P40 engine managment

[Crump]

Wow Venturi...

 

You have to be a jerk even when people are trying to help you.

 

..................

Edited November 28, 2016 by Bearcat

[JAGER_Batz]

So, you're saying 350L or 92US gal is the "normal" fuel capacity of the aircraft, when in fact it was 148gal as stated in the video? Service afterthought? Are you kidding?

 

I have to say your stated in game findings are totally different than mine. Every time I do this, and especially to the left, she will enter a spin, usually it is inverted. Please show a video. 

 

If the bird was this deadly at 210mph to use rudder on, I doubt that the Japanese would have considered it a lethal foe.

 

Let's see what pops up now...

I've always liked the P-40, but in this game, it's horrible, I tested it, and it really spins, you're right.

 

Disappointing, Can they fix it? I've lost my hopes ...

[Legioneod]

The P-40 imo is the easiest aircraft to fly in-game, it is very hard to fight in it however due to the engine blowing up after a few mins of combat power. If they fix the engine then the P-40 would be more capable in a fight.

 

I recommend a system where the engine degrades over time (like in real life) instead of just stopping instantly (or being dmged) once it hits a certain time limit. (it's usually at less than 5 min of combat power for me)

[SCG_motoadve]

The P-40 imo is the easiest aircraft to fly in-game, it is very hard to fight in it however due to the engine blowing up after a few mins of combat power. If they fix the engine then the P-40 would be more capable in a fight.

 

I recommend a system where the engine degrades over time (like in real life) instead of just stopping instantly (or being dmged) once it hits a certain time limit. (it's usually at less than 5 min of combat power for me)

I agree with you, also how was it in real life?

I doubt it blowed up so easily.

 

Its a great firing platform and very tough, you can get bounced and survive a surprise attack. contrary to the 109 where you die instantly .

[Legioneod]

I agree with you, also how was it in real life?

I doubt it blowed up so easily.

 

Its a great firing platform and very tough, you can get bounced and survive a surprise attack. contrary to the 109 where you die instantly .

The Allison engine is a tough engine unlike in-game. In-game it can only last around 5-min in combat mode and even less in emergency mode.

 

It's should be more like this:

 

Combat Mode-  capable of around 15 min minimum

Emergency Mode- capable of 5 min min.

 

In reality the engine could last a long time at combat/emergency power (though the service life of the engine would be significantly shorter), restrictions were placed on it to prolong the life of the engine.

 

In-game restrictions are very unrealistic and make the p-40 one of the worst fighters in-game.

 

A system where the engine slowly degrades over time if you use it at combat/emergency past the allowed times would work much better and it would be more realistic. ( I'd like to see this for all aircraft)

Edited November 30, 2016 by Legioneod

[fjacobsen]

Just a thought....

 

Under normal conditions running on combat power should not cause any significant damage.

Only if damage due to combat or running on full emergency, should the engine start to degrade much faster when running on combat mode.

 

Also in campaign, score could be decreased if damage has been done by wrong handling of airframe or engine.

[Gambit21]

P-40 is one of my favorites.

I would love to see the engine damage modeling become a bit (or maybe a lot?) more nuanced and realistic.

[Legioneod]

Just a thought....

 

Under normal conditions running on combat power should not cause any significant damage.

Only if damage due to combat or running on full emergency, should the engine start to degrade much faster when running on combat mode.

 

I agree, unfortunately thats not how it works in-game.

[SCG_motoadve]

Are the developers aware and going to fix this?

[BlitzPig_EL]

In their eyes this does not need fixing.

 

I shudder to think how they will model the P39 and Spitfire that are coming in Battle of Kuban.

[Legioneod]

In their eyes this does not need fixing.

 

I shudder to think how they will model the P39 and Spitfire that are coming in Battle of Kuban.

It's sad. I don't expect the P-40 to be the best aircraft but I would like to see it modeled accurately, we are having the same problem with the P-51 in DCS.

 

Devs just don't like to admit when they don't have it right, or they simply don't care. 

 

I know they have bigger things to focus on at the moment but I hope they fix the P-40 eventually.

[SCG_motoadve]

I have been trying Auto prop pitch and doesnt blow up as easy (although power is degraded)

[Frequent_Flyer]

In their eyes this does not need fixing.

 

I shudder to think how they will model the P39 and Spitfire that are coming in Battle of Kuban.

I wish they could sub contract the flight model  programming of the P-40 and P-39 to a US engineer. It is clear the Russians have no grasp of aero dynamics ,they made the same mistakes in the original IL-2.

