Jump to content
heinkill

The P40 thread

Recommended Posts

The graph is also comparing all aircraft at the same 50Ibs stick force, it is not a good example of maximum roll rates

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That graph shows it average. What's more interesting is you linked to a "flight model" debate on the World of War Planes forums.

 

 

Yeah, average compared to those particular aircraft.  But in BoS, the Bf 109 is the slowest rolling aircraft and the P 40 can't out-roll a 109.  So even a Lagg-3 will out roll your P 40 assuming the FMs are to be believed.

 

And why be so snobish about the other forum?  I just found the graph there after a google search.  So what? 

The graph is also comparing all aircraft at the same 50Ibs stick force, it is not a good example of maximum roll rates

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Okay, well you show me your rolling graph of Soviet fighters compared to LW types.  

 

You haven't got one have you?  So if my graph's no chop, how would you describe your's?  

 

Hmmm ... yeah, easy to throw stones m8. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, average compared to those particular aircraft.  But in BoS, the Bf 109 is the slowest rolling aircraft and the P 40 can't out-roll a 109.  So even a Lagg-3 will out roll your P 40 assuming the FMs are to be believed.

 

And why be so snobish about the other forum?  I just found the graph there after a google search.  So what? 

 

 

Okay, well you show me your rolling graph of Soviet fighters compared to LW types.  

 

You haven't got one have you?  So if my graph's no chop, how would you describe your's?  

 

Hmmm ... yeah, easy to throw stones m8. 

 

 

I am not throwing stones, it is a simple fact I am pointing out that should not be ignored, or overlooked, how would that graph look at 30Ibs or 70Ilbs stick force?

 

one of the issues with all flight sims that is hard/not taken into account, is that with 'our' joysticks we can instantly apply superhuman stick forces barely comparable to any form of real life simulation.

 

One example that is always given in real world flight tests is the ease of use of controls with the FW190...this good flying quality does not translate into the 'Flight sim world' due to our unrealistic input devices

 

If in a flight sim the actual control forces in all flight parameters were taken into account our perceptions of how all the aircraft "feel'' would be very different from what we are experiencing

 

Some aircrafts real world advantages are not simulated in a realistic manner, most WWII aircraft do not respond like they do in our 'sims' , unless we all have the same FFB long control column it can only ever be poorly and inaccurately simulated.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Edited by Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not throwing stones, it is a simple fact I am pointing out that should not be ignored, or overlooked, how would that graph look at 30Ibs or 70Ilbs stick force?

 

one of the issues with all flight sims that is hard/not taken into account, is that with 'our' joysticks we can instantly apply superhuman stick forces barely comparable to any form of real life simulation.

 

One example that is always given in real world flight tests is the ease of use of controls with the FW190...this good flying quality does not translate into the 'Flight sim world' due to our unrealistic input devices

 

If in a flight sim the actual control forces in all flight parameters were taken into account our perceptions of how all the aircraft "feel'' would be very different from what we are experiencing

 

Some aircrafts real world advantages are not simulated in a realistic manner, most WWII aircraft do not respond like they do in our 'sims' , unless we all have the same FFB long control column it can only ever be poorly and inaccurately simulated.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Well I don't accept that.  The roll rate in the Bf 109 is clearly slower than the other types and is modeled to replicate the impact of differences in airspeed on the aircraft's roll performance.  So there's no reason to believe that the problems associated with the piloting of an aircraft with poorly harmonized controls couldn't be simulated.

 

Furthermore, I don't understand your comments about the 190.   In my opinion it is perfectly controllable and one of the most enjoyable aircraft to fly in the sim.  It requires just a few more tweaks by the devs and it will be perfect .  It just frustrates the hell out of me that they don't finish what they started.  If they did, the sim would be untouchable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The killer for the P-40 is going to be its abysmal climb performance. The P-40E is listed as having a sustained climb of 11m/s, which propably means, that the early versions of the IL-2 will outclimb the P-40 (Late production IL-2 type 3M are listed as having a climb rate of 10,4 m/s, but those were considerable heavier and more sluggish than the earlier incarnations of the IL-2)

 

 

A big disadvantage in RL but not so much in this game. The campaign missions seem to me to be mostly generated at lowish alt. And not many online flyers actually use altitude properly. Plenty of action down low as long as you keep your eye on the skies. Plus you can always spawn away from the action and spend all the time you like grabbing some sky - there aren't many scamble or die missions/scenarios.

 

H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting a bit off topic, but my example of the 190 is that its real world advantage of harmonious controls and lightness of aileron is Not a benefit in the sim , it flies very well but perhaps the effort to muscle around a Lagg/Yak is not simulated so clearly

 

Even though the 109's poorer response at high speed is modelled, the 'stick forces'  are not,

 

To get aerodynamic data and plug it into the Sim engine is comparatively easy , programming the stick force, feel and responsiveness at many airspeeds and flight regimes is far more comlex and subjective

 

Anyway looking forward to the P40 soon!

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, but that graph is from NACA 868 report, which as I remember had some inaccuracies. On the other hand its one of the most comprehensive comparisons like that, which makes it a great source. 

