Brits loved the P-39!

Nikademus · Jun 17, 2010

RCAFson said:
So tell us, which US or USSR fighters were competitive with the Me109f/g in 1942? What was the alternative to the Hurricane as an air superiority fighter against the Luftwaffe? What US or USSR fighter was superior to the Spitfire V in 1942? Wasn't the USAAF flying the Spitfire V in 1942-43? I wonder why they were using UK built fighters?

It depends on how one defines "competitive" i suppose. Properly fought, any modern or even semi-modern fighter plane can be competitive. The UK by 41-42 ranked it's fighters in competitive order (based on fighting mainly in the desert) as Spitfire, Kittyhawk, Tomahawk, Hurricane. (best to worst in terms of taking on the Experten in their 109's) The German pilots from what i read agreed with this generalization. It gets blurred of course depending on situaiton. They considered the "Curtiss" (P-40) fighter at it's most dangerous at med-low to low altitude and Experten warned their less experienced bretherin to "never dogfight a Curitss" (aka....get into a turning fight) Its interesting to note that US and Commonwealth experiences with the P-40 frame were notably different....similar to the notable difference with Airacobra (USAAF vs VVS pilots), and of course the Brewster experience. The Russians (at least per Loza's book on the 216th Fighter Regiment) considered the P-39 to be the best fighter for their new tactics which stressed vertical maneuvers, of which they considered it to be slightly better at than the 109F or G. They also felt the 39 preformed better "at altitude" than the P40. There's not much mention (as of yet) of the Spit's attributes (some being present and used in the 216th during the Kuban campaign) but the 39's regularily flew top cover as high as 16-19 thousand feet.

So over Darwin the P40s were intercepting at exactly the same altitude as the Spitfires?

IIRC, the Darwin situation was mentioned in Bergerud's book on South Pacific air combat. It's alleged that the incoming Spit pilots were warned not to use "the usual tactics" against Zeros but these warnings were not heeded with the expected results. SpitVIII's, despite their technical superiority also had problems with Ki-43 drivers in Burma. At one point operationally they were stalemated....neither side being able to gain air superiority over the other.

RCAFson · Jun 17, 2010

JoeB said:
3. last one first, you haven't specified any particular statement I made that was incorrect, or shown any contrary research. Obviously you don't like my post, but you have to do more than just say generally 'it's incorrect' for your rejoinder to have any credibility.

1. As I stated, the Soviets thought that the US Lend Lease fighters, as well as the newer of their own types, were superior in the circumstances to the Hurricane. And, we can see from contemporary combat results in other theaters that the Hurricane was less a match for 109F/G by 1942 than other Allied fighters including P-40 types; Brit/CW generally agreed this. So the Soviet opinion is not very surprising.

2. The same Japanese units performing the same missions from the same bases against the same targets. The implication of your question is counter logical. The Spitfire V all else equal had superior altitude performance to the P-40E. If flying at high altitude was a solution, then the Japanese would have been quite stupid to employ high altitude as a way or counter Spitfires but not have thought of it as a way to counter P-40's. The more complicated answer is that Spitfires (as again somewhat parallel with Russian situation) were useful intercepting high altitude Japanese recon planes, Type 100 Hq Recon Planes, aka 'Dinah'. However in combats with bombers escorted by Zeroes the Spitfire didn't do any better v the bombers and considerably worse v the Zeroes than the P-40's had in the previous year's campaign in a virtually identical situation. One explanation often offered for this is the Spitfire's poor ability to hold onto its theoretical performance in primitive conditions (and separate from its combat results, the Spitfires suffered an alarmingly high wastage rate in accidents and mechanical failures operating in northern Australia conditions). But this is the whole point of comparing the two situations to begin with: a major reason the Soviet Tactical AF's found the Spitfire V practically inferior to the P-39 in 1943 on their southern front was one of the reasons the Spitfire V arguably proved practically inferior to the P-40 defending Australia, lack of tolerance for primitive conditions. So again the Soviet experience and opinion shouldn't be that shocking.

Joe

1) So why didn't they say" thanks, but no thanks" to the Hurricanes and of course the answer is that the Hurricane was available, when the other types were not. The Hurricane was a better aircraft than either the P40 or P39 for high altitude missions, but inferior for low altitude missions. The tactical situation is the key data which will determine which type is better in a given situation, but you prefer to ignore the tactical situation and treat all situations "same exact". Which is farcical and extremely misleading.

2) The simple fact is that the P40 and Spit missions over Darwin were not the same, the Japanese adjusted their tactics and came in at high altitude, above the reach of the P40, but this also caused problems for the Spitfires, but at the lower altitude of the P40 raids it is quite logical to assume that the Spitfire would do better and P40/P39 interceptions were actually not that common even at lower altitudes:

First priority naturally went to the defense of Allied bases, a burden which fell upon the fighter units at Moresby and Darwin. Over both points the enemy bombers usually came in at 22,000 feet and above, too high for satisfactory interception by P-40's, P-39's, or P-400's, the only fighters available to the AAF in the Southwest Pacific, and their limitations seriously affected Allied operations.64 During July the P-39 had made contact with enemy bombers only four times in a series of nine raids despite a thirty-minute warning; in sixteen actual contacts it never once enjoyed an altitude advantage and the Zero invariably could outclimb and outmaneuver this fighter, which suffered the additional disadvantage of increased vulnerability because of the location of its motor behind the pilot. The P-40 was somewhat better, but it, too, was outperformed by the more nimble enemy fighters, particularly at high altitudes. Inferior performance of their planes lowered the morale of the pilots.65 It was true that the Allied planes were more rugged and less inflammable, they could outdive the Zero, and if given warning to permit them to reach sufficient altitude they could achieve creditable scores, as they did on 30 July over Darwin when twenty-seven P-40's shot down six Zeros and two bombers at the cost of one P-40.66 But pilots continued to be frustrated, as on 17 August, when for the seventy-eighth time enemy bombers struck Moresby in an attempt to disable their favorite target, Seven-Mile Airdrome. Although defending fighters had received adequate warning, they were unable to intercept.67

Click to expand...

