Another Question ??
(snip)..."if the aircraft is heavier than its oppenent then in a dive due to weight and gravity then it accelerates faster doesnt it ????????? :headscratch:(/snip)
All objects in freefall accelerate at the same rate, regardless of weight.
-
dives are not freefall, though.... :noid
-
+1 remodel the p40 completly...doesnt seem to get the respect that it really deserves :old:
-
thanks for repling fellas I haven't been able to get on because I deleted my account a couple days ago wish skuzzy was looking at this I hope he is and just ain't responding.
<S> all Eric16 and will be when I get my game back up 38jock see ya all in my gun sights :devil
-
Would be nice to have another plane version of the p-40 added as well. :rock :pray :salute
+1 Bring on the F model with the Merlin engine!
-
+1 Bring on the F model with the Merlin engine!
You would have a P-40 with nearly identical performance, with a Merlin engine.
wrongway
-
If we're going to start "wishing" for a new Hawk, might as well make it the N............ With the better Allison engine.
:salute
-
If we're going to start "wishing" for a new Hawk, might as well make it the N............ With the better Allison engine.
:salute
The P40N was the most produced and I would think that HTC would allow the 4 gun or 6 gun version to be an option in the hanger. I really hope HTC gets the N modeled so we have a late war version and an early war version in the P40B. I'm under the impression that the current HTC P40E model is a hybrid.
-
Only some of the early -Ns were "faster" -- they sorely missed the extra guns, ammo, and gas so they put them back in place as well as underwing shackles and extra goodies for ground pounding. The majority of the -Ns had this gear and were in fact SLOWER than P-40Es by some 10mph.
I'll quote myself because I already dug up the values and laid them out to show how little difference there was in P-40 performance:
P-40B top speed was 352mph (with 1040hp Allison)
P-40E top speed was 362mph (with 1150hp Allison)
P-40F top speed was 364mph (with 1300hp Merlin 28)
P-40K top speed was 362mph (with 1325hp Allison)
P-40L top speed was 368mph (with 1300hp Merlin 28) *
P-40M was a P-40K but went back to Allison engines (Merlins scarce)
P-40N-1 top speed was 378mph (with 1200hp Allison) **
P-40N-5 top speed was 350mph (with 1200hp Allison) ***
P-40N-15 top speed was 343mph (with 1200hp Allison)
Note the Merlins FTH alt was 19k or so, and the Allison alt was 16k or so. The curves wouldn't be too different, just shifted up. Going from 1100 to 1300hp seems to have almost no effect on this airframe. It was draggy IMO, and couldn't get much faster no matter what engine you put into it.
* = The L was a stripped down version. They removed 250lbs of fuel, ammo, and guns, but all this only netted "a mere 4 mph faster" than the previous version. Other wise identical to P-40F-5 Merlin model.
** = The P-40N-1 had a lightened structure, 31 gallons less fuel, only 4 guns, and only 200 rounds per gun. 400 were built like this. It was only about 10mph faster, yet was the fastest production model P-40.
*** = The P-40N-5 put the guns and ammo back, as pilots complained it couldn't get the job done. It added bomb racks and could carry underwing bombs as well as drop tanks. The extra weight not only dropped the speed back down, but it actually was slower than previous models! This model was exported heavily (1000 to the VVS, and a number to RAAF/RNZAF/etc units). It was used for ground attack and bomber escort missions, but in US service it was only used as a trainer according to a couple of things I've read.
P.S. referring to "most produced" -- they were almost all used for state-side training by the US. One small group in Burma apparently used them, but my hunch is that this was a shipment bound for foreign users and was simply intercepted in a moment of desperation, as the pilots were trained for and told they'd be flying more advanced planes and were surprised to be dumped in P-40s when they got there. While it had many numbers produced, its users were almost entirely foreign countries.