P-40E first impressions

[Mungee]

Not an easy aircraft to land! I must have damaged about 20 P-40's this afternoon - if I carry on doing this I'll end up being sent to a Gulag! Hehe!

[IIN8II]

Oh man where is that skin at.

 

So nice

Still a WIP at the moment.

Nice tease I thought it was a video :D

 

Are you doing one for the P-40?

I will be soon

[BlitzPig_EL]

As to the P 40s lineage, and I'm doing this from memory so if I mess something up, give an old guy a break... 

 

The P 36 was a 1934 design, as such it was really quite a good aircraft.  It was the first US Army Air Corps aircraft with a "red line" on it's ASI as it had a very good dive capability,  Something the Hawk 75, 81 and 87 models would have in their bag of tricks right to the end of their production in November of 1944.

 

The P 40 was more than just a P 36 with a V-1710 tacked on the front, though the initial prototypes were indeed that.  The production P 40s were flush riveted, a first for US fighter production.  The P 40 has revised (slightly) cockpit/canopy glazing, a different instrument panel and various cockpit control layout details.  The P 40 also had a somewhat revised internal framing structure in the fuselage that made it stronger than the P 36.

 

Now a lot of you are wondering why it was so big,  Well, this is a consequence of it's design heritage.  In Europe, modern (late 30s) fighter dogma was that the role of the fighter was as a point defense interceptor, hence most European, and Russian designs were relatively small, light, and short ranged, to achieve very high rates of climb for the intercept function, also the limited geographic areas (except the Soviet Union) of the Euro countries and Britain never really demandedthe use of long range aircraft to defend them.  Meanwhile in Japan, the fighters designed during this period were very much influenced by the Bushido dogma of the Japanese military of the time. The fighter was seen as an extension of the Samurai's sword.  it was to be used as such, engaging in the honorable and classic one on one dogfight, so they developed light, very maneuverable aircraft.  They did have one other concern though, range.  The Japanese Empire extended over a very large area, so their fighters by necessity had pretty good range.  In fact the A6M were the longest ranged single seaters on internal fuel until the P 51 came on the scene.

 

Now we get to the US.  A large country geographically, with long distances to defend.  So range was always a consideration.  Also our wildly varied climate demanded aircraft able to deal with everything from the bitterest sub zero winters, to the heat of the deserts in the south west.  Hence very stout aircraft construction (over built even) became the norm from US manufacturers during this period.  This only started to go the other way with the advent of the P 51 and later the F8F.

 

Aircraft are the product, in many ways, of the culture and conditions of the country they came from is pretty much what I am getting at.

 

The Hawks were products of their interwar design environment,  A time of great change in all aspects of aircraft design.  If the war had started in say, 1935, the Hawk 75 would have been a premier aircraft.  Clearly superior to any of the biplanes in service still at that time, and, more than capable of dealing with any of the monoplane fighters in use by any foreseen adversary.   But, that didn't happen and technology rapidly advanced.  We were not remotely ready for a world war in 1939/40, we were still in the final gasp of the Great Depression, very little money was available for new fighter types.  Sure they were on the drawing board, but when things went down, we had to go with what we had.   That was the Curtiss Hawk.  It actually did quite well for itself considering.  Units that understood it's strengths and weaknesses did well with it.  I don't think I need to bring up the Flying Tigers or the 325th. "Checker Tails", not to mention several Commonwealth units, which proved that the P 40 in good hands could be an effective fighter,

 

And yes I'm a Curtiss fan boy, you old timers that know me understand this.   But that does not take away from the fact that the P 40 did better than the common thinking of it today.  

 

Will it do well in our simulation?   I can't say with any certainty.  But, if those of you the choose to fly her really learn to fly it to it's strengths, and fly her smartly, you will do well.

Edited October 4, 2015 by BlitzPig_EL

[Rjel]

That's a pretty good overview of the P-40 EL. Well written.

[Wulf]

As to the P 40s lineage, and I'm doing this from memory so if I mess something up, give an old guy a break... 

