The P40 thread

[JtD]

Sure it's difficult, and extremely hard to research. Right now we're only looking at planes that are rather well documented, with lots of documentation available to us. Still there are plenty of questions, and it's going to get worse when they start modelling some less known aircraft. Such as early Pacific war aircraft. Finding out the abuse the Kinsei in the D3A could take will be hard.

 

No, the V-1710 is not the only engine to be under-rated. It might have drawn the shortest stick of all, in particular because it is burdened with keeping near 4t of aircraft airborne, but it's not the only one.

 

What I know about German aircraft engines is that in order to get 1 min Notleistung approved, it had to be tested for 5 minutes continuous, repeatedly, as part of a cycle that lasted many hours. The BMW801 was later cleared for 10 minutes at Notleistung, without major change. Same way the maximum boost on the V-1710 got increased from 44" to 56". You don't need to model everything extremely detailed, you can still ballpark, but you could do it at much more reasonable levels.

Additionally, like ZachariasX already stated repeatedly, warning signs of impending damage could be there, as well as lesser failures. Not the more or less binary damage model. It would be fairly easy to implement, and offer a good compromise.

[TheJay13]

Interesting about the german engines, I never knew that.

 

Out of curiosity, which other aircraft engines are underrated for their normal operating ranges (aside from the short emergency times)? Without boost I have never had engine problems in any german aircraft running at normal combat power and I dont know enough about soviet engines to know if they are under powered. 

 

I agree that the most sensible compromise would be to extend the engine limitations by at least a few minutes and add in more variation and severities of failures as well as some form of warning in the form of pre detonation. Perhaps they could make some form of exponential engine damage, the longer you have the engine past its breaking point, the more likley you are to have a failure and the more sever it will be.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

PDF Page 57

 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Motoren/Daimler%20Benz/DB605_Anleitung_Kontrolle.pdf

[19//Moach]

it seems we have reached a degree of consensus here.  have the devs been alerted to this thread?

 

I do believe it merits their attention now, as for the first time it seems there is basically no dispute at what should be done, and very clear data to back up our claims.

 

 

there is no valid reason for the P40 to remain the way it is as it follows, for I think we have well established that increasing boost limits is a thoroughly justified proposition

Edited August 3, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Gambit21]

The famously vaunted Allison.

I have no data to lend - but I've read plenty of P-40 accounts by pilots and I'm struggling to recall any "you had to be unusually careful with the fragile Allison or it would blow on you in the blink of an eye" If anything its reputation was the inverse of this.

 

I could likely make contact with a current pilot, but not sure how much help that would be. Restored warbirds aren't exactly pushed hard.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Won't help anyway, their standard is to follow the manual restrictions of the time period involved. Because of the cautious manuals, you can find reports of Soviet pilots in 1942 saying the Allison engines were fidgety and needed you to keep both eyes on the boost and RPM to avoid blowing it. I can try to find the exact quotes but anyways we're talking anecdotes. Obviously any engine has some wiggle room beyond the manual's indication, but the developers chose to simulate the period restrictions over the actual reliability of the engines.

[TheJay13]

I think at the bare minimum we just need to find (or they need to find) a P-40 manual with a less conservative and more realistic restriction on the engine. Besides all of that, I suspect that the developers are currently more concerned with the new flight model fixes which will probably have a far greater impact on not only our P-40 but also every other aircraft present in the sim than any increased engine emergency power times. 

 

Now personally for me, so long as the normal cruise and combat engine powers are simulated realistically, I have no real issue with short boost times as I basically never use emergency settings in normal flight (note: I can still empathize with those who want better engines). I guess that its just always been a weird thing of mine to not try and abuse my engine even in a virtual aircraft.

[Lusekofte]

Are there other parameters than hotas settings and time that make a engine blow in this game. If it is not I am afraid we are stuck in something a bit simplified engine DM 

[CanadaOne]

At first I really didn't like the P40, but now that I'm treating it as a pickup truck instead of a race car, I find it's a lot of fun.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Hope this thread has been brought to the devs attention.

