Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: gnubee on September 07, 2005, 09:48:28 PM
-
Hey all,
Well I for one would like to see the P-39 enter service here with us in AH. But I'm guessing with the push being on ToD and european theater planes we wont see it all to soon.:(
Or will we? It did afterall serve extensivley in the eastern front with our Soviet Allies... So is there a chance we'll see it before the end of the calendar year? What's the word around the campfire on this one?
:aok
Thanks!
- Dynamite
-
Which One? P-39Q or P-39D. Or better yet BOTH!! The Q was produced in the largest numbers by far, but most went to USSR I bellieve.
-
P-400, the export version.
-
News on the P39? News is it's still in WB. Nobody used it much then and nobody would in AH, either :P
Leave it in the past, we need more pressing gap fillers first, THEN get to the less important planes of the war :)
($0.02 USD)
-
News on the P39? News is it's still in WB. Nobody used it much then and nobody would in AH, either :P
Krusty - You will be the first one I shoot down when we get the AirCobra :aok
Anyway, since this is a wishlist forum, I wish for the P39. I expect that if we do get it they will do a few variants:
P39Q in Russian markings - with the optional field modification of removing the wing guns (Like the Ruskies were known to do)
Early war P39 - (whatever variant that was) for scenarios - other than the few P38s we had at the start of the war, the P39 was the only US fighter faster than the Zeke. The P40 and F4F were both slower than the Zeke. It could be a P400 or US P39 or both.
Next up the Oscar. That was what the Flying Tigers went up against for the most part (it was a Japanese army plane). The US pilots had a habit of calling all Jap planes Zeros. I can imagine that getting saddled up by an Oscar in say a P40B and getting shot down would be like getting pecked to death by ducks with those 2 light MGs that thing had...anyway the Oscar was one of the most numerous and important planes the Japanese had in that war - it just ain't sexy.
Magoo
-
37mm goodness! (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=108692)
-
It's a 37mm gun, sure, but it's also a low-velocity 37mm. Not anything at all like the NS-37 the Russians have.
The M4's ballistics are more comperable to a German Mk-108 or MG-FF.
Now if you can actually hit something with it, it'd still hurt.
-
i heard that the Russians overboosted their P-39s to get more power. is that true?
-
It's a 37mm gun, sure, but it's also a low-velocity 37mm. Not anything at all like the NS-37 the Russians have.
Very true Tails - which is where the P400 would come in. It had the single 20mm Hispano in place of the 37mm. Personally I'd set my convergence out a little and take my chances with the spud gun.
What was the armament on the P39N? 37mm cannon in the nose, 2 x 50 caliber mg in the cowl, 4 x 30 caliber mg in the wings? I know the Q had 50s in the wing...
Magoo
-
i heard that the Russians overboosted their P-39s to get more power. is that true?
Tikky, I read an article by a russian pilot where they trashed quite a few engines by running the Allisons at just full power as rated by the manufacturrer so I don't know about that one...Allisons were famous for the metal in the oil pan.
I'll see if I can find the article.
Magoo
-
Yes, I've posted this one before... But here it is again.
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/blenheim2001/p39001.jpg)
That's a Q15 from the FiAF museum at Tikkakoski (... yes, in Finland).
edited for adding the second pic:
(http://www.vaskuu.cx/albums/ksim/2004_06_05_069.sized.jpg)
-
Looks like her wing guns have been removed Panzzer - nice pic
Magoo
-
I believe the plane has been restored to the exact condition it was found in, so if the wing guns have been removed, they were removed already in Russia.
The gun example below the plane comes from a different P-39, but it is the same model.
I would like to see this plane in AH, since it would add tremendous possibilty for Eastern Front scenarios as it was one of the most numerous Soviet fighters in use.
-
Originally posted by Magoo
Tikky, I read an article by a russian pilot where they trashed quite a few engines by running the Allisons at just full power as rated by the manufacturrer so I don't know about that one...Allisons were famous for the metal in the oil pan.
I'll see if I can find the article.
Magoo
The Allison V-1710 is actually one of the most reliable liquid cooled inline V aircraft engines built.
The bad reputation came from poor fuel and poor maintenance. With good fuel and proper maintenance, they are as reliable as any engine of the type. They are tougher than the Merlin ever dreamed of being. A Merlin never won an unlimited title at Reno until a guy figured out how to put an Allison connecting rod in it.
In all fairness, the Allison V-1710 was not easy to build, nor was it easy to maintain. It was very complex, it was cutting edge for its time, much of the basic design is still used today. Further, it wasn't perfect, even in the final versions.
Also, the installation designs were often troubled, at best, the Lockheed installation in the P-38 being among the most difficult to deal with. An Allison in a lightning can be a nightmare to work on. I know how to work on an Allison, and having been up close and personal with "Glacier Girl" and a couple of others, I can say that PITA is not an adequate term for the maintenance routine.
But honestly, the vast majority of Allison failures in the field were due to horrific maintenance and a lack of training of the pilots for proper operation.
On the other hand, I know several P-38 pilots who pushed the Allison -30 engines in a P-38L to over 70" of MAP and over 3200 RPM, which is more than even Lockheed and Allison rated it for, nevermind the lowered ratings the USAAF specified (they were commonly ignored).
Having built a few Allisons I can say the lower end is tough and well designed. About 95% of all failures are human error induced. Half of the rest were caused by the design of the installation. The overhead cam rollerized valvetrain with 4 valves per cylinder is excellent. We often pushed stock Allison valvetrain to over 4000 RPM, fully 1/3 higher than it was rated for.
-
I'd love to see the P-39 added... but no red star crap for me
-
Thanks for the input Capt. Virgil Hilts. I was hesitant to toss out anecdotal evidence like that and even thought it might be due to the Ruskies lack of experience with the engines, but it served to inspire some good input and possibly confirm Tikky's post about boosting the Allison. Apparently this Russian fighter groups mechanics didn't have a clue.
Magoo
-
Originally posted by tikky
i heard that the Russians overboosted their P-39s to get more power. is that true?
They didnt "overboost" them...they simply ran them at higher boost settings then "recommended". Average lifespan of an engine was 40-50 combat hours if needed. They also stripped out alot of weight. they removed the wing 30 cals and stripped down the plane as far as possible. Basically it was a totally reworked bird by the time they got done.
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/index.htm
All in all the plane did remarkably well. I dont know that any historical data exists that would enable an accurate modeling of the russian performance but it would suprise an awful lot of folks....as a side not Bob Hoover was one of the original "test pilots" for the P-39 (he actually was able to recover it from flat spin) and felt it was an outstanding fighter.
-
P-39 is a fighter:), Alex Porsckin (2nd highest Soviet ace) scored lots german irons in that plane. He continued to use P-38 plane in 1944 while the rest of regiments started using La-7s and Yak-3s!
As was written in the summary of the commander of 153d (28th Guards) IAP regarding the combat work in the Voronezh and West Fronts in July-August 1942, "The Airacobra aircraft is considered by the Germans to be the most dangerous enemy and should be engaged in combat only when they [the Germans] have numerical superiority and the advantage in altitude and surprise.":)
-
I'm going to hold my breath until we get this.... Don't make me whine and throw a tantrum too!
;)
-
I don't know much about the 39/400, except for being able to recognize one. Is the engine situated directly behind the pilot? If so, what's in the nose? Just armament, cooling gear, fuel tanks?
As much as I love the British and German aircraft, I'd like to see this one in the game at some point.
-
I'll copy from the link I posted up there:
Originally posted by Octavius
... after the groundwork has been laid for AHII and the a/c start rolling off Nate and Supah's production line, the aircraft I would LOVE to eventually see is this magnificant beauty:
(http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/fighter/p39/p39_inflruss.jpg)
Bell P39D/N/Q Airacobra
[list=1]Armament: P39D/N - One 37mm hub cannon (T-9), Two .50in MGs in nose; optional underwing (two or four) .30in MGs. P39Q - two optional underwing .50in MGs replaced .30in MGs. All models able to carry one 500lb bomb.
Powerplant - P39D - 1150hp Allison V-1710-35 V12. P39N/Q - 1200hp Allison V-1710-85; three bladed propeller.
Dimensions: Wingspan - 34ft 0in; length 30ft 2in; height 11ft 10in.
