P-40E v P-39D (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

Q-Ball -> P-40E v P-39D (11/7/2009 10:02:21 PM)

Early war USAAF fighter comparison......the P-39 looks better to me, hands down. Am I missing something?

P-39 is 6 mph faster, has a better climb rate, is more durable (29 v 32), has better manueverability at every altitude, and has more guns. The range is the same. The only advantage it seems is that the P-40 has a better transfer range.

Historically, P-39 performance suffered at higher altitudes, but this doesn't seem reflected in the maneuver bands.

Am I missing something, or is P-39 the better plane?



DivePac88 -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/7/2009 11:53:15 PM)

I thought the Army Air Force's problem with the P-39D was on a maintenance level. There were maintenance problems with the power-train, and the complicated landing-gear. Whereas the P-40 compared with the P-39D required less maintenance hours to keep airworthy.



USSAmerica -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/8/2009 12:02:16 AM)

The altitude should be a handicap for the P39 above 10k feet or so, from everything I've read.  Don't know why that would not be reflected in the game database.[&:]



modrow -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/8/2009 12:19:38 AM)

Q-ball,

interesting observation. Looking at the stats as provided by the Tracker, it seems in fact as if the P39 was better. Service ratings are equal according to these stats. I don't have any experience with respect to relative results in air combat as of yet.

I am not 100% sure about the guns. Gun values are 18 in both cases (4+2x3+4x2 vs 6x3). For the P39, accuracy of the 37mm Cannon is low (10); and the one of the .3 Browning in F position is 35, of the .5 Browning in C position 58. In contrast to that, for the .5 Browning in F position, as carried by the P40E, you have an accuracy of 29. Still looks like a superior package in the P39 to me, but not sure.

Hartwig



stldiver -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/8/2009 12:23:58 AM)

I don't get into the details of how the plane is stats are, I go by results.

Results are if I fly my Zero's 25k. P-39's are lunch meat more then P40's. I don't even worry about P-39's defending except they may wear my planes down from attack more vital planes i.e. bombers coming after me.

I have found no reason to engage my zero's below 25k as they have the advantage vs all planes except Hurricanes which they trade
evenly to sometimes plus, to sometimes minus. Depending if defending, attacking or who is the most tired.



Xxzard -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/8/2009 1:47:00 AM)

This is a lot like the P-39 vs Oscars thread I posted a while ago.

Stats say P-39 has superior manuverability to the P-40E at all altitudes. That front gun really does a lot of damage too. It's also slightly faster, though has a little less range. Climb rate is significantly better.

But I totally agree with the two things brought up here: (a) in real life the P-40 was generally considered a much better fighter, and (b), P-40's, for whatever reason, do better in the game against fighters than the P-39s. Stats don't show this, but I totally agree with this. My P-39s get shot up whenever there are enemy fighters, while similar exp P-40's have much more success, and reduced loss rates. In fact, in my game, one Australian group with about 60 avg exp is achieving better than 1:1 kill ratios against zeros in their Kittyhawk IA fighters.



FatR -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/8/2009 1:57:17 PM)

Stats of certain aircraft just seem assigned for no reason in AE. Hellcat is less maneurable than Corsair for example, making it all-around worse plane (except for service rating) until introduction of F6F-5 at least. And Fireball is immensely more maneurable than every other US Navy fighter. But in this particular case visible stats do not seem to wholly reflect the balance. In my experience P-39s perform consistently worse against enemy fighters.



Jim D Burns -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/8/2009 2:29:48 PM)

The P-39 had a special 10k rule in the original WitP that severly penalized it over 10k altitude. It could be possible that that rule was/is hard coded into the .exe or soemthing, so the stats had to be increased to take it into account. So it’s possible all those altitude band ratings are being adversly affected by the original 10k rule or something.

Jim



John Lansford -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/8/2009 2:58:57 PM)

My P-39's are death to unescorted bombers, and hold their own against the Oscars that often escort them over PM.  Right now my most decorated squadron with over 150 kills flies P-39's, even though I've got several P-40 squadrons there as well.



drw61 -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/8/2009 3:49:16 PM)

IIRC That hard code was taken out (most were in AE), so I don't think that is the explanation.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The P-39 had a special 10k rule in the original WitP that severly penalized it over 10k altitude. It could be possible that that rule was/is hard coded into the .exe or soemthing, so the stats had to be increased to take it into account. So it’s possible all those altitude band ratings are being adversly affected by the original 10k rule or something.

