Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: eskimo2 on April 06, 2007, 10:19:20 AM
-
Shut up and vote!
-
B25
-
P-39
-
P39
-
P-39
-
As promised, b25 for Toad and his dad.
-
Definatly forfeiting this one, POS planes. I hate democracy.
:cry
-
P-39
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Definatly forfeiting this one, POS planes. I hate democracy.
:cry
This stuff cracks me up :D
-
P-39 and hoping it will get a VVS skin.
-
Ben Affleck. Voting for the easy target drone. Choke on it.
(http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/mad0160.gif) (http://www.thesmilies.com)
-
P-39
-
P39
-
NOT SAYING.
-
P 39
-
It's like voting for George Bush or John Kerry......don't really want either, but people have died for my right to choose......
-
P39
-
Ben
-
P39 early, mid, and late/best.
-
P-39! :)
-
p-39
-
P-39.... Both Q and D.
My regards,
Widewing
-
T2D2-1 Katydid
-
p-39
-
:( :cry :(
-
Peeeeeeeeeee Thirty5 uhhh 9
-
B25
-
Airacobra
-
P-39
-
B-25 = 4 votes
P-39 = 18 votes
-
B-25
-
39
-
P39
-
Me.410
-
p-39
-
B25
-
B25
-
P-39
-
P39
-
papa three-niner
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
forfeiting this one
ditto
-
P-39
RASCAL
-
B-25
-
P-39.
-
B-25, not enough bombers the way it is
-
P-39
-
B25 :aok
-
39
-
Looks like every one of the the planes that were popular on the forum
turned out to be the loser. Right now, looks like the forum vote
is the P-39...
so...
I'm voting for the winner,
the B-25 Mitchell. :D
-
B25...looks to be loser tho--all hail the new hangar queen!
-
forfeit
-
peetoiteenahn
-
P-39
-
B-25
-
P-39:aok
-
P-39.
-
So Far:
B-25 = 13 votes
P-39 = 32 votes
-
Hmmm, a PoS bomber or a PoS fighter....Forfeit!
Zazen
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
So Far:
B-25 = 13 votes
P-39 = 32 votes
Representing a fraction of the real votes.
-
I flipped a cd and chose, P-39 :lol
-
pedro
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
Representing a fraction of the real votes.
That's why it's called an exit poll.
-
P-39
-
I see the P39 winning because I believe the P39 has absorbed the majority of non-US votes because it can atleast double as a Soviet aircraft. Those that are more concerned with special events and AvA will choose it over the B25 for the same reason. Fighter pilots will choose it as something new to goof around with or shoot down.
Also who can argue with the campaign slogan "Say no to Ben Afleck":lol
-
Originally posted by bj229r
B25...looks to be loser tho--all hail the new hangar queen!
The 39 will see more arena use than the 25, but I think both will fit the title of hangar queen (other than the EW AVA and SE of course).
-
Airacobra! Now I get big guns for those pesky ElGays! :aok
-
B-25
-
B25
-
B-25 all the way:aok
-
p39 (due to loss of a26 fighter bomber)
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Hmmm, a PoS bomber or a PoS fighter....Forfeit!
Zazen
Let's examine the P-39Q-1.
Down where it will be flown, it will be superior to the Yak-9T, Ki-61, P-40s, Zeros, FM-2/F4F, P-38G (which is only faster above 17k) and the Hurricanes. All of the above are commonly found in the LWAs.
But, hold the phone. It will turn circles around the Yak-9U, C.205, all of the 190s, P-47s, P-38s, P-51s, Tiffie, Tempest, La-5 and La-7 as well as most of the 109s. It should, with flaps, hang with the F6F and F4Us. Inasmuch as the P-39Q climbs just about as well as the F6F and F4Us, it will give them a very hard time. Then we have the P-39M... It was fitted with the Allison V-1710-63 that generated 1,590 hp at 2,000 feet. That is more than the P-51B has on tap.
