P40 engine managment

[Stig]

I don't know what variant of the P-40 the 33rd FG was flying in their defense of Thelepte, for which the unit was awarded a DUC, Nor do i know what the pilots' opinion was of how the P-40 compared to the Bf 109; if they considered it to be about an equal match, that would be understandable.

 

 

The 33rd Fighter Group in Tunisia and Algeria, December 1942 – 6 February 1943
By Andrew Arthy

Introduction
The 33rd Fighter Group took part in the initial Operation TORCH landings in Morocco and Algeria on 8 November 1942. In early December the unit was sent forward to frontline airfields at Youks-les-Bains, and then Thelepte, near the Tunisia/Algeria border. Here, the 31st FG engaged the Luftwaffe on a daily basis, and was on the end of many bombing and strafing raids. It was a harsh baptism for an unblooded unit. The below statistics demonstrate the toll taken on the Group before it was withdrawn from combat on 6 February 1943.

Aerial Victory Claims by the 33rd FG, December 1942 – 6 February 1943
Type Destroyed Probable Damaged
FW 190 8- 0- 4
Bf 109 5 -1 -4
Ju 88 14- 0- 2
He 111 2- 0- 0
Ju 87 5- 2- 4
Total fighters claimed 13- 1- 8
Total claimed 34- 3- 14

Actual Luftwaffe losses to the 33rd FG, December 1942 – 6 February 1943
Type Lost Damaged
FW 190 1- 0
Bf 109 1- 0
Ju 88 12- 1
He 111 0- 0
Ju 87 2-3 *
Hs 129 2- 0
Total fighters actually lost 2- 0

Total actually lost: 18- 4 **

* I don’t have all the Ju 87 losses
** In addition a Beaufighter was accidentally shot down on 13 January 1943

Luftwaffe Pilot/Crew Losses to the 33rd FG, December 1942 – 6 February 1943
Aircraft Type Killed Missing/POW Wounded
FW 190 1 0 0
Bf 109 1 0 0
Ju 88 0 10* 2
Ju 87 2 0 3
Hs 129 1 0 0_
Total lost 5 10 5

* Some of these were probably killed

33rd FG Pilot Losses, December 1942 – 6 February 1943
Cause Killed Missing/POW Wounded
Fighters 10 0 1
Anti-aircraft fire 2 0 0
Other/unknown 3 3 0_
Total pilots lost 15 3 1

33rd FG Aircraft Losses, December 1942 – 6 February 1943 *
Cause Lost Damaged
Fighters 15- 9
Anti-aircraft fire 2- 7
Bombing & strafing 2- 3
Other 6- 2
Total aircraft lost 25- 21

* Still quite incomplete, especially damaged aircraft

Conclusion
As can be seen, despite some success against Ju 87s, and especially against Ju 88s, the 33rd Fighter Group struggled in combat with the major German fighter types, the FW 190 and Bf 109. The American pilots shot down just two of the Luftwaffe fighters, in exchange losing 15 P-40s to the Bf 109 and FW 190.

However, the Group did stop the daylight Ju 88 raids on Thelepte airfield, which was a significant achievement, allowing the American units based there to better support the ground fighting.

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

During the creation of Soviet fighter planes, the priority was to obtain high speed and maneuverability, and all other qualities were considered to be of secondary importance. In the P-40, special attention had been paid to such "lesser qualities" as firepower of armaments (a one-second salvo of its guns was 1.5 times heavier than that of a MiG-3), protection (38mm frontal armored glass, seat-back armor), durability of the airframe (even during forced landings pilots normally were uninjured), comfort (precise, reliable radio communications, good vision from the cockpit with clear canopy glass and a reliable canopy jettison mechanism [7], and a comfortable cabin), and great (up to 1100 km) flight range. Therefore despite its deficiencies in speed and maneuverability, its sluggishness even in climbs (in this basic characteristic it fell behind the Bf-109, Yaks, and LaGGs), in the hands of experienced aerial warriors this aircraft turned out to be a threatening weapon. A special set of "group tactics" was developed for its use, in which an insufficiency of aircraft was compensated for by good coordination within flights and echelonment by altitude [8]. Therefore a majority of the victories in the 126th IAP were group victories: HSU S. G. Ridnyy (AN965)-9 personal plus 17 in group; HSU V. G. Kamenshchikov-7 + 10; and regiment commander V. M. Naydenko-5 + 11 [9]. Twelve pilots became aces (five or more victories), and 31 pilots of the regiment were awarded orders and medals for the battle for Moscow.

Edited December 13, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[HR_Zunzun]

Very true but, on the other hand, the 33rd very first combat missions were on November-December 1942. Basically was a very inexperienced Fighter group. That has at least the same importance than the planes they were using with regards the results they were getting. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3136

 

A Lot of Talk about Spinning. 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Stig]

Very true but, on the other hand, the 33rd very first combat missions were on November-December 1942. Basically was a very inexperienced Fighter group. That has at least the same importance than the planes they were using with regards the results they were getting. 

 

That is not the point, though. They thought they were scoring 1-1 against German fighters, when in fact they were being beaten 1-7. If you only look at what the one side's claims/ is credited with, without looking at what the other side actually lost, you can get a pretty distorted view of how well a particular aircraft performed against another. 

[Dakpilot]

 

Pic of 33rd FG and 60th FS Taking off from USS Chenango to participate in OP Torch after transport from US

 

From the top engine cowling you can tell is a Merlin engined P-40F and from the position of horizontal stabilizer a late long tail

 

some of the early F and K were produced with the last E type airframes before standardisation with long tail

 

After Midway is released we can try with the P-40 in game 

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[ICDP]

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

 

The biggest complaint of some Soviet airmen was its poor climb rate and problems with maintenance, especially with burning out the engines. VVS pilots usually flew the P-40 at War Emergency Power settings while in combat, bringing the acceleration and speed performance closer to that of their German rivals, but could burn out engines in a matter of weeks

 

 

The biggest complaint of some Soviet airmen was its poor climb rate and problems with maintenance, especially with burning out the engines. VVS pilots usually flew the P-40 at War Emergency Power settings while in combat, bringing the acceleration and speed performance closer to that of their German rivals, but could burn out engines in a matter of weeks.

 

See how selective quoting works?

Edited December 13, 2016 by ICDP

[Guest deleted@50488]

Strangely the P40E in IL.2 requires practically no trim adjustments ( rudder ) when varying power and AoA...The ball is almost always centered.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The biggest complaint of some Soviet airmen was its poor climb rate and problems with maintenance, especially with burning out the engines. VVS pilots usually flew the P-40 at War Emergency Power settings while in combat, bringing the acceleration and speed performance closer to that of their German rivals, but could burn out engines in a matter of weeks.

 

See how selective quoting works?

 

This is irrelevant, because wear is not modeled in the game. It doesn't negate the rest of the sentence in any way. It's a clear indication that the P40 could fly at those high boost settings way longer then those 2 minutes it blows up in game

[Crump]

 

 

Would according to 'test' figures, the long tail and short tail have the same CL/max?

 

You mean the tails CLmax? or the Wings CLmax? It depends on the horizontal stab airfoil selection. 

 

A conventional tail proves lift in the opposite direction of the wing to Offset the pitch down tendency of the static margin.   The static margin is a function of the wings Clmax.  Tail design requirements are based off the wing design and not the other way around.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Strangely the P40E in IL.2 requires practically no trim adjustments ( rudder ) when varying power and AoA...The ball is almost always centered.

Try running actual Cruise Settings like 2300RPM and 30", 2400rpm and 37" etc.  The Ball will go off Center. Hold different modes for 2 Minutes each and not the Trim Changes necessary. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Dakpilot]

You mean the tails CLmax? or the Wings CLmax? It depends on the horizontal stab airfoil selection. 