HyperWar: The Army Air Forces in WWII: Vol. IV--The Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan [Chapter 1]

The average bomber altitude during the Spitfire missions was something like 27,000ft.

Saying missions are same exact, when they are not is highly misleading.

VG-33 · Jun 17, 2010

Glider said:
Glider said:

I don't think that anyone would pretend that the Hurriacne was an equal match for the 109 in any version. Howeverto pretend that the Spit V wasn't a match for the 109F or russian fighters does fly in the face of the evidence...

This brings us back to the comparrison with the Russian Fighters. To compare the Spit V against the Lag 5 is a little unfair as the Lag 5 was brand new and entered service in the later part of 1942 as did the Spit IX. So if you want to compare the Lg 5 against a Spit choose the Spit IX.

Click to expand...

Fair, but it was for RCAFson:1942 ends in december the 31th. Moreover i wrote
The soviet Spit V was not cometitive at low altitude against soviet Yak, La-5 or P-39's at low alt. Not the Spit in general. The soviet mk V did not appeared before spring in 1943.

Thanks to Timppa:

we can see that mk V was 45 km/h slower than the P-39D, 75 km/h than the Yak-9 and full 105 km/h compared to the La-5F at SL!

Captain Sapozhnikov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, flew the Spitfire, and Captain Aleksandr Pokryshkin, commander of 1st Squadron, 16th GIAP, flew the Airacobra. A factory test pilot flew the LaGG. Here is how Pokryshkin describes this aerial combat in his memoirs:

Click to expand...

It's foolish how many differents versions there are in Pokryshkin memors about that story. Last time i red that Pokryshkin went alone in Tbilissi, where handling a Spitfire, faced a n°31 factory test pilot and won the contest.
Anyway we don't have the other "sound of the bell" (side of the history). It's like friendly fights between "Alsace" Spit XVI' and "Normandie" Yak-3 in 45-46, very different depending on protagonists.

In other words the P39 and the SPit could take on in a dogfight, the Lagg 3 which was just entering service. Had this been at Altitude I have no doubt that the Spit V would have bested both the P39 and the Lagg 3.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt than a Spit V or a Polikarpov I-15 can take an advantage in a dogfight against a LaGG-3 or a P-47 or a Mustang in 1942- 1943. Was it making them the absolute fighters in all aspects for that?

Regards

Shortround6 · Jun 17, 2010

Getting back to the original question, a lot of the discrepancies can be explained by timing.

The British were testing P-39s in the Summer of 1941 and trying to issue them to an operational squadron in the fall of 1941. The planes they had were not quite ready for for combat operations, either in needed performance or in operational readiness.
performance was nowhere near the manufactures claims and the all electric airplane suffered many faults. And with faults in the electrical system affecting land gear retraction, extension, flaps and even propeller pitch changes this is not a minor complaint. Lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide in the cockpit after firing the guns and having the compass going out of service after firing the guns were other problems. Having a non-functioning compass over France and facing a channel crossing to get home isn't a good idea. Put that together with the P-39s landing and take-off distances which limited the fields it could fly out of and it's short range and one can see why the British weren't that keen to keep the planes they ordered.
The Americans had several more months to sort out the problems before they saw combat and didn't have a lot of other choices in any case in Dec 1941 or early 1942.
I don't know how much trouble the Russians had with the early models and while they got 200 or so of these early models I doubt that they were "used" or worn to any extent. The British kept 79 or 80 and since they only tried to equip one squadron that number seems quite enough to cover any and all needs related to equipping that squadron or any other planned ones that never got any, ground schools and the like.

Russian use of the P-39 when compared to western allied use is often complicated not only by the different missions but in trying to compare the actual performance. The Russians being much more likely to remove wing guns or at least not carry any where near full ammunition loads for the wing guns. With 1000 rounds per .30 cal gun that is about 120lbs per wing just for the ammo. Even if it doesn't affect the top speed by that much it will affect the climb, ceiling and initial roll rate.
Another point on timing of comparisons is that while the chart supplied by Timpa is very interesting it isn't quite accurate in comparing the "British" P-39 to the Spitfire because the the 'D-2' version P-39 in the chart used a later model Allison with 1325hp available for take-off and low altitude use ( with 1590hp WEP) compared to the 1150Hp take-off and low altitude ratings for the Early P-39s. The "D-2" isn't delivered from the factory until June of 1942 and by the time they can be shipped to combat fronts (Russia or Pacific) it is probably several more months at a minimum before they saw combat use.
In Russian service the use of some of these higher power settings could be subject to the availability of western fuels.

RCAFson · Jun 17, 2010

VG-33 said:
we can see that mk V was 45 km/h slower than the P-39D, 75 km/h than the Yak-9 and full 105 km/h compared to the La-5F at SL!

You can see from here that the Soviet Spit V is not equipped with a trop filter:
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/spit/index.htm

The speeds given in the top chart are somewhat at variance with RAE figures, and they appear to be using WEP for all aircraft except the Spitfire and Hurricane. Using 12lb boost, there's very little difference between the P39 and Spit V. SL speed at 12lb boost for the Spit V = 482km/h versus about 490 km/h for the P39D while the Spit Vb with the Merlin 46 was very similar:

VG-33 · Jun 18, 2010

Hello,

Shortround6 said:
I don't know how much trouble the Russians had with the early models and while they got 200 or so of these early models I doubt that they were "used" or worn to any extent.

