Flight Replicas P-40N Released [Payware}

[mike_cyul]

Flight Replicas is pleased to announce the release of the Curtiss P-40N Warhawk/Kittyhawk IV for FSX-plus-Acceleration.


For more information, the home page for the P40N can be found here: http://www.flight-replicas.com/P-40N_basepage.htm


http://www.flight-replicas.com/P-40N/website%20screenshots/18.jpg

[jankees]

Ouch, on the evening before I leave on holiday....first thing when I get back!

[stovall]

Thanks Mike for a great package for a great aircraft. Let the repaints flow.

http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss169/tlstovall/P-40NReady_zps645ee28c.jpg (http://s572.photobucket.com/user/tlstovall/media/P-40NReady_zps645ee28c.jpg.html)

[TheGrunt]

That is one beautiful package :applause:

[WarHorse47]

Now they've gone and done it.. :mixedsmi: My poor, poor credit card. LOL!!

[Sundog]

Now they've gone and done it.. :mixedsmi: My poor, poor credit card. LOL!!

No kidding! First FTX Global, then this. My credit card is crying, but I'm smiling. :)

[Bomber_12th]

A vist to a very busy and cloudy Duxford. I'll upload this repaint this evening.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/dux_p40_1_zps7a1ecc03.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/dux_p40_1_zps7a1ecc03.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/dux_p40_2_zpsf18c7229.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/dux_p40_2_zpsf18c7229.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/dux_p40_3_zpsc7c37b99.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/dux_p40_3_zpsc7c37b99.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/dux_p40_4_zpscaa87862.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/dux_p40_4_zpscaa87862.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/dux_p40_5_zps76a06eca.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/dux_p40_5_zps76a06eca.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/dux_p40_6_zpsff3838b5.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/dux_p40_6_zpsff3838b5.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/dux_p40_7_zps538c238c.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/dux_p40_7_zps538c238c.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/dux_p40_8_zpsf64bd643.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/dux_p40_8_zpsf64bd643.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/dux_p40_9_zps384b6a32.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/dux_p40_9_zps384b6a32.jpg.html)

[Cleartheprop]

Complete package downloaded and installed flawlessly. The aircraft sounds are really fantastic. Thanks Mike.

[mike_cyul]

Complete package downloaded and installed flawlessly. The aircraft sounds are really fantastic. Thanks Mike.

Don't forget to thank Bernt, Wozza, Greg, John, Tom, Huub and Ferry! Everyone did a superb job. Bernt took so much care with this project that the last version of the airfile, with prop RPM behaviour tweaked yet again, arrived just this morning. That's dedication.

I should mention that the P40N will be available on the Flight Replicas website ONLY for the time being (a week or so), until I know that there are no things to correct. After that, the P-40N will be sent to the usual vendors. I'll let everyone know when the P-40N is available elsewhere.

Mike

[Barnes]

Don't forget to thank Bernt, Wozza, Greg, John, Tom, Huub and Ferry! Everyone did a superb job. Bernt took so much care with this project that the last version of the airfile, with prop RPM behaviour tweaked yet again, arrived just this morning. That's dedication.

I should mention that the P40N will be available on the Flight Replicas website ONLY for the time being (a week or so), until I know that there are no things to correct. After that, the P-40N will be sent to the usual vendors. I'll let everyone know when the P-40N is available elsewhere.

Mike

Wow - just downloaded the whole package - you guys did a great job. Thank you

[Barnes]

Hi Mike

Fantastic product - im a bit concerned though as in Prepar3D I don't appear to have any glazing effect in the VC - like on the Boomerang. Its just like there are no windows and just fresh air. Is that correct?

Loving the sound!

Love the choice of helmet and lifejacket etc - very clever.

[huub vink]

It ain't much when it isn't........

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/Huub_Vink/fr_P40_Dutch_a1_zps0f695932.jpg (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/Huub_Vink/media/fr_P40_Dutch_a1_zps0f695932.jpg.html)

[Ian Warren]

Crikey , I'm late of the mark .... really going to have ta :running: to catch up to the rest of ya .. .. installing the 'World' so lets see how spots the P-40 has a looksie :cool:<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input jscode="leoInternalChangeDone()" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setT imeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Quicksand]

Awesome job, FR team.... :icon29::guinness::medals: and I love that paint job, John...... :salute::applause:

[Bomber_12th]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_18_zpsd772eea9.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_18_zpsd772eea9.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_22_zpsfbcf6f51.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_22_zpsfbcf6f51.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_23_zps72cfffa2.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_23_zps72cfffa2.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_33_zpsc8daf20f.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_33_zpsc8daf20f.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_38_zpsb6d56561.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_38_zpsb6d56561.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_45_zpsfd994efb.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_45_zpsfd994efb.jpg.html)

[flaviossa]

Purchased and downloading now! Thanks Mike and team for another amazing job! This one was in my list for a longggg time :salute:

[mike_cyul]

Hi Mike

Fantastic product - im a bit concerned though as in Prepar3D I don't appear to have any glazing effect in the VC - like on the Boomerang. Its just like there are no windows and just fresh air. Is that correct?

Loving the sound!

Love the choice of helmet and lifejacket etc - very clever.


Do you mean as seen from inside the VC, or on the outside in the external view?

I believe Tom Stovall has been flying the P-40N in P3D, and hasn't reported any issues. If his screenshot earlier in the thread is from P3D, then I do see glazing, although I can't tell if the reflectivity is there. Perhaps Tom can let us know?

There is nothing reflected in the VC glass, as I couldn't see anything worthwhile to do in any of the in-flight videos I've seen or the real P-40N I had the pleasure of going over, if that's what you mean?

Mike

[mike_cyul]

Someone asked earlier if the Curtis tail number font was available (there may have been more than one, but this is the style most often seen in factory-painted P-40N's). The numbers are now available on the Flight Replicas download page here (http://www.flight-replicas.com/Downloads.htm).

[mike_cyul]

Just to let you know that Jeansy has very kindly made the pilot's uniform available in Commonwealth blue, and can be found here:

http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/files/file/3939-flight-replicas-p-40-commonwealth-uniforms-mod/


Mike

[Quicksand]

Just took her on a short stroll around the homedrome... I am very happy with this plane, Mike.. What Bomber 12th's Mustangs are to FSX, so is your P-40N.. I am amazed at the details of each model.. I thank you for the hard work that I am sure went into making this plane happen... WOW!!!!!!!!.....is all I can say... Wonderful recreation....... Loving every minute of it!!!!!

[stovall]

Do you mean as seen from inside the VC, or on the outside in the external view?

I believe Tom Stovall has been flying the P-40N in P3D, and hasn't reported any issues. If his screenshot earlier in the thread is from P3D, then I do see glazing, although I can't tell if the reflectivity is there. Perhaps Tom can let us know?

There is nothing reflected in the VC glass, as I couldn't see anything worthwhile to do in any of the in-flight videos I've seen or the real P-40N I had the pleasure of going over, if that's what you mean?

Mike

Mike, the photo in my previous post was from FSX. I will try to duplicate the exact same look in P3D to show you any difference there may be. Back soon with the picture. Here is the same picture in P3D as best I can match the lighting. Very difficult to get the lighting exact.

http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss169/tlstovall/P-40N_P3D_zpsc3f1d3c9.png (http://s572.photobucket.com/user/tlstovall/media/P-40N_P3D_zpsc3f1d3c9.png.html)

By the way John's "Little Jeanne" is posted in the library.

[Barnes]

Do you mean as seen from inside the VC, or on the outside in the external view?

I believe Tom Stovall has been flying the P-40N in P3D, and hasn't reported any issues. If his screenshot earlier in the thread is from P3D, then I do see glazing, although I can't tell if the reflectivity is there. Perhaps Tom can let us know?

There is nothing reflected in the VC glass, as I couldn't see anything worthwhile to do in any of the in-flight videos I've seen or the real P-40N I had the pleasure of going over, if that's what you mean?

Mike

Hi Mike - OK - I was referring to vc glass - just wanted to make sure that no textures were missing!

Just working on my first repaint!

Trying to do the one that was found in Egypt recently flown by Flt S D Copping. But im finding my patience is not great today with so many lines not matching. Great paintkit if its a simple scheme! May have to give this up

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq119/GAJIT/GG_zpsa2ffe7bd.jpg (http://s439.photobucket.com/user/GAJIT/media/GG_zpsa2ffe7bd.jpg.html)

[roger-wilco-66]

OMG it's out!!! Off to buy it!

Cheers,
Mark

[mike_cyul]

Just working on my first repaint!
Trying to do the one that was found in Egypt recently flown by Flt S D Copping. But im finding my patience is not great today with so many lines not matching. Great paintkit if its a simple scheme! May have to give this up



Perhaps consider it practice...the one in the desert was an E variant, and that will indeed be coming out at some point in the future.

You could also try using the RAF paint scheme (unless you purchased the "Early" package), drag that onto the paintkit .psd, and add and remove from that. Just a thought!

Mike

[flaviossa]

Thanks Mike and team! The plane is beautiful, the start procedure is very detailed and the sound package awesome (Try it with headphones) .... :salute:

"Já te atendo, tchê!" P40N - Canoas - 1954
http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2013/07/28/fF5bB.jpg

[Ferry_vO]

Thanks Mike and team! The plane is beautiful, the start procedure is very detailed and the sound package awesome (Try it with headphones) .... :salute:



Aren't those sounds the best? The first thing I noticed, and my neighbours too probably! Loud but clear and with a deep bass. Really rumbles your desk! :applause:

[Bomber_12th]

I'll try to get some pictures - I believe either today or tomorrow a flight of four P-40's will be flying from Granite Falls, MN over to Oshkosh for EAA Airventure, these being Fagen Fighter's P-40E, their new P-40K, the Texas Flying Legends (former Fagen Fighters) P-40K, and Walt Bowe's (former Liberty Foundation) P-40E. There is already a P-40N at Airventure right now (CAF), and likely at least one other P-40N will also be arriving.

[Barnes]

Perhaps consider it practice...the one in the desert was an E variant, and that will indeed be coming out at some point in the future.

You could also try using the RAF paint scheme (unless you purchased the "Early" package), drag that onto the paintkit .psd, and add and remove from that. Just a thought!

Mike

Ha - I don't need any ****ing practice after all the repaints done for you super cubs! Great news about an E variant.

This is as far as I have got - if anyone want its they should PM me - don't think I will generally offer it.

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq119/GAJIT/GG_zpsa9595826.jpg (http://s439.photobucket.com/user/GAJIT/media/GG_zpsa9595826.jpg.html)

[MDIvey]

Taken for a quick spin and delighted with everything about it Mike. Thanks. Look forward to some more flying time when I have a bit more time to savour it.

Matt

[TuFun]

Complete package downloaded and installed flawlessly. The aircraft sounds are really fantastic. Thanks Mike.

Hope you are doing an "ADD ON CAPSULE" video!












http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_45_zpsfd994efb.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_45_zpsfd994efb.jpg.html)

That one did it... I want... must have plane!!! ;) Beautiful John!

[doublecool]

Purchased complete package... and very glade I did :salute::applause::jump:
cause its a complete package
Models -
VC's
Sounds
Paints
startup
prop anim
ground handling

all very nicely done

I Thank all involved, Well Done


91031


and
a few items for Mike...

On the Long Range model with drop tanks

I had to rename texture file to texture.long_range... as in the config file for it to show
it was name texture .1

landing light shows on aircraft, but does not light the ground

[mike_cyul]

Purchased complete package... and very glade I did :salute::applause::jump:
cause its a complete package
Models -
VC's
Sounds
Paints
startup
prop anim
ground handling

all very nicely done

I Thank all involved, Well Done


and
a few items for Mike...

On the Long Range model with drop tanks

I had to rename texture file to texture.long_range... as in the config file for it to show
it was name texture .1

landing light shows on aircraft, but does not light the ground




Thanks, Doublecool, I'll change the Long Range texture file name, and put it in an update.

As for lights, these are mentioned in the Manual....


Mike

[doublecool]

I know I should have read it completely

I got thru startup and check list... and I was off to the aircraft

Thank you Mike

[dougal]

Is there much difference between this and A2A P40? I'm not really a fanatic when it comes to details about variants, but would be interested about different characteristics etc.

The A2A that I have is 5 star when it comes to visual quality. Is this one as good in your opinion?

Any Info would be good as funds are now very tight;-)

[mike_cyul]

Is there much difference between this and A2A P40? I'm not really a fanatic when it comes to details about variants, but would be interested about different characteristics etc.

The A2A that I have is 5 star when it comes to visual quality. Is this one as good in your opinion?

Any Info would be good as funds are now very tight;-)

I'm sure someone will answer your question soon, but until then, to help get an idea of the visual quality why not have a look at the P-40N screenshots here: http://www.flight-replicas.com/P-40N_FSX_Screenshots.htm


Mike

[huub vink]

Hi Douglas95,

As I only have the pre-Accusim (WOPII (?)) version of the A2A P-40 I can only compare the Flight Replica model with that version.

Both models are very well made, but depict very different aircraft. The early P-40 models like the A2A P-40 was designed and used as a fighter. The late P-40 were much more ground attack aircraft.

The FR P-40 is a typical Flight Replica product, very detailed and all functions are as close to the real thing as FSX allows them to be. The style of texturing is different. Mike Flahault makes paintings as well and this is reflected very well in the way he makes his textures. The textures on the A2A are drawn like a technical drawing with every detail as sharp as possible.
The Flight Replica textures are more natural. They contain the details you would normally see and therefore provide a more natural illusion. (When you look at an aircraft do you really see every individual rivet?).

Personally I like both styles and I consider myself lucky to have both models. I envy people like Martin Catney because they can work this detailed, but I even envy Mike Flahault more as he really knows the balance between what you should put on a texture but also what you should leave out....

I hope this makes some sense.....
Huub

[dougal]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Very descriptive and nicely put Huub - thanks mate, that made sense to me perfectly. Oh, I wish there weren't so many great releases. Some will have to wait i guess;-)

[Bomber_12th]

I personally give a heck of a lot of credit to Mike for having developed these aircraft, from the get-go, using the original Curtiss P-40N design drawings, inside and out, making it, without doubt, the most visually accurate P-40 of any type, for any flight simulator, developed to-date. At the end of WWII the U.S. government required all U.S. warplane manufacturers to submit, on microfilm rolls, 'copies' of all of their blueprint design drawings. For a price, all of these are available via the Smithsonian, and that is where the thousands of P-40 drawings originated that were used for this FSX production (albeit on CD/DVD copy).

Finally, having a P-40N such as this, built to such a high level of quality and fidelity, no one has to settle any longer for having late P-40 schemes applied to early P-40's where they don't belong or come close to looking right.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_10_zpsedbfdfcd.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_10_zpsedbfdfcd.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_30_zpsce978329.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_30_zpsce978329.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_29_zps4e7c5f9d.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_29_zps4e7c5f9d.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_39_zps12bd10da.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_39_zps12bd10da.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_3_zps48fe3344.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_3_zps48fe3344.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_15_zps32ae909e.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_15_zps32ae909e.jpg.html)

[dvj]

I personally give a heck of a lot of credit to Mike for having developed these aircraft, from the get-go, using the original Curtiss P-40N design drawings, inside and out, making it, without doubt, the most visually accurate P-40 of any type, for any flight simulator, developed to-date. At the end of WWII the U.S. government required all U.S. warplane manufacturers to submit, on microfilm rolls, 'copies' of all of their blueprint design drawings. For a price, all of these are available via the Smithsonian, and that is where the thousands of P-40 drawings originated that were used for this FSX production (albeit on CD/DVD copy).

Finally, having a P-40N such as this, built to such a high level of quality and fidelity, no one has to settle any longer for having late P-40 schemes applied to early P-40's where they don't belong or come close to looking right.





http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_29_zps4e7c5f9d.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_29_zps4e7c5f9d.jpg.html)



http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_3_zps48fe3344.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_3_zps48fe3344.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_15_zps32ae909e.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/p-40n_15_zps32ae909e.jpg.html)

These screen shots sold me. I love my A2A P40. This one is icing on the cake.

[Mach3DS]

Nice Screens John! Mike's work is reminiscent of a certain developers escapades with the P-51... :) I really appreciate the level of accuracy and detail put into these.

[Lionheart]

What a beauty!!!

:medals:

[pilottj]

Beautiful work there Mike and FR Team:salute::icon29:

Hey Mike, I know you have an E in the works which is awesome. Have you considered doing the P-40Q, its sort of an oddball and probably not much info available out there on it so it likely would be difficult to research. I think Tim Conrad did one a long while ago for FS2k2. Still it is a very nice looking airplane, pretty much on par with a P-51 performance wise I think.

91074

[fsxar177]

Beautiful work there Mike and FR Team:salute::icon29:

Hey Mike, I know you have an E in the works which is awesome. Have you considered doing the P-40Q, its sort of an oddball and probably not much info available out there on it so it likely would be difficult to research. I think Tim Conrad did one a long while ago for FS2k2. Still it is a very nice looking airplane, pretty much on par with a P-51 performance wise I think.

91074

Would certainly be well worth the effort, in my opinion. I'm not sure if #82 - NX300B was one of the two K's, or the modified N? nevertheless, then designated XP-40Q, Skip Ziegler squeezed into the '47 Thompson, and competed for a few laps, before having to bail out on the 13th lap of the race! I believe by then, it was the only 'Q' in existence?

http://www.airrace.com/images/82%20%20Ziegler%20.jpg

- Joseph

[Barnes]

Is anyone else repainting this fantastic aircraft?

Im on my way to finishing this one.....

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq119/GAJIT/wip_zpse0bbfaa1.jpg (http://s439.photobucket.com/user/GAJIT/media/wip_zpse0bbfaa1.jpg.html)

[stovall]

Nice work Barnes, I found some pictures of this same aircraft and just started putting the camo together. Switching to a different paint. Really appreciate your work and posting the preview. Don't want to duplicate. A definite download once you are done. :jump:

[Barnes]

Nice work Barnes, I found some pictures of this same aircraft and just started putting the camo together. Switching to a different paint. Really appreciate your work and posting the preview. Don't want to duplicate. A definite download once you are done. :jump:

Sorry about that Stovall - you should carry on - you will probably do it better. Im about to try and get the elevators to line up with the tail planes - its more like doing a jigsaw puzzle with this kit rather than a straight forward repaint. So much time wasted. Moan Moan moan!

[Bomber_12th]

I've been working on Chris Prevost's P-40N that is based at the Napa Valley airport, complete with its recently added shark mouth.

[rgatkinson]

Very much enjoying this aircraft. To my mind the P-40 just looks right and fires the imagination. Congrats to all who helped to produce and test the package.

Now, here's a pic of a very early WIP. It's taken me ages to align things around the nose. Mostly due to my lack of practice but partly due to the paint-kit layout as well. But hell, I'll get there in the end - I hope.

http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh565/rgatkinson/P40N/p40wip.jpg (http://s1252.photobucket.com/user/rgatkinson/media/P40N/p40wip.jpg.html)

Best regards Taff

[TheGrunt]

This is one beautiful aircraft! I'm having a blast flying this on new FTX Global with good landclasses.:wiggle:

I was just wondering, if N-series has the same electric aileron trim system that P-40B/C had? Clearly, this model hasn't any aileron trim dial sort of thing, but there aren't any switches in the cockpit either, at least I can't find any. Aileron trim still works from my joystick hat nicely, where I've set it in my configuration.

[Bradburger]

The P-40N had just a fixed tab on one aileron that was adjusted on the ground before flight.

I think on some of the later N versions, they put back the electric aileron trim.

Cheers

Paul

[stovall]

Sorry about that Stovall - you should carry on - you will probably do it better. Im about to try and get the elevators to line up with the tail planes - its more like doing a jigsaw puzzle with this kit rather than a straight forward repaint. So much time wasted. Moan Moan moan!

Barnes, there is no way I could do that scheme better. Again I am looking forward to your download and flying your version. I have shifted in another direction and also working to understand the paint kit. It is a really well done kit and should produce some fantastic repaints. Yours and John's are examples of this. Looking forward to all future works of art.

[fsxar177]

So far, very satisfied with this product!

Inside and out, a work of art! The sounds are quite good, but particularly the external set.

I have been getting most of my time in the late/lighter variants.

One thing that's standing out so far, and I may be missing something, but my max level TAS so far has been around 334-340mph, with these lighter aircraft. Even with a light load, can't seem to muster more, so I seem to fall short of the 378mph mark. Cruise speeds at cruse settings also a bit under the #'s. Any insight from the Beta team? If I make 57" up to around 9K, and run the between about 2550, and 3000 RPM...These are my maximum performance figures. Tried at 16k as well, but was making considerably less power.

http://www.fsxairsports.com/teasers/frp401.jpg
http://www.fsxairsports.com/teasers/frp402.jpg

- Joseph

[Bomber_12th]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/p40n_1_zps71d7cc97.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/p40n_1_zps71d7cc97.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/p40n_3_zps70551ba8.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/p40n_3_zps70551ba8.jpg.html)

[MenendezDiego]

John...you're making this very hard for me. Not only do I still need to buy those P-51's, but now a P-40? You're too good ;)

Amazing looking aircraft!

[Barnes]

Very much enjoying this aircraft. To my mind the P-40 just looks right and fires the imagination. Congrats to all who helped to produce and test the package.

Now, here's a pic of a very early WIP. It's taken me ages to align things around the nose. Mostly due to my lack of practice but partly due to the paint-kit layout as well. But hell, I'll get there in the end - I hope.

http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh565/rgatkinson/P40N/p40wip.jpg (http://s1252.photobucket.com/user/rgatkinson/media/P40N/p40wip.jpg.html)

Best regards Taff

Great choice Taff - keep going - it will all look good at the end! LOL

[roger-wilco-66]

This aircraft is wonderful. I've been flying around the Solomons for the frist time after a long break again and it's really a joy! Thanks for the good work, Mike!


Cheers,
Mark

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58324394/images/sunlight-fr-p40-2.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58324394/images/sunlight-fr-p40.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58324394/images/ondonga_fr-p40.jpg

[bstolle]

max level TAS so far has been around 334-340mph, with these lighter aircraft. Even with a light load, can't seem to muster more, so I seem to fall short of the 378mph mark. Cruise speeds at cruse settings also a bit under the #'s.
Performance fine tuned, will send the new files to Mike within the next few hours but I haven't found any test flight or performance table that results in any higher speed than 352mph (9000ft).

[dvj]

If anyone had any thoughts about getting both FR and A2A models..........

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/161/z5ie.jpg

They perfectly complement each other.

[greenie]

Love this but just one thing , if I may . I know Mike is looking for problems . The engoine sound ( which is fantastic) but I am not hearing any difference in engine sound at the top end . It sounds the same to me at 50" @ 3000rpm as it does at about 30" @ roughly 2,000rpm . Please tell me I'm wrong because the rest is totally enjoyable

[Bomber_12th]

Here's a work in progress on a depiction of Chris Prevost's P-40N. I need to align the tail number on the right side (and the tail numbers themselves should be bigger), probably increase the exhaust staining a bit, and make some new prop textures.

The aircraft today is based at the Sonoma Valley airport, with Chris Prevost's other warbirds (which includes the most spectacular F3F). The aircraft originally served in the Pacific with the 7th FS, 49th FG, and was one of a few P-40's flown by Lt. Ray Melikian, who was credited with downing three aircraft - two Zeroes and a Betty bomber, all while flying P-40's. Later, while being flown by Lt. Marion Hawke, the aircraft was substantially damaged when it collided with a P-47 while attempting to land at the Iron Range Repair Depot in Queensland, Australia. The aircraft remained abandoned at the old airfield until being recovered in 1973. The airframe passed through several hands over the years, including Charles Darby and Judy Pay. In 2000, the project was listed for sale and purchased by Chris Prevost, who then had the aircraft shipped to the Sonoma Valley airport where the restoration to airworthy began. Doing much of the work himself, over almost a decade, Chris Prevost flew the aircraft for the first time in January 2009. The aircraft was finished in the basic markings it originally carried, consisting of mainly just factory markings and the cowling number as originally applied when it served in the 7th FS, however recently a shark mouth has been applied (perhaps to coincide with another shark-mouthed P-40 which recently also now calls the Sonoma Valley airport home).

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/n540tp_1_zps245ee2c3.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/n540tp_1_zps245ee2c3.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/n540tp_2_zpsfb7e6cf6.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/n540tp_2_zpsfb7e6cf6.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/n540tp_3_zps4dd65c6f.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/n540tp_3_zps4dd65c6f.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/n540tp_4_zps85c745a1.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/n540tp_4_zps85c745a1.jpg.html)

[Barnes]

Hi Mike or John

Any advice - as you know the tail plane surfaces are split on the repaint kit. What is odd is that the squares on my attempted repaint seem to resise to a different scale on each separate surface. can this be rectified somehow before I spend 2 hours reworking the black squares?


http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq119/GAJIT/wip_zpsa785efd2.jpg (http://s439.photobucket.com/user/GAJIT/media/wip_zpsa785efd2.jpg.html)

[FentiFlier1]

What a great model! Well done Mike! :medals::salute:

[Mach3DS]

Echoing Diego's comments..... :) Although, I've got the stables full and saddled with John's ponies, I think Mike's work is very compelling. Just need to wait for some $$.$$ to spend on such items....just installed a rock pathway to the backyard, which ate up my spending money!! Arrg! I am loving the multiple variants. I believe that whenever I end up with this one in the hangar, it'll be the complete package. I'm very interested in the light weight training variant. I would like to do a progression series of flights, starting with the wozza AT-6, moving on to the training P-40, then to a fully equipped and eventually transitioning to the P-51, then finally to the F-86F-30 in my collection. And do this over a few months, where when I fly for personal fun; fly each in a series of training flights, XC flights and meeting a set of training goals I set for myself in each aircraft before moving on to the next.

John, loving the repaint. She looks great. I'm also very impressed with the paints included standard with this product.

[fsxar177]

Performance fine tuned, will send the new files to Mike within the next few hours but I haven't found any test flight or performance table that results in any higher speed than 352mph (9000ft).

Mr. Stolle,

I think the published 378mph TAS is widely known, but I could be wrong...

However, I pulled up the following document on the P-40N, take-off gross of 7,413, armed, at 57", 3000RPM, and a little above 10,000ft... there it is again, 378mph
See: HERE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_42-9987_FS-M-19-1535-A.pdf)
I believe this aircraft is using the -81 also, rated, around 1,360hp, and of course, normally aspirated. As mike has depicted the stripped lightweight model as well, which would have the belly shackles removed, as well as guns, etc., I would expect the TAS number at critical altitude to be in the 385+ market, conservatively.

On these performance tables, for the N model, (see HERE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40.html)) I'm seeing the upper 340-350ish mark at critical altitude, with a 6-gun ship, when an aircraft is gross around 8,000 plus... And these carry above 340mph TAS through 20,000ft. Currently, in the sim, I can not make enough power at 20,000, at those weights, to get anywhere close to that. I believe it says they were making around 39" at 20,000ft.

My test example was absolute minimum, take-off gross around 6,200lbs, unarmed...coming in at around 335mph, 57", 3000 RPM, around 10K. That's the best I can do. Haven't got serious with the heavier and more armed ships. Ambient temperature were around 70 degrees Fahrenheit at 5,000 (airport elevation), and maybe around 35-40 degrees at the 10K mark. Weather clear. Winds zero for the purpose of testing.

Hope this helps!
Really liking the overall feel, and control, And the low-speed numbers seem quite accurate.

- Joseph

[TheGrunt]

Are you guys able to overheat the engine on this baby? I tried to idle it on ground cowl flaps closed air temperature being over 20C and then tried to fly the plane with quite high power hugging the ground and keeping it in warm air for a while. Either case coolant temperature seems to stop on the green shy of 100C no matter of the position of cowl flaps. You would think that it should overheat quite quickly with cowl flaps fully closed or am I missing something here?

[mike_cyul]

Love this but just one thing , if I may . I know Mike is looking for problems . The engoine sound ( which is fantastic) but I am not hearing any difference in engine sound at the top end . It sounds the same to me at 50" @ 3000rpm as it does at about 30" @ roughly 2,000rpm . Please tell me I'm wrong because the rest is totally enjoyable

I'm going to see if I can do anything about this. Right now there's only four looping .wav files with which to try and simulate a whole RPM range, so something has to give a bit somewhere - but I'll see what I can do!

Mike

[mike_cyul]

Mr. Stolle,

I think the published 378mph TAS is widely known, but I could be wrong...

However, I pulled up the following document on the P-40N, take-off gross of 7,413, armed, at 57", 3000RPM, and a little above 10,000ft... there it is again, 378mph
See: HERE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_42-9987_FS-M-19-1535-A.pdf)
I believe this aircraft is using the -81 also, rated, around 1,360hp, and of course, normally aspirated. As mike has depicted the stripped lightweight model as well, which would have the belly shackles removed, as well as guns, etc., I would expect the TAS number at critical altitude to be in the 385+ market, conservatively.

On these performance tables, for the N model, (see HERE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40.html)) I'm seeing the upper 340-350ish mark at critical altitude, with a 6-gun ship, when an aircraft is gross around 8,000 plus... And these carry above 340mph TAS through 20,000ft. Currently, in the sim, I can not make enough power at 20,000, at those weights, to get anywhere close to that. I believe it says they were making around 39" at 20,000ft.

My test example was absolute minimum, take-off gross around 6,200lbs, unarmed...coming in at around 335mph, 57", 3000 RPM, around 10K. That's the best I can do. Haven't got serious with the heavier and more armed ships. Ambient temperature were around 70 degrees Fahrenheit at 5,000 (airport elevation), and maybe around 35-40 degrees at the 10K mark. Weather clear. Winds zero for the purpose of testing.

Hope this helps!
Really liking the overall feel, and control, And the low-speed numbers seem quite accurate.

- Joseph


I'll let Bernt address this more fully if he'd like to (as I'm no expert), but I believe the report you're referring to involved a test aircraft with experimental radiators, and with other possible experimental modifications that were not mentioned. Apparently critical altitude is also 57" higher than elsewhere for the -81 engine. If I can quote Barfly, regarding this report: "It's very possible however in this case that they (USAAF) was attempting to maximize speed including possibly a slightly different motor configuration - apparently the Allison V1710 was very modular and it was easy to modify with upgraded performance parts at the type evolved."

[fsxar177]

Sounds good Mike!

I believe these tests were that I'm referring to, were pretty stock aircraft, and with stock -81 Allisons.

Anxious to hear from Mr. Stolle.

- Joseph

[Bradburger]

Mr. Stolle,

I think the published 378mph TAS is widely known, but I could be wrong...
- Joseph

I think you'll find that the 378 mph figure was for the lightweight N-1. (I seem to recall that figure is in 'America's Hundred Thousand').

As fsxar177 pointed out, WWII Aircraft Performance (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40.html)has some good data for the P-40N-1 & -5.


Are you guys able to overheat the engine on this baby? I tried to idle it on ground cowl flaps closed air temperature being over 20C and then tried to fly the plane with quite high power hugging the ground and keeping it in warm air for a while. Either case coolant temperature seems to stop on the green shy of 100C no matter of the position of cowl flaps. You would think that it should overheat quite quickly with cowl flaps fully closed or am I missing something here?

This can be done, (the rate of change and cooling scalars for liquid cooled, or CHT temp for air cooled engines, needs to be set up in the .air file), and is something I do with all the FMs' I make. It adds a bit of extra pressure, especially on a hot day, and gets your eyes constantly looking at the temps and pressures, as you would do in real life, or on an Accusim aircraft.

Obviously, by default, there will be no consequence if you do overheat the coolant, CHT, or oil, unless of course you decide to model say the coolant boiling and venting with a custom effect file.

But I guess this is why most developers don't pay much attention to these settings, simply because FS does not mind how high they go, and has no effect on the engine or it's performance.

Cheers

Paul

[Barfly]

Mr. Stolle,

I think the published 378mph TAS is widely known, but I could be wrong...

However, I pulled up the following document on the P-40N, take-off gross of 7,413, armed, at 57", 3000RPM, and a little above 10,000ft... there it is again, 378mph
See: HERE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_42-9987_FS-M-19-1535-A.pdf)
I believe this aircraft is using the -81 also, rated, around 1,360hp, and of course, normally aspirated. As mike has depicted the stripped lightweight model as well, which would have the belly shackles removed, as well as guns, etc., I would expect the TAS number at critical altitude to be in the 385+ market, conservatively.

On these performance tables, for the N model, (see HERE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40.html)) I'm seeing the upper 340-350ish mark at critical altitude, with a 6-gun ship, when an aircraft is gross around 8,000 plus... And these carry above 340mph TAS through 20,000ft. Currently, in the sim, I can not make enough power at 20,000, at those weights, to get anywhere close to that. I believe it says they were making around 39" at 20,000ft.

My test example was absolute minimum, take-off gross around 6,200lbs, unarmed...coming in at around 335mph, 57", 3000 RPM, around 10K. That's the best I can do. Haven't got serious with the heavier and more armed ships. Ambient temperature were around 70 degrees Fahrenheit at 5,000 (airport elevation), and maybe around 35-40 degrees at the 10K mark. Weather clear. Winds zero for the purpose of testing.

Hope this helps!
Really liking the overall feel, and control, And the low-speed numbers seem quite accurate.

- Joseph

I think that test is rather odd; it was meant to represent an "N" series test but they used a modified "K", which normally comes with a different engine. They claim a dash-81 engine configuration, but the HP and crit altitude numbers aren't from a -81. I suspect they had a -73 motor that came with the K and corresponding better engine performance. I could be completely wrong, but that's what it looks like - the test plane could have been a 'ringer', for whatever reason. The later production aircraft used 1200 hp motors; not sure why you would start the N series with a better motor, then decrease hp when weight of successive variants went up.

[bstolle]

I think the published 378mph TAS is widely known, but I could be wrong...

However, I pulled up the following document on the P-40N, take-off gross of 7,413, armed, at 57", 3000RPM, and a little above 10,000ft... there it is again, 378mph
See: HERE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_42-9987_FS-M-19-1535-A.pdf)
The table you quoted shows that the -81 engine used in this test delivered a whopping 1480hp but the standard -81 delivers 'only' 1200hp AFAIK. That explains the difference IMO.

[Bomber_12th]

Here are some new screenshots of my repaint of NL540TP. I 'think' its done, and when uploaded I'll be including a minor update for my "Little Jeanne" repaint as well.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_1_zpse9c97fc1.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_1_zpse9c97fc1.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_2_zps9b732f23.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_2_zps9b732f23.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_3_zps91c940d4.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_3_zps91c940d4.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_4_zps74ff9219.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_4_zps74ff9219.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_5_zps1094cf70.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_5_zps1094cf70.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_6_zps72a1c62f.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_6_zps72a1c62f.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_7_zpsa93a5e00.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_7_zpsa93a5e00.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_8_zpsb59b8fa9.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_8_zpsb59b8fa9.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_9_zps243a6815.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_9_zps243a6815.jpg.html)

[Bradburger]

The table you quoted shows that the -81 engine used in this test delivered a whopping 1480hp but the standard -81 delivers 'only' 1200hp AFAIK. That explains the difference IMO.

Interesting.

Checking 'America's Hundred Thousand', it has the following power outputs for the V-1710-81/F20R, fitted to the P-40M/and early N models: -

Take Off - 1200 HP @ 3000 RPM (SL)
War Emergency - 1360 HP @ 3000 RPM (SL)
Military - 1125 HP @ 3000 RPM @ 14600 - 15500ft
Normal - 1100 HP @ 2600 @ 13800 -14000ft

Unfortunatley, it does not give the Manifold pressures, but luckily, thanks to the pilots manual, we know that the War Emergency rating was 57 inches. Also listed with the same power outputs are the V1710-99/F26R (N-20/35) & V1710-115/F31R (N-40).

According to the P-40N Operational Suitability Report (N-1) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_Operational_Suitability.pdf), this seems to back up what AHT gives for the V-1710-81 power ratings.

Looking at the max speed results table in this report, it gives 355 TAS @ 15000ft @ 56 inches/3000 RPM, and 244 TAS @ SL @ the same power setting, at an AUW of 7500lbs

Oh, another lovely repaint as usual John!

Cheers

Paul

[mike_cyul]

Hi Mike or John

Any advice - as you know the tail plane surfaces are split on the repaint kit. What is odd is that the squares on my attempted repaint seem to resise to a different scale on each separate surface. can this be rectified somehow before I spend 2 hours reworking the black squares?



They shouldn't resize to a different scale, at all, so I'm puzzled! As you can see by the original textures, everything should just lay out normally - otherwise the included paint schemes would look wrong, as well. On your trim tabs, it looks as if two squares have been 'cut' by the way the tabs are mapped to look like two small ones. Is this what you mean?

Mike

[Bradburger]

The table you quoted shows that the -81 engine used in this test delivered a whopping 1480hp but the standard -81 delivers 'only' 1200hp AFAIK. That explains the difference IMO.

I just checked the P-40N Pilots Manual (AN-01-25CN-1), and the Specific Engine Flight Chart gives the War Emergency Power Rating for the V-1710-81 and 99 (I note it doesn't give a sub model such as F20R) as 1480 HP @ 57 Inches @ 3000 RPM at 10000 ft (RAM), and the same rating at 7500 ft (no RAM).

Take Off Power is given as 1200 HP @ 52 Inches @ 3000 RPM at SL, whilst Military Power is given as 1125 HP @ 44.2 Inches @ 3000 RPM at 17000 ft (RAM) or 15000 ft (no RAM).

These power settings & outputs would all appear to be on 100 octane fuel.

So it would seem the report fsxar177 links giving the 378 MPH is indeed using the V-1710-81 and not the more powerful V1710-73/F4R of the K model as Barfly suggests. (This engines max HP is rated as 1550 HP @ SL according to AHT).

Cheers

Paul

[fsxar177]

The table you quoted shows that the -81 engine used in this test delivered a whopping 1480hp but the standard -81 delivers 'only' 1200hp AFAIK. That explains the difference IMO.

Actually, the -81 Allison is rated at 1,360hp. The 1480 b.h.p listed is from their power curves, tested on three series of Allison engines. (-81, -83, -85 ) This doesn't mean the engine installed was modified, or that would have to be listed in their report. I'm not sure what the single-stage supercharger was rated for altitude, But I would guess somewhere between 10-16k. Experimental radiators were used, but I'm sure had little to do with performance figures, as the aircraft didn't suffer from cooling problems at 10k anyway, and the temperature listed at the altitude during testing, was 10 degrees Fahrenheit.


.....According to the P-40N Operational Suitability Report (N-1) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_Operational_Suitability.pdf), this seems to back up what AHT gives for the V-1710-81 power ratings.

Looking at the max speed results table in this report, it gives 355 TAS @ 15000ft @ 56 inches/3000 RPM, and 244 TAS @ SL @ the same power setting, at an AUW of 7500lbs....


Thank-you for the additional information Paul. Very interesting! And the report you mention, the aircraft is considerably heavier than my test platform within the simulator. I fear I'd be hard pressed to reach 320mph TAS at 15,000ft, if I was at 7,500lbs....

- Joseph

[Bradburger]

Thank-you for the additional information Paul. Very interesting! And the report you mention, the aircraft is considerably heavier than my test platform within the simulator. I fear I'd be hard pressed to reach 320mph TAS at 15,000ft, if I was at 7,500lbs....

- Joseph

No problem Joseph.

It's always interesting to look at different tests and compare them.

I just had a quick glance at the P-40N speed curves graph in 'America's Hundred Thousand', and for the N5-40 (8400lbs), it gives a max speed at altitude of around 350 MPH (approx 16000ft), and just over 300 MPH at about 2500ft (this is where the line on the graph starts). SL speed is about 275 MPH if you follow the line of the graph down.

I'll add that all the P-40 speed curves listed in AHT say they are for Military Power only.

Interestingly, these speeds seem to be, (using that much used cliche), 'In the Ball Park' of the War Emergency Ratings speeds given in the P-40N Operational Suitability report, and the P-40N Army Air Force Material Centre Report you linked.

Cheers

Paul

[Barfly]

Looks good to me, I stand corrected.

[mike_cyul]

Just a note to say that there are updates on the way. When they're ready, previous purchasers will be notified (new purchasers will be getting the updated version at time of purchase). So far, these correct a few model issues, plus Bernt has sent some new airfiles to be incorporated. More news when the updates are ready.

Mike

[fsxar177]

Just a note to say that there are updates on the way. When they're ready, previous purchasers will be notified (new purchasers will be getting the updated version at time of purchase). So far, these correct a few model issues, plus Bernt has sent some new airfiles to be incorporated. More news when the updates are ready.

Mike


Sounds like a good'n to me Mike!

I really appreciate these threads, where things can be hashed out. Sure is a fine product, and you can't beat the support! I really like the clarity of the virtual cockpit. No problems whatsoever reading gauges, or finding my way around. The texture work inside is superb, and really gives an authentic feel. The differences between the earlier, and later N variants within the cockpit sure stand out! Found myself looking for my VSI in one model last night, and well..found out it ain't there! Fun stuff!

- Joseph

[greenie]

I'm going to see if I can do anything about this. Right now there's only four looping .wav files with which to try and simulate a whole RPM range, so something has to give a bit somewhere - but I'll see what I can do!

Mike

Thank you Mike .
Is it possible to make a longer loop ? I've never been involved with sound so I am not sure what's required . Hope Im not pushing my luck !!
...anyhow I am glad that you are looking at it.
Cheers

[Barfly]

Actually, the -81 Allison is rated at 1,360hp. The 1480 b.h.p listed is from their power curves, tested on three series of Allison engines. (-81, -83, -85 ) This doesn't mean the engine installed was modified, or that would have to be listed in their report. I'm not sure what the single-stage supercharger was rated for altitude, But I would guess somewhere between 10-16k. Experimental radiators were used, but I'm sure had little to do with performance figures, as the aircraft didn't suffer from cooling problems at 10k anyway, and the temperature listed at the altitude during testing, was 10 degrees Fahrenheit.




Thank-you for the additional information Paul. Very interesting! And the report you mention, the aircraft is considerably heavier than my test platform within the simulator. I fear I'd be hard pressed to reach 320mph TAS at 15,000ft, if I was at 7,500lbs....

- Joseph

Not to belabor the point, but I don't think 1480 is available for the -81. Reference data from both the "Operational Suitability Report" and the "P-40N Aircraft Manual". With 100 octane, 1200 hp is rated power, at 52", because that's all the motor will pull static at SL. 1,360 @ 57" is the max the motor will pull at SL, in flight at speed (ram). 55" looks like it is available to ~10k, then MP gradually decreases from full throttle height until at 15k it's down to 43.5 (from the "P-40N_Operational_Suitability" doc - that is consistent with Emergency Maximum (full throttle, 44.2 in) at 14,200 in the Aircraft Manual, and TAS peaks around there.

The single stage, single speed supercharger looks like it only produces 57" at SL with ram, then 55" limit is used to determine FTH, which I think was around 9200ft. Above that you get an MP decrease, to the point where you are technically only able to pull "Mil Power" rating with a 15 minute limitation, also described in the Aircraft Manual chart as "Emergency Maximum". That's an odd thing to call 44" for this motor, but description of power ratings varies over time, between different engine types, and aircraft manufacturers.

That engine data should be good for the STD, fighter bomber variants, etc in this package, and I think that's the data Bernt is looking at. The are a few lightweight variants; apparently the earliest model P-40N was intended for better climb rate and higher altitude performance. To that end, lighter weight would most benefit climb rate, and a change in configuration of supercharger etc would really be necessary for a significant airspeed increase at altitude. Later war lightly configured trainers etc had the STD motor.

My point being, most of these had a standard motor; the early lightweight may have had some special prototype work or a slightly differently configured motor.

[fsxar177]

Not to belabor the point, but I don't think 1480 is available for the -81. Reference data from both the "Operational Suitability Report" and the "P-40N Aircraft Manual". With 100 octane, 1200 hp is rated power, at 52", because that's all the motor will pull static at SL. 1,360 @ 57" is the max the motor will pull at SL, in flight at speed (ram). 55" looks like it is available to ~10k, then MP gradually decreases from full throttle height until at 15k it's down to 43.5 (from the "P-40N_Operational_Suitability" doc - that is consistent with Emergency Maximum (full throttle, 44.2 in) at 14,200 in the Aircraft Manual, and TAS peaks around there.

The single stage, single speed supercharger looks like it only produces 57" at SL with ram, then 55" limit is used to determine FTH, which I think was around 9200ft. Above that you get an MP decrease, to the point where you are technically only able to pull "Mil Power" rating with a 15 minute limitation, also described in the Aircraft Manual chart as "Emergency Maximum". That's an odd thing to call 44" for this motor, but description of power ratings varies over time, between different engine types, and aircraft manufacturers.

That engine data should be good for the STD, fighter bomber variants, etc in this package, and I think that's the data Bernt is looking at. The are a few lightweight variants; apparently the earliest model P-40N was intended for better climb rate and higher altitude performance. To that end, lighter weight would most benefit climb rate, and a change in configuration of supercharger etc would really be necessary for a significant airspeed increase at altitude. Later war lightly configured trainers etc had the STD motor.

My point being, most of these had a standard motor; the early lightweight may have had some special prototype work or a slightly differently configured motor.


I understand where you are coming from. Perhaps you are correct, that the 1480 isn't available. However, that's what their power curve says.. You mention 9,200ft, that sounds about right. I know it would only make about 44.5" at 15,000, wide-open, so that 9:6.1 gear ratio must be set-up for around the 9K mark, I should suppose.. Just guessing.

I would be happy if the fighter/bomber was not capable of the 378mph, but I should expect the upper 340's as listed in all of the performance charts I've seen. Not the upper 290's/lower 300's that I'm seeing....

From most of the technical data I've researched, be it North American, Goodyear, Republic, Curtiss, or the War Dept., whatever, when these test reports are written they will include notes for any ab-normal modifications that the engine/aircraft may have had. Otherwise the tests would not be valid. These reports don't indicate that.

Vought discovered, while testing the Corsair(s), that removing the matte wing walk gained about 7mph TAS. So that was noted. Stuff like that.... Gun blisters, vs. faired over leading edges, or camo-paint vs. flat olive... Things like this were tested. I hardly believe that any serious engine mods would not be listed. So when it says a V-1710-81 was used, and their notes show the power-curve for -81 (F series) and -83/-85 (E series) (same super-charger gear ratio(s), different front case cover) and that curve show's 1480 b.h.p... Well, sounds about right to me. Especially if it's official rating is 1,360. These documents were written during war-time, for the sake of a weapon that was being entrusted to our boys. So I trust, in general, that the reports are as accurate as possible.

I highly respect Mr. Stolle's work. Though very unconventional in this case, regarding some .air/.cfg entries.... I could care less what they look like on paper, if the aircraft performs correctly, given the restrictions of the simulator. I wouldn't even bring it up, but this product is of such outstanding quality, and worth every penny, I feel it's owed to the developers to have a little input.. Before Mike get's the installer out to the various stores.

Best,
Joseph

[Barfly]

I agree with most of what you're saying, I just don't think test data in question is revealing all of the data.

[Barfly]

Some additional insight, perhaps:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/v1710_design.html

"The engine design benefited from the General Motors philosophy to build-in production and installation versatility. The engine was constructed around a basic power section from which different installation requirements could be met by fitting the appropriate Accessories Section at the rear and a tailored reduction gear for power output at the front. This approach allowed easy changes of the supercharger(s) and supercharger drive-gear ratio. That gave different critical altitude ratings ranging from 8,000 to 26,000 feet (2,400 to 7,900 m). It allowed a variety of propeller drives and also remote placement of the reduction gear."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-1710



"F" series engines were designed for late model pursuit aircraft, and are identified by the compact external spur gear-type reduction gear box. Military models were V-1710-27, -29, -39, -45, -49, -51, -53, -55, -57, -61, -75, -77, -81, -87, -89, -91, -95, -99, -101, -105, -107, -111, -113, -115, -119, producing 1150 to 1425 hp at 3000 rpm. The V-1710-101, -119 and -121 models has an auxiliary supercharger, some with a liquid cooled aftercooler. Supercharger gear ratios were: 6.44:1, 7.48:1, 8.10:1, 8.80:1 and 9.60:1 depending on altitude rating. These engines had either a six or twelve weight crankshaft, revised vibration dampeners that combined to allow higher engine speeds, SAE #50 propeller shaft, and higher horsepower ratings. The "E" series and "F" series engines were very similar, the primary difference being the front crankcase cover, which was interchangeable between the two series engines.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-1710#cite_note-11)"


I think the early P-40-1-CU lightweight fighter probably had a different than standard for P40N gear supercharger gear ratio, as that was an easily changeable feature of the basic motor.

[fsxar177]

...
I think the early P-40-1-CU lightweight fighter probably had a different than standard for P40N gear supercharger gear ratio, as that was an easily changeable feature of the basic motor....

Excellent information. The gear ratio listed in the test bed I referenced was 9.6:1. This was the 'high' gear, and pretty standard in the 'N' I believe. (and the -81 in general) If I recall, it's what John Curtiss Paul has in 'Parrothead', which has raced at Reno (ahead of stocker Mustangs) in recent years, not to make any relevance of it.

The 1360hp rating referenced earlier, is essentially a sea level rating. It's also a WEP (emergency power rating, at 57" 3000RPM) So it's to be expected that at higher altitude (and it's many benefits), with the single stage supercharger at it's best peak, and prior to boost dropping off, that the engine would make more power. (the 1,480hp noted)

With the later developments of the Allison, it really makes one wonder, at what point would it be a superior engine to the Merlin? Certainly favored among the ground crew.

A little-known truth, is that many of the over-boosted race Merlin's seen at Reno for years, have actually used modified Allison connecting rods, for their strength and mass. Allowing extreme boost, and rpm as high as 3,600! (Even claims of 3,800 in one pony, at one time...unreal!)

- Joseph

[bstolle]

1.I would be happy if the fighter/bomber was not capable of the 378mph, but I should expect the upper 340's as listed in all of the performance charts I've seen. Not the upper 290's/lower 300's that I'm seeing....
2.Though very unconventional in this case, regarding some .air/.cfg entries....
1. With the new files you'll get maximum power and hence maximum speed (350mph) at slightly above 9200ft and at SL a tad more than 310mph.
2. That's why she e.g. feels and handles and spins more realistic than the 'other' P40.

[fsxar177]

1. With the new files you'll get maximum power and hence maximum speed (350mph) at slightly above 9200ft and at SL a tad more than 310mph.
2. That's why she e.g. feels and handles and spins more realistic than the 'other' P40.


:salute: Very good! :salute:

- Joseph

[bstolle]

Just tested a few items. The aerodynamics/engine/prop combination is not specifically tuned to achieve the correct performance only at a specific hp setting, it's realistically reacting to higher (and lower) engine performance.
If you use the correct power_scalar e.g. 1.13, you get the engine/plane performance for 1360hp. At 1.23 you get 1480hp and...you guessed it...375mph at approx 9500ft.
This is the section/line you are looking for in the cfg file

[piston_engine]
power_scalar = 1.00 //1.00_1200hp 1.13_1360hp 1.23_1480hp

Have fun :)

Bernt

[Barnes]

Here are some new screenshots of my repaint of NL540TP. I 'think' its done, and when uploaded I'll be including a minor update for my "Little Jeanne" repaint as well.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_1_zpse9c97fc1.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_1_zpse9c97fc1.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_2_zps9b732f23.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_2_zps9b732f23.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_3_zps91c940d4.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_3_zps91c940d4.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_4_zps74ff9219.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_4_zps74ff9219.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_5_zps1094cf70.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_5_zps1094cf70.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_6_zps72a1c62f.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_6_zps72a1c62f.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_7_zpsa93a5e00.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_7_zpsa93a5e00.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_8_zpsb59b8fa9.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_8_zpsb59b8fa9.jpg.html)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_9_zps243a6815.jpg~original (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/Flight%20Replicas%20P-40N/P40_TP_9_zps243a6815.jpg.html)

Great work John - a must have for the hangar!

[FentiFlier1]

I am having as much fun with the P-40N as I had with the A2A P-40B. I am generally very impressed with the care that went into this production. :salute:

Just two points I would like to mention -

1_the high MP/rpm sounds: the loop is too short and gets annoying. (something I can mod myself in fact)

2_I would really appreciate a description of each plane in the "aircraft description" box, i.e. engine, production series (exP-40N-5-CU), history, etc... That would improve the "study sim" aspect and help people understand what is what.


By the way, all the P-40 Mike modelled had the 1200hp engine, right? I remember reading that the 1360hp engine reappeared on the very last factory runs (P-40N-40-CU)

A good description of variants: http://www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/P-40N.htm


Owen.

[fsxar177]

Just tested a few items. The aerodynamics/engine/prop combination is not specifically tuned to achieve the correct performance only at a specific hp setting, it's realistically reacting to higher (and lower) engine performance.
If you use the correct power_scalar e.g. 1.13, you get the engine/plane performance for 1360hp. At 1.23 you get 1480hp and...you guessed it...375mph at approx 9500ft.
This is the section/line you are looking for in the cfg file

[piston_engine]
power_scalar = 1.00 //1.00_1200hp 1.13_1360hp 1.23_1480hp

Have fun :)

Bernt

Appreciate it Bernt. Going to wait for the update link from Mike, and we'll go from there!

- Joseph

[fsxar177]

...By the way, all the P-40 Mike modelled had the 1200hp engine, right? I remember reading that the 1360hp engine reappeared on the very last factory runs (P-40N-40-CU)

A good description of variants: http://www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/P-40N.htm


Owen.

When they reference 1,200, it's the T.O. (take-off) rating at sea level, not the WEP (57") number that we've been discussing. 1,200hp T.O., 1360hp WEP At sea level. Hope that clears it up on the -81.

- Joseph

[bstolle]

It's not that easy or clear. Some of the P-40N manuals I have mention a 'theoretical' max MP of 57" but an actual max throttle capability of only 52" (take off maximum 1min) and 45" for normal take off (5min) and maximum climb(5.5min).
That's with grade 100 fuel. The maximum with grade 91 fuel is 47"

[fsxar177]

It's not that easy or clear. Some of the P-40N manuals I have mention a 'theoretical' max MP of 57" but an actual max throttle capability of only 52" (take off maximum 1min) and 45" for normal take off (5min) and maximum climb(5.5min).
That's with grade 100 fuel. The maximum with grade 91 fuel is 47"

I can understand that.

[FentiFlier1]

@Joseph & Bernt:

Interesting information, didn't know that!

Being an atmospheric engine, I suppose the specific air pressure on a certain day would influence power rating just as for cars?

Had to ask, sorry if this is making the threat go off on a tangeant...

[fsxar177]

@Joseph & Bernt:

Interesting information, didn't know that!

Being an atmospheric engine, I suppose the specific air pressure on a certain day would influence power rating just as for cars?

Had to ask, sorry if this is making the threat go off on a tangeant...


Yes and no...

As long as the aircraft can make xx amount of boost, based on atmospheric conditions and altitude, it will. Now depending on the aircraft, that number may be limited in many various ways. The big reason for 'holding back', is detonation. Hence the big caution, and 'time limits' such as max 5 minutes, etc, etc. In this case, the engine does not have ADI (water/alcohol injection), so it suffers greatly simply because the 100 octane, or whichever fuel available, has too fast a burn rate, which with more boost can mean severe detonation. The water injection (often used to achieve WEP specs on other aircraft) is what gives the higher octane rating, and hence allowing more boost.

More boost = more power. However, it does not mean more thrust....

Propeller type, design, and gearbox ratio will dictate the efficiency in which that power can be translated into energy.

Now, on top of that... the engine may or may not make xxxx amount of horsepower all the time at xx boost. The engine will run better in a moist, cool environment.

If you want to compound the whole thing...you'd have to throw in the study of propeller efficiency, based on atmospheric conditions and altitude, as well.

The reason why the P-40 examples that we've been referencing make more power up higher, is because with the single stage supercharger, set up for let's say 9,200ft, will allow the engine to produce the same level of boost as it does at sea level, at the 9,200ft. At altitude, the trade off of between density, mixture, and temperature...as well as humidity, and other factors, may allow the engine to run more economically, and more powerful, with yet the same boost settings. Of course, propeller willing, this translates into more speed, which snow-balls into more power... (for many other reasons!! Including, but not limited to ram-air)

All good things must come to an end, and above an altitude for which the supercharger cannot compensate, boost, and thus power begin to rapidly deteriorate, and falling close behind is once again, top speed.

The age-old question, what would a two-stage supercharger do for the P-40? Hard to say. However the War Dept. had many more gripes with the aircraft, than just speed, and high altitude performance. The design was quickly becoming obsolete. The Q model P-40 was the last-ditch effort by Curtiss to produce something to compare with Republic, and North American. But similarly to Lockheed, it was too little, too late. This is often blamed on the Allison, by the casual observer, while the Rolls Royce V-150 Merlin is awarded the victory. The reality was, the Rolls Royce was just that...a Rolls Royce. It became very powerful, yes. But required much more field maintenance, and was already being used up by the other designs. Had the war continued, and development of the G series V-1710 was able to reach a zenith, we would have seen either new and improved designs, or adoption of the Allison(s) into other platforms. Being behind in the jet age, it would have been the late model Allison's and the Pratt & Whitney 28 cyl. 4360 that would have lead the Air Force, and Navy fleets into the late 40's.

- Joseph

[mike_cyul]

The updated P-40N packages have now been sent. Paying customers should be receiving an email containing a download link to the new installer. If you purchased after July 30, you will not be receiving the email, as you already have the latest version. If you purchased before July 30 but don't receive an email with the update, please let me know via the support email address (for example, there are presently two email address which have bounced back as undeliverable).

If your .air files are named P40N_sp1, you have the latest version of your package.

Important! Don't forget to uninstal the old package before installing the new.

The updates contain some model fixes, plus the latest flight dynamics.

I'm still working to see about changing the higher-end rpm sounds to better reflect rpm changes, and if successful a new sound file will be sent to customers at that time.

Thanks!

Mike

[flaviossa]

Got it! Very nice! Thanks for the update Mike :ernae:

[Barnes]

It just keeps getting better - thanks for the update!

[Bradburger]

Many thanks Mike.

Got the email about the update yesterday.

Cheers

Paul

[TheGrunt]

Many thanks Mike.

Got the email about the about yesterday.

Cheers

Paul
Same here, excellent customer support!

I've just uninstalled previous version, installed the new one and I'm going to take it for a flight sometimes tomorrow. Thanks!

[Bradburger]

Same here, excellent customer support!

I've just uninstalled previous version, installed the new one and I'm going to take it for a flight sometimes tomorrow. Thanks!

Noticed my mistake!

Should have course been update!

As you say, great support.

Cheers

Paul

[skyhawka4m]

sweet plane and an awesome repaint!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7368/9427446218_241e95cbfe_o.jpg

[MudMarine]

Just bought it and I can't wait to fly it!! Looks amazing!!

[fliger747]

A comment on ADI Water Meth injection. The main function of ADI is to improve internal engine cooling by (1) evaporation. (2) mass flow out through the exhaughst, and to improve power by operating closer to the stochemetric ratio rather than the rich mixture normally used at high power for cooling. This adds more power as does the ability to utilize a slightly higher MP. The internal cooling also helps prevent detonation.

these are not atmospheric engines per se but are able to maintain a rated MP value to a certain critical altitude. Multi stage blowers can have critical altitudes for normal, low and high blower. Such was the case for many of the R2800 installations, though high blower used up as much as 400 HP!

T

[fsxar177]

Seriously enjoying this P-40N

With the updated flight dynamics and performance, which is feeling much more solid, and accurate, combined with the great support from Mike, Bernt and team!

http://www.fsxairsports.com/teasers/frp403.jpg
http://www.fsxairsports.com/teasers/frp404.jpg
http://www.fsxairsports.com/teasers/frp405.jpg
http://www.fsxairsports.com/teasers/frp406.jpg
http://www.fsxairsports.com/teasers/frp407.jpg
http://www.fsxairsports.com/teasers/frp408.jpg
http://www.fsxairsports.com/teasers/frp409.jpg
http://www.fsxairsports.com/teasers/frp4010.jpg

- Joseph

[mike_cyul]

Newly updated P-40N packages have been sent. Paying customers should be receiving an email containing a download link to the new installer. If you purchased after August 8, you will not be receiving the email, as you already have the latest version. If you purchased before August 8 but don't receive an email with the update, please let me know via the support email address (for example, there are presently two email address which have bounced back as undeliverable).


Important! Don't forget to uninstal the old package before installing the new.


This update fixes the VC clock hour hand, corrects a reticule problem in one model, and adds reflections to the VC plexiglass in all models.


The somewhat flat higher-end RPM sounds turn out to be nothing to do with the sounds included in the package. I tried numerous changes to the sound.cfg, the sounds themselves., and even the gauge xml. It was only when substituting a completely different sound set from a different aircraft, with the same results as my sounds, that it became evident that the sound is being 'managed' from somewhere else in the package. I can only imagine that this is from some quantity within the air files, necessary to have the engine accurately perform as it should for a P-40N, but perhaps slightly outside the parameters that FSX is designed for.


Thanks!


Mike

[Barnes]

Newly updated P-40N packages have been sent. Paying customers should be receiving an email containing a download link to the new installer. If you purchased after August 8, you will not be receiving the email, as you already have the latest version. If you purchased before August 8 but don't receive an email with the update, please let me know via the support email address (for example, there are presently two email address which have bounced back as undeliverable).


Important! Don't forget to uninstal the old package before installing the new.


This update fixes the VC clock hour hand, corrects a reticule problem in one model, and adds reflections to the VC plexiglass in all models.


The somewhat flat higher-end RPM sounds turn out to be nothing to do with the sounds included in the package. I tried numerous changes to the sound.cfg, the sounds themselves., and even the gauge xml. It was only when substituting a completely different sound set from a different aircraft, with the same results as my sounds, that it became evident that the sound is being 'managed' from somewhere else in the package. I can only imagine that this is from some quantity within the air files, necessary to have the engine accurately perform as it should for a P-40N, but perhaps slightly outside the parameters that FSX is designed for.


Thanks!


Mike


Got the email - many thanks Mike for taking the trouble -much apprechiated :salute:

[TheGrunt]

Downloading! This amazing aircraft gets better and better. Great support from great dev! Thanks Mike :salute:

[Ian Warren]

UPDATE : As they say in the War movies , I'm going in ... I'm going in :running:<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input jscode="leoInternalChangeDone()" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setT imeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setT imeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Bradburger]

Thanks again Mike.

Just got the email and downloading now.

Cheers


Paul

[mike_cyul]

Just a note to say the P-40N has now been sent to SimMarket and according to them should be available there as of Monday. Packages for other vendors are being prepared, and will be going out as soon as those vendors indicate that they're ready.

That's all! :)

Mike

[mike_cyul]

Two repaint textures for the bare-metal models, P40_fus4_spec.psd and P40_fus4_spec _alpha.psd, where accidentally left out of the paint kit. You can now download these here:

http://www.flight-replicas.com/Downloads.htm

Mike

[CodyValkyrie]

Mike, no idea how I missed this. I've been waiting for her. When I get my refund check I will likely grab this bird. Great to see it was released and so well recieved. Cheers!

[stovall]

Cody, you will definitely not be disappointed. Not only is this a fantastic aircraft but there are some really good repaints available from some very talented artists. This is my number one aircraft flying most every day, especially while testing the upcoming Marianas 1945 scenery. Enjoy!!!

[txnetcop]

Definitely a sweet bird!!! Thanks again Mike for your hard work and attention to detail!
Ted

[jankees]

I completely forgot I still had this one floating on my harddsik, I'll if I can finish it this weekend, just the cockpit to do I think:
http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/ww230/jcblom60/P-40/ss7593.jpg (http://s722.photobucket.com/user/jcblom60/media/P-40/ss7593.jpg.html)

http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/ww230/jcblom60/P-40/ss7599.jpg (http://s722.photobucket.com/user/jcblom60/media/P-40/ss7599.jpg.html)

http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/ww230/jcblom60/P-40/ss7608.jpg (http://s722.photobucket.com/user/jcblom60/media/P-40/ss7608.jpg.html)

[CodyValkyrie]

You will be happy to know this is the first addon purchase I've made since my computer died. I picked it up while I conduct some testing with another product. I downloaded it and when I get home tonight I'm going to check her out. I will have my nice computer soon, but for now I wanted to check her out because I simply couldn't wait any longer. I'll post about my first flight when I get a chance. Thanks for the hard work again Mike. As always, a class act.

[big-mike]

Today i was able to get her---WOW,what a beauty!
Thank you,FR team----great work!:applause:
Michael

[Ferry_vO]

Very nice rendition of 'Snafu' Jankees! :applause: