P40 Revision Plebiscite

[19//Moach]

I believe many here may agree with the statement that the current depiction of the P40E Kittyhawk in the sim, is not up to the same standard of quality set by the rest of the BoX fleet, with respect to the credibility of its flight dynamics

 

many of us have researched the topic at length, and thus far most, if not all, accounts of this airplane made by real-world veterans, as well as present-day pilots who fly it, seem to be at a general disagreement with our simulator version.

 

these accounts suggest a much more "benign" airplane to handle than what we can fairly assess from the simulator - often we encounter terms such as:

 

 "easy/a joy to fly"

 "a stable gun platform"

 "has no vices",

 "a plane one could trust to always bring him back home"

 ...and many more positives to its credit

 

 

there is no doubt, the plane we have in our hands, doesn't appear to fit the description very well - I'm sure many here agree, it is anything but "easy to fly"

 

in fact, even when compared to the other planes in the sim fleet, the Kittyhawk stands out with a reputation* of:

 

 - having a worse turn performance than any other VVS type (including IL2 and Pe2)

 - being erratic in handling to the point of often posing a greater threat to the pilot than the enemy in chase

 - a choice of mount which grants "bonus point for style" and/or "the thrill of the challenge"

 - effectively incapable of delivering reliable combat results, even in engagements starting from a full advantage position

 

*largely agreed upon across a great number of frequent multiplayer flyers

 

 

 

also, no veteran/pilot accounts have been found so far which describe the Kittyhawk as: "dangerous", "unforgiving", "extremely demanding" or any such themes - however, in collecting many player opinions on it, it is evident that those are the very terms used to describe the simulated airplane as it stands

 

 

surely, none of this is to say, or even imply that it was a superb aircraft - by all means - it certainly wasn't

 

 

the P40 was known for being mediocre at best, and obviously it was outclassed by most of the other types in game -- however, the main objections towards the current flight model are not in any way derived from comparison against an opponent in combat or test flights -- the criticism made here is solely based on comparison between the BoX P40 and its historical counterpart

 

 

 

and therefore, this poll is intended as a petition, to collect signatures from users who also share the opinion that the P40 needs a revision similar to that given to the FW190, which effectively "gifted" the Luftwaffe a plane which was previously considered "unfit for action"

 

the Kittyhawk remains as the last exception to the generally very credible representation of the aircraft in this series 

 

 

 

note:  please refrain from discussion about the relative merits of the P40 vs any of the german planes -- the matter at hand is really towards how the sim relates to the real airplane, as much as we can piece together from our various sources

 

 

links to historical accounts will be listed in following posts

Edited March 17, 2017 by 19//Moach

[19//Moach]

so, to start with our sources, please mind that my findings are not based on quantifiable data (which we already have another thread for)

 

this is instead to take a more subjective approach, by comparing what was said of the real plane against similar reports gathered from players in online sessions and other forum threads - these findings are qualitative in nature, and no precise measurements are being suggested or implied

 

if you perhaps disagree with any of the opinions expressed about the virtual P40, feel free to share your thoughts (as long as not done simply for the sake of stirring up unconstructive debate) - there's no "right answer" - as the feel you get from your simulator is yours alone (unless someone has the exact same setup, unlikely)

 

 

 

so, let's see what they say - this is one of the most telling videos of the Kittyhawk in action, with live commentary from the instructor in the controls:

 

https://youtu.be/rki8tnsLodQ

 

also noteworthy, are the already mentioned tendencies to overheat on the ground, whereas the BoX plane will overcool in these same conditions - also, take notice of the much quicker startup sequence, as the correct procedure does not require manual cranking of the propeller (except in case of over-priming)

 

the commentary from the pilot features descriptions of the plane's handling as "docile", "great turning performance" and "sharp on rolls"

 

this somewhat contradicts reports of our model, which suggest a rather temperamental machine, known to bleed off energy very rapidly on turns, up to the point of (often unrecoverable) departure taking place before a few complete circles are flown.

 

there isn't any mention of a tendency to "easily swing out of control" if yaw is not constantly kept in check - were this behavior present in the real airplane, in the same manner as the sim depicts it, then most surely the pilot would have made some remark about it

 

most of our sim-pilots from whom I have collected their thought have brought up the "unpredictable spin" generally as the first most striking characteristic of the plane, therefore the absence of similar comments from the pilot suggests this behavior in the real plane is not as major a factor as we experience it

 

 

the forces on the rudder are brought up very clearly, however - and those are described in a manner that tells of these being strong, but also fairly predictable, such that trim control can be used to counteract yawing tendencies across the speed range

 

no such thing as "wobble" is mentioned by the instructor at any point during normal flight - he then states that above 200mph, the plane becomes quite stable - the simulated plane is known to retain most of its "lateral flailing" up until a noticeably higher airspeed is reached

 

 

---

 

 

now, here is a different point of view - this time from the same perspective we are used to in the sim, but with the real plane:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcWyDkQtu7s

 

points to observe: 

 

 - there is no noticeable "sway" on yaw, nor is there reasonable indication that it is being countered by the pilot to such an extent that it becomes invisible

 

 - a high speed left-hand barrel roll is executed without any noticeable "objection" from the airplane 

   this same maneuver is extremely difficult to perform smoothly ingame, as it incurs an erratic "yaw spasm" when nearing the inverted position

 

 - a loop can be executed with minimal loss of energy, and does not produce the same "nose twitching" found in the sim in any point through the maneuver

 

 - low energy high turns are made with an apparent degree of stability which is little different from higher speeds, whereas in game this generally induces sloppy attitude control

 

 - pitch maneuvers do not appear to induce any abrupt yaw swinging tendencies, or none which remain visible if actively countered

   in the sim, any large pitch motion will produce a rather strong yaw, which causes a visible sideways "hunting" motion of the nose even when immediately corrected by the pilot

 

 

---

 

another one:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfb-fsxXF-U

 

 

near the end, this veteran reports "kicking hard left rudder" as a snap decision made and executed in a very short time, at low altitude and high speed

 

this contradicts the reputation of the ingame model, which has it that such an abrupt application of rudder is a generally suicidal proposition - it is very easy to overcontrol in yaw, and the results of the resulting sideslip are not straightforward (or even predictable enough) to counteract, frequently leading to a counter-spin in the opposite direction in the advent of overcoming the initial "slip-away"

 

 

 

these are just for starters - more sources shall follow -- please help us collect these accounts in order to help point out possible contradictions between the real and our simulated airplane  - the internet is a big place, and there are lots of accounts about this plane out there

 

just be sure to double check that the accounts are specific of the E model, as earlier ones had a smaller nose, and later a larger tail, as most here already very well know about

Edited March 17, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Lusekofte]

I have no real hope these polls ever get to be read by the developers. But reading how this plane was treated in Burma I know it should have a bigger tolerance of mis use. I do however not think it will be fixed. The parameters for engine failure is set to time and is not really complex . 

 

Best success in having a FM change is to provide hard evidence, and that has not yet been given

[19//Moach]

I have no real hope these polls ever get to be read by the developers. But reading how this plane was treated in Burma I know it should have a bigger tolerance of mis use. I do however not think it will be fixed. The parameters for engine failure is set to time and is not really complex . 

 

Best success in having a FM change is to provide hard evidence, and that has not yet been given

 

we have a whole dedicated thread in the FM section for hard data - I find that sadly, it is quite prone to devolve into fractally deepening debate over minutia in a way that undermines the general point being made, which is "something's not quite right with this plane" 

 

and that is what I'm trying to positively affirm - that something IS wrong, regardless of what precisely that might be

 

I found this to be the only sensible alternative, as "hard data" options have been limited to obtaining previously unavailable documents from (often expensive) sources, and then submitting them hoping they'll be looked at

