Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: angelsandair on July 28, 2008, 01:52:13 PM
-
Just curious. :aok
Edit: Would like to find a source or a personal account.... etc.
-
:(
-
Here's a link I found when I researched the P-39. It is actually Soviet written. http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=uk60&page=p39rus (http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=uk60&page=p39rus) It talks about the different MG mods that were possible but never made.
And the Wiki of the P39 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-39_Airacobra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-39_Airacobra)
-
wiki didn't help me out, I already looked there.
I recall WideWing posting up on that matter when the P-39 first came out. Cant seem to find the post though.
-
The soviets seemed happy with the M4 cannon and wanted to preserve the handling of the plane. They thought about moving the MGs closer in and thought it was doable but decided to leave it alone.
But apparently the British did put a 20mm in:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/bellp39.html (http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/bellp39.html)
-
The Russians removed the wing guns on many of their P-39s, believing the weight savings was a better trade off to the small firepower. The P-39Q in Russian service was almost always used sans the gondola .50 calibers.
In answer to your question re: the P-39Q and the 20mm. Not that I have ever seen. The only P-39s in VVS service with 20mm hispanos were the P-400s (export P-39 for the RAF), and some of the P-39Ds that operated in 1942-43.
I have two books on Russian P-39 aces ("P-39 Aces of WW2" and "Russian Lend Lease Aces of WW2", both by Osprey)and there are no photos, or mention of any mods done to the P-39N/Qs nose armament, or the nose armament of any of their P-39s in WW2.
-
I recall WideWing talking about them putting SHvaks on the P-39 (was a long time ago...)
-
The Russians did put ShVAK into many of their Hurricane IIb's, after removing the .303 cal wing guns. Its certainly possible there were some field mods done, all I can say is that I have never seen a source for them modding the P-39s nose cannon. Even if they did, its unlikely it was a common enough practice that HTC is going to give it as an option. Your going to need a lot of sources to even begin to make the case.
The USAAF in the SW Pacific in 1942 did remove some of the 37mm in the P-39D's and replace them with the 20mm hispano as a field mod, but that option is already in AH.
I did find this:
"The only mention of this gun appeared in the book "Soviet X- Planes" by Gunston/Yefim Gordon.
According to that a Taubin 37 mm with 81 rounds was put into the Gudkov Gu-1 a design based in the P-39 airacobra. The emplacement was in the nose like the way the P-39 had its Colt M4 gun.
For several reason I think this is a mistake and probably Gordon mixed up with the 23 mm variant."
This was a planned Russian built version of the P-39, but they never built it.
...The Russians were big on field mods, and were not afraid to expirament, so I would hardly be surprised if they never tried to mount a few different guns on the P-39, but thats a far cry from saying "it was a standard mod" and finding enough proof to justify it in AH2.
-
The Brits ordered the P39 with a 20mm hub cannon if I remember correctly.
They loved the P39 so much they gave them back and they were sent to the PAC with the designation P400. The USAAF Pilots disliked the P39 under most circumstances. The Pilots said that P400 with the extra zero meant a P39 with a zero on its' 6. :lol
-
I thought the saying was 'The P400 is a P40 with a zero on it's tail'?
-
I thought the saying was 'The P400 is a P40 with a zero on it's tail'?
Tail is the 6 o'clock position.
-
The Russians loved it so much, the #2 Allied Ace (Recorded kills, #1 for the Amount his squad saw him kill as the Russians had to be able to recover the downed aircraft) Pokryshkin flew the P-39! P-39 has the highest score ever gained by any pilot that flew a U.S. Aircraft.
-
Does it matter if it did or not?
-
Angelsandair....russians and LW flew low on their fronts. For the PAC and ETO battles were fought at higher altitudes.
Plus....I don't think all his kills were air to air. I think they were vehicles and armour included.
The USAAF wouldn't use the P63 King Cobra either. Was used as a target or target tug.
Read Fire in the Sky by Eric Bergerud. P39 had a lousy reputation. Most who flew the P39 wished they could fly the P40 instead
at Guadalcanal.
-
Angelsandair....russians and LW flew low on their fronts. For the PAC and ETO battles were fought at higher altitudes.
Plus....I don't think all his kills were air to air. I think they were vehicles and armour included.
The USAAF wouldn't use the P63 King Cobra either. Was used as a target or target tug.
Read Fire in the Sky by Eric Bergerud. P39 had a lousy reputation. Most who flew the P39 wished they could fly the P40 instead
at Guadalcanal.
Course, that was the underpowered P-400/P-39D.
P-63 could climb a heck of a lot faster than any U.S. made plane. And could catch the La-7 on the deck and out turn it.
Pokryshkin's kills were air to air. I found a logg of all his air to air victories if you'd like them. :salute
-
You have to remember we have the D-1
Not the P39D-2 .
I wish we did have the p39D-2 as it had a bit more horse power.
-
Actually Captain Boyd Wagner was a USAAC P-40 ace from the Phillipines and said the P-39 was the better fighter, he scored kills in both types.
First P-39 vs A6M2 Zero encounter was a dogfight over Lae, New Guinea, P-39: 4 kills, Zero: 3 kills.
It was much more the tactics employed than the a/c. Neither the P-40 or the P-39 were veiwed as a match in a turning fight vs IJ fighters, and the crews wanted a fighter that possessed better speed and survivability, which is why the P-38 and P-47 replaced both as the front line USAAF fighter in the Pacific in 1943.
...and Russian air force units did not count ground kills. The Russians flew some of the later models of the P-39 like the N/Q version, and their main job was shooting down bombers and recon a/c, not just enemy fighters. On the Eastern front, the P-39s short range was not a hindrance, as most VVS units flew close to the front, and most combats took place below 15,000 ft, so they were able to get the most out of it. It was never an uber fighter like the LA-7, or Yak-9U, but it served well. The Russians genuinely liked it, despite it being a "foreign" type.
There is a lot of "bumper sticker" crap said and written about the P-39, some of it deserving, some not as much.
-
P-63 could climb a heck of a lot faster than any U.S. made plane.
So... who do you suppose built the P-63? :huh
-
P-63 could climb a heck of a lot faster than any U.S. made plane.
Got the numbers to back up that statement?
-
Got the quote from WideWing :rock
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
-
I wish we had the P-63 here; it would get so much more use in LW arenas than the '39. Weren't alot of pilots flying the P-63 not allowed to talk about it or have scores recorded? I believe they were supposed to be used against the Japanese, but were actually fielded in large numbers vs. the Germans...
-
Yea, exactly that. Pokryshkin's Fighter Squadron had supposedly been fielded them. The Americans gave it to the Russians in 1944 for the attack against Japan (which probably wouldn't happen till a whole lot later), the Russians would obviously use them no doubt.
It would be like giving a child a new toy on December 26, but then telling him he cant play with it till Next Christmas, but then, leaving it in his room opened.... :rolleyes: