# Bell P-39



## V-1710 (Nov 8, 2005)

Thoughts on the Airacobra?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

The Russians liked them (I think).

Other than that, it was obsolescent by 1942 and the US was lucky not many pilots were lost in them.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 8, 2005)

More info:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=496


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

We did this on another thread, but you're a new guy, welcome!

The P-39 has a mixed history. As we know the Russians used them effectively, and we've heard stories on how good they did as ground attack aircraft, but actually combat records show they really didn't do that bad in the Pacific. The 39th FG was scoring pretty good in the Fall of 1942 and was about 1.5 to 1 against the Japanese who were flying the Oscar and Zero. In addition the P-400, the export version of the -39 was being used, this armed with a 20mm cannon in the nose which made it a bit lighter and more maneuverable. The -39 was structurally robust although it had a very tight CG window that made it a bit unstable in certain situations, it actually had 2 CGs one through the vertical axis and one through the lateral axis. With a skilled pilot the -39 could of done well, Chuck Yeager said it was the best WW2 aircraft he's flown. The tri-cycle landing gear was another plus as this configuration is easier to operate than a tail dragger.

Comments?!?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

It had an "exciting" stall charachteristic!

It was hampered by its poor medium altitude performance as well as endurance.

But then, it was more for ground attack than being a fighter.

Id say it was always 2nd rate at best, with the P40 being superior to it.


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 8, 2005)

Yes, the P-39 was at best a second rate fighter. But, had the P-39 been developed for what it was originally intended to be, it couple have been a different story. The P-39 was supposed to be a bomber interceptor. Lawrence Bell and his team designed a fighter around the new Oldsmobile manufactured 37mm. cannon, and a turbocharged Allison V-1710. The rear monted engine gave pleanty of room for the cannon, a pair of .50's, ammuntion, and a nosewheel. The rest of the airframe was just about as small as they could make it. Soon after the XP-39 flew, the Army Air Corps decided that such an intercepter was no longer needed (due to the P-38?), and suggested to Bell that perhaps the P-39 should be developed into a ground attack ship. This is where we run into trouble. Ground attack meant that armor plate had to be added (the plane just got heavier), some bomb capability would be needed (more weight), and since ground attack happens at low altitude, that turbocharger wouldn't be needed (subtract 400 h.p.). So, more weight and less power in a small plane with high wing loading equals a bad compromise at best. In all fairness, the Russians were successful with their P-39's, but they used them primarily as ground attack ships. The RAF tried the P-39 (as the P-400) and rightly felt that as a fighter, it was hopelessly outclassed. The U.S. Army Air Corps tried using the P-39 against nimble Japanese fighters, with disasterous results. A sad end to an aircraft that promised much more. I hope that I didn't cover any material that has been covered here before.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2005)

The P38's performance for the interceptor role was so superior to the P39, there was no question what plane would get the role.

Plus, in the late 30's, the turbochargers for the Allison were in very tight supply (manufacturing problems) and any available went to the P38.

One role the AAF found the P39 to be great at was "busting" Japanese barge's in the SW Pacific. That cannon could easily penetrate the sides of the barge and then bounce around before exploding.

Id say the P39 was one of those great "would have.... could have" airplanes that showed up on the eve of the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

Posted this before about the -39 and -40


http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_lis t_of_tables.html 
_
I found in there a table for 1942 Kills/ Losses 

FEAF (China excluded) Fighters only (P-39s and P-40s).... 

FEAF 
LOSSES 
Jan - 0 
Feb - 44 
Mar - 12 
Apr - 0 
May - 32 
Jun - 28 
Jul - 11 
Aug - 11 
Sep - 10 
Oct - 0 
Nov - 32 
Dec - 8 

FEAF 
KILLS 
Jan 0 
Feb 20 
Mar 14 
Apr 14 
May 14 
Jun 20 
Jul 4 
Aug 41 
Sep 0 
Oct 6 
Nov 25 
Dec 54 

*For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan.* You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese. If you note Dec 1942, it's the month the P-38 began heavy operations. 

