P40 engine managment

[Crump]

I do not see where he says they routinely violated any operating limitations on the VVS P-40's:

 

A. S. Was there a special high-output regime?

N. G. There was no supercharger per se, but it had a special regime called “full rich”—which delivered an enriched fuel mixture. This capability was employed to achieve especially high output, and this system was not abused. The mixture selector had three positions. MIN [minimum] was for economical flight. AUTO RICH was for normal flight. FULL RICH was for maximum power. The majority of flights were executed on AUTO. Over the ocean or during routine patrols we normally placed the selector at a position midway between AUTO and MIN. This was both economical and enabled us to maintain sufficiently high speed.

A. S. Could these regimes be used at all altitudes?

N. G. Yes, all altitudes. The engine smoked a bit on FULL RICH, but the power was there.

A. S. Was this engine capable of higher altitudes than the Hurricane’s engine?

 

 

I did find this part interesting and wonder if this was included in BoS:

 

 

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.

A. S. Were two machine guns enough?

N. G. Yes, more than enough. I already told you how powerful they were.

Later they began to employ many P-40s as mast-top and light bombers. Our regiment had an air cover mission and our neighboring 78th Fighter Regiment was assigned mast-top bombing and ground support missions. When we began to be re-equipped with Cobras, we gave them our P-40s. The maintenance personnel installed Soviet-made bomb hangers on their P-40s to fit our bombs. To be more precise, the technicians replaced the American bomb hangers because Soviet bombs could not be hung on them. I recall that the fuselage bomb hanger was dual-purpose, to hang a bomb or an auxiliary fuel tank. The bomb hangers were easily changed; it took all of several hours. The American activation device was retained.

The P-40 carried a good bomb load—450 kg. This worked out to an FAB-100 under each wing and an FAB-250 under the fuselage. So now our comrades from the 78th Regiment flew out with bombs and at the moment of bomb drop we covered them to keep them from being attacked. After they dropped their bombs they were capable of defending themselves.

Our sight was American. Collimator. It was a normal sight.

No Soviet-made equipment was mounted on the P-40s except the bomb hangers.

A. S. Your P-40s did not have standard-caliber machine guns?

N. G. Not on ours.

A. S. So your P-40s did not have wing-mounted machine guns?

N. G. No. Ours had only the [nose-mounted] synchronized machine guns.

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part2.htm

[Dakpilot]

He is talking about Tomahawk/Warhawk P40B/C with standard 2 x engine cowling .50 cal 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Crump]

 

 

He is talking about Tomahawk/Warhawk P40B/C with standard 2 x engine cowling .50 cal 

 

Yes, too bad we do not have the P-40B/C.  They have the most personality IMHO of the P-40 series.

[Farky]

I do not see where he says they routinely violated any operating limitations on the VVS P-40's:

 

 

Right here -

 

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.

 

Just to be clear - he do not say anything about Manifold pressure and me neither. We just don't know what Golodnikov means by "our regimes" or "take from the machine everything possible". Is he talking about "overboost"? Or use of Combat power (5 min limit) for very long time, much longer than 5 minutes? Or about cruising on Maximum continuous power all the time? Or something else? We don't know and that is my point. 

 

 

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

 

Right, but Russian fuel was (if I remember well) almost equal to Lend-Lease fuel in terms of performance.

[Dakpilot]

Right here -

 

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.

 

Just to be clear - he do not say anything about Manifold pressure and me neither. We just don't know what Golodnikov means by "our regimes" or "take from the machine everything possible". Is he talking about "overboost"? Or use of Combat power (5 min limit) for very long time, much longer than 5 minutes? Or about cruising on Maximum continuous power all the time? Or something else? We don't know and that is my point. 

 

 

Right, but Russian fuel was (if I remember well) almost equal to Lend-Lease fuel in terms of performance.

