P-40E v P-39D

[Q-Ball]

Early war USAAF fighter comparison......the P-39 looks better to me, hands down. Am I missing something?

P-39 is 6 mph faster, has a better climb rate, is more durable (29 v 32), has better manueverability at every altitude, and has more guns. The range is the same. The only advantage it seems is that the P-40 has a better transfer range.

Historically, P-39 performance suffered at higher altitudes, but this doesn't seem reflected in the maneuver bands.

Am I missing something, or is P-39 the better plane?

[DivePac88]

I thought the Army Air Force's problem with the P-39D was on a maintenance level. There were maintenance problems with the power-train, and the complicated landing-gear. Whereas the P-40 compared with the P-39D required less maintenance hours to keep airworthy.

[USSAmerica]

The altitude should be a handicap for the P39 above 10k feet or so, from everything I've read.  Don't know why that would not be reflected in the game database.[&:]

[modrow]

Q-ball,

interesting observation. Looking at the stats as provided by the Tracker, it seems in fact as if the P39 was better. Service ratings are equal according to these stats. I don't have any experience with respect to relative results in air combat as of yet.

I am not 100% sure about the guns. Gun values are 18 in both cases (4+2x3+4x2 vs 6x3). For the P39, accuracy of the 37mm Cannon is low (10); and the one of the .3 Browning in F position is 35, of the .5 Browning in C position 58. In contrast to that, for the .5 Browning in F position, as carried by the P40E, you have an accuracy of 29. Still looks like a superior package in the P39 to me, but not sure.

Hartwig

[stldiver]

I don't get into the details of how the plane is stats are, I go by results.

Results are if I fly my Zero's 25k. P-39's are lunch meat more then P40's. I don't even worry about P-39's defending except they may wear my planes down from attack more vital planes i.e. bombers coming after me.

I have found no reason to engage my zero's below 25k as they have the advantage vs all planes except Hurricanes which they trade
evenly to sometimes plus, to sometimes minus. Depending if defending, attacking or who is the most tired.

[Xxzard]

This is a lot like the P-39 vs Oscars thread I posted a while ago.

Stats say P-39 has superior manuverability to the P-40E at all altitudes. That front gun really does a lot of damage too. It's also slightly faster, though has a little less range. Climb rate is significantly better.

But I totally agree with the two things brought up here: (a) in real life the P-40 was generally considered a much better fighter, and (b), P-40's, for whatever reason, do better in the game against fighters than the P-39s. Stats don't show this, but I totally agree with this. My P-39s get shot up whenever there are enemy fighters, while similar exp P-40's have much more success, and reduced loss rates. In fact, in my game, one Australian group with about 60 avg exp is achieving better than 1:1 kill ratios against zeros in their Kittyhawk IA fighters.

[FatR]

Stats of certain aircraft just seem assigned for no reason in AE. Hellcat is less maneurable than Corsair for example, making it all-around worse plane (except for service rating) until introduction of F6F-5 at least. And Fireball is immensely more maneurable than every other US Navy fighter. But in this particular case visible stats do not seem to wholly reflect the balance. In my experience P-39s perform consistently worse against enemy fighters.

[Jim D Burns]

The P-39 had a special 10k rule in the original WitP that severly penalized it over 10k altitude. It could be possible that that rule was/is hard coded into the .exe or soemthing, so the stats had to be increased to take it into account. So it’s possible all those altitude band ratings are being adversly affected by the original 10k rule or something.

Jim

[John Lansford]

My P-39's are death to unescorted bombers, and hold their own against the Oscars that often escort them over PM.  Right now my most decorated squadron with over 150 kills flies P-39's, even though I've got several P-40 squadrons there as well.

[drw61]

IIRC That hard code was taken out (most were in AE), so I don't think that is the explanation.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The P-39 had a special 10k rule in the original WitP that severly penalized it over 10k altitude. It could be possible that that rule was/is hard coded into the .exe or soemthing, so the stats had to be increased to take it into account. So it’s possible all those altitude band ratings are being adversly affected by the original 10k rule or something.

Jim

[treespider]

OK so everyone is well aware of the historical performance issues of the P-39 .... but were you aware of the following-

From the Squadron Signal publications P-40 Warhawk in Action

p17 - The P-40D had a top speed of 362 mph at 15,000 feet and a service ceiling of 30,600, even though performance fell off above 15,000 feet due to lack of proper supercharging.

p21 - The P-40E had the same Allison V-1710-39 engine that powered the P-40D. Performance numbers were similar.

p26 - While the P-40E was a solid performing aircraft at altitudes below 12,000 feet, performance fell off dramatically above that altitude. As altitude increases, air becomes thinner. Forced induction, or "supercharging" as applied to aircraft is a process by which... Unfortunately for the P-40E the Allison V-1710-39 that powered it lacked a two stage supercharger that would have allowed the Allison engine to perform to its potential at heights where air combat was taking place...

[Zebedee]

The Allison V-1710 and its problems above 15k' was why the RAF wouldn't use P-40s over Europe (although they did a decent job in North Africa), and also why the RAF decided to try putting a Merlin in a Mustang MkI (P51-A).

[xj900uk]

THe P40 was on the whole a better plane (more rugged/reliable) and easier to maintain, but early versions like the P39 lacked a supercharger on the Allison engine, making the performance noticably tail off from medium altitudes (12-15k feet upwards)
The P40 was popular with its maintnacne crews unliek the P39 which was a maintnance nightmare with its tricycle carriage, heavy & complex 37mm canon & rear-mounted engine.
Finally, the 37 mm canon (and the 20mm on the P400) was notoriously unreliable and prone to jamming.  Also the recoil tended to wear out the bearings and airframe (not to mention the pilot, who had the propellor shaft turning between his legs & very close to his groin area) causing some quite spectacular mid-air failures

[USSAmerica]

That last is an image I didn't need.  [X(][:D]

[goodboyladdie]

I saw a P-39 in a display two years ago. It was very fast and nimble and was a lot harder to see than the Mustang it was in the air with. I finally understood why the Soviets liked them as a low altitude fighter. I don't quite get the AE figures though.

[PaxMondo]

P-39 was a very agile fighter with incredible roll rates and it had a BIG gun centerline that made it both easy to target and put real hurt on.  No.2 all time Soviet ace flew the P-39, so it was effective. However, it was not a high altitude bomber interceptor.  It was a low level dog fighter in support of ground ops. 
 
Games always have a tough time modeling it, just like they have a tough time with the two german fighters.  On paper the FW109 looks much better, but most of the GER aces flew ME109's.  Reason was that the ME109 had better rollrate and tighter turn circle.  FW109 was faster and tougher, but not as nimble.  Further, data on roll rates and turn rates doesn't exist for most of the planes of the era.  So, instead, gamers have to quantify what they can and some planes get reputations in game that are not consistent with how they actually performed in the war.  P-39 is one of those that generally gets pretty slammed.  Oh well.

[JeffroK]

If only the Finns got there hands on the P39!

In AE, I would see the P40E & P39 D as being very similar, probably up to the pilot experience to split them.

IRL, For a short time, USAAC P-39's defended Port Moresby after taking over from the RAAF Kittyhawk 1A's and performed competently. Of course if up against IJNAF/JAAF experten they would have been at a severe disadvantage.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

P-39 was a very agile fighter with incredible roll rates and it had a BIG gun centerline that made it both easy to target and put real hurt on.  No.2 all time Soviet ace flew the P-39, so it was effective. However, it was not a high altitude bomber interceptor.  It was a low level dog fighter in support of ground ops. 

Games always have a tough time modeling it, just like they have a tough time with the two german fighters.  On paper the FW109 looks much better, but most of the GER aces flew ME109's.  Reason was that the ME109 had better rollrate and tighter turn circle.  FW109 was faster and tougher, but not as nimble.  Further, data on roll rates and turn rates doesn't exist for most of the planes of the era.  So, instead, gamers have to quantify what they can and some planes get reputations in game that are not consistent with how they actually performed in the war.  P-39 is one of those that generally gets pretty slammed.  Oh well.

could the fact that most German aces flew the 109 have something to do that it was the fighter with the highest production number? I guess most German fighter pilots would have been glad if the 190 would have been around as numero uno fighter aircraft for the Battle of Britain for example. The fact that there were pilots that became aces flying a certain aircraft doesn´t always means that this is due to an excellent aircraft. I´m not saying that the Messerschmitt or the P-39 have been bad aircraft...

[PaxMondo]

I've read several places that the German aces disdained the FW190.  No, they had a choice and chose the Me109.  Remember, these guys were celebrated.  They had their pick of aircraft.
 
Same with the P-39.  The Soviet ace had his choice and chose the P-39, even later in the war when there were "better" planes available.  My guess on the P-39 is that he became very adept with its roll characteristics.  If you haven't flown, roll rate allows you to choose your direction for your turn. High roll rate means you can get to a new direction very quickly.  P-39 turn rate reputedly wasn't much better than anything else, but since it could roll so fast it allowed you to lose someone on your tail almost immediately, and conversely allowed you to stay on an opponent tail faily well.  Both are pretty important in dog fighting.  And then that big cannon it had ... one or two hits and most fighters would have been down.  Firing centerline meant high accuracy ... very interesting and unique design.

[EUBanana]

Real life aside, is there any explanation as to how the stats are interpreted by the game engine? I've noticed this before actually, the various ratings in the aircraft data seem to have a rather cryptic impact on the results of combat. P40s seem to have quite low maneuverability - compare a P40 to a Beaufighter, say. The Beau is just better, in all regards, but Beaus are lunchmeat and P40s are not.

What gives?

Does any aircraft designated as a fighter-bomber have some sort of innate penalty to do with its classification?