P40 engine managment

[Frequent_Flyer]

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...

Venturi,Unfortunately, the "usual suspect " all have an agenda and a bias neither have anything to do with historical accuracy. No airforce in the world would have  accept the P-40 for combat service the way it is modeled in this game. However, the usual suspect will contend it is spot on, although the have never flown one, they will whip out their graphs and charts and drone on.

[Frequent_Flyer]

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...

 

 

 

 

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

Unless English is not your first language, you have mistaken me for someone else, never claimed they were. They were flown in combat by the VVS was the extend of my statement. However read the following or have someone read it to you ? Soviet Aces, American P-39s, and the Air War against Germany, it is written by a Russian ( so it will satisfy your VVS biased) Dmitriy Loza, a retired Soviet Colonel and his memoir, Commanding  thr Red Armys Sherman Tanks. Both books expose the blatant " cover up " for lack of a better word for the superior performance of the US lend lease equipment. I would recommend the programmers read at least the one about the P-39.So we do not end up .....

[MiloMorai]

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

 

The Soviets didn't do any comparison flights between the 3 a/c?

[LukeFF]

so it will satisfy your VVS biased

 

Yep, you got me. I am actually a closet Russian who is not ashamed at all to show his bias. I wasn't actually born in America to American parents and served in the US military for six years. I guess it wasn't actually me who spent my own time scouring every website I could find for P-40 test data to hand along to the team. And, I guess that's not a photo of a German plane that hangs above my desk and an autographed photo of an American paratrooper to my left. Nope, not me. It must be some other Luke who has an interest in all sides who fought in the war. 

 

Oh wait, and is that an Iron Cross and a stack of German flight manuals I see above the monitor there?

 

 

Good grief, you aren't even that good of a troll. 

 

The Soviets didn't do any comparison flights between the 3 a/c?

 

I'm sure they did, but to conclude they they preferred the P-63 based on zero supporting evidence is crazy talk.  

Edited December 5, 2016 by LukeFF

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

I'm sure they did, but to conclude they they preferred the P-63 based on zero supporting evidence is crazy talk.  

 

There were quite some Soviet aces and squadrons that prefered the P39 over La7, Yak3/9 until the end of the war.

[LukeFF]

There were quite some Soviet aces and squadrons that prefered the P39 over La7, Yak3/9 until the end of the war.

 

Sure, and I have never denied that.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

IMG_20161204_222320.jpg

 

-snip-

 

On a more serious note, that looks like a beautiful home office. That D-9 print is a real beauty.

 

+1 for interior decorating

[LukeFF]

On a more serious note, that looks like a beautiful home office. That D-9 print is a real beauty.

 

+1 for interior decorating

 

Thanks! Nice to finally have the space to arrange things how I want them to be. 

 

That print is from Claes Sundin (the author of the Luftwaffe Aircraft in Profile books, among others), which I purchased years ago through the people who were restoring the Fw 190 F-8 White 1. 

[VBF-12_Snake9]

The p40 in this game is nothing more than a falling rock with 6 50s.

 

It's really just sad. You can argue about all this and that, but one cannot argue in this game It Sucks. Lol

[RydnDirty]

I've been enjoying the challenge of flying the P40 online. It has the highest dive speed in the game at 860km/h.   So a bf109 who expects to dive away from a Lagg or Yak turns around at the end of the dive and sees my P40 right there on his tail...

 

Thats been my experience. So far on this round of TAW I have flown a dozen P40 sortes and got 6 air kills for no loses.

 

It dives good.

 

So I just take the time to climb to 20K ft over friendly airfield and then set off looking for enemy to dive on. One or two zoom and boom passes and then dive away into the clouds and extend away to friendly airspace to climb again. Just like the histories describe this plane was used...

 

The sustained turn isn't that bad. A bf109 will get around on you if he is prepared to give up all his speed and risk my wingman diving on him now he is slow and low.

