Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: beet1e on May 03, 2002, 01:48:39 AM
-
I had the pleasure of meeting Colonel F Gabreski about two years ago at the WB 2000 con in North Carolina. I bought his autobiography, and he signed it for me. What a nice gentleman he was. He gave us an address which lasted about 30 minutes, in which he described his WW2 service in the P47.
He also talked about some other planes. Of the P40, he said "You know, that wasn't much of a plane", gently shaking his head.
If that were the case, then the P40 was certainly well modelled in WB. What a piece of crap. I flew one only because the rolling plane set (RPS) offered a very limited choice in the early war. It was P40 or Spit1a, replete with peashooters. (Couple that with iENs crappy connections, and you might as well stay in bed)
I wonder if the AH P40 will be any better. Probably, as most of the planes are better in AH than they were in WB. But I fail to be inspired by the current wave of excitement about the P40.
-
beet1e often it's not about how 'good' a plane is..
It's about flying a simulated piece of history as a challenge, and feel of accomplishment after you succeed in beating several later model aircraft in one.
C202 is extremely nice if you can find 1:1 fights. It beats most spits, n1k's etc.. But the fight takes long so you need to make sure there are no more enemies around to bounce you.
-
The excitement regarding the P40 I think is due to the fact that our american cousins see it as their spitfire!, it was a great A/C for them in the early days and was very well advertised in their media at the time (news reals & movie films, hell I think John Wayne flew one in some yanky film!!).
The fact that it doesnt add up to much compaired with European & Jap models of the time, doesnt seem to stop their love for that A/C.
Marcof 249 RAF.
:)
-
marcof I think thats a reasonably fair assessment of the situation. I, like so many of the others here, have long been a big fan of the P-40, because of its history mostly. It also looks cool, and it isnt a bad fighter. Its mediocre at best compared with the Mustang and Jug, but was certainly far from being a bad airplane. The P-51B should outperform it in every parameter, but many of us will still fly it because we have always loved this plane. Besides, it should yield great perks when you kill stuff in it.
-
AFAIK, it dives very good and retains fantastic control authority in those dives. Kinda rolled like 190 when fast in WB.
A good RPS and scenario plane.
-
It's all well and good if ya don't like the P40 beet1e, but why piss in our corn flakes if we do.:)
-
Dogmeat in the MA, as Hristos said, it'll hold its own in the Scenarios, except when up against 109's and 190's :D
-
Actually, the P-40B was one of the better allied early war planes in WB, due to the 2 x .50s cals.
Daff
-
I flew the P-40 in AW, and it wasn't much of a plane (it's porked modelling stages not included). It was properly modelled there though: it climbed like a dog; dive was excellent; had 6 fifties with relatively short ammo load, turned okay but not well compared to zero, 109 etc.
Historically, it was one of the few planes we had that could get off the ground and fight reasonably well.
The F4F was much the same way; it was all the US had at the time, and well trained pilots to get the most out of it.
By comparison, later planes were much better designed and manufactured. Gabreski was correct; it wasn't much of a plane.
And the Brits thought it sucked also.
-
The P40 was good for one pass only. Imagine this, your flying a P40 in a flight of 4 P40s. You spot Japanese A6Ms ahead of you. You go full throttle and close on the A6Ms. You line one up in your sights and open fire. Debris and smoke come off the Zero as your rounds impact it, but it does not go down. Oppps, better luck next mission, as the P40's only option now is to run away.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
The P40 was good for one pass only. Imagine this, your flying a P40 in a flight of 4 P40s. You spot Japanese A6Ms ahead of you. You go full throttle and close on the A6Ms. You line one up in your sights and open fire. Debris and smoke come off the Zero as your rounds impact it, but it does not go down. Oppps, better luck next mission, as the P40's only option now is to run away.
nah, you can always extend, climb and repeat....
-
Originally posted by fdiron
The P40 was good for one pass only. Imagine this, your flying a P40 in a flight of 4 P40s. You spot Japanese A6Ms ahead of you. You go full throttle and close on the A6Ms. You line one up in your sights and open fire. Debris and smoke come off the Zero as your rounds impact it, but it does not go down. Oppps, better luck next mission, as the P40's only option now is to run away.
OR you can do a hard flat turn and try to get on that zero's 6 again...
(I said try)
-
I'm talking about the real P40 Udie. I've never read about P40s making a 2nd pass and comming out the victors.
-
It looks very cool...
It had distinctive characteristics..and demonstrates the progression of what became the AMERICAN ethos of fighter design.
It was in the right place at the right time to help save the world.
Why would we not be excited about flying it..especialy those of us who never tried it in WB or AW and against its historical enemies that are in the game or soon will be.
-
i am pretty sure it wil be a pos even against a a6m2.
Im the last ct tour vrs p51bs i was like 9 and 1. The only thing a p51 could do was just leave all together. Any hi speed pass was easy enough to avoid. Aftr a few of those they woud get bored and try to push for a kill and the would screw up and die.
wotan has 9 kills and has been killed 1 time in the A6M5b against the P-51B.
the 1 time I died was from ack
wotan has 12 kills and has been killed 1 time in the A6M5b against the P-47D-11.
They will just make a half arsed pass then run and it should be easy enough to deal with.
I believe their best tacvtic will be same used by p51bs in the current ct pac setups.
Bore us to death.
:)
but I am sure glad theres lots of dedicated p40 pilots
-
we should get P400 !!!
:D
-
I flew the P-40 in AW, and it wasn't much of a plane
I flew it quite regularly in AW, mostly FR, sometimes RR, and I remain convinced that its greatest advantage was its perceived image. It had very good overall performace, it was just masked behind horrendous handling at speeds below 150ias (not to mention a climb rate comparable to a Sopwith Camel). That initial impression was probably tough for a lot of people to get past when they first tried it out.
Keep the speed above 175-200ias though, and that plane was money. It could hold its own against the 'popular' set of late war planes, but it took patience (getting to combat could take forever), and most of my combat time was spent fighting from a disadvantage (usually in altitude).
It will be interesting to see how well it performs in AH. The one crutch that the AW P40 really had was the simplistic damage model; it could take pings all day long with the only adverse effect being a leaky fuel or oil tank. That obviously won't be the case in AH. "Torque 'n Stuff" will also play a big role. But if the overall performance numbers are anywhere close, then this plane will have the potential to be surprisingly competative in the MA.
