Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[Parmigiano]

I fully subscribe PlanD posts about P39

[plan_D]

To reinforce my post, I quote Bud Anderson a USAAF pilot who flew the P-39 in 1942 before being transferred to the P-51 later in the war.

"It was a good-looking airplane. If looks counted for anything, it would have been a great airplane. And the Russians absolutely loved them, and wound up with most of them. Under 15,000 feet, the P-39, called the Airacobra, was a decent if underpowered performer.
But the Airacobra was mincemeat above 15,000 feet, and useless in Western Europe, where virtually all of the flying and fighting was at double that altitude. ...

But in October of 1942, I was thrilled to be flying it. It was unique, with its engine behind the cockpit, and the propeller drive shaft running between the pilot's legs. It had a tricycle landing gear, unlike anything in our arsenal except the P-38. And the cockpit was more like a car's, with a door instead of a swing-up or sliding canopy, and windows that actually rolled up and down with a crank. You could taxi the thing while resting your elbows on the sill, like cruising the boulevard on a Saturday night."

And the showing of the P-39 on the Eastern Front proves the true performance of the P-39 was not too bad, if limited:

"Several of the Red Air Force's ranking aces flew the P-39 for a major portion of their combat sorties. The top ace in the P-39 and number four overall was Guards Major Gregoriy Rechkalov, who shot down 50 of his total 56 kills while flying a P-39. Guards Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who finished the war as the number two Soviet ace with 59 individual and 6 shared kills, reportedly flew the P-39 for 48 of his kills. Another high scorer in the P-39 was Guards Major Dmitriy Glinka, who destroyed 20 German aircraft in 40 aerial engagements in the summer of 1943, and finished the war with an even 50 kills, 41 of them while flying the P-39. Third-ranked Soviet ace Guards Major Nikolay Gulaev transitioned to the P-39 in early August 1943 with 16 individual and 2 shared kills. He flew his last combat sortie on 14 August 1944 (ordered to attend higher military schooling), leaving the battlefield with an additional 41 individual victories and 1 shared kill after just over one year in his P-39."

[FLYBOYJ]

Thank you D!!

[evangilder]

Good work, D! It goes to show that sometimes, reputations of airplanes are unfounded.

[FLYBOYJ]

So Nerd, you're entitled to your opinion, but at the same time, things aren't always what they seem....

[KraziKanuK]

I see that myth that the Russians used the P-39 as an a2g ac is still going. Sure it did some but that was not its primary role.

Most Western writers claim that the Russians utilized the P-39 primarily in the ground attack role. Though it was competent in this role, that was not the primary mission of Soviet Airacobra pilots. The priorities of the P-39 flyers (and Soviet fighters in general) were:

Protect ground units from enemy aircraft
Escort bombers
Suppress AAA in the area of bombers
Reconnaissance
Free hunt
Attack soft targets (i.e. troops, convoys, supply dumps, railroads, airfields, barges or other small naval craft)
Protect high-value friendly targets (i.e. bridges, amphibious landing forces, reserves, command and control, major cities, etc).

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

The 37mm M4 was not a great a2g weapon.

[evangilder]

I didn't see anyone state that air to ground was it's primary mission. In fact, the last several posts were talking about air to air kills and aces.

[FLYBOYJ]

I've read if placed in an air-to-air role, the P-400 (export version of the P-39) was a better aircraft. Instead of the 37mm it had a 20mm in the nose.

[CurzonDax]

When I was a kid, it was my fav plane because I thought they looked so futuristic. But if memory serves me right the 400 was used in a A2G role by the USAAF especially on the 'Canal. It could make Japanese tanks inot sushi.

:{)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by CurzonDax

When I was a kid, it was my fav plane because I thought they looked so futuristic. But if memory serves me right the 400 was used in a A2G role by the USAAF especially on the 'Canal. It could make Japanese tanks inot sushi.

:{)

Yep - some AAF guys call them "Klunkers," but others did well with them.

Here's a good P-39/ P-400 site

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazin...rofile_p39.htm

[The Nerd]

well, thanks for setting me strait on that, mow Ill never refer to it as that bad of plane.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by The Nerd

well, thanks for setting me strait on that, mow Ill never refer to it as that bad of plane.

No sweat! Call it a Klunker, but not crud!

[Smokey]

According to this website:

The most serious change, however, was the elimination of the turbosupercharger, and its replacement by a single-stage geared supercharger. This change was a result of a shift in philosophy on the part of the USAAC. The USAAC believed that the widths of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans made the USA virtually immune from high-altitude attack by enemy bombers. Therefore, the development of high-altitude interceptors was curtailed in favor of strike fighters optimized for low-level close support. The 1150 hp V-1710-17 (E2) of the XP-39 was replaced by a V-1710-37 (E5) engine rated at an altitude of 13,300 feet. The carburetor air intake was mounted in a dorsal position just behind the cockpit, where it was to remain throughout the Airacobra production run.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_1.html

Also this website:

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39.html

How America's Best Pre-War Single Engine Fighter
Was Ruined By The Air Corps




Bell XP-39


Presumably an XP-39B

http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/l...ang=f&id=24835



http://www.aerofiles.com/_bell.html

Another mid engined fighter of the 1930s:



Koolhoven F.K.55
High performance fighter with many innovations, 1936

http://www.koolhoven.com/history/airplanes/koolhoven/

[Nonskimmer]

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

I see that myth that the Russians used the P-39 as an a2g ac is still going. Sure it did some but that was not its primary role.

Agreed, it was never it's primary role. In fact, the link I posted earlier attempts to dispel that myth as well.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

This is the way I always looked at the P-39. It was a decent aircraft but she was a step behind the Spitfire, Bf-109, Fw-190 and P-51. Sure at the hands of an experienced pilot she could get the job done. She was deffinatly in my opinion better suited for ground attack than as a fighter. Plus as stated before I would not like to sit on a drive shaft!