Does P40 really s**k, or is it just me?

[Dakpilot]

Kittihawk II/P40F/L was powered by Packard Merlin and had longer fuselage/bigger tail 

 

Was a much improved model than the P-40E w have in game

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Venturi]

Single stage Merlins = Single stage Allisons

 

If I understand your gist correctly. I was wondering about the length of the model/tailplane size vs the actual E-1, too. If that's what you meant. Maybe they used a later version to model the E by mistake?

 

Anyways the engines were rated almost identically except the Merlin was rated at a slightly higher altitude. IIRC.

 

The Merlin got the nod for the later Mustangs and became famous/revered because it had a two stage system already developed. Allison had been told by Army Air Corps to focus on turbo superchargers. And with those the same Allisons put out much more power at altitude. Allisons were just as powerful as Merlins and better designed, given the same induction system.

 

But at sea level up to 10,000" the single stage engines did better than the two stage versions. In one theatre you're fighting a ground war. In the other you're strategic bombing.

 

Later P40s were lighter, I understand. But werent the Merlin engined ones heavier?

Edited April 8, 2016 by Venturi

[Dave]

Late Mustangs (J on) were actually Allison powered when Allison finally got their compound turbo-supercharger packaging sorted because they were simpler with about 40% less components, more robust, easier to maintain and would go twice as long between overhauls. They also made more power at all altitudes than the Merlin at that time. By this time the Allison was able to generate 3000HP in its final configuration for the P63 and P51. North American would have switched earlier but the Allison with second stage supercharger and after-cooler was 9 inches longer than the Merlin and moving the firewall back was too disruptive to production that it was delayed by about a year.

[Dakpilot]

Packard merlins were single stage like the Allisons But they had two speed supercharger unlike the Allison

 

 

 

Single stage Merlins = Single stage Allisons

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Dave]

Packard merlins were single stage like the Allisons But they had two speed supercharger unlike the Allison

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Thats true. But in second gear the Merlin XX Farman-design supercharger produced a maximum 9PSI boost while the Allison's much simpler and lighter (and more reliable) supercharger produced 18PSI.

I honestly haven't done the maths to work out how this manifested in power at comparable altitudes, and I'm not implying anything by it. I just thought it was an interesting piece of trivia.

[Dakpilot]

P40F although heavier had comparable speeds (slightly faster) with P-40E at lower alts but 25+ km faster up to 20,000ft , the benefits of two speeds

 

P-40L was factory Packard engined lightweight model so not really comparable, with increased performance, used mostly by USAAF

 

later K,M and N Allison models were more produced than E version and much superior airframe with stronger engines/crankshafts etc. also used by Russia

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[wtornado]

Single stage Merlins = Single stage Allisons

 

If I understand your gist correctly. I was wondering about the length of the model/tailplane size vs the actual E-1, too. If that's what you meant. Maybe they used a later version to model the E by mistake?

 

Anyways the engines were rated almost identically except the Merlin was rated at a slightly higher altitude. IIRC.

 

The Merlin got the nod for the later Mustangs and became famous/revered because it had a two stage system already developed. Allison had been told by Army Air Corps to focus on turbo superchargers. And with those the same Allisons put out much more power at altitude. Allisons were just as powerful as Merlins and better designed, given the same induction system.

 

But at sea level up to 10,000" the single stage engines did better than the two stage versions. In one theatre you're fighting a ground war. In the other you're strategic bombing.

 

Later P40s were lighter, I understand. But werent the Merlin engined ones heavier?

They weren't lighter with the Merlin Packard engine that is why they would strip the plane down removing armor

and everything the plane did not need.

 

Some planes only flew with 2 guns just to keep up to the F-4 and G-1,2,4's just to be competitive.

Edited April 8, 2016 by WTornado

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Thats true. But in second gear the Merlin XX Farman-design supercharger produced a maximum 9PSI boost while the Allison's much simpler and lighter (and more reliable) supercharger produced 18PSI.

I honestly haven't done the maths to work out how this manifested in power at comparable altitudes, and I'm not implying anything by it. I just thought it was an interesting piece of trivia.

