Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: TOMCAT21 on April 18, 2013, 03:33:07 PM
-
Are there any tricks to flying the P39 ?
-
Are there any tricks to flying the P39 ?
Left turns only.
- oldman
-
Left turns only.
- oldman
Typical. Oldman drives all over town with his left blinker on. ;)
-
After about 110mph and slowing you loose much of your control to the right "full right stick mostly" untill 90mph then your wing will dip and youll start to flat spin.
Mostly fly her like a under powered 1950's jet fighter, the center of gravity is much further behind then in other fighters with a nose mounted engine configuration. Try to move the nose where you want it,and let the plane pull itself to that location without forcing it around much, at low speeds this is a must. Around 210mph-330mph the plane is in its prime location for sustained turns, just try to "go with it" if you start pulling hard your E will bleed because the center mass wants to try and pull the entire airframe out of the circle the slower you get "less lift, more main body weight" Youll notice this if you get her upto 350-400+ mph and pull hard on the stick, she will stay tight in your turn but the E will bleed like crazy.
You can also do a move i call the "cherry bomb" and thats to point your nose almost streight down, roll yourself till your wings are almost in the full vertical line / <-- like that. and just let the stick go,only allowing small changes to keep your nose going in th direction you want,and to keep from nosing up after 350mph has been reached. Doing this "move" will allow you to gain speed very quickly, then just roll till your wings match the horizon, open fire..nose up and climb away as much as possible untill your around 200-230mph then nose down and level out. keep your eyes open and consider ANY aircraft closer then 4k out as a major threat when your just pulling up and out at your now slower air speed.
Hope this helps some, also if your flying the 39Q, just leave the gondolas off, and if your trying to stay light and sleek, leave the drop tank off, as even after it is gone it still has the shackle weight and drag. But at that point managing your engine by powering down to 65-70% and hitting your - key on the numpad like 3 times, is a must for managing your fuel. Dont forget to hit + again to regain full power. And always keep a eye on your E6b as all 39's have short wings when flight time is concerned.
-
Fly the P-39Q as it has WEP and as above stated leave the gondolas off of it. Fly it with 50 fuel and a DT. Lose the DT when you engage. You will find its not a bad little fighter.
-
A friend and my eye doctor flew the P39 in WWII. When he talked about it, there was always a note of embarrassment that he was in a P39 squadron. He said they ended up running mail toward the end of the war.
-
Are there any tricks to flying the P39 ?
Don't know any tricks. Almost everyone will overshoot you and if you drill them as they pop out in front, it may seem like a trick. :devil
Don't hang out in the trees, unless you're in a 1v1. The 39 is a surprisingly maneuverable and small target. Acceleration sucks and climb is mediocre (both are worse in the D model) but zoom climb is not bad. If you have even 1k of altitude and 100mph airspeed, that's better than being 300 on the deck (more options). I take 75% fuel and a drop tank in the D. Fighting at light weight, it performs well but conserve gas when you can.
-
Are there any tricks to flying the P39 ?
:airplane: I fly the 39 very little! It is primarily a air to ground attack aircraft and was designed that way. If you will notice, the wings on the 39 have more dihedral than any other WW2 aircraft and it was designed that way to increase stability during diving attacks and maneuvering close to the ground. The dihedral in the wings decrease the ability to turn quickly, so there fore it is not a good ACM aircraft. Just for fun and education, some day when doing nothing but piddling around, pull the nose up, full power, with wep, bank right or left at least 45 degrees of bank angle, let the a/c stall, then without touching anything, let the 39 recover itself. Make sure you hold complete and full back pressure on elevator until it stalls. Then do the same thing in a "Ponie" and watch how quick you go into a flat spin!
The other extreme is the British Hurricane, which has 0 degrees of dihedral and that is why it is very maneuverable compared to the 39.
-
thanks guys :salute
-
:airplane: I fly the 39 very little! It is primarily a air to ground attack aircraft and was designed that way. If you will notice, the wings on the 39 have more dihedral than any other WW2 aircraft and it was designed that way to increase stability during diving attacks and maneuvering close to the ground. The dihedral in the wings decrease the ability to turn quickly, so there fore it is not a good ACM aircraft. Just for fun and education, some day when doing nothing but piddling around, pull the nose up, full power, with wep, bank right or left at least 45 degrees of bank angle, let the a/c stall, then without touching anything, let the 39 recover itself. Make sure you hold complete and full back pressure on elevator until it stalls. Then do the same thing in a "Ponie" and watch how quick you go into a flat spin!
