P-400 for air-to-air?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

P-400 for air-to-air?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> P-400 for air-to-air?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/16/2015 3:21:27 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

Any thoughts on the P-400? how good is it compared to P-40E or P-39D? I am asking specifically as a fighter plane, for escort/ CAP/ sweep purposes

By looking at the stats I would say it should be better than the P-39D but worst than the P-40E; but I haven't see it in action yet.

So far my preferred early war Allied fighter planes are, in order:
- P-38
- P-40 and equivalents (Kittyhawks)
- Wildcats
- Hurricane IIs
- P-40B and equivalents
- P-39

I haven't seen action with P-400, Sea Hurricanes, yet

and everything else (Buffalos, Hurricane I, P-36s, etc) is just cannon fodder not suitable for front line; even P-39s in my experience is close to garbage against Zeros

Post #: 1

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/16/2015 7:21:00 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

You should learn to love the humble P-39D and P-400

. In my experience, both are better than the P-40E. The P-40K is superior to them, but until you get to that model you need both the P-39 and P-40. You don't get enough of the P-400s to use them extensively, but they are a slight upgrade on the P-39.

It is a low-altitude plane, despite having a higher max altitude than the P-40E. I used them to success (even against stratosweeps) by placing them on CAP at 9000. Still less maneuverable than a Zero or Oscar, but faster and more durable. It packs a punch, too - that centerline cannon will shoot down Japanese aircraft much more quickly than "just" .50-cals. At <10K feet, it is actually comparable (or better than) the F4F-4 Wildcat.

For these reasons, I rate the P-39 equally with the P-40E and F4F-4... so, on par with your two mainstays until you get late-war planes. You don't get enough P-38s, even if you have PDU On to plunder the E-models from the CONUS training groups, to field more than about 5-6 groups until late 1943. You need to fill in with your work horses, and that's the P-40E and P-39.

I find that the P-40B is an inferior aircraft due to:
-No drop tanks
-Worse guns, it does have 2x CL .50-cals but that is negated by only have .30-cals in the wings
-No bomb option
-Not enough of a maneuverability/climb boost to make it worth using over the P-39D

Hurricanes are great, but a little on the slower side and they don't climb very well. If you use them as a high-altitude plane, you might do OK. They are still very maneuverable, for an armored Allied plane, at low altitudes...but not that great. I like both the -IIb and II-c models. I find the -IIa to be undergunned and therefore underwhelming.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 2

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/16/2015 7:42:53 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

Interesting that you prefer P-39s; in my game I had P-40Es/ Bs and P-39Ds defending P. Moresby and the P-39s were massacred, while the P-40s hold their own and had better kill ratio. But of course, one example doesn't make a rule
I will try placing them at lower altitude and see how it goes

P-39s big gun is great for straffing, but not so good against airplanes (very low accuracy). This is where the P-400 becomes convincing; 20mm can do wonders, specially against the low durability Japanese planes.

In my game, it is mid May 42, I have enough P-400s to fill 2 squadrons + plenty of replacements or to fill 3 squadrons + stretch replacement.
I have barely enough P-38s to fill 2 squadrons, and for the time being, tight on replacements.

Most other non CONUS squadrons are either P-40Es or P-39s; as you said like them or not; these 2 are your workhorses.

P-40B is an early war plane, and by now, by simple attrition, it is no longer in the front lines. The few remaining are either in CONUS, Aleutians or Pearl Harbor. I liked the way they performed, but your comments are very valid, specially the lack of drop tanks which is a big issue on the Pacific.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 3

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/16/2015 7:53:40 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Like the old expression. A P-400 is a P-40 with a 'zero' on its tail.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 4

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/16/2015 10:08:42 PM

IdahoNYer

Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline

I've been pleasantly surprised with the P-39 in my current PBEM (DBB-C). It has done much better against Zeros than the P-40E. Hurris have also done fairly well. A lot of variables of course - pilot quality and fatigue. We've also prohibited Strato-sweeps which has most definitely helped. P-400 hasn't been baptized yet, but I'm expecting it to be similar to the P-39.

