Can we talk about the p40?

[BlitzPig_EL]

Well, if the Pacific thing gains traction, a P40N will be an absolute must have aircraft.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

No. Maybe as a side option some time, but there are far too many aircraft important (and often exclusive) for Pacific to add another P-40. Besides, for Midway P-40 E is appropriate. And for Okinawa (yet again i hope it will be dropped) its too late. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

well i can't belive that is so fundamentally different from old series, is it?

 

This guy made a couple of videos comparing both models in a duel enviroment vs 109Es

 

 

 

In his title he concludes 1946's P-40 is Children's Edition in comparsion. He did it with an M model, but I don't think there are enough differences for such a different behaviour, which seems to be the better control at slow speeds and looks like better energy retention as well?. I also did a similar fight with the E model in IL-2 1946 4.12.2 if you are interested and have the game (.trk replay file inside) P-40vs109E.zip

 

They handle quite diferent comparing both games.

Edited January 11, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[Sgt_Joch]

at typical combat settings, i.e. 50% fuel, "combat power", a P40E is around 60-70kmh faster than a 109E7 at 4000-5000 meters, about the same speed as a 109F2 and around 30 kmh slower than a F4.

 

so the P40E is about equivalent to a 109F2 in that test. However, the F2 is about 30 kmh faster at 1000 meters and has a better acceleration and climb rate, so in terms of overall performance the P40 is better than the E, but less capable than the F class.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Sgt_Joch

[Mmaruda]

I think that what holds the P-40 back is the short lifespan of the engine at max MP. I did a test turn fight with the Emil on ace AI very close to the ground (since all they do is turn with inhuman control) and I was actually able to get on his six and land some shots, sadly, these shots were done in glide mode as my engine ceased. The way you can abuse the engine in game is in line with the Russian documents, however those have significantly smaller engine tolerance values (1 minute at max MP) than what the US info claims. I would not call it overcautious or wrong right away though, since I doubt the Soviets had the hight quality 130 octane fuel the Americans used, so it's also a factor worth considering.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

According to the in game stats the turn time of the P-40E in 1946 is 19.5 seconds (at 1000m), while in BoS it's 24.3s at sea level. So there you have at least one big difference between both models.

Edited January 13, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[Boaty-McBoatface]

According to the in game stats the turn time of the P-40E in 1946 is 19.5 seconds (at 1000m), while in BoS it's 24.3s at sea level. So there you have at least one big difference between both models.

There's no way in hell this airframe will turn in 19 seconds. That's i-16 territory.

 

This airframe is 3.8 tons. The only thing that comes in useful for is falling like a ton of bricks in the dive.

Edited January 13, 2017 by 1./TG1_B0SS

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

There's no way in hell this airframe will turn in 19 seconds. That's i-16 territory.

This airframe is 3.8 tons. The only thing that comes in useful for is falling like a ton of bricks in the dive.

 

 

That 19.5 s turn time comes from a source which can't remember now (Soviet?), and was discussed a bit in the FM sub-forum, yeah looks like it's highly unlikely, unless there is something they are missing out.

[Scojo]

That 19.5 s turn time comes from a source which can't remember now (Soviet?), and was discussed a bit in the FM sub-forum, yeah looks like it's highly unlikely, unless there is something they are missing out.

 

I wouldn't exactly put a lot of weight in ONE account that said 19s. Excluding the possibility of over exaggeration, can you pull that kind of turn time with unique wind conditions? Or turning in some manner that doesn't adhere to typical turn tests?