Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Mister Fork on October 28, 2005, 02:16:11 PM
-
"This list... is an absolute good. The list is life. All around its margins lies the gulf. "
- Itzhak Stern
Below is the updated aircraft service date list that is comprised of efforts of several Aces High members and staff. It's a list of known action/service dates that best relects the combat action aircraft saw during WWII. While it's not 99.99% accurate, it's a close representation to assist SEA and CT staff in creating historically accurate scenarios and settings. Special thanks to Squire, Widewing, Karnak, Tilt, Bronk, Bruno for their help in this list and to those who helped formed the first one.
Aircraft and Vehcile Service Dates
Aircraft
USA
A-20G ... 5-42
B-17G ... 6-43
B-24J ... 5-43
B-26B ... 5-42
C-47A ... 12-41
P-38G ... 11-42
P-38J ... 12-43(ETO) 2-44(PTO)
P-38L ... 7-44
P-40B ... 1-41
P-40E ... 8-41
P-47D-11 ... 3-43(D5) to 1-44(D11)
P-47D-25 ... 5-44
P-47D-40 ... 1-45(ETO)
P-47N ... 6-45
P-51B ... 12-43(ETO),8-44(CBI)
P51D ... 5-44(CBI&PTO),5-44(ETO)
F4F-4 ... 9-41(ETO),5-42(PTO)
FM-2 ... 6-44(ETO),10-44(PTO)
F6F ... 9-43(PTO),12-43(ETO)
F4U-1 ... 10-42(ETO),4-44(ETO)
F4U-1D ... 4-45
F4U-1C ... 4-45
F4U-4 ... 4-45
F6F-5 ... 7-44
SBD-5 ... 5-43
TBM-3 ... 2-43
Britian
Boston MK III ... 5-41
Hurricane Mk I ... 5-40
Hurricane IIC ... 10-42
Hurricane IID ... 6-42
Lancaster III ... 3-42
Mosquito Mk VI ... 7-43
Spitfire Mk IA ... 8-40
Seafire IIC ... 10-42,11-43(ETO)
Spitfire V ... 4-41
Spitfire Mk IX ... 7-42
Spitfire Mk XIV ... 9-44
Spitfire Mk XVI ... 7-44,7-45(CBI)
Tempest V ... 6-44
Typhoon IB ... 6-43
Soviet
Il-2 Type 3 ... 10-42
La-5FN ... 3-43
La-7 ... 6-44
Yak-9T ... 1-43
Yak-9U ... 7/8-44
Italy
C.202 ... 11-41
C.205 ... 1-43
Japan
A6M2 ... 7-40
A6M5b ... 8-43
D3A-1 ... 5-
Ki-61 ... 6-43
Ki-84-la ... 8-44 (CBI),10-44(PTO)
Ki-67 ... 4-44
N1K2-J ... 1-45
Germany
Ar 234B ... 12-44
Bf 109E-4 ... 5-40
Bf 109F-4 ... 6-41
Bf 109G-2 ... 6-42
Bf 109G-6 ... 2-43
Bf 109G-10 ... 3-44
Bf 109G-14 ... 7-44
Bf 109K-4 ... 10-44
Bf 110C-4b ... 8-40
Bf 110G-2 ... 5-42
Fw 190A-5 ... 2-43
Fw 190A-8 ... 2-44
Fw 190D-9 ... 9-44
Fw 190F-8 ... 4-44
Ju 88A-4 ... 5-41
Me 262 ... 10-44
Me 163 … 9-44
Ta 152H ... 1-45
Vehicles
USA
LVT(A)2 ...2-44
LVT(A)4 ...3-44
M-3 ...3-41
M-8 ...9-42
M-16 ...5-43
Germany
Ostwind ... 8-44
Panzer IV Type H ... 8-44
Tiger I ...8-42
Soviet
T-34 ... 2-43
Theatres of Operations
PTO - Pacific
ETO - Europe
CBI - China-Burma-India/CHINA-BURMA-INDIA
-
Must...comment....further.... .
Spitfire Mk XIV in CBI: 7-45
If the F6F-5 and Ki-61-I-Tei get backdated for earlier versions the T-34 should as well. It is far more similar to earlier versions than is the Ki-61-I-Tei.
With that in mind:
T-34: 6-41
-
Check my last post on the original list, I have some Brit FAA dates for you guys.
Your posted list has some obvious typos.
P-51D ETO should be 5-44 not 3-45
P-51B ETO should be 12-43 not 2-44
Regards.
-
The T-34 we have is the 1943 version (see here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132509).)
It saw combat in 1941 in earlier variants.
I've edited the P-51's, and the Spit XIV, and a bunch of other dates from the other posting. Thanks for pointing those out.
-
Mr Fork I provided the RAFs dates for the P-51s.
They were:
P-51B 2-44
P-51D 3-45
For the RAF.
ETO dates USAAF (unchanged from the original list you posted):
P-51B 12-43
P-51D 5-44
P-51D still reads 3-45.
Thx for doing it all up btw. .
-
fixed it.
What I'd like to do is to keep the country who made the plane as the date listed. Otherwise, we'd have different dates for several spits, mosquitos from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and P-47's, P-51s from the RAF.
To the Luffwaffe during WWII, to them, they didn't care if it was a RAF P-51 or a USAAF. Same goes for allied pilots when fighting a Bf 109 whether it was flown by an Italian, German, or Finnish pilot.
I think we're getting close to a complete list.
-
Well, I would think down the road maybe you guys could add a section for the "British and Commonwealth Lend Lease", ac that were huge users of US built a/c. You dont have to have a seperate section on Brit, NZ, Aussie, Canadian because for the most part they fell under RAF command. Almost all the major US types were used by the RAF and RN incl P-40s, P-51s, P-47s, F4F, Corsair, Hellcat, TBM, and a few others. They were as much a part of the wartime service as the British designs were.
For instance the largest user of the P-40B in WW2 was the RAF. By far.
RAAF
SAAF
RNZAF
RCAF
All fell under a larger RAF Command, with a few exceptions, notably the PACIFIC where the RAAF and RNZAF tended to be under a larger US Command (at some level).
Just a suggestion. I know you dont want to get buried in it :)
Regards.
-
Mister Fork,
Yes, I know that, but you have the 7-44 F6F-5 listed as 9-43 and the 1-44 Ki-61-I-Tei listed as 6-43. In addition the changes between the 2-43 T-34 we have and the T-34 in 6-41 are minimal. It has the same gun, almost the same armor and the same engine/transmission. We are never going to get an earlier T-34 as this one is basically usable for the entire T-34/76 series other than the very low production early ones. The only other T-34 we will ever get is the T-34/85.
-
I see the f4u1-D is listed as 4-45 , typo maybe ? thought it was 4-44 .
38
-
P-38J ... 12-43(ETO) 2-44(PTO)
P-38J is actually late late 1943 aircraft in ETO?
so the P-38s that were fighting and stationed in england in early/mid 1943 were 38Gs then right?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Yes, I know that, but you have the 7-44 F6F-5 listed as 9-43 and the 1-44 Ki-61-I-Tei listed as 6-43.
The Ki61 rolled off production lines late '42 and saw combat in early '43 (one source I read said spring '43, New Guinea). In August the wing 12.7mms were changed to german MG151/20s on their sides, basically the same thing we have only in the wings not the nose. This was only because the Ho-5 guns weren't ready, and when they were they put 12.7mms in the wings again and the H0-5s in the nose (what we have).
Other changes for the kaiC are very small. Fixed tailwheel. Stronger wing. Bomb racks. That's it. The plane is essentially the same. So there's no reason to list it as a 1/44 bird, IMO. :)
-
Originally posted by 1K3
P-38J ... 12-43(ETO) 2-44(PTO)
P-38J is actually late late 1943 aircraft in ETO?
so the P-38s that were fighting and stationed in england in early/mid 1943 were 38Gs then right?
