Can we talk about the p40?

[Bumfluff]

Ok. I know she was no world beater. She couldn't climb like the 109 or turn and burn like the yaks.

 

But was it really such a dog as portrayed in this game? Even with two guns removed and half fuel I find myself fighting just to keep her in the air. And more than a few moments at WEP blows the engine.

 

The p40 was well liked by pilots. And it was in service until the end of the war with the RAAF.

 

Thoughts?

[216th_Jordan]

Modelling Engine limits in a sim is what further complicates this issue. Il-2 BoX goes after the manual for reference, but IRL the P-40 was often flown well above it's limits.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

RL anecdotal pilot accounts are largely irrelevant when it comes to airplane performance in sim.

 

All that matters are the figures. This airframe is 3.8 tons! That's not a fighting weight unless you have at least 1700hp to boot!

 

Stick to 42mm mercury boost for your high power setting and the motor will do you fine my friend. 2600rpm for cruising around.

[Finkeren]

This has been discussed to death.

 

It all comes down to the modeling of engine limitations. I think most people agree, that the P-40s FM is pretty accurate.

 

On paper the P-40E is worse than the LaGG-3 on almost every parameter, so we surely shouldn't expect a great fighter, but I personally would like to see a less strict interpretation of the engine limits implemented (for the German planes as well.

[Custard]

Just whilst we're on the topic of the P-40 engine, was there really such a difference between the Allison V-1710-39 of the P-40E-1 and the Allison V-1710-63 of the P-39L-1?

 

As seen below the "-63 is far less restrictive in it's engine limitationsEither way it's good to see the P-39 won't be quite such a dog as the P-40.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Custard

[Finkeren]

Yeah the -39 is capped at 1150hp, while the -63 will give us 175hp more for a longer time on an airframe that's aerodynamically cleaner, weighs 3-400kg less.

 

I have no idea, how the P-39L will perform, but I think it's safe to assume, that it won't be no P-40.

[Asgar]

can we stop making new threads about the same topic every week? use the search function and read one of the 20 existing threads, same goes for all the Fw complaints btw

[BM357_TinMan]

...but I personally would like to see a less strict interpretation of the engine limits implemented (for the German planes as well.

I agree.  Granted, if you run the thing in the red line or yellow line without interruption, then somewhere slightly past the engineering specs, the engine is going to suffer damage.  Probably not just outright fail, like it does in this game, but be damaged.

 

However, if you dip in and out of combat (yellow) or Emergency (red), then you probably aren't going to damage the engine right at spec time limit, and you certainly aren't going to cause the engine to just DIE at spec'ed time.

 

I get the limits, I agree with the limits.  They were real, and had to be considered, however, the way they are implemented seems more arcadish then realistically representative.

[wtornado]

Modelling Engine limits in a sim is what further complicates this issue. Il-2 BoX goes after the manual for reference, but IRL the P-40 was often flown well above it's limits.

Every wartime pilot ran their planes above their limits.

 

I remember the pilots during the Battle Of Britain that knew what planes had better top speed,handling and horsepower

and choosing and hoping to chose those better performing planes and getting peeved when the good performing plane

would get lost in combat.

[Scojo]

Every wartime pilot ran their planes above their limits.

 

I remember the pilots during the Battle Of Britain that knew what planes had better top speed,handling and horsepower

and choosing and hoping to chose those better performing planes and getting peeved when the good performing plane

would get lost in combat.

 

Wow, You were there? just messing with you

 

What do you mean knew what planes were better? Do you mean different models or different planes of the same model? Such as one model of spitfire performing better than another spitfire of the same model

[Mmaruda]

Real life performance is really tricky to simulate - you would have to forgo raw science data and try to simulate some arbitrary stuff. I remember reading about some pilots obsessed with their plane polish so they would force the ground crews to rub that plane real smooth to reduce drag and supposedly, it made a substantial difference... However, how do you simulate that? A +20 bonus to speed, if you tick a box in the setup for a polished planes? Another thing would be paint itself - it did weigh quite a bit, especially the white one, since it was lead-based, so now... all people flying white planes get a weight penalty?

