The A2A Simulations Community

Hey guys, well Im coming to a close and deciding between two aircraft. As you all know a2a plus accusim is pretty expensive so I am trying to get the best bang out of my buck.

I am deciding between the spitfire and the warhawk. I am looking for the one with the most systems and hardest to manage. I am working on my systems attention habits and im looking for something that wont let you enjoy the scenery until you've got the whole thing memorized pretty much. the more systems the better.

Any suggestions out there? If you have not flown both please let me know what you think is the strong point of your aircraft.

Thanks!

Rarebear

If you're looking for something that's hard to fly, go for the Warhawk.

You've gotta manage takeoff power, strong torque, 3 position gear/flap lever, unbalanced drag from the gear that can sometimes retract one wheel at a time, then hold down the electric hydraulic button, while resetting climb power/RPMs, and adjusting radiator flaps, then checking the gear with the manual hand pump, then resetting the gear lever...all in about 30-45 seconds.

Plus the physics of the aircraft flying through the air are incredibly realistic. You can't stay heads down for too long, or you might look out the canopy and find yourself in 30 degrees of bank by accident. Your hand is also very busy readjusting rudder trim with speed/power changes. Probably one of the hardest out there to fly.

The Spitfire I don't have much experience with, but I know it's generally easier to fly, but harder to manage the cooling, etc. I think the landing gear blocks the scoop or something along those lines, which means you can't idle on the ground for more than 5 minutes...I don't remember how it goes.

That said, I actually think the Spitfire might have more systems. You can change the propeller...there's a supercharger on it and everything. The A2A P-40 is an early Allison Warhawk, so there's no supercharger, the fuel pump is a manual wobble pump, rather than the electric booster. You could probably jot down the startup procedure on the palm of your hand.

I think mostly it boils down to what you prefer. I prefer the Warhawk, but a Brit might prefer their beloved Spitfire more.

_________________
My Guide On How To Fix Your X-52's Rudder!

They both can be handful at times - the P-40 during landing, the Spitfire... everywhere bellow 20,000ft. It's not really a matter of which one is harder to fly. What do you want to do with them other than aircraft management ? Because it's not that difficult after 50 hours in either one. If you wan't to climb up, then do some aerobatics - that's Spitfire territory. If you want practice some VFR navigation on longer ranges - that's P-40 thing.

_________________
Chris Oleksy

I don't have the P-40 yet but I do have the Spitfire as well as the B-17G and the P-47. The Spitfire unexpectedly became my favorite and I've been flying it almost exclusively since December. It's not a difficult plane to control in the air but it does take some work to understand and master, otherwise your engine won't last very long.

_________________
I like Thunderbolts! (Link to MySpace tribute page)


120th Fighter Wing, Montana Air National Guard

The P-40 has a supercharger in it.

_________________

My 2 cents:

The Spitfire is to me easier to fly. Take-off and landing are not too challenging, and the toughest part is keeping the engine cool. The graphics in the Spitfire cockpit appear sharper to me than the P-40, but that could be my eyes or video card. One big plus for the Spitfire is that the Mk.I and Mk.II are quite different, due to different propeller and landing gear management. (The prop is selectable between aircraft). So in a way you are getting two (or three) very different Spitfires. EDIT: Proper propeller control for all three different types (fixed, variable 2 speed, constant speed) is very different, and will keep you busy for a while!

The P-40 was a real handful to me when I first flew it (which made it even more awesome!), and I feel it is tougher to fly. There is more torque on take-off- and landings certainly are trickier, as the forward view isn't as perfect as in the Spitfire. A true curved approach is beneficial here, although with proper engine/flaps management a straight approach will also work. The differences between the B, C, Tomahawk and Flying Tigers models are noticeable, but don't have a large effect on your flight (unless you need drop tanks). The hydraulic system was entirely new to me, and I had to reassign buttons on my joystick to make it work. This was not a hindrance, but a benefit in the long run. The P-40 has more of a real "feel" of flight, and when you hit the ground you absolutely feel the subtle relief that you are safe. On my system the graphics do not display quite as sharp as in the Spitfire, but that is a very minor complaint.

Frame rate in both is excellent.

To sum it up, the P-40 is a little more work to fly, but the variation is far greater in the Spitfire models. You. can. not. go. wrong.

Overall, I'd get them both

Also, if you get Accu-feel, you can add the dynamic tire screech upon landing, which makes both the Spitfire and P-40 about another 50% cooler!

Hope this helps,

Joe

_________________

I agree withe most of the above comments.
The Spitfire is ridiculously easy to fly in all conditions. Startup, taxi, takeoff, low altitude flight, high altitude flight, approach, and landing... all of these are easy. Basically, when in flight, the only thing you need to keep an eye on is the collant temperature, and that's all. The Spit will be able to land just above 80 knots if the tanks are nto too full, so you won't even need to worry about your destination airfield.

The P-40 is somewhere in between the P-47 and the Spitfire. It's more difficult to handle than the Spit, but it's a bit easier than the P-47. Starting the P-40 is exactely like starting the P-47. Flying the P-40 is like flying a very light P-47. Mainly, approaches and landings are easier with the P-40 than with the P-47 which is heavier and requires higher speeds and longer runways.

I whish the P-47 Accusim module were on the same level as the P-40's one...

My vote goes to the Warhawk on the basis of the criteria you have supplied. Fully agree with all the other posters.


I would add though that the Spitfire is very easy aircraft to fly..but particularly with the DeH 2 Pitch it is a very difficult aircraft to fly WELL and to get the "best" out of.

regards

Darryl

_________________

...Some say he never blinks, and that he roams around the woods at night foraging for Merlin parts...

I am going to get the P-40 w Accusim at some stage today now that I have a huge allotment of spare time, at present I only have the P-47 and Spitfire (I don't really fly the P-47 too much now, I think of it as my first step into Accusim). But I intend on flying the Spitfire and next Mark with the P-40. Both great planes. I recommend you get the P-40, you can always pick up the Spitfire later, the proposed MKV from A2A won't be that much different either especially in temperature management, even speed.

It is a shame the Allison only worked well at higher altitudes with a turbocharger like the P-38. I believe, please correct me if I am wrong, this was a result of poor American focus on high altitude engines, unless it was large enough to fit a turbocharger in it (P-38), for smaller aircraft (P-40) and its focus on radials (only an aircraft the size of the P-47 could fit a turbocharger sufficient for a Radial, hence why the FW-190 A series did not do so well above 20,000ft) Thus on a related note the unrelenting and annoying persistence of the British to fit the P-40 with a Merlin paid off later with the P-40F but more importantly became the basis of understanding for developing the P-51B Mustang with an in-line V Packard Merlin (edit: The P-51B was the first not D silly me)



Amen to that

P.S. I have always wondered, is the P-40's difficult handling an increase in Accusim fidelity over the Spitfire, or is the Spitfire actually as stable and easy to handle as it is?

Colin

"I am looking for the one with the most systems and hardest to manage".

I own the P40, P47, Spit, Piper Cub and B17.
Concerning the single prop WWII fighters:

I believe the P40 is a challenge, the Spit even more, but the most challenging is the...

P47 Thunderbolt



Just my lousy cents,

cheers,

Puma

_________________

Like others have said it depeneds on what you want to do. The Spitfire probably is a little more easy to fly at first and better suited to high flying aerobatics but more limited as a cross country explorer due to its cooling needs. The P-40 is more practical for low level A to B Scenery exploration that involve multiple TO/Landings. The P-40 is heavier. To me it is actually easier to land than the Spit because it is more stable on approach. Due to it's rugged design, Once you get comfortable with the P-40 you can plop it down into bush strips. It is sort of the next step up from the Cub as far as a speedy scenery tourer that can handle most FTX scenery airports. People say P-40 is more pitch sensitive which is true but if you fly without the rear tank full it is a very nice flier.

_________________
"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Douglas Adams

Colin,

Yes, the Spitifre is that easy to fly, particularly with the Rotol. (but then, as we know, real men fly DeH 20PCP ) The Accusim is pretty much identical in both aircraft as I understand. The P-40 has a few more systems to manage and those are relatively "primitive" compared to later aircraft (P-51, for example), resulting in a higher workload.


BTW, yes, I owe you an email..will try to give you a decent response sometime this weekend..snowed just now.

Darryl

_________________

...Some say he never blinks, and that he roams around the woods at night foraging for Merlin parts...

It really depends on what you are looking for in the aircraft... For me I do not have a real fascination with the Spitfire. While I do own the product, and enjoy flying it. For me the P-40 and P-47 are the 2 that are more fun to fly.

As far as not using the Spitfire for exploring I would argue that point. You really need to watch the engine temps, but it is not impossible to even take the bird on long cross country journeys. Granted the P-40 does not have the engine requirements like the Spit (on the Spit for every 20 minutes at low RPM/lean mixture you need to run it for 2 minutes at high RPM/rich mixture). I think the P-40 is a far more rugged plane though. The P-40 was a purpose built war machine though. The Spitfire was an air racer converted to war duties which is why it feels more aerobatic.

Hopefully you make the choice that is right for you. I recommend downloading the manuals for both, and studying them in depth. That might make it easier for you to make a solid decision... For me I think once the P-51 comes out the rest of the Accu-birds in my hangar will be collecting dust. We shall see though.

_________________
S Jordan
Milviz Staff Member
AM; United States Navy
FSX Hours: 2000 and counting

Two-stage supercharger...

_________________
My Guide On How To Fix Your X-52's Rudder!

I prefer the P-40 for ease of operation. It handles very well and if you like to stay
low, then that's the bird for you.

OTOH, the Spit is a dream up at 25-30K but you had better stay fast when down low
or you will overheat in very short order.

Paul