Author Topic: Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!  (Read 12323 times)

Offline angelsandair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3126
      • RT Website
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #240 on: January 30, 2008, 06:11:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Squire
The posted 15 minutes of max MIL is for maintenace concerns only, fighters in WW2 never  flew the entire mission at "full throttle" ,for one the gas consumption would be enormous and secondly the engines would require a lot more down time.

We dont pay any cost in AH for running at 100 throt the entire time, ir real life, you would be called on the carpet for it, in any air force.

So the 5 min is WEP, and the 15 min is a suggested max for full throttle MIL, thats all.


Yea BUT they dont expect most pilots to be up in the air for MORE than 15 min, so its not really worth it, and plus, some people like having full throttle all the time, prolly need it for slower planes. EX. Hurricane 2c
Quote
Goto Google and type in "French military victories", then hit "I'm feeling lucky".
Here lie these men on this sun scoured atoll,
The wind for their watcher, the wave for their shroud,
Where palm and pandanus shall whisper forever,
A requiem fitting for heroes

Offline alskahawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
p39
« Reply #241 on: January 30, 2008, 06:15:20 PM »
P39s did some squirrelly tumbles when shot down due to the mid engine mount.(as per interview with G. Rall) I wonder if AH will be modeling that also?

Offline Simaril

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #242 on: January 30, 2008, 06:20:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by kotrenin
We've been trying to decipher the climb rate chart but it is hard to read the column titles.  We're making a few educated guesses based on the numbers. :D


what page number is the problem on? I have this manual in different format, with each page scanned as a separate jpg...so may be easier to read the fine print stuff.


If you're looking at the table on page 23, the headings are as follows:

Leftmost column, labels for rows from top to bottom -- Gross weight 8100, 7600, 7200. All are labelled Combat Ferry.

Across the top:Sealevel to 3000 feet (subdivided under that into best I.A.S., then feet per minute, then time from sea level)

Next over is a block for At 5000 feet (subdivided into best I.A.S., then feet per minute, then time from sea level, then fuel from S.L)

The next blocks duplicate those subdivisions for 10,000, 15,000, and 25,000 feet.

All are with single speed blower, at 2300 rpm and 31inches manifold.

Special notes at the bottom of the table say to increase climbing time by (blank) % for each 10 degrees above zero free air temperature. Fuel includes warm up and take off allowance.

Hope that helps




Simaril
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 06:31:56 PM by Simaril »
Maturity is knowing that I've been an idiot in the past.
Wisdom is realizing I will be an idiot in the future.
Common sense is trying to not be an idiot right now

"Social Fads are for sheeple." - Meatwad

Offline kotrenin

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
      • http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRaTekm9Ak8
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #243 on: January 30, 2008, 06:40:07 PM »
That is exactly it.  Thanks a ton Simaril.:aok
He's a lover, not a fighter... but he's also a fighter, so don't get any ideas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRaTekm9Ak8  http://one_foggy.tripod.com/sounds/afu_jokeson.wav

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #244 on: January 30, 2008, 07:56:51 PM »
"Yea BUT they dont expect most pilots to be up in the air for MORE than 15 min"

...sorry you have lost me.

The document that Widewing posted was for the real airplane, you follow? There isnt going to be any restriction to the "in game" MIL running time, because they would have to do that for ALL the a/c in the game, not just the P-39.

The WEP limit, I would think, will be 5 min max, as in the game, because WEP limit IS modelled in AH.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 08:00:07 PM by Squire »
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #245 on: January 30, 2008, 09:02:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charge
"376 mph reflects MIL power, not WEP (combat power).

See the chart below. Note that the power setting for the P-39Q at 376 mph is MIL power, which is (1,125 hp), not WEP (1,420 hp)."

Well according the engine chart you posted the MIL power is not maximum continuous (giving 1000hp) but it seems that the Allison had a normal "WEP", as we call it, for 15 minutes giving 376mph and a peculiar "extended WEP" which could give the 1420hp for 5 minutes, but for some reason it was not mentioned in the chart Bronk posted giving the the more common max (15min) MIL figure of 376mph for max speed. Bronk's chart showed the corresponding marks the given speeds applied to but your chart says only "P39" but you say it is Q.

Was the 1420hp setting actually usable at all?

Which of the charts is more accurate and are they from manufacturers manual?


Note that both charts that I have posted state P-39Q. Look at both again carefully.

This chart shows power ratings at specific altitudes and durations. This chart comes from the Pilot's Manual. This was the standard type of Specific Engine Flight Chart format used for all USAAF fighters. This one is for the P-39Q-1, but applies to all P-39Q models with the V-1710-85 engine.


The other chart was published in America's Hundred Thousand and shows speed curves clearly marked as shown in the key above the chart.