A good link, my friend's M. Sribny site for your doubts:
Early Cobra's in Soviet Aviation

Another point on timing of comparisons is that while the chart supplied by Timpa is very interesting it isn't quite accurate in comparing the "British" P-39 to the Spitfire because the the 'D-2' version P-39 in the chart used a later model Allison with 1325hp available for take-off and low altitude use ( with 1590hp WEP) compared to the 1150Hp take-off and low altitude ratings for the Early P-39s. The "D-2" isn't delivered from the factory until June of 1942 and by the time they can be shipped to combat fronts (Russia or Pacific) it is probably several more months at a minimum before they saw combat use.

Timpa chart is from "Samoletostroeniye" book p 242, on page 244-245 the table for the showed graphics quotes (don't have working scan ; )

For the P-39 D-2, tested in april 1942 at LII-VVS

A 1135 hp Allison V-1710-35,

3556 kg "full" weight ( j'm not sure that it was the "trials" weight: in soviet service usually less than 3300...)

472 km/h/493* at SL 557 at 3950m/585 at 4200m*

17.7-18.7 s (excellent!!) turning rate for a 360°

* so called "combat rating": 5 min from the graph indication. Translate in corrects worlds in your own langage. (WEP?, CP?)

The P-40E in that order, tested in july 1942

a 1150 hp V-1710-39

450/477* and 549/575*

No wep indication for the P-40C, tested in october 1941 and its V-1710-33

445 SL, 545@4860

Hope it can help...

Regards

PS:

In Russian service the use of some of these higher power settings could be subject to the availability of western fuels.

Sure, the Allisson was much less reluctant than the RR, to use soviet fuels and oils. This ability i think, may help for popularity and airworthiness...But was about 10-15 km/h faster with its guenine american 100LL, than with soviet 95 one (in fact 92-94)/

timshatz · Jun 18, 2010

Good discussion so far guys. Interesting stuff.

Anybody have a good idea what the standard combat load was for the Soviets with the P39? After the wing guns, what else did they remove? I had heard some armor was taken out.

Also, did the Soviets ever try and take the 37MM gun out and replace it with their own 23MM? Seems like a simple but good idea.

Nikademus · Jun 18, 2010

From what i've gleaned so far, the Soviets appreciated the armor of the P-39 and I have found no specific mention thus far that any armor was removed. It seems counter-intuitive given the positive comments regarding the plane's protection. The removed wing guns made sense as it slightly increased the plane's roll rate and besides, the soviets considered the nose based firepower more than sufficient to blast targets at close range.

Believe full fuel loads were used, particularily given that early combat showed that it was a bad idea to enter a battle area at lower cruising speeds for the sake of conserving fuel. Standard doctrine was quickly changed so that Airacobra's would enter the assigned area at maximum cruise speed, even at the expense of reduced station time (quoted now as 20-30 minutes)

The Russian pilots appear to have liked the 37mm cannon....the only criticism being that it's ROF was a tad slow. On the plus size they commented that a single round could destroy any Luftwaffe target in their sights. Combined with the 50's.....it was repeatedly described as a devestating combo. One major modification done was the firing mechanisms for the 50's and cannon were wired to be fired together via one trigger.

Soviets tended to only replace defective or worn components with soviet manufactured parts where and when necessary. These included spark plugs, generators, altimeter and temperature guages, O2 masks and booster coils on the engines.

JoeB · Jun 18, 2010

RCAFson said:
1) So why didn't they say" thanks, but no thanks" to the Hurricanes and of course the answer is that the Hurricane was available, when the other types were not.

2) The simple fact is that the P40 and Spit missions over Darwin were not the same, the Japanese adjusted their tactics and came in at high altitude, above the reach of the P40, but this also caused problems for the Spitfires, but at the lower altitude of the P40 raids it is quite logical to assume that the Spitfire would do better and P40/P39 interceptions were actually not that common even at lower altitudes:

The average bomber altitude during the Spitfire missions was something like 27,000ft.

Saying missions are same exact, when they are not is highly misleading.

1. Why not say no thanks? because the alternatives might be I-16's, or nothing. It doesn't answer the simple *correct* point I actually made: the Soviets viewed LL a/c like P-40 superior to the Hurricane for their purposes, and that doesn't actually disagree with Western opinion in the same period. There was no big 'if and but' about the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk types v the Hurricane in Med theater, the P-40 types were an improvement in the circumstances and missions pertaining. It's not about looking for some hypothetical benefit of doubt situation where the Hurricane could be said to have an advantage. The Soviets felt the Hurricane inferior for their purposes; it was also judged inferior in West for at least some purposes, so no big shock. That's the simple point I made and you haven't contradicted it.

2. Again if you'd thought about what I said last time, you wouldn't have posted those excerpts from generic works I assume everyone here has read, I certainly have, it's kind of spamming really, that semi-contradict your own point. The Spit V had superior altitude performance to the P-40E, but the Japanese had a long time to balance out the tactical plus and minus of bombing altitude v the P-40 and P-39. It's simply not plausible or logical to say the Japanese failed to adopt high altitude attacks in many raids v. P-39/40 and that this somehow explains the poorer record of a better altitude plane, the Spit V, against later raids by the same Japanese units.