Here is Australian graph comparing Tomahawk, Spitfire V with normal wings and with metal ailerons and A6M3 model 32 Hamp (also called Hap) :

gtfv.jpg

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, but that graph is from NACA 868 report, which as I remember had some inaccuracies. On the other hand its one of the most comprehensive comparisons like that, which makes it a great source. 

Here is Australian graph comparing Tomahawk, Spitfire V with normal wings and with metal ailerons and A6M3 model 32 Hamp (also called Hap) :

gtfv.jpg

Keep in mind thought, the NACA chart was at 10k feet, using IAS, and the tomahawk is not really the same thing as the P40F(the Tomahawk only had 2 x 50 cals + 1 x 303 gun per wings)

Edited by GrapeJam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Nor was P-40F exactly the same thing as P-40 E-1 which we are getting  :)

 

I just hope for a nice aircraft to fly, how it will perform we will see in September. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big disadvantage in RL but not so much in this game. The campaign missions seem to me to be mostly generated at lowish alt. And not many online flyers actually use altitude properly. Plenty of action down low as long as you keep your eye on the skies. Plus you can always spawn away from the action and spend all the time you like grabbing some sky - there aren't many scamble or die missions/scenarios.

 

H

Climb rate is still instrumental in gaining the advantage in a simple dogfight. If you can get on top of your opponent you control the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I stand corrected on the clipped wing Spit.  I wonder what version of Spitfire the standard one they tested was?

Do take note that the normal wing Spit's max roll rate is at a rather low speed however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I stand corrected on the clipped wing Spit.  I wonder what version of Spitfire the standard one they tested was?

Do take note that the normal wing Spit's max roll rate is at a rather low speed however.

 

 

I'm not sure there was really much of a difference in roll rates between the various Marks unless specific tactical considerations necessitated the use of atypical wing types - such as pointed tips or an unarmed 'D' type wing or something like that.  There may have been some difference between a 'C' and 'E' wing for instance, because of the differences in armament weights but I doubt it would have been significant.  I suspect the test employed a Merlin powered Mk 5 or 9 or maybe something as exotic as a Mk 14.  The date of the test would provide a reasonable indication (whatever that was).

 

Metal ailerons were retro-fitted onto front line Spitfires from late 1941(Mk Vs) (to improve high speed performance) but I don't believe much of significance changed in terms of wing design until the development of the Mk 21.  The new wing on the Mk 21 greatly improved roll performance.  

Edited by Wulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wings on the Spitfires were 1m2 smaller from th Mark IX onward.

 

I wasn't aware of that.  I always understood the Mk IX to have been built (at least initially) on existing Mk V airframes.  As I understood it, the only significant modification to the overall size of the Mk V wing related to 'clipping'.  I didn't know that the wing was actually smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, that video is mislabeled. That is a Merlin engined Hawk 87, a P 40F, not a Hawk 81 P 40C.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is looking like the Year of the P40!

 

Even DCS is getting in on the act. Pre-sale now, delivery Sept(ish).

 

http://veaosimulations.co.uk/product/p-40f/

 

Plenty of screenies there of it flying in game...over modern Eastern Europe. Though if you squint, it could be China in the 1940s? (Naaaaaah.)

 

No news from Team Fusion on their Med mod to Cliffs of Dover with P40 lately. Uneducated guess is that it looks unlikely this year.

 

So BoS/BoM is the only way to get a fresh P40 combat fix in a real WWII game. Bring it!

 

H

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The wings on the Spitfires were 1m2 smaller from th Mark IX onward.

 

 

Really? That would be true for the clipped variants but otherwise the internal structure was the focus of evolution; the Mk VIII / XIV were supposed to have a stronger wing that matched with the 'E' armament options and reduced bending under high loads.

 

Have not seen anything about a general reduction in wing area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to get the P40 as standalone like Fw 190 A3 and La 5?

If not, can we expect a standalone? :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-40 and C.202 will be available shortly when Battle of Moscow goes on Steam, which should happen in the next month or two :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-40 and C.202 will be available shortly when Battle of Moscow goes on Steam, which should happen in the next month or two :)

Month or two??

 

I expected something like next week, since we already have the full game for non-steam version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is as random as yours, worry not :biggrin:

Haha ok, i thought you had some insider info, or i missed some post from the devs.

Edited by Jade_Monkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a lover of the P40, you will be disappointed.

 

With the way engine limits are modeled it's a useless aircraft.

 

It can be somewhat successful as a fighter/bomber, but you better have escort, because of some Stukas show up, they will out fly you.

 

It's rubbish really.

 

And sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, not to necrothread, but I've just got the P-40, and have tried flying it... Tried being the operative word. I can't even get my gear up on takeoff before the engine seizes... What's going wrong?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, not to necrothread, but I've just got the P-40, and have tried flying it... Tried being the operative word. I can't even get my gear up on takeoff before the engine seizes... What's going wrong?!

At takeoff huh? I never pulled that one off. I guess you are either overheating or you are letting your rpm run too high. Open your radiator and then your rpm limiter to 90 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a lover of the P40, you will be disappointed.