If you go to the site the remaining years shown on these tables show a huge lop-sided picture with one month showing 130 kills for 19 losses (Aug. 1943)._

You have to figure that a least half of the AAF aircraft fighters were P-39s. Considering these numbers, it really didn't do that bad when it was forced into the air-to-air role


----------



## Smokey (Nov 10, 2005)

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/pokri/pokri.htm



> Alexander Pokryshkin flew a total of 550 sorties, participated in 139 air combats he scored officially 59 enemy planes. But in opinion of some historicans his killboard list should be enlarged by next 13 victories, scored in battles over Kuban. During free hunt over German territory he downed a row of enemy planes, but in that period Soviet Command confirmed only planes destroyed over own area.





> Below is the painting scheme of the P-39 Q Airacobra 29004, call-code "100". Flying this aircraft, Pokryshkin scored several aerial victories in later period of war. Note: P-39 was a favourite weapon of Pokryshkin, he still flew on that type, when his all 9th Fighter Division was already all reequiped by La-7 fighters. In 1943 Pokryshkin made useful P-39 modification, bound all armenement fire into one stick button, so wave of 37 mm cannon and 12,7 mm heavy gun shells can devestate any enemy plane in one moment.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

A skilled pilot with that armament would be very deadly in the -39. Could you imagine a Zero or Oscar getting hit with that!


----------



## delcyros (Nov 10, 2005)

The original airframe should be considered as advanced. It bears some advantages (tricycle gear, engine position) as well as disadvanteges(the first to name that they decided to remove the turbocharger).
A P-39 won several speed races against P-51 and P-38 during ww2, underlining the high aerodynamic quality of the airframe.
The VVS mechanics often removed the armor plating, thus saving weight and increasing it´s performance a little.
A lighter engine mounted (20mm?) gun combined with reduced armor and a turbocharger would undoubtly turn the P-39 into a first class air superiority fighter, just my mind.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

delcyros said:


> The original airframe should be considered as advanced. It bears some advantages (tricycle gear, engine position) as well as disadvanteges(the first to name that they decided to remove the turbocharger).
> A P-39 won several speed races against P-51 and P-38 during ww2, underlining the high aerodynamic quality of the airframe.
> The VVS mechanics often removed the armor plating, thus saving weight and increasing it´s performance a little.
> A lighter engine mounted (20mm?) gun combined with reduced armor and a turbocharger would undoubtly turn the P-39 into a first class air superiority fighter, just my mind.



Agree - A P-39 won the 46' Thompson and I believed one place each year until 1949.


----------



## Smokey (Nov 10, 2005)

Of course the P 39 was replaced with the P 63 Kingcobra.

The specs of the Bell P 63 D Kingcobra are quite impressive:

Specification of Bell P-63D Kingcobra:

Powerplant: One Allison V-1710-109 (E22) water-cooled engine rated at 1425 hp for take off. *Performance: Maximum speed was 437 mph at 30,000 feet (same as a North American P51 D Mustang),* service ceiling was 39,000 feet, and an altitude of 28,000 feet could be reached in 11.2 minutes. Normal range was 950 miles, and maximum ferry range was 2000 miles. Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 2 inches, length 32 feet 8 inches, height 11 feet 2 inches, and wing area 255 square feet. Weights: 7076 pounds empty, 8740 pounds gross, and 11,100 pounds maximum loaded. Armament: One 37-mm M9E1 cannon in the propeller hub with 48 rounds, a pair of 0.50-inch machine guns in the forward fuselage synchronized to fire through the propeller arc, plus a single 0.50-inch machine gun in each of two underwing gondolas 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p63.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p63_6.html

There was a swept wing test plane:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p63_11.html



> Both aircraft tested a series of leading edge slat configurations of different designs. L-39-1 went to NACA for continuing flight tests, whereas L-39-2 remained at Bell. L-39-2 was later fitted with a completely swept wing of a design planned for the X-2 experimental rocket-powered research aircraft.