The more common P-39N and Q models had 1,420 hp available. A clean P-39Q with full fuel should manage about 380 mph at 10k and 385 mph at 12k. How does that compare to the rest of the plane set? Well, I've tested the entire plane set at 10k with 25% fuel. Here's some examples:
P-39Q-1: 380 mph
F4U-1D: 380 mph
La-5FN: 377 mph
P-38J: 373 mph
P-47D-11: 377 mph
Spitfire IX: 362 mph
Ki-84: 367 mph
Fw 190A-5: 366 mph
Bf 109G-2: 380 mph
C.205: 365 mph
Typhoon: 381 mph
Yak-9T: 352 mph
F6F-5: 354 mph
Guys, it doesn't take much thought to realize that the P-39Q will be very competitive in terms of speed in the low altitude environment of the LWAs.
I mentioned turning ability. Lets quantify that some. I will use the same fuel load as we use to measure turn radius; 25%.
So, this produces a weight of right around 7,200 lbs (the P-39 is a small fighter). It has a wing area of 213.22 sq/ft. Thus, we have a wing loading of 33.7 lbs per sq/ft. That's substantially better than the F6F-5 and getting real close to the Spitfires. If I calculate based upon wing loading and coefficient of lift, I find that the P-39Q will turn almost as well as the FM-2.
In conclusion, we are looking at a fighter that can turn like a Wildcat, offers competitive speed (and acceleration) and decent climb from sea level.
If we look at Dean's figures in AHT, we find that his calculations place the P-63A-9 a close second to the FM-2 in turning ability. If we take the P-63's weight with full fuel (8,780 lb) and subtract enough fuel to get down to 25%, we are looking at a weight of about 8,380 lb. Divide this by the wing area of 248 sq/ft and we find a wing loading of 33.8 lb per sq/ft, which is almost identical to that of the P-39Q. The P-39Q has a higher maximum lift coefficient than the P-63A (see NACA TN 1044). Thus, the P-39Q should turn even better than the P-63A.
Do you still think the P-39 is a POS?
If HTC models the P-39N/P-39Q per available test data (and you can bet that they will) it will be a major force in the MWA and quite capable in the LWAs. If any P-39 is modeled, it will be the most common, that being the Q model. Only 863 P-39Ds were built, but 4,905 P-39Qs were delivered.
I'll certainly fly it.
We also should look at its ground pounding ability as well. Typical documents state that the P-39s could carry a 500 lb bomb. However, I have many citations in combat reports from the 13th AF where 1,000 lb bombs were routinely carried by P-39s and P-40s (take note Pyro). Here's one citation for two 500 lb bombs plus a drop tank (official 7th AF history).
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/7th-AF-P39-Bombload.gif)
Adding to that is the 37mm cannon, which will demolish M16s, M3s and and Jeeps with a single hit. Likewise, that gun will easily disable the Ostwind's turret.
I think the P-39 will be a useful and fun addition to the plane set. It absolutely will not be a hanger queen.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You'll need this. Good luck.
(http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/expressive/soapbox.gif) (http://www.thesmilies.com)
-
Gives Widewing a pat on the back,and a well said...then marks his ballot P39!
IronDog
-
Pat Buchanan.
-
Perk the P-39! Just thought I'd be the first to say it. :)
-
B-25..
I thought I'd stick with my 2 engine voting trend..
-
Conversations with N. G. Golodnikov - Part Three. P-39 Airacobra and Yaks (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm)
A. S. Did you like the Cobra?
N. G. We liked them. Especially the Q-5. This was the best fighter of all three in which I fought. Of the Cobras, this was the lightest.
A. S. Was a 37mm cannon necessary? Wasn’t this too large a caliber for a fighter? You had so few rounds of ammunition. And wasn’t its rate of fire slow?
N. G. One cannot say that the 37mm cannon was a disadvantage or an advantage. Look at it from this perspective. The M-6 [should be M-4 – ed.] cannon had its strong and weak points. One had to take advantage of the strong points and compensate, as much as possible, for its weaknesses.
These were the weaknesses: 1. Low rate of fire. 8 rounds/second [this is incorrect—the correct rate is slightly over 2 rounds/second (130 rounds/minute) – J.G.] This is indeed a low rate of fire.
