-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
A2A Spitfire vs P-40
- Thread starter Browncoat
- Start date
Alan_A
Charter Member
Hard decision - they're very, very different machines. If Pilottj sees this, he can provide you with one of his brilliant car-based analogies. To paraphrase: Spitfire = an elegant but temperamental British sportscar, P-40 = a stick-shift Jeep.
I love the Spitfire - the handling is wonderful, it has none of the extreme torque or instability you'd find in, say, the P-51. You have only to point it and it goes where you want. But it's got a very short range and a very limited cooling system, which takes management and can get you into trouble on the ground - you've got about five minutes after engine start to get it into the air or the coolant starts boiling off. That means you're best off operating it from very small airfields - long taxis are not your friend. It's also happiest at higher altitudes. The A2A version with the additional Accu-Sim module lets you play with three different propellers, which have different personalities, and two engines, one in the Mk. I and one in the Mk. II.
The P-40 is much more robust - great at low altitude and short fields. It's sort of a high-performance bush plane. Cockpit management is a handful. Manual cowl flaps (like the manual radiator in the Spit) plus an electric (not engine-driven) hydraulic pump, which means that raising or lowering the gear requires moving the gear handle, then starting the hydraulic pump, then pumping the manual hydraulic lever to make sure the gear is fully in position. You can wind up wishing you were an octopus. As you can tell, I don't feel totally comfortable in it yet. But I want to, because it's kind of an outsider airplane. Wild Bill Kelso flew a P-40. 'Nuff said?
The standard answer to "which A2A airplane?" is usually "get both," and I can't argue with it here - the Spit and the P-40 give you a fascinating look at two very different contemporary designs. But budgets being what they are... your best bet is to think about what kind of flying you like to do and what kind of airplane you like to manage, then choose accordingly. In either case, be sure to buy the additional Accu-Sim module - it brings out all the realism I've been talking about.
Hope this helps.
I love the Spitfire - the handling is wonderful, it has none of the extreme torque or instability you'd find in, say, the P-51. You have only to point it and it goes where you want. But it's got a very short range and a very limited cooling system, which takes management and can get you into trouble on the ground - you've got about five minutes after engine start to get it into the air or the coolant starts boiling off. That means you're best off operating it from very small airfields - long taxis are not your friend. It's also happiest at higher altitudes. The A2A version with the additional Accu-Sim module lets you play with three different propellers, which have different personalities, and two engines, one in the Mk. I and one in the Mk. II.
The P-40 is much more robust - great at low altitude and short fields. It's sort of a high-performance bush plane. Cockpit management is a handful. Manual cowl flaps (like the manual radiator in the Spit) plus an electric (not engine-driven) hydraulic pump, which means that raising or lowering the gear requires moving the gear handle, then starting the hydraulic pump, then pumping the manual hydraulic lever to make sure the gear is fully in position. You can wind up wishing you were an octopus. As you can tell, I don't feel totally comfortable in it yet. But I want to, because it's kind of an outsider airplane. Wild Bill Kelso flew a P-40. 'Nuff said?
The standard answer to "which A2A airplane?" is usually "get both," and I can't argue with it here - the Spit and the P-40 give you a fascinating look at two very different contemporary designs. But budgets being what they are... your best bet is to think about what kind of flying you like to do and what kind of airplane you like to manage, then choose accordingly. In either case, be sure to buy the additional Accu-Sim module - it brings out all the realism I've been talking about.
Hope this helps.
Ian Warren
Charter Member
Maybe simply treat yourself, They are both as absorbing as each other, as Alan pointed out they both have the own characteristics and you really notice it, you could always become like me and get greedy like me and buy both 
Daube
SOH-CM-2025
The P40 is somewhere in between the P47 and the Spitfire.
The Spitfire is so light and easy to fly. It's probably the easiest of all the A2A warbird. The only thing you need to monitor is the coolant temperature. As said above by Alan_A, the main problem of the Spitfire is the insufficient engine cooling. It overheats very fast when taxiing. But appart from this, it's quite nice to fly, the sound is just fantastic, and the variation of props and starters (cartridge or electric) makes it very interesting to use.
The plane can land at 80 knots so it's also very nice for short strips in small airports.
The P-40 is like a light P-47. It's not as fast as the P-47 but the behavior in slow flight (especially at landing) is similar.
The hydraulic system for the flaps and gear is also quite interesting and a real challenge to use during takeoff and landing. The starter is just like the P-47, inertial. Excepted it's modelled well this time. In the P-47, if you trigger the inertial starter (energize) and you release the button too soon, you have to wait until the sound as come back to full stop until you can trigger it again and hear the accelerating sound again. In the P-40, if you release the "energize" button, you can hear the decrasing rotation speed of course, but if you switch it on again, then the sound starts re-increasing again, as exepected. I wish the P-47 were updated to match this standard.
If I remember correctly, the P-40 cannot climb as fast and as high as the P-47/P-51/P-47. It feels better at low and medium altitudes. It's also not as fast as the others. But it has greater range than the Spitfire, thanks to additional belly tank.
In the end, I use the P-40 only for medium flights from medium to big airfields. I use the Spitfire for small to medium exploration flights. For example on OrbX PNW, because I can land on any field and I can slow down easilly to inspect the surrounding. The Spit is more polyvalent (does this exist in English ? Or is it "versatile" ? ), the P-40 is more challenging.
The Spitfire is so light and easy to fly. It's probably the easiest of all the A2A warbird. The only thing you need to monitor is the coolant temperature. As said above by Alan_A, the main problem of the Spitfire is the insufficient engine cooling. It overheats very fast when taxiing. But appart from this, it's quite nice to fly, the sound is just fantastic, and the variation of props and starters (cartridge or electric) makes it very interesting to use.
The plane can land at 80 knots so it's also very nice for short strips in small airports.
The P-40 is like a light P-47. It's not as fast as the P-47 but the behavior in slow flight (especially at landing) is similar.
The hydraulic system for the flaps and gear is also quite interesting and a real challenge to use during takeoff and landing. The starter is just like the P-47, inertial. Excepted it's modelled well this time. In the P-47, if you trigger the inertial starter (energize) and you release the button too soon, you have to wait until the sound as come back to full stop until you can trigger it again and hear the accelerating sound again. In the P-40, if you release the "energize" button, you can hear the decrasing rotation speed of course, but if you switch it on again, then the sound starts re-increasing again, as exepected. I wish the P-47 were updated to match this standard.
If I remember correctly, the P-40 cannot climb as fast and as high as the P-47/P-51/P-47. It feels better at low and medium altitudes. It's also not as fast as the others. But it has greater range than the Spitfire, thanks to additional belly tank.
In the end, I use the P-40 only for medium flights from medium to big airfields. I use the Spitfire for small to medium exploration flights. For example on OrbX PNW, because I can land on any field and I can slow down easilly to inspect the surrounding. The Spit is more polyvalent (does this exist in English ? Or is it "versatile" ? ), the P-40 is more challenging.
Alan_A
Charter Member
The differences aren't very dramatic. Some variations in fuel tank capacity and arrangement. The Tomahawk can carry a belly tank to compensate for smaller wing tanks. The AVG model is a better performer, to reflect the non-standard hotrodding done by AVG mechanics. There's more variation in the Spitfires (fixed vs two-pitch propeller in the Mk I, constant speed prop in the Mk II, more horsepower in the Mk II).
Hope that helps you make your choice.
Hope that helps you make your choice.
Alan_A
Charter Member
txnetcop
Charter Member
I chose the P-40 first because I grew up near David Lee (Tex) Hill and all the kids in the neighborhood were fascinated with Tex's stories. Heck we all had Revell model P-40s and later gas powered RC P-40s. I wasn't disappointed. The A2A P-40 was everything I hoped it would be and then some. Then a I saw the reviews and videos of the A2A Spitfire...had to have it and I'm glad I did. How can you buy one and not buy the other. They are a bit of work in the cockpit with Accusim but well worth the learning curve.
Ted
Ted
Alan_A
Charter Member
Funny thing is, I've never had the overheat problems with the Spit that others seem to have. Don't know why - maybe I'm not pushing the engine that hard. Only time I had the coolant start boiling in flight was flying it in hot weather after a long layoff when I made the mistake of leaving the gear down after takeoff (got the gear handle position wrong before I started pumping). Once I backed off the throttle and raised the gear it settled down.
The other thing to remember is to close the radiator down to the "flight" position (about 33 percent, or "2" on the popup menu) once you take off. At speed and altitude, that cools it more effectively than leaving the shutters full open (because if you leave them open there's more wind resistance, therefore you lose speed, therefore the cooling works less well).
Fun to have to worry about these things.
I think A2A toned down the cooling behavior in one of their updates, so the current version may not live up to its early reputation.
Alan_A
Charter Member
The first plastic model I ever built was the Monogram 1/48 version c. 1967 with the AVG decals. Good memories!
I bought the Spitfire and had a very enjoyable first flight out of NAS Miramar in San Diego. Watched the engine temps (no problems), enjoyed playing with all the switches. Beautiful airplane, and flies just fine on my rig which is hardly optimum for FSX. I also have the P-40 and it's a nice ride but I think I like the Spit better. Definitely worth the purchase price even if it hadn't been 25% off.
I built the old Aurora P-40 around 1958 or so. Shark mouth decal was a little wrinkled but it still looked pretty good when I finished it.
Cheers, I'll try that!
Peg o my heart
Members +
Not long ago, someone created a very very shiny silver paint for the P-40. I never fly anything but the shiny warhawk eversince. However, you might want to start with the Spit before P-40. Seriously, get them both 