P-40 comparison 1943

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
IdahoNYer
Posts: 2739
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:07 am
Location: NYer living in Boise, ID

P-40 comparison 1943

Post by IdahoNYer »

Hey guys, looking for some clarification from the experts. I'm coming up to mid 1943 slowly but surely in my PBEM - uncharted territory!

In 7/43 the venerable P-40K is replaced by the P-40N5 and I get a few of the P-40N1.

Now the N1 looks like a pretty good improvement, aside from the reduced gun value. But it only produces for a month, so its not going to outfit many squadrons (PBU-Off here as well)

So I'm "stuck" with the P-40N5, I say stuck, because other than the increase in durability from 30 to 31, it seems to have reduced attributes from the P-40K in climb, speed and maneuver. Heck, the P-40E looks like a better plane!

Am I missing something, or is this plane just going to be fodder to the Tojo and Tony??

Thanks in advance!

Image
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by Canoerebel »

My last experience with the P40N1 and P40N5 in large numbers in combat came in my game vs. Miller more than six years ago. I was convinced that the P40K performed better in combat.

There have been many patches since then, and perhaps things have changed. Or perhaps it was the way I used the airplane or trained the pilots (six years is a long time ago). In my current game vs. John III, I have only upgraded a couple of squadrons to the P40N1 and P40N5 as of December '43. I'm using Lightnings and Thunderbolts for nearly all in-harm's-way airfields.

Others will give you more informed info, but that's my thoughts.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by geofflambert »

You can always use them for trainers.

Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by Alpha77 »

Well P40s were mostly (often) used as fighter bombers and for strafing etc. This is what they are good for also in the game, BUT the P40K is also a good fighter. Almost every Allied plane is good btw. except some of the early ones. Compared to 42 and 43 IJ paper planes at least.
GetAssista
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:13 am

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by GetAssista »

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
So I'm "stuck" with the P-40N5, I say stuck, because other than the increase in durability from 30 to 31, it seems to have reduced attributes from the P-40K in climb, speed and maneuver. Heck, the P-40E looks like a better plane!
Yes, P-40N5 is a tradeoff for slightly better range, otherwise inferior to P-40K and similar to P-40E. Although in the latter case +2 points durability matter a lot for fighters.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by Lokasenna »

The P-40K is the best of the line. I forget if you can stop a factory from upgrading, but if you can you should do so.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by crsutton »

I don't think that the P-40 war really considered for front line fighter duty by the time the P40N5 came along. More of a ground support aircraft with durability and payload the big factor over performance. The key was that it was a very cheap and cost effective move to keep producing them as it would not call for any change in production lines. The game is different in that your honorable Japanese opponents are producing top notch second generation fighters in incredible numbers so the P-40k really gets missed. But in reality the P40N5 was more than adequate for what the Allies really needed at the time.

If I recall, it was intended to put the Merlin engine into the P40 N series but that did not happen due to production shortages. The P40 N model that shows up for just a month or two was a stripped down version intended for high altitude work with greater speed. It was not very popular with pilots and they did not make many. Some of our aircraft wonks will know a lot more about this model than I do. I had better defer to them.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
bomccarthy
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:32 pm
Location: L.A.

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by bomccarthy »

Compared to the P-40K, the P-40N's engine was tweaked to provide power at a slightly higher altitude, but it still only used a single-stage, single-speed supercharger (like the P-39). The first 800 P-40Ks had the short fuselage of the P-40E, while the remainder had the longer fuselage shared with the P-40M and N (the longer fuselage provided better directional stability and was initiated on the Merlin-powered P-40F). The principal source I have (Francis Dean, America's Hundred Thousand) notes the discrepancy in speed between the P-40E and the P-40N in flight tests, but says that no explanation has been found - they were tested at the same weight and the horsepower was virtually identical - both were tested at military power but not at combat power (higher manifold pressure used for short periods).

With regard to Merlin-powered P-40s, approximately 1,500 P-40Fs and 600 P-40Ls were produced and all were apparently used in Europe/North Africa. This was the single-stage, two-speed V-1650-1, not the two-stage V-1650-3 (and later) engines used in the P-51B/D/K.

P-40Ns continued to be supplied to USAAF units in the Pacific because of the demand for P-38s, P-47s, and P-51s in Europe. P-40Ns flew ground support missions in the Philippines through December 1944.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »


check:
http://www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/P-40N.htm

excellent source of P-40 information
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by m10bob »

There are hundreds of examples of planes in games which will never show their true superiority over other models, in GAME terms, and the P 40 is one example.