Sorry, wrong on all accounts. Those aircraft that equipped the 55th and 79th Fighter Groups in November of 1943 were the P-38H, but the 55th had also received a few of the new P-38J. These P-38Js were flying combat missions in November of 1943. I have a photo dated 13 November, 1943 of a P-38J-5-LO belonging to 338th FS CO Richard Busching. The mission that day was escorting bombers to Bremen. At the time, the 55th had a total of five P-38Js, only two of which were combat ready. Thirty seven P-38Js arrived in Britain on October 18. Per Hap Arnold's orders, all P-38Js would be sent to the 8th AF as fast as was possible. That meant that as they were delivered, they would be flown to the east coast where they were sealed up to prevent corrosion and promptly loaded on ships headed to England. Planes delivered in late August were arriving in British ports just 45 days later.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by 1K3
P-38J ... 12-43(ETO) 2-44(PTO)
P-38J is actually late late 1943 aircraft in ETO?
so the P-38s that were fighting and stationed in england in early/mid 1943 were 38Gs then right?
F,Gs, Hs in the MTO. As Widewing points out, the 20th and 55th came with Hs but got early J models soon.
Interestingly enough you could find Gs still being flown in combat in the MTO as late as June 44. Replacement pilots coming to the MTO 38 Groups were surprised to find such war-weary models still in combat after training on later J models in the States.
At one point the MTO 38 groups were sending pilots to England to ferry down the 8th AF hand me down Hs. If the Picture Hanger was working, I'd post a photo of a 1st FG P38H where you can clearly see the former 8th AF Markings starting to show through the paint on the tail.
-
I was wondering, no distinction between ETO and MTO?
Or Fin/Rus?
-
in early/mid 1943 8th AF and LW lineup was something like this right?
8th AAF
bomber: B-17, B-24
escort: P-38F/G, P-47C and early D models
LW
interceptors: Bf-109G-6 (and some with kannonboot mode), Bf-110G, FW-190A (btw which 190A series model more commin in 1943 ETO)
-
P51D ... 5-44(CBI&PTO) ? I think thats a typo. Should be 1-45, it was yesterday.
F4U-1 ... 10-42(ETO),4-44(ETO) ? Should be 2-43 (PAC) and 4-44 (ETO).
F4U-1D ... 4-45 ? I gave that date but its only for the *British*. I think it was 4-44 (PAC) before, which was a USN date, it entered service in 1944, there is no doubt of that.
*P-38J ETO date. I cant find any ref that gives the USAAF FGs as being "converted" untill Dec 43, and the dates I gave presumed "squadron sized service" at least, not a handfull of a/c delivered < which it was my understanding the dates were not for, but its Mr. Forks list.
20th FG was not operational untill 12-43. 55th FG did have a few Js, but not a squadrons worth in November 43, unless somebody has a source.
WW- "At the time, the 55th had a total of five P-38Js, only two of which were combat ready."
Btw The P-38s one of my favs, im not trying to screw it over or anything...
Regards.
-
its fair to say P-38J is a late war plane right?
-
No it's not. The P-38J-15-L0 series was introduced in mid '43. A lot make the misconception of the P-38J being a late war plane because of the 25-L0 series that I believe made it to the field in early '44.
ack-ack
-
(btw which 190A series model more commin in 1943 ETO)
For the Western Front:
II/JG26 is a good litmus test for the mid-war FW-190A's. General Der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland served in JG26 and his younger brother, Hptm. Wilhelm-Ferdinand Galland was the II/JG26 GruppenKommandeur until his death in August 1943.
There are only 2 months in which the FW-190A5 is the predominate Anton, June and July. The rest of the year is dominated by the FW-190A4 or FW-190A6.