Weight: Empty 5645lb; Max - 8300lb
Performance: P-39D - max speed 368mph at 13,800ft; time to 15,000ft - 5.7min; ceiling 32,100ft; range 800 miles.
P-39Q - max speed [/size]385mph at 11,000ft; time to 15,000t 4.5min; ceiling 35,000ft; range 650 miles.
Saw service in: Australia, Britain, France, Italy, Portugal, UK, USA, USSR.[/list][/size][/color]
Why the P39 you ask?
1) The versatility. The P39 was used by almost every Allied airforce. It can be used as a gigantic filler in scenerios:
Eastern front, Mediterranean, over the UK/France, all over the Pacific Theatre, and even in Portugal! The Portuguese will be happy!
The VVS planeset is in dire need of fattening. The addition of this aircraft covers a large mid-war gap. 1942-1943. One 3D model = three variants! P39D/N/Q!!
2) It has a huge gun. Can you say 37mm? Feels good doesn't it? Kinda rolls of the tongue.
3) It's production numbers are up there. Almost 10,000 produced!
4) I love it, and you love it too. If this was added, I would drool uncontrollably. P39 and P40 . These would be my planes and my planes would be these. Wouldn't touch anything else... (well maybe a 109 here and there).
While the P39 has been "deemed a failure" by some, others feel it did not get the credit it deserved. Its overall performance allowed it to provide worthy competition under 15,000ft. This was stolen from another thread and posted by Widewing:
[list=1]All in all, the P-39D easily out-performed the A6M2 in every category but low-speed maneuverability and range. Yet, today you would think the P-39D was an absolute pig. It wasn't. It also proved very formidable against the Luftwaffe at altitudes below 15,000 feet. It's turn rate was very similar to the later P-63A King Cobra, meaning it was far more maneuverable than the P-51, even slightly better than the F6F. Within the American inventory of WW2 fighters, only the F4F/FM series was more agile than the Airacobra. What hurt the P-39 was its single-speed, single-stage supercharger that limited adequate performance to below 15k. Above that, performance fell off sharply as you went up. Both the Japanese and Germans were aware of the P-39's performance woes up high and they used tactics to take advantage of that. However, down on the deck, the Airacobra was a very dangerous foe. Especially the later models with more power and better guns.
For example, the P-39N was rated for 399 mph at 9,700 feet. How does that compare to late war fighters? Pretty good. It's faster than the La-7 (391 mph) at that altitude! Speed on the deck was very good as well. Where the P-39D could pull only 305 mph (and 368 mph at 12k), the P-39N could exceed 339 mph, 348 mph in WEP. Climb rate was good, if not spectacular. The P-39D needed 5.7 minutes to get to 15k, but the P-39N/Q could get there in 3.8 minutes, which is slightly better than the P-51D. Acceleration was also very good. In fact, it was better than the F4U-4, P-47D-30, and markedly better than the F6F-5. Just so you know, the later P-39s were powered by 1,420 hp Allisons, not the 1,100 hp engines fitted to the P-39D. The later models were also about 200 lbs lighter as well.[/i][/list]Links with other info:
Huge PDF with performance charts and stuff (http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/usaaf/P39D_flying.pdf)
A Russian site with Lend Lease aircraft (and kick bellybutton pictures) (http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/romanenko/index.htm) [/B]
-
Bring P-39 (and 63) to Aces High!:aok
Versions i would love to see
P-39D
USAAC plane in the pacific, armored, fully loaded
P-39Q-10
The definitive P-39 lineup. The fastest P-39 used in the USSR. Stripped of armor and wing guns, P-39Q is the most feared aircraft and luftwaffe pilots are told not to engage them on equal terms.
P-400
British version P-39. 37mm cannon is replaced with 20mm Hispano)
P--63
Ouch, Kingcobra! VVS has heavy influence on this project In 1944 Alexander Pokryshkin's regiment gave up La-7s in favor of P-63s:)
so... if we get p-39 for AH US will get the P-39D, P-400 for the british, and P-39Q and P-63 for USSR:)
-
Wasn't the 37mm cannon on the P-39 a 37mm Oldsmobile cannon? If so, it was a POS cannon.
ack-ack
-
Indeed. Pilots complained "you could practically see it fall out of the barrel when you fired the gun!".
What most folks here wishing, pining, and holding their breath (lol), don't realize is that the P39 was and will be a dog, no matter who models it. HTC is no different. These same people modeled the SAME plane in WB, and it blew chunks. Using the same data, what makes you think it would fly any better in AH? In IL2 is sucks like the darkest depths of space. In warbirds it did too. What makes you all cry for an "uber" p39 that.. well.. wasn't?
I'm biased, sure. But all of you are totally biased in the opposite direction. You're disregarding every other reference that said the plane had terrible handling, was slow, sluggish, spun out easily (unstable in flight) and you're portraying it as this super plane.
Well, not to be mean, but the P40 was also produced until the end of the war. Doesn't mean it was a front line plane in most theaters. Just means they needed planes, any planes, even if they were terrible to fly. Heck, the P39 was GIVEN away as fast as it could because it was unsuited for US use. Even the brits discarded it.
The only major user of the P39 was the VVs, and they had totally different cultural values and requirements for a plane. They didn't like the spitfireV of all things.
So like I'm saying, you can't paint a perfect rose-colored image of this plane, there's enough references to sully that image.
And yes vice versa. I just had to play devil's advocate to all the P39 wishers.
Whether we get it, that's another matter. I just felt it wasn't fair or accurate to report the P39 as has been reported.
-
We already know the P-39s sucked in the West BUT yes VVS is another different story. Heh i'd rather see P-39Q-10 for USSR's Military Air Forces (VVS)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The only major user of the P39 was the VVs, and they had totally different cultural values and requirements for a plane. They didn't like the spitfireV of all things.
.
The P-39 served in numbers in the USAAF all the way until the end of the war.
A lot of old AW timers will remember Earl, a WW2 pilot that used to play AW. IIRC, he was very fond of the P-39 he flew in the war in the MTO.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by 1K3
We already know the P-39s sucked in the West BUT yes VVS is another different story. Heh i'd rather see P-39Q-10 for USSR's Military Air Forces (VVS)
P-39s in the west did not suck; it didn't perform as well as its competion at the higher altitudes in the west. They excelled in the eastern front due to the majority of the fights occuring at medium altitudes.
-
Oh please guys! We all now that USAF sold them to Russians because p39 were extremely crappy,Russians bought them because there were relocating factories to the east and had nothing else to fly.
After 1942 p39"s and P40 were given as punishment to squads that didnt "perform" too well.
Life time for p39 and p40 motor (as you know they had same engines) was 250 hrs.
They were lucky to "live" 60-70% of that.
-
Part of the enjoyment of AH is the chance to re-enact parts of history. There are a handfull of planes in teh game (we can argue of which one is the best in which role) that excell over the rest and I am not looking for a new "uber plane". The P-39 is very much an interesting and prevalent part of the history of air combat. I guess that is my reason. I would like to fly it just to see...
-
Originally posted by ATA
Oh please guys! We all now that USAF sold them to Russians because p39 were extremely crappy,Russians bought them because there were relocating factories to the east and had nothing else to fly.
After 1942 p39"s and P40 were given as punishment to squads that didnt "perform" too well.
Life time for p39 and p40 motor (as you know they had same engines) was 250 hrs.
They were lucky to "live" 60-70% of that.
Obviously you dont know the real facts at all. Many of the top russian aces flew the P-39 by preference even after the la-5n, Yak3 etc where in front line service. It was the prefered ride of the VVS guards units throughout 1943 and into early 1944. As originally designed the P-39 would have been the dominant fighter aircraft in the world by a large margin when it originally entered service. However the army altered the design and eliminated the planes high alt capabilities and reconfigured it primarily as a low level dual role fighter/attack plane. It created further problems by artifically limiting the planes power thru power settings well below allisons own recommendations.
The russians significantly lightened the plane and flew the plane at the planes performance limit. Trading off engine life for combat performance. If you take the time to read up on the Kuban bridgehead air campaigns you'll see that the VVS met the luftwaffe on relatively even terms numerically and gutted the three best units the germans had. Basically it was the equivelent of the midway air/sea battle in the pacific in the sense that the luftwaffe was crushed as an offensive entity on the eastern front from that point on.
-
Dont know facts at all,hmmm.
