Updated - Aircraft Service Dates

[Squire]

Out of curiosity is that a single a/c delivered or are we talking at least a flight? say 4-6? re the Ta 152?

"They were hustled to the ETO and began replacing tired H models in December."

So thats late 1943. 12-43 for the P-38J.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Squire
So thats late 1943. 12-43 for the P-38J.

Yes, that would be 12-43 for the P-38J version we have in the game. 11-43 for the P-38J-5-LO, which we do not have.

My regards,

Widewing

[1K3]

hmm that 38J had a short carreer as a fighter in ETO.  The 38J (and even the new 38L) is quickly relegated to dump truck duties in 9th AF (right?).

[Squire]

Its ETO career was as long as the P-51s was (end 43-45), and it saw plenty of action with the 9th and 15th Air Forces, but the P-51 and P-47 superceded it as an escort fighter with the 8th AF, thats true.

[Sable]

Originally posted by Bruno

Your Ta-152 date is wrong:



3.45 refers to the largest number of Ta-152's flown in one combat sortie (staffel strength) (12 took place on 2 Mar '45).

JG301 were ordered where to fly top cover for FW 190A-8s and FW190A-9s. The mission ended when the 152s were attacked by Bf 109s. The Ta-152s could easily climb away from the attacking friendlies and did not suffer any losses.

The question isn't so much about first combat but 'squadron service / deployment'.

Interesting - when was the first combat sortie they flew?  And I was under the impression that Stab/JG301 were the only ones who ever actually got their Ta-152s.  Did III/JG301 actually re-equip and fly them?

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Sable
Interesting - when was the first combat sortie they flew?  And I was under the impression that Stab/JG301 were the only ones who ever actually got their Ta-152s.  Did III/JG301 actually re-equip and fly them?

When it was found that III./JG301 could not be fully equiped (35 a/c) with 152s, the 152s in III./JG301 were ordered to tranfer to Stab/JG301 - Mar 13 '45.

The first 'live' ** combat mission was the one Wotan mentioned - Mar 2 '45 - from III./JG301. Should also mention, the 152s maneuverability over the 109s was also was a factor in escaping the attacks from the 109s.

** - the word used in Hermann's 152 book

[Widewing]

Originally posted by 1K3
hmm that 38J had a short carreer as a fighter in ETO.  The 38J (and even the new 38L) is quickly relegated to dump truck duties in 9th AF (right?).

P-38s flew combat missions with the 8th AF from October of 1943 through September of 1944. Fully 50% of the 15th Air Force's fighter strength was P-38s. These were in combat till the surrender. While the 8th AF commonly suffered engine failures up until February of '44, the 15th AF did not suffer engine trouble at a rate any greater than seen in the Pacific. Indeed, the P-38s of the 15th generally demonstrated better reliability than their P-51s, with less operational losses. This is why most historians associate the 8th's woes to badly formulated avgas. 15th AF P-38s were in combat over Germany, Austria and the Balkens during the same time period that the 8th was operating their Lightnings.

I suppose that the 8th AF had a better publicity machine than the 15th AF, so they received the bulk of media attention. Nonetheless, the 15th was very active in pounding the German industrial base.

If you wish to study a truly amazing mission, research the 15th's remarkable mission of March 18, 1944. This mission was designed to lure the Luftwaffe into combat and later catch them refueling. it was very successful, resulting in over 70 German fighters being clobbered in the air and on the ground. Likewise, several of their air bases were leveled (B-17s and B-24s dumped nearly 60,000 fragmentation bombs on the bases). Total 15th losses were 8 bombers and 4 fighters (two P-38s, and two P-47s, most of which were lost to flak).

So much emphasis is placed on the ETO that the MTO is largely overlooked. Most people fail to realize that P-40s, A-36s and P-39s were operating successfully in Italy well into 1944. The XII Air Support Command was doing what the 9th AF was doing and it was doing it longer and with supposedly obsolete aircraft. All the while, they were just as effective against the Luftwaffe, maybe even more effective.

If you haven't looked into P-39N/Q ops in Italy, do so as they were extremely effective. If you examine speed data for those types, you may be surprised that the P-39N was capable of about 377 mph at 13,000 feet. See chart below.



I would really like to see the P-39D and P-39N added to the AH2 plane set. There are many scenarios where these aircraft could be used, from the SWPA and Guadalcanal to Russia, North Africa and Italy. Frankly, this is one of the biggest holes in the plane set; based, if on nothing else, the huge scope of P-39 operations.

My regards,

Widewing

[Angus]

P39 must come one day or another. Or the P63 rather? Now, both look pretty much the same while the P63 is a P39 on steroids right?
IMHO the MTO is the coolest in regards to plane setup as well

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Angus
P39 must come one day or another. Or the P63 rather? Now, both look pretty much the same while the P63 is a P39 on steroids right?
IMHO the MTO is the coolest in regards to plane setup as well

Although the basic layout was very similar, the P-39 and P-63 were very different. I would rate the P-63 as the equal to the La-7 in performance. In WEP with water injection, the P-63A could reach 379 mph at sea level and about 420 mph at 17,000 feet. Climb was astounding for an American fighter. From sea level to 20,000 feet was roughly 4.9 minutes. Climb to 10,000 feet was in about 2.4 minutes. When looking at a climb chart (in America's Hundred Thousand), the rate of climb at sea level can't be plotted on the scale that ends at 4,200 fpm. If you extrapolate the curve, it appears to be very close to 5,000 fpm. Remember, these climb figures are based upon full load combat weight at takeoff (8,989 lb).

Rate of roll was excellent at 110 degrees per second at 275 mph. That's also better than any other late-war USAAF fighter.

The P-63 would have been a terrific tactical fighter, very much like the La-7. However, that was not USAAF doctrine at the time.

As much as I would like the P-63, it wasn't much of a factor in WWII and it would add yet another low-level monster to the mix. I think the P-39 should come first, with the P-63 well down the road.

My regards,

Widewing

[Bruno]

Three versions of the P-39 would cover just about everything from the pacific to the Ostfront

P-39 D

P-39 N

P-39 Q

You all can argue over the specific variant (D-2, N-1, Q-5 would be my preference).

I would also like to a see a P-40M or N

[Karnak]

I'd not be surprised to see a P-40M or P-40N added when the P-40s are redone.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Bruno
Three versions of the P-39 would cover just about everything from the pacific to the Ostfront

P-39 D

P-39 N

P-39 Q

You all can argue over the specific variant (D-2, N-1, Q-5 would be my preference).

I would also like to a see a P-40M or N

I agree with these. All would get lots of use.

While examining the P-39 performance chart, I don't see a curve for P-39N or Q Combat power, just MIL power. There is a climb curve for Combat power... So, I checked a few sources and see that Angelucci & Bowers list the P-39N-1 at 399 mph at 9,700 feet, with the P-39Q rated at 385 mph at 15,000 feet. They were both powered by the V-1710-85 engine rated at 1,200 hp takeoff and 1,420 hp WEP @ 9,700 feet. With this we could plot a rough curve.

So, I plotted those two data points on the existing chart and extrapolated the line to sea level. If the speed data is accurate, the chart should now offer a reasonable idea of low-level speed when using WEP (1,420 hp). This may explain why the late P-39s were far more effective in air to air combat than the early examples.



My regards,

Widewing

[Bruno]

The reason I chose the Q-5 is I read an article / interview of a VVS P-39 pilot who stated that in general the Q-series were 'dogs' compared the earlies variant (N in particular) The exception the pilot made was for the Q-5 which was the only Q that he considered a 'dog fighter'. He preferred the N.

What I gather (by no means am I a p-39 expert) is that there were structural problems that were addressed with the Q-series. Things like wing spars buckling or warping causing deformations of the stressed skin, some severe to have written off the aircraft. I don't recall if there were any failures during combat.. These problems were said to have occurred with harsh maneuvering.

Also, some Q-5s were fitted with a 4 - bladed prop IIRC...

[Mister Fork]

(COUGH) Getting off topic here. I'm going to post another updated service date in a new topic.  Please check the dates again gents if you can...

And yes, it's Britain, not Britian. Subtle as dump truck.