Can P-40 engine timers finally get fixed?

[GrungyMonkey]

I've seen this already brought up over the years, but can the P-40's engine finally get improved?

 

I get that it can't happen during the crunch before a new theater. But if the devs have time to make another Spit IX with different guns, this should be no issue.

 

In my dream world, it would have (restrictable) options for the 1943 standard 60 inches of manifold pressure, and for the 66 inches field mod, which was apparently not uncommon.

 

By the time the 109-E7 and P-40B/C were phased out in 1942 for the 109-F and P-40E models, the P-40's time as a high performer was over. Even 66 inches would NOT make it a world beater. It would let the P-40E beat the 109-F in turns and sea level speed, but it's climb and speed at altitude would still be laughably outmatched.

 

As it stands, we get 5 minutes at 42 inches, 2 minutes at 45, and a couple seconds at anything higher.

 

I know 60/66 inches isn't likely. All I'm asking for is 15 minutes at 44.2 inches, and 5 minutes at 56, as this chart I found(below) shows. I never found out where it came from, so I can't verify it, but these limits are modest while making the Warhawk just a bit less helpless.

 

It just seems insane that we have 4, soon 5 Spitfires, 10 109's, 4 of which are modifications of the G6 (G6, G6 late, G6 AS, and I count the G14), but not a single working model of one of the US's most iconic fighters.

 

Thoughts?

 

Edit 2/20/24: this is now fixed, the P-40 can now hang with the big boys! 

Edited February 20, 2024 by GrungyMonkey

[Zooropa_Fly]

I always thought it was a great looking plane, and have just started to fly it this week. Buttery smooth platform for taking out AAA. 

 

I think there were x3 named models, in-game we gave the Kittyhawk ?

So I guess the Warhawk is the desired upgrade.

 

Anyway, it would be a 'yes please' from me. 

S! 

[GrungyMonkey]

On 9/22/2023 at 4:09 PM, Zooropa_Fly said:

in-game we gave the Kittyhawk ?

So I guess the Warhawk is the desired upgrade.

All P-40s were called Warhawks. The early B/C models were called Tomahawks, and models E and later were called Kittyhawks.

Edited January 5, 2024 by GrungyMonkey

[the_emperor]

Easy fix for all this weird timer mechanic:

 

 

 

An I think the current limits are taken from the soviet manuals (with soviet avgas in mind though Spits and Hurris dont have those limits):

 

This whole timer mechanic is a very arcade way to "simulate" some kind of engine regime  management

Edited September 23, 2023 by the_emperor

[Roland_HUNter]

I think, They would have to check the whole FM again.
P-40 with 56 inch can fly with 580 km/h at sea level, autumn.

[the_emperor]

A later P-40 version with updated engine and automatic boost control would certainly be very welcomed (as a collector plane) by many.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 9/26/2023 at 3:44 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

I think, They would have to check the whole FM again.
P-40 with 56 inch can fly with 580 km/h at sea level, autumn.

The P-40 was known as one of the fastest planes in the early war (at least until the BF-109 F-4 came onto the scene) on the deck when boosted to 56"+ which its engine proved capable of withstanding. It really suffers in climb and sustained turning though.

@LukeFF

[Roland_HUNter]

12 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

The P-40 was known as one of the fastest planes in the early war (at least until the BF-109 F-4 came onto the scene) on the deck when boosted to 56"+ which its engine proved capable of withstanding. It really suffers in climb and sustained turning though.

@LukeFF

Even the P-40N with 57 inch Hg, could not achieve more than 314 mph(505 kmh) on SL. (P-40N is 300 kg lighter than the E-1 ingame)
E-1: 8420 lb
N: 7900 lb
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N-RAAF.pdf

And for the E version, I've not found any report of using the 56 inch Hg, only 44-46 inch Hg.

Here is the E engine chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40E_V-1710-39_specific_engine_flight_chart.jpg

It's allowing 56 inch Hg for 5 min, but there is no speed test.

