Hawk81A-2

[greybeard1]

Would be curious to know differences in game between Hawk81A-2 and P40B. Perusing my sources (Jane's and "P-40 in action") can't detect any.

Thx,
GB

[Pursuivant]

I believe that the Hawk81 reflects the version of the P-40B used by the AVG. There might be some minor differences in armor and armament compared to the actual USAAF P-40B, but I'm not sure. Maybe lack of self-sealing tanks?

Apparently, the really early versions of the the P-40 lacked armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, and just had 4 guns. They were used by the DAF under the name of Tomahawk Mk I.

Ah, this thread has the goods. The AVG Hawk-81s were ex-RAF with British .303 MG instead of US .30 or .50 caliber, plus an up-rated engine.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-23934.html

[greybeard1]

Sorry, I was unclear.

I meant I would know difference between the two types in game. In reality it seems officially there weren't, but I read at least a former AVG pilot's report that stated differences of their P-40's in respect of stock ones. Since Oleg put two distinct SUCHAISVOLOCH's for Hawk81A-2 and P-40B, I wonder what changes introduced among them.

[greybeard1]

This is the link for document I previously mentioned. It is actually pilot's manual with some comments and additions. It's a 236 KB PDF, so it'll take a while to be loaded.

http://www.avia-it.com/act/profili_d...0_Tomahawk.pdf

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by greybeard1

I meant I would know difference between the two types in game.

Ah, that I don't know. I naively assumed that the Hawk-81 in the game was based on historical evidence. Perhaps a modder or a DT member who's seen the FM code for the model could tell us.

[Plane-Eater]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Ah, that I don't know. I naively assumed that the Hawk-81 in the game was based on historical evidence. Perhaps a modder or a DT member who's seen the FM code for the model could tell us.

I can't tell you about the FM code, but when I originally built the H81-A2 pits (along with the P-40B/C and Tomahawk IIB/IIC pits) for PacFi, the idea was to depict the AVG's aircraft specifically.

My research indicated a few things:

- the AVG's aircraft were transitionals that didn't fit the exact technical order of any of the contemporary USAAC or RAF P-40 models.
- They arrived in Rangoon without wing guns. The AVG scrounged two squadrons worth of either .303 or .30 cal Brownings, and one squadron's worth of 7.92 guns; I believe (it's been 8 years, pardon my memory) that they arrived with the .50 cal nose guns, as Chuck Baidsen recalls working with .50 cal ammo and having to link much of it manually
- Because the aircraft, and their engines, were unusual diversions from the hectic war production lines, Curtis was short on engines to equip the aircraft. As a result, they hand-fitted rejected parts together until they had enough functioning engines. Because those engines were literally hand-fitted, the tolerances were much closer than most and the engines resultingly produced more power than production line V1710s. This is corroborated by experiences of the pilots, ground crew... and the IJA. Some reports put the resulting HP figure north of 1200, and several points in my research mentioned 50" or more of manifold pressure.
- The aircraft also arrived without proper reflex gunsights and the AVG field-fabricated their own reflectors to make due. That is what led to the unique hanging sight in the H81-A2 pit model, and it was modeled based off photos of the actual AVG sights (which were VERY hard to come by, especially in 2004!)
- My photographs did NOT show angled cockpit armor glass like the plate in the Flying Heritage Collection's restored P-40C.
- There were conflicting reports about the AVG aircraft's capabilities to carry bombs (there were some field experiments to try and add that option, but the "how" is lost to history), but all my sources concluded they could NOT carry drop tanks.
- They also lacked the self-sealing fuel tanks of P-40Cs
- They featured earlier control-stick mounted hydraulic actuator switches, which I missed when I built them.
- Dan Ford's research, and Erik Shilling's notes, indicate they had earlier foot treadle starters. I couldn't, and still can't, find a photograph or diagram or anything except brief mentions of this system, versus the later toggle switch starter. That feature, though, indicates the aircraft significantly preceded the P-40C production span, as it was eliminated early in the H81 model line.
- The FM (hopefully) also reflects the droop (less than an inch) that was added by the AVG to the ailerons which benefited handling.

[IceFire]

Really interesting information Plane Eater. Glad to have you and your knowledge around!

[Former_Older]

Late in replying!

Plane-Eater has done his homework for sure. In my own research I have found the same things he did.

I can add a couple details though, which don't really trasnlate into in-game performance

Curtiss cheated on a lot of the original RAF order according to what I found. They used some- maybe a few, maybe more- self-sealing fuel tanks, but they were externally sealing instead of internally sealing.

Curtiss used 'close enough' paint colors instead of the RAF dictated shades. This gives rise to some confusion regarding actual AVG camo colors, especially on the belly

When painting, Curtiss used rubber mats as stencils, so the paint schemes were very very similar, plane to plane. They used 'A and B' stencils on most, resulting in the asymetrical camoflage like on Hammerd's default skin. However, some few were symetrical "A+A" schemes that had the same camo on both sides of the plane.

To touch on Plane-Eater's comments on the engines, AVG Hawks had certain, common failures on 'stock' components that suggest strongly that the AVG powerplants produced more power than a 'standard' H81 engine

Something I've never seen on a skin yet- the AVG H81s in Burma, particularly in the Rangoon area, developed a green mold in the cockpits quickly. I was tempted in my skins to show this, but then I'd have to make dupes that didn't have the green crud, and you wouldn't see it in the in-cockpit view anyway, so I nixed it

[JtD]

The V1710-33 as used on the H81's had no automatic boost regulation. This means it essentially was up to the pilot to control the boost, up to full throttle at nearly all altitudes. It was therefore extremely easy to totally overboost the engine when flying at low altitude and getting a lot of extra power out of it. This, of course, would cause mechanical failures of all sorts rather quickly.

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by JtD

The V1710-33 as used on the H81's had no automatic boost regulation. This means it essentially was up to the pilot to control the boost, up to full throttle at nearly all altitudes. It was therefore extremely easy to totally overboost the engine when flying at low altitude and getting a lot of extra power out of it. This, of course, would cause mechanical failures of all sorts rather quickly.

That's not what I mean at all. I don't mean that common failures were encountered. I mean that specific things happened which were common to the planes the AVG had, that suggest this is the case.

I'm not really going to argue about it; this isn't my opinion formed aver an hour or two online. This is what I turned up over years of looking at reference. As such, I term it a thing that "suggests" strongly that this was the case.

Regarding that engine, well the biggest one entrusted to me was a Lycoming opposed 6 so a big Alison was definitely never under my wrench, and I don't know every nuance of their operation. But I do know that the records we can research are kind of muddled on these aircraft and all their equipment.

For example, Curtiss wasn't even sure what precise model planes went to Rangoon. H81A-2? H81-A2? H81A-3? H81-3A? Depending on the source, different designations may be found referenced. Maybe typos at Curtiss? Nobody knows. Alison thought the engines were V 1710 C 15s, according to a letter from an Alsion rep in Rangoon in Sept. 1941. Curtiss thought the planes were equivalent to Tomahawk MKIs. The equipment suggests the MKII variant instead. But some had equipment that suggests neither specific model. The pilot's manuals' info is slightly suspect because the manuals may not have actually been for those precise model planes.

And on it goes