Brits loved the P-39!

[RCAFson]

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

That might be so. The P39 had very poor performance and it made sense to optimize it. The fact remains that the performance figures given here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/109542d1256053432-russian-fighters-
for the Spit V and Hurricane II are without 12lb boost while the other fighters are using boost levels possible with 100octane fuel.
Here's an estimate of a Hurricane I performance with 12lb boost:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png
and you can see the P40/P39 no longer seem so superior.

OTOH, here the performance of the Spit IX:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/109541d1256053432-russian-fighters-
is shown with 100 octane fuel boost levels and is a very close match to RAE figures.

 

[Colin1]

...The P-39 had very poor performance...

That's a pretty blanket statement that doesn't stand up to scrutiny

The P-39 had issues with range and altitude
Given the type of war the Soviets were fighting, altitude wasn't really an issue as far as they were concerned and they got round the range problem by placing their P-39 units just behind the battlefront.

Or how did many of the top Soviet aces get most of their kills whilst flying P-39s?

 

[Njaco]

1)
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. ...

In that timeframe there were 2 stafflen of Bf 109s operating in the area from Fliegerfuhrer Afrika (subordinated to Fliegerkorps X) and they were 7./JG 26 (Muncheburg) and 1./JG 27. Others 'generally' in the area were I./JG 27, I./JG 77, III./JG 77 and I(Schlacht)./LG 2 who were based in Bulgaria from April onwards to support operations in Greece ad against Crete. But for the most part over Malta and NA it was 7./JG 26 and 1./JG 27 during Feb. - May 1941.

 

[VG-33]

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.

Where is it taken from?
The soviets power charts clearly shows that 12 lb was used on Merlin 46, maybe 16-18 since 1415 hp power is indicated. So for the 100 rated british (or american) fuel, from technical booklets and TsAGI reports.
If you don't know, why are you speculating?

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...

Stalin had no opinion and some other buisiness was taking all his time, in 1942. He wrotes (with considerable delay) because he was asked to, by his own airmen. Soviet Hurricanes were able to use guenine british fuel in VVS, TsAGI and NKAP trial centers, as Spitfires, as much as they want. There were small batches of soviet produced 100 octanes fuel too, for experimental purposes.

In front line units it might have been different.

Fitting a Merlin XX from a Hurrie mkII in a YaK-1 airframe provides a 670 km/h speed, instead of 525 , and impressive climbing increase: 4 min to 5000 m. At the same power of course. I doubt that a lot of SUAF personnal would feel happy to come back to the Hurricane after such a plane. Compared to a Spit V or IX, this plane was no less obsolete in 42.

Unfortunatly, despite numerous requests neither British accepted important Merlin deliveries without their airframes, nor they accepted "regular supply" chart commitment.

 

[claidemore]

I wonder how they would have armed a Merlin engined Yak 1?

 

[Colin1]

I wonder how they would have armed a Merlin engined Yak 1?

Do you mean 'would they have had to install armament in the wings'?

 

[claidemore]

Wings? Nose?
My guess would be in the wings, but I'm not sure the Yak wing would allow that? Underwing pods maybe? With consequent loss in agility? (pods on 109 didn't cost much in speed)
Would there be room to mount a couple UBS or ShVAK around the engine? Certainly can't put a cannon through the middle like they did with the Klimov.

 

[Colin1]

Wings? Nose?
My guess would be in the wings, but I'm not sure the Yak wing would allow that? Underwing pods maybe? With consequent loss in agility? (pods on 109 didn't cost much in speed)
Would there be room to mount a couple UBS or ShVAK around the engine? Certainly can't put a cannon through the middle like they did with the Klimov.

lol I was just guessing
did the Yak have only nose-mounted armament? I know it was lightly armed and then became even more lightly armed. If that was the case, then a Merlin installation might prove a conundrum if the wings had never been devised to house weapons.

 

[Shortround6]

Did any Merlin powered plane ever used synchronized guns?

Not saying it couldn't be done but if there were no mounting points for Synchronizer motors on existing engines then Field swaps would be even harder.

Sort of leaves wing or under wing guns only.

 

[riacrato]

Weren't the Yak-1 wings made of wood?

 

[VG-33]

I wonder how they would have armed a Merlin engined Yak 1?

Immediatly you saw the problem...
Maybe in wings or in underwing pods "à la" MiG-3 (of MiG-3's kind)..

The other problem was propeller clearance. Spit had a larger prop. The Yak-I-30 wing was probably the better aswer to both problems, at some little speed coast, of course due to U-shaped wings "à la" Corsair:

We better see here. Imagine this without synchronised guns, and no motor-canon.

Regards

 

[Timppa]

Hello RCAFson
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

Hi Juha,

And that for good reason. I recently crawled through The Finnish Air Force -book series, and counted all the Soviet fighter/bomber victories of the FAF planes in the Continuation War ( from Jun 1941 to Sept. 1944). The total amount is some 100 planes (give or take a few, there are a few unclear cases).
Rather surprisingly (to me) the plane type that got more victories than any other, was the I-153.
Most of the Hurricanes' victories were obtained by the 152 IAP, which also operated I-153's.

I also counted the Russian losses in the great 1944 offensive, in a period of 38 days.
The relative losses of P-39's were about twice as high than of Yaks and La-5's.
This seems to reinforce Juutilainen's opinion that the Yaks and La's were better than any of the "sympathy" (western Lend-Lease) planes

 

[Juha]

Hello Timppa
very interesting, I have gone through same series when I tried to establish the claim accuracy of innish pilots, but stopped on 28 Jun 44, because overclaiming made the accurate appraisal very difficult because of 4 claimer orgs (FAF, Gef.VB Kuhlmey, AA and naval AA) and lack of exact info on place and time of Soviet losses.

But when years ago I counted the summer 44 losses and victories of LeR 3 from Stenman's and Keskinen's book I got

FAF losses 5 by ACs (3MTs+2BWs) FAF victories (not claims) over ACs at least 29
_________2 by WHs (2MSs)_______________________________over WHs_ 3
_________4 by La-5s (4 MTs)______________________________over La-5s 26
_________4 by Jak-9s (4MTs)______________________________over Jak-9s 40 + 2 Jak-7s

and of course many Il-2s, which on the other hand shot down 2 MTs and some bombers. So according to that material La-5 semed to have been the most dangerous opponent to MTs of the FAF and Yak-9 and AC appr. equally dangerous. Problem is that IMHO in that book there was not made enough allocation to victories accomplished by GefVB Kuhlmay and by AA
From a file at our Sota-arkisto, as it was called when I dug the info out:
From 3./HLeLv 34 report on actions during the summer 44. "AC (P-39) is more or less as good as La-5 (at this stage means La-5Fs and FNs) but maybe less manoeuvrable."

Juha

 

[Timppa]

Attached below is the FAF loss list I compiled (against Soviet planes only, not due to AA, accidents, etc.)
It gives a good view of the planes used by the Russians in each time. Also the top units can be distinguished.

 

[claidemore]

Interesting chart Timpaa. Interesting that 10 losses are attributed to Hurricanes and 3 to P40's (Tomahawk/Warhawk).

 

[gjs238]

I suspect some, perhaps much, anti-P39 sentiment was due to prejudice.
Not to disregard actual relative performance deficiencies, but it just may be possible that some people were put off by what they considered an unusual, odd layout and different handling characteristics.
Couple that with rampant use of inappropriate tactics in the early part of the war and a bad reputation develops.
It seems part of human nature is resistance to change - perhaps the P-39 was just expecting too much of people.
I imagine if the P-39 offered outstanding performance these prejudices would have been more easily overcome. But for many, they'd just rather have a P-40 than that plane with a rear engine, a shaft running under your arse, and car doors/windows.
Perhaps the Soviets learned to adapt and accept the P-39, maybe even embrace it, and they profited because of that.

 

[Timppa]

Interesting chart Timpaa. Interesting that 10 losses are attributed to Hurricanes and 3 to P40's (Tomahawk/Warhawk).

I should not answer to people who cannot even spell my name right, but

Eventually the P-40 was a quite rare bird at the Finnish front, it was more frequent opponent to the JG-5.
Hurricane was much more common in 1942, and the 152 IAP seems to have been a quite good outfit.
Too few numbers to make any conclusions , IMO.
FAF claimed some 1500+ victories, I listed about 100 losses , so you should not make any rash conclusions.

Edit: Some of those those airmen listed survived; parachuted or crash-landed.
But most of them perished. So it is my measly tribute to them.

 

[Nikademus]

I suspect some, perhaps much, anti-P39 sentiment was due to prejudice.

I'd agree with that based on typical responses i see whenever the Soviet exp is brought up. Its always easier to blame the machine than the man. Its a pride issue.

 

[JoeB]

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...

1. Introduced over Syria and North Africa at virtually the same time, and I said 'introduced over NA in June' which is correct. Hurricanes also faced Italian fighters over Malta, but the Desert Air Force also faced Italian fighters over North Africa. Malta in 1941 was simply not the 'first line Axis oppostion' and 'North Africa the second line opposition' as you stated. That's simply wrong.
2. It's not a question of Lundstrom v me, actually read his books, and read "Guadalcanal" by Richard Frank which more completely covers the air campaign, the Lundstrom books are about the Navy's F4F units. As I said, at first Zeroes operated directly from Vunakanau to G'canal, but within weeks had divert bases closer than that, and after October had Buin only around 300 miles from Henderson. Also a lot of Zero v F4F combats were carrier based on both sides, and had about the same kill ratio as G'canal defense, around 1:1, vastly, vastly different from Hurricane's record (0:35) v 109E's from Malta, as well as Hurricanes much, not a little bit, poorer results v Japanese Zeroes and Type 1's all the way through 1943. We're not discussing a small difference, and as I asked on other thread, how much worse than that could F4F's have possibly done than 0:35? and no reason to believe they wouldn't be competitive with Italian fighters or lethal v bombers. I'm not saying they would have scored a 1:1 ratio v LW 109 units, everyone fair knows I never said that (I don't know what that outcome would be exactly, just seems clear the F4F would be a credible substitute, the term I've repeatedly used).

Good you're trying to learn about Darwin campaigns at least, but you *MUST* consult two-sided references, claims by the Alliedsin those campaigns are almost completely unreliable and I'm not basing anything on them. Also you're cherry picking here. The only successful combat by Spitfire V's v Zeroes (May 10 1943) had the Spits surprising Zeroes on the deck strafing an airfield (downed 2 Zeroes for 1 Spit written off to combat damage, half the Zeores downed by the Spits in the campaign). The Spits outnumbered the Zero escorts in every engagement over Darwin. And February 1942 carrier raid on Darwin was before the few defenders had any radar warning, which was set up in March 1942. You're also completely ignoring the fact that the Spit campaign was a whole year later in the attrition of JNAF fighter pilots; the 3rd/202nd had lost pilots it forwarded to units at Rabaul to fly over G'canal in fall of '42, as well as losses on its own operations earlier in 1942. There's no way anyone objective could say the Spit showed itself superior to the P-40 in the campaigns defending Darwin; in other cases yes, but the point remains the Soviet verdict on Spit V was not bizzarrely surprising: in some circumstances the Spitfire V's weaknesses outweighed its strengths v more rugged a/c like the P-39/40.

Re: Nikademus, Baeza himself seems a good English speaker (he posts on J-aircraft sometimes) but I don't know of any plan for an English version of "Soleil Levant". Another really good recent Pac War air book "Samourai sur Porte Avions", about JNAF carrier ops, is by the same publishers, Lela Press, different author.

Joe

 

[VG-33]

Hello

From Vladimir Kotelnikov, Fanatique de l'aviation n° 451, June 2007

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.

P 31: From american sources 4719-4746 Airacobras were delivered to USSR. And 212 ex-british ones, 158 of which successfully arrived.

Soviet sources quotes about 4750 planes. The author quotes 4952, but it's again from western numbers...

3078 were still serving in VVS *, in may 1945, 700 of them in PVO units.
Marine aviation recieved 624 of them.

In may 1945 the 1st, some 2 202 cobras were difinitly lost for all kind of reasons, 887 of them in 1944.

That makes arithmetic problem : 3078 + 2202 + 624 = 4 750!!

In fact nothing surprising, some "written off" and "lost" planes were later repared or refunded. Some of them several times. Very usual in USSR, the use of not enough compilated loss lists.

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.

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

Early P-39 D had the V-1710E-4 1150 hp engine, in november 1942 from Iran were delivered planes with V-1710-63 1325hp engines and 37mm gun.

Some pics

1: One of the first 20 airacobras delivered at the end of 1941 used by 2nd Lt Gabrinets in the 19 GIAP, Carelia

2:The P-39 in TsAGI giant wind tunnel (T-104?). Soviet engeeners altogether with Bell corp ones, tried to improve the p-39, all war long.

3:On a northern frozen airfield. Duralumin radiator circuitry and american antifreeze were soon replaced by soviet ones and copper tubes. Harsh climat conditions and high vibrations induced oil, water tube brakes (in fuel also) and fires.

Regards

* previous Alexeïenko number ~ 2238 is lower, cause it was relative to "activated" planes from american terminology, those conservated in repair bases and military depots (warehouses) were not in count.