Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Widewing
Personally, I  think the P-39Q will be more uber than most expect in the low altitude environs of Aces High. I'm sure that I'll enjoy it.

Should be decent. Not the beginners ride though.

[Squire]

Nice to see it!

Small note: Please make the underwing 12.7mm's "optional" ala the 109 series wing guns as most were removed in Russian service.

[Megalodon]

"It was a good-looking airplane. If looks counted for anything, it would have been a great airplane. And the Russians absolutely loved them, and wound up with most of them. Under 15,000 feet, the P-39, called the Airacobra, was a decent if underpowered performer.
But the Airacobra was mincemeat above 15,000 feet, and useless in Western Europe, where virtually all of the flying and fighting was at double that altitude. ...

But in October of 1942, I was thrilled to be flying it. It was unique, with its engine behind the cockpit, and the propeller drive shaft running between the pilot's legs. It had a tricycle landing gear, unlike anything in our arsenal except the P-38. And the cockpit was more like a car's, with a door instead of a swing-up or sliding canopy, and windows that actually rolled up and down with a crank. You could taxi the thing while resting your elbows on the sill, like cruising the boulevard on a Saturday night."

Bud Anderson

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by 1Boner
Nope!!


You'll see alot of this next!





Looks like it can double as a submarine!!

Pilot's remains were still in that bird when they dragged it up.

[dkff49]

Here is some interesting pics and some very interesting information  to read.

It seems that initially they were fitted with either a 20mm or a 30 mm ( to be used for either AP or HE)and 4 .50's (2 in nose and 2 in wing but later all 4 were in wing). So I wonder which we will have here. Either way is a nice read.

20http://www.marchfield.org/p39q.htm

sorry not sure how to post a link you will have to copy and paste in address bar

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Bronk
Speed/climb chart from AHT for those interested.

I'll bet you never see a Rook in this bird ever.

(No performance after 15K and barely aloft at 25K....  )

[humble]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
I've never heard about any tests where p-39 out turned Spitfire.

Would you mind sharing some references, maybe a link, quotes, possible scans?

The link I had doesnt work, here is the quote that sent me looking originally...

The Soviets fought over terrain much like that of Iowa, were based close to the
enemy, and the Germans chose to send their bombers over at medium and low
altitudes.  So none of the factors that worked against the P-39 in New Guinea
were present on the Eastern Front.
Also worth noting.  An RAF Duxford comparison test of a captured Me 109E and
P-39C showed the Bell outperforming the 109 in every category except rate of
climb when below 15,000 ft.  The P-39 could easily out-turn the 109--it took
the 'Cobra less than 720 degrees to get on the tail of an Me that was planted
on its tail.
So the P-39 should have had no trouble dealing with the 109 at the altitudes
common in the East.

It's in the link that WW posted above. I'll google the Duxford combat tests and see if I can find it. It's in the appendex/postscript and describes the "tests" with the spitty/hurricane as a bit of an afterthought in the summary. I dont think they were formal tests as much as friendly dogfights/follow the leader comparisions...

[SgtPappy]

I saw the screens.
And my seat is, for some reason, quite wet.

Let's see what research I can scrounge up once I get addicted to this beast.

First mission: find out why the hell you Yanks didn't operate it very much.... it seems fine to me according to the on-paper data in my 'Hamlyn Guide to American Aircraft of WWII'.

[humble]

This isnt the link I was looking for but its got some similiar 411. Where I'm a bit confused is the comparision here with the spitfire. It clearly repeats the P-39C's ability to handily out turn the 109E but then says it cant outturn the spitV. The 109E and spit V were fairly close with a slight but clear edge to the spitV. For the P-39 to handily out turn the 109 it would need to be a bit better then the spit.

In the documents I read the spit and 39 were more mock dogfighting & follow the leader. At higher alts the spit handily outclassed the 39 but at 10K the spit couldnt out turn or outdive the 39 and the spit pilot had to keep the fight climbing and in the verticals to combat the 39.link

Stanford Tuck was one of the pilots involved (he commanded 3 squadrons including 601 which flew the P-39)...

[Karnak]

Looks fun and nice model.  I was rather expecting to see this pretty soon based on how close the votes were.

It will be interesting to see how the quirks of this fighter manifest in AH.

A few comments on expectations though, it will not out turn a Zero and it isn't going to be popping tanks with a super 37mm cannon.

It shiuld turn nicely and handle pretty well at AH combat altitudes, but you'll want to avoid stalls as the odd CoG could be nasty.  The 37mm cannon is such crap compared to other large caliber guns that most players would want to leave it in the hangar, but it will still be fun when you manage to hit with it.

I would not be surprised at all to see the P-39D added as well.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Well, they could always add the P-400. That eliminates the jam prone 37MM cannon, and replaces it with a 20MM.

[RATTFINK]

AWESOME

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by humble
At higher alts the spit handily outclassed the 39 but at 10K the spit couldnt out turn or outdive the 39 and the spit pilot had to keep the fight climbing and in the verticals to combat the 39.link

Even your link above says: "Although the Airacobra was faster than the Spitfire up to 15,000 feet, it was outclimbed and out-turned by the Spitfire."

If you compare technical data of Spit Vb vs P-39, ie, weight, engine power, wings (wing loading and lift coefficient), there's no way in hell, P-39 could keep up in turn fight.

It should be a good match for 109E and F though. I still give advantage to 109, simply due to miserable 37mm tater gun in P-39.

[Squire]

The reasons the USAAF did not go with it are fairly straight forward.

ETO: They needed a fighter with long range and high alt performance, to escort bombers and combat the LW, which the P-39 had neither. P-38 and P-47 in 1942-3 were the logical types to go with, to partner with the heavy strategic bombers. For that reason neither the P-40 or the P-39 were used by the USAAF in England.

Pacific: They needed again, range, and a fighter with better performance to combat the Japanese types. The P-40  had better handling, and so was kept on as a secondary fighter into 1944, but as the P-38 and P47 became available in the Pacific, and later the P-51 Mustang, the P-39 was relegated to Tactical Recon  units in the USAAF. The P-38 was king in the Pacific, it had range (above all), it was fast, it had a heavy warload.  

The P39 did see some service in N. Africa, in the ground attack role, untill it could be replaced.

The P-39 just didn't serve what the USAAF needed in a fighter in WW2, unlike the Russians, who wanted a fighter that could fly low and fast, had reasonable low alt handling, range not being that much of an issue (they flew very close to the front), the P-39 was a welcome addition to their own domestic types like the Yak and Lavochkin. It was well built by Russian standards, and despite its quirks, they used anything that could be put to good use against the Germans.

[SgtPappy]

Ah thanks, makes complete sense. I just thought it was adequate enough.

Btw, you all see the gunsight in that screens page? Looks to me like a nice change in gunsight reticle size, eh, Sax?

Or perhaps the gunsight itself is smaller on the Airacobra.