Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SAS~Storebror]

This is not a mod.
It's just a collection of files that have been in the game all the time, plus two lines of Java Code.
I claim no credits for this mod.
Do "WTF" you want with it

Download Link:
Hawk-81A-2 Gear Door NOT Mod

Readme:

Code: [Select]

Gear Doors for the Hawk-81A-2

Installation:
Copy the folder "Hawk81_GearDoorNOTMod" from this
zip package to your game's mod folder, be it
"MODS", "#SAS", "#UP#", "#WAW" or whatever.

--- This is NOT a mod ---

It doesn't qualify for being a real "mod" since it
only consists of files that exist in the game
already, plus two lines of Java Code.

Credits: None. It's been there all the time.




Q&A

Q: Do I just have a Déjà-vu? Didn't I see this mod elsewhere before?
A: Maybe. Who cares?

Q: If this mod existed already, why do you release it here?
A: Because "elsewhere" there's all types of restrictions applying to it, here it comes without gongs and tinsel.

Q: So there are no differences between this release and the "other" one?
A: Oh sure there are. This one doesn't change the stock game's flight model since it fits like a glove already. "Elsewhere" you get a wet dream flight model. Choose yourself

Q: But isn't there a copyright on this mod?
A: You're kidding. This isn't even a mod.

Q: Could you explain the "wet dream" flight model a little deeper?
A: Sure. See below.

Several people like to claim that the "Flying Tiger" Hawks would come with an extra boost giving the engine 100hp more.
Unfortunately this lacks any sources.
According to available sources the engines were low octane models like all others of the same production line, which makes perfectly sense when you take the low quality of fuel in the CBI area and the deliberate supply situation into account.
The "wet dream" flight model found elsewhere even increases the engine power by 320hp (!!!) when WEP is engaged.
That's beyond imagination.

Furthermore few people like to misinterpret the improvised radio equipment of Flying Tiger Hawks and claim that this would significantly reduce weight.
Available sources state that the Hawk's wiring had to be adjusted to accommodate the RCA receivers used.
The fact that these RCA-7-H receivers were not as reliable as the original US or british ones doesn't mean that they've been a featherweight.
This change definitely doesn't reduce the plane's weight by 374kg (!!!).

Last but not least the damage model is beyond good and evil.
See yourself:

Code: [Select]

Part     Stock  "Elsewhere"  Difference

AroneL     50     150        +200%
AroneR     50     150        +200%
CF        800    1200         +50%
Engine1   220     350         +59%
Engine2   220     350         +59%
Engine3   220     350         +59%
Engine4   220     350         +59%
Keel1     150     250         +67%
Keel2     150     250         +67%
Nose      120     220         +83%
Oil       100     200        +100%
Rudder1   120     150         +25%
Rudder2   120     150         +25%
Tail2     400     500         +25%
WingLIn   500     600         +20%
WingLMid  300     400         +33%
WingLOut  100     150         +50%
WingRIn   500     600         +20%
WingRMid  300     400         +33%
WingROut  100     150         +50%
Flap01    100     150         +50%
Flap02    100     150         +50%
Flap03    100     150         +50%
Flap04    100     150         +50%

Total:   5140    7520         +46%
This would put the Hawk in the same league like an IL-2 1941 model and make it tougher than a late war P-47.
That's silly.

The engine power and weight changes furthermore would make this Hawk an UFO.
See "stock" Hawk in blue and the "wet dream" one in red:

A Hawk running 600km/h+, 40km/h more than the stock one? Aha...

Well, let's see how it fights against it's opponents.
You will see which is the stock FM and which is the "wet dream" one yourself.

Hawk vs. Ki-27:


Hawk vs. Ki-43:


Hawk vs. A6M:


Hawk vs. Ki-84:


If such a "wet dream" flight model was true, Japan would have lost the war in 1943 and the US would have had no need to build any other plane after this Hawk.
That's why this Hawk deserves it's gear doors without all that stuff attached.

Sources:
Rickard, J (12 June 2007), Curtiss P-40 Warhawk Performance Figures:
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_P-40_stats.html

War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.
United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.
Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979.
The Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk, Ray Wagner, Aircraft in Profile, Volume 2, Doubleday, 1965.
Hawk Dynasty: The Curtiss Hawk Monoplanes, Part 2, Ken Wixey, Air Enthusiast No 72 (1997).
E-mail from Erik Shilling on Flying Tiger P-40B/C controversy.
http://www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/Tomahawk.htm

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk: World War 2 Album, Ray Merriam, 2015
https://books.google.de/books?id=uzsgCwAAQBAJ

The Extraordinary Life of the Adventurer, Entrepreneur, and Diplomat Who Cofounded the Flying Tigers, William D. Pawley, Anthony R. Carrozza, Potomac Books, Inc., 2012
https://books.google.de/books?id=ZacE2x8Jx-EC

In Boxed: Bronco Models Curtiss P-40C (Hawk 81-A2) Fighter AVG
http://www.themodellingnews.com/2016/06/in-boxed-bronco-models-curtiss-p-40c.html

Best regards - Mike'

[henkypenky]

Amazing person you are Mike. Thanks for this non-mod

[asheshouse]

Well presented technical data there, along with your list of sources.
I've not yet seen any reasoned argument anywhere to justify changing the stock FM  and DM as some others have done.
Good work.

[Epervier]

 
[bricolage ON]
For my 409 I prefer to put the "moveGear" code in the Class-mother (P_40SUKAISVOLOCH) rather than the daughter-Class (P_40SUKAISVOLOCHHAWKA2).
Because this code applies to all daughters of the same mother:
(You win a few kilograms less code)
- air.P_40A
- air.P_40SUKAISVOLOCHB
- air.P_40SUKAISVOLOCHBRECO
- air.P_40SUKAISVOLOCHC
- air.P_40C
- air.P_40SUKAISVOLOCH2A
- air.P_40SUKAISVOLOCH2B
- air.P_40SUKAISVOLOCHHAWKA2

[bricolage OFF]

[SAS~Loku]

I dont see any reason to put into an aircraft class name a word "sukaisvoloch" wich means "bitch and scum" someone should get his balls kicked for something like this (1C or TD team), its just immature and childish.

[Epervier]

I dont see any reason to put into an aircraft class name a word "sukaisvoloch" wich means "bitch and scum" someone should get his balls kicked for something like this (1C or TD team), its just immature and childish.

Not TD team...
All these names ("sukaisvoloch") are original. They have existed since the beginning of the game. 

[SAS~Storebror]

Maybe "Suka i Svoloch" was some kind of nickname for the Tomahawk IIa/b used by the russians?

Concerning your superclass implementation suggestion Gabriel there's several reasons why this code didn't make it into the superclass, but into this single plane class instead:

• Would it be historically correct to have all Tomahawk IIa/b's equipped with the large gear doors?
  This would require additional sources backing up this suggestion.
• The method we're talking about isn't a class instance method, but a static one.
  Static methods don't have the same inheritance like class instance ones, the mechanisms are different.
  Overwriting a static method "hides" the existing method in a superclass.
  This means that e.g. when someone adds another "moveGear" method to the Hawk class, your static superclass method is rendered useless.
• At the same time, since inheritence schemes don't exist for static methods in Java 1.3, the compiler will put a static reference to the final method into the compiled class, wherever that method actually resides.
  The result is that while you might save a few kilobyte classfile space, at runtime you save nothing.

Nevertheless, if the method was a class instance one and evidence was available that Tomahawk IIa/b versions used large gear doors all over, your suggestion would be absolutely valid.

Best regards - Mike

[Epervier]

Would it be historically correct to have all Tomahawk IIa/b's equipped with the large gear doors?
This would require additional sources backing up this suggestion.

http://raf-112-squadron.org/raf_112_squadron_photos_1941.html

[max_thehitman]

I dont see any reason to put into an aircraft class name a word "sukaisvoloch" wich means "bitch and scum" someone should get his balls kicked for something like this (1C or TD team), its just immature and childish.

Not TD team...
All these names ("sukaisvoloch") are original. They have existed since the beginning of the game. 

AAAAAHAHAHAH!  Now that is something interesting I never knew before.

Many Thanks for the upgrade Storebror!  I will install

[PlaneEater]

I dont see any reason to put into an aircraft class name a word "sukaisvoloch" wich means "bitch and scum" someone should get his balls kicked for something like this (1C or TD team), its just immature and childish.

Not TD team...
All these names ("sukaisvoloch") are original. They have existed since the beginning of the game. 

There's a very good chance that name has to do with the development history of this plane which involved me and Luthier having some heated words, and it being folded into the game rather late.

Perhaps if I'd been a more experienced modeler, it would have been finished sooner.

Perhaps if Luthier had been able to manage his way out of a paper bag and could return some damn emails, I would have had some kind of communications - any kind - with an art director.

Perhaps if I hadn't watched SaQson take my 80% finished cockpit model, drop some bad textures on it, throw it in the game, and then lie through his teeth that he "had to rebuild it from scratch" so that he would get paid instead of me (knowing that he'd get the benefit of the doubt as a Russian instead of some Yankee shmuck), I wouldn't be airing grievances about the whole thing 12 years on.

Perhaps if they'd paid me as they promised, I wouldn't be quite so bitter.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

Anyhow...  there's a decent chance that lovely little nugget was pointed at me since the plane had a frustrating development process, and once things headed south I chewed them an extra butthole or two to prevent them from half-assing the plane I'd poured hours upon hours into, including skipping the first ultrasound for my first child.  I suspect my attitude left them a bit irked and they vented a bit where they thought nobody would ever notice.

[SAS~Storebror]

Thanks for that very interesting background story PlaneEater
I'm sorry for your bad experience with Luthier, SaQson & Co.
Luthier rather seems to be a difficult person to work with, at least that's what I got from reports of projects after IL-2 where he was involved in.

Now that you've been the man behind the scenes of the Tomahawk, could you maybe shed some light on why the Hawk 81, the Tomahawk IIa and the IIb have these smaller gear doors in IL-2?
I'm asking since Epervier seems to have a point when he suggests to give all Hawks the larger gear doors.
I've digged the web a bit and all I could come up with after 15 minutes where there seem to be no large gear doors is this image, but it might as well just be a case of removed gear doors for maintenance:


Best regards - Mike

[PlaneEater]

Thanks for that very interesting background story PlaneEater
I'm sorry for your bad experience with Luthier, SaQson & Co.
Luthier rather seems to be a difficult person to work with, at least that's what I got from reports of projects after IL-2 where he was involved in.

Now that you've been the man behind the scenes of the Tomahawk, could you maybe shed some light on why the Hawk 81, the Tomahawk IIa and the IIb have these smaller gear doors in IL-2?
I'm asking since Epervier seems to have a point when he suggests to give all Hawks the larger gear doors.
I've digged the web a bit and all I could come up with after 15 minutes where there seem to be no large gear doors is this image, but it might as well just be a case of removed gear doors for maintenance:

Best regards - Mike

Because the model in game is actually the H-75 model with a new nose and corrected rudder / elevator.  When they didn't like the fact that my P-40B model was over their 1999-era polycount budget in a game shipping in 2004 (and I explained the problem to them), they played hardball and had the H75 modeler do a nose job on his model for the exterior... which came out to more than the poly budget anyway, but they still blamed me.

I don't know why they modeled it with short gear doors.  When I did my model they were the length of the underwing fairings.  I don't know why these were made short, but I suspect they're also short on the H-75 model.