 

You are right there is no way to tell, but the fact he specifically mentions the one time using high boost during his time in  P-39 gives food for thought that this was not common, at least in his experience anyway 

 

There is another interview with VVS pilot who mentions specific use of overboost on 3 occasions during his time with P-39 , but i now cannot remember which one

 

As far as Russian fuel, I understood it was lower octane than lend lease fuel, which I believe was U.S, sourced which was lower octane than equivalent British fuel used by RAF/RAAF/SAAF in WD

 

But I am no expert on this subject

 

there are examples of VVS pilots talking of using lower MP regime in P-39 when using local fuel compared to when using lend lease fuel from drums

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Crump]

Just to be clear - he do not say anything about Manifold pressure and me neither. We just don't know what Golodnikov means by "our regimes" or "take from the machine everything possible". Is he talking about "overboost"? Or use of Combat power (5 min limit) for very long time, much longer than 5 minutes? Or about cruising on Maximum continuous power all the time? Or something else? We don't know and that is my point. 

 

I agree that is no definitive proof one way or the other.  There are courses of action that are more likely than others when it comes to airplanes.  I do not think it is just not very likely there was systemic violations of operating limitations.  Anything below that maximum continuous is not part of the airworthiness and comes down to an opinion of best practices.

 

 

 

Have we flown them how Americans wrote it in the manual, we would all got shot down.

 

Is not a statement of overboosting from what I can see.  It simply means they did not operate them as it is written in the manual.  The P-40 Specific Operating Instructions chart list's "Desired cruise" at 60% and 67% power.  At that power settings, the cruise speed is ~130mph slower than a maximum continuous power cruise. 

 

That is a huge difference in an enemy's ability to overtake and bounce your flight.  That 130 mph speed buys you time to discover the enemy flight closing on your six oclock.

It is Golodnikov and not Dakpilot that said the second quote....

[SCG_motoadve]

In real life If you had a 109 on your tail, anyone would have applied full power to try to escape , and not caring that the engine life will be reduced.

 

In the game you try this and you end up blowing the engine.

 

In real life you might get away at full power and return to base.

 

Bottom line:  Blowing the engine so easily is unrealistic.

[Crump]

 

 

In real life If you had a 109 on your tail, anyone would have applied full power to try to escape , and not caring that the engine life will be reduced.

 

In real life it is not engine life that gets reduced...it is the pilots.

 

Limitations are based on the physics of flight and exceeding them carries a real risk of immediate and catastrophic failure.

 

 

 

In the game you try this and you end up blowing the engine.

 

You should get the full 5 minutes and then some fudge factor in the game. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Yet the Allison was operated for 20 minutes+ at 72 inches in the Pacific and North Africa and still got the pilots home.

 

Honestly guys, this constant round and round about the P40, and soon the P39 and Spitfire will go nowhere.   The devs have their ways set in stone and don't care about the player base beyond their homeland one little bit.

 

Jason, I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but I've been around since the beginning of IL2 and frankly am tired of this nonsense.

 

Allied aircraft will never get an honest representation here.

 

When flying Russian sim, fly Russian plane,   It's the only way to have any fun at all.

 

I'm out.

[LukeFF]

[Dakpilot]

Fair enough, but I don't believe it has anything to do with allied aircraft intentionally being given a hard/negative time

 

First I very much doubt you would find a P40 E in 42 being regularly operated at 72" for 20 mins but anyway,

 

But if we were to allow that, however unlikely, in game the P-40 will have such a performance boost that it will always be operated at 72" probably for 30 mins, as long as most MP flights last

 

Everybody will now fly the very well performing P-40E  which would probably be on par with 109G2 and in some ways out perform it

 

We know historically that this is simply not correct for a 1941 era P-40

 

The same situation will be for P-39 with even more leeway for performance increase 

 

If lax engine limits are allowed, Luftwaffe cannot be ignored either, now the 109F4 will have to have the same rules applied as will the FW 190, 

 

Multiplayer is reduced to some sort of arcade with everyone blasting around the skies at full throttle in a very unhistorical manner 

 

As it is overall comparative performance is reasonably good and accurate (with some errors that get patched), this would go completely

 

As much as I like P-40's, the E1 was not a first line fighter aircraft in 42/3 and certainly not in VVS hands, and it should not be in game

 

The results and success had in AVG hands with Hawk 81/82 and Desert Airforce with the later Merlin F and Kittyhawk II/III models in Western Desert were such vastly different situations that they should not be used as gauge as how the E model should perform in Russia

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited December 11, 2016 by Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Everybody will now fly the very well performing P-40E  which would probably be on par with 109G2 and in some ways out perform it

That's nonsense. Even full throttle full RPM it is nowhere near the G2.

