4.12.2 de-bugging

[Pursuivant]

More about the P-40 series.

Despite being described as a plane with "no vices" (Caldwell) it seems to be very difficult to recover from a high speed spin even when applying proper technique to stop it (kill throttle, full opposite rudder).

This despite the pilot's manual (here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/117829198/...-40-Warhawk-WW) stating that it should be possible to recover from a spin within 2 turns and 1-2,000 feet (~330-660 meters) loss of altitude. They don't say whether it's a low or high speed spin, however.

While it's for an earlier model, the pilot's notes for the Tomahawk (http://www.456fis.org/P-40_PILOT_MANUAL.htm) indicate that the plane should come out of the spin unless held. This seems different from my experience.

Using arcade mode, I'm noticing that I'm getting pilot kill hits from rifle-caliber MG shots directly from ahead or behind (through the front of the cockpit or fuselage), despite the fact that all but the Hawk 81/P-40A-B/Kittyhawk series the P-40 had armor or armor glass in those areas. (1.5 inches of armor glass, 7 mm of armor below the cockpit combing down to the engine block, 7 mm behind the pilot. The pilot's seat wasn't armored, however.)

Additionally, any hit to the front of the engine through the prop boss instantly (or nearly instantly) kills the engine.

Any hit from the front through the radiator housing kills the oil/cooling system, resulting in engine shutdown within about a minute. While this is legitimate, it's possible that the damage boxes for the cooler system are larger than they were in real life (see diagrams in the pilot's manual).

Reading maintenance manuals for the P-40, it appears that the coolant assemblies got slightly larger in later models but the oil cooler got smaller. The P-40D & E models have a frontal coolant radiator surface area of 1.11 square feet. The P-40F model has a frontal coolant radiator surface of 1.75 feet. The oil cooler is 95 square inches on the D & E models, 35 square inches on the F.

I'm still hunting on info about the armor around the P-40's engine.

Also, for a time U.S. P-40s in the U.S. were using 91 or 92 octane gas to preserve the 100 octane gas for flights in combat zones. I've seen, but can't find, comparative numbers for P-40 performance using both 100 and 91/92 octane fuel. It would be nice if it was possible to choose your fuel type, and it would definitely reduce arguments regarding aircraft performance.