gutless p-40

[Coyote_Duster]

why is it that the flying tigers, in hot tropical conditions in china, can fly the p-40 with little to no spare parts and worn out engines, with leaves and bamboo sticks on the wings can take on the entire japanese airforce, yet when i take off on full boost the engine dies within 30 seconds? 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Probably more like a minute, but...

 

I set my RPM to around 2650 then keep an eye on my manifold pressure.

 

45ish for takeoff, then throttle back and keep it in the high yellow, increasing throttle as I climb because it will fall the higher you go.

 

Can usually run 70% throttle nominal at sea level, 90% at 10k ft.

Edited September 6, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Jaws2002]

why is it that the flying tigers, in hot tropical conditions in china, can fly the p-40 with little to no spare parts and worn out engines, with leaves and bamboo sticks on the wings can take on the entire japanese airforce, yet when i take off on full boost the engine dies within 30 seconds? 

 

 

Because those planes were flown by trained combat pilots.

[BuzzU]

Because those planes were flown by trained combat pilots.

 

Ouch!

[ShamrockOneFive]

Because Claire Chennault taught his pilots to fly strict boom and zoom attacks against Japanese fighters and to never try and stay with them. Used the one thing that the P-40 did well... dive speed... against the lightweight Japanese planes. Sound tactics and well trained pilots makes all the difference.

[Venturi]

To be sure, the P-40B was also faster in a straight line than the Zero at most usable altitudes.

[Feathered_IV]

I think they were going up against Ki-27s quite a bit. There's a bit of a performance gap between those and your average 109.

[216th_Jordan]

Btw going over 45.5 Inch HG is prohibited in this game and will very quickly kill your engine.

[Finkeren]

Fly P-40s against I-16s and you get a better sense of what it was like.

[Irgendjemand]

why is it that the flying tigers, in hot tropical conditions in china, can fly the p-40 with little to no spare parts and worn out engines, with leaves and bamboo sticks on the wings can take on the entire japanese airforce, yet when i take off on full boost the engine dies within 30 seconds? 

 

Simplest explanation is probably - youre a noob?

Not meant offensive. Just kidding. But seriously - takes a while to get used to the enginelimits. I killed like a million 109 engines because i left it on too high power for too long until i finally developed a feeling for the time respectively until the technochat was implemented. And even experienced pilots break engines as takeoff every now and then. Ask the bomberpilots that have to push their crates to the limit with full bombload to get their planes in the air at all with all that weight.

[Finkeren]

To be fair: The Allison is by far the hardest engine to manage in the entire sim. The way MP just fluctuates and the automatic mixture settings can all be quite confusing.

[Max_Damage]

Thats why you carefully (CAREFULLY) study the engine limitations before (BEFORE) you fly.

[Finkeren]

Thats why you carefully (CAREFULLY) study the engine limitations before (BEFORE) you fly.

 

Of course, but it still doesn't change the fact, that the engine is finicky and very sensitive to sudden changes in MP. You have to keep your eyes on the gauge at all times during combat to avoid dipping into emergency mode which destroys your engine in about 90 sec.

[Max_Damage]

I ve learned flying at deck and its simple. I dont even use emergency, only on takeoff. Yes it can be tricky but only if you fly above 2000 which there is no reason to :D

 

Max continious 70% RPM, ~76-77% thrust. this is 2600 RPM and ~37 hg.

 

combat (5 min+) 100% RPM, 70% thrust. 3000 RPM ~43 hg.

 

For takeoff use 100% RPM and 75-80% thrust. 3000 RPM ~45 hg.

 

Below like 1500 you dont have to think, just use these. Above, if you see that hg pressure drops just add some thrust to get 37 or 43 hg.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Max_Damage

[Finkeren]

Flying on the deck is of course simple enough, but as soon as you start fighting in the vertical with changes in altitude, you have to keep an eye on your MP.

 

The only other plane where you have to be aware of this is the Spitfire, and there the emergency boost has to be unlocked manually, so as long as you manage your rpm, you'll be fine. The boost gauge in the Spit is also much easier to read than the P-40.

 

None of this is a complaint, just an explanation as to why the P-40 is not easy to manage.

[Coyote_Duster]

I see a lot of shilling in here for a busted engine lol, no I'm not a noob, but I highly doubt that the Allison deserves the glass jaw that it has right now. The p-40 fought oscars mainly btw. Outnumbered as well.

[Tag777]

The Allison engine issue makes me fear for the p-39 

[Finkeren]

The Allison engine issue makes me fear for the p-39

Going by the P-39L manual, it should be a lot better: 200hp extra to work with, 5min at WEP and 15min at combat power.

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

I am cautiously anticipating the P-39.

[Venturi]

The engines did not destroy themselves at 2min of moderate overboost in real life. Or even extreme overboost.

 

That is why you are having trouble.

 

It is the same issue real pilots faced, only their engines did not explode.

Because those planes were flown by trained combat pilots.

 

However, if you read in Vees for Victory by Dan Whitney, he talks about the AVG using engines very hard, indeed.

To be fair: The Allison is by far the hardest engine to manage in the entire sim. The way MP just fluctuates and the automatic mixture settings can all be quite confusing.

 

I don't think it's confusing at all. The mixture setting is much less confusing than the other Soviet planes. You set it and forget it for most all of the flight.

 

The RPM and throttle are only complex to manage, when compared to aircraft which have a manifold pressure regulator - or automatic engine controls, like the German aircraft.

By the way, the P-39L ALSO does not have a manifold pressure regulator.

[Finkeren]

I don't think it's confusing at all. The mixture setting is much less confusing than the other Soviet planes. You set it and forget it for most all of the flight.

 

The RPM and throttle are only complex to manage, when compared to aircraft which have a manifold pressure regulator - or automatic engine controls, like the German aircraft.

 

By the way, the P-39L ALSO does not have a manifold pressure regulator.

I agree that mixture is simple enough, but it is confusing if you don't know how it works and try to use it as a regular mixture control.

 

Rpm and mp are difficult compared to all other planes in the sim, regardless if it's simply the others that are "easy".

 

I'm fully aware that the P-39 essentially has an up-rated version of the same engine. That's part of what's so exciting about it. The P-39 should be more forgiving though, simply because it has 5+ minutes at WEP so it won't blow after a single minute.

[Madov]

There is also lots of anectdotal evidence about the Flying Tigers using engines that were built outside of specification and serviced out of normal air force regulations resulting in hot rod engines in some of the aircraft. Those engines are not represented here otherwise the Red Army would have insisted on much more of them in preference to everything else.

[Guest deleted@30725]

why is it that the flying tigers, in hot tropical conditions in china, can fly the p-40 with little to no spare parts and worn out engines, with leaves and bamboo sticks on the wings can take on the entire japanese airforce, yet when i take off on full boost the engine dies within 30 seconds? 

 

I'm sure you would be best pilot in real p-40 :lol: :lol: :lol: .

[ARM505]

I think they've been particularly harsh on engine abuse in the sim, and for good reason IMHO.

 

IRL, you got your plane, and generally stuck with it. You babied it as much as you thought you needed to, because it had to last you for the next fight and high pressure situation (literally) as well. In the sim, you get a sparkling example of mechanical perfection each and every time you step into your aircraft, regardless of how worn those impressive skins look.

 

This is one issue I've often had with sims - because you get a fresh aircraft every time, people expect routine use of WEP/Emergency power like it's not a thing. 60 in HG (which most of them could probably survive) would just become routine, so the sim has to punish us somehow to bring us more in line with reality.

 

I did love the A2A simulations (for FSX/P3D) 'persistent' aircraft servicing for this reason. You could baby 'your' plane as you saw fit, and the mechanical log would keep track of the parts wear and tear.

 

So.......I'd expect a real Allison to handle more than the sim allows, but expect the sim to be harsh with us for the reasons stated. Without persistent damage modelling, I don't know an easy way around this.

[Mauf]

I still find the modelling a bit strange. Was it really possible to overboost the engine on the real thing that much? Sure, they were trained pilots but even trained people might in the heat of battle slam the throttle forward (maybe even unknowingly) too much and brutally murder their engine doing it. That's like "begging for mishandling by design".

 

My solution for the game: I use a little rubber block that I jam into my throttle quadrant to block it off at about 80% so I don't accidently murder my engine when I have to go for emergency power.

Edited September 6, 2017 by arglmauf

[BlitzPig_EL]

This model P40 does not have a manifold pressure regulator, so yes it could give very high boost levels in real life, the thing is, in real life the engine did not totally fail after a timer clicked off 60 seconds, it just wore the engine out faster.

 

So on one hand we have a realistic model of how it worked, and on the other we have a totally unrealistic model of the consequences of doing so.

Edited September 6, 2017 by BlitzPig_EL

[19//Moach]

There is also lots of anectdotal evidence about the Flying Tigers using engines that were built outside of specification and serviced out of normal air force regulations resulting in hot rod engines in some of the aircraft. Those engines are not represented here otherwise the Red Army would have insisted on much more of them in preference to everything else.

 

 

not just anecdotal, solid hard proof can be found simply by reasoning that later versions of the P40, while equipped with a basically unchanged engine, listed higher limits than those which the game depicts as the threshold of catastrophic failure

 

this older (but still valid) thread about the same engine in the P39 extensively discusses the details of that

 

 

but in short, what is largely agreed upon is that the P40's engine has indeed drawn a short straw in this game, just as it's FM had before the last patch brought life back into it. 

 

 

one can only hope that engines will be the next simulation aspect to be improved upon, and pray that it may not take as long as the flight models did between promise and delivery...

[Legioneod]

Simplest explanation is probably - youre a noob?

Not meant offensive. Just kidding. But seriously - takes a while to get used to the enginelimits. I killed like a million 109 engines because i left it on too high power for too long until i finally developed a feeling for the time respectively until the technochat was implemented. And even experienced pilots break engines as takeoff every now and then. Ask the bomberpilots that have to push their crates to the limit with full bombload to get their planes in the air at all with all that weight.

He's not a noob believe me, I fly with him all the time. 

 

The problem with this sim in particular is how the engines are modeled. Instead of having a realistic degradation system to here engine wear out over time, they made it to where the engine has a hard limit which is very unrealistic.

 

The Allison engine isn't going to just die because you went a min over the recommended boost time, in reality it would degrade over time and eventually die as parts wear out and break.

I have yet to see my P-40 last more than 30 sec at max power.

 

One of the reasons I like Cliffs of Dover and DCS is because the engines are modeled quite a bit better and more realistically imo, they dont have as much of a hard limit like Stalingrad does.

 

I suggest the devs take a look at how Cliffs of Dover guys are doing things and the plans they have for their engine model.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Legioneod

[ShamrockOneFive]

He's not a noob believe me, I fly with him all the time. 

 

The problem with this sim in particular is how the engines are modeled. Instead of having a realistic degradation system to here engine wear out over time, they made it to where the engine has a hard limit which is very unrealistic.

 

The Allison engine isn't going to just die because you went a min over the recommended boost time, in reality it would degrade over time and eventually die as parts wear out and break.

I have yet to see my P-40 last more than 30 sec at max power.

 

One of the reasons I like Cliffs of Dover and DCS is because the engines are modeled quite a bit better and more realistically imo, they dont have as much of a hard limit like Stalingrad does.

 

I suggest the devs take a look at how Cliffs of Dover guys are doing things and the plans they have for their engine model.

 

You'll get no argument from most of us. We've had a half dozen threads over the last couple of years devoted to the subject of the P-40, the Allison engine that powers it, and the various issues surrounding boost, manifold, fuel quality and probably a dozen other items. I think it needs some refinement for sure.

 

It probably didn't need another thread. It probably also didn't need the title "gutless P-40" and the kind of tone that it got launched into. We've got a 17 page P-40 thread right in the top threads of this discussion area that's pretty informative. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14610-p40-thread/page-17

[19//Moach]

it's a valid point nonetheless.... in all fairness, as long as it remains an issue, we'll continue to see threads like this or any of the others appear somewhat regularly

 

 

that's just natural of internet forums, not everyone reads much past the first few pages, and many would sooner start a new thread than look for old news - there's no harm to it.  

 

 

also, with the new FMs, there are a number of new P40 pilots who are only now experiencing these idiosyncrasies themselves for the first time - the P40 does have a rather unique engine to it, not simply because of how "hands on" it is to operate, but mostly due to the unexpected fragility of such a historically reliable powerplant 

 

I think many are also very befuddled by its habit of seemingly spontaneous self-destruction.  even to folks without great mechanical insight on warbird engines, it seems just unnatural that a machine of any kind would go from zero to scrap in such a gratuitous and abrupt manner.   so it feels wrong, in large part simply because, it is wrong

Edited September 7, 2017 by 19//Moach