If you can find one, I would gladly read it.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

11 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Even the P-40N with 57 inch Hg, could not achieve more than 314 mph(505 kmh) on SL. (P-40N is 300 kg lighter than the E-1 ingame)
E-1: 8420 lb
N: 7900 lb
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N-RAAF.pdf

And for the E version, I've not found any report of using the 56 inch Hg, only 44-46 inch Hg.

Here is the E engine chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40E_V-1710-39_specific_engine_flight_chart.jpg

It's allowing 56 inch Hg for 5 min, but there is no speed test.

If you can find one, I would gladly read it.

The thing is they ran way higher than 56" and the engines stood up to the abuse without reported failures. They also over-reved the motors past the 3000 RPM limit up to around 3200. The game does not reflect this reality that made it a formidable fighter. All of the performance tests were done at rated settings and I believe with bomb racks so it's hard to actually know how the plane performed beyond a large amount of pilot anecdotes.

 

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/spitfire-v-versus-p-40e.54046/page-2

 

67" was very common for the P-40. The Allison was arguably the most robust V-12 of the war. Not the best per se, but the most durable.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

There are documents for all of this and I have seen them @Roland_HUNter. Just don't have the time to dig them back up, but they're all on WW2aircraft.net.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

16 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Even the P-40N with 57 inch Hg, could not achieve more than 314 mph(505 kmh) on SL. (P-40N is 300 kg lighter than the E-1 ingame)
E-1: 8420 lb
N: 7900 lb
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N-RAAF.pdf

And for the E version, I've not found any report of using the 56 inch Hg, only 44-46 inch Hg.

Here is the E engine chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40E_V-1710-39_specific_engine_flight_chart.jpg

It's allowing 56 inch Hg for 5 min, but there is no speed test.

If you can find one, I would gladly read it.

Allison V-1710-39 power output at sea level as installed in P40E | Aircraft of World War II - WW2Aircraft.net Forums

[Roland_HUNter]

14 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Allison V-1710-39 power output at sea level as installed in P40E | Aircraft of World War II - WW2Aircraft.net Forums

Interesting topics, I do no deny it, I would gladly read a document about the 56-70 inch and the SL speed for it.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

I think what they should do for the p-40/p-39 is as follows:

 

~1-2 minutes at max boost and max rpm

 

~5-15 minutes at whatever was the max approved boost for the 1710-39 during the war, I think wither 56", 57", or 60". RPM for this setting should be 3000. It shouldn't matter that it was a Soviet P-40. 

 

-Unlimited time at the current combat power setting.

 

This would be a good compromise solution.

Edited November 2, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[Roland_HUNter]

2 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I think what they should do for the p-40/p-39 is as follows:

 

~1-2 minutes at max boost and max rpm

 

~5-15 minutes at whatever was the max approved boost for the 1710-39 during the war, I think wither 56", 57", or 60". RPM for this setting should be 3000. It shouldn't matter that it was a Soviet P-40. 

 

-Unlimited time at the current combat power setting.

 

This would be a good compromise solution.

Yes, then the other engines are should revisited aswell.
Example:
G-2 with 1.42 ata
1.42 for 3 min
LA-5 FN boost only 5 min, not 10.
e t c

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

38 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Yes, then the other engines are should revisited aswell.
Example:
G-2 with 1.42 ata
1.42 for 3 min
LA-5 FN boost only 5 min, not 10.
e t c

Possibly. Not sure about the other engines, but the Allison was known to be very underrated and therefore capable of handling overboosting very well. US manufacturing and fuels were also way better than Soviet and German, especially as the war unfolded for the latter. I do know the p-40 in game is a pig, when it should be a rugged and robust early-war (on the deck) speed demon. The Allison 1710 does very well at Reno. I think that speaks volumes.

