There's been a bit of posting recently on the subject of the correct ammo loads.
Many of these posts seem to equate more = better; and that just because a certain plain *could* carry a specific amount of ammo, that automaticaly states that plane *always* carried that amount of ammo. This, to my mind, is not nessaserily true. (how the F--- do you spill that?)
I offer this post from another news group, on the subject of the P-39 as proof:
What Hugh Dow said about the P-39 armament.
............................. ............................. .
Armament loads for the P-39 D through M models:
30 cannon rounds, 200 rounds in each of the two nose 50s (I
could never remember whether it was 200 or 250 rounds) and
1000 in each of the four wing 30s. I think that these are
correct, though we never carried that many rounds in the
wing guns except on strafing missions. They also say that
the Q model carried 300 rounds for each of the two 50
caliber wing pods and that the pilots thought that this was
a great improvement over the 30s. I'm sure they never
spoke to anyone who ever flew the two birds in combat. It
was a BIG step backwards as far as I was concerned -- cut
down its quick roll rate and slowed the bird down so that
we could never have caught an enemy a/c in a chase. And
though we never flew any strafing missions in the Q, that
I know of, the two wing mounted 50s would have shot their
wad about the same time as the nose mounted synchronized
guns, leaving the bird with an entirely too limited firing
time for many strafing ops. I would have never shot down
my second Me-109 if I had been flying a Q--there would have
had no ammo to fire by the time I encountered him and I
might not have been able to out turn him with those awful
pods hanging out there. There is an interesting comparison
of the P-39 against the ME 109 E and the Spitfire VB,
reportedly conducted by the RAF test unit at Duxford in 41
or 42 where they found that the Airacobra could out turn
and out run the 109 below about 15,000 and could out run
and out dive the Spit at these lower altitudes. Of course,
both the Spit and the 109 could outclimb the 39 and the Spit
could also out turn the Airacobra at these lower altitudes,
as well as all higher altitudes. This is the first
independent verification I have ever seen of what I have
said over the years about our comparative trials at Elmas,
Sardinia between the Me-109 and the P-39. Naturally, I'll
be able to use some of this data when I get back to the
paper, "P-39 Airacobra in Combat".
Rowdy