Are you sure because from the beginning Merlin XX was cleared for +12 PSI, in 1942 this was later upped to +16

[Dakpilot]

P-40 models can be quite hard to pin down 

 

The E was the Allison short tail short fuselage version

 

K had the larger Tail fin

 

M longer fuselage (0.5M) and tailfin  

 

F and L were Packard Merlin short fuselage versions, ...but some later ones were also built with K tail  also and M fuselage/tail and I think the Packard Merlin had a longer nose as well

 

N had larger tail fin and longer fuselage and improved rear visibility cockpit, also in made with factory lightweight version but did not get name change like L model

 

All had field mods to lighten them in various ways as well, just to confuse things more, 

 

Not to mention the British naming, Kittyhawk I, Ia, II, IIa, III and IV 

 

although I may have confused myself now 

 

The ingame E visually looks pretty fair to me

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[LukeFF]

 

 

So are all aircraft FMs changed due to historical documents or for the sake of just balancing?

 

They are all changed according to historical documentation. Nothing odd nor are there any conspiracies to balance things. Even the team has mentioned this on more than one occasion.

 

 

 

Why do you guys keep screwing with the 190?

 

Ehm...I'm not a developer. How 1CGS decides to model something is ultimately up to them. 

 

P-40 models can be quite hard to pin down 

 

The E was the Allison short tail short fuselage version

 

K had the larger Tail fin

 

M longer fuselage (0.5M) and tailfin  

 

F and L were Packard Merlin short fuselage versions, ...but some later ones were also built with K tail  also and M fuselage/tail and I think the Packard Merlin had a longer nose as well

 

N had larger tail fin and longer fuselage and improved rear visibility cockpit, also in made with factory lightweight version but did not get name change like L model

 

All had field mods to lighten them in various ways as well, just to confuse things more, 

 

Not to mention the British naming, Kittyhawk I, Ia, II, IIa, III and IV 

 

although I may have confused myself now 

 

The ingame E visually looks pretty fair to me

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

This is a good guide to the myriad variants of the P-40: http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/09/stuff_eng_p40.htm

[BlitzPig_EL]

The N was the most produced model, BTW, and it flew for just about everybody, odd that you never see it in simulations.

[Venturi]

On August 26, 1943 a report sent from US Army/RAF liaison and signed by Brig.Gen. Horn stated in part:

 

"In view of the British operation and the fact that we have an approved war emergency rating on the 1710-39 engine of 56", it is suggested that immediate steps be taken to remove the automatic boost controls from our P-51 airplanes in this theatre and that the instrument dials be marked with the proper lights.  The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72" Hg) for as much as 20 min at a time without hurting the engines.  According to them, the Allison is averaging about 1500 hrs between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hrs for the Merlin.  The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearings ruined."

 

 

 

Fuel quality, it must be noted, plays a HUGE part in this and I have NO IDEA what kind of fuel the Russians were using or how consistent it was.

 

I posted this in the other thread but here's the quick and Crumpized version:

 

There are "the book" rules and then there's "what you do to win" rules and when the equipment doesn't perform when following "the book", then you do what's necessary to make it perform, and the limits became the equipment's, not the 8-hour WER-level Army 50-point inspection test in the States to verify safe long-term longevity. That's what happened IRL.

 

 

 

http://www.oilru.com/or/47/1006/

Packard merlins were single stage like the Allisons But they had two speed supercharger unlike the Allison

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

My only point is that given equivalent induction systems the Allison was fully the equal of the Merlin for power, if not its better - and definitely lighter.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Venturi

[Dakpilot]

Someone did not have a great respect for Allisons

 

Kirby, who used to be on Avsig, flew behind and between Allisons during much of his WWII experience. He had absolutely nothing good to say about them. He spent some time at the overhaul facility at Chino before being sent out to the Pacific for combat. At Chino he saw Allison engines that had been sent in for overhaul after failing with very, very little time in service, single and double digit numbers. The radials that had been sent in all had far more time before they had either failed or been pulled at their TBO. That made a huge impression on him. 