 

meanwhile, we're here with a general consensus across the community that something is most likely incorrect - and this has major repercussions ingame, much like in the case of the "old 190", we're faced with an airframe which is widely thought utterly and unhistorically ineffective 

 

the "hard data or nothing changes" approach can even be viewed as rather poor consumer care - as we who have purchased this item are bringing up a general issue which we agree warrants support/attention, but we're then expected to procure data which may easily cost far more than the item itself, effectively paying for and undertaking the FM research work by ourselves

 

except that alas, we do not have the tools needed to measure any data we encounter against simulated behavior - without a "flight debug mode" which displays precise measurements of internal values used by the simulation, the need for "hard evidence" (even if it could be had for free) is simply too much to ask

 

 

this barrier has to go -- if a widely agreed-upon dispute exists over a certain aspect of the simulation, then the need to revise it in at least a minimal way is self-evident

 

lest we have to beg

Edited March 17, 2017 by 19//Moach

[AndyJWest]

The developers have made their position clear: present them with objective historical evidence that something is wrong with an aircraft FM, and they will consider it. Polls of forum readers opinions aren't historical evidence of anything. 

[19//Moach]

this isn't a poll of opinion - it's a sign up sheet to account in numbers that a consensus exists about a plane which is distinct from the historical accounts of it

 

 

opinions were gathered beforehand, unless you wish to add more on top - the P40 has a reputation among the sim pilots of a plane which is very unlike that suggested by the historical accounts

 

that in itself is proof that a discrepancy exists - and it needs investigating

 

 

what I find unreasonable is to defend a position that we are responsible for funding and pursuing the research of precise numerical data all by ourselves, without even the minimal tools to do it

 

hard data can be had for some 500 Euro, if anyone wants to provide this amount in order to improve a widely known issue with a product you've already paid for - go ahead - but I can't help but think there's something not quite right with that notion

 

 

this argument has lengthened the existence of this same issue for a very long time - it will not improve if we continue to perpetuate this most absurd notion that we are expected to prove it wrong with an academic degree of certainty, while we lack the basic means to actually verify whatever data we have

 

 

the "hard data argument" can only stand, (and controversially at best, being fundamentally unfair to us as customers) as long as some feature is put forward to expose the data used by the game as it calculates the flight dynamics -- without that, what you're suggesting is to imply nothing less than that "devs don't care what we think/want, and instead of saying it flat out they sadistically let us jump through as many hoops as can be found while we grovel and beg" 

 

I highly doubt this is their actual position on the matter 

 

 

let us please drop the "numbers or nothing" nonsense -- historical reports are solid data just as well - one does not need to have points on a chart to actually have a point worth arguing

Edited March 17, 2017 by 19//Moach

[AndyJWest]

Your poll entirely fails to allow perfectly reasonable alternative responses to the question, making it pointless anyway.

[19//Moach]

Your poll entirely fails to allow perfectly reasonable alternative responses to the question, making it pointless anyway.

 

which alternatives would those be?

 

do you strive simply to contradict? or do you have genuine reasons why you feel the P40 is good how it is and improvement cannot or should not be pursued?

 

 

why is it that any time a point is raised on this forum, it devolves into a largely unrelated argument which exists only for the sake of itself? -- it's not a "who's more right" competition we have here...

 

some of us are making concerted efforts to improve a thing that benefits us all - you have not provided a single counter-claim or logical reasoning as to why you believe it should not be changed, instead you attack the nature of the thread itself, as if that somehow negates the validity of its premise

 

 

please clarify just what else you would have responded to the poll, and I will gladly make that option available

Edited March 17, 2017 by 19//Moach

[JG13_opcode]

The developers have made their position clear: present them with objective historical evidence that something is wrong with an aircraft FM, and they will consider it. Polls of forum readers opinions aren't historical evidence of anything. 

 

This.

 

Polls accomplish nothing.  How many Fw190 polls were there?  It wasn't until we found some data that anything got done.