Or it could end up sucking horribly, but at least it looks cool....
-
I personally do not see the P-40 as being our American Spitfire; rather, that accolade goes to our Mustang. As for the P-40, I hold no pretense that it's going to be an arena-winner but why I'm happy to see it is because it is a part of World War II that I find most interesting, which is the early-war Pacific. This should also start breathing new life into Scenarios and the Combat Theater, areas both of which I'm very interested in. Variety and diversity is nice.
-
Agreed; the P-40 is not America's Spitfire, but is more anologous to "America's Hurricane." It did the yoeman work early in the war, before the new fighters became available in quantity. Because it was tough, had good firepower, and easy handling characteristics, it soldiered on as a supporting player through the whole war...just like the Hurricane. And just like the Hurricane does for the thoughtful in Britain, it holds a special place in Americans' hearts (not to mention quite a few other countries that were glad to get them).
-
"It was properly modelled there though" (in AirWarrior)
Actually, in later versions of AW (AW3 and on) the P-40 was quite badly under-modeled. It was supposed to be a P-40E, yet had a top speed of only 317 MPH. This ranges from 18 to 45 MPH too slow, depending on the source you choose to believe.
This wasn't very moticable in-game though because almost every other plane in AW was messed up as bad.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I had the pleasure of meeting Colonel F Gabreski about two years ago at the WB 2000 con in North Carolina. I bought his autobiography, and he signed it for me. What a nice gentleman he was. He gave us an address which lasted about 30 minutes, in which he described his WW2 service in the P47.
He also talked about some other planes. Of the P40, he said "You know, that wasn't much of a plane", gently shaking his head.
If that were the case, then the P40 was certainly well modelled in WB. What a piece of crap. I flew one only because the rolling plane set (RPS) offered a very limited choice in the early war. It was P40 or Spit1a, replete with peashooters. (Couple that with iENs crappy connections, and you might as well stay in bed)
I wonder if the AH P40 will be any better. Probably, as most of the planes are better in AH than they were in WB. But I fail to be inspired by the current wave of excitement about the P40.
Ace George S. Welch had a different view. He referred to the P-40 as being "completely honest, durable and utterly dependable." Welch and Gabreski served together at Pearl Harbor. Welch got airborne and dispatched 4 Japanese aircraft, with two probables (flying a P-40B), now believed to have not made it back to their carriers. Welch never shot down less than two fighters in any engagement, and nailed 4 on two occations. He also never put in claims for enemy bombers he shot down, and squadron mates claim that he shot down at least 5. Ultimately, Welch finished the war with 16 kills (his total claims). He was knocked out of the war in 1943 with a life threatening case of Malaria. He later became a Test Pilot for North American Aviation, and tested various P-51s and P-82s. He eventually became their chief test pilot and made the first flights of the XP-86 and YF-100 (there was no XF-100), taking both beyond Mach 1 on their maiden flights. Recent evidence points to Welch beating Yeager through the sound barrier by two weeks. More than a few of his contemporaries are convinced that Welch would have scored better than Bong had he not become deathly ill, which led to a lengthy hospital stay. When had recovered the USAAF decided his value as a War Bonds promoter and combat instructor was too great to risk him in combat again. Welch resigned and with the assistance of General Hap Arnold, was hired by North American in 1944.
My regards,
Widewing
-
looks like this thread is in danger of becoming about wotans skilllzzzz
-
I believe one major reason of the P-40s popularity is because of it's legacy with the AVG (Flying Tigers) in China.
It will also be very great for the TOD or CT for those types of scenarios. Will I fly one regularly in the MA? probably not. Am I glad to see it? hell yeah!
Regards,
rogwar
member The Original Flying Tigers squadron
-
S!
The P-40E certainly won`t be an uber plane. Against late war models, it does`nt stand much of a chance.
Here are the Stats on P-40E:E Model:
1150 hp Allison V-1710-39 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid cooled engine.
Maximum speed was 335 mph at 5000 feet, 345 mph at 10,000 feet, and 362 mph at 15,000 feet.
Initial climb rate was 2100 feet per minute. (? This may not be a figure for WEP climb) An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 11.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 29,000 feet.
Maximum range was 650 miles (clean), 850 miles (with one 43 Imp gal drop tank), 1400 miles (with one 141.5 Imp gal drop tank).
Weights were 6350 pounds empty, 8280 pounds normal loaded, and 9200 pounds maximum.
Dimensions were wingspan 27 feet 4inches, length 31 feet 2 inches, height 10 feet 7 inches, and wing area 236 square feet.
That would give it a wingloading of 35.08 lbs per Square foot.
Ailerons were large for the wing area, and control input was good at all speeds.
The above suggests to me, that when matched up against its historical opponents, the P-40E could be flown successfully.
Against the A6m2 Zero, the P-40E has slight advantage in speed at all altitudes. It has much better control at high speeds, especially in roll rate. Dive acceleration should be superior, and initial zoom climb should also be superior.
It is inferior in climb and turn circle.
Firepower is roughly equal, but durability is much superior to the Zero.
Obviously the P-40E would be most successful when flown in teams and when using B&Z tactics following a climb to altitude.
Against the 109`s, the P-40 would have a more difficult time.
Both the 109F4, and 109G2, the historical opponents, are considerably faster. They both have much better climbs than the P-40E. Zoom climb also goes to the 109`s. Dive acceleration should be similar.
Turn circle is to the advantage of the P-40E. All the reports of combat between these aircraft suggest the P-40E had the better turning circle.
High speed controllability advantage goes to the P-40E. All the 109`s were considerably inferior to the P-40`s in this area.
Firepower is slightly to the advantage of the P-40E with the weight and accuracy of 6 .50 cals being an advantage over a single 20mm and 2 7.92mm rifle calibre weapons.
Durability would be to the advantage of the P-40E.
Comments?
-
Alright, the discussions of my beloved 'toothy' from the WB 1.xx days has brought me out of mothballs.
As far as the numbers go that plane had no advantage over its no-hostorical couterparts in the MA except PERHAPS its control during high speed dives. Yet i racked up 50+ kill streaks in it (when 'trying') and regurlary maintained a positive K/D ratio even while furballing spit5s (the 9s were dead meat). I'll be the first to admidt that it was overmodelled but it was a killer plane to fly. I could chase down Doras (after ICI added the weight) and D-Stangs in a dive while outturning 109s and outrolling 190s. I know I am not alone in those remebrances from yesteryear.
Now the P40B that came out in late WB2.xx was a different story...
-
S!
More on the P-40E
James `Stocky` Edwards was a RCAF Ace with 20 1/2 kills, almost all in P-40`s. (Kittyhawks)
Picture of Edwards:
http://www.accessweb.com/users/mconstab/edwards2.jpg
Picture of RAF Kittyhawks:
http://www.accessweb.com/users/mconstab/kittyhawkis.jpg
Here are some descriptions of his fights versus 109`s in a Kittyhawk:
>>>>>>>
On June 17, Jim Edwards made a definite impact on the capabilities of the Luftwaffe at this time by killing one of their top aces. F/L Wally Conrad of 274 Sqdn was returning from a "delousing" sweep of the Tobruk area when he spotted four 109s high above his flight of four Hurricanes. He called a break and headed up for the Germans. He discovered too late that the rest of his flight had not heard his call and that he was on his own. Too late to turn back, the Messerschmitts spotted him and headed his way. They were lead by the German experten Oberleutant Otto Schultz now with 50 confirmed kills. He had developed the reputation of being a dare-devil and a remorseless fighter who insisted on strafing his downed opponents. He earned the nickname "ein-zwei-drei-Otto" for his shooting abilities.
At this time Edwards was escorting Boston bombers southeast of Tobruk. Their entire formation was bounced by a large number of Messerschmitts and had been broken up. Their only defensive move was to turn quickly and often to make themselves more difficult targets. One of his attackers overshot him in a dive. He quickly lined up his sights and gave the German a long burst that caused an explosion in the engine. The 109 dropped to the desert floor. Edwards didn't see it, he had turned to the west and found himself alone and out of the fight. He dived for the deck at full throttle and turned towards his base.
Meanwhile, Otto Schultz attacked Wally Conrad wounding him and putting his engine out of commission. Wally crash landed and leapt out of his dead Hurricane when Schultz made his first strafing run, then soared back up to come around for another. At this time Edwards spotted Schultz coming up from his dive with his three squadron mates high above watching the fun. He was about half a mile away and angled his Kittyhawk slightly to intercept the Messerschmitt. Schultz came out of his second dive about 300 yds. in front of Edwards at a angle of 60 degrees. Eddie gave Schultz's 109 a long burst from his machine guns, hitting it solidly in the fuselage. The Messerschmitt thundered into the ground killing the German ace immediately. Edwards was gone as quickly as he had appeared on the scene, but not before Conrad got a look at the call letters of his Kittyhawk. Upon landing back at Gambut 2 Eddie didn't claim the kill of Schultz's Me-109 as he hadn't seen Conrad or his Hurricane and knew that two unsubstantiated claims from a new pilot would not be accepted. He claimed only "one probable Me-109 at low level", and so got the Squadron's revenge for the loss of many pilots. The loss of Otto Schultz was a severe blow to JG-27, he could not easily be replaced with another pilot so experienced.
>>>>>>>
Picture of Otto Schultz:
http://www.accessweb.com/users/mconstab/ottoschultz.jpg
Another account which talks about the superior turn of the P-40:
>>>>>>>
Intelligence reported a large number of 109s at a nearby field, with a little speed and luck they could catch them on the ground. The WingCo, Hanbury, lead them into a low level attack formation. At eight miles from the enemy airfield they started to gain altitude when they flew right over a Panzer group. Quickly the ever-present Flak guns opened up at them, albeit inaccurately. They did however notify the airfield. Eddie and the others could see they were in for a rough time as Me-109s could be seen rising quickly off of the airfield.
The WingCo attacked a 109 just getting off the ground, Eddie was lining up his section for a ground attack when he spotted 109s coming at them from in-front and behind. He ordered a tight rising turn in order to fight off the attacking 109s, as they couldn't turn with the Kittyhawks. There were so many 109s in the air that they kept spoiling each others attacks. Eddie got one in his sights and knocked a few pieces off before it pulled away. He kept pulling around until he was on the tail of a 109 shooting at his wingman. But now, in typical Kittyhawk fashion, his guns packed up. Fortunately the German pilot didn't know that. He panicked and pulled out of his turn so violently that he lost control and thundered into the ground at full throttle. As so often happened in dogfights the sky was suddenly empty. Eddie dived to ground level and got out of the area. He couldn't raise anyone on the RT so he headed in a general direction back to base, twisting and turning to throw off any pursuing 109s. He was just getting comfortable with his escape when he spotted a 109 about 600 yds. behind him. The enemy closed the gap to 350 yds. when he began firing at long range. Eddie could see dust flying up behind and to the left of his plane. Some bullets ricocheted into the underside of his wing. He had to start a turning duel, except that he had no guns. He turned inside the 109 and avoided his shots. He would straighten out and fly east while the 109 pilot re-arranged his aircraft for another attack. Eddie waited until the 109 was in range before he turned hard again, went around and straightened out. Eventually the German began firing at long range and started to hit the Kittyhawk. Eddie pulled around and got onto the tail of the German but his guns were still useless, and now the German knew it. But they were getting far east, and the German had to be low on ammo and fuel. Eddie rolled out and got right down on the deck, the German made a last, half-hearted attack and pulled off to fly home. Eddie barely made it to the edge of the LG when his engine cut out and he dropped down rolling to a stop, out of fuel. The tally for each side in the battle was two apiece. Eddie was awarded another victory, although won at a lot of effort.
>>>>>>>>>>>
-
try again bungo I am simply saying the p40 will be a pos not how good or bad I am.
Anyone can shoot me down
-
Widewing - FYI Gabby got his P-40 up on Dec. 7th too. But by the time he was up all the Japanese were gone. The only combat he saw was AAA gunners shooting at one of the guys in his flight.
-
The P40 will be no uber plane.. but then what due you classify as a uber plane?
I think it should be uber pilot. I know that someone in AH who has the patience, the skill, and love for the plane that will make it a uber plane. I rember a 2 man squad from WB that took the P40B and was one of the best teams. They were taking out "uber planes" left and right do to that they knew the strong and weak points of both the plane they flew and the pilots they went against. I wish I rember their names, it has been so long since I flew WB. I think one was BBGun.
Anyway, The P40 will be as UBER as its Pilot.
