P-400 for air-to-air?

[bomccarthy]

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.

[rustysi]

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.

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.

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.

[wdolson]

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.

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

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

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.

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.

[Disco Duck]

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.

[bomccarthy]

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.

[Leandros]

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.

[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

[Leandros]

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

[wdolson]

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

[Leandros]

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.

It may and may not be. Phil Rasmussen’s Pearl Harbor P-36 was in silvery aluminium. Later, those in active service certainly got that green camo. I don’t Think
there were any P-36’s in the PI during 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 I must arrest you. If you look into the “Detail specifications” link –

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... ations.pdf -

you shall find that its actual ferry range was more than 1.200 miles (P & W engine) at 200 mph at 15.000 feet with “normal” (automatic) engine settings. I suppose
this altitude was selected as the highest practical one without oxygen. During tests flown at 160 mph on “manual” - 20.000 feet - ferry range was increased
considerably – if I remember correctly to 1.600 miles! This is described by messr. Beauchamp and Cuny in their book Curtiss Hawk 75 – the P-36 “bible”. A very good
characteristic in the Pacific or Philippine Theatre, I should think. The Cyclone-engine version had even better fuel economy but, as we now know, that was an
unreliable engine due to its often excessive lube oil consumption. The Dutch flew this version.

As for rate of climb, if you look into the manual you’ll see that total time to 22.000 feet is less than 10 minutes. That is an average of 2.200 f/m! Initial
climb: 3.200 f/m. The guys in the Philippines would certainly have appreciated that. Still, this is not with the 1.200 hp. engine which was mounted on the P-36A
in December 1941. If the local stories are to be believed the guys in the Philippines never made it up to the Japanese bombers at 23.000 feet with their P-40E’s.
Some actually preferred the earlier version, the P-40B, due to its better handling and climb rate.

Here is the data from the USAAF flight test center:

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

While we know what engine and propeller is tested here we don’t know the actual configuration of this aircraft – even if it is stated as a P-36A.

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

I appreciate that which is why I have gone to some length to detail my parameters.

I just want to underline that the P-36 type I am looking for is the early one, the one that flew at PH and the Canal Zone at the time – 1941/42. While it was
under-armed it still shot down Japanese planes at PH. While it was un-armored (I believe) Rasmussen still flew his plane back to base with 500 bullet holes in it.
Without self-sealing fuel tanks, like the Japanese planes, they had better range and lower weight.

So here comes my question, can the planes be modified in the editor.

Fred

[wdolson]

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.

ORIGINAL: Leandros
It may and may not be. Phil Rasmussen’s Pearl Harbor P-36 was in silvery aluminium. Later, those in active service certainly got that green camo. I don’t Think
there were any P-36’s in the PI during the war.

The art is just there for the humans to look at. You could have a Klingon cruiser picture and it wouldn't make any difference for game play.

My mistake about the P-36s in the PI, I was thinking of the P-35.

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 I must arrest you. If you look into the “Detail specifications” link –

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... ations.pdf -

you shall find that its actual ferry range was more than 1.200 miles (P & W engine) at 200 mph at 15.000 feet with “normal” (automatic) engine settings. I suppose
this altitude was selected as the highest practical one without oxygen. During tests flown at 160 mph on “manual” - 20.000 feet - ferry range was increased
considerably – if I remember correctly to 1.600 miles! This is described by messr. Beauchamp and Cuny in their book Curtiss Hawk 75 – the P-36 “bible”. A very good
characteristic in the Pacific or Philippine Theatre, I should think. The Cyclone-engine version had even better fuel economy but, as we now know, that was an
unreliable engine due to its often excessive lube oil consumption. The Dutch flew this version.

As for rate of climb, if you look into the manual you’ll see that total time to 22.000 feet is less than 10 minutes. That is an average of 2.200 f/m! Initial
climb: 3.200 f/m. The guys in the Philippines would certainly have appreciated that. Still, this is not with the 1.200 hp. engine which was mounted on the P-36A
in December 1941. If the local stories are to be believed the guys in the Philippines never made it up to the Japanese bombers at 23.000 feet with their P-40E’s.
Some actually preferred the earlier version, the P-40B, due to its better handling and climb rate.

The document you sent looks like a sales brochure. I'd like to know where they got there numbers.