I'll give you some facts.
Brits got rid of them as soon as they could,americans did not want to fly that POS.
It is loosing to any russian fighter in every way.As soon as you empty gun ammo it became unstable,easily fall into flat spin.
How many top russian aces got killed becouse that thing was uncapble
to perform simple barrel roll or land with empty gun.
And i repeat like i said after 1942 p39's and P40's were given as punishment to squads that didnt "perform" too well.
Oooooohhhhh,American fighter...it MUST be good.
I can give you adress of web sites with russ. pilots discribing p39,but it's in russian.
Let me know.
Best regards.
-
Originally posted by ATA
Dont know facts at all,hmmm.
I'll give you some facts.
Brits got rid of them as soon as they could,americans did not want to fly that POS.
It is loosing to any russian fighter in every way.As soon as you empty gun ammo it became unstable,easily fall into flat spin.
How many top russian aces got killed becouse that thing was uncapble
to perform simple barrel roll or land with empty gun.
And i repeat like i said after 1942 p39's and P40's were given as punishment to squads that didnt "perform" too well.
Oooooohhhhh,American fighter...it MUST be good.
I can give you adress of web sites with russ. pilots discribing p39,but it's in russian.
Let me know.
Best regards.
1st,
Most pilots who flew the P-39 loved the plane. The plane itself is relatively stable (all fighters are intrinsically less docile as a matter of design) and forgiving as a fighter. I read a series of 1st hand accounts from a US P39 pilot who was based in Central America (Panama I believe) who recounted how his commander landed the plane deadstick out of a loop ALL the time just for the fun of it. Further Bob Hoover (probably one of the best acrobatic pilots of all time) considered the P-39 to be an exceptional acrobatic performer.
As for your comments on the P-39 in Russia...again you couldnt be farther from the truth. The VVS "guards" units were the elite fighter units in the russian airforce and most of the P-39s went to them. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread the germans feared the P-39 more than any other plane the soviets had (including the la-5n, yak-3 & mig-3) and pilots were instructed to AVOID combat with the P-39 whenever possible.
The did not spin out particularly easily but the configuration made it convert to a flat spin very quickly. As a result pilots were told do abandon recovery attempts after a couple of turns (much like the later F7F) until Bob Hoover developed successful spin recovery procedures for the plane by dropping the landing gear.
-
I mean no disrespect,sorry if i'm wrong...but
My friend i am from Russia,i speak russian,i know better what they say in russian.I dont need to read TRANSLATED books.
I cant give you example or facts in Russian,they will be no help...
But here you go:) acording to V V S testing results they said this
"По скорости, скороподъемности, маневренности она на малых и средних высотах уступала отечественным истребителям. Но и не это являлось главным недостатком американской машины. Из-за того, что мотор стоял в центре тяжести самолета, «Кобра» сильно реагировала на изменение центровки. После израсходования пушечных снарядов центровка резко менялась и истребитель часто срывался в штопор. При запаздывании с выведением из штопора всего на полсекунды Р-39 переходил в еще более опасный плоский штопор. Достаточно было небрежности на глубоком вираже или боевом развороте, и пилот, чуть-чуть сильнее обычного нажавший педаль, тут же попадал в серьезную опасность. Штопор на «Кобре» был к тому же неравномерным — возникало биение ручки управления с большими физическими нагрузками.
В отчете НИИ ВВС об испытании самолета P-39Q-10 (летчик К.И.Овчинников) указываюсь: «К штопору приводит и перетягивание ручки или передача ног на фигурах высшего пилотажа. При смещении центровки назад - тенденция штопора усиливается». Самой опасной являлась ситуация, когда боекомплекта на самолете нет, а маслобак заправлен под горловину. Применительно к ней говорилось: «Выполнять высший пилотаж на самолете весьма трудно... Малейшее перетягивание ручки на себя ведет к быстрому падению скорости и переходу в штопор».
Штопор являлся причиной многочисленных аварий и катастроф в боевых частях. За два месяца 1944 года из-за этого только в 1-й гвардейской авиадивизии произошли две катастрофы и четыре аварии. Кое-где поначалу даже возникла паническая боязнь выполнения на Р-39 фигур высшего пилотажа (об этом, например, рассказывает в своих мемуарах И.М.Дзусов). Причем разбивались не только наскоро обученные пилоты военного времени, но и опытные летчики-испытатели. Только в НИИ ВВС произошли три катастрофы: 2 февраля 1943 года на «Аэрокобре» I погиб К.А.Груздев, 3 января 1944 года на P-39N - К.А.Автономов и 27 апреля того же года на P-39Q-10 - К.И.Овчинников.
Положение было настолько серьезным, что осенью 1943 года в Москву прибыла специальная бригада фирмы «Белл» во главе с Л.Роджерсом, отвечавшим в компании за рекламации.
Из попавшего в штопор Р-39 было нелегко и выпрыгнуть. Прыгали в левую дверь, которая в аварийной ситуации сбрасывалась.
При этом часто человек ударялся о стабилизатор. Последствия этого могли быть и смертельными. Таким образом тяжелые травмы получили Герои Советского Союза Н.М.Искрин (в мае 1943 года) и Б.Б.Глинка (в июле 1944 года). Но даже если нилоту повезло и он выходил из штопора, его подстерегала новая опасность: из-за больших перегрузок у Р-39 деформировалось хвостовое оперение, заклинивало рули. В марте 1944 года после серии аварий и катастроф в 11-м истребительном корпусе провели проверку всех «Кобр». На 15 машинах выявили явные признаки деформации. Большая эффективность рулой могла привести и к тому, что высокие значения перегрузок можно было получить при резком маневрировании. Результат - тот же самый, деформация оперения и хвостовой части фюзеляжа. Вот строки из доклада старшего инженера 273-й дивизии (сентябрь 1944 года): «Выявлены <...> скручивание хвостовой части фюзеляжа на участке радиолюка при резких эволюциях в воздухе. Обнаруживалась деформация обшивки в нижней концевой части фюзеляжа... Был случай, когда в воздухе одна из половин стабилизатора загибалась во внутреннюю сторону».
В СССР осуществили целую программу борьбы с основными дефектами «Аэрокобры». После тщательных испытаний выявили действия летчика, провоцирующие вхождение в штопор. В НИИ ВВС провели учебные сборы инструкторов, в части направили опытных пилотов, демонстрировавших безопасные приемы пилотирования американского истребителя. Сняли даже учебный фильм «Штопор самолета «Аэрокобра». Все это существенно уменьшило аварийность на фронте, хотя полностью от потерь избавить, конечно, не могло.
Распоряжением главного инженера ВВС ввели ограничения на центровку самолета, запретили при перебазировании укладывать в хвостовую часть чехлы и инструмент. Высший пилотаж без боезапаса или равного ему по весу балласта категорически запрещался. Для смещения вперед центровки истребителя иногда практиковали снятие бронезащиты с маслобака. Занялись и усилением хвостовой части Р-39. Выяснилось, что запасы прочности «Кобры» ниже, чем принятые в СССР. В конструкторском бюро Центральной научно-эксплуатационной базы (ЦНЭБ) ВВС инженер М.С.Малков разработал методику подкрепления набора в хвостовой части. Опытный самолет переделали и испытали в НИИ ВВС. Вслед за этим доработку «Аэрокобр» развернули непосредственно в полках. Только в ПВО таким образом переделали 326 самолетов. В различных частях по собственной инициативе вносили в планер истребителя другие усиления. Так, в 273-й дивизии ставили накладки на лонжероны стабилизатора.
Отмечались и другие недостатки «Аэрокобры». Хотя трехколесное шасси обеспечивало прекрасный обзор на рулении и взлете, и в принципе позволяло перемещаться по аэродрому с большой скоростью, не опасаясь капотирования, на неровных грунтовых аэродромах носовая стойка вибрировала и нередко ломалась, что вынуждало ограничивать скорость руления.
Моторы Аллисон У-1710 были те же. что и на Р-40. но увязывались с удлиненным валом, шедшим через весь самолет к винту. Соответственно и проблемы оставались те же. Вот что сообщали из 67-го гвардейского полка в августе 1944 года: «Мотор положенные ему по ресурсу 250 ч. по норме не вырабатывает... За два года эксплуатации не было, чтобы мотор в боевых условиях нарабатывал хотя бы 60-70% от положенного». Вот только «стрельба шатунами» здесь оказывалась гораздо опаснее, поскольку они легко могли перебить проходящие рядом тросы рулей.
Конечно, часть ответственности за это лежала на летном и техническом составе наших ВВС. Проверки в частях показывали, что летчики чрезмерно используют форсаж, не следят за состоянием маслосистемы. Да и не всегда пользовались необходимыми марками масел и бензина. У нас «Кобры» обычно заправляли бензином Б-78, который, конечно, был хуже американского. А в блокированном Ленинграде и Б-78 заменяли самодельной смесью «компот». Известен даже случай, когда в американский истребитель залили Б-70 и он благополучно взлетел!
Кое-какие переделки связывались с опытом эксплуатации зимой: утепление магистралей, установка сливных кранов в маслосистсме и контурах охлаждения. Для работы с этими кранами в нижнем капоте радиатора прорезали небольшие лючки. С наступлением холодов частично заменяли смазку узлов и агрегатов на более морозостойкую советскую. Например, главный подшипник удлиненного вала смазывался зимой маслом НК-30. Пробовали эксплуатировать двигатели на более морозостойких советских антифризах, но это вынуждало переделывать систему охлаждения.
Так же как на «Киттихауках», на Р-39 отмечались случаи разрушения трубок бензосистемы от вибраций, что приводило к возникновению пожара в воздухе. Так при перегонке самолетов под Гудермесом погиб Герой Советского Союза Н.Е.Лавицкий. В связи с этим американские дюралевые трубки у нас иногда заменялись отожженными медными.
На Северном флоте и на Балтике пробовали установить на «Кобры» убирающееся лыжное шасси. Но это новшество не прижилось - Р-39 продолжали круглый год летать на колесах.
Для ускорения процесса переучивания летчиков создали учебный самолет со второй кабиной впереди основной, очень похожий на американский ТР-39. Их по чертежам ЦНЭБ ВВС делали в разных частях и соединениях. В.П.Воронов, летавший на такой машине уже после войны в 6-м гвардейском полку, писал: «Свою задачу «гибрид» выполнял, но в передней кабине было очень неуютно: винт вращался сантиметрах в сорока перед глазами. А если, в случае непредвиденного, придется покидать самолет с парашютом, то уж попадешь на винт непременно». За исключением усиления хвостовой части, «Кобры» у нас не подвергались сколько нибудь серьезным существенным конструктивным изменениям. Можно только упомянуть о переделке нескольких десятков Р-39 под моторы М-105П из-за нехватки запасных двигателей «Аллисон». Некоторые мелкие изменения вносились непосредственно в частях. Например. Покрышкину переделали ручку управления, совместив гашетки пушки и пулеметов.
В 1-й перегоночной дивизии на один Р-39 установили советский радиополукомпас РПК-10 и использовали эту машину как лидер при перегонке групп одномоторных самолетов. Радиополукомпасы на некоторых «Кобрах» ставились и в США. Такие машины тоже поступали в нашу страну, но, видимо, в очень небольшом количестве, так как их не хватало даже в частях ПВО. "
Theres a lot more where it came from:)
In short, Heroes(aces) of USSR say that p39 is a complete POS.
-
Originally posted by ATA
Oh please guys! We all now that USAF sold them to Russians because p39 were extremely crappy,Russians bought them because there were relocating factories to the east and had nothing else to fly.
After 1942 p39"s and P40 were given as punishment to squads that didnt "perform" too well.
Life time for p39 and p40 motor (as you know they had same engines) was 250 hrs.
They were lucky to "live" 60-70% of that.
Hmmm...and yet 2nd to the P-38, the P-40 was flown by USAAF aces in the PTO than the P-47 and P-51....strange for such a crappy plane.
ack-ack
-
ATA....
I have no clue what resources your looking at but a tremendous amount of information has been translated already. Historically the facts are well documented.....regardless of what your "sources" say. You may be reading sources you consider to be valid that are really post war spin....it was tough for some elements of the soviet leadership to accept that a US cast off" was in fact the dominant fighter on the eastern front for much of the war. The same politics is what prevented the kingcobra from any real front line deployment.
Here are some information direct from russian sources...
"V. E. Golofastov conducted the flight testing. The Airacobra I underwent flight tests in April 1942 with some success. It developed a speed of 493 km/h at sea level and a maximum speed of 585 km/h at 4,200 meters. It reached 5,000 meters altitude in 6.5 minutes. The technical data and performance were on a level with serially produced Soviet and enemy fighters. The maneuver, takeoff-landing, and armament performance characteristics of the aircraft were considered positives. The following conclusion was made as a result of this testing: The Airacobra aircraft was simple in techniques of piloting and could be flown by pilots of average qualifications; it could be successfully employed for the conduct of aerial combat with all types of enemy aircraft, and also for the conduct of attacks at ground targets. The Airacobra received its "air worthiness certificate" in the Soviet VVS."
One who has carefully read the material above regarding the Airacobra might logically ask the question, why was this same model of the airplane so bad for British employment and so good for Soviet employment? What can explain this contradiction?
"There were several reasons. We will dwell on the most important: First, we received already "reworked" aircraft that lacked the initial deficiencies. Second, our specialists tested the Airacobra for the specific altitude envelope of the Soviet-German front, which corresponded well with the best flying performance characteristics of the aircraft. Third, the aircraft actually were not bad. And fourth, the brief test period did not permit sufficient testing to expose the basic weaknesses of design and construction that were later revealed in the process of mass exploitation. The flat spin, the engine throwing connecting rods, and other manifestations were yet to be discovered."
"22d ZAP trained air regiments on the Airacobra I for approximately a year, from April 1942 until March 1943. During this time two fighter regiments (153 and 185 IAP) were re-constituted and sent back to the front, the 153d two times, along with a number of individual crews (56 during 1942 and 67 in 1943). One regiment, 30th Guards (GIAP) was also trained on the Airacobra I, but later gave them up and was sent to the front on 13 March 1943 on later model Cobras"
"The myth regarding the employment of the Airacobra in the Soviet VVS almost exclusively as a "shturmovik" [ground-attack aircraft] is widespread in Western literature (W. Green, P. Bowers, E. McDowwell). This myth arose out of an insufficiency of information: both Soviet official and memoir sources were carefully screened by Glavlit [political censorship overseeing publication of all printed material in the USSR] and stood on the "only believable" conceptual positions, and almost until the 1970s attempted to conceal any information about Kittyhawks, Cobras, and Hurricanes, as though they almost never existed. This phenomenon was very astutely expressed by Larry Bell as far back as 1944 when in a conversation with Soviet test pilots he said, "I have sent you three thousand airplanes and I could just as well have thrown them into Lake Ontario! I know nothing about them, how they are fighting, and if your men are satisfied with them!"
"153d (28th Guards) IAP
The 153d IAP, at full strength, was formed on the basis of TOE 015/284 (2 squadrons, 20 aircraft and 23 pilots), under the command of Hero of the Soviet Union Major S. I. Mironov, arrived at Voronezh airfield on 29 June 1942. It began combat operations without any delay, on 30 June 1942. Later the regiment was relocated to Lipetsk airfield, from which it operated until 25 September 1942. In 59 flying days on the Voronezh Front the regiment conducted 1,070 combat sorties with 1162 hours of flight time; fought 259 aerial engagements, of which 45 were of a group nature; shot down 64 enemy aircraft, of which 18 were bombers (15 Ju-88, 1 Do-217, 1 He-111, and 1 FW-198), 45 fighters (39 Bf-109F, 1 Bf-110, 1 Me-210, 4 MS-200), and 1 aerial observation aircraft. Losses during these three months of combat were 3 pilots and 8 aircraft. "These relatively insignificant losses are explained in the first place by the experience of the pilots and the good flight performance characteristics of the Airacobra aircraft." Regiment commander Lieutenant Colonel Mironov, HSU (TsAMO, collection 28 Guards IAP, index 143456, file 1) [TsAMO - central archive of the Defense Ministry].
The cited document gives a an adequate representation of the fact whom did the Soviet Cobras contest successfully. For outstanding combat effort on the Voronezh Front, the 153d IAP was recommended for the "guards" designation."
These are just a few snipets from what appears to be a fairly comprehensive history of the P-39 in action.....link is posted in thread above....
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Hmmm...and yet 2nd to the P-38, the P-40 was flown by USAAF aces in the PTO than the P-47 and P-51....strange for such a crappy plane.
ack-ack
Imagine what they would've done with la5fn-7?
Erich Hartmann would look like newbe
-
Right Humble,again..
You questioning my "resources" and I'm questioning yours.
At least I'm trying to be nice..
My "resources"do not need to be translated ,yours do.
I speak English,Russian,Armenian,German(well a little).
I can compare facts from Russia,America,Germany...
You can not do crap,you dont even have any idea what i posted in Russian,i dont have time to translate that in two mounth 6 pilots died in accidents due to crappy design of p39,that there was a panick fear of flying p39 in 42-45.
Again,stick to your "opinion"
The only good fighter on eastern front was P51.Well....they have been shot down by LA-7.
-
LOL 6 in 2 months for WW2 era was pretty good... A LOT of really good pilots including Americas leading ace, Major Bong died in a testing accident. You had a better shot surviving being a test pilot than you had surviving one of Stalins purges! LMAO
-
I would also like to see the P39/P400 added to the AH stable. Some of us like to fly disavantaged aircraft:)
Allied pilots in the PTO had a saying about the P400. Its a P39 with a Zero on its tail.
From what I have read, it suffered because it carried no turbo-charger so any combat above 15k was trouble but it vas a sweet ride at medium to low alts.
As for the USSR buying them thats not true. The US gave them away. And I have never seen the story about the Luftwaffe telling its pilots to avoid combat with them. The Luftwaffe did issue a directive to its pilots on the eastern front "to avoid combat below 5000m with Yakovlev fighters lacking an oil cooler under the nose", the Yak-3, according to Bill Gunstons "Fighting Aircraft of WW2" Maybe thats what your thinking of.
-
Originally posted by ATA
Right Humble,again..
You questioning my "resources" and I'm questioning yours.
At least I'm trying to be nice..
My "resources"do not need to be translated ,yours do.
I speak English,Russian,Armenian,German(well a little).
I can compare facts from Russia,America,Germany...
You can not do crap,you dont even have any idea what i posted in Russian,i dont have time to translate that in two mounth 6 pilots died in accidents due to crappy design of p39,that there was a panick fear of flying p39 in 42-45.
Again,stick to your "opinion"
The only good fighter on eastern front was P51.Well....they have been shot down by LA-7.
Obviously you have no actual flight time and little understanding of any form of complex single....let alone a piston engine fighter. The 109 was much much worse than the P-39 and so was F4U to name just two. I read a memoir from a british pilot who was transitioning from the spitfire to the 1st RAF mustang squad. He had 5 pilots in his training class....they had no two seat trainers....to make a long story short 2 of the 5 died during the initial training flight. I read a similiar memior from a P-38 driver (Italy/North Africa) in recalling his training in the 38 he mentioned that the pilot right in front of him taking off on 1st training flight crashed and burned on take off and he had to fly right thru the smoke over the burning wreckage (and pilot).
As was graphically expressed in the words of I. G. Rabkin, the Airacobra at the institute was never far from view. Highly qualified specialists of the NII VVS pored over it through the course of an entire year: pilots V. E. Golofastov, K. A. Gruzdev, Yu. A. Antipov, A. G. Kochetkov, engineers P. S. Onoprienko, V. I. Usatov, P. S. Ivanov, and V. Ya. Klimov. After the defects in the engine, the most serious "illness" of the Cobra was its tendency to enter into a flat spin. The correct diagnosis of this "illness" was not discovered immediately. It took several months of testing, during which one of the best pilots of the NII, Major K. A. Gruzdev, died. This experienced test pilot, from a front-line unit (former commander of 402d and 416th IAPs, 17 kills), took off in AH628 on 2 February 1943. He spun the aircraft for about an hour in the sky above the town Koltsov, near Sverdlovsk, where the institute had been evacuated. After this the aircraft went into a dive and exploded on impact with the ground.
In addition to the VVS of the Red Army, Airacobra Is were actively employed in the air forces of the VMF (navy), albeit exclusively in the VVS of Northern Fleet [10]. Here in two fighter regiments (2d Guards Mixed and 78th Fighter Regiments) of 6th Fighter Brigade was a broad assortment of aircraft equipment from the Soviet-produced I-16 to imported Hurricanes and Kittyhawks. The reason was simple: these regiments were responsible for air cover of Allied convoys and the destination port Murmansk. Therefore aircraft unloaded there were made available to these units first (by the timeless principle, "that which you guard you shall have"). And if one speaks seriously, this was indeed very dangerous duty. A pilot who was shot down over these northern waters faced almost certain death. The war did not show mercy even to such an ace as Twice Hero of the Soviet Union B. F. Safonov, who went down in the sea near convoy PQ-16 [flying a P-40 that day-JG].
It doesnt take mauch in this day and age to find decent translated resources....It was namely his comrades in the 2d Guards Mixed Air Regiment, which by order of the People's Commissar of the Navy was named after their commander B. F. Safonov, who first received the Airacobra I in the spring of 1942: squadron commanders Captains A. A. Kovalenko and A. N. Kukharenko, and pilots Lieutenants N. A. Bokiy, Z. A. Sorokin, and P. D. Klimov. Just one fact serves as sufficient description of their successes in the Cobra: by the middle of 1943, all of them (except Z. A. Sorokin and A.N. Kukharenko) had received the rank Hero of the Soviet Union, which was awarded for not less than 10 personally destroyed enemy aircraft. (Sorokin received this distinction on 19 August 1944.)
-
Some of the Russian units did really well in those P-39's. P-39's were regularly seen over the Gulf of Finland in summer 1944 - they weren't probably flown by Guard regiments then - they had transferred to Yak9's already, but neither were they given to squads "not performing too well" (as stated by ATA). Since the fights stayed low (under 3km most of the time), the P39 fared rather well. And some of the top Russian aces scored most of their victories in one (Alexander Pokryshkin as an example).
Yes, I'd like to see the P-39 in AH. :)
-
Let's see how the top Soviet Aces did in the P-39:
Several of the Red Air Force's ranking aces flew the P-39 for a major portion of their combat sorties.
The top ace in the P-39 and number four overall was Guards Major Gregoriy Rechkalov, who shot down 50 of his total 56 kills while flying a P-39.
Guards Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who finished the war as the number two Soviet ace with 59 individual and 6 shared kills, reportedly flew the P-39 for 48 of his kills.
Another high scorer in the P-39 was Guards Major Dmitriy Glinka, who destroyed 20 German aircraft in 40 aerial engagements in the summer of 1943, and finished the war with an even 50 kills, 41 of them while flying the P-39.
Third-ranked Soviet ace Guards Major Nikolay Gulaev. Among these top Soviet Airacobra aces, the most "efficient" has to be Nikolay Gulaev. He flew his first P-39 combat mission on 9 August 1943 and his last mission on 14 August 1944. In 12 months and five days he shot down 41 German aircraft while flying the P-39. No other Soviet pilot scored so effectively. By the way, Gulaev was the number 3 Soviet ace with 57 individual and 3 shared kills by war's end. He went on to command high-level Soviet Air Force units, his last being the 10th Air Army headquartered in Archangelsk.
Sounds like the top Soviet Aces did pretty well in it.
-
Thanks MOSQ.....
My understanding is that many of the top soviet aces continued to fly the P-39 long after "better" planes had been introduced. It became a bit of a political issue since the concept that a 2nd rate lend lease castoff was better then any soviet plane was obviously disturbing.
The reality is that the P-39 was an outstanding bird whose performance was horribly nuetered by changes forced on the design team after the fact by the US Army. Since the engine was stripped of its high alt capabilities it was always limited at higher alts....but once the russians cleaned it up it was the equal of anything it faced at lower combat alts. Even in 1944....