I am glad to see the P40 and I believe the excitement is ..well related to the AVG. At least that is one of the big reasons.
(S) HTC
-
I thought the WarBirds P-40's were excellent. One of my favorite rides...... The 'B' was actually better than the 'E' but both were very stable and good gun platforms.
I hope the AH version is nothing more or less.....
-
one thing is certain: the P40 will NEVER be called a dweeb plane!
I flew it in warbirds 2.7 offline play and I liked the way it handled,pretty much like the hurricane.
-
one thing is certain: the P40 will NEVER be called a dweeb plane!
I flew it in warbirds 2.7 offline play and I liked the way it handled,pretty much like the hurricane.
-
I suck in fighters, and I was always able to hold my own in the P40 in scenario play and early war RPS, even against 109s.
You just have to fly it like a P40, not a spit.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Of the P40, he said "You know, that wasn't much of a plane", gently shaking his head.
I am sure plenty of P-51 and P-38 aces said the same of the P-47 ;)
There were plenty of pilots that did well no matter what plane they flew including the P-40. Liked or not, the P-40 usually did what it was asked to do: held the line and killed the enemy in the air and on the ground until better equipment was available or the enemy surrendered. Gabreski is entitled to his own opinion, but the P-40 was no less of a plane than his trusty P-47.
Of course my fascination and respect for the aircraft has nothing to do with its service in Africa, Australia, or Russia. A handful of Americans with a handful of "obsolete" planes did an awesome job of beating the pants off the much more numerous and experienced Japanese at a time when the Japanese were otherwise kicking our butts. Regardless of the actual facts, the legend of the AVG alone drives my desire to fly the P-40B in "Flying Tigers" markings as much as the legend of the"Black Sheep" makes me want to fly the F4U-1/-1A/-1D.
I will fly the P-40E with the hope that the P-40B in AVG colors will eventually show up handling similarly, but better.
Seeing as how Boyington was the top Marine Corps ace and also flew with the AVG, I think he deserves to have an AH aircraft with his markings. Does anyone know for sure if he ever flew a -1A and have photos to show what its markings were? The only photos I have ever seen of his plane are ones of his last plane, a -1D named "Lulubelle".
-
""The enemy closed the gap to 350 yds. when he began firing at long range.""
Everytime i read this kind of remark I cringe. What a joke our gun modeling is. 1200 yards and hit with a 50 (hey I am the one firing it so this isnt a whine). 1200 yards, that is over .68 of a mile. Course we know that 50s can go out to 1400 yards, so that would be .80 of a mile. This game could be improved if actually hitting anything from that distance was limited.
Thanks for all the great posts on the p40.'
As to uberness,
I fly in a hellcat squad and our little ride has a top speed of 330/no wep at the deck, with a climb of 3k, and accleration is not 'seat of the pants' by any means. So the p40 at least down there seems like no great loss.
I am a huge fan of the hurri 1 and that beast has a speed of 260 down low, with only a little better climb.
Course I fly ct so I am not getting bounced by la7s day in and day out.
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
I am sure plenty of P-51 and P-38 aces said the same of the P-47 ;)
Actually in the book JG-26, top guns of the Luftwaffe, the author made not of the fact that the pilots of JG-26 didnt fear the P-38, but had a deep respect of the P-47. They enjoyed being able to distringuish the P-38 from long distances. This may have been because the sheer number of P-47 units around in mid to late 43 in the ETO. The 56 FG, 4 FG, 368 FG, all were hammering away at the LW but with losses themselves. Galland himself stated the P-51 was a fine AC.
Originally posted by streakeagle
Gabreski is entitled to his own opinion, but the P-40 was no less of a plane than his trusty P-47.
Well it may have been his opinion, but it is certainly founded. The P-47 is twice the AC as any model P-40 was. It is better in all catregories, at all altitudes too.
regards
-
Even in turning ability?
-
To be honest I dont know, but I know that the P-40 was tottaly outclassed in turn capability bny all the Japanese fighters. The p-47 does not a have a good sustained turn rate, but it does have an awesome instant turn at 275 IAS or greater speeds.
Speed, roll, climb (yes even climb, the P-47 has another AC it can outclimb:)), visibility, and dive. The Jug can do all of this better than the P-40. Rightfully so, the P-40 was an early design. It was a workhorse that served well in its roll.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
Actually in the book JG-26, top guns of the Luftwaffe, the author made not of the fact that the pilots of JG-26 didnt fear the P-38, but had a deep respect of the P-47. They enjoyed being able to distringuish the P-38 from long distances. This may have been because the sheer number of P-47 units around in mid to late 43 in the ETO. The 56 FG, 4 FG, 368 FG, all were hammering away at the LW but with losses themselves. Galland himself stated the P-51 was a fine AC.
Well it may have been his opinion, but it is certainly founded. The P-47 is twice the AC as any model P-40 was. It is better in all catregories, at all altitudes too.
I have read plenty of German accounts. For every account saying one aircraft was the worst threat, you can find another that names a competing aircraft.
The P-38 was the fork-tailed devil to some. There were plenty of German pilots that feared the P-38 more than anything else they had fought. Likewise, others hated the Mustangs more. One generalized quote of the LW aces' opinions does not make a historical fact that P-47s were more of a threat than P-38s. But I am certain I have never read any German accounts that conveyed any fear of P-40s ;)
Gabreski did not exactly have an unbiased opinion when it came to the P-47. It served him well, so of course he loved it and promoted it, not unlike yourself :rolleyes: But your support for the P-47 and Gabreski's opinion of the P-40 is not supported by the combat record of the P-40. It was historically a rugged reliable plane that repeatedly got the job done when there were no other planes to do it. Where was the P-47 when Pearl Harbor was attacked and Japan was overrunning China? It would take dramatic differences in kill, loss, and sortie rates against the same threat level in the same theater to convince me otherwise that the P-40 "wasn't much of a plane" compared to the P-47.
As better planes became available, the "obsolete" P-40 was relegated to ground support. That should sound familiar to P-38 and P-47 fanatics :D If the P-51 had not appeared, it is entirely possible that P-40 development might have been given the same push that other early war fighters got. As it was, regardless of your opinion or anyone elses, after WW2, all USAAF/USAF propellor fighters were junked except for the P-51, which had been steadily replacing all of them anyway. All of these aircraft arose out of the desire for fighters with the best speed at altitude with the longest range, which the Mustang clearly won in terms of production and service life compared to the P-38, P-40, and P-47 it replaced.
edit: Interesting note, my grandfather bought a P-47 after the war for $50. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford to store and maintain it, so he eventually got rid of it :(
-
A P-47 for $50!!!!!!!???????
AAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm gonna have bad dreams for a month... :(
-
It was in flyable condition too :( I still have my grandfather's Wright Engine Corp. 5-year service pin though... he built quite a few engines during WW2.
-
Streakeagle said:
If the P-51 had not appeared, it is entirely possible that P-40 development might have been given the same push that other early war fighters got.
Look up the specs for the P-40Q of early '44 :)
For a one on one dogfight, I'd take it.
422mph, four 20mm cannon, super vis, good climb to 20,000ft of 4.8min, and built like a... er, P-40:D
-
50 buc ks!! thats better than my story. My father used to sit in the cocpit of a abandon P-40 at the local airport as a kid. The military left it there after a break down and never returned to pick it up. A few years passed and a guy passed through and asked about the plane. A few days later he took it apart and trucked it out. He had called the military and they had forgot about the plane as well. He bought it from them for $500.00 Every time I think of that story I *slap* me ole man.
-
I have never seen a genuine color photo of AVG P-40s over china.
(http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/images/p40_01.jpg)
From the same website:
Another large user of the P-40 was the Soviet VVS. Interestingly, although favoured by USSR pilots, Josef Stalin himself opted for Bell P-39 over P-40 as "more suited for combat against German fighters." On what grounds his opinion was based remains a mystery.
No mystery to me: P-39 had a cannon. VVS believed a fighter was worthless without one.
Contrary to it's opinion of a stop-gap measure, the production of P-40 continued long after more modern types were readily available. The total number of P-40 manufactured reached the third highest total for American World War II fighters, bettered only by the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and the North American P-51 Mustang. These production numbers can be deemed the ultimate measure of the aircraft's usefulness.
They sure made a lot of them for not being much of a plane.
And besides, do you know any other aircraft that looked better with the sharkmouth?
If you remove the carb scoop and 0.50 cals from the nose... it truly does look like the head of a shark. I think that makes up for being underarmed and dog slow with no acceleration or climbing ability don't you? Afterall, everyone knows looks are more important than substance :D Otherwise we would have built all B-24s and P-47s rather than comparable numbers of B-17s and P-51s.
-
not to beat a dead horse streak--
In my last post I said the P-40 was a workhorse that served well, and performed its roll as designed.
But the numbers tell the story, the P-40 was mediocre in performance to German mainstay fighters in the beginning of the war, as well as the Japanese mainstay fighters. In the ground support role, it did well. And with a group like the AVG, they learned to exploit their enemy's weaknesses and used good tactics to beat them. That does not mean the P-40 was a better performer than a KI43.
The P-40 was a good AC, no doubt about it.
streak said Gabreski is entitled to his own opinion, but the P-40 was no less of a plane than his trusty P-47.
I was refering to this comment, which just isnt true:)
-
Let the dead horse beatings continue:
I reserve the right to disagree. I could just as easily say the P-47 has never much of a plane compared to its contemporaries the P-38, P-51, Spitfire, etc. and you would disagree just as much.
The P-40 and P-47 are two different designs from two different timeframes... the P-43 never cut it, so Republic had to make the P-47... whereas the P-40 went into production immediately upon completion of testing. You can't compare apples and oranges and say the apple is obviously so much superior to the orange. You may think you P-47 is better because it has some performance and armament advantages, but the P-47 was nowhere to be seen in 1941 either. The P-40 might have been 80% to 90% of the P-47 in terms of perfomance... but it was 100% the plane the P-47 was in terms of getting its pilots home and contributing to victory in WW2, and just like the P-40, the P-47 was replaced by the P-51 as fast as merlin engine production permitted.
Is a Volkswagen Beetle half the car of a Porche 911? Not in my opinion. Two entirely different machines for entirely different people.
Of the American iron in AH, I am sure you have flown the P-47 the most. I have flown it the least. I will fly the P-40 as much as my favorite the P-51. To each his own.
But the numbers tell the story
They most certainly do. Read the production numbers, the sortie numbers, the kill rates, loss rates. Performance brochures mean nothing. Results mean everything.
My comment that the P-40 was no less of a plane than the P-47 is most certainly true if you look at it from the perspective that it flew and fought successfully throughout WW2 in almost all the same roles as the P-47 and in some roles the P-47 didn't. This perspective is no more or less subjective than Gabreski's opinion or your support of his opinion. He could have said the same of the Hurricane based on performance criteria, but it wouldn't be a fact. The theoretical performance of an aircraft means nothing, it is how effectively it is employed. Not only the AVG, but the RAF, RAAF, and VVS enjoyed significant successes with the P-40. Both the Hurricane and P-40 were as critical if not moreso to victory in WW2 as the P-47. In my mind that easily makes the P-40 as much of a plane as the P-47. Because later aircraft had better performance does not make the older aircraft any less of a plane.
-
OK when we get the P-40 here, you take it, i take a p-47, stand off 30 paces and *draw*.
Maybe then you will see my point. I am agreeing with you that the P-40 performed its role well, but you dont hear that part...obviously.
-
More to the P-40's production from beginning of war to the end. Read into it more....some stuff you don't hear about because no one wants to remember it.
Curtiss Aircraft, after the war, ceased to be a major player in the aircraft industry. Why?
To cut through all the BS, the government did not cut Curtiss off at the knees like they should have during the war, because of the coverups concerning production, profits, cost overruns, fraudulent data, etc......in a nutshell, the US government had too much invested in Curtiss, and the blackeyes and tarnished reputations that would have resulted had they acted on their information would have wrecked the war effort. In other words.....a scandal.
The P40 program was allowed to continue because of this. The P40 series ceased to be a viable firstline combat aircraft once the P38 and P47 were available, yet projects continued, with little improvement in performance until war's end.
I'll dig through some of my books here.
IIRC, there was talk of a Congressional investigation, but it was swept under the rug after the war because they felt America was tired of war and was ready to enjoy peacetime.
Gimme a couple days, I'll find the material I'm talking about.
