Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: hubsonfire on December 02, 2006, 11:48:47 AM
-
We need one. It would be so cool.
-
Would be a big addition to any Eastern Front scenarios.
The Soviets really loved that heap of crap. :D
-
well yeah, it was a tank buster....
But i think the German pilots loved it even more. :aok
:rofl
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
well yeah, it was a tank buster....
It wasn't, do a search for the Airacobra in this forum.
But yes, one of the planes we need the most. Much fun to fly in the scenarios and in the AvA. :)
-
(http://www.winkton.net/pictures/bell%20aerocobra%20equalised.jpg)
Yes the P-39 Aircobra is sweeeeeet
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 30 ft 2 in (9.2 m)
Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.4 m)
Height: 12 ft 5 in (3.8 m)
Wing area: 213 ft² (19.8 m²)
Empty weight: 5,347 lb (2,425 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,379 lb (3,347 kg)
Max takeoff weight: lb (kg)
Powerplant: 1× Allison V-1710-85 liquid-cooled V-12, 1,200 hp (895 kW)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 376 mph (605 km/h)
Range: 1,098 miles (1,770 km)
Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (10,700 m)
Rate of climb: 3,750 ft/min (19 m/s)
Wing loading: 34.6 lb/ft² (169 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 6 lb/hp (3.7 kg/kW)
Armament:
1x 37 mm T9 cannon firing through the propeller hub
4 x .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine guns
Up to 500 lb (230 kg) of bombs externally
-
Originally posted by RATTFINK
(http://www.winkton.net/pictures/bell%20aerocobra%20equalised.jpg)
Yes the P-39 Aircobra is sweeeeeet
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 30 ft 2 in (9.2 m)
Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.4 m)
Height: 12 ft 5 in (3.8 m)
Wing area: 213 ft² (19.8 m²)
Empty weight: 5,347 lb (2,425 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,379 lb (3,347 kg)
Max takeoff weight: lb (kg)
Powerplant: 1× Allison V-1710-85 liquid-cooled V-12, 1,200 hp (895 kW)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 376 mph (605 km/h)
Range: 1,098 miles (1,770 km)
Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (10,700 m)
Rate of climb: 3,750 ft/min (19 m/s)
Wing loading: 34.6 lb/ft² (169 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 6 lb/hp (3.7 kg/kW)
Armament:
1x 37 mm T9 cannon firing through the propeller hub
4 x .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine guns
Up to 500 lb (230 kg) of bombs externally
Thats not the p39
-
Originally posted by mentalguy
Thats not the p39
If it's not the P39q what it is ?
-
A B-29 with a nook!!!!11
lol
-
The P-39 was a monster under 10K... I've said it before and I'll say it again... We need this bird in the lineup. It would be great for PTO scenarios as well as Eastern Front stuff...
BRING IT! :aok :aok :aok
-
bit of a gag with the misnomer, but I would like to see this make the planeset. IMO, one of the most recognizable planes of the war, and while it's certainly not the finest aircraft ever fielded, it seems to be a popular and recurring suggestion.
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
well yeah, it was a tank buster....
But i think the German pilots loved it even more. :aok
:rofl
Actually the P-39 was the most feared russian plane on the eastern front....more so then the la-5n (la-7 didnt see service till very late in war). German units were often under orders to avoid combat with P-39 equipped units. The major airbattle on the eastern front was fought at the kuban bridgehead. It was the 1st time the russians met the germans on "equal" terms. Many of the elite russian units were flying the P-39 and german losses were staggering. This is widely considered on a par with Kursk by russian historians as a key turning point in the war. By 1944 there was tremendous political pressure for the top aces to switch from the P-39 and its amazing record as an air superiority fighter was hidden till the 1970's....it was however the dominant fighter on the eastern front for the majority of the war....
-
Originally posted by mentalguy
Thats not the p39
Yes it is!!!
Note the headers coming out the side, side door to the cockpit (no sliding canopy),
Here's more :)
(http://fighterace.ketsujin.com/Information/museum/images/us/FIGHTERS/P-39D%20Under.jpg)
(http://mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/other/p_39/p_39_airacobra_3.jpg)
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Fighters/AiracobraBanking.jpg)
Here is a cool book @ amazon.com:
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0700611401.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1056467887_.jpg)
Shall I go on?
-
Our old AW flying buddy Earl's P39N "Eloise" (Named for his sister) that he flew with the 345th FS, 350th FG in the MTO from Tunisia up into Italy, finally transitioning to the P47 in August 1944.
Yep that's August 1944. P39s operated by the USAAF flying against the LW up until then.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1096612092_eloise1.jpg)
-
My understanding is that the P-39 actually had the best K/D ratio in the ETO/MTO but I 'dont know how you verify that...
-
Originally posted by humble
My understanding is that the P-39 actually had the best K/D ratio in the ETO/MTO but I 'dont know how you verify that...
just a quick search:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200508/ai_n14825564
theres 4 pages, this is page 1.
In May 1942, two squadrons of P-39s from the U.S. 8th Fighter Group flew in to reinforce the RAAF's 75th Fighter Squadron, which flew P-40s. Keen to engage the enemy first, the 8th FG was soon airborne with 13 P-39s headed for the enemy airfields at Lae and Salamaua on New Guinea's north coast.
Riding the turbulent air 100 feet above the ocean's surface, the P-39s pointed their noses towards Lae. Twenty miles out, their radios crackled to life, and four P-39s throttled up and moved ahead of the formation to be ready to engage the Japanese air patrol over its airfield. It worked. The top cover drew the enemy patrol off to the east of Lae and left the remaining Airacobras with nothing but airfield. Surprise was complete. The nine remaining P-39s tore across the Japanese airfield spitting 37mm, .50-caliber and .30-caliber shells into parked aircraft, ammo dumps, a radio station and three floatplanes at anchor.
Ground fire was late and inaccurate, and with the strafing run complete, the Airacobras pulled up hard into a climbing turn. Several Zeros managed to get airborne and catch the four escaping P-39s. They released their drop tanks and turned to engage their attackers. The dogfight attracted more Zeros, and the four Airacobras were soon in a desperate fight. Mike keys were punched and their desperate calls for help were heard. The remaining P-39s turned to race to their rescue. The sky was soon a sea of twisting fighters, their wings alive with fire and lead. This continued for about 30 miles along the coast and then back again; with ammunition and fuel running low, the P-39s broke off and headed for home, leaving behind four downed Zeros and four of their own (three of the pilots eventually returned to Port Moresby). It wasn't a decisive victory, but the attack on Lae airfield showed that at the right height, the P-39 could fight the Mitsubishi Zero on even terms. Often maligned by the men who flew it in the South Pacific, the P-39 Airacobra proved to be a useful fighter and one that deserves more recognition in the USAAF's history.
Brig. Gen. Charles "Chuck" Yeager stated that he thought the P-39 was the best airplane he ever flew, and most pilots remember its flight characteristics with affection. But not all pilots had Yeager's skill and natural abilities. Although the P-39 had some sterling flying qualities below 12,000 feet, at higher altitudes, it was sluggish and uninspired as a single-seat fighter, and many who flew it had nothing good to say about it.
Much has been written about the Spitfire, Mustang, Hellcat, Corsair, Thunderbolt and Lightning as being the truly remarkable fighters of WW II-so much so, in fact, that one could conclude that these fighters won the War! With respect to performance, they were true thoroughbreds, and all except the Spitfire had the benefit of valuable combat information. Combat reports written by the European powers on the performance of their fighters were available, and U.S. manufacturers incorporated those lessons in their fighters. But the Grumman Wildcat, the Curtiss P-40 and the much maligned P-39 (referred to as the "Iron Dog") were forced into combat with what they had. And what the P-39 had was a lot more than history has given it credit for.
Although its contribution to the war in the Pacific and the Mediterranean was not significant in terms of enemy aircraft shot down (300), the P-39 managed to hold its own. But, more important, the P-39 and the P-40 gave the Allies what they needed most: time. Though inexperienced aircrew flew against the formidable Mitsubishi Zero pilots in the Pacific, they eventually managed to achieve a one-to-one kill ratio. This is a remarkable figure because in the first months of the War, the Japanese pilots enjoyed a considerable advantage in terms of combat experience and equipment. The time gained allowed the Allies to build up their forces and introduce newer and faster fighters such as the Hellcat, Corsair and Lightning.
Although the USSR viewed the Allies' fighters with indifference (Hurricane and P-40), the P-39 was highly regarded. At low altitude, its sparkling performance caused problems for the Luftwaffe's top pilots, and many leading Soviet aces scored most or all of their victories while flying it. An informal count has more than 30 Soviet Kobra pilots with at least 20 victories. The P-39's contribution on the Russian front was significant and should not be overlooked. The success of this aircraft in the low-level regime played a major role in the defeat of the German Army.
-
Bob Hoover felt the same way, he felt the P-39 was the best fighter he flew. He was actually one of the test pilots for the plane and was the guy who figured out the spin recovery techniques for the bird.
-
Originally posted by humble
My understanding is that the P-39 actually had the best K/D ratio in the ETO/MTO but I 'dont know how you verify that...
Dude, you've got your sources screwed up again
First of all, LW pilots were told not to engage Yaks of a certain version (having to do with oil cooler placement under the chin) below certain altitudes.
Second, the P39 was an abyssmally bad performer. Especially early in the war. Don't let the fact that the Russians got kills sway you. The Finnish got kills in the Buffalo, as well, but it was a very poor plane as well.
In the PTO it was dog meat plain and simple. Against anything the Japanese had, the P39 was dead. Some groups even crashed them on purpose to get rid of them, bailing out if the engine ran even slightly hot (or even making up that the engine was running hot and just bailing) so they'd get better craft.
-
Airscrew, I'm pretty sure Yeager is on record as saying the P51 and the Fw190D were the best fighters ever flown. I think I've heard folks quote that quite often around here.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Dude, you've got your sources screwed up again
First of all, LW pilots were told not to engage Yaks of a certain version (having to do with oil cooler placement under the chin) below certain altitudes.
Second, the P39 was an abyssmally bad performer. Especially early in the war. Don't let the fact that the Russians got kills sway you. The Finnish got kills in the Buffalo, as well, but it was a very poor plane as well.
In the PTO it was dog meat plain and simple. Against anything the Japanese had, the P39 was dead. Some groups even crashed them on purpose to get rid of them, bailing out if the engine ran even slightly hot (or even making up that the engine was running hot and just bailing) so they'd get better craft.
Notice Krusty doest back this up either.
Just uses the "Cuz I said so." method.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Dude, you've got your sources screwed up again
First of all, LW pilots were told not to engage Yaks of a certain version (having to do with oil cooler placement under the chin) below certain altitudes.
Second, the P39 was an abyssmally bad performer. Especially early in the war. Don't let the fact that the Russians got kills sway you. The Finnish got kills in the Buffalo, as well, but it was a very poor plane as well.
In the PTO it was dog meat plain and simple. Against anything the Japanese had, the P39 was dead. Some groups even crashed them on purpose to get rid of them, bailing out if the engine ran even slightly hot (or even making up that the engine was running hot and just bailing) so they'd get better craft.
Krusty, yer doing it again :)
My friend Earl Miller, who flew the 39 in the MTO really liked it too. As long as they flew it at lower alts it performed well and did fine against the LW birds they came up against.
It was a 'dog" at altitude, but down low where the lack of supercharger wasn't an issue it was a good performer.
Can you document which groups 'crashed them on purpose"?
-
From an old thread.
Originally posted by Widewing
If one considers 420 mph at 21,000 feet poor performance. Let's face it, 95% of all engagements in AH2 are below 20,000 feet.
The answer to the La-7 is the P-63A Kingcobra. Similar climb and low-level speed, but the P-63 is nearly as maneuverable as the FM-2. Add four .50 cal MGs and a 37mm cannon.
These two fighters would be very equal except that the La-7 could not afford to turn-fight with the P-63, and the P-63 has a big range advantage, plus the ability to haul a 500 pound bomb (or a drop tank).
So, how fast does the P-63A climb? Well, for comparison, let's look at the F6F-5. It requires 7.7 minutes to climb to 15,000 feet. In contrast, the P-63A can get to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes! The P-51D requires near twice as long (13 minutes) to reach 30,000 feet.
When the Soviets first began flying the P-63, they found the tail to be weaker than that of the P-39. Bell developed a kit for strengthening the tail and Bell technicians made field modifications to those planes in service. That change was immediately incorporated into the production line as well.
Pilots who flew the P-63, and had time in the other major U.S. types, generally agreed that the P-63 was far and away the best performer at low to medium altitudes. Not surprising, the pilots flying it at the Joint Fighter Conference differed from rave reviews to outright dislike (the only thing the JFC ever proved was that every monkey prefers his own banana).
Since more than 3,300 P-63s were built, and it saw combat (with the Free French and Soviets) in far greater numbers than the F4U-1C or Ta 152H, I think it would be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the AH2 plane-set someday.
My regards,
Widewing
Bring the kingcobra to AH . ohh and the P-39. :D
Bronk
-
Of course more Spit XIIs saw combat then the F4U1C, TA152 and P63.
Bring the Spit XII to AH! :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Of course more Spit XIIs saw combat then the F4U1C, TA152 and P63.
Bring the Spit XII to AH! :)
Brilliant idea wish I thought of it.
Ohh BTW 200 bottles of HT fav scotch is going to cost us about 10k.
Start saving now. :D
Bronk
-
No Bronk, that's just what you think, that doesn't in fact make it so.
Guppy, the actual group, I don't know the numbers/names. Some group in the PTO. They wanted plane X (where X is better than the P39) because they wanted to get away from the P39. They were told that planes were in short supply and they'd fly what they had until they were no longer servicable. So they took that opportunity to ding them up every mission, to crash land them, to bail from them when the engines ran a little hot, anything to get rid of them.
This from somebody elses posts here on these forums a long time back. They were quoting a book when they posted.
As for low-down, sure it could fly better at lower altitudes, because the lack of a supercharger, but it has fairly bad instability in every flight sim game that has EVER modeled it, it's slow and sluggish even low down (albeit far far far worse up high). I don't think we can use pilot comments about "This was the best plane of the war" because many many posts over many many years have argued that any pilot will have a bias towards any plane that got him home alive, no matter how poorly the plane actually flew.
Sorry for not remembering the group in the story above. I've got one of those memories that remembers details and facts quite well, but not the dates or names that go with them.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No Bronk, that's just what you think, that doesn't in fact make it so.
What have I stated as fact ? Ohh wait nothing . You on the other hand...
Sorry for not remembering the group in the story above. I've got one of those memories that remembers details and facts quite well, but not the dates or names that go with them.
*in my best SNL church lady voice.*
How convenient.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No Bronk, that's just what you think, that doesn't in fact make it so.
Guppy, the actual group, I don't know the numbers/names. Some group in the PTO. They wanted plane X (where X is better than the P39) because they wanted to get away from the P39. They were told that planes were in short supply and they'd fly what they had until they were no longer servicable. So they took that opportunity to ding them up every mission, to crash land them, to bail from them when the engines ran a little hot, anything to get rid of them.
This from somebody elses posts here on these forums a long time back. They were quoting a book when they posted.
As for low-down, sure it could fly better at lower altitudes, because the lack of a supercharger, but it has fairly bad instability in every flight sim game that has EVER modeled it, it's slow and sluggish even low down (albeit far far far worse up high). I don't think we can use pilot comments about "This was the best plane of the war" because many many posts over many many years have argued that any pilot will have a bias towards any plane that got him home alive, no matter how poorly the plane actually flew.
Sorry for not remembering the group in the story above. I've got one of those memories that remembers details and facts quite well, but not the dates or names that go with them.
Interesting you mention the instability as pilots commented on it. Again it was evident early on as guys got used to flying it, but once they mastered it, they could really turn it down low.
No one is suggesting it's the best plane of the war, but it is a viable candidate for AH based on it's actual wartime use in any number of theaters of the war.
There are any number of AH birds that I can't fly worth a darn, but other guys can do wonders with :)
As for the crashing em on purpose story. That would fall under the same category as quoting pilots wouldn't you say? :)
At the AW Indy Con I had a chance to talk with Earl Miller, the 39 MTO pilot and Bud Anderson the 357th FG P51 Ace who flew 39s before he got overseas. He had no idea that the 39 had been flown against the LW. While he was out chasing the LW in his 51B, Earl was still chugging around in a 39. But as Earl put it, while Bud Anderson was shooting em down up high in his 51, Earl was shooting em up down low in his 39 :)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Dude, you've got your sources screwed up again
First of all, LW pilots were told not to engage Yaks of a certain version (having to do with oil cooler placement under the chin) below certain altitudes.
Second, the P39 was an abyssmally bad performer. Especially early in the war. Don't let the fact that the Russians got kills sway you. The Finnish got kills in the Buffalo, as well, but it was a very poor plane as well.
In the PTO it was dog meat plain and simple. Against anything the Japanese had, the P39 was dead. Some groups even crashed them on purpose to get rid of them, bailing out if the engine ran even slightly hot (or even making up that the engine was running hot and just bailing) so they'd get better craft.
You couldnt be more wrong. The elite russian guards units had their choice of any plane available and flew the P-39. It was much prefered over any of the yaks....
And it is documneted that the germans issued orders to avoid the p-39 both because of its performance and the caliber of pilots in the VVS units that flew it.
background on the Kuban bridgehead battle (http://www.gmtgames.com/c3i/1_11_Kuban_Bridgehead.pdf)
This is a link to the russian history of the P-39....yes i'm sure its biased but the historical losses on both sides clearly show that the VVS met the germans head on and stopped them cold. The P-39 guards units played a large role in this....
russian 411 on the P-39 in russian service (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/index.htm)
Not much seems to be available from the german perspective but this is a 1st hand account from a german ace who was returning to combat during the height of the battle from leave
Alfred Grislawski Over Kuban (http://www.graf-grislawski.elknet.pl/kuban.htm)
*** at edit ***
Hers is a quote from the russian history of the P-39...