The XP-38 was touted as an ultra long range fighter because it had a range of 1300 miles. If the USAAF already had a 1200 mile range fighter in its stable, I strongly doubt the range of the P-38 would have been touted. The USAAF tried to set a transcontinental record with the XP-38 only a few weeks after its first flight. The planned route had legs of 1100 miles, which was considered very long for a fighter. The prototype crashed on a golf course coming in to land and was lost.

The Zero's range shocked everyone around the world because nobody thought it was possible to get that kind of range out of a single engine plane.

Comparing the claimed range of the P-36 with contemporaries and what was said about their range, if the Hawk 75 had a realistic range approaching anything close to 1000 miles, it would be a notable feature that is remembered. The USAAF considered the P-36 obsolescent at the time of Pearl Harbor and the remaining planes were withdrawn from service soon after, despite a critical shortage of aircraft in the first year of the war. If they thought it had any dramatically fantastic performance characteristics, I think they would have been trying to save it rather than retire it in favor of the P-40.

The game uses numbers derived from realistic sources based on aircraft fully combat loaded and equipped (real world conditions). Prototypes almost always were much faster and better performers than combat loaded aircraft. It wasn't unusual for combat aircraft to get more sluggish as they got more and more equipment added.

It is possible the P-36A could use a nudge in rate of climb. The P-36A did not have any armor, self sealing tanks, and it was more lightly armed than the RAF Mowhawks, which have many of the same stats in game.

Here is the data from the USAAF flight test center:

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

While we know what engine and propeller is tested here we don’t know the actual configuration of this aircraft – even if it is stated as a P-36A.

It was probably closer to full combat equipment than the Hawk 75A retained by the Curtiss factory and used as an unarmed demonstrator. Though I don't know for sure.

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

I appreciate that which is why I have gone to some length to detail my parameters.

I just want to underline that the P-36 type I am looking for is the early one, the one that flew at PH and the Canal Zone at the time – 1941/42. While it was
under-armed it still shot down Japanese planes at PH. While it was un-armored (I believe) Rasmussen still flew his plane back to base with 500 bullet holes in it.
Without self-sealing fuel tanks, like the Japanese planes, they had better range and lower weight.

So here comes my question, can the planes be modified in the editor.

Fred

Yes, aircraft specs can be modified in the editor. Things like maneuver are abstracted numbers used in the game, but other things like rate of climb, speeds, range, etc are straight numbers in English units. I can't remember if the speeds are in knots or MPH. You can also change the armament and change the stats for the armament too.

Bill

[Leandros]

The document you sent looks like a sales brochure. I'd like to know where they got there numbers.

The manual describes under what pre-requisites, weights, equipment, the data are acquired. Those were according to standard procedures as outlined by the Army Air Corps.

The Zero's range shocked everyone around the world because nobody thought it was possible to get that kind of range out of a single engine plane.

I know. The Zero’s performance was also not achieved by “normal” means. Saburo Sakai, in his book, describes how he and his friends tweeked the aircraft before the war to achieve maximum range for their particular purpose – the attack on The Philippines. This can be compared with the long-range tests of the P-36 where it was flown at lower speeds (160 mph.), higher altitudes (20.000 feet) and optimized “manual” engine control (RPM, throttle setting, prop. pitch, fuel mix) as opposed to the “automatic”. Still it was flown with max t/o weights. That is not to say that any rookie could do this but there is quite a difference between 600, 1.200 (“normal”, 15.000, 200) and 1.600 miles (“manual”, 20.000, 160).

In a typical scramble mode the P-36 would perform even better with only main tanks filled up. As would the Zero after a long flight. The Zero also had a drop-tank.

Comparing the claimed range of the P-36 with contemporaries and what was said about their range, if the Hawk 75 had a realistic range approaching anything close to 1000 miles, it would be a notable feature that is remembered. The USAAF considered the P-36 obsolescent at the time of Pearl Harbor and the remaining planes were withdrawn from service soon after, despite a critical shortage of aircraft in the first year of the war. If they thought it had any dramatically fantastic performance characteristics, I think they would have been trying to save it rather than retire it in favor of the P-40.