 

Multiplayer is reduced to some sort of arcade with everyone blasting around the skies at full throttle in a very unhistorical manner 

Nonsense as well. IL2 1946, DCS and CloD, (even War Thunder) - so basically all other Sims out there have laxer, more realistic engine limitations. Noone is "blasting around arcadish", stop talking nonsense just to make a point that isn't there. 

 

As much as I like P-40's, the E1 was not a first line fighter aircraft in 42/3 and certainly not in VVS hands, and it should not be in game

Neither were the I16, Mig3 or Lagg3. And yet you can hold your own in those aircraft way better then in the P40.

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

Yet the Allison was operated for 20 minutes+ at 72 inches in the Pacific and North Africa and still got the pilots home.

 

Honestly guys, this constant round and round about the P40, and soon the P39 and Spitfire will go nowhere.   The devs have their ways set in stone and don't care about the player base beyond their homeland one little bit.

 

Jason, I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but I've been around since the beginning of IL2 and frankly am tired of this nonsense.

 

Allied aircraft will never get an honest representation here.

 

When flying Russian sim, fly Russian plane,   It's the only way to have any fun at all.

 

I'm out.

 

​You are not alone, if there'd been just the slightest sign from the developers side to look at the Alison, I and others would have pre-ordered Kuban already.

[Dakpilot]

That's nonsense. Even full throttle full RPM it is nowhere near the G2.

 

 

Read the whole post and premise of 72'' MP rather than take one sentence

 

I am not saying the P-40 is perfect as presented now

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Read the whole post and premise of 72'' MP rather than take one sentence

 

I am not saying the P-40 is perfect as presented now

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

 

I read the whole text, but this isolated sentence (you even made empty lines before and after) is - amongst others - bollocks.

 

Why do you always insinuate people want to see it flying at 72'' all day? Don't get it. 

[Dakpilot]

I read the whole text, but this isolated sentence (you even made empty lines before and after) is - amongst others - bollocks.

 

Why do you always insinuate people want to see it flying at 72'' all day? Don't get it. 

 

I admire and accept you are debating in a second language, but why do you always have to get so angry?

 

It is a beautiful sunny day here, fish eagles are soaring over the mountain, I am not in the mood for arguing, take a chill pill and enjoy your day

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

1. That's nonsense. Even full throttle full RPM it is nowhere near the G2.

 

2. Nonsense as well. IL2 1946, DCS and CloD, (even War Thunder) - so basically all other Sims out there have laxer, more realistic engine limitations. Noone is "blasting around arcadish", stop talking nonsense just to make a point that isn't there. 

 

3. Neither were the I16, Mig3 or Lagg3. And yet you can hold your own in those aircraft way better then in the P40.

1. At full blast the ingame P-40 will do 575 on the Ground in Autumn. The G-2 will do 528. The P-40 will easily do 22+m/s, same or better than G-2.

At full blast the P-40 is insance

 

2. Either the Germans Dominated in these, or as in War Thunder the Matchmaking puts a 3 year difference between the german and russian Aircraft. A Yak-3 will be matched the same as a 109F-4. 

 

3. Opposite Philosophies. Admittably the LaGG-3 seems to be Overmodelled in some ways. However, the MiG ad I-16 have enormously bad High Speed Handling, where the P-40 excells. 

The P-40 also has Armor and Firepower and you can pull Black-Out turns to way lower speeds in it. 

You should also be conscious about your fuel load, and never enter Dogfights with a filled rear fuselage tank. 

 

On it's own the P-40 is rather weak, but it's deadly when cooridnated, since a single burst will normally seperate your enemies wings from his Aircraft, or his soul from his body. 

In many ways it's best flown like a Bf110. Treat it as a Zerstörer. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

1. At full blast the ingame P-40 will do 575 on the Ground in Autumn. The G-2 will do 528. The P-40 will easily do 22+m/s, same or better than G-2.

At full blast the P-40 is insance

 

2. Either the Germans Dominated in these, or as in War Thunder the Matchmaking puts a 3 year difference between the german and russian Aircraft. A Yak-3 will be matched the same as a 109F-4. 

 

3. Opposite Philosophies. Admittably the LaGG-3 seems to be Overmodelled in some ways. However, the MiG ad I-16 have enormously bad High Speed Handling, where the P-40 excells. 