 

Although I respect the devs decision to have an engine limit based on the machine manual, I think it goes unanimous that there needs to be just 1 exception for the p40. I say that as an unbiased flyer of both sides and not even as a fan of the p40 itself. I just enjoy the 6 .50 cals sometimes.

 

Something needs to be done about this planes engine limits. Does not feel like a sim whatsoever with this grenade under the hood. This is a very well polished and complete simulator but this airplane is a blemish that sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

It's a complete debacle this machine.

Edited August 4, 2017 by temujin

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Hope this thread has been brought to the devs attention.

 

 

 

 

What exactly should be brought to their attention? 

[Boaty-McBoatface]

What exactly should be brought to their attention?

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

What needs to be brought to their attention is this objective discussion about this one very controversial machine's modelling. It seems a degree of consensus has been reached and people would like the devs input as to what they think.

 

As it is now, the machine is a complete debacle. I say that as neither an American, a p40 enthusiast, or a VVS only flyer. This machine is the one that stands out in this product as something gone wrong.

Edited August 4, 2017 by temujin

[7.GShAP/Silas]

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What needs to be brought to their attention is this objective discussion about this one very controversial machine's modelling. It seems a degree of consensus has been reached and people would like the devs input as to what they think.

 

 

No, I'm not trolling.  But I've always been under the impression that if you believe that the model of an aircraft should be altered, that you must provide clear evidence of exactly what alterations should be made.  If you just want a comment from the developers, that's a bit different.

 

 

But as Farky said, if the "rules" by which all the aircraft in the sim are modeled are bent for the P-40, then where does it end?

Edited August 4, 2017 by 7-GvShAP/Silas

[Boaty-McBoatface]

No, I'm not trolling. But I've always been under the impression that if you believe that the model of an aircraft should be altered, that you must provide clear evidence of exactly what alterations should be made. If you just want a comment from the developers, that's a bit different.

 

 

But as Farky said, if the "rules" by which all the aircraft in the sim are modeled are bent for the P-40, then where does it end?

Ok sorry for that assumption. Yes it's an unfortunate business but perhaps this one exception does need to be made. The Allison manuals were notorious for being overly conservative and perhaps the devs should have thought about this more when deciding to model this airplane. Now that we have this machine, I think there needs to be one exception made.

 

I think flyers from either side definitely see eye to eye on this issue. In fact I can't recall a single account or post of someone adamantly defending this argument. Would be good to have the devs chime in and hear what they think and then perhaps we can come up with some specific engine limitations for this one basket case that are agreed on by a majority.

Edited August 4, 2017 by temujin

[ShamrockOneFive]

I know its a tricky business to get this sort of thing right. It was asked to Jason what could be done during one of the Q&A sessions we had with him and I'm paraphrasing that there were basically no good options given the constraints they work under and they chose the best option across the board for engine modeling.

 

I would suggest, having read the entire thread essentially, that there are the manuals and then there is the reality of the situation. I think maybe there is some room to try and have a go at a historical interpretation. If its reasonably well established and supported both with later technical documentation and first person reporting from numerous sources (as I've read in this thread) that these engines could handle a lot more and that they were historically conservative with the manual guidelines then it stands to reason that things could be bent in this instance towards a more liberal interpretation of the Allison engine's limits.

 

Especially when there's a situation where the same engine on the same fuel is later cleared for a higher level. I'd say that to be fair to other engines there would need to be a similar burden of proof required to change any other engine limits beyond what they are modeled now. I realize its a potential can of worms but maybe it doesn't have to be. I think there's some unique circumstances around this engine and it runs up against a model for engine limits in IL-2 that otherwise seems to be pretty fair. Just my 0.02 cents.

 

Alternatively... because the P-40E's get used into 1943 and in the Kuban region that they offer an upgraded engine option for 1943 reflecting the limits in use then as they did with the La-5 and the M-82F engine. Then there are options.

Edited August 4, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

As p40 is now I rarely see it in MP, majority do saying that this is because lots who bought it are really disappointed from it's flight and engine model,​ so in the end this plane release do not work to players expectations. One obvious thing to do is fix it for us customers.