-
I think I've seen this info quoted in other P39 threads, but it bears repeating for this particular thread. Here is a copy and paste from Joe Baugher's website:
The AFDU also did some comparative dog-fighting tests with the Airacobra against a Spitfire VB and a captured Messerschmitt BF 109E. The Airacobra and the Bf 109E carried out mock dog-fighting at 6000 feet and 15,000 feet. The Bf 109E had a height advantage of 1000 feet in each case. The Bf 109, using the normal German fighter tactics of diving and zooming, could usually only get in a fleeting shot. The Bf 109 could not compete with the Airacobra in a turn, and if the Bf 109 were behind the Airacobra at the start, the latter could usually shake him off and get in a burst before two complete turns were completed. If the Bf 109 were to dive on the Airacobra from above and continue the dive down to ground level after a short burst of fire, it was found that the Airacobra could follow and catch up to the Bf 109 after a dive of over 4000 feet. When fighting the Bf 109E below 20,000 feet, the Airacobra was superior on the same level and in a dive.
A similar trial was carried out against a Spitfire V. Although the Airacobra was faster than the Spitfire up to 15,000 feet, it was outclimbed and out-turned by the Spitfire. Unless it had a height advantage, the Airacobra could not compete with the Spitfire. If on the same level or below, at heights up to about 15,000 feet, the Airacobra would have to rely on its superior level and diving speeds and its ability to take negative "G" without the engine cutting out. Above 15,000 feet, the Airacobra lost its advantage in level speed.
The Airacobra was considered to be very suitable for low altitude operations because of the excellent view and controllability, and it was fully maneuverable at speeds above 160 mph. It was not difficult to fly at night, but the exhaust flames could be seen by another aircraft flying three miles to the rear. The flash from the nose guns was blinding, and could cause the pilot to lose not only his target but also his night vision. Firing of the nose guns caused the buildup of carbon monoxide contamination in the cockpit, and this could reach a lethal level very quickly. The guns were fairly inaccessible, and maintenance was troublesome.
By the end of September, No. 601 Squadron had received permission to take its Airacobras into action. On October 9, two Airacobras took off from RAF Manston and flew across the Channel on a "rhubarb"--a code name for a small-scale raid by fighters against targets of opportunity. On this raid, they shot up an enemy trawler near Gravelines. The next day two Airacobras visited the same area, but found no targets. On October 11, two aircraft flew to Gravelines and Calais and hit some enemy barges and then three Airacobras flew to Ostend, but no targets were found.
After these four missions, the RAF Airacobras were taken off operations because of difficulties encountered with the compass. The compass was too close to the guns in the nose, and when the guns were fired, the compass got thrown out of alignment. Deviations of anything from 7 degrees to 165 degrees were recorded. Without a reliable compass, pilots tend to get themselves lost. In December of 1941, the Airacobra was officially withdrawn from operational service with the RAF.
In spite of the problems with the compass and the need for flame dampers for the exhaust and flash suppressors for the nose guns, the RAF concluded that the Airacobra would make an excellent day fighter at altitudes below 20,000 feet and was well suited for the ground-attack role. However, before these plans could be implemented, a decision was made to divert the bulk of the British Airacobra contract to Russia.
-
Okay, humble, don't start this again:
"The 109 was much much worse than the P-39 and so was F4U to name just two"
This from the guy that claims the 109 was the WORST fighter ever to be made, and was totally useless in 1941, let alone all the years later. and blah blah blah. Just, .... choose your words carefully. I myself need to work on the same thing.
-
"A similar trial was carried out against a Spitfire V. Although the Airacobra was faster than the Spitfire up to 15,000 feet, it was outclimbed and out-turned by the Spitfire. Unless it had a height advantage, the Airacobra could not compete with the Spitfire. If on the same level or below, at heights up to about 15,000 feet, the Airacobra would have to rely on its superior level and diving speeds and its ability to take negative "G" without the engine cutting out. Above 15,000 feet, the Airacobra lost its advantage in level speed."
Um... something's not right with your source. Spit V didn't have a bubble float carb. That was the Spit I/II. And those would be somewhat inferior to the V in performance (a lot more in my opinion).
-
Good catch Krusty.
Joe gives his sources at the bottom of the page where I got this info, but it doesn't specify which particular source this comparison comes from.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_5.html
Of course the inability to get the model spitfire correct casts doubt on the entire article. You could however attribute it to the failing memory of an old fighter pilot telling the story if you were inclined to believe it.
Magoo
-
Here is some interesting reading:
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm
-
VERY nice read! :aok
Exactly like he said, it's the pilot, not the plane. Too bad I feel that AH is the other way around (lol)
-
I don't know much about the 39/400, except for being able to recognize one. Is the engine situated directly behind the pilot? If so, what's in the nose? Just armament, cooling gear, fuel tanks?
Nose wheel (landing gear), propeller driveshaft, and a BFG AKA "Big F***ing Gun"
Actually a 37MM "potato gun" or cannon with unremarkable ballistics, not nearly as good as the 37MM in the Yak9T we have in the game now. Of course once the Cannon rounds are expended in a P39 you would still have four or two Heavy machine guns and possibly four 30 caliber machine guns (depending on the variant) to fight with whereas in the Yak9T you only have a single 12.7mm (I believe).
The P400 was the British version of the P39 and was equpped with a single Hispano 20MM in place of the 37MM cannon that was in the american and russian export versions, in addition to four 50 caliber Heavy machine guns - two in the nose and two under (not in) the wings. Keep in mind the P400 was an early variant and even though you get a Hispano in the nose, the performance would not be nearly as good as say a P39Q-10.
The P39 was supposed to be able to absorb quite a bit of battle damage. I wonder how it would compare in game to the F6F or Jug? Does anybody have some info regarding this aspect of the Aircobra?
Magoo
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Okay, humble, don't start this again:
"The 109 was much much worse than the P-39 and so was F4U to name just two"
This from the guy that claims the 109 was the WORST fighter ever to be made, and was totally useless in 1941, let alone all the years later. and blah blah blah. Just, .... choose your words carefully. I myself need to work on the same thing.
1st that quote is a bit out of context, it was specifically referring to the planes handling both in the air and on the ground. Both planes were quite capable of killing an inexperienced, distracted or panicked pilot. As an example once the 109 was on final power settings were severely restricted since the plane got very heavy on one wing and significant rudder was required....if the pilot started to lose the plane power input greatly increased the problem and often flipped the plane on its back....as for the hog....well they didnt call it the ensign eliminator for nothing. The 38 story simply illustrates that even a twin with counter rotating props can kill you if you goof.....
As for the 109 vs P-39 its well documented that the germans ordered luftwaffe pilots to NOT engage the P-39 when ever possible.
As for the 109, it was clearly the best design in the world when it was indroduced in the mid 1930's. I feel the !09F4 was the high water point for the plane with later versions getting worse and worse. Further the shortcomings exposed in BoB and elsewhere were never corrected and continued development of the 109 cost the germans dearly by eliminating planes with greater potential....
-
Originally posted by ATA
Right Humble,again..
You questioning my "resources" and I'm questioning yours.
At least I'm trying to be nice..
My "resources"do not need to be translated ,yours do.
I speak English,Russian,Armenian,German(well a little).
I can compare facts from Russia,America,Germany...
You can not do crap,you dont even have any idea what i posted in Russian,i dont have time to translate that in two mounth 6 pilots died in accidents due to crappy design of p39,that there was a panick fear of flying p39 in 42-45.
Again,stick to your "opinion"
The only good fighter on eastern front was P51.Well....they have been shot down by LA-7.
1st I never said the La-7 wasnt a good plane or that the pony was better than the la-7....although it was significantly better as a tactical asset. The la-7 couldnt perform the p-51's typical mission but the pony was competitive (not better) to the la-7 in the la-7's primary role.
"your" resources are gibberish, not even documented as to what where and by whom. Further the info i'm using IS russian and it seems to reflect the real facts as commonly known....as for your 6 dead pilots....thats about 1 bad day at pensecola in 1942.
If you look at the comments I believe were posted elsewhere above one pilot who flew the laag-3 p-40 p-39 and la-5 clearly staed that russian pilots preferred the P-39 due to its ruggedness and felt they had a good chance to walk away from a ditch....where in the la-5 pilot fatality or serious injury was the norm.
Obviously you have a biased position for some reason.....
-
Back to the original question on engine power and settings....from the link above....
Now regarding power settings. In principle the RPMs were regulated by a conventional throttle. In the Cobras there were two regimes of throttle operation, “normal” and “war emergency”, which was characterized by increased manifold pressure. The throttle quadrant was mounted in the [left side of the] cockpit and the pilot controlled it. The “war emergency” regime had a lever position that we called “51 inches and 57 inches of boost”. If we were flying on Soviet B-95 fuel, then “war emergency power” was set at 51 inches. If we were using American B-100 fuel, then “war emergency power” was set at 57inches. Although it was mounted in the cockpit, on the throttle quadrant, the pilot did not adjust this setting. The position of the “war emergency power” selector was controlled by a piece of wire that could be broken easily with greater forward pressure on the throttle quadrant.