The P-40 also has Armor and Firepower and you can pull Black-Out turns to way lower speeds in it. 

You should also be conscious about your fuel load, and never enter Dogfights with a filled rear fuselage tank. 

 

On it's own the P-40 is rather weak, but it's deadly when cooridnated, since a single burst will normally seperate your enemies wings from his Aircraft, or his soul from his body. 

In many ways it's best flown like a Bf110. Treat it as a Zerstörer. 

 

1. How do you get to this numbers? I tried the P40 quite some times full throttle full rpm, both against human and AI, testing conditions, and i find it is nowhere near the 109s.

 

2. The Germans are not dominating in Cliffs. They are also not dominating 1946. Only in parts, but that does reflect history. What does balance have anything to do with this? I don't get your point.

 

3. So you think the P40 in current state is as capable as the Mig3? I tend to disagree, but ok..oppinions

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

1. How do you get to this numbers? I tried the P40 quite some times full throttle full rpm, both against human and AI, testing conditions, and i find it is nowhere near the 109s.

 

2. The Germans are not dominating in Cliffs. They are also not dominating 1946. Only in parts, but that does reflect history. What does balance have anything to do with this? I don't get your point.

 

3. So you think the P40 in current state is as capable as the Mig3? I tend to disagree, but ok..oppinions

1. Controlled Testing. Just for Testing Purposes. For this one you have to make it unbreakable I think, so the engine doesn't quit after 30 Seconds. When the P-40 was first released you could run full blast at 585kph on the Ground for 2 Minutes and 30 seconds, but after an FM change it now will only do 575. 

Climb was simply insane above 300kph at these settings, below that the Prop has trouble, going to too coarse Prop Pitch and will not pull as well. 

 

2. The Germans are not Dominating War Thunder because the Match Maker is set up in a balanced, ahistorical way, pitting Emils against Yak-9s etc. 

And I've heard some really weird stories about Mission Makers and FM-Modders sqewing history in their favour. 

 

3. It all depends on what you want to do. The Mig and I-16 have seriously bad high speed control and dive speed, which means bouncing Bombers from difficult angles at high speeds is very difficult. The Non-existent frontal armor of both and the low ammo-count of the heavier ordonance doesn't make it any easier.

This is where the P-40 excells. It is a born Boomer, and even somewhat of a Zoomer. In a downward turn the P-40 is also very good. 

The only trouble arises when the germans decide they've had enough and climb. 

 

6./ZG26_Gielow has flown the P-40 a lot and is a more useful source of Information than me though. I'm just a lowly Groundpounder. 

[Dakpilot]

Right here -

 

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.

 

Just to be clear - he do not say anything about Manifold pressure and me neither. We just don't know what Golodnikov means by "our regimes" or "take from the machine everything possible". Is he talking about "overboost"? Or use of Combat power (5 min limit) for very long time, much longer than 5 minutes? Or about cruising on Maximum continuous power all the time? Or something else? We don't know and that is my point. 

 

 

 

 

There is another bit of info regarding "WEP'' high boost from Valeriy Romanenko

 

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

 

"It is true that initially the pilots attempted to improve its flight characteristics, primarily by using "war emergency power" during battle. They did this intuitively - if Soviet engines at maximum power roared like beasts, then the Allison only changed its tone slightly and everything seemed normal. The payment came due quickly, however. At "war emergency power" (all of 10 minutes with the Allison engine) the engine quickly wore out and the power fell off markedly. As a result (according to reports from the regiment engineer), over a period of a month the maximum speed of the Kittyhawks did not exceed 350 - 400 kmh. The regiment got rid of them at the first opportunity - on 27 April 1943 they were transferred to 16th Guards IAP (four serviceable aircraft with pilots). This regiment was fighting in Airacobras, and therefore the P-40E pilots gradually transitioned to them. The Kittyhawks were actively employed only in March and April, and in August were handed off to PVO.

 

I would suggest that the words "initially attempted" would indicate that this practice was not continued as standard practice, having a squadron of P-40's with max speed of 350-400kmh is rather useless

 

however I guess this is also a matter of interpretation

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

I would suggest that the words "initially attempted" would indicate that this practice was not continued as standard practice, having a squadron of P-40's with max speed of 350-400kmh is rather useless

I guess it suggests the pilots were more careful during cruising around.