This is quite funny:



> The Soviet Government sent a highly experienced test pilot Andrey G. Kochetkov and an aviation engineer Fiodor Suprun to the Bell factories to participate in the development of the first production variant, P-63A. Initially ignored by the Bell engineers, Kochetkov's expert testing of the machine's spin characteristics that led to airframe buckling eventually led to a significant Soviet role in the development. Amusingly, after flat spin recovery proved impossible, and upon Kochetkov's making final recommendation that pilots should bail out upon entering such a spin, he received a commendation from the Irving Parachute Co.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

Pretty good stuff! I love the P-63 with the bubble canopy.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 10, 2005)

There was even a two place night fighter mockup produced. The radar gear was in the rear, and the radar intercept officer laying on his back in the nose.

Needless to say, the USAAF rejected it.


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 11, 2005)

I have been told that the AAF was indeed impressed with the P-63, but didn't want to have to support another fighter design in Europe. Nothing wrong with the plane, just a logistics issue. The P-63 did earn a certain amount of recognition as the RP-63 'Pinball' flying target. And, speaking of planes that were to be powered by turbocharged Allisons, how about the XP-37. Another adaption of the P-36 Hawk, it resembeled a P-40.


----------



## Smokey (Nov 11, 2005)

A nice page about Curtiss failures
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/Curtiss.html





Curtiss XP 37





Curtisss XP 42





Curtiss XP 46





Curtiss XP 55 Ascender


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2005)

P-37 must of been hell to taxi because of the cockpit being so far back. I think the P-42 and P-46 was mentioned during the congressional investigation of Curtiss Wright after the war. I always loved the P-55, I think it was given up too early, but there was a war going on....


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 12, 2005)

The Japanese were working on something similar to the Curtiss P-55 Ascender, the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 14, 2005)

the kyushu j7w1 shinden came out in 45 as a prototype but was much faster 466mph comp to 390 in the xp55 and a substantial difference in armament xp 55 had 4 x 50 cal the shiden had 4 x 30mm cannon but it also had a little more then 800 xtra hp but if one was to take the italian sai ss4 which flew 4yrs before the xp 55 in 39 was well armed with 2x 20mm and 1 30mm cannon with with only 960 hp could've been the dark horse of the canards


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 14, 2005)

Smokey said:


> Of course the P 39 was replaced with the P 63 Kingcobra.
> 
> The specs of the Bell P 63 D Kingcobra are quite impressive:
> 
> ...



Performance is impressive, but remember that there was only 1 P-3D produced as a test bed for a bubble canopy and new Allison engine. Performance was as good as a P-51D, a plane that had already been in service for 12 months.

The first major production run was the P-63A (~1800 produced) and the heavier and more powerful, low altitude enhanced P-63C (around 1200 produced). Max speed for the P-63A and C was about 410 mph, not that impressive for a fighter introduced in late 1943/ early 1944. The P-38 amd P-51 both out-ranged it and the P-47 was far more suitable for G/A missions.


----------



## book1182 (Nov 14, 2005)

P-39 mismanaged from the start. Put a super charger on it and you have a winning airplane in a fighter and a GREAT ground attack aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 14, 2005)

book1182 said:


> P-39 mismanaged from the start. Put a super charger on it and you have a winning airplane in a fighter and a GREAT ground attack aircraft.



It was origionally planned to have turbochargers, but the lack of supply for them in 1939 and 1940 meant it was going to be a low altitude aircraft.


----------



## book1182 (Nov 15, 2005)

That is what I mean... It was designed to have a super charger and Bell didn't fight or "bitch" enough to keep it on their plane. The super charger was a very important part of the planes during that time. Look at the P-38 that was sent to England with out super chargers because they were considered top secret. They were passed on to training units.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 19, 2005)

The air force was afraid of something so new and revolutionary as the P-39. With the shaft having to drive the propeller from a mid-mounted engine, the two centers of gravity, the car-style doors, the forward tricycle undercarriage, it was something very new. And then you mate a revolutionary aircraft, intended to be an interceptor with the oldsmobile M-9 37mm cannon, something that had a horrible arcing shot, and would in my opinion been much less useful against bombers than even a 20mm cannon with a good muzzle velocity. Foreign orders and red tape kept the turbo or super chargers out of the aircraft, making altitude performance pitifully under par. In the ground attack role however, the aircraft could be effective, but the cannon, later updated to M-10, was still not too powerful when compared to german or soviet cannon. Had the aircraft retained the super or turbo charger, one of the two, and deleted the M-9/M-10, and replaced it with a 20mm cannon, it could have evolved into a much better aircraft than it was. It was so effective with the soviets because its what they had, and they were in no position to complain or whine about anything. They used theyre P-39's in low level, ground attack missions, or covering IL-2 ground attack aircraft, not using theyre 37mm gun against tanks, lacking the muzzle velocity or the proper shells for the mission.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 21, 2005)

Good site on the airacobra in the hands of the soviets.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_19.html


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 3, 2007)

Very underrated aircraft.