 

The P 36 was a 1934 design, as such it was really quite a good aircraft.  It was the first US Army Air Corps aircraft with a "red line" on it's ASI as it had a very good dive capability,  Something the Hawk 75, 81 and 87 models would have in their bag of tricks right to the end of their production in November of 1944.

 

The P 40 was more than just a P 36 with a V-1710 tacked on the front, though the initial prototypes were indeed that.  The production P 40s were flush riveted, a first for US fighter production.  The P 40 has revised (slightly) cockpit/canopy glazing, a different instrument panel and various cockpit control layout details.  The P 40 also had a somewhat revised internal framing structure in the fuselage that made it stronger than the P 36.

 

Now a lot of you are wondering why it was so big,  Well, this is a consequence of it's design heritage.  In Europe, modern (late 30s) fighter dogma was that the role of the fighter was as a point defense interceptor, hence most European, and Russian designs were relatively small, light, and short ranged, to achieve very high rates of climb for the intercept function, also the limited geographic areas (except the Soviet Union) of the Euro countries and Britain never really demandedthe use of long range aircraft to defend them.  Meanwhile in Japan, the fighters designed during this period were very much influenced by the Bushido dogma of the Japanese military of the time. The fighter was seen as an extension of the Samurai's sword.  it was to be used as such, engaging in the honorable and classic one on one dogfight, so they developed light, very maneuverable aircraft.  They did have one other concern though, range.  The Japanese Empire extended over a very large area, so their fighters by necessity had pretty good range.  In fact the A6M were the longest ranged single seaters on internal fuel until the P 51 came on the scene.

 

Now we get to the US.  A large country geographically, with long distances to defend.  So range was always a consideration.  Also our wildly varied climate demanded aircraft able to deal with everything from the bitterest sub zero winters, to the heat of the deserts in the south west.  Hence very stout aircraft construction (over built even) became the norm from US manufacturers during this period.  This only started to go the other way with the advent of the P 51 and later the F8F.

 

Aircraft are the product, in many ways, of the culture and conditions of the country they came from is pretty much what I am getting at.

 

The Hawks were products of their interwar design environment,  A time of great change in all aspects of aircraft design.  If the war had started in say, 1935, the Hawk 75 would have been a premier aircraft.  Clearly superior to any of the biplanes in service still at that time, and, more than capable of dealing with any of the monoplane fighters in use by any foreseen adversary.   But, that didn't happen and technology rapidly advanced.  We were not remotely ready for a world war in 1939/40, we were still in the final gasp of the Great Depression, very little money was available for new fighter types.  Sure they were on the drawing board, but when things went down, we had to go with what we had.   That was the Curtiss Hawk.  It actually did quite well for itself considering.  Units that understood it's strengths and weaknesses did well with it.  I don't think I need to bring up the Flying Tigers or the 325th. "Checker Tails", not to mention several Commonwealth units, which proved that the P 40 in good hands could be an effective fighter,

 

And yes I'm a Curtiss fan boy, you old timers that know me understand this.   But that does not take away from the fact that the P 40 did better than the common thinking of it today.  

 

Will it do well in our simulation?   I can't say with any certainty.  But, if those of you the choose to fly her really learn to fly it to it's strengths, and fly her smartly, you will do well.

 

 

Interesting analysis, however, I suspect 'isolationism', especially as it developed in the US in the mid-late 1930s, had more to do with the state of military aviation in that country, in the lead up to WW 2 than the Great Depression which, after all, was a global phenomenon.  US strategic requirements flowing from its' isolationist foreign policy and the geographical isolation of Nth America from potential European and Asian adversaries must also have appeared to militate against any perceived requirement for the development of high performance interceptors - even as war in Europe began to appear more likely.  Remembering that at the time,  the air power theorists believed that the next war would, in all probability, be decided by strategic bombing and or armoured breakthroughs by massed tank formations - again, not something that the US had to be particularly concerned about unless of course, the Canadians or Mexicans turned feral.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Wulf

[BlitzPig_EL]

True Wulf, but remember that the P 38 and P 39 came from this era as well, and both were designed initially as a pure interceptor types, with a very good rate of climb, to defend against long range bombers, though I'm not saying that our isolationism was not a factor in our military procurement process.

 

And yes, that thinking that "the bombers will always get through", really hurt development of high performance fighter aircraft in the US.

Edited October 5, 2015 by BlitzPig_EL

[EAF19_Marsh]

I had a great time this weekend flying around over Kalach; if you can keep it up at 300mph then it handles very nicely and even 4 x .5s are a very usable loadout.

 

Tricky against a 109, even trickier on-line I expect.

[Sneaksie]

History has shown, that few things in sims like these are ever 'final', so we propably shouldn't expect them to be.

 

I really hope they don't touch the DM too much in the future though. I think they've struck just about the right balance how it is now.

 

Ouch! That's pretty devastating (or rather not....) I don't get how modelling so detailed can result in such uninteresting DM.

 

The answer is relatively simple, DCS main scope was (and is, I suppose) modern aircraft and modern weaponry, so there is no tracing of rounds inside an aircraft frame. If an AP round hits a rudder, it damages rudder and its controls with a certain probability, but won't travel further. It is enough for modern weaponry which is very powerful (a missile or 30mm round usually don't care where it hits, it is enough for catastrophic damage), but it makes weaker WWII era projectiles cause less believable damage. In BoS an armor piercing round can penetrate several sections, losing energy and slightly changing direction, which leads to more life-like outcomes (for example, when it hits a rudder and travels all the way to pilots cabin).

[Guest deleted@50488]

The answer is relatively simple, DCS main scope was (and is, I suppose) modern aircraft and modern weaponry, so there is no tracing of rounds inside an aircraft frame. If an AP round hits a rudder, it damages rudder and its controls with a certain probability, but won't travel further. It is enough for modern weaponry which is very powerful (a missile or 30mm round usually don't care where it hits, it is enough for catastrophic damage), but it makes weaker WWII era projectiles cause less believable damage. In BoS an armor piercing round can penetrate several sections, losing energy and slightly changing direction, which leads to more life-like outcomes (for example, when it hits a rudder and travels all the way to pilots cabin).

 

Excellent explanation of BoS DM!  Thx Sneaksie :-)

[Finkeren]

The answer is relatively simple, DCS main scope was (and is, I suppose) modern aircraft and modern weaponry, so there is no tracing of rounds inside an aircraft frame. If an AP round hits a rudder, it damages rudder and its controls with a certain probability, but won't travel further. It is enough for modern weaponry which is very powerful (a missile or 30mm round usually don't care where it hits, it is enough for catastrophic damage), but it makes weaker WWII era projectiles cause less believable damage. In BoS an armor piercing round can penetrate several sections, losing energy and slightly changing direction, which leads to more life-like outcomes (for example, when it hits a rudder and travels all the way to pilots cabin).

 

So it means that all damage in DCS happens 'on the surface'? Yeah I can see how that would create problems for the DM.

 

Thanks for the explanation and cudos to you for building a very believable DM for this sim.

[LLv24_Zami]

The answer is relatively simple, DCS main scope was (and is, I suppose) modern aircraft and modern weaponry, so there is no tracing of rounds inside an aircraft frame. If an AP round hits a rudder, it damages rudder and its controls with a certain probability, but won't travel further. It is enough for modern weaponry which is very powerful (a missile or 30mm round usually don't care where it hits, it is enough for catastrophic damage), but it makes weaker WWII era projectiles cause less believable damage. In BoS an armor piercing round can penetrate several sections, losing energy and slightly changing direction, which leads to more life-like outcomes (for example, when it hits a rudder and travels all the way to pilots cabin).

 

Thanks Sneaksie for that!

 

It`s always nice to know more details of these things

[9./JG27DavidRed]

History has shown, that few things in sims like these are ever 'final', so we propably shouldn't expect them to be.

 

I really hope they don't touch the DM too much in the future though. I think they've struck just about the right balance how it is now.

 

Ouch! That's pretty devastating (or rather not....) I don't get how modelling so detailed can result in such uninteresting DM.