Jim





treespider -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/8/2009 5:35:11 PM)

OK so everyone is well aware of the historical performance issues of the P-39 .... but were you aware of the following-

From the Squadron Signal publications P-40 Warhawk in Action

p17 - The P-40D had a top speed of 362 mph at 15,000 feet and a service ceiling of 30,600, even though performance fell off above 15,000 feet due to lack of proper supercharging.

p21 - The P-40E had the same Allison V-1710-39 engine that powered the P-40D. Performance numbers were similar.

p26 - While the P-40E was a solid performing aircraft at altitudes below 12,000 feet, performance fell off dramatically above that altitude. As altitude increases, air becomes thinner. Forced induction, or "supercharging" as applied to aircraft is a process by which... Unfortunately for the P-40E the Allison V-1710-39 that powered it lacked a two stage supercharger that would have allowed the Allison engine to perform to its potential at heights where air combat was taking place...



Zebedee -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/9/2009 1:19:46 AM)

The Allison V-1710 and its problems above 15k' was why the RAF wouldn't use P-40s over Europe (although they did a decent job in North Africa), and also why the RAF decided to try putting a Merlin in a Mustang MkI (P51-A).



xj900uk -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/9/2009 1:51:14 PM)

THe P40 was on the whole a better plane (more rugged/reliable) and easier to maintain, but early versions like the P39 lacked a supercharger on the Allison engine, making the performance noticably tail off from medium altitudes (12-15k feet upwards)
The P40 was popular with its maintnacne crews unliek the P39 which was a maintnance nightmare with its tricycle carriage, heavy & complex 37mm canon & rear-mounted engine.
Finally, the 37 mm canon (and the 20mm on the P400) was notoriously unreliable and prone to jamming.  Also the recoil tended to wear out the bearings and airframe (not to mention the pilot, who had the propellor shaft turning between his legs & very close to his groin area) causing some quite spectacular mid-air failures



USSAmerica -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/9/2009 2:27:21 PM)

That last is an image I didn't need.  [X(][:D]



goodboyladdie -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/9/2009 2:38:18 PM)

I saw a P-39 in a display two years ago. It was very fast and nimble and was a lot harder to see than the Mustang it was in the air with. I finally understood why the Soviets liked them as a low altitude fighter. I don't quite get the AE figures though.



PaxMondo -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 5:05:52 AM)

P-39 was a very agile fighter with incredible roll rates and it had a BIG gun centerline that made it both easy to target and put real hurt on.  No.2 all time Soviet ace flew the P-39, so it was effective. However, it was not a high altitude bomber interceptor.  It was a low level dog fighter in support of ground ops. 

Games always have a tough time modeling it, just like they have a tough time with the two german fighters.  On paper the FW109 looks much better, but most of the GER aces flew ME109's.  Reason was that the ME109 had better rollrate and tighter turn circle.  FW109 was faster and tougher, but not as nimble.  Further, data on roll rates and turn rates doesn't exist for most of the planes of the era.  So, instead, gamers have to quantify what they can and some planes get reputations in game that are not consistent with how they actually performed in the war.  P-39 is one of those that generally gets pretty slammed.  Oh well.



JeffroK -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 7:07:30 AM)

If only the Finns got there hands on the P39!

In AE, I would see the P40E & P39 D as being very similar, probably up to the pilot experience to split them.

IRL, For a short time, USAAC P-39's defended Port Moresby after taking over from the RAAF Kittyhawk 1A's and performed competently. Of course if up against IJNAF/JAAF experten they would have been at a severe disadvantage.



castor troy -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 7:21:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

P-39 was a very agile fighter with incredible roll rates and it had a BIG gun centerline that made it both easy to target and put real hurt on.  No.2 all time Soviet ace flew the P-39, so it was effective. However, it was not a high altitude bomber interceptor.  It was a low level dog fighter in support of ground ops. 

Games always have a tough time modeling it, just like they have a tough time with the two german fighters.  On paper the FW109 looks much better, but most of the GER aces flew ME109's.  Reason was that the ME109 had better rollrate and tighter turn circle.  FW109 was faster and tougher, but not as nimble.  Further, data on roll rates and turn rates doesn't exist for most of the planes of the era.  So, instead, gamers have to quantify what they can and some planes get reputations in game that are not consistent with how they actually performed in the war.  P-39 is one of those that generally gets pretty slammed.  Oh well.




could the fact that most German aces flew the 109 have something to do that it was the fighter with the highest production number? I guess most German fighter pilots would have been glad if the 190 would have been around as numero uno fighter aircraft for the Battle of Britain for example. The fact that there were pilots that became aces flying a certain aircraft doesn´t always means that this is due to an excellent aircraft. I´m not saying that the Messerschmitt or the P-39 have been bad aircraft...



PaxMondo -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 1:24:53 PM)

I've read several places that the German aces disdained the FW190.  No, they had a choice and chose the Me109.  Remember, these guys were celebrated.  They had their pick of aircraft.