Edited November 2, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[Traffic]

This topic comes up a couple times a year. There's a plethora of documents stating that the 1710-39 was increased to 56", and then 66" by mid '42. 5 minutes at 56", or 66" and 15 minutes in combat time. Many people have uploaded lots of info here but its unlikely it'll ever change. Its a shame too, because as an energy fighter, that CAN turn, could turn it into a real contender for early war settings. The reality is, the P40-E1 is a mid 1941 model, and the settings came out of the original flight manual, and is not reflective of war time settings that were approved by Allison themselves after the US entered the war. None of this is new news. Its been posted time and time again for years now. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

32 minutes ago, TCW_Traffic said:

This topic comes up a couple times a year. There's a plethora of documents stating that the 1710-39 was increased to 56", and then 66" by mid '42. 5 minutes at 56", or 66" and 15 minutes in combat time. Many people have uploaded lots of info here but its unlikely it'll ever change. Its a shame too, because as an energy fighter, that CAN turn, could turn it into a real contender for early war settings. The reality is, the P40-E1 is a mid 1941 model, and the settings came out of the original flight manual, and is not reflective of war time settings that were approved by Allison themselves after the US entered the war. None of this is new news. Its been posted time and time again for years now. 

Thanks for posting this. We really should be able to run whatever max approved power was for this engine. In this case, it looks like 5 minutes of WEP at 66-70" is correct. The current combat power setting should be max continuous. Combat power (15 minutes) should be 56" and 3000 RPMS. All of these reasons are why the p-40 in-game stays in my virtual hanger, despite being one of my favorite planes from WW2, along with the P-51B/C and Spitfire Mk. IX.

 

@LukeFF Can you show the team this document? There really is no argument to keep it as-is when nearly every paying customer has been dissatisfied  with the in-game P-40 since release 7 years ago.

Edited November 3, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Greg is awesome:

 

 

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Thanks for posting this. We really should be able to run whatever max approved power was for this engine. In this case, it looks like 5 minutes of WEP at 66-70" is correct. The current combat power setting should be max continuous. Combat power (15 minutes) should be 56" and 3000 RPMS. All of these reasons are why the p-40 in-game stays in my virtual hanger, despite being one of my favorite planes from WW2, along with the P-51B/C and Spitfire Mk. IX.

 

@LukeFF Can you show the team this document? There really is no argument to keep it as-is when nearly every paying customer has been dissatisfied  with the in-game P-40 since release 7 years ago.

 

I can see what I can do. 

[LukeFF]

Guys, if you have any more data to support changing the P-40's engine modeling, please post it here. There is a possibility it will be looked at post-5.108. 

[the_emperor]

I guess an automatic boost control must be implemented....

 

 

 

[EduardoMCfly]

7 hours ago, the_emperor said:

I guess an automatic boost control must be implemented....

 

 

 

As a modification?

[Traffic]

19 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Guys, if you have any more data to support changing the P-40's engine modeling, please post it here. There is a possibility it will be looked at post-5.108. 

Luke, Gregs video above has ALL the data including documents and reference material. 

[LukeFF]

2 minutes ago, Traffic said:

Luke, Gregs video above has ALL the data including documents and reference material. 

 

Thanks, that helps a lot. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Thanks, that helps a lot. 

Is he on the forum? Maybe we could tag him? He has a lot more documentation than what was in the video.

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Is he on the forum? Maybe we could tag him? He has a lot more documentation than what was in the video.

 

I have no idea, sorry. Would be nice to know if he is!

[Barnacles]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I have no idea, sorry. Would be nice to know if he is!

@GregHF

[jollyjack]

All this P40 information  got me interested in the plane again .... i like it, but maybe not so much for it's performance.

 

Is there a difference between these two versions but in name?

http://www.ericksoncollection.com/p40-kittyhawk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40_Warhawk

 

It seems the p40 had a useful life professionally for a very long time around the world, 1938 till '58?

If the p40 in IL2 it can be upgraded or maybe 'fixed' when needed the devs would make me happy.

Edited November 12, 2023 by jollyjack

[Art-J]

"Warhawk" was US name for all versions powered by F-series Allison engines (so P-40D and later) and used by USAAC/USAAF. The same planes in Brits' and Commonwealth service were named "Kittyhawks". Similar case as with Wildcats vs Martlets, Havocs vs Bostons etc. Sometimes Brits just gave imported planes different names than their manufacturers did. 