+1

im also of the opinion that while CLOD might have the most attractive damage model in the visuals, BOS/BOM's damage model is by far the best ive ever experienced.with this they really hit the nail on the head i think, and i really hope they just tweak it very little, and mainly visually.

dcs damage model is a bad joke, nothing to add to it.

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

Hi guys!

I wanted to reproduce the cockpit of P-40E. It was really hard, i'm the russian and don't know english so good. But i tried very hard to make this. If you will find mistakes or inaccuracies in the text, please write. Then I want to translate this in russian for forum to help our pilots better to use this plane

Perhaps approaching the originator of the image or taking one of your own and then slowly translating the items to Russian? Not much help but surely some talented folks in the Russian community will take this on.

 

Chief

[Guest deleted@50488]

So it means that all damage in DCS happens 'on the surface'? Yeah I can see how that would create problems for the DM.

 

Thanks for the explanation and cudos to you for building a very believable DM for this sim.

 

No, DCS has a much more detailed modeling of damage, and that ( only superficial ) was not what Sneaksie meant, I believe, but it just needs further refinement.

 

Yesterday I finally tested 1.5 Open Beta, and the DM has improved significantly on the ww2 modules.  Still incomparable though to what we have in BoS, IMO...

Edited October 6, 2015 by jcomm

[Finkeren]

No, DCS has a much more detailed modeling of damage, and that ( only superficial ) was not what Sneaksie meant, I believe, but it just needs further refinement.

 

Yesterday I finally tested 1.5 Open Beta, and the DM has improved significantly on the ww2 modules. Still incomparable though to what we have in BoS, IMO...

I know that it's more detailed of course. What I meant to say was that hit registration only happens on the surface.

 

Glad to hear, that the DM has gotten some love in the 1.5 beta.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I know that it's more detailed of course. What I meant to say was that hit registration only happens on the surface.

 

Glad to hear, that the DM has gotten some love in the 1.5 beta.

 

Yes but still nothing comparable to the level of detail we have in BoS.  One of these days I was hit by debris from an aircraft that my wingman shot down, and broke into pieces... The effects ( damage ) cause by that hit were tremendous, but I still could make it to an emergency landing :-) Unique, I must say!

[Bullets]

My opinion is that the P40 is a "get shot down simulator" and will be unless you are hunting bombers or until BOM aircraft only servers exist. It simply is just not fun against a 109G2 or F4, sure you can gang up and work together but then the axis pilot should be smart enough not to engage a 1v5.   The 190 just flys rings around it and any 190 pilot that enters a turn fight just shouldn't be in multi player      

So basically my question is will BOM have its own servers where BOS aircraft (except a few obvious ones like HE111/ JU88 , Pe2,IL2) can't be flown in... BOM aircraft are in some cases just to sub par to compete fairly and "funly" against BOS aircraft. 

Sorry for the whine   There is a serious question in there among the b*tching hehe 

[SR-F_Winger]

 

 

not fun against a 109G2 or F4

 

Welcome to the germans world when flying against a YAK-1 uberplane. No matter wich german fighter you use:P

[Reflected]

Welcome to the germans world when flying against a YAK-1 uberplane. No matter wich german fighter you use:P

 

Come on Winger, don't exaggerate. When in a G2, a Yak cannot shoot me down unless I really screw up. In a P-40 I don't survive any encounters unless the 109 really screws up...

 

You just can't expect to fly the 109 like your Dr1 in RoF. Au contraire, fly it like an SE5a against Albatrosses.

[Bullets]

Welcome to the germans world when flying against a YAK-1 uberplane. No matter wich german fighter you use

 

At least you can run against a yak & eventually climb away from it in any of the BOS axis fighters ? I fly both sides equally I am not starting this whole "one side is stronger malarkey"

[BraveSirRobin]

Welcome to the germans world when flying against a YAK-1 uberplane. No matter wich german fighter you use:P

 

That is ridiculous.  The only way you lose to the Yak in a 109 is if you make some really bad mistakes.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I know that it's more detailed of course. What I meant to say was that hit registration only happens on the surface.

