13.02.2008, 20:51
There is a certain gap between early and late american fighter planes, because they don't exist early versions of P-38 and P-51, like P-38F/G/H, P-51A/A-36/Mustang Mk.I (P-47C can also be included here). But the best versions of P-40 (P-40F/L/N) are out too.P-40K was probably better than the P-40M too, since it had an engine comparable with P-39D-2, like P-40M had an engine comparable with P-39N (likewise P-40N had with P-39Q). In IL-2, there is a serious possibility that the performance of P-39N/Q is porked. We read constantly that their engines had a lower max output but a better alt. capability than P-39D-2 (like P-40K and P-40M).This is not reflected in their performance curves.
Late war P-40Ns are different enough to make two different P-40Ns an early and a late model.Their performance was close enough with that of P-51As but were produced a few months later.
After reading all this you might agree that creating a model that was produced makes much more sense.However I agree that creating some of the "lost" Curtiss fighters (P-46/53/60/62) would have give us an idea about a controversial subject (Curtiss failure to produce a successor of the P-40).I was always sceptical in the idea that P-46 was inferior than the P-40D - doesn't make any sense. Likewise, XP-40C/E seems that it was a good design. What went wrong I am not sure. XP-40C/E seems that it was a tactical air-superiority fighter, much like La-5/7, rather a high alt. escort figher.Possibly they thought that they didn't need something as such.Possibly it just came too late.For sure this is right for the P-40Q.If it would had come a little bit earlier, most probably it would had been produced in place of late P-40Ns.
Late war P-40Ns are different enough to make two different P-40Ns an early and a late model.Their performance was close enough with that of P-51As but were produced a few months later.
After reading all this you might agree that creating a model that was produced makes much more sense.However I agree that creating some of the "lost" Curtiss fighters (P-46/53/60/62) would have give us an idea about a controversial subject (Curtiss failure to produce a successor of the P-40).I was always sceptical in the idea that P-46 was inferior than the P-40D - doesn't make any sense. Likewise, XP-40C/E seems that it was a good design. What went wrong I am not sure. XP-40C/E seems that it was a tactical air-superiority fighter, much like La-5/7, rather a high alt. escort figher.Possibly they thought that they didn't need something as such.Possibly it just came too late.For sure this is right for the P-40Q.If it would had come a little bit earlier, most probably it would had been produced in place of late P-40Ns.