2. The ballistics of the projectile were abysmal. The flight trajectory of the projectile was arching, which required large lead angles. But again this was at long ranges, especially when firing at ground targets. When firing at ground targets we had to apply two rings of the sight for lead.
3. Minimal ammunition supply. Thirty rounds.
All these deficiencies could be compensated for by proper selection of firing range. If one fired from 70—50 meters, there was sufficient rate of fire, the ballistics at this range were acceptable, and the lead required was minimal. Thus, all the weaknesses of the 37mm cannon listed above revealed themselves only at long ranges.
Now regarding the strengths: 1. The projectile was very powerful. Normally, one strike on an enemy fighter and he was finished! In addition, we fired this cannon at other types of targets. Bombers, vessels at sea. The 37mm cannon was very effective against these targets.
Here is an example. Our patrol torpedo boats had torn apart a German convoy. The majority of them had in some way or other been damaged, but they were withdrawing. One patrol boat was heavily damaged and lagging behind a bit. German “hunter” boats were closing in on it. One of them moved in either to kill or capture it. There were eight of us; my squadron commander Vitya Maksimovich, had flown out in pair slightly ahead of us to reconnoiter the convoy and I was leading the other six. We were listening to the conversations of the PT boat crews (the PT boats, by the way, were American Higgins craft). The commander of the heavily damaged boat said, “They are on top of us!” My squadron commander said to him, “Don’t worry! I ‘ll get him now!” He dropped down and fired a burst of 37mm cannon. It was a pleasure to watch the German “hunter” go up in flames. Six Bf-109Fs were covering the convoy and supporting the attack on our PT boats. I engaged them with my group of six Cobras. We circled round and round. I shot down two Messerschmitts and damaged one (intelligence subsequently confirmed the damaged 109). Before we had even landed, the crew of the damaged PT boat reported by radio that one of the Cobras had shot down two Messers and another had set the German “hunter” on fire. This had all happened right in front of their eyes. Later Admiral A. V. Kuzmin, commander of the patrol torpedo boat brigade, personally expressed his appreciation to us. All our damaged PT boats made it back to their base.
Thus, a single burst of several 37mm projectiles was sufficient to set fire to or damage a “hunter-type” patrol vessel.
Here is another example. We were flying on a “free hunt” mission, four of us. I was the leader. We came upon a German tanker that we estimated at 3000—3500 tons. Most importantly, it was proceeding without escort! I gave the command, “Prepare to attack!” I dropped down and made my pass, firing a good burst. I pulled out at an altitude of 25 meters. He also fired back at me. OK, fine. My wingman made his pass on the target, then the leader of the second pair, and the fourth pilot reported, “It’s burning. I can’t see anything!” I responded, “OK, pull out, don’t engage.” We got a look at it, moving toward shore totally engulfed in flames. We flew back to our airfield and reported, “We set a tanker on fire, 3,500 tons.” And he replied, “Right. You set a tanker on fire with all of 38 rounds expended!” He didn’t believe what I was telling them. 38 rounds for 3,500 tons! I said to him, “Isn’t that enough? We put 38 rounds into that box!” At first everyone laughed at us, but later our agent intelligence gave us confirmation of that number. A German tanker of 3,500 tons displacement had been burned out. Everything fit. There you have it—38 rounds of 37mm cannon destroyed a 3,500-ton vessel!
2. The M-6 cannon was very reliable. If it was properly maintained it worked very reliably. We could charge the cannon only one time from the cockpit, but this one re-charging was completely sufficient. If this cannon malfunctioned, it was due entirely to unqualified maintenance.
I was involved in another incident. A young, inexperienced armorer installed the belts upside down, so that the teeth of the links of the belt were on top, for both machine guns and the cannon. We were flying in pair. This was my wingman’s second combat sortie. We spotted a pair of Fokkers[Fw-190 – ed.]. I attacked the lead Fokker, who went into a vertical climb. I fired a shot from my cannon, the glowing ball of the projectile’s tracer crossing the path of the enemy aircraft. The German, naturally, abruptly dove; the range closed rapidly and I had him in my sights. I got off one round from each machine gun and experienced a complete stoppage! I re-charged both guns—to no avail! None of my weapons worked! It was a good thing that I had hit him with these two rounds. The German was smoking heavily and had lost a great deal of speed. I had nothing to kill him with! I called to my wingman, “Get the Fritz!” But he was circling in a merry-go-round with the German’s wingman and continued to circle until the German shot him up. Except for “his own German,” my wingman did not see anything, and the damaged Fokker got away. On the ground it was discovered that my wingman had not fastened his earphones to his helmet, and during the high-G maneuvers his earphones had come off. He had not heard my commands. A month later someone shot down a German pilot in a Fokker, and during his interrogation by the division commander he asked, “Why, a month ago, did a pilot from this regiment not finish me off? Two of my cylinders were shot up.” (The German well knew that only the pilots of 2d GSAP VVS SF flew “red-nosed” Cobras. A. S.) Our division commander replied to him, “Yes, he was something of a screw up, kind of like you, but he didn’t get shot down.”
They badly wanted to send the armorer to a tribunal [courts martial], but he got off with a reprimand. I was categorically opposed to a tribunal. He was a young kid, still a “newbie”. The fault really lay with the armaments mechanic. It was his direct duty to check the correctness of the loading of the rounds. He knew that his armorer was inexperienced, but he did not stop to check and simply took the armorer’s word. “Is it ready?” “Yes, it’s ready.”
A. S. Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra really contend with the Bf-109G and FW-190 in aerial combat?
N. G. Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed all the German fighters.
I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17 air combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability. It was a very balanced fighter.
-
I MUST ask this question.
Is the p39's 37mm the SAME type that is on the Pt boats?
Im diein' to know this,as we can practice with the pt's 37mm before we get our new ride :)
-
The 37mm in the P39 was made by Oldsmobile.I don't know if the 37mm on PT boats were the same or not.I'll bet someone can come up with a answer.I like Bruno's article by the Russian pilot.Seems the Ruski's liked the P39Q a lot.Could tangle with any of the LW planes and win.Maybe this lil bird isn't the Dog everyone sez it is.Russians should know a bit about that...,they flew'um!Widewings speed charts opened my eyes.Didn't realize how fast the old IronDog was at 5k.
ID
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Conversations with N. G. Golodnikov - Part Three. P-39 Airacobra and Yaks (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm)
I like this quote from Part Three:
"A.S.: Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the German fighters Bf-109E, Bf-109F, Bf-109G, and FW-190?
N.G.: The Germans had good fighters. Power, fast, maneuverable, and able to withstand damage.
Regarding the Bf-109E I can say that in its tactical and technical characteristics, he corresponded to the type-28 and type-29 I-16, surpassed all earlier types of the I-16 and Hurricane, and was inferior to the Yak-1, P-40,and P-39. According to the pilots of the 20th IAP, the Yak-1 was superior to the E in all parameters. This fighter was beginning to show its age by 1942, although in the North they employed it almost to the beginning of 1943. Later they withdrew all of them in a matter of a week or two. Apparently they had begun to suffer very serious losses. Later we encountered only the Bf-109F, Bf-109G, and FW-190.
The Bf-109F was superior to the E across the board; it was more modern. It was an unbelievably dynamic aircraft, with good speed and vertical maneuverability. In the horizontal it was not as good. Its armaments were normal—a 20mm cannon and two machine guns. Overall, of course, it was superior to all types of the I-16 and the Hurricane. It was equal to the Yak-1 and P-40, and slightly inferior to the P-39.
The Bf-109G was a powerful aircraft, fast and very good in vertical maneuver. It was not bad in horizontal maneuver but it appeared late, only in 1943, when all of our regiments had already been reequipped with modern aircraft. Overall in its tactical and technical characteristics it was on a par with the Yak-1B (7B, 9), La-5, and P-39 Airacobra, and a bit better than the P-40.
The Fokker [FW-190] also was a powerful and fast aircraft, but as a fighter it was inferior to the Bf-109G. It did not accelerate as quickly (large frontal area) and was not as capable in the vertical plane. The Fokker was extremely powerful and therefore was often employed as an attack aircraft. It carried external stores [bombs].
It must be said that the Bf-109G and FW-190 carried very powerful armaments, with five and six firing points respectively, for the most part cannons. This was a very strong aspect of German aircraft.
A.S.: From the literature we know the strong suits of the Bf-109G: 1. Powerful engine that was altitude-capable. 2. Powerful cannon armament. 3. Good dive characteristics. 4. Simple in control. 5. High speed and exceptional acceleration.
Its weaknesses: 1. Poor vision from cockpit. 2. Narrow chassis, which created serious difficulties during landing, especially with a crosswind. Does this cover it?
N.G.: Regarding high altitude performance I can’t say anything. I flew the Airacobra up to 8,000 meters [26,000 feet] and didn’t have any particular problem with the Messer. Neither we nor the Germans flew any higher than that. I heard that the Yak had problems at altitude but we rarely fought high altitude battles. The Messer engine had a supercharger. It had exceptional acceleration; if the pilot “firewalled it,” as they say. But I couldn’t describe its speed as outstanding. It was fast, but our aircraft had just as much speed.
The armaments were indeed powerful—five firing points, of which three were 20mm cannon. But again, my Airacobra had a 37mm cannon and therefore I had no inferiority complex regarding weak armaments. The G model was heavy and dived very well.
I can’t say anything regarding simplicity of control, the narrow chassis, and poor cockpit visibility. You’ll have to address these issues to German pilots. I will say that we shot down many Messers by attacking from the rear, but you can never tell precisely if it was because of poor visibility or the pilot simply didn’t look to the rear."
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
I MUST ask this question.
Is the p39's 37mm the SAME type that is on the Pt boats?
Im diein' to know this,as we can practice with the pt's 37mm before we get our new ride :)
The PT Boat has a 40mm Bofors, or at least it should.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Pus 39
-SR-
-
Originally posted by Widewing
The PT Boat has a 40mm Bofors, or at least it should.....
My regards,
Widewing
40mm Aft, 37mm forward next to the 20mm.
-
X4 .50's "towers"
x1 20mm "left front"
x1 37mm "front"
x1 40mm "back"
-
Widewing, I thoroughly respect your ability to spew raw data on aircraft like it's a bodily function. But, your figures and the modelling reality that become translated to our computer game that is AH rarely meet. While on paper the P39 in its later incarnation in real life may appear competetive on some levels with our LW birds as they are actually modelled in the game, only time and the subjective reality that becomes the actual flight model in game will determine if it is in fact so.
Compare any 5 fighters in AH and its in game performance with their real life statistics as best as they can be determined by historical data, you will find very wide variability and disparity...You comparing your book's data on the P39 to the in-game data on our current birds is like comparing field mice and hump back whales. While they are both animals they are not of the same realm.
I too have a vast library of WWII literature filled with reams of data and anecdotal first hand accounts. The dubious success the P39 had was alot more to do with relative pilot training and numbers than the performance of the plane itself relative to its couterparts. By and large the consensus of those that flew it then went on to fly other fighter aircraft was that it was inferior on almost every level that mattered...
That being said, I'd prefer the P39 fighter to a redundant bomber, but I have serious doubts as to the P39's viability as anything other than a novelty in the LW main. I'd love to be proved wrong, and like others I believe and hope all of those planes HTC arbitrarily placed on that list will eventually be our toys to play with in the virtual skies...
Zazen
-
25
-
Trying to make sense out of how AH's aircraft are modeled,and how they will perform in the LW arenas is a tricky business.Even if you have the data,pilot inputs,etc.,you are still going to be guessing,even if it's a educated guess!I mean you have the Spit14 perked,whilst some noob is flying around in a Spit 16 racking up points in an unperked plane.Don't make sense does it?Everyone agreeing on things in a forum,not going to happen.I don't know why the Russian's liked the P39 so much,maybe they were the Rodney Dangerfields amongst pilots.You have furballers,toolshedders,GV'ers,pickers,HO's,dweebs,noobs,etc all trying to pick the right tool from what AH offers us.If the P39 is the winner,and they model it fairly and correctly,it will be a pleasant surprise to are plane set.If it brings fun to the pilot base,that is the thing I believe HT should strive for.
IronDog
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Widewing, I thoroughly respect your ability to spew raw data on aircraft like it's a bodily function. But, your figures and the modelling reality that become translated to our computer game that is AH rarely meet. While on paper the P39 in its later incarnation in real life may appear competetive on some levels with our LW birds as they are actually modelled in the game, only time and the subjective reality that becomes the actual flight model in game will determine if it is in fact so.
Compare any 5 fighters in AH and its in game performance with their real life statistics as best as they can be determined by historical data, you will find very wide variability and disparity...You comparing your book's data on the P39 to the in-game data on our current birds is like comparing field mice and hump back whales. While they are both animals they are not of the same realm.
I too have a vast library of WWII literature filled with reams of data and anecdotal first hand accounts. The dubious success the P39 had was alot more to do with relative pilot training and numbers than the performance of the plane itself relative to its couterparts. By and large the consensus of those that flew it then went on to fly other fighter aircraft was that it was inferior on almost every level that mattered...
That being said, I'd prefer the P39 fighter to a redundant bomber, but I have serious doubts as to the P39's viability as anything other than a novelty in the LW main. I'd love to be proved wrong, and like others I believe and hope all of those planes HTC arbitrarily placed on that list will eventually be our toys to play with in the virtual skies...
Zazen
Considering Widewing is usually the first to test all aircraft, compare them to charts and the post the results... I will listen to what widewing has to say...
-
IMO, WW's a bit optomistic. No offense to you WW. I've read up on the P-39 as well, and IMO it just doesn't stack up as you suggest.
Just an opposing opinion. :aok
-
I too have a vast library of WWII literature filled with reams of data and anecdotal first hand accounts. The dubious success the P39 had was alot more to do with relative pilot training and numbers than the performance of the plane itself relative to its couterparts. By and large the consensus of those that flew it then went on to fly other fighter aircraft was that it was inferior on almost every level that mattered...
Absolutely wrong....
The P-39 didnt have any "dubious" success. It played a key role in the most important air campaign on the eastern front. The air war over the kuban bridgehead is considered as important to the russians as midway was to the war in the pacific. The key VVS units flew the P-39 extensively and those units inflicted tremendous losses on the germans. The soviet aces who flew the P-39 continued to do so long after other "superior" planes were available. Bob Hoover, chcuk Yeager and Bud Anderson all felt the P-39 was an exceptional dogfighter. Was it superior to a plane like a P-51 at higher alts....of course not. But at the alts it was designed for its very capable....even against late war planes.
-
Main reasons the P-39 isnt "popular".
#1 The Russians were the largest user.
#2 The USA wasnt the largest user.
#3 The P-51, P-47, and P-38 were the main fighters the USAAF flew in the war.
#4 The above a/c replaced the P-39, so the P-39 is considered "old".
#5 The AVG didnt fly the P-39.
#6 The most famous USAAF aces didnt score a lot of kills on it.
...and because of that it gets largely forgotten, which in may peoples minds is the same as it being "no good", ect.
No, its not some uber-down-low-super fighter...and it never was, but it was decent enough vs its opposition, especially the later models P-39N/Q. Just because it wont replace the Spit XVI as the MAs most popular dogfighter, doesn't make it a POS.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
IMO, WW's a bit optomistic. No offense to you WW. I've read up on the P-39 as well, and IMO it just doesn't stack up as you suggest.
Just an opposing opinion. :aok
Krusty you need to read more;)
-
Okay this post is killing me. People are posting like they know all knowing about aircraft because they have this "EXTENSIVE" library. ANd here we have reader quoting from interviews about the P-39 and stating it was a solid airplane. My brothers's wife grandpa flew P-39s for a short time and loved the plane. He stated it had some serious flaws but the pluses and a good pilot made it a solid fighter.
The Russians proved the US wrong about the plane. MOst Russian Aces became Aces in the P-39.
And if I remeber right, the P-39 is the ONLY plane used on all fronts. I could be wrong but I read it somewhere... still looking for the book. MIght of been the P-40.. either way.
If it is brought in.. I hope a Q model is given with Russian scheme and maybe a P400 for early. US and a P39D in US
Love the P-39 and I hope it wins. I also hope the B-25 makes it also someday.
Eitherway.. HTC.. keep up the TOP NOTCH work.. (SALUTE)
-
Gorf, often the pilots that loved the plane give the most glowing of descriptions. Doesn't necessarily change the way the plane was. The Spitfire is and was a VERY highly manuverable plane, more than the 109. The 109 could almost turn with it. However, the 190 was worse than even the 109! Yet, 190 pilots reported they were able to turn with spitfires better than in 109s (and would actually stay and fight instead of running).
Now, that doesn't mean that 190s really can turn with spitfires, even though pilots claimed this.
You have to understand that pilot reports are not the same as controlled tests, and are totally subjective to that pilot reporting them.
-
You have to understand that pilot reports are not the same as controlled tests, and are totally subjective to that pilot reporting them.
Hence the importance of the sustained turn data dug up by WideWing :)
Remember when the P-47N was announced to be OTW & some folks were saying it would need to be perked? It wasn't and it isn't the LW super-plane it was thought to be. Why? It's only uber up where nobody else flies. It's good, but not where we need it to be. Along comes our beloved P-39 and guess what? It will be good for all the reasons the P-47 wasn't (relative to the LW arena). What the Russians liked about it is what we do in all the melee arenas most of the time.
Will it break into the top 5 rides? Probably not. Will it pass the test of time and find a following? yes.
I thought HTC did a good job on the P-47N. It was everything the reference material said it was and I expect more of the same with the P-39.
See you in the weeds!:aok
-
Hopefully the P39 won't ALSO have an eny of @##@$ 5
-
Can anybody read Russian? I've got this chart about the P-39Q-15 top speed but it's all in Russian. A couple of things I'd like to know. I think it points to a Yak9 on one graph, but I don't know what type of Yak9 (the letter looks like a "Y")
You've probably all seen it before so I'll just link it:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1174864554_vvs_speedchart_p39q-15.jpg
I'm half sure that the two different lines on the 39Q are 95 Oct and 100 Oct fuel, but would like confirmation.
There are also little comments at the base of each line (following each line). What do those say?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Can anybody read Russian? I've got this chart about the P-39Q-15 top speed but it's all in Russian. A couple of things I'd like to know. I think it points to a Yak9 on one graph, but I don't know what type of Yak9 (the letter looks like a "Y")
Hint :
How many yak9 do you know use the VK-107 engine?
if you don't have the answer now ,just ask again :)
-
P-39 would simply fill a much bigger gap in the plane set.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Can anybody read Russian? I've got this chart about the P-39Q-15 top speed but it's all in Russian. A couple of things I'd like to know. I think it points to a Yak9 on one graph, but I don't know what type of Yak9 (the letter looks like a "Y")
You've probably all seen it before so I'll just link it:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1174864554_vvs_speedchart_p39q-15.jpg)
I'm half sure that the two different lines on the 39Q are 95 Oct and 100 Oct fuel, but would like confirmation.
There are also little comments at the base of each line (following each line). What do those say?
Up to 15k, pretty much matches this chart.
This From AHT
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/p-39.jpg)
The speed portion is at mil setting, not wep.
Bronk
-
Tally as of Easter Morning:
B-25 = 18 votes
P-39 = 40 votes
Jabber = 52 replies
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Now, that doesn't mean that 190s really can turn with spitfires, even though pilots claimed this.
You have to understand that pilot reports are not the same as controlled tests, and are totally subjective to that pilot reporting them.
Krusty, this is how you get yourself in trouble, sometimes it seems you just post stuff that you make up.
There is a well documented (including here on this BBS a few dozen times) test flights of a captured 190A series flown by the RAF in mock combat versus a SpitV in which both pilots determined that the 190 COULD turn with a SpitV. IIRC, it out turned it at high speed and was roughly equal right down to stall speed where the light wingloading of the Spit really shined.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
That's why it's called an exit poll.
No, its just a poll of those who post on the forums. Which is a very small fraction of the players not even representing a small cross section of the true playerbase. For example, i voted the B25. You counted my vote. In acutuality, there are 5-6 others in my group who voted the same, and a number of other folks in a couple other squads I know for a fact who voted the same....who also dont post here.
See what I mean?
It really doesnt matter which makes it in, as long as everyone votes for thier favorite of the optiuons given. Imho, forfiet is silly since most are just doing it for the WaaAAmbulance factor. If the 25 was eliminated a few rounds ago, I'd be voting for something else. Its just a game folks.
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
No, its just a poll of those who post on the forums. Which is a very small fraction of the players not even representing a small cross section of the true playerbase. For example, i voted the B25. You counted my vote. In acutuality, there are 5-6 others in my group who voted the same, and a number of other folks in a couple other squads I know for a fact who voted the same....who also dont post here.
See what I mean?
It really doesnt matter which makes it in, as long as everyone votes for thier favorite of the optiuons given. Imho, forfiet is silly since most are just doing it for the WaaAAmbulance factor. If the 25 was eliminated a few rounds ago, I'd be voting for something else. Its just a game folks.
A poll is a sample. Take a handful of sand from a beach; count 100 grains of tan sand and 200 grains of white sand; that gives you an idea of what the beach sand composition is. It’s not exact, but it gives you a general idea. Take a pinch of sand and get maybe 5 tans and 10 whites and you have a less reliable sample.
This poll is far from reliable, but it indicates that the P-39 will win. Sure, you know of many folks who didn’t vote in the poll but voted for the B-25 in the arena. That doesn’t mean the P-39 doesn’t also have many in the arena voters who also did not participate in the poll. It’s likely that the ratio of voters and BBS posters are somewhat similar.
If we could poll 100 online players that would be a much better and accurate sample. BBS posters are at least a slightly different demographic. Is the demographic difference in this BBS exit poll enough to mislead the real results by 2:1? Quite possibly. Based on this poll, however, the P-39 looks like it is the most likely to win. Like it or not.
If this poll was 32:28, I would only bet that it will be a close match. It still may be.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
This poll is far from reliable, but it indicates that the P-39 will win.
No, it really doesnt. Sorry.
-
We will know exactly which plane won on Monday. While I have confidence in the P39, there are quite a few gound pounders in this game. Just enough to rain on my parade...
-
Originally posted by Edbert
There is a well documented (including here on this BBS a few dozen times) test flights of a captured 190A series flown by the RAF in mock combat versus a SpitV in which both pilots determined that the 190 COULD turn with a SpitV. IIRC, it out turned it at high speed and was roughly equal right down to stall speed where the light wingloading of the Spit really shined.
I don't recall that, at all. I don't think anybody's said a 190 could turn with a spitfire all the way down to stall speed before!
That's getting off-track, though. It was an example.
-
The 190 is famous for blowing E in a high G turn, which means it can indeed turn inside a spit at high speeds. The Spit on the other hand is famous for it's E retension and can be a liability in some instances. This is why throttle control is important for flying a Spit well.
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
No, its just a poll of those who post on the forums. Which is a very small fraction of the players not even representing a small cross section of the true playerbase. For example, i voted the B25. You counted my vote. In acutuality, there are 5-6 others in my group who voted the same, and a number of other folks in a couple other squads I know for a fact who voted the same....who also dont post here.
See what I mean?
There are also people that vote for the P39 that do not post on the Forums, which is why it makes it a decent sample.
-
This small sample is probably just a defective sample of BBS readers/posters. We cannot know how different the non-BBS-people's general opinions are.
I bet there are more "I don't care, but lets vote for B-25, at least I have heard that name" -people in the non-BBS voters.
-
Yak 9U with a VK-107A
La-7 with an ASh-82FN
Vmax in Km/Hr
39Q-15 charts are for 95 and 100 octane fuel
Anything else?