 

A pair of P40 flown well can be very successful. You guys might be doing it wrong

 

 

The engine limitations are another problem and the german planes suffer from the same.  In real life the engine would not break 10 seconds after exceeding the 5min limit but would have a lower service life so pilots didn't run their engines maxed out. BUt how to get a PC gamer to worry about engine service life that doesn't exist in game?   Unless we were given one plane of each type and flew it over  and over each and each missions wear and tear carried over to the next. Then we might have an incentive to go easier on our engine so it doesn't break tomorrow.

 

At first these design decisions annoyed me but now I play online, I find that everybody wants to fly to best planes and as I join the team with less players I am always outnumbered on Russian side. 20 bf109 against half a dozen of us flying laggs and yak and P40...

 

I can only imagine how much more annoying it would be to fly Russian side if the Bf109F4 was able to run at 1.4 ata till fuel ran out.... It would kill multiplayer if german engines were not limited. 

 

The devs can never admit balancing the multiplayer like this for obvious reasons...

I love multiplayer and I havn't got a better idea so .... play on.

Edited December 6, 2016 by DirtyRotnFlieger

[Gambit21]

Way to go Flieger

[VBF-12_Snake9]

 

 

So I just take the time to climb to 20K ft over friendly airfield and then set off looking for enemy to dive on. One or two zoom and boom passes and then dive away into the clouds and extend away to friendly airspace to climb again.

 

yeap you got it

 

 

 

The p40 in this game is nothing more than a falling rock with 6 50s.

 

  

[Venturi]

There is no doubt that all engines could run more, for longer, than is portrayed. However, failures were much more likely when running at those levels for periods of time - when exactly they would happen, no one knew. Only that they were more likely to happen. 

 

That is a philosophical decision on the part of the devs, but the above more closely replicates a SIMULATION of engine failure. 

 

Also, the P40 is more hamstrung by these limits than all other aircraft, as the limits are more conservative than their German or English counterpart engines. Just look at the overhaul intervals for the Allison V1710 vs the DB605 vs the Merlin.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Venturi

[ACG_KaiLae]

The FM is likely inaccurate in multiple places. First there's some evidence that the wrong lift coefficient was used in the FM. We need more information to confirm, but the collected data so far leans in this direction. Second, the engine limits in game are wrong. I also suspect that the roll rate is off and the high speed turn is too low, but no testing on these has been done yet. There's some areas where the aircraft overperforms actually - I have multiple flight test and pilots manuals stating that the max dive speed of the aircraft is 485 MPH, which would be 780 KPH, not the listed 860 KPH.

 

Anyway, with time and testing, the FM will be checked as closely as possible, errors noted, and a package will be written to 1CG. Hopefully it can then be corrected like the Fw-190 was. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

The FM is likely inaccurate in multiple places. First there's some evidence that the wrong lift coefficient was used in the FM. We need more information to confirm, but the collected data so far leans in this direction. Second, the engine limits in game are wrong. I also suspect that the roll rate is off and the high speed turn is too low, but no testing on these has been done yet. There's some areas where the aircraft overperforms actually - I have multiple flight test and pilots manuals stating that the max dive speed of the aircraft is 485 MPH, which would be 780 KPH, not the listed 860 KPH.

 

Anyway, with time and testing, the FM will be checked as closely as possible, errors noted, and a package will be written to 1CG. Hopefully it can then be corrected like the Fw-190 was. 

 

This is really the only way to get actual changes to happen. Pleased to hear that folks are taking that on!

[Bearcat]

OK we need to tome down the testosterone in this thread or it will be closed.. 

[JAGER_Batz]

The FM is likely inaccurate in multiple places. First there's some evidence that the wrong lift coefficient was used in the FM. We need more information to confirm, but the collected data so far leans in this direction. Second, the engine limits in game are wrong. I also suspect that the roll rate is off and the high speed turn is too low, but no testing on these has been done yet. There's some areas where the aircraft overperforms actually - I have multiple flight test and pilots manuals stating that the max dive speed of the aircraft is 485 MPH, which would be 780 KPH, not the listed 860 KPH.