One time I sensed a lack of power (I needed to get ahead of a German) and I thought, “The hell with it”! I broke the wire and selected “57”. Then I experienced what “57” meant! My airplane leapt forward! The Germans spotted me from above and dove immediately, which was what we wanted.
and........
"These first Allisons did not deliver even one-half of the recommended engine hours. 50 hours was its limit, and frequently less. Normally 10—15 sorties if they were in combat. They seized, the bearings melted; this happened to me once. I sat out for a while with no engine. They monitored these engines closely. As soon as any metal showed up in the oil, they changed out the engine. The supply of replacement engines was plentiful, but it was not always possible to get delivery of them. Sometimes they brought them in on an Li-2 [Soviet-built C-47], four in a load, such was the demand for new power plants. But just the same, despite our best efforts, there were seizures. True, this engine did not “throw” connecting rods, at least this never happened to us. On type-5 and later models the engines were more powerful and reliable"
Bottom line is they stripped the bird down and ran the engine to its full potential as needed....
-
I remember hearing about broken u-joints causing pilots to be bludgeoned to death with their own drive shafts...
-
Here is some more excellent reading on the P39. First the link to the main webpage which covers lend-lease in general:
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/index.htm
Here is the P39 specific link from this site that is another excellent read:
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/index.htm
And a relevent quote from this article/interview on the P39:
Returning to the Airacobra, it must be noted that the British somewhat underrated it. Soviet pilots preferred the Cobra despite its many shortcomings to any other aircraft received from the Allies, including the Spitifire VB, which the British deigned to give us only in 1943.
The reasons for this will be examined below, but one of them can be noted right here and now: The Airacobra almost ideally corresponded to the nature of combat activities on the Soviet-German front. Here the struggle was not for absolute air superiority, but for superiority over specific areas of active combat activities. Dive bombers and close support aircraft, that is, aircraft directly supporting ground forces, operating at low altitude over the battlefield or at medium altitudes in the operational-tactical airspace, were the basis of both the Luftwaffe and the VVS Red Army. Correspondingly, the fighters had either to counter the enemy's fighters, or accompany one's own bombers at those same altitudes. Air battles rarely occurred at altitudes above 5,000 meters. In these working environments the Airacobra just had the best flight characteristics. If one adds to this good maneuverability, easy handling, powerful armaments, and excellent vision, then its success on the Soviet-German front becomes obvious.
And another quote from the same article:
One who has carefully read the material above regarding the Airacobra might logically ask the question, why was this same model of the airplane so bad for British employment and so good for Soviet employment? What can explain this contradiction?
There were several reasons. We will dwell on the most important: First, we received already "reworked" aircraft that lacked the initial deficiencies. Second, our specialists tested the Airacobra for the specific altitude envelope of the Soviet-German front, which corresponded well with the best flying performance characteristics of the aircraft. Third, the aircraft actually were not bad. And fourth, the brief test period did not permit sufficient testing to expose the basic weaknesses of design and construction that were later revealed in the process of mass exploitation. The flat spin, the engine throwing connecting rods, and other manifestations were yet to be discovered.
And a very interesting observation here:
The myth regarding the employment of the Airacobra in the Soviet VVS almost exclusively as a "shturmovik" [ground-attack aircraft] is widespread in Western literature (W. Green, P. Bowers, E. McDowwell). This myth arose out of an insufficiency of information: both Soviet official and memoir sources were carefully screened by Glavlit [political censorship overseeing publication of all printed material in the USSR] and stood on the "only believable" conceptual positions, and almost until the 1970s attempted to conceal any information about Kittyhawks, Cobras, and Hurricanes, as though they almost never existed. This phenomenon was very astutely expressed by Larry Bell as far back as 1944 when in a conversation with Soviet test pilots he said, "I have sent you three thousand airplanes and I could just as well have thrown them into Lake Ontario! I know nothing about them, how they are fighting, and if your men are satisfied with them!"
With the release in the late 1960s of A. I. Pokryshkin's "The skies of war", one of the starkest books about pilots in war, translated into many foreign languages, the situation regarding the Airacobras was somewhat clarified. However (nature abhors a vacuum), now Western authors have taken up "class positions". From the description of hundreds of aerial combats they have selected only a small period and have advanced a new myth: the "Russians", it seems, successfully employed the Airacobra only against slow-moving transports and aging bombers. This was an introduction to the tale and the tale is forthcoming.
There are some great pictures and insights at this website, well worth the time it takes to read it all.:aok
Magoo
-
Originally posted by ATA
Oh please guys! We all now that USAF sold them to Russians because p39 were extremely crappy,Russians bought them because there were relocating factories to the east and had nothing else to fly.
After 1942 p39"s and P40 were given as punishment to squads that didnt "perform" too well.
Life time for p39 and p40 motor (as you know they had same engines) was 250 hrs.
They were lucky to "live" 60-70% of that.
The following picture is a P-39Q which is in FLYABLE condition at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/DSCF00292.gif)
ATA, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Karaya
-
Masherbrun, if we believe what is written in the articles I link to above then ATA has fallen prey to the Soviet propoganda machine described in one of those articles. I refuse to put all my faith in one source, even those I linked to, but one thing is clear - Russia took delivery of over four thousand P39s and there were over nine thousand produced (all variants). Crappy planes don't get produced in these numbers. That goes for the P40 also. They may have become outclassed by the end of the war, but WWII didn't just take place between 1944-45. For their time (early and even mid war) the P40 and P39 were good airplanes and in the roles they were suited for excellent airplanes.
In Aces High the fights are down low for the most part, or they end up down low. I think the P39 will find a niche in the game due to it's matching performance envelope and be well worth the time it takes to add it.
Magoo
-
I think the most telling fact we can look at is the actual behavior of the top soviet pilots who actually flew the P-39 (and the elite units they flew in). My understanding is that many flew the P-39 until well into 1944 (and some till the end of the war).
I'd venture that these pilots had their choice of aircraft and the fact that they continued to fly the P-39 even after the Yak3, 7, & 9 /Mig-3/La5n were readily available simply indicates that they felt the P-39 was the plane most likely to get the job done and get them home alive.
I think the biggest issue is how do you model the russian variation of the plane given the differing philosphy regarding weight and engine settings. Do the "real" soviet numbers even exist anywhere....the quotes from pilots in the links above suggest that the soviets "fudged" their own official numbers down a bit with regard to these planes.
-
Humble,
In some of my reading at Joe Baugher's site I discovered that there were some variants that were shipped to Russia in which they removed the wing guns as a standard configuration for that particular model. This is one of the major weight saving "field modifications" that the Russians performed. Then the question becomes 'do we have data on hand for that particular variant"? Another issue here is that this was a late war P39Q I believe and not the P39D or P400 which was the more abundant lend-lease P39.
I think HTC could take an educated guess on the wing gun mod and the difference in roll rate, manueverability, and speed that would give you.
As far as the engines settings, I think they actually ran them at the same settings as the US pilots but due to the poor 'oil culture' in the Russian maintenance method the Allisons 'made metal' in the pan. Once they got up to speed on the maintenance they were OK. I think we'd be fine with the American data on the engine performance.
As you stated, this bird would get them home alive, which is an endearing quality for a warplane to have:D This is one of the reasons I fly the P47 and F6F in the crowded MA, with all those guys shooting at you it's imperative that your plane can absorb a little punishment to allow you to have a round trip.:aok
Magoo
-
my only question would be on "boost"...I put up an earlier quote where pilot stated that the boost limiter was wired at 51 pds and he broke it and went to 57 pds. Now the truth is that all US planes had this option (obviously with different #'s). The throttle stop was a piece of wire. I've read stories about 51 and 47 pilots who "broke the tape" when needed...also others who never did and remember one double ace who said he never even used WEP once....his reasoning being that A) he didnt need it...and B) if you didnt get home it didnt matter. He was more worried about dinging his engine than he was about the germans....
