[SKUNKY]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Who was the guy that threw the can of gas on the cigarette to put it out, I don't think that helped really.

Not sure, but I could have sworn the car he was driving had Queensland license plates...

[Epapazian]

Before commenting again on the P-39, I should note that I am looking forward to Hobby Master's release of its diecast version of this plane and I expect to buy a number of them, including replicas of those used by the Russians. When it was conceived, the P-39 was a very advanced design, due primarily to the location of its engine. Unfortunately the lack of a supercharger ruined what might otherwise have been a fine fighter plane. I wasn't there to observe the WW II air battles with my own eyes but virtually every account of the P-39's performance in American hands, and especially those occurring in the New Guinea-Solomon Islands operational zones is highly unfavorable regarding fighter vs. fighter combat. So let me ask this question. How many of you P-39 advocates would prefer it to either the Navy's F-4F or the Army's P-40 if you were a pilot about to tangle with some Japanese "Zekes" or "Oscars"? Sentimental issues aside, and despite all of the pro P-39 propaganda churned out by Hollywood in its early 1940s war epics, I think that most American airmen of that era would opt for the F-4F or P-40 without hesitation..

[Berkut76]

Originally Posted by djjeffhall

Berkut76,
Hey there.

If the Soviets kept two sets of books, which are the books most often quoted in relation to kills? I'm presuming you will say the real books (Please note, I'm not questioning your expertise.) what were the numbers quoted in the "press books?"

Also, are the top Soviet aces considered to be the real top Soviet aces? Since it was more difficult to confirm kills before 1943, what are considered the "real numbers" for the top aces and are their other top aces whose confirmed kill numbers kept them off the top lists, but whose believed, but unconfirmed numbers would have ranked them much higher.

I pretty much use Russian resources published between mid-1990s to 2005. Anything published during the Soviet times, with an exception of Encyclopedia of WWII printed in 1970 and quickly withdrawn from the shelves is an utter garbage full of delusions comparable to those found in WWII memoirs by top ranking Luftwaffe aces and high ranking German generals.

Surprisingly, I found some of the Osprey books published in the same period to be a good source of info, while Concord books have better photos and illustrations, but suffer from incorrect captions and heavily skewed pro-German point view. I would also avoid Steven Zaloga books unless they have been written in collaboration with someone else.

In terms of top scoring Soviet aces, Pokryshkin probably will be the highest ranking one if his tally were to grow by a dozen of kills in 1941 and 1942. The only way to determine the true number of individual kills is to go archives and find if available the pilots logged book stamped by "political officers". All in all, the information is available in an ad hoc basis when some historian decides to research a particular fighter pilot. To date 627 WWII VVS fighter pilots have been confirmed as aces (15(!) victories or more).

Besides Osprey books, I don't know any good English-language studies of VVS performance in WWII. In terms of Eastern Front warfare overall, David Glantz books are the best ones in any language.

Regards,

Sergey

[Ara1]

For me, the best thing about the P-39 is my memory of 1977 and building the Monogram 1/48 Guadalcanal version. That model was fantastic, and added to the magic of discovery of these wonderful airplanes.

As I read of US fighting accounts, I surmised the P-39 was an underperforming plane. It's rate of fire was slow, it wasn't very effective over 10,000 feet and was a better diver than a climber.

But boy, that Monogram jobber was a hottie. I'll always love the plane as a result of that kit!

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by SKUNKY

Not sure, but I could have sworn the car he was driving had Queensland license plates...

Look out Skunkie, he's coming back for another go

[planenutsfrog]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

Before commenting again on the P-39, I should note that I am looking forward to Hobby Master's release of its diecast version of this plane and I expect to buy a number of them, including replicas of those used by the Russians. When it was conceived, the P-39 was a very advanced design, due primarily to the location of its engine. Unfortunately the lack of a supercharger ruined what might otherwise have been a fine fighter plane. I wasn't there to observe the WW II air battles with my own eyes but virtually every account of the P-39's performance in American hands, and especially those occurring in the New Guinea-Solomon Islands operational zones is highly unfavorable regarding fighter vs. fighter combat. So let me ask this question. How many of you P-39 advocates would prefer it to either the Navy's F-4F or the Army's P-40 if you were a pilot about to tangle with some Japanese "Zekes" or "Oscars"? Sentimental issues aside, and despite all of the pro P-39 propaganda churned out by Hollywood in its early 1940s war epics, I think that most American airmen of that era would opt for the F-4F or P-40 without hesitation..

As you stated previously, the tactical conditions on the eastern front, just happened to suit the Airacobra, better than those on any other theatre of operation.

The similarly powered P40 also gave a good account of itself in the NA/METO for the same reason.

As far as speed is concerned, the P39 has always had a clear edge over the P40. Smaller and lighter, its power/weight ratio has constantly been more favorable.