A picture of the few Cobras actually used by the british. This variant use a Hispano cannon instead the 37 mm M4 gun.










from: P-39 in action/Squadron Signal.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2007)

there was an article in Flypast about 601's P-39s, terrible reliability problems.........


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 7, 2007)

According to "p-39 in action" the P-39s in british service flew a couple of grouns strafing missions over the North of france and no more...that was all the use in western Europe.  







Quite weird aircraft, so loved by russians and so hated by british and americans.


----------



## Glider (Jan 8, 2007)

When the publicity photographs were taken she had already been removed from service due to the problems.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 8, 2007)

The VVS loved the P-39 because it was a plane perfectly suited to their cause; low level dogfights. The dogfights over Northern Europe were high altitude; where the P-39 could not perform.


----------



## fat flyer (Jan 8, 2007)

Also for the western allies in the ETO in WWII, there were not many opportunities for the P-39 to be used in a ground attack role.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 8, 2007)

The VVS rarely used the P-39 in the ground attack role, although it could perform as a fighter bomber (usually with 2 x 100 kg bombs or a single 250 kg bomb)

It was predominantly used as a low altitude escort for Il-2s and Pe-2s, as well as a mid-altitude air superiority fighter.

The 'Soviet tank buster P-39s' are something of a myth. The VVS was never supplied with AP ammunition for the M4 37mm cannon. The Soviet NS-37 37mm cannon, as fitted to Yak-9 and Il-2 variants, was more effective (heavier shell at a higher M/V and higher RoF) than the P-39s M4 at anti armour work.


----------



## superpumper (Jan 8, 2007)

That's something I wanted to ask. What was the big deal with the 37 mm in the P-39? Like I read in here and other places this 37mm was a poor weapon. Was this the first production a/c to use a weapon of this size? Can someone explan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2007)

It was a poor weapon - subject to jamming and it didn't function well when being fired with any g loads on it - but one round could take down just about anything. The P-400 had a 20mm which I believe worked a lot better.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jan 8, 2007)

I think the problem with jamming was due to the way the discharged shells were being handled, so this was a Bell design flaw, not the fault of the cannon. Once this was remedied they had no more problems.

One of the problems is that it had a low muzzle velocity. Chuck Yeager said that it was like firing pineapples. Doesn't sound like a positive comment....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 8, 2007)

> The VVS loved the P-39 because it was a plane perfectly suited to their cause; low level dogfights. The dogfights over Northern Europe were high altitude; where the P-39 could not perform.



Yeap, but it must be something more, for example according to "occidental" sources the plane had a bad tendency to make a flat spin in high G maneuvres, the russian aces seems to be insensitive at that fact ( or at list I cant found a reference )




> That's something I wanted to ask. What was the big deal with the 37 mm in the P-39? Like I read in here and other places this 37mm was a poor weapon. Was this the first production a/c to use a weapon of this size? Can someone explan




The big differences are in the cartrigde case.

Teorically the AP M4 round (37x145R) could penetrate 25 mm vertical plate at 300 meters. That makes an antitank ?

*Maybe yes maybe not:*

Just some examples of armor:

Pz II ausf f : 35 mm front 15 mm side.

Pz III ausf H/J 50 mm front 30 mm sides.

Pz IV ausf G 80 mm front, 30 mm sides.

Pz V panther 80/100 mm front, 40 mm sides.

Pz VI B Tiger 1, 100 mm front 80 mm sides.


That demonstrate that it have some posibilities against the thinner armor in the lighter vehicles but the the M-80 round was a very simple one, a solid piece of steel with tracer, no explosive charge or balistic cap. the initial speed was about 609 m/s....compare that with the larger NS-37 round, 900 m/s.