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg26.html
Other Western Front units:
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg26.html
On the Eastern Front, the FW-190A5 hangs on somewhat longer. It is replaced as quickly as newer models can be obtained, however. The Western Front took priority for FW-190 fighter variants.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Bf109G-10 should be 10-44
TA152H should be 3-45
-
No it's not. The P-38J-15-L0 series was introduced in mid '43. A lot make the misconception of the P-38J being a late war plane because of the 25-L0 series that I believe made it to the field in early '44.
Which P47, P38, P51, and P40 becomes important well past the first letter of the variant.
Which P38J do we have in AH?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
its Britain not Britian
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Which P47, P38, P51, and P40 becomes important well past the first letter of the variant.
Which P38J do we have in AH?
All the best,
Crumpp
We have the P-38J-10-LO or P-38J-15-LO. These are virtually impossible to tell from each other as the updates were to the electrical system (dual generators on the -15). We know it's not a -5 because that earlier model lacked the flat, armored windshield. The -10-LO model was in combat service by late December and was the primary varient by middle January. In March of '44, the -15-LO was arriving in large numbers and was fully in combat service by April, replacing tired -10s.
I believe that the first -10s were delivered in late October or early November of 1943. They were hustled to the ETO and began replacing tired H models in December.
In terms of performance, there is no difference between the -5-LO thru the -20-LO.
Below is a chart showing which 8th AF fighter groups flew what and when. A vertical yellow line shows when the individual group were declared combat ready.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/8thAF1.gif)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
USA
P-38L ... 7-44
P-47D-11 ... 3-43(D5) to 1-44(D11)
P-47D-25 ... 5-44
P-47D-40 ... 1-45(ETO)
P-47N ... 6-45
P51D ... 5-44(CBI&PTO),5-44(ETO)
FM-2 ... 6-44(ETO),10-44(PTO)
F4U-1D ... 4-45
F4U-1C ... 4-45
F4U-4 ... 4-45
F6F-5 ... 7-44
Britain
Spitfire Mk XIV ... 9-44
Spitfire Mk XVI ... 7-44,7-45(CBI)
Tempest V ... 6-44
Soviet
La-7 ... 6-44
Yak-9U ... 7/8-44
Italy
Japan
Ki-84-la ... 8-44 (CBI),10-44(PTO)
Ki-67 ... 4-44
N1K2-J ... 1-45
Germany
Ar 234B ... 12-44
Bf 109G-10 ... 3-44
Bf 109G-14 ... 7-44
Bf 109K-4 ... 10-44
Fw 190A-8 ... 2-44
Fw 190D-9 ... 9-44
Fw 190F-8 ... 4-44
Me 262 ... 10-44
Me 163 … 9-44
Ta 152H ... 1-45
Thats interesting, to see what late war a/c we have from what nations (post 1944)
-
In terms of performance, there is no difference between the -5-LO thru the -20-LO.
That is not always the case though in USAAF aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
There are only 2 months in which the FW-190A5 is the predominate Anton, June and July. The rest of the year is dominated by the FW-190A4 or FW-190A6.
Crump, the A5 came out April 43. And while the A6 came out July 43, the A-5 was still very active in several Western squadrons (listing losses for A-5s as late as 8-8-43 and later in other units, around Brest and Sicily, these losses were against USAAF bombers).
Just FYI
EDIT: Fixed a date I had put August instead of April
-
Crump, the A5 came out April 43. And while the A6 came out July 43, the A-5 was still very active in several Western squadrons (listing losses for A-5s as late as 8-8-43 and later in other units, around Brest and Sicily, these losses were against USAAF bombers).
I was not claiming that the FW-190A5 came out in July. I was answering the question of which FW-190A fighter was the most common in 1943.
There were no Jagdgeschwaders flying FW-190A fighter variants in MTO during July 1943. Stukageschwader 2 and SchnellKampfgeschwader 10 were the only units in theater operating FW-190 variants. Going after USAAF bombers was not their mission, however it is entirely possible they were pressed into interception duties. They most certainly were not fighter variants.
