Originally posted by Glasses
LOl well according to that Chart Ho -hun the Russians apparently had the best altitude fighters of the war?
Isn't it that the La-7 performance dropped sharply above 3km?
According to that chart the La7 was the best aircraft in the war same goes for the P-63 and P-39, I agree the P-63 was very good but the speeds of the P-39 are suspect.
You'd need to look at the report the chart is derived from. The russians operated their aircraft (especially lend lease stuff) at completely different settings and configurations. As an example the P-39 had the wingpods removed as standard practice...engine settings were much more aggressive as well. Bell's "Mil Power" setting was below russian combat cruise setting and Russian Mil Power was beyond anything Bell ever contemplated. Engines had a rated life of 35-50 hrs but were often replaced after 3-4 flights. P-39's in particular threw rods all the time.
"The booklet "Brief technical description and technical exploitation of the Airacobra" was written based on the results of the effort of the team of NII VVS and test flights of the airplane. This booklet was quickly printed and distributed to aviation units that were being equipped with this airplane.
One who has carefully read the material above regarding the Airacobra might logically ask the question, why was this same model of the airplane so bad for British employment and so good for Soviet employment? What can explain this contradiction?
There were several reasons. We will dwell on the most important: First, we received already "reworked" aircraft that lacked the initial deficiencies. Second, our specialists tested the Airacobra for the specific altitude envelope of the Soviet-German front, which corresponded well with the best flying performance characteristics of the aircraft. Third, the aircraft actually were not bad. And fourth, the brief test period did not permit sufficient testing to expose the basic weaknesses of design and construction that were later revealed in the process of mass exploitation. The flat spin, the engine throwing connecting rods, and other manifestations were yet to be discovered."
From the beginning of mass exploitation reports about exposed hidden defects began to emerge from the horn of plenty. In most cases the engine failed, either upon takeoff or during combat. For example, in the 19th Guards IAP, there was one catastrophic failure and four accidents in the first two weeks; in the 153d IAP, one catastrophic failure and one accident. At first everyone blamed the Allison, in general a decent, light, and powerful engine that did not, however, want to work on Soviet-refined oils. It was real "picky", however, only at the beginning, and not without reason. After filtration, which removed dross and other debris, the Allison stopped "self destructing". Another defect required a great amount of investigation, the so-called "throwing of rods". This allegedly occurred when because of frequent running at the engine's operating limits (without which, of course, aerial combat was unthinkable) the aforementioned parts broke loose, came through the crankcase and destroyed everything in their path, in particular the control rods. A number of flight and laboratory tests were undertaken which enabled the test engineers to recommend the most favorable operating regimes of the engine to combat pilots, and succeeded in reducing the level of this type of failure."
A. S. Was the engine capable of high altitude?
N. G. Fully. 8,000 meters without problem, and neither we nor the Germans flew higher than that.
A. S. Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra really contend with the Bf-109G and FW-190 in aerial combat?
N. G. Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed all the German fighters.
I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17 air combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability. It was a very balanced fighter.
A. S. This is strange. In the words of one American pilot, the Cobra was an airplane “suitable for large, low, and slow circles”. To go further, if we judge by references, then the maximum speed of the Cobra fell below that of the Bf-109F, not to mention the later German fighters. The Allies removed it from their inventories because it could not fight with the “Messer” and the “Fokker”. Neither the British nor the Americans kept it as a fighter airplane.
N. G. Well, I don’t know. It certainly did well for us. Pokryshkin fought in it; doesn’t that say something? [Aleksandr Pokryshkin was the number 2 Soviet ace at the end of the war and flew a P-39 from late 1942 to the war’s end – J.G.]
It seems that everything depends on what you wanted out of it. Either you flew it in such a manner as to shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a way that guaranteed 120 hours of engine life.
Let’s take the speed of the Cobra and the Messer. I had a Q-25 Cobra, with cameras for reconnaissance. Behind the engine were a vertical AFA-3s and two oblique AFA-21s. I simply flew away from a group of Bf-109Gs in this airplane, admittedly in a dive. Perhaps a single Messer could have caught me, but I flew away from a group.
"