There's ample evidence that the P-39Q was plenty fast at its critical altitude. There are several combat reports of the P-39Q chasing down 190A models and 109G models at low altitudes in the MTO.

Think about this: If the AH2 P-39Q can do 376 mph in MIL power at 9,700 feet, it will be 10 mph faster than the 190A-5 using WEP. It's a dead heat with the La-5FN. It will be 3 mph faster than the P-38J using WEP. It would be 5 mph slower that the Typhoon using WEP. It would be 9 mph slower than the Yak-9U. It would be 5 mph faster than the 109G-6 using WEP.

If modeled with the 1,420 hp WEP, and does the expected 392 mph @ 9,700 ft, it's faster than the Typhoon, Yak-9U, Ta 152, 109G-14, F4U-1, F4U-1D, and P-47D-11. It would be 2 mph slower than the La-7, 4 mph slower than the Tempest and  6 mph slower than the F4U-4. That's some pretty good company. Add to that a wing loading below that of the 109F-4, and I'd say you have a competitive fighter for the low to medium altitude environment of Aces High. Good enough to be a real threat, and absolutely deadly in the hands of a top level pilot.

We can speculate all we want, but when the P-39Q is introduced with the next update, we'll all have the opportunity to find out what it's capable of. Then players can argue if it's too good, just right or under-modeled. We'll know within a few weeks.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #246 on: January 30, 2008, 09:16:36 PM »
Based on what WW posted, it looks like it will and should be very competitive down low . . . which leads me to wonder how long it will be after its introduction before the "P-39 is ridiculously overmodeled" whines begin.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline AWMac

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9251
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #247 on: January 30, 2008, 09:22:06 PM »
I'd rather have my 28 inch waist, ripped abs and my guns back... until then ...pffft  

who wants to see a 50 year old male on a beach with all of that and gravitationally challenged balls?

:huh

Mac

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #248 on: January 30, 2008, 09:26:27 PM »
WW
Wasn't the P-39D-2 utilizing the  V-1710-63 pulling 1590 hp at 61 map?

Strange that an earlier model had a more potent engine.
See Rule #4

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #249 on: January 30, 2008, 09:29:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Guppy35
Actually when Del and I got the 80th going he was CPorky :)

He went back to Del though.  I kept CorkyJr.

As for the 39.  Doesn't it make more sense for the early 400/D-1, the mid N and the late Q?  That way you get all the combos of armament and cover all the theaters of the war the 39 flew in.


Okay... :)

The biggest changes to the model were the engine starting, unlike other models 51, 47 FW etc.. that had major changes to the structure, with V-1710/10-85 the D had a 35,  D2 thru L1 had a 63 except for 2 J/K-5-BE, the M had the 67 and 85 and the N\Q had the 85. The Q itself had 9 varients not including pho/recon versions.

I agree it should be a P-39D V-1710/35 give it the 20mm option in the hanger.
I would like to see the Mid plane be the L1 or the M1 V=1710/67
if for no other reason :) "Pantie Bandit" P-39L-1-BE 93rd FS, 81st FG Q-T (42-4558)
I dont think it should be a N, Same as Q, V-1710/85.
{Who knows maybe we can have an armor option in the hanger in the future to cover all varients, it would be useful for all planes?}


Airacobra I - Direct purchase aircraft used by the RAF.
Airacobra II - Lend-Lease aircraft used by the RA:=-
Airabonita - Experimental shipboard version of the land-based P-39 Airacobra.
Britchik - Russian nickname [Lit: Little Shaver].
Caribou - Initial RAF designation later abandoned in favour of Airacobra.
F2L - US Navy target drones.
F2L-1 K - P-39Q used for smoke generator trials by US Navy.
Model 14 - Version of the P-39D built for the RAF.
Model14A - See P-39D-1-BE.
Model 14A-1 - See P-39D-2-BE.
Model15B - See P-39F.
Model 21 - See XP-39E.
Model 26 - See P-39G.
Model 26A - See P-39K-1.
Model 26C - See P-39N-1 .
Model 26C-5 - See P-39N-5.
Model26D - See P-39M.
Model 26Q-5 - See P-39Q-5-BE.
Model 26Q-10 - See P-39Q-10-BE.
Model 26Q-15 - See P-39Q-15-BE.
Model 26Q-20 - See P-39Q-20-BE.
Model 26Q-25 - See P-39Q-25-BE.
P-39C - Initial Production aircraft.
P-39D - Upgraded P-39D with self-sealing tanks, increased guns and fuel capacity.
P-39D-1-BE - Version produced for Lend-Lease powered by an Allison V-1710-35 engine.
P-39D-2-BE - Version produced for Lend-Lease powered by the Allison V-171 0-63 (E6) engine.
P-39D-3-BE - Reconnaissance versions with K-24 and K-25 cameras mounted in the rear fuselage.
P-39D-4-BE - Reconnaissance version of the P-39D-1-BE.
P-39F-1 - Fitted with Aeroproducts constant-speed propeller.
P-39F-2 - Fitted with belly armor and cameras in the rear fuselage for ground attacks
P-39G - Design changed rapidly and aircraft was eventually produced as K,L,M and N versions.
P-39H - Designation not assigned?
P-39J - Fitted with V-1710-59 engine with automatic boost control.
P-39K-1 - Fitted with V-1710-63 (E6) engine driving an Aeroproducts propeller.
P-39K-2 - Ground attack/photo reconnaissance version.
P-39K-5-BE - Fitted with V-1710-85 (E19) engine and acted as the prototype for the P-39N.
P-39L-1 - Fitted with Allison V-1710-63 engine driving a Curtiss Electric propeller
P-39L-2-BE - Photoreconnaissance version.
P-39M-1 - Fitted with V-1710-67 (E8) engine driving an Aeroproducts propellor.
P-39M-1 [Variant 1] - Fitted with V-1710-83 (E18) engine.
P-39M-2-BE - Photoreconnaissance version.
P-39N - Fitted with the V-1710-85 (E19) engine driving an Aeroproducts propellor.
P-39N-1 - Differed only in some minor internal changes.
P-39N-2-BE - P-39N-1-BE converted to ground-attack role.
P-39N-3-BE - P-39N converted to ground-attack role.
P-39N~5-BE - Fitted with lighter armour.
P-39N-6-BE - P-39N-5-BE to ground-attack role.
P-39Q - Fitted with 50cal wing guns.
P-39Q-1-BE - Fuel capacity of the P-39N-5 and armor ofthe P-39N-1.
P-39Q-2-BE - Q-1s modified for photo-reconnaissance by adding cameras in the aft fuselage.
P-39Q-5-BE - Lighter armor fit of the P-39N-5 and full wing fuel capacity of the P-39M.
P-39Q-6-BE - Q-5s modified for photo-reconnaissance by adding cameras in the aft fuselage.
P-39Q-10-BE - Increased internal fuel capacity and armour.
P-39Q-11-BE - Q-1a modified for photo-reconnaissance by adding cameras in the aft fuselage ..
P-39Q-15-BE - Minor equipment variations.
P-39Q-20-BE - Underwing 50cal machine gun pods were sometimes omitted in this version.
P-39Q-21-BE - Four-bladed Aeroproducts propeller was fitted.
P-39Q-25-BE - Wing guns were deleted from these aircraft, which were exported to the Soviet Union.
P-39Q-30-BE - Reverted to the three-bladed propellor.
P-45 - Designation initially applied to the first proposed production model.
P-400 - Model14s returned to the USA or delivered to the Russians
RP-39Q - Advanced two-seat trainer redesignated TP-39Q after 1944.
RP-39Q-22 - P-39Q-20 converted to advanced two-seat trainer.



Oh and just to be clear :) "Porky" was Craggs 1st plane in NG and was 39D/400?
Great picture of "Porky" looking at "Corky":t
http://www.oceanicexpeditions.org/pdf/headhunters2003.pdf
I was looking up "Porky" trying to find a picture of the 39 and found the 1st 38's issued to the 80th as the 38H "Porky II" Hmmm.... Corky Jr>Askew-off the correct or expected course, G..eee ;)
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 09:43:41 PM by Megalodon »
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline kotrenin

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
      • http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRaTekm9Ak8
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #250 on: January 30, 2008, 09:58:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing


There's ample evidence that the P-39Q was plenty fast at its critical altitude. There are several combat reports of the P-39Q chasing down 190A models and 109G models at low altitudes in the MTO.

Think about this: If the AH2 P-39Q can do 376 mph in MIL power at 9,700 feet, it will be 10 mph faster than the 190A-5 using WEP. It's a dead heat with the La-5FN. It will be 3 mph faster than the P-38J using WEP. It would be 5 mph slower that the Typhoon using WEP. It would be 9 mph slower than the Yak-9U. It would be 5 mph faster than the 109G-6 using WEP.

If modeled with the 1,420 hp WEP, and does the expected 392 mph @ 9,700 ft, it's faster than the Typhoon, Yak-9U, Ta 152, 109G-14, F4U-1, F4U-1D, and P-47D-11. It would be 2 mph slower than the La-7, 4 mph slower than the Tempest and  6 mph slower than the F4U-4. That's some pretty good company. Add to that a wing loading below that of the 109F-4, and I'd say you have a competitive fighter for the low to medium altitude environment of Aces High. Good enough to be a real threat, and absolutely deadly in the hands of a top level pilot.

We can speculate all we want, but when the P-39Q is introduced with the next update, we'll all have the opportunity to find out what it's capable of. Then players can argue if it's too good, just right or under-modeled. We'll know within a few weeks.

My regards,

Widewing


Quit it Widewing, you're getting me excited. :o
He's a lover, not a fighter... but he's also a fighter, so don't get any ideas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRaTekm9Ak8  http://one_foggy.tripod.com/sounds/afu_jokeson.wav

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #251 on: January 30, 2008, 11:13:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
WW
Wasn't the P-39D-2 utilizing the  V-1710-63 pulling 1590 hp at 61 map?

Strange that an earlier model had a more potent engine.


I've seen this too, but the rating was for 2,500 feet. The V-1710-63 was installed in the P-39K and the P-39L too. If I recall correctly, the P-39L was rated at 367 mph at 2,500 feet, 386 mph at 9,000 feet and 373 mph at 12,000 feet. Again, this is quite competitive with the late war beasties at common AH2 altitudes.

The primary drawback of the P-39 was poor performance at altitude. That's not much of a factor in Aces High. Down low, it should be very competitive. 386 mph at 9k is faster than the Yak-9U. The gap is even wider at 2.5k. Indeed, at 2.5k it's about 20 mph faster than the Spit16 and has a similar wing loading.

I read a combat report submitted by Lt. Hugh Dow of the 346th Fighter Squadron. Dow obtained his first Luftwaffe kill flying a P-39L in 1943. He was also able to log 8 hours of flight time in a captured 109. Being familiar with the 109, the next time he encountered one, he didn't hesitate to take it on in a classic one on one duel.

Spotting each other, Down turned his P-39Q-15 into the 109 and they merged on opposite headings. Both pilot reefed their fighters around in punishing left turns. Dow saw vapor streamers coming from the 109's wing tips. Dow knew the the P-39 would out-turn the Messerschmitt. Within two turns he gained nearly 180 degrees. Having used up his cannon ammo, and most of his .50 rounds strafing, Dow opened fire at close range in a hard turn. He fired the remaining .50 cal ammo, scoring hits which caused a fuel leak. He then continued shooting with his four .30 cal MG, igniting the fuel. The 109 pulled into vertical climb with Dow's P-39 right on its tail. At the top of the climb, the 109 pilot pitched off his canopy and jumped out. Dow climbed past the burning 109 and rolled off to the right. He watched the 109 crash onto a road at the entrance to a bridge Dow had just recently strafed. The German pilot landed in some brush near the road and Dow flew past him wagging his wings. The German was seen to wave his hand in return.

In the MTO, the P-40 flew more than twice as many combat sorties as the did the P-39.  However, four times as many P-40s were lost. Loss rates per sortie for the P-39, in the MTO, SWPA and Aleutians were typically half that of the P-40.

Loss rates to ground fire in the MTO were, in order of losses per sortie:

P-47 (.2 per sortie)
P-38 (.3)
P-39 (.4)
P-40 (.8)
A-36/P-51 (.8)

The Soviets concur that the P-39 was more resistant to damage than the P-40 and that pilots shot down in air combat were more than twice as likely to survive if flying the P-39 as opposed to the P-40. 1,200 lb of Allison armor behind the pilot must have been beneficial.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #252 on: January 31, 2008, 02:59:22 AM »
A question 109e vs p39d  :  could not the 109e perform the standard  trick - either stand on its tail  climbing at high angle, or stand on its nose - diving away from the p39d using its good acceleration to get away, and later zoom climb ?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 03:13:12 AM by save »
My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #253 on: January 31, 2008, 04:03:03 AM »
"Note that both charts that I have posted state P-39Q. Look at both again carefully. "

Not even looking carefully it's there, sry.


"Wasn't the P-39D-2 utilizing the V-1710-63 pulling 1590 hp at 61 map?"

Again more common figure: "V-1710-63 (E6) engine 1,325 hp"

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p39.htm

Where did you find that figure?

I saw somewhere that the nose mounted 20mm Hispano had 60 rounds of ammo so it was the drum fed model.

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Guess we're gettin' a 39Q!
« Reply #254 on: January 31, 2008, 04:53:03 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charge



"Wasn't the P-39D-2 utilizing the V-1710-63 pulling 1590 hp at 61 map?"

Again more common figure: "V-1710-63 (E6) engine 1,325 hp"

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p39.htm

Where did you find that figure?


-C+

AHT  page 191 table 25.

T.O. 1325
WEP 1590
mil   1150
norm 1000

How is 1325 the more common figure?
See Rule #4