Quote:
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.