 

Anyway, with time and testing, the FM will be checked as closely as possible, errors noted, and a package will be written to 1CG. Hopefully it can then be corrected like the Fw-190 was. 

 

I agree, But I don't believe anymore.....who wants to play this game, will have to get used to this FM ...

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I agree, But I don't believe anymore.....who wants to play this game, will have to get used to this FM ...

Changes come slowly, but the Devs are definetly reasonable People. The reason the 190 FM is porked right now, were Documents and sources provided by the community.

The 190 FM will be reworked again for Spring 2017 and once again, through the community. 

The 109s Prop will be adjusted to historical values with Sources and Documents provided by the community. 

The Yak-Flaps were changed after a demonstration by Members of the Community.

The Yaw-Roll behaviour has been adjusted due to community input. 

The MiG-3 3D Model was changed after community input. 

 

 

And I am quite sure the P-40 will get some Love as well in the future. 

I don't see the reason for your disbelief. 

[Gambit21]

Yep - I'm confident as well.

They're not out to intentionally do the wrong thing...patience.

 

That said I think I'll spend a bit more time in the P-40.

It's a sweet bird.

[JAGER_Batz]

Changes come slowly, but the Devs are definetly reasonable People. The reason the 190 FM is porked right now, were Documents and sources provided by the community.

The 190 FM will be reworked again for Spring 2017 and once again, through the community. 

The 109s Prop will be adjusted to historical values with Sources and Documents provided by the community. 

The Yak-Flaps were changed after a demonstration by Members of the Community.

The Yaw-Roll behaviour has been adjusted due to community input. 

The MiG-3 3D Model was changed after community input. 

 

 

And I am quite sure the P-40 will get some Love as well in the future. 

I don't see the reason for your disbelief. 

 

I'll only believe when I see the changes.

Mainly, with relation the FM's

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I'll only believe when I see the changes.

Mainly, with relation the FM's

Well, the Devs definetly have established a Pattern of listening to the community. You have to give them credit for that. 

The other Pattern is that none of these Changes come quickly. 

[ACG_KaiLae]

Changes come slowly, but the Devs are definetly reasonable People. The reason the 190 FM is porked right now, were Documents and sources provided by the community.

The 190 FM will be reworked again for Spring 2017 and once again, through the community. 

The 109s Prop will be adjusted to historical values with Sources and Documents provided by the community. 

The Yak-Flaps were changed after a demonstration by Members of the Community.

The Yaw-Roll behaviour has been adjusted due to community input. 

The MiG-3 3D Model was changed after community input. 

 

 

And I am quite sure the P-40 will get some Love as well in the future. 

I don't see the reason for your disbelief. 

 

Especially when you consider that them redoing anything goes both against the confirmation bias they have to have on the research they did to develop what we have, and also the fact that any change requires an engineer to do work to correct it. Time means they're not working on something else. This means it costs them money to do that.

 

In other words, they don't have an agenda. But everyone should realize that "it's broke, please fix it" is about as useless as lactation glands on a male camel. The only thing that gets their attention is "Y is incorrect. We have tests a, b, c, d1, d2, e, and f that show it is Aa in game, where in these 7 RL documents it should be Ab". Only measurable facts, shown through repeated reliable testing, that are not in accordance with reliable real life documents and that can be argued against any contradictory evidence are of any worth. 

 

The thing that I find odd is that many have complained, but I don't see many working towards doing the above to get the problem precisely defined so it can be corrected. My background is basically electrical engineering; I would not normally take something like this on because I simply don't know very much about aerodynamic engineering. However I'm very good at fixing problems, and if no one else is going to I guess I'll have to get the ball rolling. I'd like to thank the actual aerodynamic engineers that I've been using to explain what needs to be done because it couldn't be done without them.

 

As for time frame, there's a saying: It can be done quickly, cheaply, and well. You only get to choose 2 out of the last 3 however. I'll add that no one providing input on this is being paid, so keep that in mind.

