Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[blkstne]

My vote would have to go for the P-39. Underpowered plane we gave to the Russian who used it as a tank buster.

[kool kitty89]

We've been through this many thimes (a couple thime son this thread alon iirc, along with the F2A).

First off, the Russians never used it as a tak buster, the low velocity 37 mm M4 cannon being a rather poor ant-armor weapon. (and was generally loaded with HE ammunition) It was used for ground attack, in the sense that most WWII fighters were (strafing, or fighter-bomber). However the Russians generally used it as a fighter. (often as top cover in escorting Il-2's)

The later models (P-39N and later, allong with some late M models) were equipped with engines with better high altitude performance (military power rated for ~17,500 ft rather than ~14,500 ft, with WEP at ~10,500 ft rather than ~5,000 ft) which was the perfect performance range for the medium altitude operations of the Eastern front.

With the older P-39's (D-2 onward) WEP ranged from ~1470 hp (at ~5000 ft) to ~1570 hp (at ~3000 ft) with 1150 hp mil power at ~14,500 ft. (for climb these were ~3,000 ft lower)
The later models (P-39M/N/Q) with higher supercharger speed (V-1710-85 with 9.6:1 supercharger gear, up from 8.8:1) had WEP of 1480 hp at 10,500 ft and mil power of 1,125 hp at 17,500 ft. (again with climb ~3000 ft lower)

Ther early P-39's: the P-39D/D-1 and P-400 were not (at least initially) rated for WEP and military rating was the maximum allowable power. (at 1,150 hp)


In US service the P-39 seem to have been mainly used for ground attack though. At least on paper the P-39 is superior to the P-40 in all performance aspects, armaent is debatable, and range was a bit better for the P-40. (depending on which models you compare, and the modifications used on the P-39) The P-40 also has more room in the cockpit. (the P-39 was har to fit in for anyone over ~5'8")

But the P-40 has a much better immage than the P-39 with the US, for whatever reason. (probably the most significant being the P-40's better stall characteristics)


In any case it was certainly not the worst, and was a fairly capable fighter by contemporary standards.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

We've been through this many thimes (a couple

First off, the Russians never used it as a tak buster, ...generally used it as a fighter. (often as top cover in escorting Il-2's)

At least on paper the P-39 is superior to the P-40 in all performance aspects, armaent is debatable,

But the P-40 has a much better immage than the P-39 with the US, for whatever reason. (probably the most significant being the P-40's better stall characteristics)

I agree with all that. I'd add on stall characteristics that the fatal accident rate of the P-39 was a lot higher than the P-40; 47 per 100k flying hours v 17for whole war. A stat in that case backs up the image.

In performance some in the USAAF believed the P-40 had advantages, but that's mainly back to image I guess. Two planes around the same size powered by similar variants of the same engine: no fundamental performance difference would be expected and none shows up on paper at least.

On armament, a lot of the P-39's poor reputation in air combat w/ USAAF was gained in a pretty short period in 1942 when the case ejection chute of the 37mm would often hang up and cause a jam. The Soviets didn't enounter this problem in their P-39 ops mostly from 1943; I've never seen it mentioned in their accounts: apparently it had been fixed. They loved the 37mm, though as you mentioned, for air-air, to kill even a bomber with one hit. They removed and later had Bell delete at the factory the wing armament, just relying on the 37mm and pair of synchronized .50 cals. And even besides, (or because of?) the early reliability problems of larger caliber WWII aircraft guns on USAAF fighters, the USAAF/USAF just continued to like small caliber high ROF, the Soviets continued to like big caliber (eg. 1950 F-86's still had .50's and MiG-15's 2*23mm and a 37).

I agree the P-39 is no candidate for worst fighter, different arrangement and armament concept from P-40 but otherwise pretty similar plane. Each was mediocre to fairly good depending which foreign contemporary you compare it to, not terrible.

Joe

[FLYBOYJ]

Stated earlier - the P-39 had CG points through the lateral and vertical axis. Power on stall could be a hand full, especially for a low time pilot.

Chuck Yeager loved the P-39, he said it was one of his favorite planes to fly.

[kool kitty89]

I haven't read about this specifically mentioned on the P-39, but the US 20 mm was genuinely unreliable, the M1 version would have been the one used on the P-400/P-39D-1 (and optionally on the D-2 irc). Some sourses say the M2 version was worse, others that it was better but still much less reliable than the British Hispano Mk.II. So, with the ejection chute fixed, the M4 37 mm cannon would be more reliable.

On the issue of the power of the 37 mm shell, it should be noted that the German 30 mm mine shell carried ~60-85% more HE filler than the 37 mm did. (73 or 84 g opposed to the 37 mm's ~45 g)

[parsifal]

The Russians did extremely well with the P-39 and the later P-63. To name just a few, aces that scored more than ten, and many with more than twenty kills on the type included K Vishnevski, A I Pokryshkin, N Livitskiy, DB Glinka, BB Glinka, I Drusov, II Babak, and GA Rechkalov

[D.H firemoth]

The worst aircraft has to be the rocket-powerd Komet. It was a very advanced aircraft for its time and had grate advantage over speed, but was so dangerous to operate that more Komets were lost in accidents than in actul combat aswell as its looks its just a eye-sore

[B-17engineer]

I honestly dont think the Komet could possibly be the WORST. It wasnt horrible. It shot down a Mosquito in a dogfight when it only has 7-8 minutes of fuel. That takes a a great pilot and a darn good plane

[kool kitty89]

The main problem was the dangers imposed by the rocket engine and fuel. There was high explosion danger if the tanks were breached by combat damage, rough landing, manufacturung faults, or corrosion. Additionally the hydrogen peroxide (T-stoff) was highly corrosive an could disolve flesh.

As to actual combat capability, full power endurance may have been short, but a good pilot could maximize combat time by conserving energy and using the engine as little as possible. (get to altitude, glide as much as possible using minimal power both in trasition to target, loiter, and in combat, and use full power as much as possible when engine is used as that will give the best specific fuel consumbtion -the engine becomes less efficient at lower throttle levels)


Excellent airframe design though, would have been good if adapted to a jet. (wich would have been relatively simple with the HeS-30 -006- had it not been cancelled)

[Waynos]

Excellent airframe design though, would have been good if adapted to a jet.

every DH 108 built ended up crashing too, or am I being glib kk?

[D.H firemoth]

55% of the komets were lost in takeoff and becouse of the C and T another %35 were lost in landing 5% were shot down by allied aircraft and the last 5% got to go home

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by D.H firemoth

55% of the komets were lost in takeoff and becouse of the C and T another %35 were lost in landing 5% were shot down by allied aircraft and the last 5% got to go home

Despite the operational dangers of the Komet, it performed as designed. I'd like to see your sources for these statistics you posted.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree Joe, those statistics seem to be rather off. He is implying that 95% of all Me 163s were destroyed.

[Marcel]

After the war the records of the Komets were assessed, and the sad balance was made. It turned out that 80 percent of Komet losses were due to take-off or landing accidents. 15 percent of the losses were due to compressibility in dives, or due to fires in the air. Only 5 percent of the losses were due to combat. Only one unit was able to engage the enemy on a more or less regular basis. I/JG 400 claimed 9 bombers, and lost 14 aircraft in doing so.

From WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - Frans Bonn

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Marcel

From WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - Frans Bonn

Yes 80 percent of the Me 163s that were lost, were lost in accidents.

It does not say that 80 percent of all Me 163s were lost.

See what I am saying?

JG 400 which lost 14 Me 163s had 91 Me 163s as far as I know.