[Brano]

DD120

Complex tasks that require significant changes or research to find their cause:

17. Add engine detonation affect caused by a variety of causes (wron mixture, high miture temperature, engine overboost, etc. );

 

Would be great to have this sorted out before we hit the sunny Pacific  

[Lusekofte]

I blow its engine once I get in a difficult situation, not mindful of the settings. And are giving a easy kill away. I can fly it, but my bad US vs metric conversion also make me think I am flying too slow 

Personally I think we all underrate this plane, not trusting the plane you fly, are making you wounereable. There is something wrong with the parameters , definitely. It should do better due to manoeuvrability and the engine should tolerate some abuse for much longer time. I know you had to get the plane moving once starting it and get to the air quickly, these things are documented well from RAF standpoint in africa and show pilots today. But killing the engine by starting it, taxi to runway and take off and it blows before you get your gear up, in winter is a tad too much. There should not be a demand for proof other than that. There should be some rounding the edges in this case

Edited August 4, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[TheJay13]

DD120

Complex tasks that require significant changes or research to find their cause:

17. Add engine detonation affect caused by a variety of causes (wron mixture, high miture temperature, engine overboost, etc. );

 

Would be great to have this sorted out before we hit the sunny Pacific  

That was in a dev diary? Thats really great news. If it does indeed take until the pacific I suppose its better late than never.

[StickMan]

As p40 is now I rarely see it in MP, majority do saying that this is because lots who bought it are really disappointed from it's flight and engine model,​ so in the end this plane release do not work to players expectations. One obvious thing to do is fix it for us customers.

I've flown it a lot in MP lately and the funny part is I get more people flying alongside of me in different friendly craft than when I fly any other plane.

 

I've responded before in this thread and although I've found the aircraft to have some minor deficiencies I don't believe it's way off. However, it does have by far, a more tricky engine management regime than any other aircraft I've flown in this sim.

 

Now after reading the rest of the thread I now know why I get so many anonymous wingman. First, they may be amazed that anyone is flying it and got it into the air. Second, maybe they're waiting to see how long it will be until I blow it up.

Edited August 4, 2017 by GeneralZod

[ZachariasX]

I've flown it a lot in MP lately and the funny part is I get more people flying alongside of me in different friendly craft than when I fly any other plane.

 

I've responded before in this thread and although I've found the aircraft to have some minor deficiencies I don't believe it's way off. However, it does have by far, a more tricky engine management regime than any other aircraft I've flown in this sim.

 

Now after reading the rest of the thread I now know why I get so many anonymous wingman. First, they may be amazed that anyone is flying it and got it into the air. Second, maybe they're waiting to see how long it will be until I blow it up.

You're bait.

[sergio_]

As p40 is now I rarely see it in MP, majority do saying that this is because lots who bought it are really disappointed from it's flight and engine model,​ so in the end this plane release do not work to players expectations. One obvious thing to do is fix it for us customers.

I'll be honest here:

 

If this plane has a wrong model, of course I look forward to a fix. But it has absolutely nothing to do with it performing better or worse. As a customer, I want a plane that flies like it should, not like anyone's expectations.

 

I'm sorry but your post sounds to me like you are suggesting that this plane should be 'fixed' to have a better performance, because that's what customers expect.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I'll be honest here:

 

If this plane has a wrong model, of course I look forward to a fix. But it has absolutely nothing to do with it performing better or worse. As a customer, I want a plane that flies like it should, not like anyone's expectations.

 

I'm sorry but your post sounds to me like you are suggesting that this plane should be 'fixed' to have a better performance, because that's what customers expect.

No word from me about "better" performance just more authentic. Some customers know lot about it and they voices expecting the changes. If someone know nothing about p40 and except to be fixed to perform better is just stupid. Edited August 4, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Tag777]

I'll be honest here:

 

If this plane has a wrong model, of course I look forward to a fix. But it has absolutely nothing to do with it performing better or worse. As a customer, I want a plane that flies like it should, not like anyone's expectations.

 

I'm sorry but your post sounds to me like you are suggesting that this plane should be 'fixed' to have a better performance, because that's what customers expect.