 

I think things like this are beyond a realistic level of simulation with current-gen software capabilities (not to mention how to code it and how much work it would require).

 

There is also the other side of the coin - bad quality control, faulty engines and such. Imagine, if you had random failures in the game - very realistic, but now thing of all the whining of people who fell out of the sky online, because of chance.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Mmaruda

[216th_Jordan]

Every wartime pilot ran their planes above their limits.

 

Well here is the (important) point, the Yak's and Lagg's Klimov engine was designed to not go over the limit.

Edited January 9, 2017 by 216th_Jordan

[Scojo]

Real life performance is really tricky to simulate - you would have to forgo raw science data and try to simulate some arbitrary stuff.

Not entirely. Sometimes things CAN seem arbitrary and sometimes based on quality a certain plane may underperform significantly, but they're usually the outlier. However, you're speaking more to tolerance than arbitrary difference.

 

All components for any mechanical or electrical system are designed to meet tolerance and when all of those components come together, the overall system will have a tolerance as well. This means each individual plane will perform differently, however if you take a large enough sample size of aircraft, they'll fall into a tolerance range on each spec. That could be simulated by giving each flight model component a tolerance. However, like you said, current software capabilities might not be able to handle that very well.

 

I was just surprised that pilots could really feel major differences between planes within their performance tolerances, and even so much so that they would be emphatic about wanting those planes. That's really interesting. Of course maybe in some cases it wasn't feel. I'm sure if the differences were large enough, it would be reflected in gauges too.

 

But I think you wouldn't want to simulate that. Like you said, some would get upset, also even though it's a sim, we fly it for enjoyment. I see no harm in giving everyone the same exact plane considering the goal is for that plane's FM to operate at specs that are likely the same specs the majority of that aircraft at the time had.

Edited January 9, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

More than enough Discussions on the P-40, just Check the FM Discussions. 

 

There is an ongoing effort by some there to get proper Documentation to prove that the P-40 should perform slightly better in terms of Lift Produced at high Angles of Attack.

 

If you have any actual Contributions to the topic of P-40 Performance put them here. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25323-p-40-turn-rateflight-model-check/

 

Just check the Forum before Posting.  

[[CPT]milopugdog]

It's not too slow. I got it to go to 300mph cruising on the deck yesterday. My friend in an La-5 was struggling to keep up.

 

Of course then I turned slightly and ruined it.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It's not too slow. I got it to go to 300mph cruising on the deck yesterday. My friend in an La-5 was struggling to keep up.

 

Of course then I turned slightly and ruined it.

Many people tend not to properly familiarize with the types the fly. The Cowling Flaps on the P-40 are an example. In normal Flight you can keep them almost entirely closed almost the entire time, but out of some stupid habit some people want to open them thus unneccessarily slowing down just becuse of stubborness. 

They forget to put it to Auto-Rich etc. 

 

I don't really get why people don't do at least a couple of Patterns in SP Quick Missions to get to know their Aircraft, maybe have a quick Dogfight against AI to get a feel. 

Nope, they just do their first flight in MP, burn their engine or something and then come and complain. 

[Guest deleted@50488]

I can't really comment on the way the engine limits are implemented, and I can't even compare the P-40 with any similar model I ever used in a simulator. The closest I was to a P-40 were the P51ds in FSX ( A2A ) and DCS, and those are considerably distinct...

 

So... I can only base my observations in my experience with the P-40e in IL.2 and I find it really difficult to call such an aircraft a good fighter, in any way I can try to take it, and even given my limited knowledge of CAM being assumed....

 

It requires a huge ammount of nose tail heavy trim  on takeoff, otherwise I will prop strike very easily, and once airborne it want's to nose down madly...

 

It woobles all around, before an after gear retraction, at almost any speed. It's a nightmare to fly without stalling, and extremelly unstable, particularly in yaw, which in IL.2 translates also to roll due to the probably overdone coupling ( that I am aware will be updated for one of the next patches and, who knows, might change this feel... )

 

It takes ages to gain any decent speed, and is I try to get high enough to use dive attacks, I usually get caught by the enemy during my painful climb....