Of course in early '42, I'll take any airframe I can (PDU OFF). I'm still flying the P-40B, P-36 and Buffaloes in front line service going into May 42.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/16/2015 10:14:04 PM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

i am just happy to have anything which will fly CAP

i even had some success with seagulls vs bettys.

if the zeros are shooting at the floatplanes they are not strafing.

imho the p400 is a p39 in metric.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to IdahoNYer)

Post #: 6

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 12:32:31 AM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

I think I read that the P-400 is the export version of the P-39....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 7

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 12:56:09 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

I think I read that the P-400 is the export version of the P-39....GP

Actually, I think it's the reverse. The P-39 was meant to be used by the Allies, while the P-400 was simply a redesignation of the plane by the USAAF. Although I did come across at least one source with a google just now that claimed P-400 was the RAF designation... I'm more inclined to believe that the devs got it right in the game, however, with the only P-400s in the OOB being in the USAAF...

There was the slight armament difference as well.

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 8

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 12:56:41 AM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

I think I read that the P-400 is the export version of the P-39....GP

Yes; but with a 20mm Hispano gun, accuracy = 26 vs. P-39s 37mm T9, accuracy=5

Which means a lot for air-to-air combat

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 9

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 1:01:56 AM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

I think I read that the P-400 is the export version of the P-39....GP

Actually, I think it's the reverse. The P-39 was meant to be used by the Allies, while the P-400 was simply a redesignation of the plane by the USAAF. Although I did come across at least one source with a google just now that claimed P-400 was the RAF designation... I'm more inclined to believe that the devs got it right in the game, however, with the only P-400s in the OOB being in the USAAF...

There was the slight armament difference as well.

The British didn't like their "Airacobras" so they dumped them to the Soviet Union after been in action briefly. While the USA took what was left, under designation P-400

They were supposed to be used for training only, but scarcity of planes meant they were needed for action in the Pacific

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/17/2015 4:09:18 AM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 10

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 2:31:45 AM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

I think I read that the P-400 is the export version of the P-39....GP

the story i heard they were bought by the Swedes (hence the metric and oxygen problems) but prior to delivery congress/export board/british stopped export to sweden as too chummy with the reich.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 11

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 2:51:48 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

The P-400 story:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p39_5.html

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 12

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 3:45:44 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Under the latest version of the game, it seems like in the early months the P40E Hurricane II and P39 all performed about the same. Pilot skill was the only real issue. I played a prior full campaign vs Viberpol until 8/1/45. It was a stock game and basically the P39, P400, and Hurricane were pretty sad. The P40E was better but still beat up by the Tojo. In our new campaign we are wrapping up 1942 and with the betas, Da Babes and tweaks to air combat all three fighters have done much better. My highest killing unit was a P39 squadron and I have a lot of top British pilots who cut their teeth in the Hurricane. I would rate them all about equal now. The P40K is good enough to tangle with the Tojo.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 13

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 6:07:45 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The P-400 story:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p39_5.html

Bill

What, actual facts being quoted!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 14

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 9:29:55 PM

bomccarthy

Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline

Although it is a bit pricey (I think I paid almost $70 on Amazon), I found Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand to be one of the best books on WWII US fighters. A retired aerospace engineer and member of the American Aviation Historical Society, Dean has a knack for clearly explaining engineering concepts for non-engineers, like me. He goes into great detail about each of the 11 fighters the US produced during the war, describing how the supercharger layouts worked on each and the aircraft handling in various maneuvers and flight regimes.

Relevant to this thread, he explains why the P-39 was feared by most novice pilots (as the 37mm ammo was used up, the cg moved backwards until it was so far behind the mean aerodynamic chord the airplane became unstable in most maneuvers), yet was liked by most veteran pilots for its light controls and flight qualities below 15,000 feet.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 15

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 10:39:24 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

I have a book somewhere here that stated the Airacobra line had the most kills of any US Fighter in WW2. I believe they counted all the exported planes to get to that total. I will try to find that documentation...

(in reply to bomccarthy)

Post #: 16

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/17/2015 11:41:39 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Wikipedia claims that too, though they don't give the source of the citation. The P-39 had a fairly lackluster career in the USAAF:

http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm

The Soviets would have had to shoot down well over 5000 Germans with the P-39 to top the P-51's record. They would have had to shoot down nearly 5000 to top the F6F, which had the best kill to loss ratio of any fighter in US service.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 17

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/18/2015 12:25:41 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Under the latest version of the game, it seems like in the early months the P40E Hurricane II and P39 all performed about the same. Pilot skill was the only real issue. I played a prior full campaign vs Viberpol until 8/1/45. It was a stock game and basically the P39, P400, and Hurricane were pretty sad. The P40E was better but still beat up by the Tojo. In our new campaign we are wrapping up 1942 and with the betas, Da Babes and tweaks to air combat all three fighters have done much better. My highest killing unit was a P39 squadron and I have a lot of top British pilots who cut their teeth in the Hurricane. I would rate them all about equal now. The P40K is good enough to tangle with the Tojo.