No, the performance of the plane is well documented by all Air Forces and pilots that used it and is not what we have in this game. It is not the desire of having better performance just because, but to to approximate it to the real thing.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Tag777

[sergio_]

No word from me about "better" performance just more authentic.

 

True. You didn't say the word "better".

I understood that because you said "I rarely see it in MP, majority do saying that this is because lots who bought it are really disappointed from it's flight and engine model,​ so in the end this plane release do not work to players expectations."

I really do think that the numbers of each plane you see in MP are directly related to their performance, and so I find it hard to think that, even if a fix (even just an adjustment) will approximate the P-40 to the real thing, more people will fly it in MP.

 

Of course I may be wrong in my assumption. Plus, my comment probably sounds harder than I really intended, and lastly, if I understood your post incorrectly, for these three reasons I apologize Tomcat.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Sergi0

[TXSailor_1]

I'll be honest here:

 

If this plane has a wrong model, of course I look forward to a fix. But it has absolutely nothing to do with it performing better or worse. As a customer, I want a plane that flies like it should, not like anyone's expectations.

 

I'm sorry but your post sounds to me like you are suggesting that this plane should be 'fixed' to have a better performance, because that's what customers expect.

 

The key is, the customer expectations seem to be based on numbers we've received and seen posted here in this thread. The biggest argument that the engine is modeled incorrectly was provided by significantly increased limits in the manuals without ANY change to the aircraft itself. This indicates that, despite the numbers given in 39 or so, the engine would NOT suffer ANY damage at higher power settings. Now, had there been ANY modification before the numbers were increased, I would agree, no change should be made, but in this case we DO have empirical evidence that the engine suffers damage in a very unrealistic way.

[ShamrockOneFive]

True. You didn't say the word "better".

I understood that because you said "I rarely see it in MP, majority do saying that this is because lots who bought it are really disappointed from it's flight and engine model,​ so in the end this plane release do not work to players expectations."

I really do think that the numbers of each plane you see in MP are directly related to their performance, and so I find it hard to think that, even if a fix (even just an adjustment) will approximate the P-40 to the real thing, more people will fly it in MP.

 

Of course I may be wrong in my assumption. Plus, my comment probably sounds harder than I really intended, and lastly, if I understood your post incorrectly, for these three reasons I apologize Tomcat.

 

Lots of us are aiming for historical accuracy over any sort of multiplayer balancing.

 

I do think having read a lot of what's been written here and elsewhere that the rules that work fairly well on other aircraft/engine combinations fail the P-40E-1 in such a way that the aircraft does not perform at its historical levels. Better, worse, whatever the case it should meet its historical use.

 

That's probably where we have the most room for debate on what is historical and how do we try and do something difficult to quantify like engine limits justice. A nuanced approach is probably best here and I think that means using some added data (which we have) plus some contextual reading into the situation to adjust the limits accordingly.

[Venturi]

Sure it's difficult, and extremely hard to research. Right now we're only looking at planes that are rather well documented, with lots of documentation available to us. Still there are plenty of questions, and it's going to get worse when they start modelling some less known aircraft. Such as early Pacific war aircraft. Finding out the abuse the Kinsei in the D3A .....,

No, the V-1710 is not the only engine to be under-rated. It might have drawn the shortest stick of all, in particular because it is burdened with keeping near 4t of aircraft airborne,. It would be fairly easy to implement, and offer a good compromise.

 

Between 7600 and 8800 lbs loaded

 

Quite a bit lighter than the Mustang

 

Good to see consensus on this topic

Edited August 5, 2017 by Venturi

[FuriousMeow]

Just let all engines run at their maximum ability that they could when they were fully tested in various conditions to ensure they could. No matter if it is supposed to be the 1941 operations compared to accepted 1943 or 44 standards.

 

That's basically what is being said here. I've seen the "Allison tested it and could run this" but operational manuals stated it would be limited to the current power settings to increase serviceability life.

 

Until MP servers start subtracting planes available to each side until no planes are left for each "map" when exceeding the maximum output for the time period then this is the alternative to keeping it closer to realistic that planes were lost for extended periods of time for engine overhauls.

