P-40B weight.

[Wmaker]

Just something I noticed while comparing P-40B's specs with the Hawk75A.



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.

[cegull]

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.

[Wmaker]

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?

[cegull]

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.

[Widewing]

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

[StokesAk]

Ya hear that HiTech!

UPDATE THE P40'S!

[streakeagle]

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.

[Wmaker]

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.

[Pyro]

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.

[Wmaker]

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. 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!

[Anaxogoras]

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. 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.

[Ack-Ack]

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

[Krusty]

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.

[Baumer]

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.

[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.

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