At Pearl Harbor the USAAC had long since decided that their fighters should have an inline engine. It was a fashion thing and had little relevance to the P-36 being obsolescent or not. It had plenty of development potential which was proven by the Navy’s radial-engine fighters. There was also another reason particular to the AAC. There was a lack of radial engines for their new bombers so they sponsored the Allison V-12 for the next generation fighters. Also, the AAC put little emphasis on range. Fighters were for point defense, not bomber escorts. They had Flying Fortresses. The P-39 being a good example. But, even that plane could be tweeked considerably.

The game uses numbers derived from realistic sources based on aircraft fully combat loaded and equipped (real world conditions). Prototypes almost always were much faster and better performers than combat loaded aircraft. It wasn't unusual for combat aircraft to get more sluggish as they got more and more equipment added.

I have no problem with that, we are talking about different versions. Yours is a late-war, loaded-down P-36. MY P-36 is not a prototype, but an early version with armament, however light, and full tanks. But, it did exist. Beauchamp and Cuny give some examples of even better performance than those in your “sales brochure”. Still, the figures in the manual is for the 1.100 hp. P & W engine, not the 1,200 hp.

It is possible the P-36A could use a nudge in rate of climb. The P-36A did not have any armor, self sealing tanks, and it was more lightly armed than the RAF Mowhawks, which have many of the same stats in game.

You are right, but it wasn’t only a nudge, it was what made it on par with the Zero. Climb, maneuverability, range. Just my opinion.
The Japanese bombers flew in over Manila at approx.. 23.000 feet. The P-40’s never reached them, the P-36 would have been there in 10 minutes. If they had been allowed to take off.

Yes, aircraft specs can be modified in the editor. Things like maneuver are abstracted numbers used in the game, but other things like rate of climb, speeds, range, etc are straight numbers in English units. I can't remember if the speeds are in knots or MPH. You can also change the armament and change the stats for the armament too.

Bill

Thank you. That’s great. Would you have any idea if the latest large update is incorporated in the copies presently selling?

Fred

[Erkki]

Speaking of the P36, it also saw extensive service by the French and the Finnish.

FiAF used 44 examples: P-36 A-1 to A-4 and 13 A-6s. Their performance was immediately found inadequate(mainly top speed) in 1941 already and the ones with Wright Cyclones(1200 hp) were found highly unreliable. Lessons were learned from the Winter War, and thus they were all upgraded: armor seats, German Revi gunsights, one centreline machine gun was swapped to a heavy machine gun: Colt (when available) or Berezin(incredibly unwieldy and unreliable). I order a magazine on aviation history, and it lately had an extensive article on the different weapons modifications tried and used operationally, I need to find that one again...

Fighter squadron LLv32 using the P-36 scored 190 victories and lost 14 aircraft and 9 pilots. Its main opponents were I-153, I-16, lend-lease Hurricanes and P-40s, MiG-3, Yak, LaGG-3 and later the La-5. The last P-36 flew in August 1948.

If you are interested, here is actually a list of the unit's victories and losses, their dates, locations and reasons, notice that some of the early victories were scored by Hurricanes and Fokkers(HC and FRs, P-36 Hawks are "CU" for Curtiss): http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_L ... tappioista

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Speaking of the P36, it also saw extensive service by the French and the Finnish.

FiAF used 44 examples: P-36 A-1 to A-4 and 13 A-6s. Their performance was immediately found inadequate(mainly top speed) in 1941 already and the ones with Wright Cyclones(1200 hp) were found highly unreliable. Lessons were learned from the Winter War, and thus they were all upgraded: armor seats, German Revi gunsights, one centreline machine gun was swapped to a heavy machine gun: Colt (when available) or Berezin(incredibly unwieldy and unreliable). I order a magazine on aviation history, and it lately had an extensive article on the different weapons modifications tried and used operationally, I need to find that one again...

Fighter squadron LLv32 using the P-36 scored 190 victories and lost 14 aircraft and 9 pilots. Its main opponents were I-153, I-16, lend-lease Hurricanes and P-40s, MiG-3, Yak, LaGG-3 and later the La-5. The last P-36 flew in August 1948.

If you are interested, here is actually a list of the unit's victories and losses, their dates, locations and reasons, notice that some of the early victories were scored by Hurricanes and Fokkers(HC and FRs, P-36 Hawks are "CU" for Curtiss): http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_L ... tappioista

Thank you - some of the Hawk A-6's were actually Norwegian ones, captured by the Germans when invading Norway in April 1940.