 

By the way when we have either proved or disproved the lift coefficient as being incorrect, I plan on going through engine settings as an investigation area. I'd welcome your input there Klaus as I know you've already looked into this before. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

the fact that any change requires an engineer to do work to correct it. Time means they're not working on something else. This means it costs them money to do that.

 

They are doing it in combination with the A-5. 

 

Well, there are a couple of possible culprits as I see it and I don't know how to confirm any of them conclusively. 

Prop Thrust too low at low Speeds. If this happens you simply cannot recuperate enough of the energy lost in a turn. 

Lift-AoA is borked, so it produces too little lift going through the AoA, meaning more Drag. Since Stall behaviour is mostly correct though that seems less likely. 

It could just be that at medium angles of attack the wing produces too little lift, while catching up at high AoAs again. 

 

I'll fly it, try some stuff out and report back.  

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

  about as useless as lactation glands on a male camel.

You never know some folks might find those useful!  

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

You never know some folks might find those useful!  

 

My name is Ghost and I like to party. 

[ACG_KaiLae]

They are doing it in combination with the A-5. 

 

Well, there are a couple of possible culprits as I see it and I don't know how to confirm any of them conclusively. 

Prop Thrust too low at low Speeds. If this happens you simply cannot recuperate enough of the energy lost in a turn. 

Lift-AoA is borked, so it produces too little lift going through the AoA, meaning more Drag. Since Stall behaviour is mostly correct though that seems less likely. 

It could just be that at medium angles of attack the wing produces too little lift, while catching up at high AoAs again. 

 

I'll fly it, try some stuff out and report back.

 

Stall it at 3000m with zero power. Note the stall speed. I've already done this but I'd like independent confirmation of what speed you get. Use 100% fuel and ammo.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Stall it at 3000m with zero power. Note the stall speed. I've already done this but I'd like independent confirmation of what speed you get. Use 100% fuel and ammo.

90-93mph on the Cockpit Instrument, 145-148 on the HUD. Average after 20 Stalls. 

Edited December 8, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Dakpilot]

Would these tests and results be better in the P-40 performance thread in the FM section

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25323-p-40-turn-rateflight-model-check/

 

better to keep in one place for reference and avoid duplicated/cross thread conversations?

 

Just a thought

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[ACG_KaiLae]

Yep

[Frequent_Flyer]

Yep, you got me. I am actually a closet Russian who is not ashamed at all to show his bias. I wasn't actually born in America to American parents and served in the US military for six years. I guess it wasn't actually me who spent my own time scouring every website I could find for P-40 test data to hand along to the team. And, I guess that's not a photo of a German plane that hangs above my desk and an autographed photo of an American paratrooper to my left. Nope, not me. It must be some other Luke who has an interest in all sides who fought in the war. 

 

Oh wait, and is that an Iron Cross and a stack of German flight manuals I see above the monitor there?

 

IMG_20161204_222320.jpg

 

Good grief, you aren't even that good of a troll. 

 

 

I'm sure they did, but to conclude they they preferred the P-63 based on zero supporting evidence is crazy talk.  

No Trolling here, you evince little knowledge beyond the usually bravado of an individual who  is clearly biased . You have yet to provide any proff the VVS had a better fighter than the P-39. Your comments so far " you have called me out " and your screenshot of a picture of a 109D are meaningless. You have no coherent response so, I am a troll. The most sucessfull VVS fighter pilots considered it superior. Stalin refused to honor a number of the most successful pilots who flew it with multiple " Hero of the Soviet Union " and I quote " because it would glorify foreign equipment ".So, clearly he thought the American fighter superior and gave little credit to the VVS pilot. Further educate yourself ,a screen shot of a couple of pictures does not qualify. 

