Aerocobra!

[humble]

Bob Hoover felt the same way, he felt the P-39 was the best fighter he flew. He was actually one of the test pilots for the plane and was the guy who figured out the spin recovery techniques for the bird.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by humble
My understanding is that the P-39 actually had the best K/D ratio in the ETO/MTO but I 'dont know how you verify that...

Dude, you've got your sources screwed up again

First of all, LW pilots were told not to engage Yaks of a certain version (having to do with oil cooler placement under the chin) below certain altitudes.

Second, the P39 was an abyssmally bad performer. Especially early in the war. Don't let the fact that the Russians got kills sway you. The Finnish got kills in the Buffalo, as well, but it was a very poor plane as well.

In the PTO it was dog meat plain and simple. Against anything the Japanese had, the P39 was dead. Some groups even crashed them on purpose to get rid of them, bailing out if the engine ran even slightly hot (or even making up that the engine was running hot and just bailing) so they'd get better craft.

[Krusty]

Airscrew, I'm pretty sure Yeager is on record as saying the P51 and the Fw190D were the best fighters ever flown. I think I've heard folks quote that quite often around here.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Krusty
Dude, you've got your sources screwed up again

First of all, LW pilots were told not to engage Yaks of a certain version (having to do with oil cooler placement under the chin) below certain altitudes.

Second, the P39 was an abyssmally bad performer. Especially early in the war. Don't let the fact that the Russians got kills sway you. The Finnish got kills in the Buffalo, as well, but it was a very poor plane as well.

In the PTO it was dog meat plain and simple. Against anything the Japanese had, the P39 was dead. Some groups even crashed them on purpose to get rid of them, bailing out if the engine ran even slightly hot (or even making up that the engine was running hot and just bailing) so they'd get better craft.

Notice Krusty doest back this up either.
Just uses the "Cuz  I  said so."  method.


Bronk

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Krusty
Dude, you've got your sources screwed up again

First of all, LW pilots were told not to engage Yaks of a certain version (having to do with oil cooler placement under the chin) below certain altitudes.

Second, the P39 was an abyssmally bad performer. Especially early in the war. Don't let the fact that the Russians got kills sway you. The Finnish got kills in the Buffalo, as well, but it was a very poor plane as well.

In the PTO it was dog meat plain and simple. Against anything the Japanese had, the P39 was dead. Some groups even crashed them on purpose to get rid of them, bailing out if the engine ran even slightly hot (or even making up that the engine was running hot and just bailing) so they'd get better craft.

Krusty, yer doing it again

My friend Earl Miller, who flew the 39 in the MTO really liked it too.  As long as they flew it at lower alts it performed well and did fine against the LW birds they came up against.

It was a 'dog" at altitude, but down low where the lack of supercharger wasn't an issue it was a good performer.

Can you document which groups 'crashed them on purpose"?

[Bronk]

From an old thread.

Originally posted by Widewing
If one considers 420 mph at 21,000 feet poor performance. Let's face it, 95% of all engagements in AH2 are below 20,000 feet.

The answer to the La-7 is the P-63A Kingcobra. Similar climb and low-level speed, but the P-63 is nearly as maneuverable as the FM-2. Add four .50 cal MGs and a 37mm cannon.

These two fighters would be very equal except that the La-7 could not afford to turn-fight with the P-63, and the P-63 has a big range advantage, plus the ability to haul a 500 pound bomb (or a drop tank).

So, how fast does the P-63A climb? Well, for comparison, let's look at the F6F-5. It requires 7.7 minutes to climb to 15,000 feet. In contrast, the P-63A can get to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes! The P-51D requires near twice as long (13 minutes) to reach 30,000 feet.

When the Soviets first began flying the P-63, they found the tail to be weaker than that of the P-39. Bell developed a kit for strengthening the tail and Bell technicians made field modifications to those planes in service. That change was immediately incorporated into the production line as well.

Pilots who flew the P-63, and had time in the other major U.S. types, generally agreed that the P-63 was far and away the best performer at low to medium altitudes. Not surprising, the pilots flying it at the Joint Fighter Conference differed from rave reviews to outright dislike (the only thing the JFC ever proved was that every monkey prefers his own banana).

Since more than 3,300 P-63s were built, and it saw combat (with the Free French and Soviets) in far greater numbers than the F4U-1C or Ta 152H, I think it would be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the AH2 plane-set someday.

My regards,

Widewing

Bring the kingcobra to AH . ohh and the P-39.



Bronk

[Guppy35]

Of course more Spit XIIs saw combat then the F4U1C, TA152 and P63.

Bring the Spit XII to AH!

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Of course more Spit XIIs saw combat then the F4U1C, TA152 and P63.

Bring the Spit XII to AH!

Brilliant idea wish I thought of it.

Ohh BTW 200 bottles of HT fav scotch is going to cost us about 10k.
Start saving now.  


Bronk

[Krusty]

No Bronk, that's just what you think, that doesn't in fact make it so.

Guppy, the actual group, I don't know the numbers/names. Some group in the PTO. They wanted plane X (where X is better than the P39) because they wanted to get away from the P39. They were told that planes were in short supply and they'd fly what they had until they were no longer servicable. So they took that opportunity to ding them up every mission, to crash land them, to bail from them when the engines ran a little hot, anything to get rid of them.

This from somebody elses posts here on these forums a long time back. They were quoting a book when they posted.

As for low-down, sure it could fly better at lower altitudes, because the lack of a supercharger, but it has fairly bad instability in every flight sim game that has EVER modeled it, it's slow and sluggish even low down (albeit far far far worse up high). I don't think we can use pilot comments about "This was the best plane of the war" because many many posts over many many years have argued that any pilot will have a bias towards any plane that got him home alive, no matter how poorly the plane actually flew.

Sorry for not remembering the group in the story above. I've got one of those memories that remembers details and facts quite well, but not the dates or names that go with them.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Krusty
No Bronk, that's just what you think, that doesn't in fact make it so.

What have I stated as fact ? Ohh wait nothing . You on the other hand...




Sorry for not remembering the group in the story above. I've got one of those memories that remembers details and facts quite well, but not the dates or names that go with them.

*in my best SNL church lady voice.*

How convenient.



Bronk

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Krusty
No Bronk, that's just what you think, that doesn't in fact make it so.

Guppy, the actual group, I don't know the numbers/names. Some group in the PTO. They wanted plane X (where X is better than the P39) because they wanted to get away from the P39. They were told that planes were in short supply and they'd fly what they had until they were no longer servicable. So they took that opportunity to ding them up every mission, to crash land them, to bail from them when the engines ran a little hot, anything to get rid of them.

This from somebody elses posts here on these forums a long time back. They were quoting a book when they posted.

As for low-down, sure it could fly better at lower altitudes, because the lack of a supercharger, but it has fairly bad instability in every flight sim game that has EVER modeled it, it's slow and sluggish even low down (albeit far far far worse up high). I don't think we can use pilot comments about "This was the best plane of the war" because many many posts over many many years have argued that any pilot will have a bias towards any plane that got him home alive, no matter how poorly the plane actually flew.

Sorry for not remembering the group in the story above. I've got one of those memories that remembers details and facts quite well, but not the dates or names that go with them.

Interesting you mention the instability as pilots commented on it.  Again it was evident early on as guys got used to flying it, but once they mastered it, they could really turn it down low.

No one is suggesting it's the best plane of the war, but it is a viable candidate for AH based on it's actual wartime use in any number of theaters of the war.

There are any number of AH birds that I can't fly worth a darn, but other guys can do wonders with

As for the crashing em on purpose story.  That would fall under the same category as quoting pilots wouldn't you say?

At the AW Indy Con I had a chance to talk with Earl Miller, the 39 MTO pilot and Bud Anderson the 357th FG P51 Ace who flew 39s before he got overseas.  He had no idea that the 39 had been flown against the LW.  While he was out chasing the LW in his 51B, Earl was still chugging around in a 39.    But as Earl put it, while Bud Anderson was shooting em down up high in his 51, Earl was shooting em up down low in his 39

[humble]

Originally posted by Krusty
Dude, you've got your sources screwed up again

First of all, LW pilots were told not to engage Yaks of a certain version (having to do with oil cooler placement under the chin) below certain altitudes.

Second, the P39 was an abyssmally bad performer. Especially early in the war. Don't let the fact that the Russians got kills sway you. The Finnish got kills in the Buffalo, as well, but it was a very poor plane as well.

In the PTO it was dog meat plain and simple. Against anything the Japanese had, the P39 was dead. Some groups even crashed them on purpose to get rid of them, bailing out if the engine ran even slightly hot (or even making up that the engine was running hot and just bailing) so they'd get better craft.

You couldnt be more wrong. The elite russian guards units had their choice of any plane available and flew the P-39. It was much prefered over any of the yaks....

And it is documneted that the germans issued orders to avoid the p-39 both because of its performance and the caliber of pilots in the VVS units that flew it.

background on the Kuban bridgehead battle

This is a link to the russian history of the P-39....yes i'm sure its biased but the historical losses on both sides clearly show that the VVS met the germans head on and stopped them cold. The P-39 guards units played a large role in this....

russian 411 on the P-39 in russian service

Not much seems to be available from the german perspective but this is a 1st hand account from a german ace who was returning to combat during the height of the battle from leave

Alfred Grislawski Over Kuban


*** at edit ***

Hers is a quote from the russian history of the P-39...

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." Therefore, the decision by the VVS command regarding preliminary serious study of the aircraft and its testing and subsequent delivery to units that had combat experience turned out to be correct. Combat tested and experienced pilots were able to master the correct tactical employment of the airplane in a minimal period of time.

Lot more info but it gives a good idea of just how successful the elite gaurds units were with the p-39....also interesting how the russians gave the guards units the P-39's over the new la-5's.....in fact the guards units were still flying the original 1942 aircobra's instead of the la-5 as late as 1944....

[Krusty]

"That would fall under the same category as quoting pilots wouldn't you say?"

Now you mangle what I say Guppy. Taking a pilot's opinion on how great a plane is, is one aspect that can't be trusted. Taking other things can be. You know that, silly!

If it helps narrow down the story any, I think the person being quoted was the squadron commander. Other than that, I don't have any more info.



Quick question about the King Cobra: Did it ever see action with US forces? Or did we export all of them? I seem to recall reading that they came too late to see any real action even in Soviet Russia. Did they see any at all? (I ask because I wonder if it meets AH criteria for "having seen action")

Definitely a perk-plane, if I ever saw one, though

[humble]

The same "politics" that prevented a full accounting of the success of the p-39 also effected the P-63. It was in service with guards units from mid 1944 on but not officially recognized.....

By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany, and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East against an eventual attack on Japan. However there are many unconfirmed reports from both the Soviet and German side that Supercobras did indeed see service against the Luftwaffe. Most notably, one of Pokryshkin's pilots reports in his memoirs published in the 1990s that the entire 4th GvIAP was secretly converted to Supercobras in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. One account states they were in action at Koenigsberg, in Poland and in the final assault on Berlin. There are German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show that nothing but P-39s used against Germany.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Krusty
"That would fall under the same category as quoting pilots wouldn't you say?"

Now you mangle what I say Guppy. Taking a pilot's opinion on how great a plane is, is one aspect that can't be trusted. Taking other things can be. You know that, silly!

If it helps narrow down the story any, I think the person being quoted was the squadron commander. Other than that, I don't have any more info.

 

Not mangling it Krusty.  A Squadron CO has his own bias as well.  One of the arguments made regarding the performance of the 38 with the 8th AF stems from the attitude a Group CO had about that bird and how that trickled down to the pilots under his command.

Think about the 56th and the Jug.  Those guys had a belief about the Jug completely different from the guys in the 4th who thought it was a dog and wanted out in the worst way to the point that Blakslee promised to get the 4th transitioned to the 51 and in combat in 24 hours if he could have them.

That would make Earl's comments and those of the guys he flew with in the 350th flying 39s just as valid as anyone elses wouldn't it?