Author Topic: P-39... Any news? (Read 3704 times)

Magoo · « **Reply #15 on:** November 17, 2005, 07:45:27 AM »

Thanks for the input Capt. Virgil Hilts. I was hesitant to toss out anecdotal evidence like that and even thought it might be due to the Ruskies lack of experience with the engines, but it served to inspire some good input and possibly confirm Tikky's post about boosting the Allison. Apparently this Russian fighter groups mechanics didn't have a clue.

Magoo

humble · « **Reply #16 on:** November 17, 2005, 01:14:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by tikky
i heard that the Russians overboosted their P-39s to get more power. is that true?

They didnt "overboost" them...they simply ran them at higher boost settings then "recommended". Average lifespan of an engine was 40-50 combat hours if needed. They also stripped out alot of weight. they removed the wing 30 cals and stripped down the plane as far as possible. Basically it was a totally reworked bird by the time they got done.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/index.htm

All in all the plane did remarkably well. I dont know that any historical data exists that would enable an accurate modeling of the russian performance but it would suprise an awful lot of folks....as a side not Bob Hoover was one of the original "test pilots" for the P-39 (he actually was able to recover it from flat spin) and felt it was an outstanding fighter.

1K3 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 17, 2005, 01:42:12 PM »

P-39 is a fighter:), Alex Porsckin (2nd highest Soviet ace) scored lots german irons in that plane. He continued to use P-38 plane in 1944 while the rest of regiments started using La-7s and Yak-3s!

As was written in the summary of the commander of 153d (28th Guards) IAP regarding the combat work in the Voronezh and West Fronts in July-August 1942, "The Airacobra aircraft is considered by the Germans to be the most dangerous enemy and should be engaged in combat only when they [the Germans] have numerical superiority and the advantage in altitude and surprise."

Eden · « **Reply #18 on:** November 17, 2005, 02:15:49 PM »

I'm going to hold my breath until we get this.... Don't make me whine and throw a tantrum too!

hubsonfire · « **Reply #19 on:** November 17, 2005, 05:20:44 PM »

I don't know much about the 39/400, except for being able to recognize one. Is the engine situated directly behind the pilot? If so, what's in the nose? Just armament, cooling gear, fuel tanks?

As much as I love the British and German aircraft, I'd like to see this one in the game at some point.

Octavius · « **Reply #20 on:** November 17, 2005, 05:33:12 PM »

I'll copy from the link I posted up there:

Quote

Originally posted by Octavius
... after the groundwork has been laid for AHII and the a/c start rolling off Nate and Supah's production line, the aircraft I would LOVE to eventually see is this magnificant beauty:

Bell P39D/N/Q Airacobra

[list=1]Armament: P39D/N - One 37mm hub cannon (T-9), Two .50in MGs in nose; optional underwing (two or four) .30in MGs. P39Q - two optional underwing .50in MGs replaced .30in MGs. All models able to carry one 500lb bomb.
Powerplant - P39D - 1150hp Allison V-1710-35 V12. P39N/Q - 1200hp Allison V-1710-85; three bladed propeller.
Dimensions: Wingspan - 34ft 0in; length 30ft 2in; height 11ft 10in.
Weight: Empty 5645lb; Max - 8300lb

Performance: P-39D - max speed 368mph at 13,800ft; time to 15,000ft - 5.7min; ceiling 32,100ft; range 800 miles.
P-39Q - max speed [/size]385mph at 11,000ft; time to 15,000t 4.5min; ceiling 35,000ft; range 650 miles.

Saw service in: Australia, Britain, France, Italy, Portugal, UK, USA, USSR.[/list][/size][/color]

Why the P39 you ask?

1) The versatility. The P39 was used by almost every Allied airforce. It can be used as a gigantic filler in scenerios:

Eastern front, Mediterranean, over the UK/France, all over the Pacific Theatre, and even in Portugal! The Portuguese will be happy!

The VVS planeset is in dire need of fattening. The addition of this aircraft covers a large mid-war gap. 1942-1943. One 3D model = three variants! P39D/N/Q!!

2) It has a huge gun. Can you say 37mm? Feels good doesn't it? Kinda rolls of the tongue.

3) It's production numbers are up there. Almost 10,000 produced!

4) I love it, and you love it too. If this was added, I would drool uncontrollably. P39 and P40 . These would be my planes and my planes would be these. Wouldn't touch anything else... (well maybe a 109 here and there).

While the P39 has been "deemed a failure" by some, others feel it did not get the credit it deserved. Its overall performance allowed it to provide worthy competition under 15,000ft. This was stolen from another thread and posted by Widewing:
[list=1]All in all, the P-39D easily out-performed the A6M2 in every category but low-speed maneuverability and range. Yet, today you would think the P-39D was an absolute pig. It wasn't. It also proved very formidable against the Luftwaffe at altitudes below 15,000 feet. It's turn rate was very similar to the later P-63A King Cobra, meaning it was far more maneuverable than the P-51, even slightly better than the F6F. Within the American inventory of WW2 fighters, only the F4F/FM series was more agile than the Airacobra. What hurt the P-39 was its single-speed, single-stage supercharger that limited adequate performance to below 15k. Above that, performance fell off sharply as you went up. Both the Japanese and Germans were aware of the P-39's performance woes up high and they used tactics to take advantage of that. However, down on the deck, the Airacobra was a very dangerous foe. Especially the later models with more power and better guns.

For example, the P-39N was rated for 399 mph at 9,700 feet. How does that compare to late war fighters? Pretty good. It's faster than the La-7 (391 mph) at that altitude! Speed on the deck was very good as well. Where the P-39D could pull only 305 mph (and 368 mph at 12k), the P-39N could exceed 339 mph, 348 mph in WEP. Climb rate was good, if not spectacular. The P-39D needed 5.7 minutes to get to 15k, but the P-39N/Q could get there in 3.8 minutes, which is slightly better than the P-51D. Acceleration was also very good. In fact, it was better than the F4U-4, P-47D-30, and markedly better than the F6F-5. Just so you know, the later P-39s were powered by 1,420 hp Allisons, not the 1,100 hp engines fitted to the P-39D. The later models were also about 200 lbs lighter as well.[/i][/list]Links with other info:
Huge PDF with performance charts and stuff

A Russian site with Lend Lease aircraft (and kick bellybutton pictures) [/B]

1K3 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 17, 2005, 08:08:31 PM »

Bring P-39 (and 63) to Aces High!:aok

Versions i would love to see

P-39D
USAAC plane in the pacific, armored, fully loaded

P-39Q-10
The definitive P-39 lineup. The fastest P-39 used in the USSR. Stripped of armor and wing guns, P-39Q is the most feared aircraft and luftwaffe pilots are told not to engage them on equal terms.

P-400
British version P-39. 37mm cannon is replaced with 20mm Hispano)

P--63
Ouch, Kingcobra! VVS has heavy influence on this project In 1944 Alexander Pokryshkin's regiment gave up La-7s in favor of P-63s:)

so... if we get p-39 for AH US will get the P-39D, P-400 for the british, and P-39Q and P-63 for USSR:)

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #22 on:** November 17, 2005, 08:15:08 PM »

Wasn't the 37mm cannon on the P-39 a 37mm Oldsmobile cannon? If so, it was a POS cannon.

ack-ack

Krusty · « **Reply #23 on:** November 17, 2005, 09:07:52 PM »

Indeed. Pilots complained "you could practically see it fall out of the barrel when you fired the gun!".

What most folks here wishing, pining, and holding their breath (lol), don't realize is that the P39 was and will be a dog, no matter who models it. HTC is no different. These same people modeled the SAME plane in WB, and it blew chunks. Using the same data, what makes you think it would fly any better in AH? In IL2 is sucks like the darkest depths of space. In warbirds it did too. What makes you all cry for an "uber" p39 that.. well.. wasn't?

I'm biased, sure. But all of you are totally biased in the opposite direction. You're disregarding every other reference that said the plane had terrible handling, was slow, sluggish, spun out easily (unstable in flight) and you're portraying it as this super plane.

Well, not to be mean, but the P40 was also produced until the end of the war. Doesn't mean it was a front line plane in most theaters. Just means they needed planes, any planes, even if they were terrible to fly. Heck, the P39 was GIVEN away as fast as it could because it was unsuited for US use. Even the brits discarded it.

The only major user of the P39 was the VVs, and they had totally different cultural values and requirements for a plane. They didn't like the spitfireV of all things.

So like I'm saying, you can't paint a perfect rose-colored image of this plane, there's enough references to sully that image.

And yes vice versa. I just had to play devil's advocate to all the P39 wishers.

Whether we get it, that's another matter. I just felt it wasn't fair or accurate to report the P39 as has been reported.

1K3 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 17, 2005, 09:32:42 PM »

We already know the P-39s sucked in the West BUT yes VVS is another different story. Heh i'd rather see P-39Q-10 for USSR's Military Air Forces (VVS)

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #25 on:** November 17, 2005, 09:37:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty

The only major user of the P39 was the VVs, and they had totally different cultural values and requirements for a plane. They didn't like the spitfireV of all things.

.

The P-39 served in numbers in the USAAF all the way until the end of the war.

A lot of old AW timers will remember Earl, a WW2 pilot that used to play AW. IIRC, he was very fond of the P-39 he flew in the war in the MTO.

ack-ack

Octavius · « **Reply #26 on:** November 17, 2005, 10:53:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
We already know the P-39s sucked in the West BUT yes VVS is another different story. Heh i'd rather see P-39Q-10 for USSR's Military Air Forces (VVS)

P-39s in the west did not suck; it didn't perform as well as its competion at the higher altitudes in the west. They excelled in the eastern front due to the majority of the fights occuring at medium altitudes.

ATA · « **Reply #27 on:** November 17, 2005, 11:00:07 PM »

Oh please guys! We all now that USAF sold them to Russians because p39 were extremely crappy,Russians bought them because there were relocating factories to the east and had nothing else to fly.
After 1942 p39"s and P40 were given as punishment to squads that didnt "perform" too well.
Life time for p39 and p40 motor (as you know they had same engines) was 250 hrs.
They were lucky to "live" 60-70% of that.

Eden · « **Reply #28 on:** November 18, 2005, 07:16:29 AM »

Part of the enjoyment of AH is the chance to re-enact parts of history. There are a handfull of planes in teh game (we can argue of which one is the best in which role) that excell over the rest and I am not looking for a new "uber plane". The P-39 is very much an interesting and prevalent part of the history of air combat. I guess that is my reason. I would like to fly it just to see...

humble · « **Reply #29 on:** November 18, 2005, 10:34:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ATA
Oh please guys! We all now that USAF sold them to Russians because p39 were extremely crappy,Russians bought them because there were relocating factories to the east and had nothing else to fly.
After 1942 p39"s and P40 were given as punishment to squads that didnt "perform" too well.
Life time for p39 and p40 motor (as you know they had same engines) was 250 hrs.
They were lucky to "live" 60-70% of that.

Obviously you dont know the real facts at all. Many of the top russian aces flew the P-39 by preference even after the la-5n, Yak3 etc where in front line service. It was the prefered ride of the VVS guards units throughout 1943 and into early 1944. As originally designed the P-39 would have been the dominant fighter aircraft in the world by a large margin when it originally entered service. However the army altered the design and eliminated the planes high alt capabilities and reconfigured it primarily as a low level dual role fighter/attack plane. It created further problems by artifically limiting the planes power thru power settings well below allisons own recommendations.

The russians significantly lightened the plane and flew the plane at the planes performance limit. Trading off engine life for combat performance. If you take the time to read up on the Kuban bridgehead air campaigns you'll see that the VVS met the luftwaffe on relatively even terms numerically and gutted the three best units the germans had. Basically it was the equivelent of the midway air/sea battle in the pacific in the sense that the luftwaffe was crushed as an offensive entity on the eastern front from that point on.