The other extreme is the British Hurricane, which has 0 degrees of dihedral and that is why it is very maneuverable compared to the 39.
Please, do some research before making these claims. The P-39 was most certainly not designed as a ground attack aircraft.
-
Go read "Nanette" by Edwards Park. All you need to do to fall in love with the 39. An old Airwarrior buddy of ours was a 39 pilot in the MTO. He flew it in combat until August 44. Down low is where it's at it's best.
-
The Russians made good use of the P39. Do a google.
-
Please, do some research before making these claims. The P-39 was most certainly not designed as a ground attack aircraft.
:airplane: I appreciate your comment but:
Bell P-39Q Operational history
The Airacobra saw combat throughout the world, particularly in the Southwest Pacific, Mediterranean and Russian theaters. Because its engine was only equipped with a single-stage, single-speed supercharger, the P-39 performed best below 17,000 feet (5,200 m) altitude. In both western Europe and the Pacific, the Airacobra found itself outclassed as an interceptor, its earliest proposed role, and the type was gradually relegated to other duties. It often was used at lower altitudes for such missions as ground strafing.
Larry Bell did intend for the 39 to be an intercepter, but having insisted on a single stage blower, instead of the two stage, to save weight, the 39 was more or less restricted to altitudes of less than 10,000 feet.
It was used almost entirely thoughout the war as a ground attack aircraft,(check the Russian stats on the 39), and proved to be a very effective ground attack aircraft!
In 1940, the British Direct Purchase Commission in the U.S. was looking for combat aircraft; they ordered 675 of the export version Bell Model 14 as the "Caribou" on the strength of the company's representations on 13 April 1940. The British armament was two nose mounted 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns, and four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in the wings; the 37 mm gun was replaced by a 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano-Suiza.
British expectations had been set by performance figures established by the unarmed and unarmored XP-39 prototype. The British production contract stated that a maximum speed of 394 mph (+/- 4%) was required at rated altitude. In acceptance testing, actual production aircraft were found to be capable of only 371 mph at 14,090 ft. To enable the aircraft to make the guarantee speed, a variety of drag reduction modifications were developed by Bell. The areas of the elevator and rudder were reduced by 14.2% and 25.2%, respectively. Modified fillets were installed in the tail area. The canopy glass was faired to its frame with putty. The gun access doors on the wing had been seen to bulge in flight, so they were replaced with thicker aluminum sheet. Similarly, the landing gear doors deflected open by as much as two inches at maximum speed, so a stronger linkage was installed to hold them flush. The cooling air exit from the oil and coolant radiators was reduced in area to match the exit velocity to the local flow. New engine exhaust stacks, deflected to match the local flow and with nozzles to increase thrust augmentation, were installed. The machine gun ports were faired over, the antenna mast was removed, a single piece engine cowling was installed and an exhaust stack fairing was added.
ell-P-39 from the United States requisitioned 200 aircraft of the order destined for the UK, adopting them as P-400s (named for advertised top speed of 400 mph (644 km/h)). After Pearl Harbor, the P-400 was deployed to training units, but some saw combat in the Southwest Pacific including with the Cactus Air Force in the Battle of Guadalcanal. Though outclassed by Japanese fighter aircraft, it performed well in strafing and bombing runs, often proving deadly in ground attacks on Japanese forces trying to retake Henderson Field. Guns salvaged from P-39s were sometimes fitted to Navy PT boats to increase firepower. Pacific pilots often complained about problems of performance and unreliable armament, but by the end of 1942, the P-39 units of the Fifth Air Force had claimed about 80 Japanese aircraft, with a similar number of P-39s lost. By any standard the Airacobra and its pilots held their ground against the Japanese. Fifth and Thirteenth Air Force P-39s did not score more aerial victories in the Solomons due to the aircraft's limited range and poor high altitude performance.