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." Therefore, the decision by the VVS command regarding preliminary serious study of the aircraft and its testing and subsequent delivery to units that had combat experience turned out to be correct. Combat tested and experienced pilots were able to master the correct tactical employment of the airplane in a minimal period of time.
Lot more info but it gives a good idea of just how successful the elite gaurds units were with the p-39....also interesting how the russians gave the guards units the P-39's over the new la-5's.....in fact the guards units were still flying the original 1942 aircobra's instead of the la-5 as late as 1944....
-
"That would fall under the same category as quoting pilots wouldn't you say?"
Now you mangle what I say Guppy. Taking a pilot's opinion on how great a plane is, is one aspect that can't be trusted. Taking other things can be. You know that, silly!
If it helps narrow down the story any, I think the person being quoted was the squadron commander. Other than that, I don't have any more info.
Quick question about the King Cobra: Did it ever see action with US forces? Or did we export all of them? I seem to recall reading that they came too late to see any real action even in Soviet Russia. Did they see any at all? (I ask because I wonder if it meets AH criteria for "having seen action")
Definitely a perk-plane, if I ever saw one, though :)
-
The same "politics" that prevented a full accounting of the success of the p-39 also effected the P-63. It was in service with guards units from mid 1944 on but not officially recognized.....
By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany, and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East against an eventual attack on Japan. However there are many unconfirmed reports from both the Soviet and German side that Supercobras did indeed see service against the Luftwaffe. Most notably, one of Pokryshkin's pilots reports in his memoirs published in the 1990s that the entire 4th GvIAP was secretly converted to Supercobras in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. One account states they were in action at Koenigsberg, in Poland and in the final assault on Berlin. There are German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show that nothing but P-39s used against Germany.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
"That would fall under the same category as quoting pilots wouldn't you say?"
Now you mangle what I say Guppy. Taking a pilot's opinion on how great a plane is, is one aspect that can't be trusted. Taking other things can be. You know that, silly!
If it helps narrow down the story any, I think the person being quoted was the squadron commander. Other than that, I don't have any more info.
Not mangling it Krusty. A Squadron CO has his own bias as well. One of the arguments made regarding the performance of the 38 with the 8th AF stems from the attitude a Group CO had about that bird and how that trickled down to the pilots under his command.
Think about the 56th and the Jug. Those guys had a belief about the Jug completely different from the guys in the 4th who thought it was a dog and wanted out in the worst way to the point that Blakslee promised to get the 4th transitioned to the 51 and in combat in 24 hours if he could have them.
That would make Earl's comments and those of the guys he flew with in the 350th flying 39s just as valid as anyone elses wouldn't it?
-
Originally posted by humble
The same "politics" that prevented a full accounting of the success of the p-39 also effected the P-63. It was in service with guards units from mid 1944 on but not officially recognized.....
By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany, and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East against an eventual attack on Japan. However there are many unconfirmed reports from both the Soviet and German side that Supercobras did indeed see service against the Luftwaffe. Most notably, one of Pokryshkin's pilots reports in his memoirs published in the 1990s that the entire 4th GvIAP was secretly converted to Supercobras in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. One account states they were in action at Koenigsberg, in Poland and in the final assault on Berlin. There are German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show that nothing but P-39s used against Germany.
From the same article I believe humble.
In the Far East, P-63 and 39 aircraft were used in "August Storm", the Soviet invasion of Manchukoku and northern Korea, and a Soviet P-63A downed a Japanese fighter aircraft, an Army Nakajima fighter, Ki-43, 44, or 84, off the coast of North Korea.
Bronk
-
Yup, think so Bronk......
-
I think a planes historical reputation and impact on WW2 doesn't nessesarily translate into AH, there are a lot of factors that made or broke a planes' wartime reputation. In the case of the P39 it was a decent performer at lower altitudes for a plane of it's time period, low alt performance doesn't matter when you have zeroes crossing the Owen Stanley range 20K over your head. Coupled with lack of range and being outnumbered, and less experienced pilots, of course the groups flying it in the PTO early in the war were going to get roughed up. None of that applies to AH.
I'd have to look @ the numbers but I believe the 39 was faster thant he P40 down on the deck (at least early model P-40's). If I'm wrong someone please correct me, but that was my understanding. Considering it saw service across the globe (not to mention it was flown by the 8th fighter group) I'd love to see it in AH. :)
-
The comment about crashing P-39's to get another plane (the P-38) was written about ONE pilot, George Welch. A great pilot by any measure, Welch detested the P-39. However, the opinion of one pilot does not tell the story of any plane.
The P-39 was really no more a dog than the P-40, it's just that neither were high altitude fighters. Allison didn't have two speed superchargers, and the Air Corps ordered the turbocharger removed from the P-39, it originally had one. And after the war, one of the fastest prop planes at any altitude was a P-39 with a turbocharged engine from a P-38.
Used properly, in its own element, the P-39 was a decent ride. Not spectacular, but not abysmal either.
-
Anyone else ever notice that krusty's job on the forum seems to be to try and disprove anything anyone says?
Watch he will come back with some snide comment to this then attempt to always have the last word.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
This from somebody elses posts here on these forums a long time back. They were quoting a book when they posted.
As for low-down, sure it could fly better at lower altitudes, because the lack of a supercharger, but it has fairly bad instability in every flight sim game that has EVER modeled it , it's slow and sluggish even low down (albeit far far far worse up high). I don't think we can use pilot comments about "This was the best plane of the war" because many many posts over many many years have argued that any pilot will have a bias towards any plane that got him home alive, no matter how poorly the plane actually flew.
If this is a quote from a book that's supposed to sway people over to believing you know what your talking about, it's a bad choice. Notice that they are talking about how bad the P-39 has been modeled in FLIGHT SIM GAMES.:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
With the P-39 all you need to do is look at the historical data and have some basic understanding of how the US army worked. The same "logic" that gave us the 75mm "short" gun on the sherman led to the P-39 being nuetered. The Army viewed the plane as a ground support aircraft as much as a fighter. This affected everything from pilot selection to training to initial tactics. All of the "bad press" is specific to initial impressions/combat experience vs the japanese during the early war.
If you read the russian stuff on the P-39 they dont suger coat any of the planes "problems". They simply do the best they can to work around them. They stripped alot of weight (including guns) and ran the engine significantly above US settings. Take a P-40B and knock out as much weight as you can...then strip the 4 30 cals out....then boost the man pressure 15%....you wouldnt even think your in the same plane.
During 1941/1942 the russians were being decimated in the air. The airmen who survived this meatgrinder were every bit as good as any fighter pilots in the world. The simple reality that they chose to give these elite pilots the P-39 over any plane available speaks volumes. The fact that these same pilots continued to fly it long after other "better" birds were not only available but "politically prefered" is even more telling.
A P-39 modeled to the russian specs on weight and engine performance would quickly become the new "spit 16" and probably dominate the midwar plane set.
-
Originally posted by skycaptn
Anyone else ever notice that krusty's job on the forum seems to be to try and disprove anything anyone says?
Watch he will come back with some snide comment to this then attempt to always have the last word.
Excuse me, mr. flame poster, but after 40 posts I don't think you know what the hell ANYbody's job is. You're starting off on the right foot, though, if you want to post like an arse.
You've not read even 1% of the posts I've made on these forums over the years, newbie, so don't PRESUME to know even a fraction of what I'm about. Thank you, good night.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
, kreskin!!:D :D
:rofl :rofl :aok :aok
-
My take on this (based on solid facts :))
1) Numbers, about half of the total P-39 total production were allocated to USSR (~4800 planes were received intact, some were lost in transit)
2) Ground attack
Contrary to popular western perception, Airacobras were not used for ground-fighting, but practically always as air superiority fighter. A big number of PVO regiments used Airacobras explicitly in the interceptor role.
3) Importance to USSR
The importance of the Airacobra for the total Soviet war effort is illustrated by the fact that Stalin himself intervened in summer 1944 in order to ensure uninterrupted supply of 100 octane fuel for Pokryshkin's fighter division 9 GIAD during Operation Bagration (From 23 June 1944 onwards) in Belorussia.
Reference: Geust-Petrov: Red Stars 4 - Lend-Lease Aircraft in Russia (ISBN: 952-5026-23-X)
-
Well, if Krusty says history and the Russians who flew them in combat are wrong, that's good enough for me. :rolleyes:
Seriously krusty, you live in some sort of alternate reality that is not compatible with that of the rest of the universe, and this leads me to conclude that your input, opinions, made-up numbers, and vague recollections of the opinions on the opinions on the opinions that some guy had about some thing at some point in the past don't really mean anything.
-
actually krusty your shortsightedness is once again predictable.
Unlike YOU I dont find it unbearable not to respond in a negative way to everything posted on the bbs.
Therefore I dont have 1.2 billion posts.
I think its psychological krusty.. Have you considered speaking to a professional?
I have several friends in the community of mental health who can assist you with this issue.
For now ill leave you with some tips.
Say "Can" not "Cannot"
Take your medications on a regular schedule.
Lay off alcoholic beverages during early morning hours.
Try not to be a energy leach (dont always try to take other peoples joy)
-
By the way, I have 2½ pages of text about Airacobra in that book, I can quote any opponents to death with it, so please give over. I don't want to type them all in since I have no scanner... :)
I have also 24 pages of pictures in the same book, but there's no way I'm going to try to draw them for you (due to the same lack of scanner as above:)).
-
You all might want to do some searching before buying into humble's propoganda for the Soviet Uber Planes (TM). He's my squaddie and I'd wing with him any time, but he's been out-and-out dismissed by most of the folks on these forums that know what they're doing, and do this stuff for a living, on points from 109s to p39s and various things.
You dump watermelon on me for being "negative"? Dude, you instantly buy a gingerbread house in the middle of the woods. You go in you'll just end up in the oven like Hansel and Grettel. Do some checking first, man.
As for the arsewipe furboll, he's a retard. I know it's not nice to say this, but he really really is. He and his lovemate Stang were going on for a long time on channel 200 trying to get a rise out of me, calling me a liar to my face for something they weren't there to witness. I wasn't even talking to them. Furboll has a grudge and he's using that now. Once he calms down and regains his logic, by all means listen to what he says. For now, do not.
Again, skycaptain... You stick your own foot in your mouth. If, (hah, who am I kidding, your type would never bother) ... let's say "would you" have read anything else I've posted anywhere in the past year, you'd find that I am generally a helpful person. I generally don't get angry on the forums, but this nice little trifecta of Humble, Furboll, and yourself all ripping into me at once: I'm going to make an exception.
Consider that there are certain "types" in the world. You fall into a transparent category. You are quite transparent and easy to jump. You can change this, but I've seen your type before, and they rarely bother to try.
I'm done with this thread. I'm sorry if you all want to believe that the P39 was the best, fastest, most manuverable, nimble, best armed plane in the world ever. That's your problem. Just don't be sore when we get the P39 and it's at rated military specs, not your fantasy specs.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
:cry
:lol *Poof* Be gone.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Excuse me, mr. flame poster, but after 40 posts I don't think you know what the hell ANYbody's job is. You're starting off on the right foot, though, if you want to post like an arse.
You've not read even 1% of the posts I've made on these forums over the years, newbie, so don't PRESUME to know even a fraction of what I'm about. Thank you, good night.
You can't base the number of post skycaptn has read, by the number of post he's written. To state he has only read less than 1% of your post is an assumption and only adds fuel to the fire of those who accuse you of making inaccurate statements................ Just saying.:huh
-
I would like to see this plane added also. Kinda like a p40 with a spud gun dangerous!
Old screenie from FA eh rattfink.
while we are it it I16, yak3, clipped spit 5, tu-2, betty, B25 mitchell some of the planes i miss.
Bruv
~S~
-
You all might want to do some searching before buying into humble's propoganda for the Soviet Uber Planes (TM). He's my squaddie and I'd wing with him any time, but he's been out-and-out dismissed by most of the folks on these forums that know what they're doing, and do this stuff for a living, on points from 109s to p39s and various things.
Krusty,
Hate to say it but the one "buying in" to the hype is you. The folks who've "dismissed" me are all narrowminded affecionado's of 1 particular plane or nation. They invariably hunt for all tidbits that vaguely support preconceived positions while discarding/demeaning all other 411.
I simply look at the facts available........
Specific to the P-39 is the following....
Stong negative accounts during the early stages of the war by inexperienced pilots flying in difficult scenarios vs seasoned enemy fighting in optimal contions. Please find me any other comments degrading the P-39.
Here is a bit of history on the P-39 experience from one of the milatary aviation newsgroups...
"An interesting book on the P-39 in Soviet Air Force service is "Eagles East" by
Richard Lukas. Apparently, the Russians dumped the wing guns, which is what
the AAF boys in New Guinea did, in order to improve performance. The Russians
also dumped radio equipment for the same reason. And, apparently, they mostly
used the P-39 as a fighter. The Germans, also apparently, chose to fly most of
their missions at low and medium altitudes, putting the P-39 right at its prime
fighting height.
Within its altitude envelope the Bell was, yet again apparently, competitive
with the 109, so using it as a fighter made sense. Seventy-five percent of US
lend-lease fighters sent to the USSR were P-39s and P-63s, which the Soviets
specifically requested. So they must have liked them.
In New Guinea, the AAF did not like the P-39 because the Japanese bombers came
over at around 22,000 ft., sometimes higher, sometimes as low as 18,000 ft.,
but in any case well above the optimum fighting altitude of the P-39. The P-39
also had to climb over high mountain ranges, not fight over Iowa-like terrain.
And to reach the enemy it had to fly to the very limit of its fuel
capacity--sometimes, as it would prove, beyond it. Also, at any altitude the
P-39 was not competitive as a fighter with the Ki-43 or Zero. And the 37mm was
useless against such agile fighters, leaving the P-39 to fight with only its
two cowl .50s.
I also wonder about pilot skill. The Soviets must have had a leavening of
Spanish Civil War veterans in their air units, while the AAF kids coming up
against veterans of the war in China and the Soviet border incident, were
pretty green.
The P-39 pilots who went to Guadalcanal were pure green peas. Their group, the
58th, had only been formed at the beginning of 1941. It didn't get any pilots
until that fall, kids fresh out of flying school. It had no veteran officers.
It was shipped overseas way understrength in Feb, 1942, to Australia, then sent
to New Caledonia. It's 40 pilots had 45 P-400s delivered to them, all neatly
packed in crates, but with no manuals or assembly equipment, and no ground
crews. The kids spend the next weeks unloading the planes, dragging them to
the airstrip, figuring out how to assemble them and doing that. Only then
could they, for the very first time, fly a P-39. About the time they had got
the planes put together, learned how to navigate the pattern with them and
land, they were sent to Guadalcanal, where the Japanese Navy's Zeros ate them
alive. Big surprise.".......
Now if we looked at the experience of the Flying Tigers flying the P-40B you'd see an "inferior" plane flown by seasoned pilots to great effect. The P-39 is clearly superior to the P-40B....
Now on the positive side of the ledger we can start with Bob Hoovers comments in "forever flying" on the P-39. We'll follow that up with comments on the P-39 in US service elsewhere which were all positive....
Then we'll look at US deployment which continued thruout 1944 in frontline combat roles with no negative comments I can find from ETO/MTO...
Finally look at the service record in russia where 75%+ of the P-39's ended up.
I support any comment I make with unbiased 411 from any and all sources I can find and when possible link said source. I find most take the course you have here. Comment without substance backed up by nothing but vaque recollections of what someone else "said" without regard to context or verification.
All you need to do in order to understand the P-39's potential is read the comments from Grislawski and match it with the units and operations he's talking about. The P-39 turned the tide of the airwar on the Eastern Front...thats simply a statistical and historical fact.
Since this is where the P-39 was actually flown as a fighter in numbers by experienced pilots it stands as the best point of reference. Are you saying the P-39 didnt actually score those victories? Or that the german pilots were 2nd rate? Or what....
Just totally disagree with you on this one buddy....
-
The USAAF needed fighters with range, and the P-39 simply didn't carry enough
fuel internally to be useful for much of the war.
Also, the old axiom has it that the bombers deterimine the altitude at which
fighters must fight. In the SWPA, the Japanese sent their bombers over
generally at between 18,000 and 22,000 ft., sometimes substantially higher.
While the P-39 could get that high, it took it a long time to do so, so the
opportunities for high altitude intercepts were few. Effectively, it was all
done by about 17,000 ft. It was at its best below about 12,000 ft. Considering
that the mountains in New Guinea rose to over 14,000 ft., and in the early days
of the conflict both sides were going back and forth over those mountains to
get at each other, the P-39 was at an instant disadvantage. Fortunately for
P-39 drivers, the Japanese bombers had a habit of dropping into a shallow
descent as they approached their objective, so they could increase speed and
so, presumably, reduce the risks associated with AAA and also complicate
fighter intercept, as well as increase accuracy by bombing at a lower altitude.
This practice, however, often put them and their escorts into prime 'Cobra
fighting space.
The Soviets fought over terrain much like that of Iowa, were based close to the
enemy, and the Germans chose to send their bombers over at medium and low
altitudes. So none of the factors that worked against the P-39 in New Guinea
were present on the Eastern Front.
Also worth noting. An RAF Duxford comparison test of a captured Me 109E and
P-39C showed the Bell outperforming the 109 in every category except rate of
climb when below 15,000 ft. The P-39 could easily out-turn the 109--it took
the 'Cobra less than 720 degrees to get on the tail of an Me that was planted
on its tail.
So the P-39 should have had no trouble dealing with the 109 at the altitudes
common in the East.
In the SWPA, however, the P-39 not only had to fight at altitudes above where
it was best, it had to contend with fighters that were much, much more
maneuverable than it was. P-39 squadrons routinely stripped off the wing guns
to get more performance, and some even ripped out the armor plating (which
weighed about 750 pounds) to get yet more performance, prefering to reduce
their susceptibility to battle damage (as the Japanese did) at the expense of
vulnerability to it.