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
The P-40 and P-47 are two different designs from two different timeframes... the P-43 never cut it, so Republic had to make the P-47... whereas the P-40 went into production immediately upon completion of testing. You can't compare apples and oranges and say the apple is obviously so much superior to the orange. You may think you P-47 is better because it has some performance and armament advantages, but the P-47 was nowhere to be seen in 1941 either. The P-40 might have been 80% to 90% of the P-47 in terms of perfomance... but it was 100% the plane the P-47 was in terms of getting its pilots home and contributing to victory in WW2, and just like the P-40, the P-47 was replaced by the P-51 as fast as merlin engine production permitted.
There are some facts that might shed a little light onto this discussion.
For starters, the P-43 would fly rings around the P-40 at any altitude above 15k. Remember, it was turbosupercharged, just like the P-47. When AVG pilots ferried in P-43s for the Chinese Air Force, they recognized that it was superior to their Tomahawks and asked Chennault to allow them to keep the "Lancers". Chennault decided not to keep the P-43s, but not because they were't good fighters. There was no logistical system in place to support the plane, and the self-sealing fuel tanks leaked terribly, the rubber liners having rotted in storage. Chennault did not what his pilots flying fire-traps, no matter how well they performed.
The P-47 came about as the USAAC realized that they needed a fighter that could pack more guns, fly further and faster than any of the aircraft in the inventory at the time. Indeed, the original XP-47 was a short range, light weight fighter powered by the Allison V-1710. It was abandoned when the USAAC revised the specification. The Thunderbolt prototype was the XP-47B. Ever hear of the XP-44? This was a modified P-43 powered by the R-2800 engine, eventually destined for the XP-47B. This fighter never went beyond mockup, however, it would have been considerably faster than any P-40, and could operate at very high altitudes. It simply did not have the range that the USAAC had now demanded due to the lack of space in the airframe for fuel tanks (the turbo and its ducting literally filled the fuselage).
Curtiss received a contract for the P-40, despite the fact that the P-43 out-performed it handily. In retrospect, we can see that this was a political and economic decision. Political, because Curtiss had considerable clout with the Army. Economic, because the viability of the newly reorganized Republic Aviation (renamed from Seversky, after Seversky's removal by Board vote) was still uncertain. To keep Republic's skilled work force intact, the USAAC ordered P-43s while design and development continued on the XP-47B. Most of these P-43s would find their way into training units, with some being transferred to the Chinese, along with a batch of Vultee P-66s.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing, your post says it all. In need of an operational aircraft more than one with nice brochure numbers, Chenault went with the P-40. He didn't need state of the art performance to win. He needed planes that could survive the rigors of daily flights and combat. Thank you for supporting my argument ;)
-
As for flying rings around P-40 above 15,000 feet, the time the P-40 was selected over the P-38 and P-39, the Army was steadfastly against turbochargers and superchargers. They saw them as reliability problems and didn't anticipate the need to provide high-altitude escort and interception duties. In fact, they expected most fighters would spend most of their time down low either providing ground support or denying enemy ground support. At a great cost in performance, the Army actually had the supercharger that was orignally on the P-39 prototype removed for production!
There was no reason other than Army politics why the P-40 could not have had a powerplant setup similar to the Spitfire and Mustang and been a competitive high-altitude aircraft. But, as events would have it, the Mustang had a much more modern air frame and proved to be so much superior with the Merlin that not even the heavily modified P-40Q could equal Mustang performance, hence the majority of the Packard Merlins produced were used in Mustangs rather than supporting P-38 and P-40 development and production. Mustangs hogged so many of the Merlins, that some P-40F airframes had to be converted to use Allisons before the P-40 production line fully reverted back to Allison variants.
It is a fact of US military procurement procedures that politics will lead to erronenous decisions. The P-40, as submitted to the Army test, probably should have lost to the P-38. But the P-38, as submitted to the Army test, was expensive, far from producable, and crashed.
As it stands, I love all of these aircraft whether they are Axis, Allied, fighter, bomber, or even transport. I don't really seen any one as being less than any other despite my personal taste. But I really take offence to any claim that the P-40 wasn't much of a plane even coming from the mouth of a respected P-47 ace, real or virtual.
Besides, this beats arguing over the standard whines ;)
-
Oh yea?!
Well the P-47 wil HO better than the P-40! take that!
-
I faced you and your P-47 buds in the CT a few times... I gave almost as good as I got using 109F4 to HO/snap shoot you guys diving in on me with pairs vs my lower lone wolf. I think I could do as well or better in a P-40B.
One thing I learned while looking up P-40 stuff the past couple of days is that the AVG may have had only 2x0.30 cal in the wings vice the 4 in the P-40B... eek, already pitiful armament cut in half. The color AVG photo I linked to earlier seems to support that. At least it still has the 2x0.50 cal in the nose.
I fear in AH that with only 2x0.50s and 2x0.30s, I couldn't down a P-47 even if I hit with every round unless I got a pilot hit or shot off the tail feathers.
On the bright side, if HTC were to properly model the AVG aircraft, they were custom built. The engines were the equivalent of "blueprinted" and the airframes lacking later features and armament were lighter, so they performed a little better than the USAAF P-40Bs.
-
I guess I should have put [sacasm] there. I was refering to the "standard whines" thing:)
-
Good topic being discussed in this thread. I'd like to jump in with several points to ponder.
The P-40 was an aircraft that had several useful qualities:
1. Ruggedness
2. Availability (I believe it was Lenin who said that quantity
has a quality all its own.)
3. Solid low-level performance.
The P-40's ruggedness is beyond debate, so I won't dwell on it here.
If memory serves, the P-40 was available in greater numbers than any other fighter the U.S. had in its inventory when the war began.
Low-level performance, especially in some of the later models, was more than adequate to leave early war Japanese fighters gasping in their wake.
The greatest handicap faced by the P-40 pilot in 1942 was his own mindset. Army pilots, who couldn't conceive of the Japanese pilots being able to do more than take off and land their aircraft, too often made the mistake of attempting to engage the Zero and Oscar in a dogfight. Consequently, they were shot down in droves.
The lesson that Chennault drove home relentlessly with the AVG was simple: "Do not dogfight with the Japanese fighters, or very quickly you will be dead!" The Army pilots learned that lesson the hard way. But learn it they did. When they finally began to use the P-40's assets properly they more than held their own with the Japanese.