I'm playing Loka in stock and the Hurricane is really a poor performer. Yet it has to be used for a huge swath of game time. I'm glad the newer mods have re-balanced it. I don't think it was as bad as stock makes it.

The P-39 is a good little anti-shipping unit early in the expansion phase. Not many players seem to use single-engine Army planes on ships, but even mini-bombs can start fires and they do a hurting on an xAKL.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 18

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/18/2015 12:56:00 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Under the latest version of the game, it seems like in the early months the P40E Hurricane II and P39 all performed about the same. Pilot skill was the only real issue. I played a prior full campaign vs Viberpol until 8/1/45. It was a stock game and basically the P39, P400, and Hurricane were pretty sad. The P40E was better but still beat up by the Tojo. In our new campaign we are wrapping up 1942 and with the betas, Da Babes and tweaks to air combat all three fighters have done much better. My highest killing unit was a P39 squadron and I have a lot of top British pilots who cut their teeth in the Hurricane. I would rate them all about equal now. The P40K is good enough to tangle with the Tojo.

I'm playing Loka in stock and the Hurricane is really a poor performer. Yet it has to be used for a huge swath of game time. I'm glad the newer mods have re-balanced it. I don't think it was as bad as stock makes it.

The P-39 is a good little anti-shipping unit early in the expansion phase. Not many players seem to use single-engine Army planes on ships, but even mini-bombs can start fires and they do a hurting on an xAKL.

I think it's because the Hurricane is just so slow. It does alright against Oscars and early Zeroes, but the .303 MGs on the -IIb just aren't enough. The cannons on the -IIc make it a bit better... if they can hit.

Tojos are enough faster than the Hurricane that they will penalize its already sub-par maneuver values.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 19

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/18/2015 4:02:17 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

Check this video:

Introduction to the P-39

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLeYWkx2Jlg

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 20

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/18/2015 9:33:06 PM

bomccarthy

Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline

Nice video. I always thought the P-39 was a very pretty aircraft with its landing gear retracted � to me, it just �looked right.� It�s too bad the turbocharger had a problematic development on the XP-39, because it reached 390 mph at 20,000 ft on a test flight in 1939 (albeit without armament or armor). Left with only a single-speed main-stage supercharger, the engine began running out of breath above 12,000 feet, same as the P-40.

I believe that most USAAF fighter pilots flew P-39s at some point during their stateside training.

If you play through the Soviet activation, you�ll find that the P-39�s younger sibling, the P-63, is the Soviet�s best air superiority fighter. However, since it is classified as a fighter-bomber, only certain units are allowed to upgrade to it, including Il-2 units � I�ve conserved my political points so that I can convert as many Il-2 units as possible to P-63s.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 21

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/19/2015 2:37:16 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

I have a book somewhere here that stated the Airacobra line had the most kills of any US Fighter in WW2.

I would be shocked and amazed if that were true.

quote:

They would have had to shoot down nearly 5000 to top the F6F, which had the best kill to loss ratio of any fighter in US service.

My source says otherwise. "Corsairs downed 2140 enemy planes while only 189 corsairs were lost--a ratio unmatched in the history of air warfare". The Helcat had the distinction of shooting down the most enemy of any naval fighter.

quote:

you�ll find that the P-39�s younger sibling, the P-63,

The P-63 was more like the older brother as it appeared in 1943.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to bomccarthy)

Post #: 22

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/19/2015 3:12:02 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

They would have had to shoot down nearly 5000 to top the F6F, which had the best kill to loss ratio of any fighter in US service.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi
My source says otherwise. "Corsairs downed 2140 enemy planes while only 189 corsairs were lost--a ratio unmatched in the history of air warfare". The Helcat had the distinction of shooting down the most enemy of any naval fighter.