Fred

[Lecivius]

Holy Necro Thread, Batman!! [X(]

[decourcy2]

And as for the guy talking about flying at 15000ft for 1200 miles without oxygen, you can't do that, too little air.

I am a pilot, but if you don't want to believe me read Bannon's comments flying above Guadalcanal in a P400 with no oxygen.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

And as for the guy talking about flying at 15000ft for 1200 miles without oxygen, you can't do that, too little air.

I am a pilot, but if you don't want to believe me read Bannon's comments flying above Guadalcanal in a P400 with no oxygen.

Civilian rules today...[;)]:

FAR § 91.211 Supplemental oxygen

(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry—

(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;

(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and

(3) At cabin pressure altitudes above 15,000 feet (MSL) unless each occupant of the aircraft is provided with supplemental oxygen.

-----------

The influence of lack of oxygen is known to vary considerable from person to person. An important factor being adaptability through "training".

Intermediate use of auxiliary oxygen is also well known. That said, WW2 fighters (and bombers) were, in general, equipped with auxilliary oxygen.

It should also be mentioned that the type of flying (combat/cruise, ferry) created different needs for oxygen.

Fred

[wwengr]

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

In terms of the game, the P-400 and the P-39D are about the same in most respects. Same firepower, same range, endurance, speed, same service rating. The P-39D has a better rate of climb. The P-400 has a little better maneuverability.

The only characteristic the P-40E is better than the other two is the max range. It has lower maneuverability and less firepower.

In the campaign game, you only get a small number of P-400's compared to the other two. One squadron arrives fully equipped and you get 72 airframes over two months for upgrades & replacements.

The P-40E's are plentiful early on, the P-39D's become so. There's only one squadron of P-40E's that can be upgraded to p-39D's

My suggestion: take the path of upgrading P-40E's to P-39D's on the one squadron, if you have enough P-39D's. The Phillipines give you the opportunity to burn up a lot of P-40E's early in the game, so you might need more P-40E's in the pool. With regard to upgrading P-39D's to P-400's? I would do so if combat results create a shortage of P-39D's. Don't forget that you start the game with the 54th PG equipped with P-39D's, but it is restricted to the US and they leave, taking their planes and pilots with them early on too. I wouldn't bother building those squadrons to full strength, only to lose the airframes in a few weeks. (don't forget to replace all of the pilots with rookie replacements right before they leave).

[Macclan5]

This was debated some months ago as well.. at least a similar thread initiated by myself seeking experienced advice on the best deployment of the P39 / P 400.

I was under the "common" mistaken impression that the P39 P400 was a great ground attack fighter - in game I did not seem to see this practically apply.

Many books / articles seem to convey that thought - ground attack; however updated wikipedia ( assuming its accurate ) re-translated the Russian language suggesting its success was in the air war over the eastern front. Hmm.

So what I learned from great advice opinions here.

1) Of the may variables in air combat in this game (weather, pilot experience, etc) the relative minor differentials in the P39 P400 and P40 E hardly make one air frame vastly superior to the others. Pilot Experience foremost would be the difference maker.

2) None of the P39 P400 P40E will dominate the air (CAP or Sweeper) in and of themselves especially in early 1942 through 1943. They can be 'competitive' with Japanese forces largely depending upon the variables such as pilot experience.

But you have what you have - to fight with and the Allied player needs to contest and defend with what they have in the early war.

3) I have (limited) experience. I did enjoy success with the P39 P400 at Alt = 5000 Naval Attack - the so called barge buster noted above... Why?

Yes it would be better to have DBs and Wildcats (Marines); but at least in the Coral Sea region - you can get the P39 (some odd P400 squadrons as I recall) - to base quickly. You can project force quickly.

Further they fly out of a base with minimal air support as a single squadron; and they do fly. I rarely experienced aborted missions (vsAI). You have to fight with what you got.

A single squadron on Naval attack can / will sink the odd barge or equally disrupt invasion plans such that the Japanese player may be forced to devote some air support (Mini KB or the KB) to their landings. Knowing that you get a hit - some disruption - and knowing where you opponent is - potentially more valuable than the performance of the air frame in and off itself.