In the South Pacific Kirby initially flew the P-400, a worthless export version of the P-39. In that he could not get above about 23,000 feet. He says that saved his life because, at that time in the war, in the area of northern Australia, the Japanese fighters would not leave the bombers they were escorting to come down to the altitude he could reach in the P-400. He loathed both the airplane and the engine for having no guts whatsoever. 

He transitioned to the P-38, the airplane in which he was credited for 5 victories (but had more). He loved that airplane but still distrusted the engines. He would not leave the ground on takeoff until he had 145 mph, above Vmc, because he wanted control if one quit. He never had one quit. 

Interestingly, during part of his time in the Pacific, reliability on the Allisons got so bad that they were being replaced after 15, yes, that's 15, not 50, hours in service. During that time a fair amount of his flying was "slow timing" about 5 hours flown at low power to break in a new Allison on his airplane, because the engines had to be pulled with so few hours in service.

For some reason I think that I recall something about Merlins behing hung on a P-38 for evaluation, but, while performance increased, the need for Merlins on other models meant that they stayed with the Allisons on the P-38. It is intersting to look at the performance of a twin that is slightly larger than the P-38, the Mosquito - it was faster (it was actually the fastest airplane in the sky for much of WWII) and could go higher. Interestingly, both the Mossie and the P-38 were used for high altitude photo recon and for photo work at extremely low altitude because they could get in and get out fast. 

There was a version of the DC-4 with Merlins. I don't believe anyone ever considered hanging Allisons on it. 

If you want to hear profanity about Allisons and vitriol about the P-400, call Kirby. 

 

Also a mention of US high octane fuel 

 

"Fuel was another big "IF" factor in the early part of the war. The Allisons were developed using US spec 100 octane fuel. This is different than either British 87 octane or British 100 octane. British 87 octane fuel had a fair amount of "aromatics" in it and performed better (allowed higher boost)than than some 87 octane fuel but it was never really measured. American 100 octane fuel had very little allowable ( 2% max) "aromatics" and while a richer mixture allowed a bit more boost there was no real jump in allowable boost pressures. In fact a few batches of US 100 octane gas performed at worse than 100 octane rating when running rich.

British 100 octane fuel at the time of the BoB and shortly after had 20% aromatics minimum and while not tested for a while, it performed much better under rich conditions than lean. Once they did come up with test procedures and and a rating system it was found that most batches of British 100 octane had a rich mixture response of between 115-120PN. Or 100/115-120. Once they had that figured out the British began specifying 100/130 fuel. The US meanwhile shifted to a 100/125 fuel specification. 
Sorry to be a bit long winded but it helps explain why British units in North Africa could use higher boost numbers than the US army approved for it's identical engines at the same time. While few people were using 75in of boost at the time a lot of them were running way over the "BOOK" numbers of 40-44 in MAP. Some claim ( and others say they didn't) The Flying Tigers used some rather high boost settings too, but I don't know were their fuel was coming from. British or American stocks? This fuel discrepancy carried over into the P-40E's at least and maybe into the P-40Ks. At some point in 1942 the British and Americans standardized on the 100/130 fuel specification. Trying to use 60-70 in of boost on 1940 US 100 octane fuel could be a very iffy proposition. Given ideal conditions you might get away with it. Less than ideal might mean pushing into the 50s could wreck the engine. "

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited April 9, 2016 by Dakpilot

[BlitzPig_EL]

Always with the negative waves...

[Finkeren]

One thing I'm wondering: With all the talk about how high a boost pressure the Allisons were operated at, is anyone suggesting, that the V-1710-39 was able to produce more than the 1150hp it was rated at for 3000rpm? Or are we simply talking about for how long they were able to sustain aa 1150hp output?

 

If it's the latter, then there's just no getting around the fact, that the P-40E was seriously underpowered, even more so than the LaGG-3.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Read that letter from Allison that I posted.   The engines were operated in the neighborhood of 1700bhp with the overboosting that was done.

 

The -39 could run at higher manifold pressures for longer times than the peace time restrictions it currently has in the game, this blowing up like clockwork is bollocks, pure and simple.

[Finkeren]

Read that letter from Allison that I posted.   The engines were operated in the neighborhood of 1700bhp with the overboosting that was done.