Same with the P-39.  The Soviet ace had his choice and chose the P-39, even later in the war when there were "better" planes available.  My guess on the P-39 is that he became very adept with its roll characteristics.  If you haven't flown, roll rate allows you to choose your direction for your turn. High roll rate means you can get to a new direction very quickly.  P-39 turn rate reputedly wasn't much better than anything else, but since it could roll so fast it allowed you to lose someone on your tail almost immediately, and conversely allowed you to stay on an opponent tail faily well.  Both are pretty important in dog fighting.  And then that big cannon it had ... one or two hits and most fighters would have been down.  Firing centerline meant high accuracy ... very interesting and unique design.



EUBanana -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 1:34:43 PM)

Real life aside, is there any explanation as to how the stats are interpreted by the game engine? I've noticed this before actually, the various ratings in the aircraft data seem to have a rather cryptic impact on the results of combat. P40s seem to have quite low maneuverability - compare a P40 to a Beaufighter, say. The Beau is just better, in all regards, but Beaus are lunchmeat and P40s are not.

What gives?

Does any aircraft designated as a fighter-bomber have some sort of innate penalty to do with its classification?



xj900uk -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 1:41:33 PM)

Have sat in a P39 cockpit & believe you me it is very uncomfortable, particularly the propellor shaft between the legs.  Also bailing out of it and getting your feet to come with you from that side 'car door' is almost impossible into a slip stream (I had a great deal of difficulty with it sitting on the ground engine off going nowhere)
However yes I do concede that the russians loved it (and the larger P-63) mainly for its ground attack capabilities (once they ironed out the problems iwht the canon), however it sucks as a medium/high level dogfighter or interceptor,  which is what it tended to be used for at least initially in the Pacific campaigns - only later was it discovered that it made a very good barge buster,  although the poor range somewhat limited this type of attack.

I have logged about 90 minutes on three separate occasions in a P40 and believe me it is a beautiful plane, fun and easy to fly.   Fast,  light on the controls and manoueverable.  Also given the high-wing loading tends to hang on to its energy quite well.
Also logged 8 hours + in Spanish-built Me109's, even more uncomfortable than the P39 and (I'm a large chap) virtually impossible to get in or out of in a hurry.  Also the visibitily is completely naff (something you don't want to really suffer with in a dogfighting plane),  the whole thing was far too light and delicate,  the narrow undercarriage sucks (very easy to drop a wingtip and turn it over) and the cockpit is far too crowded.  Other than that it's OK.
Sat in but not flown a Fw190 Butcher Bird,  seemed a lot bigger and more rugged plane,  probalby not as manouverable as the Me109 but a lot more armour plate and armament.  You felt that this plane could really do a lot of damage in the right hands



castor troy -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 1:59:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I've read several places that the German aces disdained the FW190.  No, they had a choice and chose the Me109.  Remember, these guys were celebrated.  They had their pick of aircraft.

Same with the P-39.  The Soviet ace had his choice and chose the P-39, even later in the war when there were "better" planes available.  My guess on the P-39 is that he became very adept with its roll characteristics.  If you haven't flown, roll rate allows you to choose your direction for your turn. High roll rate means you can get to a new direction very quickly.  P-39 turn rate reputedly wasn't much better than anything else, but since it could roll so fast it allowed you to lose someone on your tail almost immediately, and conversely allowed you to stay on an opponent tail faily well.  Both are pretty important in dog fighting.  And then that big cannon it had ... one or two hits and most fighters would have been down.  Firing centerline meant high accuracy ... very interesting and unique design.



the big cannon might look nice to you but believe me, even if you only need one or two hits to down a fighter, hitting a fighter with it is pure luck. Two German 20mm cannons are far more effective than this useless center lined 37mm cannon. This cannon was near useless... firing centerline or not, the rate of fire just sucked.

and yes, German aces were celebrated (just as all other aces of other nations) but if your squadron is flying a Me109 then you will end up flying this aircraft too and even if all the Me109 models were really good aircraft, the Focke Wolf still would have accounted for more kills and more German pilots surviving if it would have been the primary fighter IMO.



PaxMondo -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 2:42:19 PM)

Well 150 rounds/min is slow I grant you.  But with 2000ft/sec muzzle velocity and centerline it fired straight, something that a lot of other big cannon struggled with (accuracy).  Somehow the Soviets figured out how to use it effectively against the Germans.  Unfortunately, I've never read anywhere that those Soviet pilots left detailed notes on their tactics so we may never know exactly how they did it.  But the numbers do not lie.  Pretty or graceful as a Spit?  No way.  Rack up a lot of kills and get its pilot home safe for another fight?  Yep.

Edit: "Sasha" Alexandre Ivanovich Pokryshkin. Something like 59 confirmed kills across the entire war. Almost entirely in the P-39.



