Author Topic: Guess we're gettin' a 39Q! (Read 12380 times)

FBplmmr · « **Reply #120 on:** January 25, 2008, 07:31:28 PM »

I can't wait!

Hien · « **Reply #121 on:** January 25, 2008, 07:58:18 PM »

I remember voting for this thing way back when. I think I voted for it each phase except the first (I voted Ki-44 then

)

I've been fiddling with it in IL2'46. I'm a bit of a fist handed fool, it gets into those spins really easy, takes some patience to get the hang of. The '37 is pretty bad there to, but it's good on bombers.

Might also have something to do with the engine being behind you, might make it a bit tougher to shoot out. New HO bird of choice? *shudders*

I remember using it some back in Warbirds, but I was even worse back then (Even I'm not sure how I could be a worse pilot.) So it seemed kinda junky. But it's a darn fun plane, in IL2 at least.

Makes me wish I had a better computer sooooo bad, my old 2.8ghz celeron died this last month, I'm running on a legacy tech Pent III Coppermine 868mhz, 280mbs of ram, hunk of junk. I've probably got enough free processing power on idle, to play AH, offline. But my video ram sits at a nice round... 32mbs...

I can't wait to fix my computer now.

AirFlyer · « **Reply #122 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:05:37 PM »

Well it's not my A6M3, but almost any new plane is a good plane. Can't wait to try it out, it looks sweet. Wtg HTC.

scottydawg · « **Reply #123 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:28:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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.

For all these reasons, I think the 39 will do well in the Main Arenas. The only thing that might hurt it is the guns package.

humble · « **Reply #124 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:35:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 2bighorn
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.

Which is exactly what I told you, however the author is paraphrasing something he read and he doesnt note anything specific to the tests or the pilots. What he wrote doesnt really quite add up and is at odds with what Stanford Tuck actually wrote in the duxford tests. Stanford Tuck actually flew the 109E vs the spitfire Mk II and was quite impressed. His comments are markedly different from the earlier comments on the 109E vs spitI as well as those of various german, british and later "warbird" pilots who flew both. My thought is we're dealing with a significant variable in pilot quality as Sanford Tuck was one of the most gifted fighter pilots of WW2. Someone of his skill level would get alot more out of a 109 (or P-39) then even another pilot thought of as "good".

I didnt post that to prove or disprove my comments but to show what i'd "refound" so far.

mg1942 · « **Reply #125 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:55:57 PM »

I wonder if this plane will be listed as RUSSIAN on Planes, Vehicles, Boats page. Most P39s like this ended up in Russian service, so HTC might as well list this plane RUSSIAN.

Karnak · « **Reply #126 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:13:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mg1942
I wonder if this plane will be listed as RUSSIAN on Planes, Vehicles, Boats page. Most P39s like this ended up in Russian service, so HTC might as well list this plane RUSSIAN.

Doubt it. The only one we have to compare it too is the US built Boston Mk III, but the Boston Mk III was not used by the USAAF, later models were as the A-20 series.

The P-39Q was used by the USAAF as well as by Allied airforces, including the VVS.

Blue · « **Reply #127 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:14:13 PM »

Wow thats cool.

The AC that was found in in 2004 in a lake (if im not reading this wrong) was built in Buffalo,New York. I actually worked in the building where it was built, as a forklift driver. The building was turned into a candy factory/distro center at one point and thats what it was when I was there (Tetzo Brothers). Dont know what it currently is used for as I haven't been back since i quit 8yrs ago.

Wow, Cool.....

Guppy35 · « **Reply #128 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:16:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mg1942
I wonder if this plane will be listed as RUSSIAN on Planes, Vehicles, Boats page. Most P39s like this ended up in Russian service, so HTC might as well list this plane RUSSIAN.

Hmm, all those squadrons of the USAAF that operated them in the Pacific and those from the Aluetians and MTO don't count?

Bronk · « **Reply #129 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:18:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mg1942
I wonder if this plane will be listed as RUSSIAN on Planes, Vehicles, Boats page. Most P39s like this ended up in Russian service, so HTC might as well list this plane RUSSIAN.

He'd have to use Russian boost and weights, that wont happen.

kozhedub · « **Reply #130 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:56:58 PM »

Good skin choice

kozhedub · « **Reply #131 on:** January 25, 2008, 10:25:55 PM »

Just read through the pages...anyone who doesn't think the P 39 will do well,,,,I look foward to seeing you in the MA in my Kobrusha

mg1942 · « **Reply #132 on:** January 26, 2008, 12:09:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
Hmm, all those squadrons of the USAAF that operated them in the Pacific and those from the Aluetians and MTO don't count?

I recall USAAF only used 39Cs and Ds

DaddyAck · « **Reply #133 on:** January 26, 2008, 12:31:56 AM »

Looks as though yep, HT finally doing the P-39. Should be a low to mid alt powerhouse in the right hands. Possibly the Anti La7?

(I still will be prowling in my Macci O' Lovin and my 109 O' Doom)

mipoikel · « **Reply #134 on:** January 26, 2008, 02:25:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DaddyAck
Looks as though yep, HT finally doing the P-39. Should be a low to mid alt powerhouse in the right hands. Possibly the Anti La7?
(I still will be prowling in my Macci O' Lovin and my 109 O' Doom)

Then it will not be a problem for us rooks.