 

Turning performance is also poor, so, only the gun platform looks good to me, but it goes away quickly :-/

 

 

I've read the real thing had problems with yaw stability, so I see this is probably correctly modelled in IL.2 ( ? ), but that feel of heaviness, that constant need for almost full "back trim" to be able to fly intrigues me ...

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I can't really comment on the way the engine limits are implemented, and I can't even compare the P-40 with any similar model I ever used in a simulator. The closest I was to a P-40 were the P51ds in FSX ( A2A ) and DCS, and those are considerably distinct...

 

So... I can only base my observations in my experience with the P-40e in IL.2 and I find it really difficult to call such an aircraft a good fighter, in any way I can try to take it, and even given my limited knowledge of CAM being assumed....

 

It requires a huge ammount of nose tail heavy trim  on takeoff, otherwise I will prop strike very easily, and once airborne it want's to nose down madly...

 

It woobles all around, before an after gear retraction, at almost any speed. It's a nightmare to fly without stalling, and extremelly unstable, particularly in yaw, which in IL.2 translates also to roll due to the probably overdone coupling ( that I am aware will be updated for one of the next patches and, who knows, might change this feel... )

 

It takes ages to gain any decent speed, and is I try to get high enough to use dive attacks, I usually get caught by the enemy during my painful climb....

 

Turning performance is also poor, so, only the gun platform looks good to me, but it goes away quickly :-/

 

 

I've read the real thing had problems with yaw stability, so I see this is probably correctly modelled in IL.2 ( ? ), but that feel of heaviness, that constant need for almost full "back trim" to be able to fly intrigues me ...

1. The P-40 is a distinctly different Aircraft from those available in DCS and FSX uses an ancient, highly simplified Physics Model. 

 

2. It isn't a particularly good fighter, but it works if you use it to it's advantages  and Coordinated Well. 

 

3. The Elevator Trim isn't very effective and clean really only ranges from 270 to 460kph. You also forget that the Landing Gear is quite long, with very large, draggy wheels which create a ton of Offset Drag, levering your Nose down. 

 

4. The Gear takes a long time to retract and it retracts asymetrically, that is why it wobbles around the Yaw axis during Gear Retraction. That is also why it wobbles around the Lateral Axis during Take-Off. 

4b. The Wobble is mainly due to the Stubby Tail and lacking Aileron Differentiation. It doesn't have the power to Self Stabilize like others do and the Adverse Yaw of the Ailerons. 

 

5. The Bad Acceleration is a simple consequence of the bad P/W ratio. 3.8 tons and 1000hp won't accelerate like 2.9 ton with 1200. And it's actually decent once you go into Combat Power. 

 

6. Against the Germans the P-40 couldn't use it's strengths the same way it could against the Japanese, given the vast Performance Difference of German and Japanese Aircraft.

 

7. I does turn quite nicely and likes to settle into turns unlike any other. At high Speeds it's a real Charm, but below 250kph it becomes wobbly. But it's incredibly stable and easy to manouver above 500kph. Downward turns are your friend, Upward Spiral Climbs not as much. 

 

Finally, flying at full fuel is like putting these on your plane. The Rear Tank should be empty when you start dogfighting. Otherwise that rear tank does the same Job as these suckers.

 

[Hartigan]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rki8tnsLodQ

 

I think a plane is quite well modelled when you look this video

[Sgt_Joch]

yes, the P40 has been debated endlessly, no need to start a new thread.

 

I only picked up the P40 recently, but do not think it is as bad as players make it out, you just have to play to its strengths:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25323-p-40-turn-rateflight-model-check/?p=430109

 

to add to my linked post, it is a world class slow speed turner, with a bit of flaps you can keep a stable turn going as slow as 200 kmh, that is Yak territory.