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/oob.htm
The FW-190G2 and FW-190F2 were produced as the FW-190A5/U8 and FW-190A5/U3 and later blanket redesignated. Much of their production is included in many FW-190A5 production numbers unless you actually go into the C-Amts Monatsmeldungen and separate the variants.
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/werkn.htm
For the Western Front Geschwaders, JG 2 and JG 26 we do not see many FW-190A5 fighter variants. This is backed up by the FW-190 pilots assertions that the FW-190A5 was not the best performing variant and they were inferior for several months to allied fighter types. It simply was not a popular fighter compared to the FW-190A4 or FW-190A6.
JG2:
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg2.html
For JG2 it was planned to reconverted to the 109 during this period and was forced to soldier on with FW-190A5 longer than most. The conversion was aborted.
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg2.html
JG26 had priority for the new FW-190A fighter variants:
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg26.html
June, July, and August are the zenith of the FW-190A5 fighter variant use on average. During this time most units maintained FW-190A4's and FW-190A6's.
For JG1 based in Germany during the summer 1943:
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg1.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg1.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg1.html
So to claim the FW-190A5 as the predominate Anton fighter variant for the majority of 1943 is just factually incorrect.
Modeling the FW-190A4 and FW-190A6 would be much more representative of the 1943 FW-190A fighter line up. The FW-190A6 service extended from summer of 1943 well into 1944. It certainly had a much longer career in the Jagdgeschwaders than the FW-190A5.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
SG2 and 10 were ground attack, but they were not just ground attack. They had 190a5/U11s or U8s or whatever the version is that had DT piping in the wings. They were 190a5s, though. They did go after bombers. The 190s did whatever they could, they weren't just limited to a single role. The 190s in the med had DTs to extend their range, but eventually the RAF figured this out and moved things outside of the 190's range to bypass them. Until then they did participate in bomber attack duties.
EDIT: I do remember them being relabled as G-2s, but from what I understand the 190a5/U8s retained their 7mm guns?
Oh well, not that it matters much :)
-
The 190s did whatever they could, they weren't just limited to a single role.
Misconception. FW-190G's were considered and purpose built as bombers, not "fighter-bombers".
Doctrinally they required escort and tangled with enemy fighters only in self defense. The engine set up was completely different among the different variants and the aircraft did not have the same performance as the fighter. They could haul large loads longer distances though as they were designed to do.
I do remember them being relabled as G-2s,
There is no such thing as a factory built FW-190G2. They were all constructed as FW-190A5/U8's.
The 190s did whatever they could, they weren't just limited to a single role.
Actually they were limited to a single role. Only exception is the Anton fighter varient was considered a fighter bomber when mounting the ETC 501, simplified bombing system, and a bomb.
FW-190A = Jagdflugzuegen
FW-190A abwurflast am ETC 501 = Jaboflugzuegen
The FW-190F = Schlachtflugzeugen
FW-190G = Bombenflugzeugen
Could they have been used to intercept bombers? Sure, but it was not what they were trained for nor were their aircraft built to tangle with fighters.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Sable
Bf109G-10 should be 10-44
TA152H should be 3-45
There won't be a G-10 in AH anymore afetr the next patch.
Your Ta-152 date is wrong:
Ta-152H squadron service 27 Jan '45.
III/JG301 and Stab JG301.
Dietmar Harmann "Focke-Wulf Ta 152", ISBN 0-7643-0860-2
3.45 refers to the largest number of Ta-152's flown in one combat sortie (staffel strength) (12 took place on 2 Mar '45).
JG301 were ordered where to fly top cover for FW 190A-8s and FW190A-9s. The mission ended when the 152s were attacked by Bf 109s. The Ta-152s could easily climb away from the attacking friendlies and did not suffer any losses.
The question isn't so much about first combat but 'squadron service / deployment'.
-
Out of curiosity is that a single a/c delivered or are we talking at least a flight? say 4-6? re the Ta 152?
"They were hustled to the ETO and began replacing tired H models in December."
So thats late 1943. 12-43 for the P-38J.