 

With the way engine limits are modeled it's a useless aircraft.

 

It can be somewhat successful as a fighter/bomber, but you better have escort, because of some Stukas show up, they will out fly you.

 

It's rubbish really.

 

And sad.

 

 

one year later, it remains sad.... sad but true.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, not to necrothread, but I've just got the P-40, and have tried flying it... Tried being the operative word. I can't even get my gear up on takeoff before the engine seizes... What's going wrong?!

Using the engine instruments properly is key. Hit "o" on keyboard to bring up map. There is a mission briefing portion, and a specification portion that will show maximum engine settings. IMO read them and set them the way a real pilot would, don't cheat yourself with percentages.

Edited by Banzaii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Banzaii said, sometimes it's important to read the manual. To give you the short version: If you take off with 100% throttle, you're seriously overboosting the engine. In game this is pretty much sudden death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike all other Ingame Aircraft the P-40s "Throttle Lever" is actually directly connected to the Wastegate and Throttle. This means moving it Forward all the Way opens the Throttle and closes the Wastegate all the Way, allowing the Supercharger to give it all the Boost Possible, which is about 60" on the Ground, almost 2000hp and because the Electric Propeller needs a bit of time to Adjust for that you basically just Over-Rev the Shit out of it. 

 

 

The other ingame Aircraft have the Throttle linked to a Device that barometrically controls the Input Manifold by opening and closing Throttle and Wastegate automtically.

The Criitcal Altitude is defined as the Altitude where the Wastegate is fully closed, Throttle fully open and the Engine maintains the desired Manifold Pressure. 

That's why the Bf109s could boost 1.8ata with MW50 without changes to the Supercharger, they just adjusted some Screws an Hooray the Aircraft had 1.8ata up to 4000m. 

 

So on the P-40 there is no little Helper for your Throttle Controls, you have to become the Manifold Pressure Regulator and your Throttle Lever is the Tool for that Job and the Manifold Pressure is what you are Chasing. 

With Altitude of course, you have to incrementally add Throttle as the Surrounding Air decreases in Pressure, you have to add it manually. 

So for Example in the Climb you watch you MAP Gauge and as it falls below 35" you increase throttle to 39" and watch it drop to 35 again, then increase Throttle a bit again 

 

slavoj-zizek-and-so-on-and-so-on.jpg

 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Klaus_Mann - there is no wastegate in this engine, just saying.

 

Anyway, It would be nice to have it described in the game manual. Not just simple "watch manifold pressure", but how it actually works and what to do in details. Players ( especially new players ) are thrown into deep water without minimum help and they either drown or not. I have never understood why we don't have proper game manual.

Don't get me wrong, manual from LukeFF is great, but is outdated and little bit more attention from developers would certainly be appreciated. Original official link to manual don't even work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Klaus_Mann - there is no wastegate in this engine, just saying.

 

Anyway, It would be nice to have it described in the game manual. Not just simple "watch manifold pressure", but how it actually works and what to do in details. Players ( especially new players ) are thrown into deep water without minimum help and they either drown or not. I have never understood why we don't have proper game manual.

Don't get me wrong, manual from LukeFF is great, but is outdated and little bit more attention from developers would certainly be appreciated. Original official link to manual don't even work.

If you even have minimal Knowledge of Engines and how the Whole "Air-Thing" works, shouldn't it be immediately obvious? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think that 56"/2400 setting was prohibited by the flight manual...

"56"/3000" were "may not be used" (Page 32 in PDF) if there was no Manifold Pressure Regulator installed. However, the Handbook also mentions "Standard Emgergency Power" of 52"@3000 for 5 Minutes. 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw4FNWq6qRgqclU4MzhqbFl4WEk/edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you even have minimal Knowledge of Engines and how the Whole "Air-Thing" works, shouldn't it be immediately obvious?

 

I don't think anything is obvious. I feel the planes are made good enough in this game to deserve a proper description. There is a great lot about engine technology one has to understand. So much actually, that these days I wouldn't count on garage owners would understand it. Some planes have fancy regulators, some don't, this adds to the problem. The only thing you can take as given is that people understand that increasing power means the plane should get faster. And full forward on the throttle is fastest. Ask your garage owner why an intercooler adds power to his Diesel engine. If you understand the technological aspects of increasing power and economy of a combustion engine, consider yourself "not normal" and more than two sigmas away from average knowledge.

 

I think it is unfair to an interested newbie to assume he has a master in engeneering to understand what he really gets at hands. Yes, YT tutorials are great, but I think the game would do good in introducing planes and their technology, also showing how tremendously cool those crates are and what the sim delivers.

 

So far, all the cool stuff this sim really provides are things that keep an innocent newbie from having a successful first flight. Same as you just put a such in a real P40 just like that, without explanation.

 

As this is still a game, today it should be fair to player to let him have some fun without studying books beforehand. No successful game asks that of people. This is why I think the RTFM may be true but not helpful. It's great to have a book as added ressurce, but the "how do I start the engine?" is something that shouldn't occur. If casual players really knew what they are getting with this sim, they would give different reviews as well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...