 

Now increasing engine time limits would undoubtedly help, but only in very low altitude fights. Because of its single stage supercharger, the P40 cannot hold a 56" boost above 2500 meters or a 42" boost above 4500 meters. 

 

A good 109 pilot just has to stay above 4000 meters and use its superior climb rate to stay above the P40 and attack when it has the advantage.

 

The best way to fight a 109 in a P40 is to climb even higher and bounce it from above. Increased engine time limits won't help you up there.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Sgt_Joch

[CUJO_1970]

Yes, please listen to the thread police and don't start any new threads. In fact, since most every subject has been at least touched on, there is no reason for anyone to start any new threads about anything, ever.

 

We should all just sit around using the search function and not talk. Not sure why some of you had the impression this was some type of forum or something.

[Bumfluff]

Many people tend not to properly familiarize with the types the fly. The Cowling Flaps on the P-40 are an example. In normal Flight you can keep them almost entirely closed almost the entire time, but out of some stupid habit some people want to open them thus unneccessarily slowing down just becuse of stubborness. 

They forget to put it to Auto-Rich etc. 

 

I don't really get why people don't do at least a couple of Patterns in SP Quick Missions to get to know their Aircraft, maybe have a quick Dogfight against AI to get a feel. 

Nope, they just do their first flight in MP, burn their engine or something and then come and complain.

 

Erm - no. Have done my time in single player with this bird. And it's not so easy to find previous threads on fm discussions on the p40.

[Gambit21]

It's pretty easy

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Erm - no. Have done my time in single player with this bird. And it's not so easy to find previous threads on fm discussions on the p40.

I fly that thing probably the most of any Aircraft in SP. At this point I feel very familiar with it and its Vices and I think it is amongst the most stable of all Aircraft ingame, virtually unstallable but certainly very Spinnable, but she recovers Spins all by herself very quickly.

Edited January 9, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[ShamrockOneFive]

Erm - no. Have done my time in single player with this bird. And it's not so easy to find previous threads on fm discussions on the p40.

 

This thread is right at the top of the FM discussions. It's literally the first item on the list. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25323-p-40-turn-rateflight-model-check/

 

If you do a search you'll reveal there have been quite a few discussions, many in this General Discussions forum, about the P-40 including this 6 pager which is on the 2nd page of the search results: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/26224-p40-engine-managment/?view=findpost&p=419551&hl=p%26%23820840

 

We've talked about the P-40 to death and while I'm not a fan of the folks saying that we can't bring it up for further discussion... there isn't too much else to talk about these days.

 

It does seem that the P-40 FM is pretty good although there is some interesting discussion about CL max values for the P-40. It will likely be a little more stable than it is when the rudder/roll flight model update (affecting all aircraft) is changed sometime later this year. The only other thing is really a philosophical debate regarding just how strict engine management values should be enforced and that's a pretty difficult one to do. Jason Williams did talk about the various options available to him and the team in the Q&A session. As I recall... its somewhere in the second hour but I couldn't tell you for sure. Listen to that here: 

 

I'd really love to see another P-40 sometime. A later model P-40M would be nice... I'd LOVE to finally fly a P-40N sometime.

Edited January 9, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[Feathered_IV]

Ok. I know she was no world beater. She couldn't climb like the 109 or turn and burn like the yaks.

 

Thoughts?

 

I think you need to get a clear understanding of what the phrase "turn and burn" actually refers to.

[LukeFF]

Yes, please listen to the thread police and don't start any new threads. In fact, since most every subject has been at least touched on, there is no reason for anyone to start any new threads about anything, ever.

 

We should all just sit around using the search function and not talk. Not sure why some of you had the impression this was some type of forum or something.

 

No one is saying to just sit around and not talk. Rather, it would be far more productive (and coherent) if people would use existing threads to discuss whatever it is they want to discuss. 

[ACG_KaiLae]

To the OP: The FM is in the process of being checked. There is some reason to suspect it may be deficient. However we need documentation we don't currently have to prove that. Even if we did, it takes a considerable amount of time to prove to 1CG that it's wrong, then for them to make a fix, based on what I'm seeing with the 190. In short, while steps are being made, don't expect anything soon.

[Sgt_Joch]

. There is some reason to suspect it may be deficient.

well no, that is not a fair statement. That is your personal opinion only.

 

Some here think there may be an issue, but after reading your 15 page thread and carrying out my own tests, I am not convinced there is anything fundamentally wrong with the FM.

 

The only real issue is whether the engine time limits are too restrictive, but that is an endless debate. I am starting to think Jason's suggestion is the best, make engine damage optional and the players who want to play that way can setup their own servers.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Sgt_Joch

[unreasonable]

To the OP: The FM is in the process of being checked. There is some reason to suspect it may be deficient. However we need documentation we don't currently have to prove that. Even if we did, it takes a considerable amount of time to prove to 1CG that it's wrong, then for them to make a fix, based on what I'm seeing with the 190. In short, while steps are being made, don't expect anything soon.

 

I would modify  "There is some reason to suspect it may be deficient."    to "There are some who suspect it may be deficient".

 

Actually I do not agree with those who want people to bung every P-40 related comment into either your FM thread or the other engine limits thread. These are both focused on specific issues and debated in fairly technical terms, as is right for the FM forum sub-section.  People adding general comments about handling, subjective feelings, pilot accounts may make these threads less focused and harder to follow without adding anything that is really testable.

 

Perhaps there should be, in the general section, a section divided by plane groups or individual types, where all these general discussions can go without the need for new threads? That would also make it easier to find the threads if you want to catch up with what has been said about a particular plane.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Some old Il-2 P40 lovers restraint to play BOS because they can't accept flight model of it. well i can't belive that is so fundamentally different from old series, is it? Personally i like it because i feel it's mass, contrary to he111 where it feel like fether. Btw i'dont fly it in mp & alone i would like to try it in numbers but no one want to

[ShamrockOneFive]

Some old Il-2 P40 lovers restraint to play BOS because they can't accept flight model of it. well i can't belive that is so fundamentally different from old series, is it? Personally i like it because i feel it's mass, contrary to he111 where it feel like fether. Btw i'dont fly it in mp & alone i would like to try it in numbers but no one want to

 

It does feel quite a bit different from IL-2: 1946. Over the years the FM on the P-40 changed quite a lot... and I never was quite sure which iteration was more or less accurate. It's interesting to me because the P-40E-1 we have right now in 2.006 is somewhat familiar to me as the P-40E that I flew in a very long campaign (in the Kuban region) in IL-2: Forgotten Battles.

 

I honestly have no idea. You do feel the weight here.

[Scojo]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rki8tnsLodQ

 

I think a plane is quite well modelled when you look this video

I think one thing people tend to overlook is something this guy said in the video and that I've heard multiple times about the P-40. These are that the P-40's strengths are in it's armament, dive, and maneuverability on a level plane or during a dive.

 

This sounds pretty uninteresting until you put these strengths in context of WW2.

 

These strengths generally get noticed in reference to fighting against Japanese fighters. Japanese fighters, in general, could not dive as well as the 40 and zeros also had next to no defensive armor and were very light. So it makes sense that these strengths are always pointed out by people, and even more so pointed out when talking about the aircraft in the pacific theatre.

 

When considering the P-40's strengths with the combination of the weaknesses of the Japanese fighters and the strength of America's air combat tactics, you can see why the aviators would love this aircraft:

 

1) American air tactics relied on multiple wings of aircraft supporting each other. One would attack, another would wait above the enemy to dive in when the advantage of the first group was lost, allowing the first group to break away and regain altitude.

 

2) The immense power of 4-6 .50 CAL MGs could easily rip a part a Japanese plane in one pass with short bursts

 

So what does this translate to?

P-40s quick dive speed gets the P-40 behind the target fast, fast enough that the defender will evade too late or not at all.

Then the P-40 uses it's powerful armament to take out an aircraft because the fraction of a second it has in range is all it needs to do enough damage.

Then it can use it's dive speed to extend out of harms way.