[the_emperor]

On 11/11/2023 at 6:19 PM, EduardoMCfly said:

As a modification?

 

If you want to run on the higher MAP regimes (than the current), yes. according to the manual. Or you will be restricted to take off power

[Traffic]

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:d6b89b90-4473-4e14-bc5c-6b9bd1f77b23

 

Luke, here's the official Allison memo from 1942 about higher power settings. Let me know if the link doesnt work or you'll need a PDF or something else. 

 

Full page fax print (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)

On 11/12/2023 at 1:16 AM, LukeFF said:

 

I have no idea, sorry. Would be nice to know if he is!

Im in contact with him. I posted the links above for the devs review. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Traffic

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

Glad to see this is being revisited, it's overdue. Greg's video on this subject is excellent. I saw it when he first brought it out, and it's still a go-to source for a fair explanation. 

 

The P-40 should be a solid performer in the early-ish scenarios. Not a super plane, but a durable workhorse type aircraft that is competent versus early German and Italian stuff, with a high degree of durability. It should remain a solid choice for ground attack right into the mid-war scenarios. The glass engine has always been the achilles heel of the P-40 in IL2.

 

I'm one of the few people foolish enough to use the P-40 a lot in MP. I've used it in Finnish in appropriate time periods, and even in CombatBoX in 1945 missions (it's kind of suicidal). The issue is that to get the most out of the P-40, due to the glass engine, you had to manage the engine perfectly. Any mistake would draw the "engine damaged" sign or simply blow the engine up. Really, the engine should be rugged (like the whole P-40 would be). Instead, managing the glass P-40 engine was like trying to manage your wife while you're both stuck in a 90 minute traffic jam in 90 degree weather. Do anything wrong brings lots of noise and misery.

 

So I'm all for revisiting this issue. The P-40 as it is remains a lost opportunity because it should be such a workhorse aircraft, and yet people groan when they have to deal with the crazy engine limitations.

Edited November 15, 2023 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[LukeFF]

16 hours ago, Traffic said:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:d6b89b90-4473-4e14-bc5c-6b9bd1f77b23

 

Luke, here's the official Allison memo from 1942 about higher power settings. Let me know if the link doesnt work or you'll need a PDF or something else. 

 

Full page fax print (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)

Im in contact with him. I posted the links above for the devs review. 

 

Yes, I can see everything. Thank you!

[GrungyMonkey]

17 hours ago, Traffic said:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:d6b89b90-4473-4e14-bc5c-6b9bd1f77b23

 

Luke, here's the official Allison memo from 1942 about higher power settings. Let me know if the link doesnt work or you'll need a PDF or something else. 

 

Full page fax print (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)

Im in contact with him. I posted the links above for the devs review. 

I've seen people interpret this as discouraging the higher manifold pressures, but when I read it closely they seem to be less concerned about the 39 engine getting damaged, and more worried that pilots might try this on engines with different ratios, where it would be more dangerous.

 

Very interesting.

Edited November 15, 2023 by GrungyMonkey

[Mtnbiker1998]

While we're at it, P-39 could use a lot of the same love... Same engine, right? Should transfer over the same? Would fly a lot more Eastern Front missions if these planes got an update!

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 11/18/2023 at 2:37 AM, Mtnbiker1998 said:

While we're at it, P-39 could use a lot of the same love... Same engine, right? Should transfer over the same? Would fly a lot more Eastern Front missions if these planes got an update!

P-39 could use an overhaul too.

[Mtnbiker1998]

On 11/10/2023 at 10:27 PM, LukeFF said:

Guys, if you have any more data to support changing the P-40's engine modeling, please post it here. There is a possibility it will be looked at post-5.108. 

Any word on this post 5.108 release?

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Any word on this post 5.108 release?

 

Nothing right now, no.

[EduardoMCfly]

On 11/27/2023 at 2:28 PM, LukeFF said:

 

Nothing right now, no.

Any updates now? Keep us posted, please...

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, EduardoMCfly said:

Any updates now? Keep us posted, please...

 

Nothing new to report right now, sorry. If/when something changes it'll be posted here.