While the P-40 remained useful as a ground attack aircraft until the last days of the war, it is gross exaggeration to suggest that it was the equal of the P-47 in ground attack capability or in air-to-air combat. Against late-war Axis fighters the P-40 could not have lived without P-47's, P-51's or P-38's around to establish air-superiority over the battlefield.
In my humble opinion, the P-47 should receive more credit for the destruction of the Luftwaffe than the P-51. While the Mustang had the range to escort bombers to Germany and back, it was not available in 1942 and early 1943. During that period, the P-47, and to a lesser extend the P-38, challenged the Luftwaffe when its pilots were at the height of their power and skill. The bloody battles of those years bled off the cream of the enemy pilots. The Mustang played a definite role in finishing the destruction of the Luftwaffe, but its job would have been considerably harder if it had not had that big "blocking back" leading the way.
Finally, in response to a statement about Stalin preferring the P-39 over the P-40, I would offer the following comments. The Russians used their aircraft mainly in a ground-attack role. For that, the P-39's firepower was superior to the P-40's. Also, the P-39's low-level performance and climb were superior not only to that of the P-40, but the Zero as well. Before the howls start, let me say that the preceding statement is based on official AAF test results between the P-39 and the Zero 21. To altitudes of 10,000 feet the Airacobra was superior to the Zero in climb and level speeds and acceleration. The Zero began to show its superiority over the P-39 at altitudes above 12,500 feet. The Zero reached 25,000 feet approximately five minutes ahead of the P-39.
Ergo, the P-39 fit the needs of the Russians quite well.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
In my humble opinion, the P-47 should receive more credit for the destruction of the Luftwaffe than the P-51.
The argument that the P-47 should get more credit since it was available sooner and faced worse odds than the P-51 is exactly what I was saying about the P-40 relative to the P-47. Of a course a later design is generally superior, but Hitler and company weren't exactly going to co-operate and wait for the F-86 to be developed to beat them. The P-40 faced worse odds than the P-47 ever saw and not only survived, but cleared the skies well enough to hold the lines until the more modern aircraft came to turn the tide, and its combat performance was good enough to justify production all the way to the end of 1944. Not bad for an airplane that was obsolete the day it went into service.
Finally, in response to a statement about Stalin preferring the P-39 over the P-40, I would offer the following comments. The Russians used their aircraft mainly in a ground-attack role.
The P-39 was not generally used for ground attack by the VVS, it was considered an interceptor/escort fighter. Russian leaders simply preferred to have cannon armed fighters regardless of their role, so the P-40 was not looked upon favorably regardless of its merits over the P-39.
And Ammo, of course I detected your intended sarcasm about the HO :D I was flying the P-47 in HtH a week or so ago, and had a blast every time someone would try to get by me. They seem to think I can't judge the lead angle on a Spitfire or Tempest trying to avoid an HO. The nice thing about HtH is I can go to an external view and watch the them disintegrate as I zoom past. 4 x 20 mm may be better, but the 8 x 50 cal seem to be pretty good in my book.
-
streakeagle said:
But, as events would have it, the Mustang had a much more modern air frame and proved to be so much superior with the Merlin that not even the heavily modified P-40Q could equal Mustang performance, hence the majority of the Packard Merlins produced were used in Mustangs rather than supporting P-38 and P-40 development and production.
END QUOTE
The P-40Q use an Allison 1710-121 of 1,425 hp at take-off, 1,100 at 25,000 ft.
The airframe was changed about the same degree as the change from P-51A to P-51D.
................Top Speed
P-40Q.......422 mph at 20,500 ft
P-51A........385 mph at 20,000 ft
P-51B........424 mph at 15,000 ft, 430mph at 25,000 ft
P-51D........437 mph at 25,000 ft, 401 mph at 10,000 ft
...................Climb to 20,000
P-40Q.........4.8 min
P-51A..........9 min :eek: (that's what the book said) or 6.3 off a chart with W.B.
P-51B..........5 min 54 sec to 20,000
P-51D..........6 min 15 sec (?, off a chart)
All that and four 20mm hyper turbo cannon:)
For mixed low to 25,000 ft air to air and ground support, I'd go for the P-40Q
Now if ya want to include the P-51 H...:D
-
Originally posted by M.C.202
For mixed low to 25,000 ft air to air and ground support, I'd go for the P-40Q
Now if ya want to include the P-51 H...:D
Umm, my opinion doesn't matter: USAAF decided P-51H's were better than reworked P-40s that were still slower than anything else flying as of 1943... and the year was 1944 :p Besides, the P-51s were already in production, the LW was already defeated, and the P-40Q would have arrived too late like so many of the other late war types. P-51H ended up having over 500 produced. Must be some reason why in late 1944 the USAAF chose to pursue building the 487 mph P-51H over the 422 mph P-40Q? :p
-
A note about the P-40B effectiveness from the following link....
http://www.aviation-central.com/1940-1945/aef40.htm
Though often outclassed by its adversaries in speed, maneuverability and rate of climb, the P-40 earned a reputation in battle for extreme ruggedness. At the end of the P-40's brilliant career, more than 14,000 had been produced for service in the air forces of 28 nations...on Dec. 20, 1941, the Flying Tigers received their "baptism under fire" when they inflicted heavy losses on Japanese bombers attempting to attack Kunming. Months of combat followed...scored a very impressive record against the enemy, 286 Japanese planes shot down at a cost of 12 A.V.G. pilots killed or missing in action.
and this from... http://www.acepilots.com/planes/aces_descr.html#p40
Joel Paris was a P-40 ace with the 49th Fighter Group in the Southwest Pacific. In "Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific", he relates his opinion of the P-40:
I never felt that I was a second-class citizen in a P-40. In many ways I thought the P-40 was better than the more modern fighters. I had a hell of a lot of time in a P-40, probably close to a thousand hours. I could make it sit up and talk. It was an unforgiving airplane. It had vicious stall characteristics...
If you knew what you were doing, you could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons. They looked like barn doors on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll it. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls ...
You could push things, too. Because you knew one thing: If you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. He couldn't leave the fight because you were faster. That left you in control of the fight. Mind you: The P-40 was a fine combat airplane.
Maybe U.S. wingman fighter tactics made for a superior outcome, as well.
-
Another note about P-39 Airacobras being primarily ground attack planes...
Several Soviet Airacobra aces are known. One of the leading Russian aces, Alexander Pokryshin, with 59 kills, scored 48 of these in a P-39.