 

The -39 could run at higher manifold pressures for longer times than the peace time restrictions it currently has in the game, this blowing up like clockwork is bollocks, pure and simple.

 

I'm still not quite getting it. I understand, that you want less rigid restrictions on the engine limitations - I hear you on that, I think they should be loosened too, across the board not just for the P-40, but perhaps more so for the Hawk. What I don't get is, if you want the Allison engine is the sim to actually provide a greater power output than it's currently capable of? Because I gotta say: Even with the engine running full throttle, max rpm the P-40 still ain't no world-beater. Still, I think we're slipping into very uncertain territory, if we wanna model the engines based on anything but manufactorers numbers.

[Venturi]

It's actually unknown what the current maximum boost obtainable for the P-40 is, in game. Some people have said it is 70" based on eyeball guesses of % throttle but the current in-game MAP gauge maxes out at 50", so we don't know...

 

Right now, anything over 39" and 2600rpm = engine death in 2-3 minutes. That continuous setting is around 900hp and the P40 is just a dog at that power. 

 

What it should be is 56" and 3000rpm for 20 minutes.

 

The P40 is a unique aircraft in game, because the maximum permissible engine boost is not limited by a MECHANICAL means as it is in all other planes in game. The result of that is that the pilot controls the boost at all times ----- and the limits become not what a mechanic set as the maximum boost as stated by Technical Order, as in the 109 ----- but rather what the engine was actually capable of producing without detonation. This is a harder determination than simply using a manual, but we have a lot of documentation showing that the engines could take high levels of boost for a LOT longer than 2-3 minutes.

 

In other planes, there were mechanical limiters which actually restricted what the engine could produce and what the pilot could set the engine to IRL - even if the engine could take it (as in the 109). These limits were set in accordance with Official Order. Again, this is not the case in the P-40 and requires a different approach.

 

Ideally and as I have posted in another thread, the way forward would be a bit more variable engine "consequences" system which would encourage historical use of the engines.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Venturi

[Venturi]

 

Sorry to be a bit long winded but it helps explain why British units in North Africa could use higher boost numbers than the US army approved for it's identical engines at the same time. While few people were using 75in of boost at the time a lot of them were running way over the "BOOK" numbers of 40-44 in MAP. Some claim ( and others say they didn't) The Flying Tigers used some rather high boost settings too, but I don't know were their fuel was coming from. British or American stocks? 

 

According to Vees the fuel for the AVG was highly variable and dirty, came from 50gal drums. In fact, they had to run it through a cloth filter before putting it into their P-40s to get the biggest dirt particles out. Sources were British and US but were nominally high-octane, although the fuel had set around a loong time, so the octane had most likely degraded quite a bit.

 

They also mostly used earlier P-40s and V-1710-33 engines, not the V-1710-39 engines in the P-40E1 ---- these -33 engines were a weaker variant, used with questionable, old, and dirty fuel - and yet the AVG seems to have run very high boost often (and also had a pretty decent combat record).

 

There's no denying their engines did not last as long, but then they didn't have spare spark plugs, good oil, decent tools, the ability to tear down the engines, or anything else. In Vees, there is even an account of someone using buffalo horn to fashion a distributor rotor, as the old bakelite one had snapped. It worked, too - until the plane was shot down. That's resourcefulness, right there.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

It's actually unknown what the current maximum boost obtainable for the P-40 is, in game. Some people have said it is 70" based on eyeball guesses of % throttle but the current in-game MAP gauge maxes out at 50", so we don't know...

Engine:

Model: V-1710-39

Maximum power in Maximum Possible power mode at sea level: 1470 HP

Maximum power in Take-off mode at sea level: 1150 HP

Maximum power in Nominal mode at sea level: 900 HP

Maximum power in Combat mode at 12000 feet: 1150 HP

Maximum power in Nominal mode at 10800 feet: 1000 HP

 

Engine modes:

Nominal (unlimited time): 2600 RPM, 37.2 inch Hg

Combat power (up to 5 minutes): 3000 RPM, 42 inch Hg

Take-off power (up to 5 minutes): 3000 RPM, 45.5 inch Hg

Maximum Possible power (up to 5 minutes): 3000 RPM, 56.0 inch Hg

 

That's according to Dev Diary 123.  So max is 56"Hg.