I think there is something off with your source:

F6F:
5160 kills
270 lost
Ratio = 19.11

F4U:
2140 kills
189 lost
Ratio = 11.32

The loss per sortie was lower for the Corsair. F4Us logged 64,051 combat sorties and F6F 66,530. F6F were more often flying in a high threat environment than F4Us, so they had higher losses. F4Us were only on carriers at the end of the war and land based Corsairs didn't always face heavy air opposition in their various campaigns. A number of Marine units were employed harassing bypassed bases until the end of the war. The carriers were in harms way far more and saw a lot more instances where fighters had to defend their base.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 23

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/19/2015 6:02:09 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

They would have had to shoot down nearly 5000 to top the F6F, which had the best kill to loss ratio of any fighter in US service.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi
My source says otherwise. "Corsairs downed 2140 enemy planes while only 189 corsairs were lost--a ratio unmatched in the history of air warfare". The Helcat had the distinction of shooting down the most enemy of any naval fighter.

I think there is something off with your source:

F6F:
5160 kills
270 lost
Ratio = 19.11

F4U:
2140 kills
189 lost
Ratio = 11.32

The loss per sortie was lower for the Corsair. F4Us logged 64,051 combat sorties and F6F 66,530. F6F were more often flying in a high threat environment than F4Us, so they had higher losses. F4Us were only on carriers at the end of the war and land based Corsairs didn't always face heavy air opposition in their various campaigns. A number of Marine units were employed harassing bypassed bases until the end of the war. The carriers were in harms way far more and saw a lot more instances where fighters had to defend their base.

Bill

Its appears to be. I've never seen the number of F6F's lost, but with the Corsairs it was only referring to A2A kills AFAIK. The F6's include all A/C destroyed, although I have no idea how many were 'ground kills'. My source is an old (copyright 1977) WWII Airplanes book and its been on or real close on the majority of things. It lists the number of destroyed A/C for the F6 as 5156 (4947 for carrier based) which includes ~200 planes destroyed by land based units. Four planes one way or the other isn't much. Given that it still seems that the F6 is the winner as ~19 far exceeds ~11. Thanks Bill.

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 24

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/19/2015 9:47:43 AM

Disco Duck

Posts: 552
Joined: 11/16/2004
From: San Antonio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

Although it is a bit pricey (I think I paid almost $70 on Amazon), I found Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand to be one of the best books on WWII US fighters. A retired aerospace engineer and member of the American Aviation Historical Society, Dean has a knack for clearly explaining engineering concepts for non-engineers, like me. He goes into great detail about each of the 11 fighters the US produced during the war, describing how the supercharger layouts worked on each and the aircraft handling in various maneuvers and flight regimes.

Relevant to this thread, he explains why the P-39 was feared by most novice pilots (as the 37mm ammo was used up, the cg moved backwards until it was so far behind the mean aerodynamic chord the airplane became unstable in most maneuvers), yet was liked by most veteran pilots for its light controls and flight qualities below 15,000 feet.

I will have to check out that book. I like the P-38 and I like reading about the various quirks of the planes. In one of the youtube training videos it mentions that inverted flight is limited because of poor oil flow to the engine. One of my books mentioned that at high altitudes it was down right cold in the cockpit. No large heat source right in front of the pilot. The Hydraulics had a tendency to freeze also.

(in reply to bomccarthy)

Post #: 25

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/19/2015 9:40:25 PM

bomccarthy

Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

I will have to check out that book. I like the P-38 and I like reading about the various quirks of the planes. In one of the youtube training videos it mentions that inverted flight is limited because of poor oil flow to the engine. One of my books mentioned that at high altitudes it was down right cold in the cockpit. No large heat source right in front of the pilot. The Hydraulics had a tendency to freeze also.

Yeah, the P-38 had a number of �features� that inhibited its use above 30,000 feet. The problematic cockpit heater wasn�t resolved until the J model, along with the turbos that overheated at high altitude.

What was never adequately resolved was the low limiting mach number (compared to the P-51 and P-63). The compressibility problems could become so severe that the dive speed of the models prior to the L was restricted to 0.65 Mach (440 mph at 30,000 ft and 460 mph at 20,000 ft, standard atmosphere). This was a serious problem in the European theater; not so much in the Southwest Pacific, where the air temperature at 30,000 ft could vary considerably from that in Northwest Europe.

The P-38L finally got a dive recovery flap system which enabled the pilot to engage in steeper dives and successfully pull out of the dive at higher speeds.

