Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Reference post #2064. There is a flight test in WWIIaircraftperformance on a P-39C dated 22 Sept 1941. The P-39C weighed in at 7,303 lbs, not 7,030 lbs. It apparently made 406 mph at just over 18,000 feet. The power curves were not available on the test day and the data were not corrected to a standard day. Had standard day corrections been applied, then the altitude and the airspeeds would have been reduced. In the notes, it says the aircraft was fitted with smaller-than-standard elevators and rudder and a special fin and stab, so the results were atypical.

I also saw a test where the P-39C was only loaded to some 6,900 lbs, but that was a very short report (1/2 page) and centered on propeller rpm, not on performance testing. Flight tests at less than normal weight are generally not quoted for performance since most military flights WERE loaded to normal weights for a combat mission. If not, then the airplane had either less range, less ammunition / ordnance, or both. The only time you WOULD load to less than normal weight for combat would be for a very short mission, coincidentally just about how most Russian combat flights in P-39s were conducted.
 
Agree with the first three. Except the British believed better aircraft than a 7850lb P-400 were on hand. A lighter P-400 would have proven different.

The P-39 prime user, the Soviets, never replaced their P-39s throughout the war. They defeated the LW at all altitudes in all conditions.

The datasheets are the only quantitative way to evaluate airplanes. Expert opinions are just that, opinions. They were quite critical of P-38s, P-40s and P-47s also. And those planes certainly had their drawbacks. Was Chuck Yeager an expert? I would say so.

Planes obviously got better as the war progressed, as they should. More powerful engines, aerodynamic and structural advances. The best prop plane of the war, the Merlin P-51 Mustang didn't see combat until late 1943. What are you going to fight with until then? The P-40 that wouldn't climb above 20000'? The 1943 P-38F/G that was not maneuverable enough to dogfight and couldn't dive from high altitude? The 1943 P-47 that didn't have the range for either Europe or the Pacific? All very serious flaws. The 1943 P-39N could climb faster and was more maneuverable than all three and had about the same range as the P-40 and P-47. And was available in quantity. Ask the Soviet P-39 warrior experts.
 
pbehn said:
I would normally give a winner emoji for this, but on this thread nothing wins, after all, they are just "joe pilot" recollections.
Click to expand...
All else aside, I believe that there's an interview Peter Townsend (Duel of Eagles) where he talks about combat over 30K. I think it's also mentioned in the noted book
 
P-39 Expert said:
Agree with the first three. Except the British believed better aircraft than a 7850lb P-400 were on hand. A lighter P-400 would have proven different.
Click to expand...
Stop dragging the British into your nonsense, the British knew they had a better aircraft in 1938, the also knew the P-400 was a pup as soon as they flew it, thats why they packed them all up and sent them away, under perfoming tripe sold by charlatans, everyone knows it. British aircraft didnt need a camp stove to keep the pilot warm.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
I don't have a dog in this fight, but this was from the book "Dogfight: The Battle of Britain;

P177
View attachment 630844

P178
View attachment 630845

P179

View attachment 630846
Click to expand...
Good work. But, these are still pilot accounts. Mostly 109s diving from reportedly 30000'. One Spitfire's windshield was frozen. Not only almost impossible to get to 30000' but if you did get there you had problems like this. Park's defenders were equally at ease at their optimum height of 27000'? That was the combat ceiling for a Spitfire I per wwiiaircraftperformance. And 27000' isn't 30000'.

What I don't understand is we all pretty much agree that the LW bombers came in at 16000'-20000', right? And the 109Es were required to provide close escort. Close escort is not 10000'-14000' higher than the bombers. All the night fighting, convoy and channel fighting, attacking the airfields, none of that could possibly have been at 30000'.