 

A conventional tail proves lift in the opposite direction of the wing to Offset the pitch down tendency of the static margin.   The static margin is a function of the wings Clmax.  Tail design requirements are based off the wing design and not the other way around.

 

 I am not an aeronautical engineer, I was only thinking of wing CLmax

 

Somewhere I read that the Hawk 75 has same wing, and that all NACA test details for this are available at one of the big National air museums in U.S., I do not remember which or if this info is useful but some people wanted it,

 

I do not have the time/resources to find out or the knowledge to look for the right thing, but it may be clue, or nothing, and my memory is faulty (nothing new)

 

regardless the stall speeds seem fairly accurate so am not sure this avenue is really worth pursuing?

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

regardless the stall speeds seem fairly accurate so am not sure this avenue is really worth pursuing?

 

Aircraft in game can have an accurate stall speed and still have wrong CLmax 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Strangely the P40E in IL.2 requires practically no trim adjustments ( rudder ) when varying power and AoA...The ball is almost always centered.

 

This is the case for all of the aircraft it seems. I'm not going to lie - it doesn't seem realistic to me and its caused me to get "soft" on my rudder control.

[Crump]

 

 

 I am not an aeronautical engineer, I was only thinking of wing CLmax

 

It is complicated but the short answer is no, It will change but not in significant digits. 

 

CLmax of the aircraft will change based on the static margin.  Less downforce required means a higher CLmax and vice versa.  The design changes to the P-40 represent a change to the aerodynamic center of the design increasing the static margin to add stability.

 

That being said, tail design is based upon that design CLmax and any design changes would also be based upon that same design CLmax.  That is one of the reasons why making changes to the CG limits on an already built design is so difficult.

 

Those limits are fixed by design and based upon that design CLmax.

 

 

 

Somewhere I read that the Hawk 75 has same wing, and that all NACA test details for this are available at one of the big National air museums in U.S., I do not remember which or if this info is useful but some people wanted it,

 

Having the Hawk 75 design details or any other aircraft having the same airfoil selection would be very useful.  It is the airfoil selection that determines the design CLmax.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I have most of the NACA test documents for the Y1P36 that I obtained from the National Air and Space Museum, while helping research the FM for that aircraft for IL2 1946.

 

There is no mention of CL Max.  There is one doc I did not get and that covers it's airframe stress testing.  I don't know if that would have the Cl max figure or not.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Try running actual Cruise Settings like 2300RPM and 30", 2400rpm and 37" etc.  The Ball will go off Center. Hold different modes for 2 Minutes each and not the Trim Changes necessary. 

 

Ths Klaus, tried all of that, making sure the default trim setting were neutral, at various AoA and power settings, and NADA!

 

This is the case for all of the aircraft it seems. I'm not going to lie - it doesn't seem realistic to me and its caused me to get "soft" on my rudder control.

 

Yes Space_Ghost, it appears to affect the latest version of the game.  I notice it in all of the aircraft in BoS 7 BoM - either the code for the ball in the T/C changed, or the prop effects have been tuned down ( ? )

 

The same practically inexistant "ball displacements" calling for coordination, that were previously very noticeable in the 109s, and even in the Yak-1, are gone since some recente update :-/

[Farky]

Didn't I react to same questions not long ago Dakpilot? Little bit deja-vu, but never mind ...

 

 

In all I have read the long tail F, K and later models are mainly complimented on decent handling, but the E model specifically does not get the same praise.

 

I've never come across memoirs or any report complaining specifically about handling of P-40E in normal flight, with the exception of behavior in a dive. Which applies to all P-40s in general. Pilots did praise handling of P-40E, at least some of them -

 

 

 

Surely there were good reasons for the changes?