(in reply to Disco Duck)

Post #: 26

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/19/2015 10:07:48 PM

Leandros

Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Any thoughts on the P-400? how good is it compared to P-40E or P-39D? I am asking specifically as a fighter plane, for escort/ CAP/ sweep purposes

By looking at the stats I would say it should be better than the P-39D but worst than the P-40E; but I haven't see it in action yet.

So far my preferred early war Allied fighter planes are, in order:
- P-38
- P-40 and equivalents (Kittyhawks)
- Wildcats
- Hurricane IIs
- P-40B and equivalents
- P-39

I haven't seen action with P-400, Sea Hurricanes, yet

and everything else (Buffalos, Hurricane I, P-36s, etc) is just cannon fodder not suitable for front line; even P-39s in my experience is close to garbage against Zeros

I suppose there aren't many P-36's available in the game so this may not be very relevant but apart from its weak armament the P-36(A) was the best fighter
of any of the planes mentioned here. It can be plainly seen from its wing/loading and weight/power rate. The early P-40's often had to dive away to save themselves
from the Zero, the P-36 could turn and climb with it - and still dive away. Actually, it set a world dive speed record during the dive acceptance trials for the
French Air Force.

Also, I should Think the P-400 was a better fighter than most of the P-39 versions, having a 20 mmm gun instead of the 37 mm cannon. More ammo, higher rate of fire.
Plus a load of fifties in the fuselage - and the wings.

Fred

Picture: My Forces of Valor P-39 diecast model in 1/32 scale.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Leandros -- 3/19/2015 11:11:04 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 27

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/19/2015 10:21:52 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

There are P-36s in the game; mostly in the US, but the Dutch, Chinese used it. The British too, and there are enough Mohawk IVs to use them in the front lines

That said, I would try to keep them as far away from danger as possible. As you mentioned, it lacks firepower, but also lacks armor and speed.. and range/ drop tanks
It is maneuverable, but not enough vs. a Japanese plane

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/19/2015 11:25:45 PM >

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 28

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/19/2015 11:19:29 PM

Leandros

Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

There are P-36s in the game; mostly in the US, but the Dutch, Chinese used it. The British too, and there are enough Mohawk IVs to use them in the front lines

That said, I would try to keep them as far away from danger as possible. As you mentioned, it lacks firepower, but also lacks armor and speed.. and range/ drop tanks
It is maneuverable, but not enough vs. a Japanese plane

I appreciate that the game is using what specs you are showing but they are a little misleading, quite typical actually. The versions shown are later versions
with armor, self-sealing fuel tanks and heavier armament. IOW, not the version flown, for example, during the PH attack. Those were lighter and therefore had
better maneuverability and climb rate, at least on par with the Zero - they also had the more reliable P & W Twin Wasp engine. These are the ones I was looking
for. It did lack firepower but that was of less importance against the equally un-armored Japanese planes, especially their bombers which the P-40E's usually could
not reach. The Mohawk IV is pictured with the Twin Wasp Engine - it had the Wright Cyclone.

A little more on performance: This P-36 had a 1.000 feet better r/c (3.400 feet) than those listed in the game, even with a 1.050 hp Engine. The 1941 version had
the 1.200 hp. P & W Engine. Weight/hp ratio therefore better than the Zero.

So, the P-36, and Mohawk, flown in the game had inferior specs. compared with the Zero, but they were armored to a certain extent and had better armament than the
original - not all the minuses. The PH P-36 had better specs. but inferior armament and protection. Problem was the last version could maneuver with the Zero -
and reach up to the Japanese bombers. The P-40E couldn't.

The early P-36 also had excellent range. Flown economically it achieved more than 1.200 miles (statute).

Fred

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 29

RE: P-400 for air-to-air? - 3/20/2015 1:21:27 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

The art isn't perfect, but the one of the right is the model in service at Pearl Harbor and in the PI at the start of the war. A range of 1200 miles is a bit high. Everything I have seen has a ferry range around 600-650 miles, which the game stats reflect.

Here is the data from the USAAF flight test center:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36.html

The stats of all aircraft were derived from the best sources available (not Wikipedia). They aren't perfect though about 80-90% of the time when people have problems with the stats, they really don't play out if you go to a high quality source that bases its data on solid factual data and uses the same criteria to compare between different aircraft (apple to apple comparison).

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 30