That doesn't make sense, even if true as you laid out. But if you look at the descriptions in books that describe each raid in both campaigns in detail from both sides, like Baeza's "Soleil Levant Sur L'Australie", that argument is not even well supported, that the altitudes varied all that much between campaigns, considering all combats, some of which in both campaigns had the Japanese fighters mainly out to shoot down interceptors, in fighter sweeps or by by heavily escorting small recon flights. The Spits for example scored half their 4 kills v Zeroes (v 26 combat losses to them) on one mission where they jumped Zeroes which were on the deck strafing an airfield. The P-40's went 10:19 v the Zeroes.

Explaining this as a result of the fact that the P-40 was inferior in altitude performance, so the Japanese adopted high altitude tactics, only after they weren't fighting P-40's, and this explains why the Spitfire's poorer record doesn't mean it really did worse than the P-40...I doubt that makes sense to anybody but you, or perhaps not you if consider it carefully. And you should really read Baeza on this campaign, not rely on supposition of what really happened from older one sided works.

Joe

RCAFson · Jun 18, 2010

JoeB said:
1. Why not say no thanks? because the alternatives might be I-16's, or nothing. It doesn't answer the simple *correct* point I actually made: the Soviets viewed LL a/c like P-40 superior to the Hurricane for their purposes, and that doesn't actually disagree with Western opinion in the same period. There was no big 'if and but' about the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk types v the Hurricane in Med theater, the P-40 types were an improvement in the circumstances and missions pertaining. It's not about looking for some hypothetical benefit of doubt situation where the Hurricane could be said to have an advantage. The Soviets felt the Hurricane inferior for their purposes; it was also judged inferior in West for at least some purposes, so no big shock. That's the simple point I made and you haven't contradicted it.

2. Again if you'd thought about what I said last time, you wouldn't have posted those excerpts from generic works I assume everyone here has read, I certainly have, it's kind of spamming really, that semi-contradict your own point. The Spit V had superior altitude performance to the P-40E, but the Japanese had a long time to balance out the tactical plus and minus of bombing altitude v the P-40 and P-39. It's simply not plausible or logical to say the Japanese failed to adopt high altitude attacks in many raids v. P-39/40 and that this somehow explains the poorer record of a better altitude plane, the Spit V, against later raids by the same Japanese units.

That doesn't make sense, even if true as you laid out. But if you look at the descriptions in books that describe each raid in both campaigns in detail from both sides, like Baeza's "Soleil Levant Sur L'Australie", that argument is not even well supported, that the altitudes varied all that much between campaigns, considering all combats, some of which in both campaigns had the Japanese fighters mainly out to shoot down interceptors, in fighter sweeps or by by heavily escorting small recon flights. The Spits for example scored half their 4 kills v Zeroes (v 26 combat losses to them) on one mission where they jumped Zeroes which were on the deck strafing an airfield. The P-40's went 10:19 v the Zeroes.

Explaining this as a result of the fact that the P-40 was inferior in altitude performance, so the Japanese adopted high altitude tactics, only after they weren't fighting P-40's, and this explains why the Spitfire's poorer record doesn't mean it really did worse than the P-40...I doubt that makes sense to anybody but you, or perhaps not you if consider it carefully. And you should really read Baeza on this campaign, not rely on supposition of what really happened from older one sided works.

Joe

1) The USSR was invaded on June 22 1941. As has been discussed, aircraft with clearly better performance than a Hurricane II did not arrive in any numbers until fairly late in 1942. In the Med the RAF began to commit the P40 against 2nd line opponents in Mid 1941 along with clapped out Hurricane Is, but reserved the the really tough assignments (read Malta) to the Hurricane II.

2) Now you are trying to weasel out of the fact that the missions flown against the Japanese by the P39/40 and Spitfires, were very different tactical situations, yet you continue to spout the fiction that the missions were the same, when, by using "generic sources" it is easy to see that they were quite different. The P39/40 had great difficulty in making an interception against bomber foirces flown at about 5000ft average lower altitute than during the Spitfire missions. The only reason the P40s made more kills than the Spits is that they flow far more sorties to achieve their kills.

The Japanese initial bombing campaign against the P39/40 was in fact, on average, flown at the optimal altitudes for the Hurricane II and Spit V and there is every reason to believe that if these same Japanese attacks had been meet by equal numbers of Hurricane II or Spit V fighters, that they would have scored more kills than the p39/40s. You always want to pretend that the tactical situation doesn't matter when it clearly does!!! Just ask some A6M driver flying a 1200 mile round trip sortie, with no radio and retaining his drop tank during combat over Guadalcanal, if he felt that this didn't put him at a disadvantage to a Me109E based 70 miles away from Malta, and probably within radio range of base the whole time

Your posts are highly misleading, because you prefer to gloss over the messy details...

Shortround6 · Jun 19, 2010

VG-33 said:
A good link, my friend's M. Sribny site for your doubts:

Thank you for the link.

The way I am reading it is that the Russians were looking for worn or used aircraft because of experience with Hurricanes and P-40s. It doesn't say they found any used P-39s until later in the article when they specifically mention a used aircraft arriving later than the initial shipments. Of Britain's initial order 212 were shipped directly to the Soviet Union and 179 were released to the US before leaving America. That leaves only the 79-80 (minus crashes, hacks and instructional airframes) that would have been available for reshipment to Russia as "used" aircraft. A small amount compared to the hundreds of early P-39s the Russians did get.
I think a fair statement would be that the large majority of the Early P-39s were new aircraft.

thank you for work in listing the speeds.

Unfortunately for communication between people of different languages the "power ratings" can be very confusing. It is confusing enough for me as an American to figure out what American or English authors are referring to some times.

See:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39SEFC.pdf

I am referring to MAX cruise and max continuous. It is my interpretation that the 1000hp max continuous has no time limit and could be held until the fuel ran out (temperature limits excepted) without undue harm coming to the engine. In the 1930s this might be called the "rated power" of an engine. Rated power was NOT take-off power in American or British terms/language at the time.

While the Military power (1150hp) was subject to the time limit/s given but could be used without extra maintenance procedures or notes in log books or changes in overhaul life.

The War Emergency rating (or any part of it over the military power rating) is not only subject to the time limit but it's use does need to be noted in log books, will cause extra maintenance procedures (more frequent spark plug changes for one) and will shorten overhaul life.

I have no idea how this relates to how the Russians rated engines (at least no idea I feel comfortable putting out on this forum as anything but a wild guess) and hope that you can help me on this.

VG-33 said:

PS:

Sure, the Allisson was much less reluctant than the RR, to use soviet fuels and oils. This ability i think, may help for popularity and airworthiness...But was about 10-15 km/h faster with its guenine american 100LL, than with soviet 95 one (in fact 92-94)/

Click to expand...

I can believe that was true but it means that they were using a different boost setting with the two different fuels. It would be interesting to find out what boosts settings were used.

The 1420HP WE limit might have been unusable in Russia without 100/130 fuel at 57 in of manifold pressure but where the limit between 1000hp at 39in and the 1420HP limit would be with soviet fuel I don't want to guess.

This is not the engine of the early P-39s but just what I could find on the internet to illustrate the point.

VG-33 · Jun 20, 2010

Hi

RCAFson said:
The speeds given in the top chart are somewhat at variance with RAE figures, ...

Nothing surprinsing, mid-serial mass produced planes (moreover with some wear ...) are generally providing inferior than those specially prepared for state test trials. It's why soviet tests for foreign planes are particulary informative...

and they appear to be using WEP for all aircraft except the Spitfire and Hurricane.

There is nothing to "appear" or to play riddles on soviet tests. When WEP is used, it's indicated.

Using 12lb boost, there's very little difference between the P39 and Spit V. SL speed at 12lb boost for the Spit V = 482km/h versus about 490 km/h for the P39D while the Spit Vb with the Merlin 46 was very similar:

Once upon a time, in the West (of Kent)... a Spit V may have reach 482 km/h at SL with 12Ib or 16. But, for objective and subjective reasons it was not flown like that in USSR. I guess soviets didn't have that special plane with modified blower, and even so, were not allowed by british engeeners (or technical booklets) to use it that whay.

So once again, as in my post 74:
The soviet Spit V was not cometitive at low altitude against soviet Yak, La-5 or P-39's, in late 1943 spring.
We're not taking the Spitfire to court in general, just in one day one place in specific east front-conditions.

1) So why didn't they say" thanks, but no thanks" to the Hurricanes and of course the answer is that the Hurricane was available, when the other types were not.

???!!!....But non only they DID! They did it mainly times, with no success.... As point as Stalin personnaly wrote Churchill a famous letter in october 42, the (7th it seems...or 23th) asking to replace all Hurricane deliveries by P-40 and P-39...
Of course, soviet pilots themselves did not took such a long time to loose their illusions about Hurricane capabilities, Novikov the VV-S marshal-commander was trying to substitude or wihdraw the Hurricane from early 42th summer after a general meeting for military aviation, in the light of experience gained and compilated, after a year of intensive fight.

The Hurricane was a better aircraft than either the P40 or P39 for high altitude missions, but inferior for low altitude missions.

It's called a corollary for what was said before.

But don't worry for Hurricane faith in the eastern front, Britt's are not the kind of men to be impressed, should it be by Stalin or not. Phlegmaic and tenacious as hell, there continued Hurricane deliveries to SSSR at bigger squale than before.

It's why 773 Hurries were still serving in the red airforce in may 1945, the 1st.

8 of them only, it's true in the active army units (1%)
34 in military districts (at the rear)
731 in the PVO (anti-aircraft defence command)

In proportion P-40s were at the same position 10 / 1065 but

for the P-39 some 912 / 2238 of them were still destinated to soldier in first-line VVS units

In summer 1943, soviet changes attitude towards P-40, and asked their replacement by P-39.

It's the good question,

Markus said:
The former (P-40 was used) the Med because it was better than the Hurricane and Spits were reserved for "use in the UK only" at that time. The Allison powered Mustangs were used for tactical recon IIRC.

Why did Brits prefered the P-40, and the soviets the P-39?

Regards

RCAFson · Jun 20, 2010

VG-33 said:
Hi

Nothing surprinsing, mid-serial mass produced planes (moreover with some wear ...) are generally providing inferior than those specially prepared for state test trials. It's why soviet tests for foreign planes are particulary informative...

There is nothing to "appear" or to play riddles on soviet tests. When WEP is used, it's indicated.

Once upon a time, in the West (of Kent)... a Spit V may have reach 482 km/h at SL with 12Ib or 16. But, for objective and subjective reasons it was not flown like that in USSR. I guess soviets didn't have that special plane with modified blower, and even so, were not allowed by british engeeners (or technical booklets) to use it that whay.

So once again, as in my post 74:
The soviet Spit V was not cometitive at low altitude against soviet Yak, La-5 or P-39's, in late 1943 spring.
We're not taking the Spitfire to court in general, just in one day one place in specific east front-conditions.

What about the Cobra's engine?