[Dakpilot]

No Trolling here, you evince little knowledge beyond the usually bravado of an individual who  is clearly biased . You have yet to provide any proff the VVS had a better fighter than the P-39. Your comments so far " you have called me out " and your screenshot of a picture of a 109D are meaningless. You have no coherent response so, I am a troll. The most sucessfull VVS fighter pilots considered it superior. Stalin refused to honor a number of the most successful pilots who flew it with multiple " Hero of the Soviet Union " and I quote " because it would glorify foreign equipment ".So, clearly he thought the American fighter superior and gave little credit to the VVS pilot. Further educate yourself ,a screen shot of a couple of pictures does not qualify. 

 

The only trolling here is you, perhaps you could start a separate thread titled:

 

The P-39 was the most superior fighter in VVS arsenal during WWII

 

and state your reasons for believing this

 

the fact that Stalin was a mad evil dictator is well known

 

the fact that he did not want to give much/any credit to foreign equipment for propaganda reasons is not news 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Brano]

One of the most decorated,3xHSU Sasha Pokryshkin flew Airacobras for the large part of his career till 1945. He wasnt shot for refusing to rearm his 9.GIAD with domestic La-7 or Yak-3. There is a long list of other HSU flying cobras like Gulaev,Rechkalov,Klubov,Glinka brothers...9.GIAD had 28 aces with over 15 kills each. Receiving Golden Star of HSU was the highest honour reward you could get in USSR.

It also happened from whatever reasons,that some pilots didnt receive awards they were supposed to. Same happened in every airforce fighting in WW2. Lydia Lytviak,a woman ace of aces got Golden Star of HSU only posthumously in 1990.

Land-lease help was much appreciated during war years and it was only after cold war started when things went south. For obvious reasons. But its clear that some people still live and think like in 1950s even we have 2016 in calendar.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Brano

[69th_chuter]

There's a lot of interesting stuff at    https://www.warbirdforum.com/    - highly recommended.

 

 

Part of an interview with General-Major Nikolay Gerasimovich Golodnikov (retired) about the P-40B/C is quoted at    https://www.warbirdforum.com/russp40.htm     and no doubt represents his experience while not necessarily being a blanket statement of overall operational techniques used by Russians in general (I guess).

 

Q. and all in all, there is a serous difference in evaluations. Could it be from the different Soviet and Allied tactics?

Golodnikov: Main difference in the assesment of P-40's combat capabilities comes from that we and Allies had completely different exploitation of the aircraft. They use it as written in manuals, from letter to letter. We, as I said before, had a main rule is to take from the machine everything possible. How much "everything" is, it did not write in manuals, and even airplane designer didn't anticipate. This appears in combat. Everything said above goes for Aircobra, too. Have we flown them how Americans wrote it in the manual, we would all got shot down. It was a dud as the fighter aircraft on "birth" regime. On our regimes we had a equal combat with either "Me's" or "Fw's", but it would have meant 3-4 combats with subsequent engine change.

 

One (that would be me) can't help but wonder exactly what that means and how to actually quantify any of it.

[Dakpilot]

There's a lot of interesting stuff at    https://www.warbirdforum.com/    - highly recommended.

 

 

 

 

One (that would be me) can't help but wonder exactly what that means and how to actually quantify any of it.

 

As you say it is very hard to actually quantify it, there is a lot said in all four pages of his (Golodnikov) interviews

 

I think a lot what he says is about constantly flying at full available power, i.e. at much higher settings and always maintaining combat speed to be ready for action, rather than what would be recommended as cruise power.

 

This in itself is a big divergence from standard practice in the West and what is recommended in the 'manual'

 

In MP this is not a tactic that proves valid, as most people fly at very high/non historic power settings all the time due to lack of fuel and engine longevity considerations

 

He mentions flying at higher prop revolutions and using full rich to get higher power, but never mentions using very high MP 'boost', later he says only once did he push P-39 throttle through 'the wire' to access higher boost available

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Stig]

As a perspective from the other side, the Germans shot down over 1700 P-40's and over 1600 P-39's.

[Crump]

 

 

The thing that I find odd is that many have complained, but I don't see many working towards doing the above to get the problem precisely defined so it can be corrected.