While I may have mis-spoke about it being "designed" as a ground attack aircraft, that is what it wound up being and was very, very effective.
-
The P-39 was designed to be a fighter. The Army, for non-combat related reasons, changed its specification to have a single stage engine. It was not designed as a ground attack aircraft. If it had been designed as a ground attack aircraft its designers were incompetent.
-
So I am to assume the P39 is a good low altitude fighter ?I know its good for ground attack. I just need go to TA and fly it around.
-
Goto the TA practice and practice keeping control in a nose up stall with full flaps. The 39 will find its best speed at 12-13,000 feet. After that you loose power quickly going higher.
-
One day I will take the time to learn to fly this plane. I love its looks, but was very disappointed with performance - especially the roll rate. For some reason I expected it to roll a lot better. Perhaps from the IL2 game?
-
So I am to assume the P39 is a good low altitude fighter ?
Nope, on paper, its quite poor. Slow turn rate, low speed, large turn radius, poor flaps, weak engine, weird flying characteristics.
-
If you can find "flyin fin" online, see if he can spare the time, he is pretty good in a 39...
-
Nope, on paper, its quite poor. Slow turn rate, low speed, large turn radius, poor flaps, weak engine, weird flying characteristics.
large turn radius?????? that thing turns on a dime in game outturn some spit pilots in it without flaps on a side note very fun aircraft flys very well handles great at alts above 17k for having an Allison engine likes to turn and moves decently well in a straight line
alot less sluggish than the p40s I might add as well lol
-
large turn radius?????? that thing turns on a dime in game outturn some spit pilots in it without flaps on a side note very fun aircraft flys very well handles great at alts above 17k for having an Allison engine likes to turn and moves decently well in a straight line
alot less sluggish than the p40s I might add as well lol
:huh
-
The P-39 is a decent if under powered Mid War fighter, she can make some rather sharp corners early in the fight but at a pretty high cost in E. It's going to come down to whether you can hit with the 37mm gun, the longer the fight goes against the most common opponents in Late War the harder time the 39 is going to have.
-
large turn radius?????? that thing turns on a dime in game outturn some spit pilots in it without flaps on a side note very fun aircraft flys very well handles great at alts above 17k for having an Allison engine likes to turn and moves decently well in a straight line
alot less sluggish than the p40s I might add as well lol
Test it. On the deck, with fuel for 20 mins, the Q will complete a full flat circle in ~20 seconds without flaps and in ~ 22.5 seconds with them. Thats about the same as a 190D, but with less engine power and stability.
Just to compare, the Spitfire 8-9-16 pulls itself around in 15.5-16 seconds without flaps and in 17.5-18 seconds with them.
Also, some Spitfire pilots you mercilessly outturned without flaps might use capital letters to start a sentence and a dot to end it.
-
My advice to people who want to fly Bell aircraft is: BEG FOR THE P-63!
Until then, fly a P-38, you'll probably be happier in the long run.
-
That it won't out turn a Spitfire is hardly reason to dismiss it. Without the gondolas the P-39Q can be a handfull if flown competently. That does not mean its uber...but I would caution against underestimating it. Like a lot of average fighters it can be dangerous in the right circumstances and it's not without it's good qualities. It's also just a plain fun ride to take up.
-
That it won't out turn a Spitfire is hardly reason to dismiss it. Without the gondolas the P-39Q can be a handfull if flown competently. That does not mean its uber...but I would caution against underestimating it. Like a lot of average fighters it can be dangerous in the right circumstances and it's not without it's good qualities. It's also just a plain fun ride to take up.
Agreed on all points.
Important to make the distinction between the 39D and the 39Q. The D stands for "dog," it's a significantly worse plane than the Q. The Q is a lot of fun, as Squire says.
- oldman
-
Fly the A5 or G2
-
My advice to people who want to fly Bell aircraft is: BEG FOR THE P-63!
Until then, fly a P-38, you'll probably be happier in the long run.
after all, P-38 is just one type number below P-39. One can also go one type number up and fly the P-40.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgPmm3vr1Mc&feature=related
This P39 is awesome in RED :devil
-
Anyone ever read Chuck Yeager's autobiography? He wrote a couple pages about his love for his first fighter, the P39, and said he would take on all comers in it. I always wondered if he was serious, or saying it tongue in cheek as it was his favorite.
-
We have a early P-39Q, which is as fast as a P-38J/L at 10k... Not bad.
The P-39Q-30 was very capable, good enough to be a serious contender with many late war types.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39Q-30-740.jpg)
When we look at the P-63A, we find a fighter that offers low level performance that exceeds that of the La-7.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/p-63chart-1400.jpg)
-
We have a early P-39Q, which is as fast as a P-38J/L at 10k... Not bad.
Thanks, Widewing.
- oldman
-
The P-39D is crap and best left in the hangar. :aok
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/p39-5.png:original) (http://s343.photobucket.com/user/caldera_08/media/p39-5.png.html)
-
I understand and respect any and every 39 and A20 i see. I know what i can do with them..and i will never underestimate my enemy or myself in one. :salute
-
We have a early P-39Q, which is as fast as a P-38J/L at 10k... Not bad.
The P-39Q-30 was very capable, good enough to be a serious contender with many late war types.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39Q-30-740.jpg)
When we look at the P-63A, we find a fighter that offers low level performance that exceeds that of the La-7.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/p-63chart-1400.jpg)
Holy cowling! is that 380 mph at sea level?! and somewhere between 4500-5000 fpm climb rate ?!
-
Holy cowling! is that 380 mph at sea level?! and somewhere between 4500-5000 fpm climb rate ?!
384 mph at sea level for the P-63A-10 and 5,020 fpm climb rate at same height. The P-63 was the fastest climbing, best accelerating and fastest rolling WWII USAAF fighter from an american manufacturer. It's lack of range and only so-so performance above 20k was its undoing...
-
Wonder if we will see the P63 in Aces High. So is the 39q prefered over the 39d ?
-
Wonder if we will see the P63 in Aces High. So is the 39q prefered over the 39d ?
I am going to laugh at the people who complain that they don't want to fly the P-63 in a Commie skin and to get a USAAF skin for it, all in vain.
-
Wonder if we will see the P63 in Aces High. So is the 39q prefered over the 39d ?
39Q is a much better performer than the D, although I enjoy the challenge of flying the D and I like that you have the 20mm option as well.
-
384 mph at sea level for the P-63A-10 and 5,020 fpm climb rate at same height. The P-63 was the fastest climbing, best accelerating and fastest rolling WWII USAAF fighter from an american manufacturer. It's lack of range and only so-so performance above 20k was its undoing...
This really makes me wonder about the Russian P-39 aces. I mean, why did they stick with the P-39 dog, assuming AH models are representative in performance to what they actually used? They had Yaks and La5/7 that outclass completely. That is unless their P-39 by 1945 were better than the models we have in the game, or starting end of 44 they were actually flying the P-63.
Also, what the heck took Bell so long to turn the 39 into the 63? The 39 was old enough and the 63 does not seem to have any special 1945 technology that was not available at least a year earlier. Also, at some point they must have realized that dropping the two-stage charger was a mistake, yet they continued to bring out new P-39 versions with only the one stage charger. The Russians perhaps did not need the higher alt performance, but allied air forces used the P-39 too and they seemed to be interested.
-
Air Forces in wartime can't just magically click their fingers and get as many as model X as they want. The Soviets took massive losses in 1941-43 and they needed to increase industrial output by a orders of magnitude, while at the same time moving many of their factories east and all the time fighting the Germans. They desperately needed anything that the West could give them in terms of airplanes, and any other war supplies we could get to them. The P-39s held the line at first but even afterwards were not about to be retired even after better types came online. They needed fresh fighter regiments, not just resupplying the exisiting ones...and all the planes they could fly and every plane from every factory and every plane from every offloaded western ship.
Turning their nose up at the P-39 because it wasn't the very best fighter was just not a realistic option. In the latter part of the war, fighters that were not being used in air combat still flew and strafed right up untill wars end. Like the Japanese, the Russians flew what they were given and did their best with what they had. The pilots could not just say "well gee lets just wind things down here cuz we don't have LA-7s to fly"...the NKVD would not be far behind had they done so. ;)
Re the P-63 I can't speak to that re the delay in production. It did take too long I agree.