[19//Moach]

data can be found in the three or so threads about that very subject in the forum section where it belongs -- this thread is not about data, it WAS to try and get a sense for the differences between our community's opinions on the P40 compared to that of those with experience in the real thing

 

this could then be organized into a concise representation of what those differences are - which without flight analysis methods, is impossible to obtain directly

 

 

again, what other tools do we have besides our "feel" for what the plane is doing? - wasn't the 190 largely established to be in error by "feel" before data could be found?

 

 

 

again - please provide an actual reasoning for disagreeing with the need for a similar revision on the P40, else this is still more off topic than not

 

 

 

back to the original topic -- does the ingame P40 match what you've read/seen/heard about it IRL?

[AndyJWest]

"This thread is not about data". Correct. Which is why the developers aren't going to be influenced by it. Quite rightly. 

[Dakpilot]

Quite simply the number of P-40 threads and number of posters within those threads negate the need for this poll

 

As said polls as far as "feelings" about FM's are not looked at by dev's, nor should be

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Lusekofte]

I have to admit , when it comes to this plane I am simply to lazy making the effort of providing data. I have personally resigned and find using the IL 2 is much more effective. As it stand this P 40, in my opinion we could just as well not having it at all. 

And if you have to prove that if you spend 4 minutes at  full throttle and 1,01 minute 30 minutes later will brake the engine , that this is wrong, well then this is not the historical sim all claim it to be

Edited March 17, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[19//Moach]

well - let's get some better reading material in here... (it's not gonna make it fly any worse if we do, right?)

 

 

this is the complete pilot training manual for the P40 - it covers all types, and observes to any differences between as they appear across the many topics:

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/curtiss/p-40warhawk/pilot-training-manual-for-the-p-40.html

 

 

one solid data fact - pages 41 and 42 absolutely confirm the incorrect startup procedure being followed in game - in reality, the lengthy manual cranking steps are only performed in case of over-priming

 

that's one thing we have established with cold hard data, thus warranting a revision, at least on that regard (the 30 seconds saved on a scramble takeoff under fire already go a long way)

 

 

 

from page 49 onwards, you'll find the handling characteristics section - which I find to be a very interesting read 

 

page 58 describes turning characteristics of the airplane in a way that doesn't necessarily translate to the best advice in the sim -- particularly, it notes that it is possible to maintain a turn (and obtain maximum performance from it) at the point where the plane begins to shudder - in the simulator, the plane will lose energy extremely fast at this same flying condition,  adding power to compensate produces a very powerful yaw force, which will overcome the flight controls ability to counter it at such low speeds

 

this is precisely where our p40 exhibits its most vicious trick - as you add the level of power required to sustain such a turn, following published procedure, the propeller torque can easily exceed the effect of the control surfaces, at the point the plane then begins to swing sideways and "tips over" onto a deadly spin - this requires supreme concentration and a certain degree of luck to overcome, and there is no warning of its onset as the manual suggests, the first sign of trouble being the uncontrolled swing of the nose to the side, which only occurs after departure can no longer be prevented

 

 

page 66 then describes aerobatic performance, and details the procedure for a loop with no mention to the need to use left rudder when pitching up - if this is performed by-the-book on the simulator, the loop will "flop" into a spin somewhere around the top, or at the very least, will exit the maneuver at a different heading from that of entry

 

in the sim, left rudder has been observed to be a requirement on all pitch-up inputs in order to maintain coordination, and even to prevent spinning on more intense maneuvers or tight turns

 

the simulator plane requires a method of rudder control which is alien to any other aircraft featured - this involves using left rudder to coordinate upward pitch, and right for down, in such a scale that in certain condition it'll require left rudder to coordinate even a right turn -- the workload this imposes is not commonly found in fixed wing aircraft, and is more commonly associated with helicopters

 

why this happens is still not clear (could be a secondary result of other factors interacting) - it is impossible to determine the real nature of this behavior without access to real-time flight calculation values 

 

 

no similar phenomena is mentioned in the manuals - there is no documentation to backup the huge degree of pitch/yaw coupling that is found in the sim - which indicates this could very well be exaggerated

 

 

 

continuing on, another manual:  http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/curtiss/p-40warhawk/t-o-01-25cf-1-pilot-s-flight-operating-instructions-p-40d-and-p-40e-airplanes.html

 

 

very specific data, complete with charts on climb performance and similarly useful information

 

 

 

and the british version:  http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/curtiss/p-40warhawk/ap-2014a-pilot-s-notes-the-kitty-hawk-i-aeroplane.html

 

 

this one contains even the data for correcting positional error on the airspeed indicator -- wasn't one of us looking for this?

 

also, it makes several remarks towards unstable low-speed behavior that corresponds to that observed in the sim (though no mention of heavy pitch/yaw coupling), but specifically for the C.G. is near the aft limit -- this would be the case with fuel in the fuselage tank - which is not to be used for combat - in the simulator, this same behavior persists regardless of fuel loadout -- which begs a very important question:

 

where exactly is the modelled CoG on the kittyhawk? does it change with fuel load? -  how come we experience instability similar to what's expected from a full aft tank even when that tank is empty?

 

 

more information, general purpose:  http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/curtiss/p-40warhawk/to-01-25cf-1-handbook-of-operation-and-flight-instructions-for-the-models-p-40d-and-p-40e-pursuit-airplanes.html

 

and more even, which I haven't yet filtered through: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/curtiss/p-40warhawk/curtiss-p-40-flight-manual.html

 

 

 

curious fact - each manual lists a slightly different set of stalling speeds (presumably due to small variations from different tests) -- it is fair to suggest, somewhere in between them lie the best interpretations of this data -- similarly, slightly varied engine limitations are listed 

 

 

 

 

anyways - manuals are written by engineers who're usually not on the receiving end of a 109 or Zero - so a more practical account should be taken from a pilot

a brief search reveals that yes, books have been written about this: https://books.google.ca/books?id=NFTEPiyEiSsC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=p40+kittyhawk+engine+limits&source=bl&ots=RNXvsiHQN1&sig=lIBbwSrT8jrbfX-qwyL898RvWuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdoKSK_N7SAhVCwGMKHY3_AzQQ6AEIiAEwFA#v=onepage&q=p40%20kittyhawk%20engine%20limits&f=false

 

 

 

and finally, see this page and all the documentation attached for specific flight testing data on all P40 models: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40.html

 

at the bottom you'll find a list of assorted documents, among which sits a letter from a GM representative (then producing the Allison engine) responding to inquiries from the commander of a squadron reportedly running prolonged periods at power levels alarmingly above the recommended engine limits -- supporting the repeated claims made by players that the simulated engine is limited much too conservatively

 

 

 

this post is to be forwarded as a new thread on the FM discussion section

Edited March 18, 2017 by 19//Moach

[JG13_opcode]

I think you're trying to do too much with one omnibus thread.

 

P-40 startup is wrong?  Great.  PM it to Han.

 

Something else is wrong?  Can you prove it with quantifiable numbers?  Great, PM it to Han with your proof.

 

Stuff like "the manual's turning procedure doesn't make good advice for the sim" is not data.  Pilot anecdotes are not data, even if the guy actually flew the thing.

 

I really want you to answer this question:  if you can't measure or quantify it, then how can they program it into a simulator?

Edited March 18, 2017 by JG13_opcode

[ACG_KaiLae]

I really want you to answer this question:  if you can't measure or quantify it, then how can they program it into a simulator?

This is an engineering problem. It requires an engineering solution. Feel can't be engineered.

[JAGER_Batz]

P-40 is a beautiful aircraft, but, just flies it, and you see that something is wrong .......Review nowww please

[VBF-12_Snake9]

Would have thought there would be more no's in the poll. My own opinion is just confirmed. This plane fm really is a piece of sheet. Lol

 

 

P40 was one of my favorite 1946 planes too. Now the il2 is a better fighter.