Page 2 of 3
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 8:34 pm
by Jorge_Stanbury
it is not that bad actually (as a fighter bomber)
but slower than a Ki-43 I
can't maneuver
climbs slowly
so not wise to use it for air-to-air
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 8:44 pm
by Scott_USN
Cool stuff, just better stuff around when the Boomerang came out.
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 1:49 am
by Scott_USN
Totally off topic but run up the sound to hear that power in the first shot 14 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDeglorsv_8
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 1:50 am
by Scott_USN
Man I love those engines. Something special.
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:07 am
by Macclan5
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
You can build a plane around a weapon, just look at the A-10.
The plane was around a few years before the F6F and the F4U were even on the drawing boards.
The Soviets used them as fighters and liked them. They also fought at lower levels.
Agreed
The "you cant build around a weapon" is the conventional wisdom I have learned to ignore [8D]
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:13 am
by Macclan5
ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
The Australian had the capability and license to make P&W 1830 Twin Wasp engines; so they could had made P-36s but not P-40s
with foreign engines, they could had built anything, they actually built Mustangs later on. But the catch was that they couldn't buy or build modern engines, not until much later, and by the time they could get engines, they could also get the entire plane so it was no longer a critical need
that is why they brought the Boomerang, a subpar design with an old engine, only built because of their desperate need of any fighter in the early 42
Agreed
According to Wikipedia - and I do believe it to be accurate - as I had read this in other books and other sources:
" by November 1944, when production of the P-40 ceased, 13,738 had been built,
all at Curtiss-Wright Corporation's main production facilities at Buffalo, New York."
Canada produced Hurricanes under lisc. but actually flew more of first generation P40s.
Canadian P40s flew in the North Pacific with American airframes.
The P40 is another story of 'under appreciated' being the 3rd most produced fighter and competent. However it does not seem as enigmatic as the P39
I suspect that reported pilot discomfort and reported dislike sully the reputation of the P39 more than any other factor in "conventional wisdom".
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 1:19 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: Macclan5
ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
The Australian had the capability and license to make P&W 1830 Twin Wasp engines; so they could had made P-36s but not P-40s
with foreign engines, they could had built anything, they actually built Mustangs later on. But the catch was that they couldn't buy or build modern engines, not until much later, and by the time they could get engines, they could also get the entire plane so it was no longer a critical need
that is why they brought the Boomerang, a subpar design with an old engine, only built because of their desperate need of any fighter in the early 42
Agreed
According to Wikipedia - and I do believe it to be accurate - as I had read this in other books and other sources:
" by November 1944, when production of the P-40 ceased, 13,738 had been built,
all at Curtiss-Wright Corporation's main production facilities at Buffalo, New York."
Canada produced Hurricanes under lisc. but actually flew more of first generation P40s.
Canadian P40s flew in the North Pacific with American airframes.
The P40 is another story of 'under appreciated' being the 3rd most produced fighter and competent. However it does not seem as enigmatic as the P39
I suspect that reported pilot discomfort and reported dislike sully the reputation of the P39 more than any other factor in "conventional wisdom".
When Robert Hampton Gray won his Victoria Cross in 1945 he was flying a Corsair. A don't know if he was operating from one of the Canadian-manned CVLs/CVEs or from a British one.
https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembra ... il/2558303
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 11:26 pm
by Scott_USN
Since you guys seem to be well versed on these warbirds how did Hurricanes perform when it got the 4 cannons not sure how that effected nimbleness. Could it turn with the Japanese planes or was it forced into the zoom and boom tactics of US fighters? It just looks nimble to me.
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:14 am
by Leandros
ORIGINAL: Scott_USN
Since you guys seem to be well versed on these warbirds how did Hurricanes perform when it got the 4 cannons not sure how that effected nimbleness. Could it turn with the Japanese planes or was it forced into the zoom and boom tactics of US fighters? It just looks nimble to me.
Generally, Hurricanes could never turn with the Japanese fighters due to its higher wing loading. As the 4 20 mm cannons probably weighed more than 8 .30 calibre mg (they did) its "nimbleness" would actually decrease. Roll rate is affected, too.
Fred
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:27 am
by RangerJoe
Not just the weight of the weapons but the total of the weight of the weapons and ammunition.
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:31 am
by Jorge_Stanbury
by the time the Hurricanes got their cannons, they were used mostly as fighter-bombers so the change makes sense even if it reduces maneuverability
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:38 am
by DanielAClark
I was never one to think that the German airframes were all that great post 1939. After all, the advantage the German air force had wasn't necessarily the brilliance of their equipment...but the competence of their officer corps.
With that assumption, it makes some sense that the P39 performed acceptably on the Eastern Front.
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:48 am
by Sardaukar
P-63 Kingcobra was what P-39 should have been.
Just that it came so late that there was no need for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-63_Kingcobra
And about P-39 use as ground attack plane primarily by Soviets vs. Germans is totally false.
A common Western misconception is that the Bell fighters were used as ground attack aircraft.
One of the enduring myths regarding the P-39/P-63 in Soviet use is that because of its armament, in particular the 37mm nose cannon, it excelled as a ground-attack aircraft, even a 'tank buster'. In translating and preparing this manuscript for publication, I have had the opportunity to peruse several Russian-language sources. Mentions of the employment of this aircraft in the ground-attack role are so rare in these sources as to be exceptional ... The 'tank buster' myth has its roots in the misunderstanding of the general wartime role of the Red Air Force and in the imprecise translation of specific Russian-Language terms that describe this role. The specific Russian-Language term most often used to describe the mission and role of the Airacobra-equipped Red Air Force fighter units, in this manuscript and other Russian-language sources, is prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk [coverage of ground forces]... Frequent misunderstanding in this country as to the combat role of the P-39 in Soviet use is based in part on imprecise translation of the term prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk to 'ground support'. The latter term as it is understood by many Western military historians and readers, suggests the attacking of ground targets in support of ground troops, also called 'close air support'. Did a Soviet Airacobra pilot ever strafe a German tank? Undoubtedly. But this was never a primary mission or strong suit for this aircraft.
— Soviet Army Colonel Dmitry Loza, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union, Dmitriy Loza, Loza and Gebhardt 2002, pp. 15–16.
In other words,
"coverage of ground forces" aka CAP, not CAS or ground support.
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:10 am
by BBfanboy
I would think that the 37mm ammo for attacking aircraft would not be all that useful against tanks. There would have to be an armour-piercing round to kill the tank.
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:12 am
by Jorge_Stanbury
yes, but most of the "tanks" killed where actually trucks or halftracks
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:15 am
by Sardaukar
P-63 and P-39 in Manchuria by Red Army Air (VVS) were used also in ground attack...there was lack of other targets.
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:54 pm
by pontiouspilot
37mm would likely suffice on top surfaces of tank...at least to disable. The Germans mounted a 37mm slung under a Stuka that was supposedly an effective tank killer.
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:03 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot
37mm would likely suffice on top surfaces of tank...at least to disable. The Germans mounted a 37mm slung under a Stuka that was supposedly an effective tank killer.
Yes, I read about that in Rudel's book
Stuka Pilot. The Stukas dove and aimed for the engine compartment on the tank because that was where the least armour was, but they used an anti-tank round rather than the fragmentation type round that would be used against a bomber.
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:05 pm
by pontiouspilot
Rudel was "a piece of work"...amazing pilot. His post-war antics made him persona non gratia in most circles
RE: OT The P39
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:10 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot
Rudel was "a piece of work"...amazing pilot. His post-war antics made him persona non gratia in most circles
Yes, his writing comes across as arrogant and self-congratulatory. Much different from Adolf Galland's "The First and the Last" about fighter pilots.