the p-40 looks really scary with the teeth painted on its nose :(http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/images/P40-warhawksformation.jpg

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by beoingrocks

The A2A 337 with Captain of the Ship is still my top favorite aircraft beside the NGX. I mean equally beside. Those developers are genious!I'll be holding out for the P-51 (I mean it's a freaking P-51 with Accusim!) and my favorite aircraft of all time, the F-104 with Accusim. The P-40 was never really an interesting A/C to me.

Yeah, I'm really lookin foreword to the Mustang and starfighter as well. I originally wasn't gonna get the Warhawk, but a2a does such an amazing job with their addons, that I figured why not. It's funny, I have every accusim plane except the 377.Outa all honesty, when it comes to pure immersion and fun factor, the accusim planes are at the top. There are so many small characteristics that add up to the complete package. If I could only have two addon planes in my hanger, one would definitely be an a2a plane and the other probably the NGX.Zach, do you have any of a2a's warbirds?Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkJB

Since I made the film, I wanted to make a few comments.

This is going to be a great simulation of the P-40, no doubt.But to say that the P-40 itself is an iconic warbird stretches it a bit, I think.It was obsolete when the war startedDon't get me wrong, it's going to be a great Accusim airplane, let's just not kid ourselves that it occupies the same slots that the Mkiia and the E3 occupy.Both of those planes were forward thinking, the P-40 was from the previous generation.Again, I am excited about this release, but...

If one was to think of the planes in WWII that played a major role, inevitably the P-40 would be brought up. In the theaters it fought it, it made it's impact when applied correctly. It's tally for K/D puts it at a positive number (I'll perhaps reference the report later). It was easy to produce in high quantities, which was one reason why it was used so heavily at the outset of the war and continued to be developed. I certainly rate the P-40 as iconic, and when people think of the AVG, they think of this plane.

A couple of issues with what the voice over says: First "infamous" is probably not the best word choice by any means unless the commentator is taking the viewpoint of those on the wrong end of those guns. Famous yes, infamous (from the Allies viewpoint), not so much.

When the plane was first introduced over China, it outclassed for the most part the planes it was flying against, such as the KI-27 and KI-21. Mixed with the tactics that Claire Chennault implemented, it gave the plane a distinct superiority over the opposition. The plane had a better roll rate than the famous Zero, and it's dive could be used to escape from nearly any situation. Compare the early P-40s to the early Spitfires and you see a trend in American engineering that differed from another iconic and infamous fighter. For one, the plane came with a hydraulically controlled landing gear and flaps, whereas the MK.I Spitfire required manual cycling of the gear. The design was based off of the P-36 which was one of the first fighters to have a retracting landing gear (the Japanese Army and many nations still resisted this). It could be forced into negative G situations, whereas the Spitfire could not. I won't even discuss the temperature issues associated with the early Spitfires. It had very high agility and still was able to turn quite well. The speed of the early Warhawk variants was roughly 350MPH, compared to the Zeros speed of roughly 330ish, and it had a much higher never exceed speed when compared. Lastly, it was more heavily armed when compared to the first planes it fought against.In the Russian theater the combat was different, the P-40 was used to great distinction and produced many aces and was found to be able to fight effectively against the German Messerschmitt Bf109, among others.It's climb performance, range and lack of turbo-supercharger which limited it's use at high altitude, which were the biggest drawbacks of the aircraft.The plane suffered from comparisons to later built aircraft, while it continued to fight throughout the war. I think the plane was well built for it's time, but suffered mostly from the previous aforementioned issues and poor fighter tactics used at the outset of the war.

 

Since I made the film, I wanted to make a few comments.If one was to think of the planes in WWII that played a major role, inevitably the P-40 would be brought up. In the theaters it fought it, it made it's impact when applied correctly. It's tally for K/D puts it at a positive number (I'll perhaps reference the report later). It was easy to produce in high quantities, which was one reason why it was used so heavily at the outset of the war and continued to be developed. I certainly rate the P-40 as iconic, and when people think of the AVG, they think of this plane.When the plane was first introduced over China, it outclassed for the most part the planes it was flying against, such as the KI-27 and KI-21. Mixed with the tactics that Claire Chennault implemented, it gave the plane a distinct superiority over the opposition. The plane had a better roll rate than the famous Zero, and it's dive could be used to escape from nearly any situation. Compare the early P-40s to the early Spitfires and you see a trend in American engineering that differed from another iconic and infamous fighter. For one, the plane came with a hydraulically controlled landing gear and flaps, whereas the MK.I Spitfire required manual cycling of the gear. The design was based off of the P-36 which was one of the first fighters to have a retracting landing gear (the Japanese Army and many nations still resisted this). It had very high agility and still was able to turn quite well. The speed of the early Warhawk variants was roughly 350MPH, compared to the Zeros speed of roughly 330ish, and it had a much higher never exceed speed when compared. Lastly, it was more heavily armed when compared to the first planes it fought against.It's climb performance, range and lack of turbo-supercharger which limited it's use at high altitude, which were the biggest drawbacks of the aircraft.The plane suffered from comparisons to later built aircraft, while it continued to fight throughout the war. I think the plane was well built for it's time, but suffered mostly from the previous aforementioned issues and poor fighter tactics used at the outset of the war.