The P-39 was clearly the best fighter the VVS flew in WW II. However it certainly will not be modeled that way. At least you can play CLOD if you want an accurate Spit flight model. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I wish they could sub contract the flight model  programming of the P-40 and P-39 to a US engineer. It is clear the Russians have no grasp of aero dynamics ,they made the same mistakes in the original IL-2.

The P-39 was clearly the best fighter the VVS flew in WW II. However it certainly will not be modeled that way. At least you can play CLOD if you want an accurate Spit flight model. 

 

inb4 ban

 

Now seriously, as a P-39 lover, I can say it clearly was not the best fighter VVS flew in WW2. Was it good? Yeah, but not the best. Naturally most of the late war fighters in the VVS surpassed it.

Edited December 4, 2016 by SuperEtendard

[Crump]

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/index.htm

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/part2.htm

 

A great article about a recovered VVS P-39...

 

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/lieutenant-ivan-baranovskys-p-39-41818469/

 

 

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and maneuverability of the P-40? Did it suit you?

N. G. I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.

Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.

Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.

As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.

When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it.

I flew somewhere around 50 combat sorties and participated in 10—12 aerial engagements in the P-40. Then the regiment became the next in line to replace its equipment—for the P-39 Airacobra.

 

 

 

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, what kind of armaments did the P-40 have?

N. G. Our Tomahawks and Kittyhawks had machine gun armaments only, the same on both models. Only large-caliber machine guns. Two synchronized [in the nose] and two in the wings. Browning 12.7mm. Powerful, reliable, good machine guns. In time, relatively soon after we received these aircraft, we began to remove the wing-mounted weapons in order to lighten the aircraft, leaving only the two synchronized guns.

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm

[Gambit21]

Finally got around to taking the P-40 up for the first time - pretty ridiculous.

I'm confident it will get dealt with at some point.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Gambit21

[BlitzPig_EL]

I certainly hope so...

[Gambit21]

I just want it believable and as realistic as possible.

If this is how that engine behaved in reality, then fine. However if that were the case then it seems awfully

fragile in comparison to say the Yak or Lagg. I've never read any specifics on that engine, but then

I've read a lot of accounts and haven't read anything about it being that fragile either.

[LukeFF]

Even if the P-39's engine is modeled strictly by the book, it's operating limits will be more "lax" than the P-40's:

 

[Guest deleted@50488]

What about the flight characteristics... It is terribly wobbling at high AoAs...

 

I usually take it with 35% or max 60% fuel, use 20% flaps for takeoff, and when I get airborne it's nose is alover the place, the nose wobbling... This instability, mostly in yaw, I believe is described by some real pilot reports but, I find it just too wobbling.

 

On takeoff if I use the recommended ( marked ) pitch trim settings my tail raise is intense and I have to take care not to prop strike!

 

Also in flight it is very diificult to accelerate, and easily loses energy. Fying high and diving is my only chance most of the time.

 

BTW: that wobbling is also a characteristic of the DCS p51d, specially if one takes off with flaps.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Turkeys-jcomm

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

What about the flight characteristics... It is terribly wobbling at high AoAs...

 

I usually take it with 35% or max 60% fuel, use 20% flaps for takeoff, and when I get airborne it's nose is alover the place, the nose wobbling... This instability, mostly in yaw, I believe is described by some real pilot reports but, I find it just too wobbling.

 

On takeoff if I use the recommended ( marked ) pitch trim settings my tail raise is intense and I have to take care not to prop strike!

 

Also in flight it is very diificult to accelerate, and easily loses energy. Fying high and diving is my only chance most of the time.

 

BTW: that wobbling is also a characteristic of the DCS p51d, specially if one takes off with flaps.

Are you sure it's not the assymetric Gear Retraction?

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well, I did test it in the beginning, an I believe I have the wobbling even before retracting the gear, but that's a very good point Cute!  Will check it ASAP and report here !  Than you for the hint !!!

[=38=Tatarenko]

The P-39 was clearly the best fighter the VVS flew in WW II. 

 

Hahaha No.

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

What about the flight characteristics... It is terribly wobbling at high AoAs...

 

I usually take it with 35% or max 60% fuel, use 20% flaps for takeoff, and when I get airborne it's nose is alover the place, the nose wobbling... This instability, mostly in yaw, I believe is described by some real pilot reports but, I find it just too wobbling.