It was good, but weak in terms of engine hours, and not very good if you flew with too much throttle. I will tell you about it. This was not a fault of the airplane, but ours. Because our gasoline was not suitable. We flew on our fuel—B-78. The Cobra had a limiter [governor]. The normal supercharger pressure on the Cobra was 67 pounds per square inch. They set the governor on the Cobra so that it would not exceed 45 pounds. Kinematics supported this; it was ours, already developed. It would not give any more with our fuel. Therefore, if one were using our fuel, the connecting rods in the engine would snap. That's not all. They glued a piece of paper on the throttle slot. Paper, ordinary paper. You could set the throttle to get only 40 pounds. Maximum 40. But in combat it was possible to get 45 pounds, but only by tearing the paper. Then you had to report this to the mechanics later. They could see this themselves; they then would remove the filters from the engine to check for [metal] filings.[/B]
What was dangerous about the Cobra? Its coolant fluid was Prestone [antifreeze], and it burned better than gasoline. In the event connecting rods would snap, a fire would break out. And in most cases—right away.

They said that, even under such conditions, these Allison engines did not last the projected number of operating hours.

Well, you know, this did not affect me—the mechanics worried about such things.

At the front, did you fly on our gasoline? What about at the training center?

At the front. More precisely, at both places. There was no other choice. The American gas was B-100. They could deliver it some places, but we never received any. Perhaps Pokryshkin flew on these aircraft.

Interview with P.Ovsyannikov

So 100 octane fuel was available in some locations and not others, and the performance levels indicated by this graph:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/109542d1256053432-russian-fighters-
clearly show that 100 octane fuel was being used for the US aircraft tests and not the UK ones. While the above comments are also clear that his aircraft would have much lower power levels.

However, most of all the technical personnel of the regiments were dissatisfied with the power plant of the British fighter—the Merlin 45 and 46 engines. In particular, the summaries say that the "engines function fully satisfactorily. The strong side of the Merlin engine is the fact that a PRD has been mounted on it, a regulator for the quality of the [fuel] mixture." The engine had another quality as important to technical personnel as simplicity of service—assembly and disassembly of the engine was simple; there were no particularly difficult approaches to it. The engine started easily, its RZ-5 spark plugs worked for up to 50–60 hours which, as the mechanics noted, was also a good indicator. However, these same spark plugs had a "very weak electrode."

Adjustment of the engine itself, according to the testimony of specialists, was simple. The qualities that the pilots liked, and which were very important in aerial combat—transition to various regimes of power of the Merlin were smooth. The engine had good acceleration—it is obvious that this quality substantially assisted Spitfire pilots in combat with Messerschmitts, which thanks to the power of the Daimler-Benz engine had good speed dynamics.

Spitfires over the Kuban

Now the article goes on to complain about engine life, etc but these complaints are being made against the Allison as well.

Appendix A:

16 GIAP (P39) 20 combats - 24 kills (8b-16f), 3 aircraft and 3 pilots lost from all causes
57 GIAP (SpitV) 23 combats - 30 kills (15b-15f), 7 aircraft and 3 pilots lost from all causes.
Spitfires over the Kuban
Note the number of bomber kills by the Spit V.

???!!!....But non only they DID! They did it mainly times, with no success.... As point as Stalin personnaly wrote Churchill a famous letter in october 42, the (7th it seems...or 23th) asking to replace all Hurricane deliveries by P-40 and P-39...

Hmmm, and of course Stalin's opinion was written in late 1942, and may have been the result of 100 octane fuel being available to some newer units with US LL supplied aircraft and while UK supplied Hurricanes were using Soviet fuel and had their overboost disabled. I also suppose that if Stalin said the Hurricane was no good, that lots of SUAF personnel would feel free to disagree...

michaelmaltby · Jun 20, 2010

"... Hmmm, and of course Stalin's opinion was written in late 1942, and may have been the result of 100 octane fuel being available to some newer units with US LL supplied aircraft and while UK supplied Hurricanes were using Soviet fuel and had their overboost disabled. I also suppose that if Stalin said the Hurricane was no good, that lots of SUAF personnel would feel free to disagree..."

You raise good points RCAFson. The US wasn't just supplying aviation gas but also octane booster for Soviet gas. Much as I love the P-39 in Soviet service, I've always felt that the "fix" was in on the Hurricane and the Spit. When the Soviets didn't have anything else they were glad to get them -

MM

JoeB · Jun 20, 2010

RCAFson said:
1) The USSR was invaded on June 22 1941. As has been discussed, aircraft with clearly better performance than a Hurricane II did not arrive in any numbers until fairly late in 1942. In the Med the RAF began to commit the P40 against 2nd line opponents in Mid 1941 along with clapped out Hurricane Is, but reserved the the really tough assignments (read Malta) to the Hurricane II.

2) Now you are trying to weasel out of the fact that the missions flown against the Japanese by the P39/40 and Spitfires, were very different tactical situations,

Just ask some A6M driver flying a 1200 mile round trip sortie, with no radio and retaining his drop tank during combat over Guadalcanal, if he felt that this didn't put him at a disadvantage to a Me109E based 70 miles away from Malta, and probably within radio range of base the whole time

1. When the P-40 was around, the Soviets thought it superior. Go back and see if I ever said they thought the P-40 was superior before it was available for them to try it You're just not answering the point I made, Soviets found P-40 superior for their purposes, when they flew it, obviously.

And, while this whole point is a tangent, because obviously the Soviets didn't find the P-39/40 superior before they had any, you statements about P-40 and Hurricane use in Med is not true. P-40 types (starting with P-40B/Tomahawk) were used by Desert AF, Hurricane by DAF and at Malta. But nether Desert nor North Africa was consistently the 'tougher assignment' in the year of P-40's intro, 1941. In Feb-May '41 Bf109E's operated from Sicily v Malta alongside Italian fighters; the 109E's achieved a fighter-fighter kill ratio of 35:0 v Hurricanes, with only 1 staffel, less than 10 a/c, deployed for most of that period. From May-Dec only Italian fighters operated against Malta, and Hurricanes generally had the advantage, except v Mc202's from September. In December the German fighters re-appeared, larger numbers of Bf109F's, and the RAF soon definitely concluded the Hurricane could not handle this threat, hence Spitfires to Malta in '42.

