Hawk81A-2

[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

[JtD]

If the AVG did use higher boosts systematically, then they'd have both higher power output and more engine failures, no matter if the engines were hand crafted or standard production line.

What 'certain, common failures on stock components' did you find they encountered?
How do you think they created the extra power output you mention?

Just to be clear - I mean no disrespect or anything, and do not intend to argue. I'm just curious. Personally, I see a connection between high boosts, high power and high failure rates, but if there's something on top of it and more specific to the AVG, I'm more than willing to learn about it.

[Former_Older]

I think I already mentioned I didn't come here to argue with you. I post here quite rarely and I'm sorry I decided to participate this time, too

[JtD]

It's of course up to you to decide not to share what you know, shame though. Does anyone else have an idea what 'specific things happened' and which 'certain, common failures on 'stock' components' occurred, and maybe also how this is related to a higher power output but not to the higher boosts used?

[ElAurens]

The AVG P40s had a very high failure rate of the prop reduction gear boxes.

Guys, I have worked with both of you on Curtiss related things. FormerOlder has done an exhaustive amount of research on the AVG over the years, and JtD is also well versed on things Hawk, I see no need for you guys to have a spat.

Even without the manual boost control issue, the hand fitted Allisons that were installed on the AVG Hawks did indeed produce more power than standard issue engines. This alone could be the cause of the high failure rates of reduction gears.

Just saying it's because of manual boost controls plays too much into the revisionist view that the AVG's pilots were inferior. Their combat record in the short time they flew stands in very stark contrast indeed to the modern, and wrong, thinking about them.