However, its firepower wasn't that outstanding, though adequate. (a constant in most US fighters of the era)

But of course, what made Bell's fighters a global failure, was the CG issue. The instability problem due to the engine's location, proved almost impossible to cure without a complete redesign !

In the early stages of the war in Asia, only the Flying Tigers seem to have fought the Japanese successfully. Why ?

Not that their planes were significantly better than those of the USAAC, RAF or Netherlands West Indies AF, but through experience, they had learnt how to take advantage of their caracteristics by using hit and run tactics, to deprive the Japanese from dogfight in wich they were virtually invincible.

My point is, had they had the P39 instead of the P40, the Flying Tigers would have done just as well.

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by planenutsfrog

As you stated previously, the tactical conditions on the eastern front, just happened to suit the Airacobra, better than those on any other theatre of operation.

The similarly powered P40 also gave a good account of itself in the NA/METO for the same reason.

As far as speed is concerned, the P39 has always had a clear edge over the P40. Smaller and lighter, its power/weight ratio has constantly been more favorable.

However, its firepower wasn't that outstanding, though adequate. (a constant in most US fighters of the era)

But of course, what made Bell's fighters a global failure, was the CG issue. The instability problem due to the engine's location, proved almost impossible to cure without a complete redesign !

In the early stages of the war in Asia, only the Flying Tigers seem to have fought the Japanese successfully. Why ?

Not that their planes were significantly better than those of the USAAC, RAF or Netherlands West Indies AF, but through experience, they had learnt how to take advantage of their caracteristics by using hit and run tactics, to deprive the Japanese from dogfight in wich they were virtually invincible.

My point is, had they had the P39 instead of the P40, the Flying Tigers would have done just as well.

I'm not so sure. Accounts of the Solomon Islands battles include many instances where it took P-39s without superchargers so long to huff and puff their way to altitude so they could "pounce" on Japanese bombers that we stopped trying to use them that way......unless the enemy obliged us by coming in low and slow. Almost always the Marine F-4Fs , which could climb much faster, took on the interceptor role, leaving strafing duties primarily to the P-39s. Like the F-4F, the P-40 could get high enough, fast enough, to make hit and run attacks on Japanese formations. By the time a P-39 struggled up to 20,000 feet or higher, the enemy was gone.

[planenutsfrog]

in piston engine technology, so I suppose you are right about the respective rate of climb of the early P40s and P39s...
But why such a gap ?
There must have been a difference then, between the Allison of the Curtiss and the Allison of the Bell...?

[leeG]

I'm looking at the P-39 section in "America's Hundred Thousand." A couple of comments in the General Section seem to capture it:

"Very Good Performance at 5000 to 10000 feet and mincemeat above 15000 feet seemed to be the P-39 story."

"The word was: Stay under 15000 feet and above 300 mph with the P-39 and the Zero couldn't get you."

It seems most pilots didn't like it because of its extreme control sensitivity. Stick movement fore and aft of only one inch on the D would change the wing angle of attack from high speed to stall. And the stick forces were very light.

Really good pilots seemed to like the plane and have little trouble with it. Looking at "Yeager - an Autobiography," he trained on the P-39 and said "There were three squadrons in our fighter group, and among all the pilots, I was one of the few who loved the Thirty-Nine and would have gladly flown it off to war."

Sounds like fighter for the Easter Front where the air battle took place at less than 15000 feet.

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by planenutsfrog

in piston engine technology, so I suppose you are right about the respective rate of climb of the early P40s and P39s...
But why such a gap ?
There must have been a difference then, between the Allison of the Curtiss and the Allison of the Bell...?

To be fair about it, both the P-39D and the P-40E, the major early war production versions, had similar Allison engines, and the P-40E wasn't terribly quick at rising to altitude, either. The main difference between the two was what happened when they got to 20,000 feet. Because of the U.S. Army's ill-advised decision to omit a turbo supercharger for the P-39 while allowing it for the P-40, the former was next to useless at altitudes over 15,000 feet. It couldn't generate enough power to chase enemy planes, let alone engage them in combat. Fortunately, the P-40E did not have this limitation, which made it a more effective weapon. The P-40E could take on enemy planes at any height with some chance of success, but the P-39 could only perform well at low altitude. This proved to be so serious a flaw that the RAF, which ordered 600-700 of these planes , based on rosy performance claims made by the manufacturer, quickly gave up on the plane after testing a few in action. The U.S. Army Air Force soon came to the same conclusion. Even though P-39Ds were rushed into action in New Guinea and the Solomon Island theater, and also in North Africa, they were used mainly in ground attack roles. One way to evaluate the P-39's effectiveness, relative to the P-40 and F-4F is the number of pilots who made their mark in them. The P-40 and F-4F produced many aces, but the P-39 didn't-despite thousands of missions flown in this aircraft. That said, I still like the P-39. It had a sleek, modern design and it's tricycle nose wheel was a great novelty for its time as was the rear mounted engine.