So if the russian culture gave them alot more discretion with regard to overstressing the engine.....remember on the early ones they were only getting 8 to 10 sorties and less than 50 total hours per engine....does that mean you have higher boost or do you model engine failure probabilities (something not done in AH).
From what I've read the russians had alot of leeway on losing a bird or wrecking an engine in combat....but could get hauled off and shot for coming home without having pushed the edge. Somewhere in the links above is a story regarding the commander of a fighter unit who failed to protect there assigned bombers...the guy landed the plane and blew his brains out at the end of the runway instead of waiting for the inevitable "tribunal"....
Regardless of the specifics I think it will suprise alot of folks....at lower alts its a tougher bird overall than the F6F....(Q model)
-
Originally posted by ATA
Oh please guys! We all now that USAF sold them to Russians because p39 were extremely crappy,Russians bought them because there were relocating factories to the east and had nothing else to fly.
After 1942 p39"s and P40 were given as punishment to squads that didnt "perform" too well.
Life time for p39 and p40 motor (as you know they had same engines) was 250 hrs.
They were lucky to "live" 60-70% of that.
Where the heck did you read that? 350th FG in the MTO had 39s until August 44. They did their job fine. THey didn't get them as punishment.
The key here, again is the AH environment. THe wartime P39 suffered because it was not a high alt fighter. When employed down low it did just fine. Read "Nanette" or "Angels Twenty" by Edwards Park about his P39 flying in the Pacific in 43. They loved how the 39 performed down low 'in it's element".
The AH airwar is a tac airwar, down low, right where the 39 could do the job.
Our old Airwarrior buddy Earl Miller next to a P39 on Corsica 1944, and in flight in his 39 on one of his 200 combat missions in the MTO.
DFC and Silver Star, finishing up in Jugs which the 350th converted to in late August-early September 44. Only Medal of Honer to a Jug pilot in the ETO went to a 350th pilot. Hardly a unit getting punished.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/Corsica441.jpg)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/Earlinflight.jpg)
-
I'd think 1 of the main reasons to add this plane is that it fills 2 plane sets.
Thats my 2 cents.
Bronk
-
ATA.... Please tell me you not that Git I ran into in the MA Mouthing off about the LA7 being better than the P51...
I say Mouthing cause he said that this was true based upon one dogfight between two p51's and an LA7... some half arsed story about a russian pilot who got jummped by two american pilots (friendly fire incident) and beat them in his LA-7..... Sounded a little like Pony Envy To Me....
Later
-
Originally posted by mussie
ATA.... Please tell me you not that Git I ran into in the MA Mouthing off about the LA7 being better than the P51...
I say Mouthing cause he said that this was true based upon one dogfight between two p51's and an LA7... some half arsed story about a russian pilot who got jummped by two american pilots (friendly fire incident) and beat them in his LA-7..... Sounded a little like Pony Envy To Me....
Later
That particular story is true, but the russian pilot was a top ace and the americans were very inexperienced. Down low the La-7 is a match for just about anything (except a P-39 of course:aok ). The issue with the La-7 vs P-51 is similiar to the P-51 vs luftwaffe iron one. The La-7 simply doesnt have the range versitility or high altitude capability. So even though the la-7 can certainly hold its own or even slightly outperform the pony down low it cant even perform the ponies primary task at all. Had the Americans and Russians fought the la-7 would have faired no better vs the pony then the 109/190's did....
-
Sorry to bring up an old post here but I just wanted to clear this up a bit.
My comment about the LA vs the 51 was not about the capabilities of either plane.
It was about this "individual" in the MA who ranted on about the LA7 being far superior to the 51 (I dont care for either BTW)
After a few minutes of trying to wade through his crap I finally found that he based this statment (a statment he made over and over again) on one incident (the one I mentioned)
Later
-
Quick point of order as the thread's already been revived (not a bad idea, tho, I'd LOVE to see the 39, although I wouldn't be pulled away from my Corsair):
The Americans ALSO made use of the P-400. The USAAF squadron on Guadalcanal (67th Pursuit Squadron?) was equipped with that variant.
-
Oh, let it die, with all the other "I want a P39" threads! We know it's been requested, leave it at that.
-
Krusty said:
News on the P39? News is it's still in WB. Nobody used it much then and nobody would in AH, either :P
The P-39 in WB (at least HT's WB) was a porked uberplane. Its cruising speed in that game was over 300 IAS below 10k, which was considerably faster than anything else, it didn't bleed much in the vertical, and it got whatever it lost right back, plus lots more, as soon as you lowered the nose. No problem maintaining high 400s IAS for a long, long way after a brief dive. Couldn't turn without falling outta the sky, but otherwise it was a great ride. But nothing like the real thing, from all accounts I've heard.
Which is why nobody flew it in the old WB. The WB community back then was mostly the old DOS AW community, paying by the hour. A small, dedicated group, the vast majority of whom felt it was beneath their dignity to fly something like this. Anytime you saw anybody in a P-39, he was always being cussed for a dweeb needing a porked plane for a crutch, by players on all 4 sides, even his own. That usually got folks to quit flying the P-39 very quickly.
Today, of course, all the kids out there would fly nothing else if we had a similar P-39 in AH. So while I want the P-39 myself, I hope HT gets it right this time :D.
-
Like a Phoenix the thread arose from the ashes.....:aok
-
Originally posted by Bullethead
[
Anytime you saw anybody in a P-39, he was always being cussed for a dweeb needing a porked plane for a crutch, by players on all 4 sides, even his own.
How's this any different from the ElGay 7 and Spixteen we got now? ;)
-
Originally posted by Bullethead
Krusty said:
The P-39 in WB (at least HT's WB) was a porked uberplane. Its cruising speed in that game was over 300 IAS below 10k, which was considerably faster than anything else, it didn't bleed much in the vertical, and it got whatever it lost right back, plus lots more, as soon as you lowered the nose. No problem maintaining high 400s IAS for a long, long way after a brief dive. Couldn't turn without falling outta the sky, but otherwise it was a great ride. But nothing like the real thing, from all accounts I've heard.
Which is why nobody flew it in the old WB. The WB community back then was mostly the old DOS AW community, paying by the hour. A small, dedicated group, the vast majority of whom felt it was beneath their dignity to fly something like this. Anytime you saw anybody in a P-39, he was always being cussed for a dweeb needing a porked plane for a crutch, by players on all 4 sides, even his own. That usually got folks to quit flying the P-39 very quickly.
Today, of course, all the kids out there would fly nothing else if we had a similar P-39 in AH. So while I want the P-39 myself, I hope HT gets it right this time :D.
Actually that sounds very much like an accuarately modeled Q25;)
-
I know I would love to see this plane, and I've voted for it every time.
Earlier today I was playing Good Ol' IL2 FB, farting around in it to see what it could do. Now, I am far from a good pilot. But the P-39Q-1 (I think it was the Q-1) Was so forgiving and agile I couldn't believe it. The plane murdered a few Zeros with me at its controls (A truely amazing thing!)
But, I would like to note something about the "Flat spin" problem.
I read somewhere, in a book (Yeah, sources suck when you lack them) that when the 37mm gun ran out of ammo it was more likely to enter a spin. Because of the weight offset, but I remember that from the same source they fixed it by simply adding a little ballast and not ejecting the shell casings from the plane. (the source was a book I checked out from the Library a few weeks ago, just recently turned it in... I hate fines...)
I know this tour I've been using the F4U, and Fw190, and I would switch instantly if we had the P-39Q. That, and I can't complain about spiffy doors. ._.
Just a quick question though... Would it be possible to give the 37mm the horible reliabilty that it actually had? I think it could be, but it makes me wonder....
-
IN!
-
Originally posted by Hien
Earlier today I was playing Good Ol' IL2 FB, farting around in it to see what it could do. Now, I am far from a good pilot. But the P-39Q-1 (I think it was the Q-1) Was so forgiving and agile I couldn't believe it. The plane murdered a few Zeros with me at its controls (A truely amazing thing!)
Just a quick question though... Would it be possible to give the 37mm the horible reliabilty that it actually had? I think it could be, but it makes me wonder....
Comparing the flight modeling in IL2 to AH2 is like comparing the relative significance of prions to the color blue.
HT has said he will not model failures, which makes very good sense in a game.
-
Dear anti-P-39 wishlist thread jumpers,
Go pound sand...
sincerly,