Calling Red Airforce Guru's.

[KgB]

No, I'm not deflecting anything.  I'm saying that the Soviets thought that the P-39 was a good fighter, which is true, and that several of their top aces flew the P-39, which is true.

You are trying to imply that the P-39 is crappy because the Soviets wanted all of the fighters they could get.*  That is incorrect logic.  You could substitute the word "Spitfire" for the word "P-39" in those same points.

I'll say it again
1)P39 is crappy because of its flying characteristics (reason why Brits refused to fly it).
2)Compaired to what Soviets had, yes it was a better fighter.
3)Soviets used it because they needed every aircraft they could get.
How you managed to come up with that highlighted abomination of what i said is beyond my comprehension.

[Brooke]

I'll say it again
1)P39 is crappy because of its flying characteristics (reason why Brits refused to fly it).

I disagree that is crappy -- as long as you are below about 15k.  There are people who didn't like it, but there are people who did (like many Soviets, including some Soviet aces).  The same is true of P-38's and P-47's, by the way, that some people didn't like them (such as the British) while some people did (including many aces).

2)Compaired to what Soviets had, yes it was a better fighter.

From 1943 onward, they had lots of Yaks and La's.

3)Soviets used it because they needed every aircraft they could get.

If they thought the P-39 sucked, they would have relegated it to other uses, like they did with numerous other aircraft.

Also, your statements of what the Soviets did or did not think of the P-39 are at odds with the research and interviews reported in Attack of the Airacobras:  Soviet Aces, American P-39s, and the Air War Against Germany, by Dmitriy F. Loza.

[MiloMorai]

I'll say it again
1)P39 is crappy because of its flying characteristics (reason why Brits refused to fly it).
2)Compaired to what Soviets had, yes it was a better fighter.
3)Soviets used it because they needed every aircraft they could get.
How you managed to come up with that highlighted abomination of what i said is beyond my comprehension.

The Brits did fly the P-39Cs in combat but pulled them from front line duty due to mechanical problems.

"The Air Fighting Development Unit received a British Airacobra I on July 30. They subjected it to tests and completed their report on September 22. They found the aircraft to be pleasant to fly and easy to takeoff and land. Controls were well balanced and although heavier than those of the Spitfire at normal speeds, did not increase appreciably in weight at high speeds as they did in the Spitfire. It was difficult to hold the aircraft in a dive at high speeds unless the aircraft was trimmed nose-heavy. During a turn, the Airacobra would give ample warning of a high-speed stall by severe vibration of the whole airframe. Handling in formation and formation attacks was good, although deceleration was poor because of the plane's aerodynamic cleanliness. Take-offs and landings in close formation were not considered safe, since there was considerable difficulty in bringing the aircraft back to its original path after a swing."

So the P-39 was a better fighter than the Yak-3/7/9s and La-5/7s. Reveling that is. This would seem to be confirmed, iirc, whenPokryshkin refused to convert his unit to the La-5.

So in 1944 and 1945 the Soviets still didn't have enough fighters.

[Krusty]

Krusty you'd land multiple kills in p39 even if it had hub mounted sling shooter. But then again you wont stand a chance with equally skilled opponent in lets say historical enemy of aircobra 109, any model.

First, you don't know me. I'm average at best (to be realistic, below average most times). I'm not a crack shot. I'm not Levi. I don't play for kills or for score. I just play one sortie at a time and try to make it back to base whenever possible.

Second, a P-39D or Q against a 109 is a damn good fight. The P-39 has a VERY small turning radius. Compared to 109s, it's more than a match. The later the mark of 109, the better the P-39 becomes in a turn fight. The earlier the mark of 109, the more even the footing is between the two. The only problem is managing E.

You don't seem to realize the specs of the P-39s... The reason they were "poor" for the brits is the RAF was engaging the LW at alts between 25k and 30k in their fighter sweeps. The reason they were bad for the US Army was because they had no supercharger, and the A6Ms would fly circles around them, at much longer ranges. Same could be said for the F4F, when you think about it (Thatch Weave and teamwork/massive-numbers is the only reason the F4F persevered against the A6M!).

You put it on the Soviet front, and all of a sudden no fights are above the "low alt" band, and you've got 109s/190s being easily out-turned by lighter aircraft. Meanwhile the LW has to build heavier and heavier armament, bogging down their fighters, just for a chance to down IL2s and bombers. That gives the edge more and more to the P-39.


Suck? Maybe. Depends on the context. War-winner? Definitely not. Lethal? Yes.

I don't think you're really compared it to all the planes you claim can wipe the floor with it....

P-39D vs 109E-4 (1940 matchup): Airacobra is 20mph faster up to 16k+, dives at least twice as well, convertes E to nice tight turns, and is no slouch in regards to turning circle.

P-39Q vs 109G-6 (1943 matchup): The P-39Q is almost as fast as the G6 (and matches the G6 at 12k), and almost matches it (pretty close, actually) in climb rate with WEP. And that's WITH the weight-inducing, speed-eating gondolas, fly it "light" like I and many soviet aces of WW2 like to do, and it's even better. It will turn with one really well, and can use the vertical with its powerful WEP settings.

But how about some other comparisons? 39Q v 190a5: 39Q almost matches the speeds of the A5 (a little slower down low, then catches up as the 190 power curve drops), matches the climb rate, and can out-turn it six ways from sunday. A 190A with a 39Q on its butt is dead (unless the 39Q blows all its ammo and has to run away).

Maybe you fly allied planes more, and don't have a frame of reference for them.. Okay them.

P-39D vs Spit1 (1940 colleagues): P-39D without WEP (it has none) is 10mph faster than the 5-minute WEP of a Spit1A. It's firepower is significantly better (if just for the 50cals in the nose, and the 1000rpg for the 30cals, not counting a hispano or a 37mm in the nose!). It's turn rate is not as tight, but it's not like much out-turns a spit1a anyways. P-39D matches the spit non-wep climb rate as well. Handles high speed much better. Only problem is fighting above 15k, which the RAF had to do.

Or a 1943 comparison: P-39Q is a few mph faster than the Spit9 is at all alts up til the 39 drops off. The spit9 drops off just above the P-39, but it has a supercharger which kicks in a few thousand feet above that. Otherwise it'd be in the same boat as the Airacobra. 39Q can give a spit9 a run for its money in a dogfight, but the spit is a tighter turner again (but note, that's not the only thing that determines a winner). Spit9 does have more climbing ability (better engine than spit1) but the 39Q with WEP will break 3400 fpm at low level, not too far behind the spitty's 3600+ fpm.

How about other US planes? P-39Q is 20mph slower than P-38L on the deck but just about matches it at 12k (it catches up) and matches the 38's climb rate. It's about 40mph slower than a P-51B, but matches the climb rate, exceeds the turn rate by a mile, and dives just as well. It's noticably faster than an F6F and out-climbs one too. It outclimbs a D-hog and isn't too far behind one in speed either.

So I'm not a total P-39 fanatic. I enjoy flying it in-game because it's a bit more challenging. I don't have all this stuff memorized (I had to look it up to post this). I just don't like folks trashing a plane on the grounds that it sucks when they don't bother to actually look at the info available and actually fly it.

Curse the gun all you want, but don't blame the plane's performance for not getting any kills in it.

[MiloMorai]

Krusty, don't you mean turbocharger? All Allison's had a supercharger.

[KgB]

So the P-39 was a better fighter than the Yak-3/7/9s and La-5/7s. Reveling that is. This would seem to be confirmed, iirc, whenPokryshkin refused to convert his unit to the La-5.

Well maybe he shouldnt have, in last two years he scored only 6 kills.

[KgB]

First, you don't know me. I'm average at best (to be realistic, below average most times)........

I think i do know you.

I've landed numerous 7-10 kill sorties in a P-39Q in a late war arena, and a number of 4-5 kill sorties in a P-39D in the late ware arena

Nobody "average" lands numerous 7-10 kills in P39, i know it because i am average. So you gotta uber or you not telling the truth.
I was shot down by p39 tonight, Soulys didn't even use tater gun.

[KgB]

Brooke i think on this note we should stop this. Its like I'm asking you for directions and you telling me what time it is.
Forgive me dear, but this thread is beat to death.

[Brooke]

Brooke i think on this note we should stop this. Its like I'm asking you for directions and you telling me what time it is.

No, it's like I'm saying "The P-39 doesn't suck below 15k" and "The soviets liked the P-39" and you keep arguing with that.  My point of view is based on a thorough book on the topic, the fact that the Soviets flew the P-39 throughout the war (while they retired many other types of aircraft), the fact that several top Soviet aces flew the P-39, and AH performance of the P-39 (thoroughly detailed by Krusty).

Forgive me dear, but this thread is beat to death.

I do think that we have fully covered the P-39.

[MiloMorai]

Well maybe he shouldnt have, in last two years he scored only 6 kills.

Hard to score when one is flying a desk.

In February 1944, Pokryshkin was offered a promotion and an easy desk job managing new pilot training. He immediately rejected the offer, and stayed at his old regiment and his old rank. He however did not fly nearly as much. Pokryshkin had been made a famous hero by the propaganda machine, and he was not allowed to fly as often because of fear of him being killed. Instead, Pokryshkin spent a lot of time in the radio bunker, directing his regiment's fights over the radio.

[Brooke]

Also, "only 6 kills"?

[Krusty]

Nobody "average" lands numerous 7-10 kills in P39, i know it because i am average. So you gotta uber or you not telling the truth.

I disagree. I've got the film to prove it (so I am telling the truth), have posted screenshots to my squaddies before, etc.

On the other hand, I'm not a great pilot. I'm okay in the best of circumstances. Once or twice I've been complimented on my C2 piloting, but that's only because I spend nearly 60% of all my flight time in them since I started the game! (and in 10 years of playing this game can only remember 1 or 2 compliments on the subject)

Again, you're really confusing "killing" with "flying" -- it can be really hard to kill with P-39s, but very very easy to fly you into a position you can GET kills with.

Not really the airframe's fault. Many factors are at play.

You know how sometimes a pilot just pulls in front of you, and you get a sweet shot?

Sometimes it happens in P-39s. Sometimes it happens a lot. Folks underestimate the E-retention and speed of this plane when it has some downhill to work with.