P-40B weight.

[Krusty]

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.

[Baumer]

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.
 

[Krusty]

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.   

[Wmaker]

Bringing this up for Pyro in case he's revamping the P-40 flight models.

[Raptor05121]

P-40N Kittyhawk

[swareiam]

 

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

[EagleDNY]

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.

[Owlblink]

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.

[Wmaker]

Noticed that the weight is unchanged in the new version. Just wondering if any changes on this department are expected in any patches?

[MK-84]

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

[Krusty]

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.

[Krusty]

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

 


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.

[Soulyss]

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.