[Venturi]

There we go ^ 56" for 1 min, >40" for 3min... (that's what the gauge says anyways) = boom

Edited April 10, 2016 by Venturi

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'm still not quite getting it. I understand, that you want less rigid restrictions on the engine limitations - I hear you on that, I think they should be loosened too, across the board not just for the P-40, but perhaps more so for the Hawk. What I don't get is, if you want the Allison engine is the sim to actually provide a greater power output than it's currently capable of? Because I gotta say: Even with the engine running full throttle, max rpm the P-40 still ain't no world-beater. Still, I think we're slipping into very uncertain territory, if we wanna model the engines based on anything but manufactorers numbers.

 

It's tough and this is where historical interpretation comes into play. I get the sense that American planes tend to not always live up to reputation in simulators, all things being equal, in part because they get by the book interpretations of how the aircraft should be run rather than the squadron level reality. You don't read about it so much in other historical documents but I've read many stories about American pilots and their mechanics pushing their engines harder than book values but quite a lot. The sheer number of "hot rod" P-40s and P-47 stories suggest to me that I'm on to something here.

 

The old American way of doing things was definitely in the realm of over engineering. I wish I had the link but there was a great analysis on a couple of aircraft such as the Wildcat/Hellcat series and the Thunderbolt where everything in those planes was overdone. I think that partially translates into BoM as the P-40E-1 is possibly the toughest single engine aircraft (except the IL-2) in the game. What doesn't translate is how much tougher the Allison engines are than their book values - this is a tough one to interpret into a simulation where hard numbers or even hard numbers attached to a randomized or weighted value are essential.

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

I love the bird and would love to take it up online but there's little point other than ground pounding.

 

While flying the 110 online I've mixed it up with P-40's and killed 2 on separate occasions and I'm terrible in a dogfight.

[CUJO_1970]

Recently flew the P-40 against a MiG and the MiG basically flew circles around me. It was faster, could outrun me and out turn me. I flew defensive the entire sortie.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Flying the P-40 is very difficult... Its probably the most difficult representation of this plane I've ever seen. Basically you get one chance to strike at advantage. After that you're probably out of speed or altitude or both. There are two things that it has going for it: durability and firepower. The plane can take a serious amount of battle damage and keep flying and the 6 x.50cal in this generation of IL-2 are anything but pea shooters. These things pack a wallop and I've seen P-40 take a 109 down in a split second. The 109 literally melted away. Once I managed to nail two 109s in a single stern attack catching the two in a brief turn.

 

If I had missed the fight would be over as the 109s would have my tail in a couple of turns and there aren't many options except dive and leave.

 

That does sound familiar with the way that some P-40 pilots characterized fighting in the P-40 but not all.

 

I'm currently focused on the I-16 and IL-2 but as I work my way through the planes I fully intend to spend a long time flying the P-40 in the campaign. I'm looking forward to it but with some trepidation.

[CUJO_1970]

It is very difficult to fight in, to say the least. Acceleration is slow and it is very difficult to regain energy. After flying the FW190 mostly, it feels way too stable.

 

6 X .50cal should massacre any aircraft in the sim.

[Crump]

 

 

That's according to Dev Diary 123.  So max is 56"Hg.

 

Which is what it should be with a MAP regulator...

[LukeFF]

Which is what it should be with a MAP regulator...

Please, give it a rest already.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Killed 3 88s and a 109 the other night. Is it good? No....can it be OK.....yeh I think so if you get some altitude. I'm a noob in this aircraft but we had a good flight and survived.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRML_8EghWQ

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Nice video Emil. That yo-yo at 4:30 was beautifully executed from beginning to end, it was like watching a good football match

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Nice video Emil. That yo-yo at 4:30 was beautifully executed from beginning to end, it was like watching a good football match

 

Doesn't everyone do that?

 

Cheers bud....the full movie is on it's way....just another 40+ mins to render so I have to stay up all night again!!

 

Anyway we need more VVS on our server since a couple of LW squads have made it home so.....you know where to go

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Looking forward to it!

 

You know, many people actually don't and instead would have executed a lousy flat turn towards the target. Then you have the people who go for the yo-yo but screw up either on timing and execution.

 

I'll finally join the Battle of Moscow club within the next weeks, so perhaps we'll change that - less landings, more parachutes on both sides, and most important of all, fun for everyone

[6./ZG26_Emil]

 

I'll finally join the Battle of Moscow club within the next weeks, so perhaps we'll change that - less landings, more parachutes on both sides, and most important of all, fun for everyone

 

[Crump]

Absolutely they were.  No argument from me on that.

 

Isn't it odd, that what is such a "mediocre aircraft" could have made as many aces as it did?  Honestly it was a better aircraft than is portrayed today.

When the 23rd. (former AVG) in China was faced with conversion from the P40 to the P51 many pilots tried very hard to keep their P40s as long as possible.

Sure the P51 was faster, even the A model with the Allison engine, but the P40 gave them the option of better maneuverability, and a lower landing and takeoff speed, which was important on the less than stellar aerodromes that were in use in China.

 

Also of note, the 325th. was the first unit in any air force to use a 1000lb. bomb on the P 40.

 

 

The P-40 in VVS service.

 

 

Altogether the VVS VMF USSR received 360 P-40s of all models from 1941-1945, and lost 66 in combat (18 percent), the lowest loss percentage among fighters of all types.

 

In conclusion, one fact should be noted: three Twice HSU (of 27) in Soviet aviation fought in the Kittyhawk: B. F. Safonov, P. A. Pokryshev (22 personal victories and 7 in group), and M. V. Kuznetsov (22 + 6). Pokryshev and Kuznetsov flew the Kittyhawk for more than a year. Many pilots became aces and HSU while flying the P-40, achieving good combat scores. A number of regiments gained their guards status while flying the P-40. On the whole this aircraft fought well, though the conceptual errors that were built into it significantly reduced the sphere of its effective employment.

 

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

[PatrickAWlson]

These things pack a wallop and I've seen P-40 take a 109 down in a split second. The 109 literally melted away. Once I managed to nail two 109s in a single stern attack catching the two in a brief turn.

 

If I had missed the fight would be over as the 109s would have my tail in a couple of turns and there aren't many options except dive and leave.

 

 

To me that speaks to the importance of teamwork.  While the plane might not be great in a 1:1 dogfight it might do a lot better when working as a team - he damages you but your teammate kills him.  Not saying that makes the P-40 a world beater but it should help.  it's the same reason that I don't think the Wildcat was as hopeless against a Zero as performance numbers would indicate.  1:1 the Wildcat is in a tough spot, but working together as a team it only takes a moment once your wingman brings guns to bear.

[Venturi]

That's a nice theory, unfortunately the P40's combat speed ATM is so slow, that unless you are continuously diving on the opponent, you are stuck at about 320kph most the time and the 109 just zooms away. Even if you are diving on him in a bounce, you'd better make the first hit count. Because once the energy gets even remotely close you're toast. And your wingman won't be much help if he's got one of his own.

 

Doesn't sound like the plane that caused the Luftwaffe to retire the 109E from North Africa, nor garner the combat record it actually had..

Edited April 18, 2016 by Venturi

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Starting to fall in love

 

Was it fair....no!....is air combat fair?...NO!

 

 

But it's actually a very nice energy fighter as people have said (and I totally discounted).....It can't climb kinda like the 190 but it's very good at high speeds!

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ_9YoV_kA0

[Asgar]

i agree with Emil. I'm quite happy with the P-40. I love hunting bombers in it

[6./ZG26_Emil]

i agree with Emil. I'm quite happy with the P-40. I love hunting bombers in it

 

 

"Lets change the squad name!!!!!!!!!!!GIAP or something?"

 

**user has disconnected**

 

**user has disconnected**

 

**user has disconnected**

 

**user has disconnected**

 

**user has disconnected**

 

**user has disconnected**

 

**user has disconnected**

 

"Erm........guys??"

[Original_Uwe]

As an exclusive 109 driver in also quite happy with the way it performs, but I'm not quite sure it's quite right lol