We've found five possible instances, less than that for Spitfires, all pilot accounts comparable to victory claims, probably highly exaggerated. It can't be definitively proven that planes did operate at 30000' in the BoB, nor can it be definitively proven that they didn't. All I'm saying is if it did actually happen it was a very rare occurrence. The equipment just wouldn't do it.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
All else aside, I believe that there's an interview Peter Townsend (Duel of Eagles) where he talks about combat over 30K. I think it's also mentioned in the noted book
Click to expand...
There are many, I have posted them, you have posted them others have posted the. Njaco has a thread that describes a month of them. Nothing is accepted because only feelings matter, and our P-39 expert feels he cant accept any of it because that would mean the British were justified in not taking the P-39 in 1941. The real issue wasnt the combats that took place but the ones that didnt, because a Bf109 with a bomb and some escorts could take off and climb over British defences before any interceptor could get up could stop them, so standing patrols were started. Almost always if an attack was intercepted the Bf109s dropped their bomb and became a fighter. But when the bombs are dropped why fight? The RAF know that their opponent has only a few minutes over London before he needs to get home, the LW know that if they take any damage that could end their war for absolutely nothing, they certainly werent going to drop down 30,000ft and start straffing the locals. I have read countless accounts of this that said the pilots just looked at each other. As one pilot said "They werent doing any harm at all up there, they could stay as long as they wanted"
 
You agreed that with yourself from your feelings about twin engined bombers, the combat ceiling has a denoted rate of climb that defines it as the COMBAT ceiling, if you are vectored to intercept something higher, you use that rate of climb to get there, until you get there, if you can, because that is your job. In the BoB as stated in the link I posted, Hurricanes just got no where near the fight, Spitfires did sometimes, but on other occasions they were scrambled too late. How long did it take a P-400 to get to 30,000 ft? Being an expert you must know, or will you ignore a question again?
 

To be fair to him, I was the one who pointed out the Brits knew they had better in the stables, and he was just replying to my point.
 

And here's a prime example of why this is the Groundhog Day thread. Again, you're selectively quoting from threads and ignoring details that don't fit your narrative.

At Post 1937 S Shortround6 noted that the P-39C, D1 and D2 all had the gas heater. I reinforced the point at posts 1987 and 2031.

The P-39C was the model 13 which preceded the model 14 which was associated with both the P-400 and P-39D. The P-39C was NOT an export variant. It was specified by the USAAF. It had the same heater as the P-400.

Please explain how the British specified a useless heater when it was already standard fit for US-specified P-39Cs.
 
Last edited:
buffnut453 said:
Please explain how the British specified a useless heater when it was already standard fit for US-specified P-39s.
Click to expand...
Did anyone specify them ever? They may have been used but specified means that is a preference. What does a 20mm cannon shell do to a gasoline heater, as compared to a hot air duct?
 
Reference post 2,086.

Hey P-39 Expert, seemingly, NOBODY except you thinks fighter combat at over 30,000 feet was the exclusive purview of bomber escorts. There WAS combat at 30,000 feet and higher during the BOB. Can you not admit this and move on? If you cannot, why should we consider your posts to be anything but rantings from someone who cannot admit facts when they slap you in the face? When you are wrong, admit it and move on. Don't try dissembling and asking everyone else to prove their point. Instead, prove YOUR point with FACTS supported by sources. After all, YOU are the one with a different opinion. So, make your case. I used to do what you are doing, defend regardless of replies. In case everyone missed it, I really don't DO that anymore. Take a tip and follow suit.

Fighters DID get above 30,000 feet every so often, and sometimes managed to get into combat there, whether or not you want to believe it. Arguing over the frequency of same is pointless; you are mistaken that it never happened, plain and simple.

The P-39 was unloved by everyone except the Russians. They loved them because they were getting them free and the P-39 had enough range and performance at low levels to do what they needed ... which was low-level support work including low-level air combat. Nobody else wanted them. Expert or not, you have hitched your username to an airplane that neither the USA nor the UK felt was very good. The USA did field it, but largely due to no alternative being available. Once an airplane (or car, motorcycle, tractor, etc.) has been branded as bad, an improved version has seldom helped rescued the reputation of the product family. Did the Yugo ever get widely accepted? Did the SmartCar? Did the Ford Edsel? Did the P-39?