However i am pretty sure if their life depended on it, they didn't hesitate to slam the throttle forward.

Is someone really thinking a human in mortal fear at a bad position in a fight would care a bit about engine limitations?

[Stig]

 

 

However i am pretty sure if their life depended on it, they didn't hesitate to slam the throttle forward. Is someone really thinking a human in mortal fear at a bad position in a fight would care a bit about engine limitations?

 

No, but that would apply to all humans in that situation, no matter what aircraft they are in. However, virtual pilots are not in mortal fear, so they won't care about engine limitations either, if they can get one more kill before the engine breaks down. There is quite a difference there.

[Dakpilot]

Quite honestly when you are in mortal fear with a 109 on your tail, it is too late, no amount of boost is going to help

 

You have already lost the fight, especially in a P-40, you are out of options

 

The whole "slam the throttle to get out of danger" is very War Picture Library or Commando 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

The whole "slam the throttle to get out of danger" is very War Picture Library or Commando

It actually happened quite often that pilots fled away full throttle.

There are stories about 190s fleeing from England the whole way over the channel in full throttle, 190 Jabos getting back to own territory on the eastern front with boost active all the way, a single Ta152 flying away from a big formation of Mustangs full throttle +MW50 all the way back. Nothing uncommon to use the biggest possible speed (full boost) to get away from a hostile supremacy. 

[kestrel79]

Would be cool to add a gameplay element that allows you to push the engine past it's limits like what you guys are stating happened in real life, but has consequences in the actual game.

 

Fly full throttle to evade a 109? Takes a little longer to spawn in at your base if you land because "extra repairs" were required on your engine...or your next sortie up your engine is more prone to failure because you pushed it last mission. Or if your base is resupplied by cargo planes you wouldn't have this penalty...would be a fun added element to the game?

[Venturi]

There is a perception that the P40 should not perform.

 

That is not true. The plane was equivalent to the 109E in most respects, and better than it in some.

 

The way to solve the problem of engine performance limits, as I've stated before, is to introduce randomness to engine failures.

 

It is easy to see how this could be applied with regards to the official manuals, and it is a realistic way to model engine longevity at the limits. Aircraft like the P40 would benefit greatly. Actually, just about any aircraft which had WEP ratings without automatic engine management would benefit greatly.

 

I don't understand the problem. ROF did this brilliantly.

 

Simplified, there are two major ways engines can fail: catastrophically as when overspeeding RPM (crank rod failure -> kaboom), or errosively, as with excessively high MP for long times (detonation -> combustion pressure loss).

 

Introduce random onset of these when meeting the criteria and beyond official operating limits.

 

This is not to say there are a lot of other things needing looking at with the P40:

Aerodynamic performance

Prop performance

3D modeling

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

The way to solve the problem of engine performance limits, as I've stated before, is to introduce randomness to engine failures.

DCS does this. I like it very much. 2 or 3 times i had my engine fail, and to date i don't know why. I can well live with that, and i am using the boost ratings pretty cautios, but if needed full boost as long as it is needed. Best system i think, alongside CloD, which works pretty similar. There would be a ton of other different game designs to model this better and more realistic then it is in BoX. 

[Venturi]

Yes, you don't dare abuse the engine without necessity because of the possibility of failure, but you're reasonably sure that if you really need to, you can run the chance.

[SCG_motoadve]

Quite honestly when you are in mortal fear with a 109 on your tail, it is too late, no amount of boost is going to help

 

You have already lost the fight, especially in a P-40, you are out of options

 

The whole "slam the throttle to get out of danger" is very War Picture Library or Commando 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

What would you have done in a P40  if it was you with a 109 behind you?

[ICDP]

There is a perception that the P40 should not perform.

 

That is not true. The plane was equivalent to the 109E in most respects, and better than it in some.

 

The way to solve the problem of engine performance limits, as I've stated before, is to introduce randomness to engine failures.

 

It is easy to see how this could be applied with regards to the official manuals, and it is a realistic way to model engine longevity at the limits. Aircraft like the P40 would benefit greatly. Actually, just about any aircraft which had WEP ratings without automatic engine management would benefit greatly.

 

I don't understand the problem. ROF did this brilliantly.