 

Glad to hear, that the DM has gotten some love in the 1.5 beta.

 

I've managed to shoot the entire tail section off a P51 (straight on broadside attack) with a single 30mm. Felt real smug after that one... 

 

I'd like to say it's gonna "get there" but it's still too early to tell.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Welcome to the germans world when flying against a YAK-1 uberplane. No matter wich german fighter you use:P

 

Things aren't perfect in the FM department but... Nawww.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[LukeFF]

Welcome to the germans world when flying against a YAK-1 uberplane. No matter wich german fighter you use:P

Give it a rest already.

[Alkyan]

JG4_Whiner  

 

Go here :

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/pilots/?tour=1&sort_by=-kd

 

If you make the assumption than russian pilots are as good as german ones you can see that the F4 has an overall better kill/death than the yack : 5 russians for 15 germans in the top twenty for tour 1. 

 

(I took tour 1 as I assumed it more statistically meaningful  than tour two which just started (and were im still 6th in K/D ranking hehe !))

[JtD]

If you look at these stats more closely, you'll see that the most significant difference is that the top VVS air kill scorers also destroyed near 1000 ground targets, while the top LW guys didn't even get close to 100. But four of the five best K/D right now are VVS.

 

Stats can support any argument you want to make.

Edited October 7, 2015 by JtD

[Alkyan]

Stats don't lie if correctly used. Which I did not.

 

However first look does not show an overpowered yack imba ufo tendency.

[BraveSirRobin]

Stats can support any argument you want to make.

 

Only if the people you're trying to convince don't know anything about stats.  K/D tells more about the pilots and their priorities than about the aircraft.

[Dutchvdm]

My opinion is that the P40 is a "get shot down simulator" and will be unless you are hunting bombers or until BOM aircraft only servers exist. It simply is just not fun against a 109G2 or F4, sure you can gang up and work together but then the axis pilot should be smart enough not to engage a 1v5.   The 190 just flys rings around it and any 190 pilot that enters a turn fight just shouldn't be in multi player      

So basically my question is will BOM have its own servers where BOS aircraft (except a few obvious ones like HE111/ JU88 , Pe2,IL2) can't be flown in... BOM aircraft are in some cases just to sub par to compete fairly and "funly" against BOS aircraft. 

Sorry for the whine   There is a serious question in there among the b*tching hehe 

 

You can expect that there will be MP servers just for the battle of Moscow scenario, but afaik historically the P40 wasn't there. Maybe in MP you can use it as an fighter bomber.  

[JtD]

I do wonder a little bit about the perceived poor performance of the P-40 as a fighter. If you take a P-40, and give it fuel, weapons and ammo similar overall to a Yak-1 or LaGG-3, the P-40 should be fairly competitive - with a lower wing loading having the lowest stall speed and thus the tightest turning capacity of the three, and with a similar span loading, a similar energy loss in manoeuvres. Power-weight is clearly worse than the Yak-1, not much to chose between P-40 and LaGG-3. Overall, it should be a little bit inferior to the Yak-1 and a noticeably better than the LaGG-3. Roll rate of the P-40 at high speed should clearly be the best the VVS has to offer.

 

How come you guys keep saying it's hardly OK for bomber interception and ground attack? Have any of you checked out what it is capable of in the 4 gun version with say 70% fuel?

Edited October 8, 2015 by JtD

[Finkeren]

How come you guys keep saying it's hardly OK for bomber interception and ground attack? Have any of you checked out what it is capable of in the 4 gun version with say 70% fuel?

 

Still way too poor climb rate. It can kill bombers ok, if it starts from an advantageous position, but try catching up to a formation of He 111s 1000m above you.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

You can expect that there will be MP servers just for the battle of Moscow scenario, but afaik historically the P40 wasn't there. Maybe in MP you can use it as an fighter bomber.  

 

126 IAP Flew P-40s in the Moscow area according to Bergstrom

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/

Edited October 8, 2015 by Nikko

[Finkeren]

I do wonder a little bit about the perceived poor performance of the P-40 as a fighter. If you take a P-40, and give it fuel, weapons and ammo similar overall to a Yak-1 or LaGG-3, the P-40 should be fairly competitive - with a lower wing loading having the lowest stall speed and thus the tightest turning capacity of the three, and with a similar span loading, a similar energy loss in manoeuvres. Power-weight is clearly worse than the Yak-1, not much to chose between P-40 and LaGG-3. Overall, it should be a little bit inferior to the Yak-1 and a noticeably better than the LaGG-3.

 

I beg to differ. The empty weight of the P-40E is greater than the loaded weight of the Yak-1, and even against the LaGG-3 it compares unfavorably in all but wing loading (if you lower the P-40s fuel load) and top speed.

 Roll rate of the P-40 at high speed should clearly be the best the VVS has to offer.

 

Care to explain, why you think that should be?

[JtD]

Depends on how you define empty. The 'empty' empty weight of the P-40, depending on the modifications (for instance 4 or 6 gun layout), is 2700-2800kg. The Yak-1 s69 take off weight is ~2900kg, LaGG-3 about 3100kg. The P-40 in the 4 gun layout has a take off weight of 3850kg, out of which about 800kg are loaded ammunition, fuel and oil. In LaGG-3 and Yak-1, this doesn't even add up to 500kg. So, imho, a P-40 with similar endurance and firepower to a fully loaded Yak-1 or LaGG-3 would be at around 3500kg. At a roughly 15-20% larger weight, it has a 25% larger wing and a 15% larger wing span, while producing roughly the same power. Makes it a poor climber, slow in horizontal flight, but good in diving and turning.

 

I think the P-40 roll should be very good because historically, it was. At high speed, for a time the best in the world.

Edited October 8, 2015 by JtD

[MilAvHistory]

Care to explain, why you think that should be?

 

I've wondered about the roll rate too. At first I thought BoS had it wrong. My data suggested that the roll rate should be better but then rechecked, corrected myself and it seems to be pretty close to what it is in game. That being said, I'd still say it might be just a tad less maneuverable than it should be. From my information, the rollrate should peak around 100degrees/sec @ ~280mph (down from the initial P-40 [H81] that had a great 135 degrees/sec at 360mph) but above the P-40F (90 degrees/sec @ 270 mph).

 

I'll have to go back into the game and check how it is, but if anyone has tangible info on how it currently rolls at its best in-game, I'd be very happy to see it.

[Finkeren]

I can't speak for how well the roll performance of the P-40 matches historical data, cause I haven't tested it, but even at 135deg/sec it still wouldn't make it the best rolling plane in the VVS arsenal. The I-16 could roll at something like 220deg/sec, albeit at lower speeds than 360mph. 

[Dutchvdm]

126 IAP Flew P-40s in the Moscow area according to Bergstrom

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/

 

I stand corrected. Thnx. In that case it will be usable in both scenario's. Bit i think it won't change the fact that in MP people won't do well against the 109 line-up. 

[JtD]

I can't speak for how well the roll performance of the P-40 matches historical data, cause I haven't tested it, but even at 135deg/sec it still wouldn't make it the best rolling plane in the VVS arsenal. The I-16 could roll at something like 220deg/sec, albeit at lower speeds than 360mph.

Yes, but if this is a reference to my statement, I said high speed roll rate, not just roll rate.

[Finkeren]

Well, my bad then. You may well be right about that.

[Matt]

It takes around 4 seconds to do a complete roll at around 500 km/h. I've not measured it more accurately yet (not sure if i'll do that), but it seems to be alright.

 

The P-40 with 6 guns turns tighter than the Yak-1, if both have the same fuel load (in kg, not %), at least if both keep their flaps in (i have not checked with extended flaps).

 

Also the P-40 is the best Soviet plane in a dive, by a pretty big margin.

 

All this doesn't help against the current opposition (unless the opponent wants to turnfight), but i'm curious how it will do against the E-7 for instance. I think that might actually be a pretty close match.