*M4 ammo, note the M-80 AP.*







*Now the longer bottlenecked russian round, 37x195 mm.*







The NS-37 was put in some single engines aircraft like the Yak-9, Lagg-3 and Yak-3 that made those double use aircraft (air-to-air and air-to-ground) but because the soviet aicraft were made mostly of wood they have not the strenght and durability of the cobra, also cannot carry as much armor protection and the radio equipmente was inferior, maybe that make the Airacobra so loved in the USSR.


----------



## Juha (Jan 9, 2007)

Hello CharlesBronson
did the Soviet got the M80 AP ammo? IIRC I read a long time ago that they got only HE ammo for their P-39s. But I cannot remember from what source so I don't know how reliable that info is. Do you have positive info on the delivery of M80 ammo to SU?
Anyway, M4 was such a low velocity weapon that IMHO its forte was its rather powerful HE.

Juha


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 9, 2007)

Sorry but no....I dont have that info, I am just speculating what would be the real armor penetration IF the M80 was used.

Bell P-400.


----------



## Juha (Jan 9, 2007)

Ok
thanks for sharing the drawings of M4 ammo.

Juha


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 9, 2007)

You re welcome.

Interesting reading I ve extracted from "Operation Pinball, the USAAFs secret aerial gunnery program in WW2" from Motorbooks International.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 18, 2007)

P-39Q and P-39F.














I am not sure about this last one, it would be interesting to know the real performance of the airacobra against the german and Vichy French fighters.


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 21, 2007)

does anyone know the losses of lend-lease equipment(if ac or tanks) delivered to the Soviet Union? i mean the sunken ships loaded with war material ,aircraft as deck cargo etc. i know how many been sent away,but not all of them arrived obviously.im also curious of the Kingcobra,i read everywhere about the p-39 but not the p-63..its supposed to be faster and better, but in my book of all ac of ww2 i found the highest speed less as the airacobras *confused*. if im right,almost the whole production of 2000+ kingcobras been shipped to the SU, (among with estimated 5000 p-39's),some used as trainers or target ac by the USSAF tho but never seen combat on allied side beside the eastern front. anyway...how many p-39,p-40,hurricanes,spits,bostons etc. layin in a sea grave?


----------



## JoeB (Jan 21, 2007)

Trautloft said:


> does anyone know the losses of lend-lease equipment(if ac or tanks) delivered to the Soviet Union?


From table on p.182 of Geust and Petrov "Red Stars 4" (for US a/c):
14,985 delivered from US factories for Soviet account
150 lost in the US and Canada (mainly on ferry flights to USSR)
586 lost "after departure" (mainly at sea on ships).

Slightly over half, and later in the war most, of lend lease US a/c for the Soviets were delivered by the ALSIB route, ie. flown from Lower 48 through Canada to Alaska, then across the Bering Sea to airfields in the Soviet far east. P-63's were almost all delivered that way, and almost half of P39's were. As implied by above figures, the ALSIB loss rate was pretty low. Also remember most sea deliveries were to Abadan in Iran (some bigger planes were flown there too, across the S. Atlantic, Africa and Mideast). Those deliveries suffered low losses as well. Only ~8% of the deliveries were to North Russia by sea, which were the only ones to incur substantial % losses on the way, though the book does not break out those details unfortunately.

P-63's saw brief action on the Eastern Front but no air combat (per the same book). Most were retained in the Far East and saw more extensive use in the Soviet war against Japan in August 1945, although didn't see much air combat there either because there was little Japanese opposition. Only one air combat mentioned in Soviet accounts, AFAIK was 17th Fighter Regiment P-63 claim to have downed a Japanese Ki-27 (Nate) or Ki-43 (Oscar, apparently Soviet records differ) of several attempting to attack Soviet A-20's, on the last official day of the war, August 15, 1945. I know of no specific Japanese account, Japanese Monograph No. 151 (account of the air campaign compiled for the US occupations postwar) gives claims for several Soviet a/c that day and losses of "about 10" Japanese a/c to various combat causes in the whole campaign.

Joe


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 22, 2007)

thanks alot JoeB ,great info!! 
if i got it right, this data excludes the British Empire's deliveries.


----------