 

You mean for longer tail right? Reasons for this change were -

- issues with rudder, namely rudder lock and rudder force reversal

- difficult handling in dive

 

There is a NACA report about this topic (NACA Wartime Report L-547)

 

 

Was it unusual in a combat aircraft for it to be prohibited to do spins? this seems unusual, and did the later models also have this restriction, or only the E

 

Nothing unusual. Many combat aircraft had prohibited spinning, including such airplanes as Spitfire I, Hurricane I , Corsair or Lightning. As for later models of P-40 - Pilot's manual for P-40F/L do not prohibit spins, even with short-tail version, which is interesting. And for example manual for P-40N says " Intentional spinning is prohibited".

 

 

does anyone have an article or info directly comparing the E to later models,

 

I can perhaps dig out something, maybe not exactly info directly comparing the E to later models, but comparing long-tail and short-tail versions. If I remember well, they were basically the same according to pilots, long-tail model was slightly superior in handling during dive. If I can find it, I'll send you PM.
 

 

Am I correct in thinking that USAAF only flew long tail F and later models in WD and Med or have I got that wrong

 

Incorrect. Some USAAF units flew short-tail P-40Fs (at least 57th FG, 79th FG and 374th FG). Short-tail P-40s were regularly used by USAAF in MTO until autumn 1943.

 

 

and yes we all want a more realistically modelled P-40E, but just maybe what we secretly want is an F or an N, after all the E was the least used on Eastern front, and had short time as a 'fighter' in WD

 

I am sure, that I don't want secretly an F or an N, just P-40E modelled "right" (i.e. believably).

 

P-40Es were used as frontline fighter in WD (MTO) for some 18 months, not a short time.

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

As I understand it lift is not a "static" number but is it dependent on airspeed, yes?  Otherwise aircraft could hover at 0 airspeed.  

 

So the airfoil will make more lift the faster the aircraft goes, consequently, will any lift number necessarily be for a given airspeed?

[Cpt_Cool]

As I understand it lift is not a "static" number but is it dependent on airspeed, yes?  Otherwise aircraft could hover at 0 airspeed.  

 

So the airfoil will make more lift the faster the aircraft goes, consequently, will any lift number necessarily be for a given airspeed?

 

Correct, but the coefficient of lift is a dimensionless and "static" number. You can calculate the actual lifting force by applying the correct parameters of your wing in flight (density, velocity, and wing area) along with the coefficient of lift.  The same operation can be performed with drag. One of the benefits of using coefficients, is being able to work in the "realm of static numbers" to give a general idea of aircraft performance across a wide range of conditions. 

[Crump]

So the airfoil will make more lift the faster the aircraft goes, consequently, will any lift number necessarily be for a given airspeed?

 

In steady state flight, lift equals weight and a wing will only produce the amount of lift required.  The higher the velocity, the lower the angle of attack, the lower of coefficient of lift and the lower the velocity, the higher the angle of attack thus the higher the coefficient of lift.  Angle of Attack and coefficient of lift have a fixed direct relationship.  A wing will always stall at the same angle of attack.

 

For example, in order to safely land an aircraft you must have enough control authority to raise the nose and flare.  The most force the elevator will have to exert is at the most forward CG limit.  In an aircraft that is stalled on the landing gear, that surface area and elevator design is based upon the CLmax of the wing design.

 

So if an aircraft designer was unable to accurately predict and achieve the design CLmax then the aircraft would be unable to safely land.  The landing gear would be designed for the wrong impact forces as well.  In other words, a whole myriad of design issues would crop up as many of the aircraft structural, stability and control design, and basic ability to perform the functions the aircraft was designed to do would simply not work out.  Your take off and landing performance, landing gear design, tail design, weight the aircraft could carry, working airspeeds, and control would all be compromised.

 

That is why designers will go back to the drawing board immediately if there is an issue achieving the design coefficients of lift.

It is literally the most important aspect of aircraft design.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Thanks Gents.

[ACG_KaiLae]

Didn't I react to same questions not long ago Dakpilot? Little bit deja-vu, but never mind ...