 

Either all the engines have some time limits to their power output, or all planes can run their engines max at the latest point of the war they were cleared for their maximum output - but they exceed a time limit at that operation and they are subtracted from the MP plane pool permanently for that "map."

 

Making exceptions for a plane's engine max output because later in it's life than the time it is modeled to represent it could run higher shouldn't happen. Maybe add a mod for a later accepted maximum, but also have it limited in MP to the time it actually was accepted.

 

Or just let all engines run at their maximum but if they go over some minutes, that plane will take the player home but it will subtract from the plane pool for that side for that plane type.

Edited August 5, 2017 by FuriousMeow

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Such as early Pacific war aircraft. Finding out the abuse the Kinsei in the D3A could take will be hard.

They all were under the same regimes (which in 1944 were increased, emergency power use was extended from 3 minutes to 6 minutes), all engines had to pass specific testing which was similar to famous U.S. 150-hour test: http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Japanese/JapaneseEngTesting/JapaneseEngTesting.shtml

In general every Japanese engine by the manual was allowed to be operated for 1 minute under Take-off conditions and 30 minutes under rated power conditions. No emergency power restrictions were indicated in manuals.

 

 

 

Making exceptions for a plane's engine max output because later in it's life than the time it is modeled to represent it could run higher shouldn't happen. Maybe add a mod for a later accepted maximum, but also have it limited in MP to the time it actually was accepted.

Nonsense, manual limts existed precisely for the reason you have mentioned above, but actual limitation can be traced by testing - like indicated above 150-hour test. From the mid-1930s through the WWII a version of AN-9502 dictated how ameircan aircraft engines were to be tested by the U.S. Army Air Coprs/Forces and the U.S. Navy. Such tests typically began with calibration runs where the engine was run in a test cell under the same conditions that would be used during endurance testing, with data collected at all conditions and power settings. Then the 150-hour type test began, which consiting of running at various power settings in repetitive cycles.

 

AN-9502 was freqently changing and is generally hard to obtain as a complete document, furthermore in 1955 or around that time it was replaced by MIL-E-25111, still I'd pursue limits based on actual testing and abuse rather than virtual limits imposed by manuals existing purely for prolonging engine lifespan.

[Venturi]

The biggest argument that the engine is modeled incorrectly was provided by significantly increased limits in the manuals without ANY change to the aircraft itself. 

 

This is an argument that has been heard before, and it still has much merit.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Another +1 to what TXSailor said.

 

That is precisely why I posted about these engines running at 70" and still surviving.

 

42" is what current civilian operators of P40s use today, with the readily available LOW LEAD 100 octane aviation fuels that power run of the mill Cessnas.

[ZachariasX]

Another +1 to what TXSailor said.

 

That is precisely why I posted about these engines running at 70" and still surviving.

 

42" is what current civilian operators of P40s use today, with the readily available LOW LEAD 100 octane aviation fuels that power run of the mill Cessnas.

I would guess Allison operators of today are very happy using the "low lead 100 octane fuel" instead of the stinky stuff they used back then. Increased power rating means shorter overhaul intervals. For a $1 million engine, I guess it is natural to be a bit conservative.

 

Back then, all you needed to do was idle for 10 minutes and your sparks were fouled by the lead additives. It made you do another couple of minutes do a run up to 3000 rpm to clear them and be in good hopes of a successful go around, should that one be required.

 

Also, I would assume that any Allison engine is made to accept todays fuels when restoring them. How much better todays fuels are than the vintage juice you can also see with classic cars. See how your GTO runs on the old leaded juice instead of VPower with additive. You'd hate even going near the old stuff again.

 

And there is still the VPRacing fuel for you, if you need to give your P-40 a real workout (and your mechanic a lot of work).

 

This aside from our rather "conservative" in-game Allison.

Edited August 6, 2017 by ZachariasX

[BlitzPig_EL]

Sir, classic cars are how I earn my living.

 

Most serious collectors and drivers of them would kill to be able to afford to run today's 100 LL avgas in them, as it contains no ethanol.