 

On takeoff if I use the recommended ( marked ) pitch trim settings my tail raise is intense and I have to take care not to prop strike!

 

Also in flight it is very diificult to accelerate, and easily loses energy. Fying high and diving is my only chance most of the time.

 

BTW: that wobbling is also a characteristic of the DCS p51d, specially if one takes off with flaps.

 

Interesting that flying high and diving being the only chance was exactly the tactic that Claire Lee Chennault's Flying Tigers used.

 

There's a flight model change coming sometime in the new year described in this Dev Diary: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=401715

 

That may have some impact on the P-40s rudder handling and some of the yaw instability. Maybe not... but I think at least some of the departures from normal flight I've had in the P-40 were the result of too much action on the rudder and if there are issues with how that is modeled then I'm guessing it could get better.

 

My general feeling: The P-40 is well modeled but the engine limits are too strict for the beast that the Allison engine was and it should be loosened a bit. Extra power for the P-40 would make it a little more combat effective although I suspect it would still have a difficult time of things. The P-40 never had the best reputation although some pilots who flew them really seemed to think that they were good. I read a lot about New Zealand ace Geoff Fisken who flew a Kittyhawk Mark III at Guadalcanal in 1943 and he seemed to think it had enough power. Then again... pilots tend to bond with their aircraft sometimes despite their relative performance levels so long as it brought them home in one piece.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

Hahaha No.

 

 

[Crump]

 

A. S. The engine—powerful, reliable, good altitude capability?

N. G. The Tomahawks had the Allison engine, not very good, but in itself powerful. As one pushed it to full RPMs, toward maximum output, it would begin to “make metal” [tiny metal particles in the oil]. But apparently it was our fault because, we were told, we had insufficient “oil culture”. Later the Americans modified the engines and in the Kittyhawks the engines were more powerful and reliable.

Our “oil culture” also was improved as oil heaters, filtration devices, and special filler devices appeared. Our oil heater was cleaner than the equipment at the aid station. The regiment engineer was vigilant! Everyone wore white smocks, they used rubber mats, [paving] stone ramps, they constantly struggled with sand and dust and wouldn’t let them close. They filtered the oil two and three times in the oil heater and two more times during the oil filling process. Even the “pistol” [dispenser] at the end of the oil filler hose had two covers, a thin white one and a thick canvas cover over the top of it. In principle we did need to improve our handling of oil, even while flying the Hurricanes. Its engine also was sensitive to oil, and when the Allisons arrived we had to raise our “oil culture” even higher.

In horsepower, of course, it would have been nice to have more power in the P-40 air frame. But the genuinely noticeable deficiency of thrust-to-weight ratio became palpable only toward the end of 1943.

 

 

Much of the reliability issues experienced in the VVS with foreign aircraft can be attributed to the oil.

[Frequent_Flyer]

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/index.htm

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/part2.htm

 

A great article about a recovered VVS P-39...

 

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/lieutenant-ivan-baranovskys-p-39-41818469/

 

 

 

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm

Not only was the P-40 better than the Hurri, I-16 it also surpass the Lagg-3 in reality.. However , in this game it is not a better performer than the Lagg-3 nor is it better than the I-16.

[Frequent_Flyer]

inb4 ban

 

Now seriously, as a P-39 lover, I can say it clearly was not the best fighter VVS flew in WW2. Was it good? Yeah, but not the best. Naturally most of the late war fighters in the VVS surpassed it.

Your certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the facts are on my side. Five of the top 10 VVS Aces in WWII obtained the majority of their victories flying the P-39. To the embarrassment of Stalin many units refused to give up their P-39's  for the home grown aircraft. 

[Venturi]

Much of the reliability issues experienced in the VVS with foreign aircraft can be attributed to the oil.

Yes, it pays to make sure the funnels are not full of grit and that you are using proper weight oils..

[Frequent_Flyer]

Even if the P-39's engine is modeled strictly by the book, it's operating limits will be more "lax" than the P-40's:

 

Untitled.jpg

The in game  P-40's historical inaccuracies, per the above referenced interview with the VVS pilot, are not limited to its engine. 

[Stig]

Your certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the facts are on my side. Five of the top 10 VVS Aces in WWII obtained the majority of their victories flying the P-39. To the embarrassment of Stalin many units refused to give up their P-39's  for the home grown aircraft. 

 

Maybe the USAAF should have asked for some Russian pilots in return for the P-39's and sent them to North Africa   

[Frequent_Flyer]

Maybe the USAAF should have asked for some Russian pilots in return for the P-39's and sent them to North Africa   

The VVS  couldn't spare the pilots. The Western Allies recorded more ariel victories over the Luftwaffe then the VVS. Apparently, the VVS " superior" aircraft were being shot down to lure the Germans further into Russia

[Gambit21]

Yes I'm sure the Yak 3 and La7 pilots were pining for the P-39, what with it's amazing handling characteristics and ability to 

withstand damage. I'm also sure the German pilot was kidding when he conversed with Bud Anderson years

after the war and said of the P-39...

"you just hit it any old place and it goes tumbling in...did you ever fly one of those?"

[LukeFF]

The VVS  couldn't spare the pilots. The Western Allies recorded more ariel victories over the Luftwaffe then the VVS. Apparently, the VVS " superior" aircraft were being shot down to lure the Germans further into Russia

 

Best you just stop with your attempts at conversation right now before you make yourself look any more ridiculous.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Your certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the facts are on my side. Five of the top 10 VVS Aces in WWII obtained the majority of their victories flying the P-39. To the embarrassment of Stalin many units refused to give up their P-39's  for the home grown aircraft. 

 

Yeah, and the Finns ruled the skies in their buffalos. The top scoring Finn got almost as many air kills in his buffalo alone(34 of 94) as the top US ace's entire kill count(40) .  The point is, properly motivated soldiers can and will adapt and overcome to defeat the enemy in technically impossible circumstances.  The Soviet pilots at that time did well in spite or the P-39, not because of it.  Cast your mind to the big picture of operational realities for those men during the time of their greatest successes rather than crediting the machine as a roundabout way of crediting the US. 

[Venturi]

Give me a break. Technically impossible? You are not being consistent. What your example shows is that a good pilot (your Finn) will beat a bad, or unmotivated pilot (the Soviet pilot sent to fight a sidelines war instead of the Germans). That is true and is the same reason so many late war engagments were so one-sided, even when the Japanese or Germans had technically equivalent aircraft.

 

However, the P40 dealt with zeros, 109s with the BEST of the Japanese and German airmen, and acquitted itself well IN SPITE OF the outdated tactics and operational limitations it operated under. The P39 dealt with the same in the hands of American and Soviet pilots and got EXCELLENT results. You do not get those results against the cream of the enemy's airmen with equipment that is incapable.

[Stig]

However, the P40 dealt with zeros, 109s with the BEST of the Japanese and German airmen, and acquitted itself well IN SPITE OF the outdated tactics and operational limitations it operated under. The P39 dealt with the same in the hands of American and Soviet pilots and got EXCELLENT results. You do not get those results against the cream of the enemy's airmen with equipment that is incapable.

 

Actually no, they weren't as successful as the pilots thought that they were; i.e. the Germans and Japanese did not lose all those aircraft that the American and Soviet pilots 'shot' down 

[Frequent_Flyer]

Best you just stop with your attempts at conversation right now before you make yourself look any more ridiculous.

Best you just turn away and not read my posts until you have a better understanding of the air war in the East.. Comment when you are better educated! To simply except the " Russian interpretation " of what transpired is foolish.

Actually no, they weren't as successful as the pilots thought that they were; i.e. the Germans and Japanese did not lose all those aircraft that the American and Soviet pilots 'shot' down 

Yes, and the Germans won the war.

Yes I'm sure the Yak 3 and La7 pilots were pining for the P-39, what with it's amazing handling characteristics and ability to 

withstand damage. I'm also sure the German pilot was kidding when he conversed with Bud Anderson years

after the war and said of the P-39...

"you just hit it any old place and it goes tumbling in...did you ever fly one of those?"

When the VVS first operated the P-39 the La-7 was not available. However, the P-63 outperformed both the Yak and the La-7 and was prefered.

[LukeFF]

 

 

Best you just turn away and not read my posts until you have a better understanding of the air war in the East.. Comment when you are better educated! To simply except the " Russian interpretation " of what transpired is foolish.

 

No, I'll keep reading your posts and calling you out when I feel it's warranted, as I am quite well-read on Eastern Front air combat. Hey, speaking of which...

 

 

 

However, the P-63 outperformed both the Yak and the La-7 and was prefered.

 

A better-educated person would know there are no confirmed reports on the P-63 being used against Germany.

[Gambit21]

Not only that, WTF does the La-7 not being available when the VVS were first operating the P-39 have to do with anything.