real P-39 vs ingame p-39

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

By contrast, the P-40 was longer-ranged, had better high altitude performance, and because it was a progressive development of the P-36, was more familiar to U.S. ground crews and was easier to maintain.

The P-40 didn't have better high altitude performance. It essentially used the same engines, save for the differences caused by the installations, but was heavier. It was also draggier. It ended up being slower, worse climbing and with a lower ceiling than contemporary P-39's, even at high altitudes.

It was easier to fly, though - the P-39's near neutral longitudinal stability made it very difficult to handle, and spin characteristics weren't exactly forgiving. It was much easier to make a mistake in a P-39 and much harder to fix it.

However, in Il-2 it imho is one of the biggest clown wagons there are because of the absence of any the historical handling problems, yet performance that is best described as optimistic.

[horseback]

If a fighter usually works as expected, and can be kept in more optimal condition (let's be honest here; maintenance was a nightmare in the Solomons and New Guinea, regardless of which aircraft you were operating), it is vastly better performing than the aircraft with the better 'book' numbers that cannot reach them and isn't available in the minimum numbers needed because of a thousand and one maintenance problems.

The P-40 was reliable, it was predictable (if demanding) to fly, and it had a much better support system already in place, not only in the US Army Air Forces, but in the Commonwealth air forces as well. It had the confidence of its pilots, comparable (if not better) performance in actual practice to go with better range, and was therefore better suited to the first theater that the Airacobra saw combat in.

With the Soviets, the reverse was true; the P-40s rushed via Lend Lease were not well received or properly maintained by the VVS, and by Soviet standards were enormous ungainly beasts. The Airacobras benefited from the P-40's problems in terms of better care and feeding of the Allison engines because they arrived later, and from Bell's rapid commitment to support their biggest combat customer.

cheers

horseback

[gaunt1]

However, in Il-2 it imho is one of the biggest clown wagons there are because of the absence of any the historical handling problems, yet performance that is best described as optimistic.

Why, what is the problem with the P-39 ingame? Its speed and climb matches quite well to ww2aircraftperformance graphs.

[MaxGunz]

P-39D is what US pilots had. When the Russians got it they proceeded to work with Bell on improvements. See how many P-39N and Q served around New Guinea. There is a difference in weight and structure and even engine controls.

Front engine and mid engine planes act and handle differently in touchy situations. A lot of what goes on you do not feel in a sim. IRL the training is more complete than in sims. So when in a touchy situation a front-engine trained pilot may revert to training and do the wrong things then of course the plane is wrong, which last part is the similarity to sims.

It's about the same with mid or rear engine cars as opposed to front engine, also which wheels are driven. I'm happier with rear wheel drive most of the time, front or rear engine, but had one wreck that a front wheel drive could have gotten me right out of. I don't blame the car.