That said, the P-39 was not a failure in New Guinea. The two groups equipped
with it--the 8th and 35th--performed quite effectively. The two squadrons of
the 8FG that relieved RAAF 75 Squadron at Port Moresby at the end of March,
1942, were the only fighter force available to stop the Japanese air onslaught.
This they did, although at great cost.
-
{As an aside, Prof. Williamson Murray, who used to teach at the Air War
College, has said that the Luftwaffe had become a second-rate air force by the
end of 1943 at the latest, largely due to the atttrition warfare on the eastern
front. The P-39 must have played a part, perhaps a significant one, in
attriting the Luftwaffe; at least the Soviets, in negotiating the Third
Washington Protocol, which covered Lend-Lease to the USSR from Jan. thru June,
1943, asked for a staggering 500 P-39s a month to be delivered to them. They
had been using them (and P-400s) in combat for some time by then, and if the
airplane wasn't doing the job for them, they would have rejected it. They
certainly rejected the P-40 (which plane the USAAF in the SWPA thought was a
much better airplane than the P-39--again, different air force, different
needs)}.
It's interesting to note that the rate of climb of the P-39, which everybody in
the USAAF pissed and moaned about, was actually not that bad. The D and F
models (identical except for props, one electric, one hydraulic) could beat
both the P47C and P-51A to 25,000 ft.--and take *half* the time the P-40E took.
A P-39Q could get to 25,000 ft. in about 10.5 minutes, almost six minutes
quicker than the P-51D. (Of course, the Q couldn't fly from London to Berlin
and back.)
One of the reasons the P-39 got a bad rap in the SWPA was that when it was
initially deployed fairly early in 1942, what was desperately needed was a
super-fast climbing interceptor, because the best warning of an incoming air
raid was about five minutes. What was needed was something like the CW-21
(something with its rate of climb, anyway). The fact was that no fighter would
have been able to respond effectively under those circumstances. But since the
P-39 was what was on hand, it got damned by frustrated pilots struggling uphill
at 160 mph while the Japanese, thousands of feet above, winged over and howled
down on them.
It's worth noting that, despite the disadvantages they fought under, the 8FG,
which took over from RAAF 75 Squadron at Moresby, suffered fewer losses with
its P-39s than did 75 Squadron with its P-40s. And it should not be forgotten
that the P-39 was, in fact, not a failure in those desperate early days in New
Guinea. The 8th (and later the 35th) and its Airacobras gave the JNAF's Tainan
Air Wing (and later the 2AW) and its Zeros a well-pulped and very bloody nose.
Air raids on Morseby tapered off from two a day at the end of April to one or
two a week by the end of June. Nobody else was shooting at the Japs, so it
must have been the P-39s that discouraged them.
-
krusty, i hate to act like an arse like this, but perhaps it's best to leave this one alone for a while and cool off, you can't be, and aren't always right ;)
-
Here are two little excerpts on guys who flew the P-39....
Re the P-39 and the New Guinea P-39 pilots: Sakai would have come up against
the 8th and 35th fighter groups. The 8th was first in combat with Sakai and
his buddies, tangling with them from the end of March, 1942. Among these boys
was Charlie Falletta, assigned to the 36th fighter squadron, who rose to
become a colonel. He is credited with 16 air-to-air kills during the war, the
first six of these while flying the P-39. The Bell boys had some rough fights
with the Tainan Kokutai in the April-May-June period, and had enough respect
for their foes to say they flew "Double Zeros"--each Japanese pilot was twice
as good as he had any right to be. It's interesting to note, glancing at their
combat reports, that on numerous occasions Zeros dived away from them at speeds
in excess of 400 mph. Apparently the Sakai and his pals had no fears about
diving the Zero. It was still not a great tactic against the P-39, which was
an excellent diver, and should circumstances allow (no other Zeros making a
nuisance of themselves), a P-39 could pursue and overhaul any diving Zero. The
problem, of course, came when the 'Cobra caught the Zero. If he didn't nail
him with his first burst, the P-39 driver was in deep doo-doo, his best hope to
blow on by and keep going.
Col. Falletta liked the P-39 a great deal, and believed it more than a match
for a Zero at its prime fighting altitude, which he put at between 8,000 and
12,000 ft., which is a pretty limited envelope.
A combat report of John "Shady" Lane, 35FG 39FS, gives you a sense of the
airfighting going on in those days, and the attitude of the kids fighting it:
"One definite, one probable, one damaged, one possible, twenty impossible and
hell knows how many I didn't see."
Here comments by Welsh in some context...
Some pilots didn't mind the engine behind them at all. When asked by a
journalist what aspect of the P-39 he liked, 7 victory ace George Welch
said, "Well, it's got 12 hundred pounds of Allison armor plate." When Welch
inquired as to when his squadron (the 36th FS) would receive P-38's, he
was told, "When we run out of P-39's." The net result was that Welch would
bail out of or ditch every P-39 that so much as hinted of a mechanical
problem. Soon, this became the practice of the entire squadron. Any
excuse was used to get rid of an Airacobra. This drove the squadron
brass insane. Yet somehow, the 5th AF kept scrounging up more P-39's.
Finally, in mid May of 1943, Welch was transfered to the 80th FS who
flew the P-38G. Within 12 weeks, George shot down 9 enemy fighters
along with 2 probables and several more damaged. He was shipped
to Sydney with a serious case of malaria, never to return to combat.
Welch was discharged in early 1944 and went to work for North American
Aviation as a test pilot. It's too that bad George is no longer with us. He,
more than anyone else, could certainly compare the P-38 to the P-51.
We do know that he thought very highly of both types. I suspect that
he would be quite content to fly either type into combat.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
-
Damn those Welsh!
:D
-
f34r t3h "Iron Dog"!
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4536/dosbox2006121023450703fk5.png) (http://imageshack.us)
I liek t3h p39D in AOTP, rly good fun fights between me(in p30D) and the ki84.
37mm = bane of bombers
4x.30cal + .50cal = paper shredder :t
piece o' watermelon above 15k, though we managed;)
-
krusty characteristic has made the otherwise tedious weekly P-39 wishlist thread interesting & informative, so it is possible that maybe you should [/b]not actually pick up and read a history book someday instead of making incorrect statements and unsubstantiated opinions all the time. [/I]
-
Originally posted by Debonair
krusty characteristic has made the otherwise tedious weekly P-39 wishlist thread interesting & informative, so it is possible that maybe you should not actually pick up and read a history book someday instead of making incorrect statements and unsubstantiated opinions all the time. [/I] [/B]
:) :D :lol :rofl
:aok
Bronk
-
so what if krusty is wrong.
i don't see many of you others who know any thing worth knowing.
and bronk, your sig alone shows you have a fetish for jumping on krusty whenever the chance arises.
You bunch of 'gang tough talkers' could have just plainly said ' youre wrong krusty' but you have to take it to the next level and try to make him into the village idiot, simply becuase he is incorrect about something he thinks he knew.
why don't you all grow up and go find a small baby to take some candy from?
-
Some VVS speed curves by Tilt. P-39 was not exactly a "Monster" when compared to Soviets' own midwar fighters, the Yak-9 and La-5F.
(http://www.tilt.clara.net/vvscurves/ae2.jpg)
As for claims that the "German units were often under orders to avoid combat with P-39 equipped units", I would like to see some substantial evidence. (And also for similar claims about Yak-3.)
The armor plating of the P-39 did not weight even near 750lb, it was less than 200lb.
-
All you need to do is look for it, you can read between the lines in accounts like Grislawski's and find "official" mention elsewhere. As mentioned in one of the clips above the prevailing line of thought amonst most military historians is that the luftwaffe "died" over the eastern front in 1943. THe attrition rate amongst seasoned pilots grew expodentially. Comments like Grislawskis support this pretty clearly. I dont think the orders were just specific to the P-39. They were a comination of the plane and units that had them which were the best in the VVS.
The Yak9D&T would be the best yaks available and the evidence clearly suggests the russians viewed the p-39 as superior. Otherwise they would have equipped guards units with the yaks or La-5's. The la-5FN was roughly a mid 43 plane from what I can tell. Yet at that time the russians single biggest demand (lend lease)was for more P-39's....which many top aces (and units) flew thru 1944. your numbers on the armour are just wrong. The P-39D had 245 lbs of additional armour. This was in addition to the original amount. This is pretty typical of what I see here with regard to inaccurate "statements of fact".
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
so what if krusty is wrong.
Absolutely nothing wrong with it. But try telling him he is wrong and see what you get.
i don't see many of you others who know any thing worth knowing.
and bronk, your sig alone shows you have a fetish for jumping on krusty whenever the chance arises.
OMG if jumped on Krusty's post as much as he jumps in others I'd have a full time job on my hands. So please batty do a little search before posting this tripe. Ohh and my sig is a little reminder that no one is correct all the time. Seeing how someone didn't head that warning maybe it should be a bigger warning.
You bunch of 'gang tough talkers' could have just plainly said ' youre wrong krusty' but you have to take it to the next level and try to make him into the village idiot, simply becuase he is incorrect about something he thinks he knew.
Sorry What happened was he was told he was incorrect and couldn't let it go. So he kept the argument going and took it to the "next level". I don't think Krusty is an idiot far from it. He is probably one of the most book smart people who post on this BBS. He is also a very fun person to fight with and against in game.
why don't you all grow up and go find a small baby to take some candy from?
WOW you think that little of him comparing him to a defenseless, uneducated baby?
Cmon bat.. AC stats were posted humble commented on Russian use of it and the K man jumped on it faster than flies on ... well you know. This while not backing up his critique of Humbles post. He got called on it and couldn't let it go. Thats it end of story.
For the record, if I didn't look stuff up. How could have I have added to the P-63 usage that Krusty asked about. As a matter of fact it was from the same article as humble found. Finding the P-39 articles is not that much harder once again cuz i looked for em.
Lesson to all, look before you leap.
Bronk
-
The original design was unarmoured (1939). Production specs called for addition of armor. The D was the 1st production run (923) so the 245 might be total weight....not sure since no specific "total weight" could be found for armor on the D or C. From what I can find the C should have had armor already since it was the preprodution (20) run. Armor weight also technically includes self sealing tanks and armored glass. The P400 (roughly 400) was a different configuation manufactured for england. The british used significant armor so its possible design specs were different. It had the 20mm instead of the 37mm but no specifcs on other mods if any. Basically it was a P39-D1.....
-
At a whim I returned to this thread to check up on it (it's got a new page). While not descending into the intelectual abyss to fight with a select few, I will point this out:
Humble: The quotes aside, you make one argument several times. The P39 was used by the elite, who had their choice, so it must have been the best. The P39 was in fact inferior to the yak9s, and the la7. The La was by far one of THE best planes of the entire war (across all nations, it was equal to the best any other nation could provide). The Yak was also a very high-performance machine, so much so that the LW weren't alowed to fight it below ... what? ... 25,000 feet. Both of these planes were far far better in every way to the P39's performance.
You can't just assume that "the elite chose it, so it must have been one of the best," as an argument. There are probably many reasons for this. The P39 being superior to all other planes is not on this list. They began flying with these planes. Perhaps nostalgia, if not for the P39 they'd all be flying biplanes and dead many years back. Maybe they had an irrational appreciation for the plane that saved their lives (even US pilots had this problem). My guess? Ammo load. Availability. For one, the Yaks had very small ammo loads. You might get 1 kill, maybe 2 before having to return. I bet for the elite squadrons that would be frustrating to no end. Availability means they had SO many they could throw away the engines every 3-4 hours and replace them. They were a disposable plane with unlimited replacements. LA7s and high-end Yaks were in high demand. Lose a few, and the pilots of the "elite squads" have to revert to other planes (thus disrupting efficiency) probably also annoying to no end for a productive unit.
That one argument doesn't hold water.
-
Krusty
There was tremendous pressure for the top aces to switch to the la-5 or other soviet design. The simple reality is that they preferred the P-39 over any plane available. Once again your making statements without any documentation. The P39D is a 1942 plane. the La-7 and late war Yak-9 are both 1945 era birds. The P39Q was a mid 1943 release and the workhorse of many vvs units. The Q got to 25,000 5 minutes faster then the P-51D and handled better then any fighter on the eastern front. It could eat up a 109G6 or la-5. It retained almost all the pure turn performace of the D (which could easily out turn the best turning 109 (the E) with siginifcantly better overall speed and climb. Numerous commentary is available in interviews directly with many soviet WW2 era aces who clearly state that the P-39 was easily the best fighter available to them in 1943-44.
The airwar on the eastern front was never fought at 25,000. Almost all actions were at 15,000 or lower. The laag-3 and La-5 were both very high production run aircraft. Stalin was so disappointed in the Laag-3 he shut the factory lines down and converted them to the Yak-7. The remaining laag-3s were modified and the la-5 was born. It proved to be very capable and was put into service in 1942.
Its obvious from your writing you no very little about russian aviation during WW2. The soviet military awarded eleite status to units only after significant battlefield success. This was not only a tremendous honor (similiar to US presidential unit citation) but also gave the unit priority on equipment and the ability to "requisition" skilled personnel. The catch was that these units then became the "hammer" in the soviet army, constantly thrown into the toughest battles. As it relates to the airwar the Guards units were given top priority and could fly anything they wanted...they WANTED the P-39. I'm amazed at your inability to realize the simple truth. The P-39 was simply one of the best mid altitude fighters of the war. The Q could do roughly 400 mph and turn about as well as a spit V.
-
Originally posted by humble
All you need to do is look for it, you can read between the lines in accounts like Grislawski's and find "official" mention elsewhere.
...
your numbers on the armour are just wrong. The P-39D had 245 lbs of additional armour. This was in addition to the original amount. This is pretty typical of what I see here with regard to inaccurate "statements of fact".
Sorry, "read between the lines" is not what I would call substantial.
I have the weight breakdown of P-39Q-1-BE (from the Flight Manual, Zeno's may have it also):
Armour:
Gear Box: 70.7 lb
Fume : 27 lb
Windshield: 8,2 lb
Turnover: 15.8 lb
Inst board: 2.8 lb
Oil tank: 29 lb
Aft cabin: 18.2 lb
Windshield(glass): 21.7 lb
Total: 193.4 lb
What did I miss ?
(For comparison F6F Hellcat, much bigger and heavier plane, carried a total of 456 pounds of armour plate, toughened class, Duralumin deflector plates and self-sealing material for the fuel tanks).
-
And the beat goes on.
Well batty care to comment on the P-39 .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by humble
Krusty
There was tremendous pressure for the top aces to switch to the la-5 or other soviet design. The simple reality is that they preferred the P-39 over any plane available. Once again your making statements without any documentation.
I could quote anecdotal pilot's memiors 60+ years after the fact, but it's been proven many times that the la5 was a better plane than the p39 in many ways. Look at the performance charts. Like I said, you can't just say "They preferred the p39 so it's better" -- because there's many many reasons to prefer a plane. Maybe they "preferred" it because the engine kept them from getting shot with bullets, if hypothetically so that would mean they were being shot more often than doing the shooting, and the wingman tactics won the battle, not the plane itself (hypothetically). You can't just say "it was preferred" and leave it at that.
It could eat up a 109G6 or la-5. It retained almost all the pure turn performace of the D (which could easily out turn the best turning 109 (the E) with siginifcantly better overall speed and climb. Numerous commentary is available in interviews directly with many soviet WW2 era aces who clearly state that the P-39 was easily the best fighter available to them in 1943-44.
Okay, show me a turn radius or turn speed chart that shows the P39 turning tighter than the 109E. Just because pilots DID out turn something doesn't mean the turns were equal, or that they both started flat, at the same time, or any number of circumstances. Even Porkyshrin's own motto was altitude-speed-manuver-fire. He developed tactics to dive from high alt onto the target then fire and get out. How much of a turn are you going to get on a 109E with this setup? Is pulling lead for 10 degrees a turn? 45 degrees? Pilots only report what happened at one time. They often don't include all the details in the reports. Any plane can out turn any other plane given the right circumstances. 190s were reported to turn with spitfires, and WIN. Doesn't mean the 190 turns better. Just means the pilots flew it better in that fight.
The airwar on the eastern front was never fought at 25,000. Almost all actions were at 15,000 or lower. The laag-3 and La-5 were both very high production run aircraft. Stalin was so disappointed in the Laag-3 he shut the factory lines down and converted them to the Yak-7. The remaining laag-3s were modified and the la-5 was born. It proved to be very capable and was put into service in 1942.
Its obvious from your writing you no very little about russian aviation during WW2. The soviet military awarded eleite status to units only after significant battlefield success. This was not only a tremendous honor (similiar to US presidential unit citation) but also gave the unit priority on equipment and the ability to "requisition" skilled personnel. The catch was that these units then became the "hammer" in the soviet army, constantly thrown into the toughest battles. As it relates to the airwar the Guards units were given top priority and could fly anything they wanted.
I'm aware of all this. Please don't condescend, or make statements like "it's obvious you know nothing". I never typed anything to counter the points in the above paragraph.
..they WANTED the P-39. I'm amazed at your inability to realize the simple truth. The P-39 was simply one of the best mid altitude fighters of the war. The Q could do roughly 400 mph and turn about as well as a spit V.
Hrm.. turn about as well as a spitfire? Show me where. Also the top speed was 380 at top altitude (15,000+). 20mph is a big drop from 400mph. Even the hellcat could do about 400mph at alt. At 5000 feet the P39Q (yes, not the D, the Q, with a whopping 1,200 hp engine) could only muster 330mph. 109s were almost 50mph faster (109G-2s doing about 375mph at this alt). Like I said in my previous post, they wanted the P39, but not because it was the best-flying plane around. There were other planes that out performed it. There is enough evidence to show that. They wanted it for other reasons, is my guess. You seem to think that "wanting it" equates to it being the best. Not always so.
Nobody's arguing they got things done in the P39. Hell the Finns got things done in a Brewster Buffalo. Doesn't mean the plane was very good. What you're doing is taking one biased, pilot's-memory-based writing on the matter and trying to turn it into data to show that plane X did Y. That's why everybody brushed you off years back in the other threads. You take one anecdotal source and use it to prove the moon is made of cheese. Your "proof" isn't proof at all. It's just quotations from a book. That's what I'm trying to get at here.
My point isn't that the P39 was a total POS. I think it had lackluster performance, personally, but my point is that your arguments that it's uber are unsubstantiated and not supported.
Get charts. Get test flights. Get actual data, speeds, turn radii, THEN say "okay, looks like this shows the P39 turned better than a yak3, but worst than a yak9". That type of thing.
-
Also, the game IL2 is known to not have the most representative flight engine. They are overly-generous to almost all Soviet aircraft. They have it modeled so that the P39Q (listed as 1,325hp) gets to 10k in 4.0 minutes. Most planes can reach 15k in this time. That's just 2500fpm. I doubt it's climbing any faster than a P51 to any altitude. Please support that with some numbers.
-
and how it would/should perform in AH. I'm using gonzo's page as the point of reference for performance.
The only hard comparative data for the p-39 vs any currently modeled plane is the 109E. The P-39 was noted to be clearly superior in everything but climb. It could totally dominate the 109E in turn taking only 720 degrees (2 revolutions) to lap the 109E. The P-39 Q has more power but almost identical weight and therefor wingloading. Speeds and climb rate reports vary on sources I have from 375 to 398 mph and climb ins generally in the 2500ft/min.....
The 109 E has a noted turn rate of 544 and 403 respectively, significantly better then the 620 & 462 of the La-5fn. Given the degree of domination the P-39 had over the 109E I'd speculate that its turn rate will beat the spit V (503, 386) and approach the A6M2's 378, 318 numbers. How close is pure speculation but going from the comment above that the p-39 was "every bit the match" for the zeke at its optimum alt I'd guess somewhere in the 460-490, 380-420....but again just a guess.
The la-5n's speed actually drops off from 8 to 16k so its performance at the "prime window" for the P-39 is actually somewhat nuetered.
Worst speed at alt numbers i have for the P39Q are 376 mph at 15,000 which would be roughly even with the La-5 as modeled in AH. The D was 368 at 12,000. Now these are US #'s and the russian birds were lighter and ran at higher man pressure. Based on what I can read from soviet sources the P-39 performance equaled or exceeded the la-5FN which is actually a very late 1944 bird as modeled. It is far superior to the La-5 in service in 1943.
Again this is just some extrapolation based on what I can find. But when you cobble it togeather you have plane that turns exceptionally well (based on the british tests vs the 109E) and is reasonably fast (worst case is 368 at 12,000ft) and somewhat limited in the vertical. The russian 1st hand accounts seem to indicate significantly better climb then indicated by US numbers but no actual data seems available online that I could find. Given its good dive characteristcs I'd say a 15k P-39 would be a very fromidable adversary...
-
If you read what was posted earlier you'll find reference to british tests at duxford with a captured 109E. P-39 could gain 360 degrees in 2 revolutions...
As I stated the raw numbers on the P-39 vary....and no clear numbers on performance as modified by the russians are available that I can find. All we know is the russians ran the bird "hotter" and got better performance at the expense of additional wear and tear on the engines...
Performance charts on what la-5....show me performace numbers for the la-5. The la-5FN we have in AH is a late 1944 bird thats functionally close to the 1st la-7's. The P39's were discussing are 1942/43 birds.
Its well documented that the british readily admitted the p-39D was more then a match for the 109E in everything other then climb under 20,000ft.
Why dont you show me one single piece of 3rd party data on ANYTHING. I've supported the vast majority of everything here.
-
Originally posted by TimRas
Sorry, "read between the lines" is not what I would call substantial.
I have the weight breakdown of P-39Q-1-BE (from the Flight Manual, Zeno's may have it also):
Armour:
Gear Box: 70.7 lb
Fume : 27 lb
Windshield: 8,2 lb
Turnover: 15.8 lb
Inst board: 2.8 lb
Oil tank: 29 lb
Aft cabin: 18.2 lb
Windshield(glass): 21.7 lb
Total: 193.4 lb
What did I miss ?
(For comparison F6F Hellcat, much bigger and heavier plane, carried a total of 456 pounds of armour plate, toughened class, Duralumin deflector plates and self-sealing material for the fuel tanks).
Posted afterward, you might actually be correct here. The original design did not have armor. The C may or may not have had any. The D had ~ 245 "added" (from zero or did C have any?). The Q was the real 1st production run and armor weight was reduced. So the Q weight is right on with your earlier comment. The planes in use at kuban were either the D's or the 400's...the D-3 had more armor then the D1 & 2....I have no clue what the british specs were. The 700lbs comes from a guy well regarded as an expert (who by the way thinks the P-39 is junk). He simply like me is curious how it performed so well. I'd guess off hand that the "700 #" number is the total wieght stripped from the birds in question. Funny how the guys in pac and russians reached the same conclusion. Strip out as much weight as you can (remember they took 2 or 4 30 cals out as well)....I wonder if the pilots ran them hot in the field like the russians did.
But I agree my comment on weight was in error, which I tried to correct above. I think the total weight removed is right...but agree the bird doesnt appear to have that much actual armor weight. But the Q was significantly lighter in armor weight then the D...that I do know....
-
well bronk, i dont give a toss about the P39 whatevercobra, and i dont think a couple of others here do either.
now there are people like humble who are arguing with krusty about solid facts and this i find totaly normal.
what i think is pathetic are the people who jump on the band wagon when someone is being flamed.
If you came into this thread and said nothing of value about the topic, and furthermore just made fun of krusty for his mistakes, then you are far more useless to this debate than krusty.
thats just my opinion, and i shall not be reading any further posts in this thread.
-
I have zero issue with Krusty, he's a great guy and I fly with him all the time. I just dont agree with his thoughts on this particular subject. Obviously there is no need to beat this to death....here is a bit more food for thought.
La-5 (http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=ru30&page=la5)
This is a link to a russian site with english translation. The data page is for the la-5....note the difference in the la-5 and la5FN. Also that the La5FN has two distiinct sets of numbers since the later la-5FN has a much more powerful engine (same as the la-7 I believe).
La-5FN (http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=ru30&page=la5fn)
The la-5fn we have here has the ASh-82FN engine (99% sure)...same as the La-7.
This is a link to an interview with Ivan Kozhedub, he recieved his LA-5FN in may 1944. Prior to that he comments on the Lag-5 (which I think is the La-5). so the La-5 FN's with the more powerful engine are mid 1944 birds...
interview (http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/aces/3038181.html?featured=y&c=y)
Finally the same russian site has some data on the P-39
P-39 (http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=uk60&page=p39rus)
I noticed a couple of things...
climb to 4500 meters (14,650ft?) is 5 minutes...or 2975 ft/m....better then the raw US numbers. Max speed is noted at 615km/h and horsepower at 1420
This gives the P-39 a higher speed 615/580 then the la-5 and close to the la-5fn (634). The la-5 climb rate works out to 2850 ft/m...less then the P-39. The la-5FN is substancially better using the faster climb rate 3457 ft/m but using the lower # (different engine??) we get 3066 ft/m which is very close.
The numbers on this site clearly show the speed and climb performance of the P-39 to be roughly equal or superior to its russian counterparts (1943) and competative with the original la-5FN. Combined with the british evaluation of its turn capability I'd say its pretty clear you have a plane thats reasonably fast, climbs reasonably well and out turns anything it would run into. Using the russian supplied 1420 hp can we extrapolate out performance numbers??
-
The Q-1 had reduced armor, but I believe by the Q-5 or so it was re-instated as standard. They needed it, apparently.
Question, though... Why would a 1943 plane be compared to a 1941 design? It's much heavier than a 109E, but only has the same horsepower. While slightly aerodynamic, by the time it saw some action in 1943 (and later) it would be up against 109G models, much more advanced than the early E.
I will admit that it probably had a tight turning radius, but it also had major stability problems, including spins (if you don't get out in the first 1/2 oscillation, you may not ever get out of the spin -- I have a scan of a page off the flight manual saying this). Most older designs do have a tighter turn radius, because of power available and the speed of the turn. However, I posted already they had good turners. They had some of the best turners. If they only wanted to turn, they would have used what they had. Porkryshin liked the P39 because it opened up tactics to him. No longer would they just turn in the flat plane. He developed tactics in the vertical that were not possible before the P39 showed up. He liked that the P39 allowed them to develop BnZ tactics, which were (before the 39 showed up in 1942) almost impossible. The 109s it tangled with were primarily geared for the 20k alt band, but that's not to say they were handicapped below this altitude.
So the P39 was a match for the 109E, let's say. Taking the data for the 109s in AH:
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109e4&p2=109f4&p3=109g2&p4=109g6
We find that it is slower, climbs worse, and the only benefit it has is turn (but, this is the 109, not the P39, don't have actual turn on it)
Going from P39D flight tests:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1165870067_p39iii49zd.jpg)
The P39 climbed far worse than the 109E, but a little faster, doing about 355 at 13k
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1165870081_p39iii50dt.jpg)
But, seeing as it would be up against F4s, G2s, and G6s, by the time the Soviets got them, going back to the gonzoville chart above (note that's an early G6 model for AH) we see it is still far below that of the 109s it would fight against.
Soviets loved propoganda. They loved fights where the underdog prevails. There are cases where Soviet "hero" pilots were said to have been shot down in 12-on-1 engagements when they died, but that was the cover story for dying to a 1-on-1 (as with Lytvak), or even when attacking a lone Ju87 as with Shestakov. Why is it only the Soviets say the P39 was a beast? Perhaps because they loved their propoganda. You can't just say "oh they lightened their load" -- because WE tried that too. The P40N had a much more powerful engine and a much lighter weight (even removing 2 of the 6 guns) and still was lackluster compared to what was already in service. The P51H was a stripped down, weight-saved version of the P51 and it really didn't gain all that much performance. Yes, there was a gain, but it wasn't miraculous, as with the Soviet P39.
Was the P39 underestimated? Sure. Was it the super plane the Soviets show? Naaah. You've still got an overly-heavy 1941 design with only 1200hp and a terrible gun (worst of the war, basically) barely able to climb at all, a top speed not much to write home about, and only able to compete with LW planes "between 8k and 12k" -- a very narrow band, indeed. A single zoom climb or power dive can get you past this zone very quickly. The Q model had only 50hp more than the D (1150 vs 1200hp), but had a 4-blade prop, so it was a little faster. That would mean a little more climb rate, but not 4500fpm like the 109s it was up against. Forget about the even-faster 190s that eventually showed up.
Link to image with engine HP chart (http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1165871946_tabla9de.jpg)
[EDIT] Changed "P47N" to "P40N"
[EDIT2] Fixed second image, pasted wrong code
-
The info on that page might be wrong. For the "1400hp" engine, it states:
"2 X PE V-1710-85 Allison"
2 of them? It must be confused with the P38.
It also states a 32mm cannon. It was 37mm. I think we have to discard that horsepower rating due to those two flaws. Note that even with such a super high rating, its top speed is still listed at 385mph or so, a little higher than the norm (+10mph) but that its rate of climb to 13,500 feet is 5 minutes (2700fpm). The hp might be wrong, but the performance itself seems to be near milspec.
It lists the Lavochkin speed at sea level, but not the P39 speed at sea level. So just going by top speed alone might be mis-leading, but the 1943 -FN surpasses the P39Q at 18,700 feet or so, about 5k higher than the p39. I'm not sure how that breaks down, speed-wise. In the AH speed chart it does about 360 at sea level. Using the speed chart in my previous post (fixed, btw) we see that the 39D did a bit over 320MPH at sea level. The Q seems to be about 20mph faster, so let's say it's 340mph at sea level. That's still slower than the LA5FN. Even the 1942 LA5 comes out to about 334mph at sea level, par with the P39Q. It had no major speed advantages against comptemporary Vvs aircraft. Even the 1942 Yak9 did 320 at sea level, on par with the 1942 P39D.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The info on that page might be wrong. For the "1400hp" engine, it states:
"2 X PE V-1710-85 Allison"
2 of them? It must be confused with the P38.
It also states a 32mm cannon. It was 37mm. I think we have to discard that horsepower rating due to those two flaws. Note that even with such a super high rating, its top speed is still listed at 385mph or so, a little higher than the norm (+10mph) but that its rate of climb to 13,500 feet is 5 minutes (2700fpm). The hp might be wrong, but the performance itself seems to be near milspec.
It lists the Lavochkin speed at sea level, but not the P39 speed at sea level. So just going by top speed alone might be mis-leading, but the 1943 -FN surpasses the P39Q at 18,700 feet or so, about 5k higher than the p39. I'm not sure how that breaks down, speed-wise. In the AH speed chart it does about 360 at sea level. Using the speed chart in my previous post (fixed, btw) we see that the 39D did a bit over 320MPH at sea level. The Q seems to be about 20mph faster, so let's say it's 340mph at sea level. That's still slower than the LA5FN. Even the 1942 LA5 comes out to about 334mph at sea level, par with the P39Q. It had no major speed advantages against comptemporary Vvs aircraft. Even the 1942 Yak9 did 320 at sea level, on par with the 1942 P39D.
38 was never in russian service, i'd guess it was a translation goof but I dont know for sure. The AH la-5 is the may 1944 one. Obviously the numbers they have are incomplete as well. The P-39 is the only one with any real specs or production notes. I'd guess thats due to the importance they place on the bird. Reading all the various combat cmparisions on the site i'd guess they found the speed and horsepower numbers in the archives and plugged them in. If you read the russian history on the p-39 they did major overhauls on them (especially engine) to get them to where they wanted them. i'd guess the standard russian rating on the P-40Q was 1420 hp. Which would be in line with the various performance reports i've read.
-
I'm afraid you'd have to find that number and post it before I believe it. A 1200hp engine being run at 1400+ hp? Hell even the latest-model P63s (that didn't see combat) barely had a 1400hp engine.
It's like a CPU chip. You can put it in, and run it at standard specs, or you can overclock it. Overclock it too much and it blows. Same for engines. They have to be designed to run at certain speeds, otherwise they blow up somewhere, and stop turning.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I'm afraid you'd have to find that number and post it before I believe it. A 1200hp engine being run at 1400+ hp? Hell even the latest-model P63s (that didn't see combat) barely had a 1400hp engine.
It's like a CPU chip. You can put it in, and run it at standard specs, or you can overclock it. Overclock it too much and it blows. Same for engines. They have to be designed to run at certain speeds, otherwise they blow up somewhere, and stop turning.
I'm simply looking at the material I find...nothing more, nothing less. If you look at the russian history it clearly states that they maxed out the engine performance in exchange for shorter engine life. From what I read averge combat life for the engine was roughly 50 flight hours. So obviously they were pushing them very hard. Here is another site with some russian input...it has top speed for the P39-Q at 399???
P-39?? (http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/aircraft/russian/lendlease.htm)
I've got no special fixation with the p-39. I'm simply curious.....half of the top 10 russian aces flew 39's for all or a majority of there kills. Seeing just how capable the ki-61 and C205 are in AH I simply believe the P-39 is much better then suggested. By and large all comments from guys who flew it (with walsh as notable exception) are positive.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I'm afraid you'd have to find that number and post it before I believe it. A 1200hp engine being run at 1400+ hp? Hell even the latest-model P63s (that didn't see combat) barely had a 1400hp engine.
Installed in the P-39M, P-39N and P-39Q, both the V1710-83 and V1710-85 were rated at 1,420 hp at 3,000 rpm @ 57" MAP.
It gets better... The V1710-63 installed in the P-39K and P-39L was rated at 1,590 hp at 3,000 rpm @ 61" MAP.
Now, the V1710-93 installed in the P-63A was rated at 1,820 hp at 3,000 rpm @ 75" MAP with water injection.
See Dean's, America's Hundred Thousand.
Oh, and some P-63s saw limited combat against the Luftwaffe as part of a combat evaluation. Later, some Soviet P-63s saw combat briefly against the Japanese in the last week of the war.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by humble
I'm simply looking at the material I find...nothing more, nothing less. If you look at the russian history it clearly states that they maxed out the engine performance in exchange for shorter engine life. From what I read averge combat life for the engine was roughly 50 flight hours. So obviously they were pushing them very hard. Here is another site with some russian input...it has top speed for the P39-Q at 399???
I've seen data that shows the P-39Q-1 was capable of 399 mph at 9,700 feet. However, I've never seen any corroborating data from another source.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Installed in the P-39M, P-39N and P-39Q, both the V1710-83 and V1710-85 were rated at 1,420 hp at 3,000 rpm @ 57" MAP.
It gets better... The V1710-63 installed in the P-39K and P-39L was rated at 1,590 hp at 3,000 rpm @ 61" MAP.
Now, the V1710-93 installed in the P-63A was rated at 1,820 hp at 3,000 rpm @ 75" MAP with water injection.
See Dean's, America's Hundred Thousand.
Oh, and some P-63s saw limited combat against the Luftwaffe as part of a combat evaluation. Later, some Soviet P-63s saw combat briefly against the Japanese in the last week of the war.
My regards,
Widewing
Your much more seasoned at fact finding. Is there anyway to get the P-39/109E reports or any other hard data on performance. It seems like there was almost zero real "hard numbers" in mainstream sources.
V1710-85 were rated at 1,420 hp at 3,000 rpm @ 57" MAP
This is the engine listed in the russian site linked above. Can you calculate top speed from the #'s?? I'd guess its right in line with the 615 km/h listed...
I've seen the 399 multiple places also but with no supporting documentation. All seem based on russian test data which is not referenced directly.
-
Originally posted by humble
This is the engine listed in the russian site linked above. Can you calculate top speed from the #'s??
I don't think you can. I think there's too many variables, including altitude, drag, and the engine power. (*not sure*)