Nice post Cody... But you forgot to mention one key factor...John Belushi flew the aircraft... That alone makes it Iconic.:)JB

Nice post Cody... But you forgot to mention one key factor...John Belushi flew the aircraft... That alone makes it Iconic.:)JB

AMEN! :D

Zach, do you have any of a2a's warbirds?

I don't, JB. Honestly I can't see spending the money on any of the already released warbirds as that type of flying isn't my forte. I just couldn't make it "last".On the other hand, my love for the '51 and '104 goes back to my childhood at airshows. Not to mention I'm well aquanted with Obsession, the local P-51D in town. They will be mine.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by ZachLW

I don't, JB. Honestly I can't see spending the money on any of the already released warbirds as that type of flying isn't my forte. I just couldn't make it "last".On the other hand, my love for the '51 and '104 goes back to my childhood at airshows. Not to mention I'm well aquanted with Obsession, the local P-51D in town. They will be mine.

Well if you like the Stang, then you will love the Spit...If you are really looking foreward to the 104 and wanna play with an amazing flight model thats amazingly similar and was actually built to train Pilots in the century series of Fighters (F104, F106 Extremely high wingloading) Give the Milviz T-38 a try. It's a straight transition to the 104.JB

If only a2a did some more civil aircraft like the cub. Warbirds are not my kind of flying.

If only a2a did some more civil aircraft like the cub. Warbirds are not my kind of flying.

+1

Too bad A2A doesn't have demos of the warbirds. You folks might change your mind once you gave em a try.Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkJB

P40 is my second A2A Accu-sim aircraft (The Spitfire was the first) and this is truly a remarkable simulation. Quality is of course same with both, but I like P40 as a plane more and I find P40 more fun to fly. Of course this is just my opinion, but you can't go wrong with either one.

P40 is my second A2A Accu-sim aircraft (The Spitfire was the first) and this is truly a remarkable simulation. Quality is of course same with both, but I like P40 as a plane more and I find P40 more fun to fly. Of course this is just my opinion, but you can't go wrong with either one.

It would be great if a2a made more airliners

It would be great if a2a made more airliners

It would.....They seem to follow a development timeline. Each previous product sets the foundation to the next. Since they are actually modeling the engines in an external simulation seperately, the product development schedule seems right. Next up is the P-51, which needed the P-40. After the Stang, they will start on the F104 and the F4. This will bring Turbojets into the equation and may very well pave the way for older airliners that use turbojets. Then maybe high bypass turbofans and then maybe modern airliners.All the above is just speculation as I am not in any way afiliated with A2A.But my feeling is that A2A will focus more on Historically accurate aircraft and predominantly tactical aircraft. Since they do it so well, they are by themselves in this market and thats good for their company.Time will tellJB

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by Buzz313th

It would.....They seem to follow a development timeline. Each previous product sets the foundation to the next. Since they are actually modeling the engines in an external simulation seperately, the product development schedule seems right. Next up is the P-51, which needed the P-40. After the Stang, they will start on the F104 and the F4. This will bring Turbojets into the equation and may very well pave the way for older airliners that use turbojets. Then maybe high bypass turbofans and then maybe modern airliners.All the above is just speculation as I am not in any way afiliated with A2A.But my feeling is that A2A will focus more on Historically accurate aircraft and predominantly tactical aircraft. Since they do it so well, they are by themselves in this market and thats good for their company.Time will tellJB

it would be nice to have an dc-8 or 707 with the early turbojets

it would be nice to have an dc-8 or 707 with the early turbojets

You got my vote entirely.Maybe you should mention it over at their forums. The DC-8 seems like it would be right up their alley.Alot of the forum members would probably agree with you and Scott might think the DC-8 has enough historical significance to keep the idea in his hat.JB