 

 

 

I've never come across memoirs or any report complaining specifically about handling of P-40E in normal flight, with the exception of behavior in a dive. Which applies to all P-40s in general. Pilots did praise handling of P-40E, at least some of them -

 

 

 

 

You mean for longer tail right? Reasons for this change were -

- issues with rudder, namely rudder lock and rudder force reversal

- difficult handling in dive

 

There is a NACA report about this topic (NACA Wartime Report L-547)

 

 

 

Nothing unusual. Many combat aircraft had prohibited spinning, including such airplanes as Spitfire I, Hurricane I , Corsair or Lightning. As for later models of P-40 - Pilot's manual for P-40F/L do not prohibit spins, even with short-tail version, which is interesting. And for example manual for P-40N says " Intentional spinning is prohibited".

 

 

 

I can perhaps dig out something, maybe not exactly info directly comparing the E to later models, but comparing long-tail and short-tail versions. If I remember well, they were basically the same according to pilots, long-tail model was slightly superior in handling during dive. If I can find it, I'll send you PM.

 

 

 

Incorrect. Some USAAF units flew short-tail P-40Fs (at least 57th FG, 79th FG and 374th FG). Short-tail P-40s were regularly used by USAAF in MTO until autumn 1943.

 

 

 

I am sure, that I don't want secretly an F or an N, just P-40E modelled "right" (i.e. believably).

 

P-40Es were used as frontline fighter in WD (MTO) for some 18 months, not a short time.

I am rather obviously interested in any P-40E documentation. Is there a link to look at instead?

[Farky]

I am rather obviously interested in any P-40E documentation. Is there a link to look at instead?

 

Do you mean a link to NACA Wartime Report L-547 ? Of course there is a link - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092648.pdf

Link to this report is in P-40 turn rate/Flight model check thread at least twice btw.

 

[MiloMorai]

This excerpt from pilot interviews by Chris Shores and Hans Ring.

Prof. Dr. Ludwig Franzisket was Adjutant, then Staffelkapitän of the 1./JG 27, and one of the first three “Afrikans” to be awarded the Ritterkreuz:
“The appearance of the Tomahawks (in the Battle of Sollum, June 1941) was not very impressive. These units flew a very clumsy and tight formation, massed in immobile groups of thirty to forty aircraft. The tactics of the Bf 109s was to gain superior altitude very quickly and to dive down single-handed. The British squadrons answered only with an excited twisting and weaving. However it was a deadly mistake for a Bf 109 pilot to try and enter a dogfight with the Curtisses. I have seen the death of two or three comrades in dogfights with Curtisses, among them Leutnant Heinz Schmidt in June 1941.”
(Schmidt, a 6-victory ace of the 3./JG 27, was KIA 28.June 1941, 10km West of Capuzzo)

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

This excerpt from pilot interviews by Chris Shores and Hans Ring.

 

Prof. Dr. Ludwig Franzisket was Adjutant, then Staffelkapitän of the 1./JG 27, and one of the first three “Afrikans” to be awarded the Ritterkreuz:

“The appearance of the Tomahawks (in the Battle of Sollum, June 1941) was not very impressive. These units flew a very clumsy and tight formation, massed in immobile groups of thirty to forty aircraft. The tactics of the Bf 109s was to gain superior altitude very quickly and to dive down single-handed. The British squadrons answered only with an excited twisting and weaving. However it was a deadly mistake for a Bf 109 pilot to try and enter a dogfight with the Curtisses. I have seen the death of two or three comrades in dogfights with Curtisses, among them Leutnant Heinz Schmidt in June 1941.”

(Schmidt, a 6-victory ace of the 3./JG 27, was KIA 28.June 1941, 10km West of Capuzzo)

Tomahawks were 500kg lighter, with much better climb at regular power settings (3000ft/min against 2100 in the P-40E.), equal Top Speed and more centered armament giving better agility. 

Not a good comparison to ingame P-40.