 

And again, my point is that 42" is a super conservative setting picked solely to make the engines last longer, the later 56" was chosen to make pilots last longer.

And it was chosen because the engine needed no modification to run reliably at that setting.

 

This is the whole point of all this. 

 

At 42" you are taking a trainer into combat.

 

We go on a lot on this forum about IL2 BoWhatever being a simulation.   We take pride that we fly a sim and not an arcade game.

 

I dare anyone to tell me that the engine behavior of the P40 in this sim is a proper simulation of it, because it isn't by any measure you care to choose.

It is little more than a cheap ploy to get people to fly the way the devs, and the devs alone, want them to fly.

 

And that sir, is no simulation.

[ZachariasX]

Sir, classic cars are how I earn my living.

 

Most serious collectors and drivers of them would kill to be able to afford to run today's 100 LL avgas in them, as it contains no ethanol.

 

And again, my point is that 42" is a super conservative setting picked solely to make the engines last longer, the later 56" was chosen to make pilots last longer.

And it was chosen because the engine needed no modification to run reliably at that setting.

 

This is the whole point of all this. 

 

At 42" you are taking a trainer into combat.

 

We go on a lot on this forum about IL2 BoWhatever being a simulation.   We take pride that we fly a sim and not an arcade game.

 

I dare anyone to tell me that the engine behavior of the P40 in this sim is a proper simulation of it, because it isn't by any measure you care to choose.

It is little more than a cheap ploy to get people to fly the way the devs, and the devs alone, want them to fly.

 

And that sir, is no simulation.

Ah, just got it the wrong way around what you meant with the AVGAS quote. And I wasn't challenging your statement about the Allison then. Sorry, no native English speaker here.

 

And yes, 100 LL AVGAS for my 427 (unrestored original), that would be cool. So far, I always shyed away from driving up to the fuelie head on the tarmac...

 

PS: how convenient to know that you are in that business...

[RAY-EU]

[BlitzPig_EL]

Ah, just got it the wrong way around what you meant with the AVGAS quote. And I wasn't challenging your statement about the Allison then. Sorry, no native English speaker here.

 

And yes, 100 LL AVGAS for my 427 (unrestored original), that would be cool. So far, I always shyed away from driving up to the fuelie head on the tarmac...

 

PS: how convenient to know that you are in that business...

 

I was wondering about your native language.   I will bear that in mind in future sir.  I'm very sure your English is far far better than my inability to speak your language. 

 

If you have further questions or interest in discussion of classic cars feel free to PM me, no need to bore others with that here on the open forum.

[Gambit21]

Blitz - make mine a Falcon in racing trim.

[Venturi]

TBO Allison 700 hrs

TBO Merlin 400 hrs

TBO DB601 150hrs

 

Enough said

[19//Moach]

The key is, the customer expectations seem to be based on numbers we've received and seen posted here in this thread.

 

The biggest argument that the engine is modeled incorrectly was provided by significantly increased limits in the manuals without ANY change to the aircraft itself. This indicates that, despite the numbers given in 39 or so, the engine would NOT suffer ANY damage at higher power settings.

 

Now, had there been ANY modification before the numbers were increased, I would agree, no change should be made, but in this case we DO have empirical evidence that the engine suffers damage in a very unrealistic way.

 

 

it is then perfectly clear that what we expect from devs, is simply that they take the latest available operating limits for this engine and use those in the simulation, even if the stated limits in the aircraft specs sheet remain as historically correct for the period.

 

this would make for realistically sensible damage behavior, while preserving the historically underrated limits of the aircraft

 

it was indeed the case, that the manuals listed fairly lower limits than were physically sustainable.  this would be a very clever feature of the simulator, to represent this aspect of the P40 which is equally non-obvious and non-trivial.  this would put this sim above all others if it were done this way, being perhaps the first to "simulate" the shortcomings of a pre-war manual in an aircraft 

 

 

 

so let the simulated limits be taken from the latest possible source, while the specs show what was historically stated at the time

 

 

it is safe to say, from the discussions so far:  nobody is asking for any more or is satisfied with any less.

Edited August 11, 2017 by 19//Moach