In contrast Bf109E's appeared in the Western Desert in April 1941, and 109's were continuously present there from then on; 109F's appeared in September. The Tomahawk was first deployed in June. So the Western Desert was by no means populated by second line fighter opposition in 1941 compared to Malta, and the general consensus was that the Tomahawk could face 109's on a less disadvantageous footing than the Hurricane could, in situation in the Western Desert. So again it's not shocking Soviet opinion was simialr in their particular situation. See "Malta The Hurricane Years", "Hurricanes over Malta", "Fighters over the Desert".

2. I am speaking of P-40 missions defending Darwin against bombers escorted by the JNAF 3rd Air Group in spring-summer 1942, v Spitfire missions defending Darwin against bombers escorted by the same fighter unit (re-designated 202nd Air Group in Nov 1942) in spring-fall 1943. You are inserting references to US fighter types defending other targets. I'm talking the straight apples to apples case. And as I said, read Baeza, "Soleil Levant Sur L'Australie", blow by blow of each mission in both campaigns v Darwin (and all combat air ops from or over Australia). It *was* the same mission, and no systematic difference in the way the Japanese carried it out.

There's no logical connection between Malta and G'canal in the discussion at hand. Maybe you're dragging in previous topics (like F4F and Hurricane)? but it's irrelevant and confusing for it just pop up as supposed couter to my point about Spits and P-40 defending Darwin. P-40's and Spit V's at Darwin faced Zeroes flying the same distance, from Timor, a little over 500 miles one way, relatively comfortable range for a Zero, though far beyond the capabilities of P-40, Spit V or Bf109. Early Zero missions v Guadalcanal were 600 miles one way (but it's a myth they couldn't drop tanks on a mission of that length or any range they could reach, external tank was well under than 1/2 the total fuel load, and jettisonable), but they soon had divert fields on the way back, then some (albieit slightly shorter ranged Model 32 Zeroes) were based at Buin, around 300 miles away. Zero missions from Lae To Moresby were under 200 miles one way, skip and a jump for a Zero; some of those missions were flown direct from Rabaul but they had Lae as divert field. But again I'm comparing apples and apples, Darwin defense by P-40's, Darwin defense by Spits. The Spit, at the very least, failed to show superiority over the P-40 in that situation, which makes the Soviet verdict on the Spit V less surprising, and again a common theme was the Spit's lack of tolerance for primitive conditions, but those were sometimes simply the conditions under which an a/c had to be judged.

You keep calling me 'incorrect' and then 'misleading' but seems you have an awful lot of gaps in your knowledge of combat operations of these various a/c. Maybe you should read more about the topic and maybe learn more, not just scramble around for internet links that you think support the opinions you already have.

Joe

Juha · Jun 21, 2010

Hello RCAFson

Quote:" Hmmm, and of course Stalin's opinion was written in late 1942, and may have been the result of 100 octane fuel being available to some newer units with US LL supplied aircraft and while UK supplied Hurricanes were using Soviet fuel and had their overboost disabled. I also suppose that if Stalin said the Hurricane was no good, that lots of SUAF personnel would feel free to disagree..."

Now the point is that Soviets decided to give their limited amount of 100oct fuel to certain P-39 units, most probably because they saw that to be the most effective way to use that stock. P-39 units participated the battle of Berlin and many top Soviet aces got most of their kills while flying P-39s.
At least some, for ex our second ranking ace Wind, Finnish fighter pilots saw I-16 and I-153 more dangerous opponents to Brewster B-239 than Hurricane.

Juha

VG-33 · Jun 21, 2010

Shortround6 said:
Shortround6 said:

thank you for work in listing the speeds.

Unfortunately for communication between people of different languages the "power ratings" can be very confusing. It is confusing enough for me as an American to figure out what American or English authors are referring to some times.

Click to expand...

Of course it was a joke:

From soviet docs in russian for the P-39D-1, with an Allison V-1710-35 (B-4 ?) :

Vzliotnaya: TO power 1150 hp @ 2800rpm
Maximalnaya: max- ie military power for 15 min @ 3670m @ 3000 rpm: 1150hp
Nominalnaya: nominal -ie maximum continuous @ 3300m @ 2600 rpm: 1000hp
Economiceskaya; economical -ie max cruise? @ 3820m @ 2300 rpm: 760 hp.

See:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39SEFC.pdf

Click to expand...

Thank you

I have no idea how this relates to how the Russians rated engines (at least no idea I feel comfortable putting out on this forum as anything but a wild guess) and hope that you can help me on this.

Click to expand...

Here's the Timpa's chart again, we well see the 15 min Military for the P-39Q-15 and with soviet 95 ,3.5 B-78 (in fact 92-94.5), octanes fuel (no time limit...?).

I can believe that was true but it means that they were using a different boost setting with the two different fuels. It would be interesting to find out what boosts settings were used.

The 1420HP WE limit might have been unusable in Russia without 100/130 fuel at 57 in of manifold pressure but where the limit between 1000hp at 39in and the 1420HP limit would be with soviet fuel I don't want to guess.

Click to expand...

Surprisingly, soviets used 52 for T'O', even with their own fuel fory short times. But, it's true that production evolved in time: from the end of 1943 some pure B-95 (95 octane basis) fuel was produced and it was possible to reach 115/130 with flavours.

Regards

Nikademus · Jun 21, 2010

"Soleil Levant sur l'Australie"

Is there an English language edition of this work?