A list of some Leading Soviet Aces in the P-39 from
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/soviet_p39_airacobra.html
Pilot Vic's (P-39 Vic's)
Pokryshkin 59 (48)
Gulaev 57 (41)
Rechkalov 56 (50)
Glinka 50 (41)
Smirnov 34 (30)
Babak 33 (32)
Komelkov 32 (32)
Klubov 31 (27)
Glinka 31 (31)
and regarding its use in ground attacks...
Tank-Busting Myth
Numerous sources in aviation history describe the Soviet use of the P-39 as a tank-buster. Since this did not happen (except perhaps on occasion, as when one of the Tuskegee Airmen opportunisticly shot up a destroyer with his P-47), how did the myth get started? Certainly that big cannon firing through the propeller suggested the possibility of such use, although typical anti-tank guns were of much larger caliber. In the prologue, James Gebhardt persuasively suggests that poor translations may have contributed to the confusion. A common Russian air operation of the war was "prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk," literally translated "coverage of ground forces." To Western readers, such words implied close air support, i.e. trooop-strafing, tank-busting, and other direct support of the infantry. But on reading the extensive, and readily available, Russian sources, it is clear that "prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk" meant establishing air superiority in an area, protecting the ground pounders from bombing and strafing by German airplanes.
-
i fail to see the purpose of this thread.
-
quote:
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another large user of the P-40 was the Soviet VVS. Interestingly, although favoured by USSR pilots, Josef Stalin himself opted for Bell P-39 over P-40 as "more suited for combat against German fighters." On what grounds his opinion was based remains a mystery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No mystery to me: P-39 had a cannon. VVS believed a fighter was worthless without one. <<<<-------
Soviets wanted Cobra (P-39) for his turning ability at low alts and his 37mm.
They say was turning better than any me-109.
The P-39 is a big miss for AH and i think it must be from the first
new crafts wich must come in AHII together with the Bristol Beaufighter.
Another not so known american *spitfire* turning devil was the
P-36. Had fight in ETO and had take off and fight in Pearl Harbor).
Also a *must have it* in AH.
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
i fail to see the purpose of this thread.
Look at the dates. It was started prior to the introduction of the P40.
MiniD
-
And for all the hue and cry about "Having to have a P40".. nobody much flies em.
-
P40B needs an ENY of like 100! lol
-
Originally posted by Zanth
P40B needs an ENY of like 100! lol
I agree, lol.
It would need a much higher ENY to (gamewise) make up for it's relative poor performance.
-
I was surprised at how effective the P40 was a few weeks back. There was a map in the MA with a central island that only had early war planes enabled. I found that in that environment the P40 was deadly. I flew it in B&Z mode and knocked down A6Ms, SpitVs, 109s and F4Fs with the 6x.50 guns and survived. Doubt I could repeat that in AHII, but the experience proved to me that aircraft has great value in the right context. Stocky Edwards, who became an ace flying tomahawks in N.Africa, described the plane as requiring a lot work to fly, such as needing much aileron trimming to prevent it from rolling in a dive. He liked the 6x.50s though, and put his to good use. Later he moved to Spitfire squadrons and rhapsodized about the spitfire, saying "Only a pilot who has flown the Curtiss Tomahawk can really appreciate how beautiful the spit was to fly". He had certainly earned the right to say that.
-
Is a Volkswagen Beetle half the car of a Porche 911? Not in my opinion. Two entirely different machines for entirely different people.
still very close the beetle was designed by Ferdinand Porsche as a peoples car.
All first porsches(jr) where actually based on the volkswagen beetles chassis with the beetles aircooled flat four engine.
the concept always remained the same flat aircooled engine in the back with the porsche(sr) designed torsion suspension.
The 911 is the highperformance evoluated car born out of the beetle.
can't help it
this doesn't mean a beetle is slow coz there some ugraded ones running around.
they run like porsches
:D
-
People mock what they do not understand....
P-40, best_plane_evar.
-Apeboy
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I had the pleasure of meeting Colonel F Gabreski about two years ago at the WB 2000 con in North Carolina. I bought his autobiography, and he signed it for me. What a nice gentleman he was. He gave us an address which lasted about 30 minutes, in which he described his WW2 service in the P47.
He also talked about some other planes. Of the P40, he said "You know, that wasn't much of a plane", gently shaking his head.
If that were the case, then the P40 was certainly well modelled in WB. What a piece of crap. I flew one only because the rolling plane set (RPS) offered a very limited choice in the early war. It was P40 or Spit1a, replete with peashooters. (Couple that with iENs crappy connections, and you might as well stay in bed)
I wonder if the AH P40 will be any better. Probably, as most of the planes are better in AH than they were in WB. But I fail to be inspired by the current wave of excitement about the P40.
In the PTO, the P-40 was looked upon quite favorably. There were a few squadrons that transitioned to the P-47 from the P-40 and the pilots tried to get the USAAC to switch them back to the P-40 since it was far more suitable to the type of combat they were facing in the PTO.
Maybe Gabreski's opinion was based on his experiences flying in the ETO.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Urchin
And for all the hue and cry about "Having to have a P40".. nobody much flies em.
I have flown them quite a bit... when I have been able to fly. I finished school and got married. I also flew primarily in the CT once it became available. I have recently been flying the P-40B in the AH2 beta when I have time to fly online.
Some people seem to think everything should revolve around the people gaming the game in the MA. If all this game had was Ta-152s, Tempests, F4U-4s, and Spitfire MkIVs, I wouldn't even want to play it at all.
For some people, this is less a game and more a sim. IMHO, it is much more fun to fly historical matchups such as Bf109E vs Spitfire I/Hurricane I, Bf109F/Fw190A vs Spitfire V, F4F vs A6M2, F6F vs A6M5 etc. However AH still lacks the Japanese aircraft required to properly simulate the AVG's enemies.
It is understandable that most people don't fly early war aircraft in the MA. Most people seem to get their kicks maximizing their scores. But should other people who rarely care about score be denied their source of fun just because they are a minority?
IMHO, HTC has done a pretty good job of providing a mix of late war monsters for gaming the game while offering a diverse range of aircraft for those who prefer otherwise. The only problem is that developing AH2 froze the planeset. I dearly miss the chance to fly 3 or 4 new aircraft every 2 or 3 months.