-
Originally posted by Squire
So thats late 1943. 12-43 for the P-38J.
Yes, that would be 12-43 for the P-38J version we have in the game. 11-43 for the P-38J-5-LO, which we do not have.
My regards,
Widewing
-
hmm that 38J had a short carreer as a fighter in ETO. The 38J (and even the new 38L) is quickly relegated to dump truck duties in 9th AF (right?).
-
Its ETO career was as long as the P-51s was (end 43-45), and it saw plenty of action with the 9th and 15th Air Forces, but the P-51 and P-47 superceded it as an escort fighter with the 8th AF, thats true.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Your Ta-152 date is wrong:
3.45 refers to the largest number of Ta-152's flown in one combat sortie (staffel strength) (12 took place on 2 Mar '45).
JG301 were ordered where to fly top cover for FW 190A-8s and FW190A-9s. The mission ended when the 152s were attacked by Bf 109s. The Ta-152s could easily climb away from the attacking friendlies and did not suffer any losses.
The question isn't so much about first combat but 'squadron service / deployment'.
Interesting - when was the first combat sortie they flew? And I was under the impression that Stab/JG301 were the only ones who ever actually got their Ta-152s. Did III/JG301 actually re-equip and fly them?
-
Originally posted by Sable
Interesting - when was the first combat sortie they flew? And I was under the impression that Stab/JG301 were the only ones who ever actually got their Ta-152s. Did III/JG301 actually re-equip and fly them?
When it was found that III./JG301 could not be fully equiped (35 a/c) with 152s, the 152s in III./JG301 were ordered to tranfer to Stab/JG301 - Mar 13 '45.
The first 'live' ** combat mission was the one Wotan mentioned - Mar 2 '45 - from III./JG301. Should also mention, the 152s maneuverability over the 109s was also was a factor in escaping the attacks from the 109s.
** - the word used in Hermann's 152 book
-
Originally posted by 1K3
hmm that 38J had a short carreer as a fighter in ETO. The 38J (and even the new 38L) is quickly relegated to dump truck duties in 9th AF (right?).
P-38s flew combat missions with the 8th AF from October of 1943 through September of 1944. Fully 50% of the 15th Air Force's fighter strength was P-38s. These were in combat till the surrender. While the 8th AF commonly suffered engine failures up until February of '44, the 15th AF did not suffer engine trouble at a rate any greater than seen in the Pacific. Indeed, the P-38s of the 15th generally demonstrated better reliability than their P-51s, with less operational losses. This is why most historians associate the 8th's woes to badly formulated avgas. 15th AF P-38s were in combat over Germany, Austria and the Balkens during the same time period that the 8th was operating their Lightnings.
I suppose that the 8th AF had a better publicity machine than the 15th AF, so they received the bulk of media attention. Nonetheless, the 15th was very active in pounding the German industrial base.
If you wish to study a truly amazing mission, research the 15th's remarkable mission of March 18, 1944. This mission was designed to lure the Luftwaffe into combat and later catch them refueling. it was very successful, resulting in over 70 German fighters being clobbered in the air and on the ground. Likewise, several of their air bases were leveled (B-17s and B-24s dumped nearly 60,000 fragmentation bombs on the bases). Total 15th losses were 8 bombers and 4 fighters (two P-38s, and two P-47s, most of which were lost to flak).
So much emphasis is placed on the ETO that the MTO is largely overlooked. Most people fail to realize that P-40s, A-36s and P-39s were operating successfully in Italy well into 1944. The XII Air Support Command was doing what the 9th AF was doing and it was doing it longer and with supposedly obsolete aircraft. All the while, they were just as effective against the Luftwaffe, maybe even more effective.
If you haven't looked into P-39N/Q ops in Italy, do so as they were extremely effective. If you examine speed data for those types, you may be surprised that the P-39N was capable of about 377 mph at 13,000 feet. See chart below.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/P-39_data.jpg)
I would really like to see the P-39D and P-39N added to the AH2 plane set. There are many scenarios where these aircraft could be used, from the SWPA and Guadalcanal to Russia, North Africa and Italy. Frankly, this is one of the biggest holes in the plane set; based, if on nothing else, the huge scope of P-39 operations.