If you can say "yes," then you are probably reading posts from the Yugo Expert, the SmartCar Expert, or the Edsel Expert and not from normal sources. The P-39 was not worthless, but it also didn't have GOOD performance and wasn't what was needed at ANY time during the war by anyone except the USSR's niche short-range, low-altitude use of it. It WAS a decent squadron hack, and could be used to cool off beer in underwing barrels in a pinch, but that use didn't justify the spare parts logistics required. When they could do so, most US commands got rid of the P-39s as quickly as they could, with no regret, regardless of whether they had 30-cals or 50-cals installed or which heater was being used.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
To be fair to him, I was the one who pointed out the Brits knew they had better in the stables, and he was just replying to my point.
Click to expand...
This has been going on since P39 Expert first started posting about the P-39, the only points he wont concede are the points concerning the British screwing up the wonderful P-39 by not accepting it, it started long before you were a member here. There is a thread discussing wartime and pre war attitudes to other nations, we have a poster here with the same daft attitudes to people of the same race just born somewhere else, no argument or fact will change his feelings or beliefs.
 
I get that, I just thought it fair to point out my own role in this particular instance.
 
Take another look Spitfire Mk IIA Performance Testing, roc at 30,000 ft 995 Ft/Min.
And read a couple good books on the BoB, some 109s could act as a close escort, some as top covers and some making sweep ahead the bomber formation. And later during the BoB when the LW began to utilize high flying fighter-bombers, they were escorted by other 109s which could fly higher and up-sun.
 
And more combats around 30,000 ft, on 25 Oct 1940 No 41 Sqn was ordered to climb to 31,000 ft (it had just received 14 Spit IIAs) they bounced a formation of 30 Bf 109Es which were flying at 27,000 - 28,000 ft. Its B Flight then attacked another 12 109s, which also flew at 28,000 ft.

On 30 Oct the 41 Sqn was ordered to climb to 29,000 ft, the rear guard flew 500 ft above the rest of the sqn. A Flight attacked a German formation of 18 - 21 Bf 109s, which flew 1,500 ft lower. B Flight, ordered act as a top cover, soon joined the fight.
 
Last edited:
pbehn said:
Did anyone specify them ever? They may have been used but specified means that is a preference. What does a 20mm cannon shell do to a gasoline heater, as compared to a hot air duct?
Click to expand...
Gasoline heater is a hot air duct. It draws fuel from the aircraft fuel system. No separate tank. Some A-20s used them, perhaps other combat aircraft.

My take (opinion) is that the gasoline heater was used on the early P-39s, perhaps the XP-39. perhaps not. At some point somebody in the US figures out that when the guns are fired the cockpit fills up with smoke/fumes from the guns. Somebody figures out that if they duct air from the radiator duct it will be under slight pressure and if they use two inlet ducts from the radiator ducts they can get both hot and cold air without having to use an external scoop(drag) and the slighter higher pressure will help keep the guns fumes out of the cockpit. This apparently is used on the P-39D in the spring of 1941 but for some reason the British don't get the memo and since 2nd to the last specification agreement they have with Bell is in Jan 1941 they stick with (or are stuck with) the gasoline heaters. Since they don't even get a P-39C in England until after the last specification agreement is signed they are really stuck with the Gasoline heaters (Bell was getting a commission? )
Since the D-1 and D-2 are ex RAF machines or machines originally ordered by the British (The D-2 Used different model Allison with 1325hp for take off, it didn't exist as a production engine when the British placed their orders) the exact specifications for the D-2 might be hard to pin down.

Please note that "exact specifications" may cover things like the size of the shelf the radio sits on or where the holes for the wires are in that shelf. When you are making (or trying to make) hundreds of aircraft per month everything is spelled out somewhere.
 
On the subject of the 109 not being able to fly at 30,000ft with a 550lb bomb.

You have a test showing that?

British Spitfire VB (trop) lost less than 2,000ft of altitude while carrying a 90imp gallon drop tank. Granted it used the Merlin 45. The plane with the drop tank reached 33,500ft and had an estimated service ceiling of 34,500ft.

However not all 109s in the BoB used the same engine and some were using the DB 601N engine using C3 fuel. Somewhat improved altitude performance compared to the older DB 601 engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
723
Ivan1GFP
I
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
660
DerAdlerIstGelandet
M
P-39 Turbo - Here We Go Again
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregP
P-39-style fighter by other people?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register