In game the P40K is likely the very best dogfighter of all the P 40's and was IRL a very souped-up plane, but in non-game reality, the P40n series were superior planes.

Old timers have heard this story before, please allow the telling for the newer amongst us.
Before Pearl harbor, my dad was a tool and die maker at Indianapolis Allison Engine on west 10th street.
He workd on the engines for the P39's and P40's.
(Early P51's and the Bell "Airacuda" also had Allison engines, as did the Douglas B 19 for a time.)

dad sez they closed off West tenth street one day and parked 3 P40's in the street to give a demonstration of the different models.
They had one bound for China, Britain, and the third for the USAAC.

The intent was to show the "superiority of American planes, but the show kinda backfired.
The planes were fueled an equal capacity and fired up to idle.
Surprisingly, the USAAC plane shut down first, then the British plane, and the Chinese plane kept right on purring.

The different nations had ordered the planes with differing "tolerances" in the engines, and the lower tolerance did not burn as efficiently as the others, but this was made up for in allowing the engine to expend its' fuel slower, giving it longer "air time".

Note that as ordered, the planes did not necessarily have the same fuel capacity, so the planes were manually fueled to make sure they did not "fudge" on the fuel quantity.

No way will you ever find info like this replicated in a game.[:D]

Image
Attachments
allison.jpg
allison.jpg (147.89 KiB) Viewed 101 times
Image

User avatar
IdahoNYer
Posts: 2739
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:07 am
Location: NYer living in Boise, ID

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by IdahoNYer »

Thanks all for the comments.

Yeah, in game terms, I think I'm going to miss the P-40K when the N comes along.....but I'll have the P-47 by then anyway....

User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by obvert »

All kinds of P-40 versions performance tests here.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40.html
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by Big B »

That page is very good,

But... I can testify that the deeper you look into specs... the cloudier things get...just ask JWE/Symon, El Cid, John 3rd's Team, etc.
The problem is - no matter how deep you dig - you never find Apples to Apples (maddening really)

BUT - it's still a good source of info to have a peak at...

B

ORIGINAL: obvert

All kinds of P-40 versions performance tests here.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40.html
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by MakeeLearn »

IRL.... who is your mechanic?






Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by Big B »

IF - that was asked of me? (reply indicates so) I'm not sure I understand your question?

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

IRL.... who is your mechanic?
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by MakeeLearn »

ORIGINAL: Big B

IF - that was asked of me? (reply indicates so) I'm not sure I understand your question?

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

IRL.... who is your mechanic?

Not to you directly. As far as P-40 engine performance, how good is a particular mechanic working on a P40 and what can he squeeze out of it.

UMMMM..... and has your ground crew waxed your wings [:D]






Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by Big B »

Oh my, now that is a FAR bigger question than you could imagine you just asked.

1st) I worked tearing down racing engines for Dave Lamourex who used to work for Carrol Shelby way back when - so I'll say he's my mechanic LOL (but that was back in the 1970's)
2nd) The Entire Hot Rod industry was born in California shortly after WW2, by mechanics and some flyers who came home from the war and put their knowledge to work for their new hobby which quickly became a HUGE industry and sport.
3rd) The advanced engine technology that is around today came directly from WW2 hardware and experience (long ago) - for example: the first engine to be a V-8 All Aluminum block and heads, Duel Overhead Cams, Hemi-Heads with 32 overhead Valves, and multiple carbs...was the standard Ford Engine for the main production M-4A3 Medium tank (Sherman as it's widely known today).

I only bring this up because I wanted to illustrate that "official" test performance is not any meaningful law.

Without going into PAGES of examples, I just want to relate that as a modder' looking for the truth - there is a never ending list of conflicting sources of specs.... which is why I said above "the deeper you search the murkier, or cloudier it gets"

I can only say a wide variety of sources is the most valuable - especially including the men who used them - they always have info in conflict with official sources.

So that, and your own reason and judgement...[:)]

B

Edit: I only bring up the above because it is a repeatable field of experience. I have had about 10-12 years experience in squeezing performance out of engines, under some tutelage of old masters, and then racing street and track.
There just isn't any one set of knowledge one can go by to know who is faster than who in general...within reason. If there was, no-one would street race...it would all be NHRA Index.

So I say in the final reflection - those WW2 mechanics worked miracles, while the aircraft pilots themselves threw the manual out the window and got every ounce of performance their kites could make - and then some...and Especially in those days Americans did that, because unlike Europe and the Far East - those Americans grew up as mechanics.