Tomahawk101 · Jun 21, 2010

I thought it was so bad it only served with No. 601 Squadron

RCAFson · Jun 21, 2010

JoeB said:
1. When the P-40 was around, the Soviets thought it superior. Go back and see if I ever said they thought the P-40 was superior before it was available for them to try it You're just not answering the point I made, Soviets found P-40 superior for their purposes, when they flew it, obviously.

And, while this whole point is a tangent, because obviously the Soviets didn't find the P-39/40 superior before they had any, you statements about P-40 and Hurricane use in Med is not true. P-40 types (starting with P-40B/Tomahawk) were used by Desert AF, Hurricane by DAF and at Malta. But nether Desert nor North Africa was consistently the 'tougher assignment' in the year of P-40's intro, 1941. In Feb-May '41 Bf109E's operated from Sicily v Malta alongside Italian fighters; the 109E's achieved a fighter-fighter kill ratio of 35:0 v Hurricanes, with only 1 staffel, less than 10 a/c, deployed for most of that period. From May-Dec only Italian fighters operated against Malta, and Hurricanes generally had the advantage, except v Mc202's from September. In December the German fighters re-appeared, larger numbers of Bf109F's, and the RAF soon definitely concluded the Hurricane could not handle this threat, hence Spitfires to Malta in '42.

In contrast Bf109E's appeared in the Western Desert in April 1941, and 109's were continuously present there from then on; 109F's appeared in September. The Tomahawk was first deployed in June. So the Western Desert was by no means populated by second line fighter opposition in 1941 compared to Malta, and the general consensus was that the Tomahawk could face 109's on a less disadvantageous footing than the Hurricane could, in situation in the Western Desert. So again it's not shocking Soviet opinion was simialr in their particular situation. See "Malta The Hurricane Years", "Hurricanes over Malta", "Fighters over the Desert".

2. I am speaking of P-40 missions defending Darwin against bombers escorted by the JNAF 3rd Air Group in spring-summer 1942, v Spitfire missions defending Darwin against bombers escorted by the same fighter unit (re-designated 202nd Air Group in Nov 1942) in spring-fall 1943. You are inserting references to US fighter types defending other targets. I'm talking the straight apples to apples case. And as I said, read Baeza, "Soleil Levant Sur L'Australie", blow by blow of each mission in both campaigns v Darwin (and all combat air ops from or over Australia). It *was* the same mission, and no systematic difference in the way the Japanese carried it out.

There's no logical connection between Malta and G'canal in the discussion at hand. Maybe you're dragging in previous topics (like F4F and Hurricane)? but it's irrelevant and confusing for it just pop up as supposed couter to my point about Spits and P-40 defending Darwin. P-40's and Spit V's at Darwin faced Zeroes flying the same distance, from Timor, a little over 500 miles one way, relatively comfortable range for a Zero, though far beyond the capabilities of P-40, Spit V or Bf109. Early Zero missions v Guadalcanal were 600 miles one way (but it's a myth they couldn't drop tanks on a mission of that length or any range they could reach, external tank was well under than 1/2 the total fuel load, and jettisonable), but they soon had divert fields on the way back, then some (albieit slightly shorter ranged Model 32 Zeroes) were based at Buin, around 300 miles away. Zero missions from Lae To Moresby were under 200 miles one way, skip and a jump for a Zero; some of those missions were flown direct from Rabaul but they had Lae as divert field. But again I'm comparing apples and apples, Darwin defense by P-40's, Darwin defense by Spits. The Spit, at the very least, failed to show superiority over the P-40 in that situation, which makes the Soviet verdict on the Spit V less surprising, and again a common theme was the Spit's lack of tolerance for primitive conditions, but those were sometimes simply the conditions under which an a/c had to be judged.

You keep calling me 'incorrect' and then 'misleading' but seems you have an awful lot of gaps in your knowledge of combat operations of these various a/c. Maybe you should read more about the topic and maybe learn more, not just scramble around for internet links that you think support the opinions you already have.

Joe

1) The P40 in Commonwealth service saw first combat against the Vichy AF in Syria.

Again, you present the fiction that Malta based Hurricanes were facing a single staffel of Me109s , In Feb-May '41, when you know full well that other staffels participated in that time frame and that the Me109 flew missions where RA fighters were also present in large numbers, and the Hurricanes, were typically outnumbered at least 3-1, when operating from a base about 70 miles from Luftwaffe/RA bases in Sicily, unlike the DAF where the situation was fluid.

2)

How surprising that Lundstrum repeats your "myths" as facts, while detailing the severe tactical disadvantage that the Zeros had to operate under during the air battles over Guadalcanal. But when you quote your F4F versus Hurricane stats, you conveniently neglect to mention the tactical differences between the Zeros facing the F4Fs and Me109s facing the Hurricanes over Malta.

So you are claiming that the average altitude of the IJAF bombers was the same in during the P40 and Spit defence of Darwin? For example the P40s greatest success was on April 25, 1942 when 50 P40s intercepted 24 bombers escorted by 9 Zeros, with the bombers flying at 14-16000ft. Aces of the pacific, Hess, p13. Yet a year later, 34 Spitfires intercepted a raid where the "numbers were 18 bombers and 27 fighters" with the bombers at 27000ft and the fighters at 31000 ft. http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/27/chapters/03.pdf It's pretty obvious that these are completely different tactical situations! BTW the first encounter for P40s against Zeros over Darwin went 10-1 in the Zeros favour...of the course the tactical situation heavily favoured the Zeros, but lets not get into messy details...

Brits loved the P-39!

Senior Airman

Master Sergeant

Banned

Major General

Master Sergeant

Banned

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Major General

Banned

Master Sergeant

Colonel

Staff Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Senior Airman

Airman

Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads