Originally posted by Zazen13
Hmmm, a PoS bomber or a PoS fighter....Forfeit!
Zazen
Let's examine the P-39Q-1.
Down where it will be flown, it will be superior to the Yak-9T, Ki-61, P-40s, Zeros, FM-2/F4F, P-38G (which is only faster above 17k) and the Hurricanes. All of the above are commonly found in the LWAs.
But, hold the phone. It will turn circles around the Yak-9U, C.205, all of the 190s, P-47s, P-38s, P-51s, Tiffie, Tempest, La-5 and La-7 as well as most of the 109s. It should, with flaps, hang with the F6F and F4Us. Inasmuch as the P-39Q climbs just about as well as the F6F and F4Us, it will give them a very hard time. Then we have the P-39M... It was fitted with the Allison V-1710-63 that generated 1,590 hp at 2,000 feet. That is more than the P-51B has on tap.
The more common P-39N and Q models had 1,420 hp available. A clean P-39Q with full fuel should manage about 380 mph at 10k and 385 mph at 12k. How does that compare to the rest of the plane set? Well, I've tested the entire plane set at 10k with 25% fuel. Here's some examples:
P-39Q-1: 380 mph
F4U-1D: 380 mph
La-5FN: 377 mph
P-38J: 373 mph
P-47D-11: 377 mph
Spitfire IX: 362 mph
Ki-84: 367 mph
Fw 190A-5: 366 mph
Bf 109G-2: 380 mph
C.205: 365 mph
Typhoon: 381 mph
Yak-9T: 352 mph
F6F-5: 354 mph
Guys, it doesn't take much thought to realize that the P-39Q will be very competitive in terms of speed in the low altitude environment of the LWAs.
I mentioned turning ability. Lets quantify that some. I will use the same fuel load as we use to measure turn radius; 25%.
So, this produces a weight of right around 7,200 lbs (the P-39 is a small fighter). It has a wing area of 213.22 sq/ft. Thus, we have a wing loading of 33.7 lbs per sq/ft. That's substantially better than the F6F-5 and getting real close to the Spitfires. If I calculate based upon wing loading and coefficient of lift, I find that the P-39Q will turn almost as well as the FM-2.
In conclusion, we are looking at a fighter that can turn like a Wildcat, offers competitive speed (and acceleration) and decent climb from sea level.
If we look at Dean's figures in AHT, we find that his calculations place the P-63A-9 a close second to the FM-2 in turning ability. If we take the P-63's weight with full fuel (8,780 lb) and subtract enough fuel to get down to 25%, we are looking at a weight of about 8,380 lb. Divide this by the wing area of 248 sq/ft and we find a wing loading of 33.8 lb per sq/ft, which is almost identical to that of the P-39Q. The P-39Q has a higher maximum lift coefficient than the P-63A (see NACA TN 1044). Thus, the P-39Q should turn even better than the P-63A.
Do you still think the P-39 is a POS?
If HTC models the P-39N/P-39Q per available test data (and you can bet that they will) it will be a major force in the MWA and quite capable in the LWAs. If any P-39 is modeled, it will be the most common, that being the Q model. Only 863 P-39Ds were built, but 4,905 P-39Qs were delivered.
I'll certainly fly it.
We also should look at its ground pounding ability as well. Typical documents state that the P-39s could carry a 500 lb bomb. However, I have many citations in combat reports from the 13th AF where 1,000 lb bombs were routinely carried by P-39s and P-40s (take note Pyro). Here's one citation for two 500 lb bombs plus a drop tank (official 7th AF history).
Adding to that is the 37mm cannon, which will demolish M16s, M3s and and Jeeps with a single hit. Likewise, that gun will easily disable the Ostwind's turret.
I think the P-39 will be a useful and fun addition to the plane set. It absolutely will not be a hanger queen.
My regards,
Widewing