 

That is what is very frustrating.  The steps required have been put out to the community and only a very few are doing much about it with you leading the practical effort. 

As you say it is very hard to actually quantify it, there is a lot said in all four pages of his (Golodnikov) interviews

 

I think a lot what he says is about constantly flying at full available power, i.e. at much higher settings and always maintaining combat speed to be ready for action, rather than what would be recommended as cruise power.

 

This in itself is a big divergence from standard practice in the West and what is recommended in the 'manual'

 

In MP this is not a tactic that proves valid, as most people fly at very high/non historic power settings all the time due to lack of fuel and engine longevity considerations

 

He mentions flying at higher prop revolutions and using full rich to get higher power, but never mentions using very high MP 'boost', later he says only once did he push P-39 throttle through 'the wire' to access higher boost available

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Exactly.

 

The tactical recommendations to counter the FW-190 mirror this conclusion:

 

 

The VVS was not violating the aircraft operating limits.  They simply accepted the increased fuel burn and wear on the engine running it at higher cruise power settings up to and including the approved maximum continuous limitation.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Which we cannot do in the sim.

 

So now the shoe is on the other foot.  The reality being that these aircraft, and the P39, were run very hard all the time, and P40s in service in other theaters were done so as well, to much higher manifold levels for extended periods, and running them by the book was the a-historical way to operate the aircraft.

 

So what should we consider is arcade/unreal now?

 

Is it a simulation if we cannot run the aircraft as they were operated historically?

 

This is a very important question as the title seeks to move to other theaters where running the aircraft above the numbers that the fobbits back home say to use was commonplace.

Edited December 10, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[Farky]

 

The VVS was not violating the aircraft operating limits.  They simply accepted the increased fuel burn and wear on the engine running it at higher cruise power settings up to and including the approved maximum continuous limitation.

 

 

The VVS WAS violating the aircraft operating limits, Mr. Golodnikov said it very clearly in this interview. The question is what is it mean, what limits did they ignored, how exactly did they use the engines. The problem is that nobody knows, just simple as that. We can guess, but it will be still just a guess, absolutely worthless for simulation of the engine in the game.

[Dakpilot]

The VVS WAS violating the aircraft operating limits, Mr. Golodnikov said it very clearly in this interview. The question is what is it mean, what limits did they ignored, how exactly did they use the engines. The problem is that nobody knows, just simple as that. We can guess, but it will be still just a guess, absolutely worthless for simulation of the engine in the game.

 

There is a lot in the full interview, better read with google translate from original Russian, it is an interpretation to say they violated limits, but that is not what I took from it as regards MP, also with regards to P-39

 

There are many other VVS P-40 pilot memoirs/interviews, lots of mentions of using Russian fuel exclusively (Leningrad region)

 

one of the problems with P-40 is there is so often little info on which model they are talking of (West and East) the P-40E1 was probably the least used in Russia, and at a timeframe where they were in combat for very short time due to heavy combat losses

 

There is no question that a better way could be developed to more represent engine limitations as more realistic, but to do it in such a way that does not make it even less historic when applied to multiplayer is very problematic

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited December 10, 2016 by Dakpilot

[Crump]

 

 

The VVS WAS violating the aircraft operating limits,

 

I really do not think so Farky.  I do not get that sense from reading the original russian.

 

 

 

 

There is a lot in the full interview, better read with google translate from original Russian, it is an interpretation to say they violated limits, but that is not what I took from it as regards MP   Cheers Dakpilot

 

That is how I interpret it too.  That fits with all my aeronautical experience as well.

 

The VVS did not fly their patrols in "Auto Lean" pulling 19inHG@1950rpm in maximum range cruise as was recommended to conserve fuel for combat.  Instead, they flew their patrols with an eye on maintaining the fastest airspeed possible when in an area they might encounter enemy fighters.

 

 

 

 

Which we cannot do in the sim.

 

You cannot run the Allison V1650F3R (37.2inHG@2600rpm) in auto rich at maximum continuous without incurring a penalty or having the engine damaged?