-
I agree with you Squire that they flew what they could. What I was aiming at was how successful the P-39 was in their hands and the main ride for quite a few of their top aces. Was it all before 1944, or did the P-39 continue to be a top fighter into 1944-45 and against the later 109/190 models? I apologize for my ignorance but I know very little of the breakdown of kills into years and models in the VVS.
Usually, when more advanced fighter are available, they tend to take the leading role and inferior models are still being used but moved to secondary roles, or less "busy" regions. This is in particular true in the pure fighters roles where there is much less compromise than in attack, recon and training. The top pilots normally transition into the more advanced fighters, though not all of them of course. Yet in the Russian case, many stayed with the P-39 (again no hard data, just anecdotes and impression). Don't be afraid to tell me I am wrong - I really want to know.
How did it look from the LW perspective? Did German pilots in the eastern front respect the P-39? Perhaps someone that read more LW memoirs than I did can tell.
-
So is the 39q prefered over the 39d ?
No
-
This really makes me wonder about the Russian P-39 aces. I mean, why did they stick with the P-39 dog, assuming AH models are representative in performance to what they actually used? They had Yaks and La5/7 that outclass completely. That is unless their P-39 by 1945 were better than the models we have in the game, or starting end of 44 they were actually flying the P-63.
Also, what the heck took Bell so long to turn the 39 into the 63? The 39 was old enough and the 63 does not seem to have any special 1945 technology that was not available at least a year earlier. Also, at some point they must have realized that dropping the two-stage charger was a mistake, yet they continued to bring out new P-39 versions with only the one stage charger. The Russians perhaps did not need the higher alt performance, but allied air forces used the P-39 too and they seemed to be interested.
The majority of the P-39s that the Russians got WERE the N and Q-Models. I've got a copy of Attack of the Airacobras by Dmitriy Loza - the reason that Russian aces like it so much is 1 hit from a 37mm is death to a German fighter, and that most of their action is at relatively low altitude vs German bombers and fighters. Funny thing was that the P-39s often made up the high-cover for the Russian group!
Quote:
A combat formation was echeloned by altitude and depth in groups and between pairs. The lower tier group (from one half to two thirds of the available strength) would patrol at altitudes slightly above the altitude at which enemy bombers were operating. The second tier group (from one-half down to one-third of available strength) was held at an altitude 1,650 to 6,550 feet above the lower group. The upper (third) group was normally a pair of Airacobras operating at altitudes from 16,400 to 23,000 feet and had the mission of free hunting the assigned area, pinning down superior enemy forces should the appear, or destroying individual aircraft attempting to flee.
Mixed groups of aircraft by type (Yak-1, P-40 Kittyhawk, Airacobra) were frequently assembled in the division and regiments - the Yak-1 and P-40 worked the lower altitudes and the Airacobras at the higher.
-
Also - just an another FYI - the Russians LOVED doing head-on attacks vs German bombers with that 37mm.
-
The Russians liked western planes as well because they had very good radios, the instruments were well made, the engines were well made and the gunsight and cockpit glass was good. Despite some of the types being not 1st line fighters.
As for the P-39 in the hands of the aces most got their kills in 1942-1944 when the Luftwaffe had more of a presence in the East. Like a lot of aircraft the pilots that were succesfull in them tended to like them...you see that a lot in wartime. Look at the Japanese aces talking of the virtues of the Ki-43 and the A6M series in WW2 even later in the war when they clearly were not first line types. Aces are a funny breed (all nations) they tended to make due with whatever you gave them in many ways it was the man and not the machine. In that vein there were a few in the VVS that could fight in the Airacobra and do it succesfully. That they chose to stay with the type in some cases is something that you did see in wartime I guess it was a feeling of confidence in that model.
As for the Yak series...especially anything prior to the Yak-9U I do not agree that they were all that much better than a P-39. The LA series clearly was...and late model Yaks sure, but they did not come along untill mid 1943-1944. Prior to that you have LaGGs, Yak-1s, Mig-3 ect none of them really any better than a P-39.
-
Thanks for that info Squire.