I guess I'm passionate about this sort of thing because you guys are all smarter than me, and it's one area I know LOL[:D]
ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

ORIGINAL: Big B

IF - that was asked of me? (reply indicates so) I'm not sure I understand your question?

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

IRL.... who is your mechanic?

Not to you directly. As far as P-40 engine performance, how good is a particular mechanic working on a P40 and what can he squeeze out of it.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Thanks all for the comments.

Yeah, in game terms, I think I'm going to miss the P-40K when the N comes along.....but I'll have the P-47 by then anyway....


I was kind of upset when I embarked on my DaBabes campaign after looking over the stats of the various Japanese fighters. They had really given some god like stats to aircraft like the Jack and George which looked like the Japanese air force was going to be unbeatable until 1943. With PDU on it looked like a nightmare (JWE mentioned that DaBabes was designed with PDU off more in mind) However, I found that it is really not an issue. If Japanese fighters are a bit more deadly in the air this is mitigated by the increased power of Allied AA. It is a wash. However, I really have come to the conclusion that the real advantage is not with the Allied air force, but rather with the Allied ability to build level 9 and 8 airfields at will-including on atolls that have no port factor. In the end this is what will defeat the Japanese air force. Advance, build up your bases and overwhelm.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by Macclan5 »

Great post - great question.

PDU off.

My own limited experience is to keep the P40K nearest the front line and turn on "do not upgrade" for the squadrons flying the P40K.

Especially in Burma - especially with the 10th USAF.

The P40K is competitive with numbers

The P40K probably benefits from the higher maneuver rating in the 15K - 20K altitude range compared to the P40N; wherein the dive bonus more than offsets the reliability rating.

Burma will likely be a Japanese players second priority in late 1943 1944...

But that of course is subject to whims of a game. I am playing AI not PBEM.

Put the P40N back in New Guinea and the conquered Central Pacific Islands. Move those wonderful F6 Hellcat squadrons (SoPac 30 unit oversized) forward to do the heavy lifting; the P40N for Clean up.
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: P-40 comparison 1943

Post by MakeeLearn »

ORIGINAL: Big B

Oh my, now that is a FAR bigger question than you could imagine you just asked.

1st) I worked tearing down racing engines for Dave Lamourex who used to work for Carrol Shelby way back when - so I'll say he's my mechanic LOL (but that was back in the 1970's)
2nd) The Entire Hot Rod industry was born in California shortly after WW2, by mechanics and some flyers who came home from the war and put their knowledge to work for their new hobby which quickly became a HUGE industry and sport.
3rd) The advanced engine technology that is around today came directly from WW2 hardware and experience (long ago) - for example: the first engine to be a V-8 All Aluminum block and heads, Duel Overhead Cams, Hemi-Heads with 32 overhead Valves, and multiple carbs...was the standard Ford Engine for the main production M-4A3 Medium tank (Sherman as it's widely known today).

I only bring this up because I wanted to illustrate that "official" test performance is not any meaningful law.

Without going into PAGES of examples, I just want to relate that as a modder' looking for the truth - there is a never ending list of conflicting sources of specs.... which is why I said above "the deeper you search the murkier, or cloudier it gets"

I can only say a wide variety of sources is the most valuable - especially including the men who used them - they always have info in conflict with official sources.

So that, and your own reason and judgement...[:)]

B

Edit: I only bring up the above because it is a repeatable field of experience. I have had about 10-12 years experience in squeezing performance out of engines, under some tutelage of old masters, and then racing street and track.
There just isn't any one set of knowledge one can go by to know who is faster than who in general...within reason. If there was, no-one would street race...it would all be NHRA Index.

So I say in the final reflection - those WW2 mechanics worked miracles, while the aircraft pilots themselves threw the manual out the window and got every ounce of performance their kites could make - and then some...and Especially in those days Americans did that, because unlike Europe and the Far East - those Americans grew up as mechanics.

I guess I'm passionate about this sort of thing because you guys are all smarter than me, and it's one area I know LOL[:D]


Excellent Post!! A great "fire for effect" to my "spotting round" post. As some one who grew up in a garage I know what you mean. Tech sheets should not be taken so serious especially when comparing close stats. Machines are not the same.

There use to be a saying "Dont buy a car made on Monday or Friday".

In Silent Hunter 3 each sub had it's own unique maximum depth number.

It would be awesome to see planes and ships in a game each having it's own stats, a little better or worse than the average number. Could be a class-objects memory hog... maybe.










Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”