Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 1K3 on March 22, 2007, 07:24:52 PM
-
For those who want P-39 ....
btw i want Japanese fighters (ki43, ki44, J2M3, Ki100) 1st! ;)
Most representative lineup of P-39s.
P-39D
U.S. Version:
245 lb of additional armor, self-sealing fuel tanks. Armament increased to 1x 37 mm cannon (30 rounds), 2x .50 cal (200 rounds/gun) and 4x .30 cal (1,000 rounds/gun) machine guns. Provisions for a single 250-lb, 325-lb, or 500-lb bomb under the fuselage.
P-39Q-30
U.S.S.R. Version:
wing-mounted 0.30 cal machineguns replaced with a single 0.50 cal with 300 rounds of ammunition in a pod under each wing. These wing guns were often removed on Soviet aircraft. P-39Q-21 had a four-bladed Aeroproducts propeller. The P-39Q-30 reverted to a three-bladed propeller because the four-bladed unit worsened directional stability.
PS: P-39D should be classified as a US Army Aircraft, P-39Q-30 should be classified as Soviet VVS aircraft
-
Breaking the myth of P-39...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-39
It is mistakenly believed that the Airacobra was used as a ground-attack aircraft by the Soviet Union, the lack of a turbo-supercharger restricting it to low-altitude combat. In fact, the Soviets used it to provide top cover. The tactical environment of the Eastern Front did not demand the extreme high-altitude operations that the RAF and USAAF employed with their big bombers. In the relatively low-altitude operations in the East, the lack of a turbocharger was not as great a handicap. The low-speed, low-altitude turning nature of most air combat on the Russian Front suited the P-39's strengths rather than its inherent weaknesses. The second-highest scoring Allied ace, Pokryshkin, flew the P-39 from late 1942 until the end of the war; his unofficial score in the Airacobra stands at nearly 60 Luftwaffe aircraft.
A total of 9,584 were produced, with over half being sent to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program.
-
How about a compromise smack in the middle of them both, the variant used by the most formiddable P-39 pilot of them all?
The P-40N "white 100", of Alexander "Sasha" Pokryshkin, 16GIAP
(http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/Cobra.jpg)
(http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n26/Mangas_Rus/New%20Skinning%20Work%20Shots/Pokryshkin.jpg)
(http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/pokri2.jpg)
-
I got a better idea.How about bringing in the P-63.It never seen much action in WWII,but what the heck,we got turn fighting 163's,Niki's,which they only built about 400 of.So whats wrong with streching it a lil bit,and giving us the P-63.Some corrupt politician or crooked general took a kickback,and North American got the big contract,leaving Bell to wither on the vine.Some say the P-63 matched the P-51 in most areas.I had the pleasure to see both a P51[Old Yeller]and a P-63 flown in the same air show.Same pilot owns them both.In my opinion,the pony seemed more nimble.Can't blame the pilot,he flew both planes.P-63's ended up being targets for wax bullet shooting trainees.
ID
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
How about a compromise smack in the middle of them both, the variant used by the most formiddable P-39 pilot of them all?
The P-40N "white 100", of Alexander "Sasha" Pokryshkin, 16GIAP
(http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/Cobra.jpg)
(http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n26/Mangas_Rus/New%20Skinning%20Work%20Shots/Pokryshkin.jpg)
(http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/pokri2.jpg)
You mean the P-400?
-
Woops a mega typo.
P-39N I meant... !
-
... they should make the nose gun and its ammo the biggest and most plentiful that was used.
-
I got a better idea.How about bringing in the P-63.It never seen much action in WWII,but what the heck,we got turn fighting 163's,Niki's,which they only built about 400 of.So whats wrong with streching it a lil bit,and giving us the P-63.Some corrupt politician or crooked general took a kickback,and North American got the big contract,leaving Bell to wither on the vine.Some say the P-63 matched the P-51 in most areas.I had the pleasure to see both a P51[Old Yeller]and a P-63 flown in the same air show.Same pilot owns them both.In my opinion,the pony seemed more nimble.Can't blame the pilot,he flew both planes.P-63's ended up being targets for wax bullet shooting trainees.
No.
-
no P-39N saw action in PAC, only P-400 or P-39D. We can have P-39N for East front but why not P-39Q-30;)
-
I'd say do 3 models.
D2
Q-30
400
Not much visually different.
Since we have multi variants of other models I see no reason not to.
Bronk
-
They're short on time Bronk.
-
Agreed. Time is short. Expect only one for now.
Thing about the P400 is that it only had 60 rounds for the 20mm. Now, I dunno about you, but *I* can get a kill or two with that. Maybe some can't. Once that's gone, however, you're a sitting duck with no snapshot capabilities....
Still, probably better than the early loadout for the P39D's 37mm. It only had 30 rounds, increased from the P39Cs ammo count (can you imagine less than that??)
Mind you, I still say "Vote G.55!!"
-
I'd say if they choose something with multiple variants, they'll likely do two or three, simply because it'll be easier than going back later and doing them.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I wish I had better news for you on that Wmaker but I'm afraid we don't have a new kite for this release. Unfortunately, the terrain work has just taken a lot longer than we anticipated and even then, we were only looking at another updated airframe to fit the schedule.
The good news is that we do agree with you that a new airframe is overdue and we were discussing that at our meeting this morning. After this release that will be Waffle's next task while the rest of us put our collective efforts towards CT. We decided that we'd let the subscribers pick the next plane so I've been thinking of some various ways to have a run-off poll on what that should be. I'll be making a post on that in the near future. Now would be a good time to get your Brewster lobby mobilized.:)
Waffle is going to start it "after" this next release. He would then have time till the following release to model it.
How long has it been since the last version?
I'd say give him time to do 3 models. It would be worth the wait.
Bronk
-
Gaaaaaahhhh...
We're falling behind the G.55 and Me410 lobby thread...
This post must go up! (defiance towards the non-punt policy!)
-
After some reading this AM . I'd have to ask for the N2 model as well.
Bronk
-
If no Yak-3 of any type, this would be my second choice.
-
Originally posted by quintv
If no Yak-3 of any type, this would be my second choice.
Should be your first.:D
Had to pry those Russian aces out of the P-39
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Had to pry those Russian aces out of the P-39
Bronk
That's because they were dead. :lol
-
I would rather see the P-63 over the P-39. I just think it is an all around better plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra
-
Originally posted by BBBB
I would rather see the P-63 over the P-39. I just think it is an all around better plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra
So would I but it's not in the selection given.
Bronk
-
O.K. I give in because the P-63 isn't on list....P-39Q,which will fare just about as well as all the other early war aeroplanes do!Anyone want to venture a guess on who made that big old spud shooter in the nose of the P-39?kindda surprised me.
IronDog
-
(http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/pokri2.jpg)
I have always wondered why the russians shot down so many of their own planes.... :D :D :D
-
I would like to fly it ( p-39)
-
OK times up no answers on who made 37mm for the P39....Oldsmobile,and my guess it was farmed out to others.Good ol US of A car manufacturers came thru in fine fashion!
IronDog
-
I wouldn't brag about the Oldsmobile 37mm cannon, and I'm an Oldsmobile owner. It was an unreliable piece of crap. It jammed frequently, and just wasn't much good for anything other than ballast. May not have been Oldsmobile's fault, I doubt they designed it.
-
Yes to the P-39N.
As for the P-63A, even declassified Russian sources do not point to it being used untill the very end of the war in the ETO. Most of them were kept in the Far East for the coming invasion of Japan.
In early May 1945 9GIAD which was Pokryshkins unit, received some 36 of them but decided not to bother converting to it as it was deemed a waste of time. 5GIAD also received the P-63s but did not convert to them for the same reason.
This isnt surprising in that there was virtually no air combat with the LW in the last weeks of the war, almost all VVS sorties were ground attack, recon, ect. Air combat as a priority just wasnt there any more, and you didnt need new P-63s to strafe retreating German Volks infantry, and horse drawn carts.
They saw very limited action against the Japanese for a few weeks in August 1945, scoring 2 kills.
Had the atomic bomb not been dropped, perhaps it would have seen its day, but like the F8F Bearcat, its chance to do any real air combat was snuffed out. Fortunes of war.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Yes to the P-39N.
As for the P-63A, even declassified Russian sources do not point to it being used untill the very end of the war in the ETO. Most of them were kept in the Far East for the coming invasion of Japan.
In early May 1945 9GIAD which was Pokryshkins unit, received some 36 of them but decided not to bother converting to it as it was deemed a waste of time. 5GIAD also received the P-63s but did not convert to them for the same reason.
This isnt surprising in that there was virtually no air combat with the LW in the last weeks of the war, almost all VVS sorties were ground attack, recon, ect. Air combat as a priority just wasnt there any more, and you didnt need new P-63s to strafe retreating German Volks infantry, and horse drawn carts.
They saw very limited action against the Japanese for a few weeks in August 1945, scoring 2 kills.
Had the atomic bomb not been dropped, perhaps it would have seen its day, but like the F8F Bearcat, its chance to do any real air combat was snuffed out. Fortunes of war.
Ta152
nuff said.
Bronk
-
It shouldn't be there either.
Nuff said.
:D
-
Precedent has been set.
The P-63 fills the qualifications.
Can't put the genie back in the bottle now.
:p :D
Bronk
-
Ta152
nuff said.
Bronk
Priorities.
End of discussion.
-
Not like I said I want it now.
I was pointing out the fact there is no reason why it shouldn't be added, at some point.
:p
Bronk
-
P-63's a little out there, fellas....
In another thread, there's alotta people asking for an obscure aircraft, the Fiat G.55. Very few(130?)were even made before the end of the war, even fewer were in squadron service. So really, that plane's on the bubble as it wasn't very common. This would also apply to the Kingcobra. The mainstream models of the P-39, which saw service in every theatre, would most certainly be a welcome addition, though.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
no P-39N saw action in PAC, only P-400 or P-39D. We can have P-39N for East front but why not P-39Q-30;)
Incorrect. I have photos of 18th FG P-39Ns operating out of Henderson Field as late as July of 1943.
P-39Ns and Qs were in service in the Pacific with the 82nd and 110th Recon Squadrons until June of 1944. They were heavily used for ground support and rarely for recon duties.
P-39Qs were being delivered to front-line squadrons in Italy right up through June of 1944.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
P-63's a little out there, fellas....
In another thread, there's alotta people asking for an obscure aircraft, the Fiat G.55. Very few(130?)were even made before the end of the war, even fewer were in squadron service. So really, that plane's on the bubble as it wasn't very common. This would also apply to the Kingcobra. The mainstream models of the P-39, which saw service in every theatre, would most certainly be a welcome addition, though.
Some 3300 P-63 were built well over 2000 were sent to Russia.
Squadron strength, I'd say so.
Shot down enemy during WWII, yup.
That qualifies it.
Just not a priority.
Also I'm almost sure Russia combat tested it in the ETO, before sending it to the far east.
Bronk
-
(http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n26/Mangas_Rus/New%20Skinning%20Work%20Shots/Pokryshkin.jpg)
:confused: is the engine on this plane mounted in the middle? or the engine in the front but the pipes run to the side like that?:confused:
otherwise..its a cool plane
-
Engine is mounted behind the pilot, with the propeller shaft running through the cockpit. :)
-
weird:eek:
-
(http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p39-p63registry/images/p39gun.jpg)
For cannon reference.
Bronk
-
I was thinking it would carry more than 30 rounds.. How different from a Yak9T would a 39 be, in the MAs?
-
Well, let's see... Yak9T faster, turns way better, accelerates better, has better E retention, has a million times better gun (the Yak's 37mm has a very flat trajectory, the P-39s falls the second it leaves the barrel).
Yak9T will be light years better than the 39 in all categories, IMO. The only thing is that after the 39's spuds run out, it has slightly better MGs than the Yak does.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Well, let's see... Yak9T faster, turns way better, accelerates better, has better E retention, has a million times better gun (the Yak's 37mm has a very flat trajectory, the P-39s falls the second it leaves the barrel).
Yak9T will be light years better than the 39 in all categories, IMO. The only thing is that after the 39's spuds run out, it has slightly better MGs than the Yak does.
Go away I didn't troll your rare Italian ride thread, with disinformation.
Yak T is slower.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/yak9tspd.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/yak9tclmb.gif)
How a faster and better climber would accel slower is beyond me.
While all the weight of the yak is in the nose, not so with the P-39.
While this does make the P-39 a bit of a handful, It should be more pointable than the yak.
Yes the P-39 cannon is inferior ballistics wise, like the 30mm German guns it make up for it in punch.
It also could use a Dtank or a 500lb bomb. Something the Yak9-T can't do.
Now other than MA use, think SEA.
Bronk
-
From the vote thread.
Originally posted by Bronk
You are sadly misinformed. Try getting your info from someplace other than the history channel.
From Zeno's sight
Bell P-39Q Airacobra Vital Statistics
Type : Single seat fighter
Powerplant
One 1,200-hp (895-kW) Allison V-1710-83 liquid-cooled 12 cylinder vee piston engine, three blade Curtiss propeller
Performance
Maximum Speed:
386 mph (621km/h) at 9,500ft 92895 m)
Cruising Speed
200 mph (322k/hr)
Initial Climb: 4,000ft (1220m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 36,000ft (10973m)
Range: 650 miles (1945km)
Weights:
Empty: 5,610lb (2545 kg)
Max. Take-off: 8,400lb (3810kg)
Dimensions
Span: 34 ft 0 in ft (10.36m)
Length: 30 ft 23 in (9.19m)
Height: 11ft 10 in (3.61m)
Wing Area: 213 sq ft (19.79m2)
Armament
1 37mm canon
2 X 0.5 (12.7mm) Browning machine guns in fuselage
2 X 0.5 (12.7mm) Browning machine guns in optional wing pods
Bomb Load
1 X 500 lb (227 kg) bombs,
The specs are similar to what other sites and books give.
This is a MA AC once mastered. Its best below 15,000ft, just like the eastern front thats where most fights take place.
Now in the SEA setting this thing fills many holes. US, Russian, ETO, PTO, MED, North Africa. This little bugger was sent to do dirty jobs every where.
Bronk
Edit: Just for comparison a better P40 than we already have.
Vital Statistics Curtiss P-40N-20 Warhawk
Type : Single seat fighter/bomber
Power plant
One 1,360-hp (1015-kW) Allison V-1710-81 liquid-cooled 12 cylinder vee piston engine
Performance
Maximum Speed:
378 mph (609km/h) at 10,500ft (3210 m)
Climb to 15,000 ft (4590m): 6 min 42 sec
Service Ceiling: 38,000ft (10973m)
Range: 240 miles (386km)
Weights:
Empty: 6000lb (2724 kg)
Max. Take-off: 8,850lb (4018kg)
Dimensions
Span: 37 ft 4in ft (11.42m)
Length: 33 ft 4 in (10.2m)
Height: 12ft 4 in (3.77m)
Wing Area: 236sq ft (21.95m2)
Armament
6 X 0.5 (12.7mm) Browning machine guns in wings
Bomb Load
1 X 500 lb (227 kg) bomb
-
Mr. Disinformation (Should I call you Baghdad Bob??) you might want to consider that the Yak9 is 2000+ lbs lighter, with just as many horsepower, and a more streamlined frame. Definitely going to accelerate better. Also, 2000+lbs lighter it's going to turn a hell of a lot better as well.
That 2000+ lbs is only for the P-39D. The 9100lb P-39N weighed 50% more than the Yak9T, at 6500lbs.
The P-39Q weighed 5645 pounds empty, 7600 pounds normal loaded, 8300 pounds maximum loaded. So even on normal conditions it was over 1000 lbs heavier than the max weight of a yak9T.
Also, for your P-39Q numbers:
P-39Q-5-BE was rated at a max speed of 330mph at 5000ft, 357 at 10,000ft, and 375mph at 15,000 feet. So the speed is pretty much identical to the speed curve you posted up to 13,500ft, and only between 13.5k and 15k does the P-39 power curve get higher, then it drops. So maybe I wasn't right by saying faster than all P-39s. It's faster than all but the Qs, and even then it's just as fast up until its power curve drops off. And, let's face it, nobody but nobody is going to fly it above 10k in this game.
Climb to 5000 feet in 2.0 minutes. Climb to 20,000 feet in 8.5 minutes. That's 2500fpm at best, below 5000 feet, and it gets worse above that. No way is it out-climbing the yak.
So before you start b****ing at me and spewing BS in my thread, get your own numbers straight before trying to tear my head off.
Like I said, between the two, the Yak9 is probably better in many categories, including turn and cannon, but that was by no means a negative comment to the addition of this craft in the game. That was a direct-frakking response to somebody's direct question.
-
So... how much more potent than the Yak9T's is a P39 37mm potatoe going to be ?
-
Where's Tony when you need him?
-
Sourse on the "more streamlined" arse kisser. Or is that More Hyperbole like most of your posts.
If You do a basic search you find numbers as low as you quote to much much higher.
I believe the N-2 was same weight as the Q but with 1590 hp wep.
And you shaved at least 10mph from the 5k speed depending on the source.
As for turning prove it turns worst. This aircraft had some of the lightest stick forces. 2lbs of stick back per G. You don't get that with crappy turning.
I have no idea where HT will get his numbers but I don't think he will use just one source.
So go ahead and go by the lowest numbers you can find.
I didn't even bother to post the highest I found.
Bronk
Edit: N2 should read D-2 was looking at the wrong chart.
-
Moot, the gun is not as good as the yaks period. That I'll agree with.
But the secondary guns will get you kills as there is more than one.
Not to mentioned extended rang with drop tank, or air to ground with a 500lber.
Bronk
-
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r10/tomovuk/dontpanic.gif)
i would like a P39 plz:cool:
-
Bronk is what we call fanatical, folks. Take a good look.
The website I got the 39N weight from cites the following as resources used for that sub-page.
-War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
-The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.
-United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.
-P-39 Airacobra in Action, Ernie McDowell, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1980.
-Airacobra Advantage: The Flying Cannon, Rick Mitchell, Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana
-The Calamitous 'Cobra, Air Enthusiast, August 1971.
-Bell Cobra Variants, Robert F. Dorr, Wings of Fame, Vol 10, AirTime Publishing , Inc., 1998.
The USAAF wanted to remove certain fuel cells in an attempt to save weight, going from 9100 lbs to 8750 lbs weight. However the range was cut so short they made kits and re-installed the fuel cells in the field. Still a far cry over 6500lbs. With the cells readded, it would be back up to 9100 max weight, 50% more than the max weight of the Yak9T, for about the same horsepower.
Also, if HTC doesn't allow +1000 boost on P47D-11s and on P51s and on P-38s, they're not going to allow it on the VVS P-39s either.
EDIT: P.S. only 128 N-1s were converted to N-2s for ground support. So I don't know why they'd be boosting 1500hp on a ground support version with limited numbers.
-
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/FGww2APcarts1e.jpg)
The yak shell is the 37x195 .
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCRel5.jpg)
The P39 uses 37x 145r.
Just to give a visual difference.
Bronk
-
I still wonder what Tony'd have to say about the explosive content of the two gun types. Granted the 37mm has better trajectory, but what if you hit with both guns? Which would be stronger?
EDIT: Posted same time as bronk put image up
-
Thanks Bronk. The effective damage of one round from the P39 is what will decide my vote.
The rest of the specs don't matter much.
-
First off I ment to Type D-2. Sorry for the confusion.
Arse kisser D-2 is an up engined/diff prop geared D. Under normal loading 7697 lbs. Thats gross load. With 2039lb useful load.
Straight from Americas hundred thousand.
HP on wep once again straight from Americas hundred thousand.
wep 1590 at 2500 ft at 61 map . No crazy map needed
Bronk
Edit: Or is dean also a fanatic?
-
Wouldn't a P-39 be easier to land then many nose mounted planes?:D
-
Originally posted by moot
Thanks Bronk. The effective damage of one round from the P39 is what will decide my vote.
The rest of the specs don't matter much.
Moot Its safe to say if you hit it . It's dead.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Also, if HTC doesn't allow +1000 boost on P47D-11s and on P51s and on P-38s, they're not going to allow it on the VVS P-39s either.
Ohh look hyperbole who'd a thought krusty would try that.
Bronk
-
Yes, keep pretending to post useful replies, yet insulting people to their face. PNGs are earned that way. You're becoming more like Kurfy, you know? Insult, try to change the subject, insult, try to change the details, insult, insult, PNG, oops, can't insult anymore.
As for the D-2, okay so you listed the wrong number. BIG difference, though. Even so,
"The remaining 158 machines on the Lend-Lease order were produced as P-39D-2-BE (Model 14A-1). These were assembled under contract AC 156 placed on June 1, 1941. The P-39D-2 introduced the uprated 1325 hp V-1710-63 (E6) engine and had a 2:1 reduction gear. It brought back the 37-mm nose cannon. It was otherwise identical to the P-39D-1. The P-39D-2-BE could carry the 145 US gallon drop tank underneath the fuselage."
Not that much of a difference. Okay, so it's got 175 more HP than the plain "D". That's not going to make it a speed demon, or a climbing monster. Especially when the plain "D" had a top speed of 309 mph at sea level, 335 mph at 5000 feet, 355 mph at 10,000 feet, 368 mph at 12,000 feet, and 360 mph at 15,000 feet. Slower than a spit5, and later than it, by the time it was sent to Russia.
EDIT: P.S. Why is the gross and max so different, when the most it could carry externally was a single 500lb bomb?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Yes, keep pretending to post useful replies, yet insulting people to their face. PNGs are earned that way. You're becoming more like Kurfy, you know? Insult, try to change the subject, insult, try to change the details, insult, insult, PNG, oops, can't insult anymore.
As for the D-2, okay so you listed the wrong number. BIG difference, though. Even so,
"The remaining 158 machines on the Lend-Lease order were produced as P-39D-2-BE (Model 14A-1). These were assembled under contract AC 156 placed on June 1, 1941. The P-39D-2 introduced the uprated 1325 hp V-1710-63 (E6) engine and had a 2:1 reduction gear. It brought back the 37-mm nose cannon. It was otherwise identical to the P-39D-1. The P-39D-2-BE could carry the 145 US gallon drop tank underneath the fuselage."
Not that much of a difference. Okay, so it's got 175 more HP than the plain "D". That's not going to make it a speed demon, or a climbing monster. Especially when the plain "D" had a top speed of 309 mph at sea level, 335 mph at 5000 feet, 355 mph at 10,000 feet, 368 mph at 12,000 feet, and 360 mph at 15,000 feet. Slower than a spit5, and later than it, by the time it was sent to Russia.
EDIT: P.S. Why is the gross and max so different, when the most it could carry externally was a single 500lb bomb?
So now I'm Kurfy cus I mistyped, guess thats more hyperbole ehh.
You started the name callin not me. Want it to stop, its easy stop doing it yourself.
Ohh and calling me kurfy is name calling and changing the subject. Pot kettle.
I'd suppose the useful load is considering all ammo fuel also.
Bronk
-
Actually, no, you have only yourself to blame for your own little "crusade" you have. Sorry to burst your self-inflated bubble.
Oh, and this might be of interest to those that care about keeping this thread on track (Bronk need not apply, it seems).
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1174864554_vvs_speedchart_p39q-15.jpg)
Just an interesting speed chart I had saved from a while back.
-
One question krusty.
If russian sources are found that they used higher boost as policy.
Wouldn't that constitute it as a russian spec?
Not saying I'd want it. I'd be happy with US lvls.
Bronk
-
Bring the P-39 to aces high!
But in order to get it in, we will have to sabotage the G.55 thread!
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201489
-
No, we don't. Bronk already has.
-
My father-in-law, who is still alive and well and lives with us, flew this:
(http://www.afwing.com/intro/p39/rp63g.jpg)
(http://www.wwiirt.com/usaaf/william_wilsterman/bill_pics/bill_rp63.jpg)
-
He must have had guts. They armored it up and used frangible ammo to train gunners how to shoot. They shot at it (the bullets breaking up rather than penetrating) and the lights would tell when the gunner when he landed a hit.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Snip
That chart is close to AHT so I'll agree but add.
From the vote thread.
Originally posted by Wmaker
AHT is a great and well researched book which consists mostly of primary source material. That is why I tend to believe it. Even the heaviest ferry-configuration listed falls almost 300lbs short of 8400lbs.
4000fpm climb rate just seems a bit optimistic and AHT seems to confirm it. Also the top speeds are achieved well over 10000 feet. Quote from AHT:
"For late model N and Q airplanes increased engine performance above 12000 feet provided some extra speed capability, so the Airacobra could make about 375mph up to 20000 feet before the speed fell off at higher altitudes. The USAAF speed estimates shown for the P-39Q (*) may be optimistic."
*the speeds talked about are flown with MIL power.
All done at MIL power NOT wep. Now what does wep add to speed .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Krusty
He must have had guts. They armored it up and used frangible ammo to train gunners how to shoot. They shot at it (the bullets breaking up rather than penetrating) and the lights would tell when the gunner when he landed a hit.
Now that I'll agree with. Thats got to be one scary ride.
Bronk
-
Here's my webpage about his military experience:
http://www.wwiirt.com/usaaf/william_wilsterman/william_wilsterman.htm
-
To your wife's dad. That really had to be one scary job.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Did I somehow let you believe otherwise?
AHT is a great and well researched book which consists mostly of primary source material. That is why I tend to believe it. Even the heaviest ferry-configuration listed falls almost 300lbs short of 8400lbs.
4000fpm climb rate just seems a bit optimistic and AHT seems to confirm that it is. Also the top speeds are achieved well over 10000 feet. Quote from AHT:
"For late model N and Q airplanes increased engine performance above 12000 feet provided some extra speed capability, so the Airacobra could make about 375mph up to 20000 feet before the speed fell off at higher altitudes. The USAAF speed estimates shown for the P-39Q (*) may be optimistic."
*the speeds talked about are flown with MIL power.
I corrected the quote a bit.
EDIT/At combat power the climb rate was 3250fpm./EDIT
-
Originally posted by Bronk
To your wife's dad. That really had to be one scary job.
Bronk
He actually got a kick out of it; he was one of the few who would volunteer for missions.
Early in the war they would tow sleeves behind AT-6’s and have a gunner trainee in the back of another AT-6 that would shoot up the sleeves. Each gunner had bullets with different colored tips that would leave a trace of color on the sleeve with each hit.
In the middle of the war he flew P-39s. The gunner trainees would “shoot” 8mm film cameras mounted on dummy guns in B-17s. Bill’s job was to attack the B-17’s in typical Axis attacks and get shot at on film. Back at base they had a giant film processing plant where all of the film would be processed. Each evening they would show the gunners their movies and critique their “shooting”. There was danger in this, as there was in all flying. He lost his best friend to an engine failure; he opted to ditch instead of bail. When he got down low the desert wasn’t as smooth as it looked from up high; his P-39 plowed into a ditch and was crushed. Later, his wingman flew right through a B-17. Bill flew right through the mess of falling, burning parts; he even saw bodies in the air. The tail gunner walked away though; the tail flat spun on the horizontal stabilizer. The centripetal force pinned the gunner in place but the section landed relatively softly. He was the only survivor.
At the end of the war he flew RP-63s; this link describes that:
http://www.wwiirt.com/usaaf/william_wilsterman/william_wilsterman.htm
-
This From AHT
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/p-39.jpg)
At approximately 12000 ft it's pretty much maxed out at about 375 mph, and that we know is mil.
If wep adds 10 mph like most other ac in game that would bring it up to about 385.
No?
Bronk
-
Repost climb and speed of yakT for easier comparison.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/yak9tspd.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/yak9tclmb.gif)
Bronk
-
He was once assigned to take a P-63 up as high as it would go. He got it up to 42,000 ft; he said it would mush down to 41,500 and then climb back up to 42,000 and mush out again. The books say it will hit 43,000, but that’s probably not over hot Nevada.
He said the RP-63 would not climb nearly as high.
-
Did he comment on handling qualities/ maneuverability?
Bronk
-
We have one P39 down at our Tikkakoski Aviation Museum in Finland - only 20km for me to go and take a close look - and let me tell ya, its not as cool as Brewster :)
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Did he comment on handling qualities/ maneuverability?
Bronk
He loved them both. He said that they were easy to fly but had some dangerous characteristics. A friend of his bailed out of a P-39 while in a flat unrecoverable spin. His P-39 pancaked onto the desert and he landed right on top of it (in his chute)! Bill stalled on a low turning landing approach once and barely pulled out in time; he always approached hot and high after that. He said that once the P-39 was trimmed out he could actually fly it by leaning, like flying a hang glider.
The P-39, P-63 & RP-63 were the only real fighters he flew. He has 850 hours in AT-6s and some time in SBDs, AT-11s, B-25s and B-17s; not much to compare against. I think that most pilots loved their planes once they got used to them and thought they had the best planes ever.
-
My good friend Vern Ford,God rest his soul,flew for the R.A.F. early on,the U.S.A.A.F. later on, mostly in North Africa.After the war he test piloted,and was friends with Yeager,and that bunch.He flew in the cross country races..popular at that time.In the fifties he worked for Allison.
Vern flew just about every plane of that era,and I recall his opinion of the P39 as being a little tricky to fly,but overall a pretty good plane.His main ride in WWII was the P40,which he said wasn't that bad.Vern said that taking the blower off the P39 was a shame,and that if they'd have left it alone,the old Iron Dog would have been way more successful.
I still cherish are chats over a few drinks,and fondley recall going thru his scrapebooks.
Oh,Vern's favorite plane to fly....I had to ask!...P38;)
IronDog 475/432 Fighter squadron
Public Relations Officer
Proud Member of S.A.P.P.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
He loved them both. He said that they were easy to fly but had some dangerous characteristics.
doesnt matter in AH anyway, check out the Corsair and P-51!
-
While I would like to finally silence all the Finn's with their damned Buffalo fixation ;) , I would like to see the P-39 at the top of the list, then the B-25, then on down the line. It's an interesting aircraft with a lot of history, and a fairly unique appearance. It's purty.
-
A year or so ago I compared the production numbers of AH planes to the most produced planes in WWII. I’m pretty sure the P-39 was the most produced US fighter not already in the AH arsenal. It might have even been the most produced of all planes not already in the AH arsenal.
I’d like to see someone back this up.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
A year or so ago I compared the production numbers of AH planes to the most produced planes in WWII. I’m pretty sure the P-39 was the most produced US fighter not already in the AH arsenal. It might have even been the most produced of all planes not already in the AH arsenal.
I’d like to see someone back this up.
Fair enough. Brooke seems to know what he's talking about. This is from Furball's missing A/C thread, I think
Originally posted by Brooke
I compiled production numbers for all the higher-production-number aircraft.
Here's the list.
Aircraft production in WWII
---- US ----
For the US, here are the production fighters, with numbers produced listed (from America's Hundred Thousand):
P-47, 15683
P-51, 15486
P-40, 13143
F6F, 12275
F4U, 11514
P-38, 10037
P-39, 9529 <--- not in AH yet
F4F/FM, 7905
snip
-
Most lacked plane in the game, fits all theaters P-39!