Nikademus -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 2:53:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Real life aside, is there any explanation as to how the stats are interpreted by the game engine?


Firepower remains an overbearing factor. The P-39's armament gives it a large firepower rating within the engine which makes it particularily deadly to unarmored bombers. Altitude penalties will do little to alter this. In this respect the P-39 is SAIEW in Witp. If it gets at the bombers, watch out.




castor troy -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 3:36:41 PM)

a fighter with a "door"... this should say enough... [;)]

[image]local://upfiles/13774/EFBD27D6FC5E479ABFFD8B58F7441514.jpg[/image]



EUBanana -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 3:46:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Firepower remains an overbearing factor. The P-39's armament gives it a large firepower rating within the engine which makes it particularily deadly to unarmored bombers. Altitude penalties will do little to alter this. In this respect the P-39 is SAIEW in Witp. If it gets at the bombers, watch out.


I've noticed this with Beaufighters, they shred bombers like you wouldn't believe.

But why does a P39 suffer against fighters compared to a P40? In game stats look like the P39 should be better, but it isn't. Whats the crack?



Nikademus -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 4:00:27 PM)

In theory, its supposed to have a preformance falloff at higher altitude, + starting 39 groups tend to have lower experience. However in my experiences the 39's do abnormally well against both fighters and bombers, primary due to the firepower they bring into the calcs.

I used to reduce this firepower in my old mods to compensate.



EUBanana -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 10:33:12 PM)

Any performance falloff isn't really reflected in the stats, and I thought all hardcoded under the hood wrinkles like that were removed?

P39D
Max speed 368mph
Gun rating 18
Maneuverability bands 19 17 13 9 5
Armour 1
Climb rate 2631 feet/min
Durability 32

P40E
Max speed 354mph
Gun rating 18
Maneuverability bands 16 16 11 6 2
Armour 1
Climb rate 2050 feet/min
Durability 29


So the P39 is better than the P40E in every regard but one, and equal in that one. Yet the P39 gets eaten for lunch and the P40 does not. Any pilot differences seem pretty minor, certainly at my point in the game anyway as the originals are all dead, so both are drawing from the same pool.

Like I said, what gives? The Beaufighter VIC tells a similar tale. It certainly minces bombers more than anything else in the air, but against fighters it's dead, and yet if you look at the stats even of a twin like the Beau, it's maneuverability is akin to the P40E.

The only thing that seems different is that the P39 and Beau are classed as a fighter bomber and the P40 is not, which is why it seems maybe simply being a fighter bomber incurs a penalty of some kind.



crsutton -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 10:54:00 PM)

In theory multi weapon equipped aircraft make much poorer dogfighters that aircraft with the same type of guns throughout. The differing muzzle velocities of the 37mm cannon, twin 50 cal and four 30 calibers put the P-39 at a distinct disadvantage over the P40 when any sort of deflection shot was used. So a turning fight against a fighter gave the P40 a substantial advantage since the pilot was only trying to get six identical 50 caliber guns to hit the target. The cannon on the 39 could be deadly if it hit anything but with the slow rate of fire, it was not the easiest thing to do and not a poplular weapon.

One aspect of the P40 that is very underrated both vs the P39 and the zero is the superior roll rate that the P40 possesed. In fact the P40 had one of the best roll rates of any fighter in the war. This is a key advantage in a fight as any turn in an aircraft must begin with a roll. The zero was a great turner but had a slower roll rate-especially at high altitudes and at any speed above 280 kts. Don't be fooled the zero was not a great turning plane at high speed and that is why P40 pilots were told to keep their top speed up. So, for a brief period, due to the better roll rate, a P40 could actually out turn a zero. A diving P40 pilot making a pass on a zero could react to the zero's turning maneuvering by rolling over and actually begin his turn before the zero-allowing for the P40 pilot to get in a deflection shot before the zero's superior turn rate actually took effect. The (smart) p40 pilot would then refuse to turn any further with the zero and just straighten out and extend away for another pass or another day.

Any talk of zero vs P40s at high altitude is sort of out of whack anyway. If a p40 encountered a zero at 27,000 feet (not likely since both planes sucked at altitude) then any competent p40 pilot would use his superior dive speed to fly away to a lower altitude where he could even the fight or just disengage. One reason why I am not a fan of the high altitude sweep in the game. Experienced pilots just learned to not play the zero's game. The rule was simple. Keep your speed up and don't turn with a zero. Follow that simple rule and the P40 was a far superior aircraft.



EUBanana -> RE: P-40E v P-39D (11/10/2009 11:03:19 PM)

Thats real life though, I'm curious as to the game mechanics... there are quite a few areas where the stats that are written down just don't seem to have anything to do with the results you get, which makes me curious.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.6875