While it's extending away, a second wing of planes dive in to do the same thing, allowing the previous group to begin regaining altitude.

 

However, in our context, we're fighting in a different environment:

1) We don't always have large wings of fighters to help us

2) We're not fighting Japanese planes in IL-2

3) We're not fighting the same tactical doctrine in IL-2, especially in MP

 

This difference between the historical context and the game's context, I think, is the reason why people in this game feel the P-40 is underwhelming compared to many of the first hand accounts of the aircraft out of WW2.

 

It's difficult to get above 109s and 190s, and if you manage to do so, make a dive and don't kill them in one pass, then you're at their mercy since they can easily stay above you and pounce on you over and over

Edited January 11, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

Did the flying Tigers actually meet that many Zeros? They fought in Burma, so against the Army, not the Navy Airforce. Wouldn't they have met the Ki-43 which was far weaker in Armament than the Zero with only two .50 cals?

[Dakpilot]

AVG Flying Tigers never fought against the Zero, they also never flew the P-40E only the B (Tomahawk)

 

but the principles are real, AVG pilots were forbidden to ever enter into a 'dogfight'

 

funnily enough many AVG pilots were underwhelmed with P-40, they wanted F2E Buffalo instead, an organised demonstration 'combat' with local RAF Buffalo pilot squashed that 'unhappiness and demonstrated P-40 strengths when used correctly 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Sgt_Joch]

On the tactics used by the "Flying Tigers", Shaw discusses it at pp. 272-273 of his book (see attached).

 

The Japanese used a loose three-ship formation and avoided combat unless they had the advantage. The Flying Tigers would send a 2 AC element to entice the Japanese into combat and a "stinger" would wait at a higher altitude and in the Sun to pounce.

 

Fighter_Combat-Tactics_and_Maneuvering_292.pdf

 

Fighter_Combat-Tactics_and_Maneuvering_293.pdf

 

Apparently, the Russians used similar tactics:

 

 

 

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.

 

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

[Guest deleted@50488]

Great Thread!  I'm learnig A LOT!

 

Thank you guys!

 

IL.2 RULEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

[Scojo]

The Flying Tigers weren't the only ones that used the P-40 in the Pacific. Also, you're right. I apologize for using Zero throughout my post. There were other fighters as well, but, in general, what I said about the Zero stands for most of their other fighters as well

Edited January 11, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[Dakpilot]

The Flying Tigers weren't the only ones that used the P-40 in the Pacific

 

Certainly not, the operations/duties  of the AVG were amalgamated into 23rd Fighter group which used P-40E as well although I believe only 5 of the 'Flying Tigers continued with them after July 42 'disbandment'

 

P-40's were used by RAF, RAAF, RNZAF and USAAF but most often people only talk about "Flying Tigers" which is always interesting but would be more relevant if we had P-40b Tomahawk in game instead

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Scojo]

This thread is right at the top of the FM discussions. It's literally the first item on the list. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25323-p-40-turn-rateflight-model-check/

 

If you do a search you'll reveal there have been quite a few discussions, many in this General Discussions forum, about the P-40 including this 6 pager which is on the 2nd page of the search results: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/26224-p40-engine-managment/?view=findpost&p=419551&hl=p%26%23820840

 

We've talked about the P-40 to death and while I'm not a fan of the folks saying that we can't bring it up for further discussion... there isn't too much else to talk about these days.

 

It does seem that the P-40 FM is pretty good although there is some interesting discussion about CL max values for the P-40. It will likely be a little more stable than it is when the rudder/roll flight model update (affecting all aircraft) is changed sometime later this year. The only other thing is really a philosophical debate regarding just how strict engine management values should be enforced and that's a pretty difficult one to do. Jason Williams did talk about the various options available to him and the team in the Q&A session. As I recall... its somewhere in the second hour but I couldn't tell you for sure. Listen to that here: 

 

I'd really love to see another P-40 sometime. A later model P-40M would be nice... I'd LOVE to finally fly a P-40N sometime.

 

Video time for engine limitations is 1:37:55

Edited January 11, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo