Rising Sun warbirds

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I like the P-40 for historical reasons but it is not one of my favorite aircraft.

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks Guys! And CC got it right, the P-40 was to the US as the Hurricane was to the UK!

One thing I noticed in this research. The Early P-38 aces who did well flying the P-39 must of mastered the fact that she was unstable as hell. Chuck Yeager said it was his favorite WW2 aircraft, probably because in the hands of a good pilot it could tumble and roll almost uncontrollably. I wonder if because of this is why it held it's ground against the Japanese?!?

We posted in an earlier thread the P-39 actually had 2 CGs!!!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That would make for an interesting thread:

P-40 vs Hurricane

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep!

[syscom3]

Heres some results of what I've managed to find, for the time period of Dec 1941 through April 30 1942.

Using the book "A Bloody Shambles Vol 2" as a reference, I have not been able to find any evidence the Zero fighter fought in Burma. Only exception was for a single instance when the IJN raided the Indian Ocean.

On Saturday, I dropped into a local bookstore and I found an interesting book (and I need to convince my wife it is a needed book for my library..... its expensive) about the IJN fighter pilots. In one of the appendix's, they listed by date the names of the fighter pilots who were KIA. Now remember that in the early part of the war, most if not all of the pilots of the IJN did not wear parachutes, so getting shot down was as good as a KIA. I looked at the dates from Dec 8th 1941 (I excluded Pearl Harbor) through April 30 1942. I noticed two things:

1) Aside from a single date, there were no KIA over Burma.
2) IJN fighter pilot loss's were only about 40
3) There was not a single occurance of more than three Zero pilots being KIA on the same date.

Now I have heard that the IJAAF and IJN fighter planes were misidentified frequently in the early part of the air war. The Zero fighter (a naval airplane) does look like the IJAAF Ki-27, Ki-43 or Ki-44. Those three fighter are admitidly inferior fighters. So when some people argue that the Allied fighters in the CBI had no problem fighting the Zero, we should be aware, the Zero never flew in that theater.

I also have some info on the P39's in New Guinie. The first American group to fly the P39 in that part of the world was the 8th FG. Their first P39's didnt arrive into Port Moresby untill April 28th 1942. Their first mission didnt occur untill April 30th. And that only involved 11 planes.

As I find more info, I will be happy to share. If anyone has information to the contrary, please let me know.

[FLYBOYJ]

If the 39th FS was in the 8FG, youll find they did well until they replaced thier -39s with -38s. Read the earlier post about Buzz Wagner and the sweep he led over Port Morsby, I'm thinking this was the sweep you're talking about...

[Lightning Guy]

I've been doing some thinking and I don't believe it would be possible to have 2 CGs.

Let's assume for a second that it is hypothetically possible for an aircraft to have two CGs. If that were the case, then there would be a point in the aircraft exactly half-way between the two CGs around which the aircraft would be perfectly balanced. What do you suppose we would call that point? The center of gravity.

An aircraft's center of gravity might change due to weapon of fuel load (the P-51 had some stability problems due to a changing CG as the fuel in the fuselage tank was burned off) but I don't see how a plane could have two CGs at the same time.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

I've been doing some thinking and I don't believe it would be possible to have 2 CGs.

Let's assume for a second that it is hypothetically possible for an aircraft to have two CGs. If that were the case, then there would be a point in the aircraft exactly half-way between the two CGs around which the aircraft would be perfectly balanced. What do you suppose we would call that point? The center of gravity.

An aircraft's center of gravity might change due to weapon of fuel load (the P-51 had some stability problems due to a changing CG as the fuel in the fuselage tank was burned off) but I don't see how a plane could have two CGs at the same time.

The -39 could be really unstable and it was because of the position of the engine and the discharge of armament. Bell engineers established two CG points because of this, data about this was posted in an earlier thread, I suggest you look in the archives and this is explained in detail. One CG established a lateral CG, the other established a vertical CG. Just because you have the two CG points together, it didn't mean things were going to remain that way and that was definitely the case with the -39. As a matter of fact the two were rarely together when the aircraft was loaded. The GC "envelope" for both CGs was very narrow. Pilots had a song about the P-39 (also posted on an earlier thread).

"Don't give a P-39, the one with the engine behind

She'll tumble and roll, and make make a big hole

God, don't give me a P-39!"

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Funny song.

[Lightning Guy]

Well, here's another verse...

"Don't give me a P-38, the props they counter-rotate.
She's scattered and sittin from Burma to Britain
Don't give me a P-38."

The most memorable quote I recall about the P-39 was one pilot who said he'd rather have a truck: it was faster and had a higher ceiling.

[FLYBOYJ]

Perhaps! But the Russians and 39th FS did well with them, maybe not out of choice, but they learned how to make the aircraft work for them..

[Gnomey]

LG.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The only US fighter I would take over the P-38 would be the Corsair or the P-47.

[Lightning Guy]

I could understand the Corsair. But I consider the P-47 inferior. P-38 would out-turn, out-range, out-climb, dive with, and out run every P-47 except the M.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I just happen to really like the P-47 that is the only reason why.