 

Simplified, there are two major ways engines can fail: catastrophically as when overspeeding RPM (crank rod failure -> kaboom), or errosively, as with excessively high MP for long times (detonation -> combustion pressure loss).

 

Introduce random onset of these when meeting the criteria and beyond official operating limits.

 

This is not to say there are a lot of other things needing looking at with the P40:

Aerodynamic performance

Prop performance

3D modeling

 

I agree up to a point, the P-40E engine limits in BoS are woeful right now.  This is not just a perception but there is plenty of evidence to suggest the limits in sim are too rigid.

 

Now contrary to this, the P-40 (all variants) like the P39, was considered a second rate fighter by western allies.  It was deemed unsuitable for Western Europe and if the P-40E was a match for a Bf-109E then it was well over 2 years too late.

 

109E, introduced in late 1938

P-40E introduced in mid 1941

 

So while an increase in engine limits will be welcome I do not believe it will transform the P-40 into the equal of the 109F or 190A.

 

I am not saying it's fine as is, just lets not push too far and expect a fighter that equals the Axis fighters.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I agree up to a point, the P-40E engine limits in BoS are woeful right now.  This is not just a perception but there is plenty of evidence to suggest the limits in sim are too rigid.

 

Now contrary to this, the P-40 (all variants) like the P39, was considered a second rate fighter by western allies.  It was deemed unsuitable for Western Europe and if the P-40E was a match for a Bf-109E then it was well over 2 years too late.

 

109E, introduced in late 1938

P-40E introduced in mid 1941

 

So while an increase in engine limits will be welcome I do not believe it will transform the P-40 into the equal of the 109F or 190A.

 

I am not saying it's fine as is, just lets not push too far and expect a fighter that equals the Axis fighters.

P-40E came first in December 1941. 

[Venturi]

Actually, the bf109 first flight was in 1935 and so was the Curtis P36, the basis of the P40. The P40 first flew in 1937.

 

The P40 was not considered second rate by the USAAF and others, who used it in frontline squadrons until 43 and beyond.

 

The 109E was used on the frontline until well into 41.

[Crump]

 

 

What would you have done in a P40  if it was you with a 109 behind you?

 

Break turn hard.....

 

A P-40 can maintain a higher angle of bank at a lower airspeed than a Bf-109. 

[Rolling_Thunder]

I'm no expert and I know this thread is about engine management but damn if I can keep the p-40 pointed at a target. Maybe the axis and Soviet aircraft had way better rudders but the P40 is all over the sky. Bouncing here there and everywhere but on target. Is this how it really was? Or is there a fix in the works? It's a damn shame because the 50cals in game are awesome.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The only reason that the P40 was considered to be poor in maneuver was because it was being compared to the very light, highly aerobatic Japanese fighters.

Edited December 11, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[Crump]

The only reason that the P40 was considered to be poor in maneuver was because it was being compared to the very light, highly aerobatic Japanese fighters.

 

 

 

The P-40 had excellent agility and was in the top 10% of World War II fighters in terms of lateral control.

 

The NACA only listed three designs during World War II which had better agility.  

 

The P-63A KingCobra, The clipped wing Spitfire, and the Focke Wulf FW-190.  

 

 

 

 

Allied AC rollrate.pdf

Comparison to the FW-190 tends to skew the viewpoint of other World War II designs.  It is simply a fact that the P-40 was the most agile USAAF fighter over much of its envelope.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I have a roll rate chart from America's Hundred Thousand, before the FW 190 came on the scene, the Hawk 75/81 was by far the best rolling fighter on the planet.

 

It really is an interesting aircraft,  not only could it maneuver quite well, it also could dive at very high speeds safely.

 

At least our in game version has the dive thing right.

[Crump]

Larry M Pistole was my neighbor and friend of the family.   I got a first edition signed copy when he published it and I grew up on tales of the AVG.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Pictorial-History-Flying-Tigers-Pistole/dp/0943522056

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Hawk 81 is, for me, the best looking of the entire series.

 

[Gambit21]

I have no technical knowledge on this subject AT ALL.

On the other hand I am well read, and I've never been left with the impression that pilots were immediately blowing up engines all over Russia, China and New Guinea when fire-walling the throttle to get out of a tight spot.

Worthless I know.