My regards,
Widewing
-
P39 must come one day or another. Or the P63 rather? Now, both look pretty much the same while the P63 is a P39 on steroids right?
IMHO the MTO is the coolest in regards to plane setup as well ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
P39 must come one day or another. Or the P63 rather? Now, both look pretty much the same while the P63 is a P39 on steroids right?
IMHO the MTO is the coolest in regards to plane setup as well ;)
Although the basic layout was very similar, the P-39 and P-63 were very different. I would rate the P-63 as the equal to the La-7 in performance. In WEP with water injection, the P-63A could reach 379 mph at sea level and about 420 mph at 17,000 feet. Climb was astounding for an American fighter. From sea level to 20,000 feet was roughly 4.9 minutes. Climb to 10,000 feet was in about 2.4 minutes. When looking at a climb chart (in America's Hundred Thousand), the rate of climb at sea level can't be plotted on the scale that ends at 4,200 fpm. If you extrapolate the curve, it appears to be very close to 5,000 fpm. Remember, these climb figures are based upon full load combat weight at takeoff (8,989 lb).
Rate of roll was excellent at 110 degrees per second at 275 mph. That's also better than any other late-war USAAF fighter.
The P-63 would have been a terrific tactical fighter, very much like the La-7. However, that was not USAAF doctrine at the time.
As much as I would like the P-63, it wasn't much of a factor in WWII and it would add yet another low-level monster to the mix. I think the P-39 should come first, with the P-63 well down the road.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Three versions of the P-39 would cover just about everything from the pacific to the Ostfront
P-39 D
P-39 N
P-39 Q
You all can argue over the specific variant (D-2, N-1, Q-5 would be my preference).
I would also like to a see a P-40M or N
-
I'd not be surprised to see a P-40M or P-40N added when the P-40s are redone.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Three versions of the P-39 would cover just about everything from the pacific to the Ostfront
P-39 D
P-39 N
P-39 Q
You all can argue over the specific variant (D-2, N-1, Q-5 would be my preference).
I would also like to a see a P-40M or N
I agree with these. All would get lots of use.
While examining the P-39 performance chart, I don't see a curve for P-39N or Q Combat power, just MIL power. There is a climb curve for Combat power... So, I checked a few sources and see that Angelucci & Bowers list the P-39N-1 at 399 mph at 9,700 feet, with the P-39Q rated at 385 mph at 15,000 feet. They were both powered by the V-1710-85 engine rated at 1,200 hp takeoff and 1,420 hp WEP @ 9,700 feet. With this we could plot a rough curve.
So, I plotted those two data points on the existing chart and extrapolated the line to sea level. If the speed data is accurate, the chart should now offer a reasonable idea of low-level speed when using WEP (1,420 hp). This may explain why the late P-39s were far more effective in air to air combat than the early examples.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/P-39DataUpdated.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
The reason I chose the Q-5 is I read an article / interview of a VVS P-39 pilot who stated that in general the Q-series were 'dogs' compared the earlies variant (N in particular) The exception the pilot made was for the Q-5 which was the only Q that he considered a 'dog fighter'. He preferred the N.
What I gather (by no means am I a p-39 expert) is that there were structural problems that were addressed with the Q-series. Things like wing spars buckling or warping causing deformations of the stressed skin, some severe to have written off the aircraft. I don't recall if there were any failures during combat.. These problems were said to have occurred with harsh maneuvering.
Also, some Q-5s were fitted with a 4 - bladed prop IIRC...
-
(COUGH) Getting off topic here. I'm going to post another updated service date in a new topic. Please check the dates again gents if you can...
And yes, it's Britain, not Britian. Subtle as dump truck.
(http://forums.maxima.org/images/smilies/stupid.gif)
:D