OT The P39

[Scott_USN]

We all know well using the P39 in the early war in WITP AE.

A really nice look at the plane.

https://youtu.be/SpTmQU0nHuA

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

We all know well using the P39 in the early war in WITP AE.

A really nice look at the plane.

https://youtu.be/SpTmQU0nHuA

Nice! Tks for posting. After the P-36 the P-39 is one of my favourite WW2 fighters.

Fred

[LeeChard]

I wonder how it would have performed with a Merlin stuffed in the back! [:'(] [;)]
A very cool looking plane.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

some interesting pages:

https://www.chuckhawks.com/airacobra_iron_dog.htm

https://lend-lease.net/articles-en/earl ... on-part-1/

https://lend-lease.net/articles-en/earl ... on-part-2/

[Bearcat2]

They made a version for the US Navy with tailwheel undercarriage in place of the P-39's tricycle gear, that was carrier capable; in July 1940. It had problems with the landing gear being strong enough for carrier landings. It was rejected by the Navy because it wasn't a material increase in performance over air-cooled engine which the Navy preferred at the time.

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

We all know well using the P39 in the early war in WITP AE.

A really nice look at the plane.

https://youtu.be/SpTmQU0nHuA

Nice! Tks for posting. After the P-36 the P-39 is one of my favourite WW2 fighters.

Fred

Yep it is really one of a kind, awesome the Australians dug one up and rebuilding it.

[Macclan5]

The P39 / P400 has to be one of the most enigmatic planes - perhaps the most - ever.

I consider myself fairly well read in historic matters, especially WW2.

I was very much guided by general consensus of all that I have read. The P39 is proof of concept in bad design. You cannot build a plane around the weapon ( the 37MM cannon ) and hope it will turn out. It was only ever useful for the Russians as ground attack and largely at that because they need the airframes.

--

This game - more importantly the forum members - have opened my eyes with very interesting factual details that contradict a lot of conventional wisdom.

Having reevaluated my opinions - I do not think one can classify it as a "great plane". It never was that. Certainly not given the direct comparison to its peers - F4F - F6F and even early Corsairs.

But it was probably more competent - especially in the right role with the right tactics - that consensus historical narratives give it credit for.

[Scott_USN]

I wonder what early war pilots in Port Morseby and Guadalcanal thought was the better plane, I imagine it would be biased a little to whichever fighter they were given, P-40 or P-39.

Good old Kittyhawks at PM, they said No.75 squadron only had 3 airplanes left when the battle of coral sea began.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

The P39 / P400 has to be one of the most enigmatic planes - perhaps the most - ever.

I consider myself fairly well read in historic matters, especially WW2.

I was very much guided by general consensus of all that I have read. The P39 is proof of concept in bad design. You cannot build a plane around the weapon ( the 37MM cannon ) and hope it will turn out. It was only ever useful for the Russians as ground attack and largely at that because they need the airframes.

--

This game - more importantly the forum members - have opened my eyes with very interesting factual details that contradict a lot of conventional wisdom.

Having reevaluated my opinions - I do not think one can classify it as a "great plane". It never was that. Certainly not given the direct comparison to its peers - F4F - F6F and even early Corsairs.

But it was probably more competent - especially in the right role with the right tactics - that consensus historical narratives give it credit for.

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.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

The P39 / P400 has to be one of the most enigmatic planes - perhaps the most - ever.

I consider myself fairly well read in historic matters, especially WW2.

I was very much guided by general consensus of all that I have read. The P39 is proof of concept in bad design. You cannot build a plane around the weapon ( the 37MM cannon ) and hope it will turn out. It was only ever useful for the Russians as ground attack and largely at that because they need the airframes.

--

This game - more importantly the forum members - have opened my eyes with very interesting factual details that contradict a lot of conventional wisdom.

Having reevaluated my opinions - I do not think one can classify it as a "great plane". It never was that. Certainly not given the direct comparison to its peers - F4F - F6F and even early Corsairs.

But it was probably more competent - especially in the right role with the right tactics - that consensus historical narratives give it credit for.

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.

Removing the 37mm gun would make them much lighter and more maneuverable if the plane could be kept in aerodynamic balance after such a drastic change in weight. I am wondering if the P-400s with the 20mm cannons were the ones the Russians used as fighters and if they kept the P-39 for ground attack role only?
Against Japanese aircraft, the P-39s advantages were firepower and relatively rugged construction. Against the fragile Japanese fighters I think their best tactic was to go head to head with it and hope to flame it before it got behind them.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Yes
as per the link I shared, the Russians certainly like it; and it was equivalent to their Yaks and the 109s they fought against; at the low altitudes typical of the eastern front

the secondary armament (4 50 cal machine guns) was also more than enough to shoot down a fighter, and the 37mm was good against bombers or at point blank

[jdsrae]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

I wonder what early war pilots in Port Morseby and Guadalcanal thought was the better plane,
I imagine it would be biased a little to whichever fighter they were given, P-40 or P-39.

Good old Kittyhawks at PM, they said No.75 squadron only had 3 airplanes left when the battle of coral sea began.

In my previous games as allies vs the AI, I couldn’t get the pilots out of both P39 and P40 quick enough, but when the alternative is nothing or a CAC Boomerang I’d go with the P40. My opinion no doubt biased by reading this book on 75 Sqn RAAF:

https://www.hachette.com.au/michael-vei ... -australia

[Scott_USN]

Interesting book. Think I will get that one, Amazon has it on kindle.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

The P39 / P400 has to be one of the most enigmatic planes - perhaps the most - ever.

I consider myself fairly well read in historic matters, especially WW2.

I was very much guided by general consensus of all that I have read. The P39 is proof of concept in bad design. You cannot build a plane around the weapon ( the 37MM cannon ) and hope it will turn out. It was only ever useful for the Russians as ground attack and largely at that because they need the airframes.

--

This game - more importantly the forum members - have opened my eyes with very interesting factual details that contradict a lot of conventional wisdom.

Having reevaluated my opinions - I do not think one can classify it as a "great plane". It never was that. Certainly not given the direct comparison to its peers - F4F - F6F and even early Corsairs.

But it was probably more competent - especially in the right role with the right tactics - that consensus historical narratives give it credit for.

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.

Removing the 37mm gun would make them much lighter and more maneuverable if the plane could be kept in aerodynamic balance after such a drastic change in weight. I am wondering if the P-400s with the 20mm cannons were the ones the Russians used as fighters and if they kept the P-39 for ground attack role only?
Against Japanese aircraft, the P-39s advantages were firepower and relatively rugged construction. Against the fragile Japanese fighters I think their best tactic was to go head to head with it and hope to flame it before it got behind them.

The Russians use them multipurpose, no distinction between British 20mm vs 37mm; other than early vs late versions, with early versions depleted by the time of new arrived
and they had vastly superior tactical bombers like Il-2, so no need to use them exclusively on that role

"Drawing conclusions, it can be said that the debut of the Airacobra in the Soviet VVS was singularly successful. In skilled hands it was a powerful weapon, fully on a par with the enemy equipment. There was no “special” operational environment for the Airacobras-they were employed as normal multi-purpose fighters that fulfilled the same roles as Lavochkins and Yakovlevs: they contested with fighters, escorted bombers, flew on reconnaissance, and protected our ground forces. They differed from Soviet-produced fighters in having a more powerful armament, survivability, and a good radio, and fell behind our fighters in vertical maneuverability, capability to withstand excessive G-forces, and to execute acute maneuvers."

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

I wonder what early war pilots in Port Morseby and Guadalcanal thought was the better plane,
I imagine it would be biased a little to whichever fighter they were given, P-40 or P-39.

Good old Kittyhawks at PM, they said No.75 squadron only had 3 airplanes left when the battle of coral sea began.

In my previous games as allies vs the AI, I couldn’t get the pilots out of both P39 and P40 quick enough, but when the alternative is nothing or a CAC Boomerang I’d go with the P40. My opinion no doubt biased by reading this book on 75 Sqn RAAF:

https://www.hachette.com.au/michael-vei ... -australia

In my current game (Apr-42), I am in love with the P-40E.. basically the fact they have the longest ferry range (no drop tanks yet for P38 or Wildcat); which means I can deploy them where they are needed while the other fighters can't or need an AKV.
Against Zeroes, doing CAP, they would inflict and receive heavy losses

[RangerJoe]

I remember reading about a P-39 on Guadalcanal shooting and hitting an A6M2 with the cannon. The Japanese plane disintegrated. Not flaming, just disintegrated.

[Scott_USN]

Were the Kittyhawks manufactured under licensed or just crate assembly?

[RangerJoe]

I think that they were made in the US, disassembled, and then shipped over. I don't think that the Australian aircraft industry could have made them. The did make an armed version of the AT-6.

[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

[alanschu]

How is the Boomerang in the game? It has the advantage of being a stock of planes which AUS doesn't have a lot of but right now still using Kittyhawks and now Spitfires (early 1943).