Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained) (1 Viewer)

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

... but ... that being said "the P-39 was an awesome gun platform to be exploited by skilled Soviet pilots" is the long and the short of it. (Gamers are Gamers ... it's better than shooting craps, I suppose)
The P-39 and the Bell Support Package and the LL gas boosters and lubes etc. replacement Allison's etc, radios etc. plus an under 15,000 feet war all combined to make the P-39 Official, Honored, Hero Warbird of the Soviet Union. Maybe the worlds's gamers could lobby Putin for that award.
Dimity Loza's "Attack of the Airacobras" is a great record with lots of insights.
 
I'm a private pilot. I have been flying since 1975 and have about 1100 hours. I usually fly a half dozen times or more every month. I have flown the T-33A and T-37 a little as well as a 1929 Waco biplane. I have flown formation with other aircraft a number of times.

I have played a bit with flight simulators and had a lot of fun with Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. And I can tell you there is NO connection between flying computer games and the real thing.
 
I've read up quite a bit on the P-39 as it was one of my favorite planes, growing up. P-38s and P-39s...luvz me mah trikes!

From what I understand, the 39s were "tweaked" by the Russians by removing the outboard MGs to increase the roll rate. Other than that, they were pretty much standard. They used them with great success even past the middle of the war, against German fighters. The 39 started out getting a "bum rap" in the US when it got the reputation for being squirrely and going end over end at times. It was found that the CG went too far to the rear unless the plane was flown with a full ammo compartment in front. After that, they carried at least the weight of a full load of spent shell casings up front, and the stability problems went away. The plane was a favorite of the Russians (and was hated by the Germans) for a reason.

That being said, I play World War II Online (wwiionline.com), a combined arms sim. They have the P-39 ingame. In fact, they've just added "tankbusters" to each side. The "Jerries" got the Stuka with twin cannons, the Brits got the Hurricane with twin cannons, and the French got the P-39. It's not as good against tanks, but it's nasty as all get out against other planes. Since the cannon fires down the centerline, through the spinner, it has no convergence to worry about.

----------


That's not ENTIRELY true. Check out the guy in the first vid. He even sticks a three pointer. Luvz me mah trikes!





-Irish
 
"Manages a three pointer" HA! A three pointer in a tricycle gear airplane is NOT a good thing. Any idiot can drive one into the ground and let the landing gear soak up the impact - although it is done pretty often even by people who should know better. A proper landing is to alight on the MLG and then let the nose gear come down. A three pointer is fine on a taildragger - a lot better than hitting on the tailwheel and letting the main gear slam down.

The nose gear on a Cessna 150, for example is really pretty flimsy, as they say, "keeps the prop from hitting the ground when it is parked."
 
There was a similar exercise done with motor sport. They took a group of top "gamers" at internet F1 games and sent them to a racing school. All of them did better than average members of the public but the fastest had also had previous car racing experience.

There have been cases which have actually done the movie scenario of a passenger in a Cessna being "talked down" and landing the plane when the pilot was incapacitated, however a fully qualified pilot on such a type has almost no chance of being "talked down" on a big civil airliner, it has been tried on simulators.

In automotive terms the video shows that someone can drive a car around town without killing themselves just from internet experience, it is no evidence that they can line up on the grid with Lewis Hamilton after 200 hrs further training.
 
The P-39 was flown gingerly by some pilots because of it's tricky handling characteristics and a CG sensitive to fuel and ammo expenditure. Aside from Wagner's comparison in favor of the P-39 over the P-40 by a margin of 10%, which is marginal at best, I don't recall ever reading a pilot's preference for the P-39 in combat. Certainly, there were a number of P-40 aces in the SWPA as opposed to
perhaps one (Falletta?) in P-39s.
 
gumbyk said:
You don't three-point a nose-wheel aircraft - that's a recipe to end up with only two wheels left on the aircraft. I'd much rather see a heavier landing on the mains first than a flat three-pointer.
Click to expand...



So, you'd rather have seen him, for his VERY FIRST TIME IN AN AIRCRAFT, be a lawn dart and crash? If you've ever seen someone come in tail heavy on a trike, bounce the tail off the ground, slam the nose gear in so it collapsed, then flip the aircraft, you might be a LITTLE less "know it all" about it. He came in straight and level for his first time flying, EVER. Could you guys have done so well, your first time in an aircraft? I think not. By the way, he didn't flare and land the aircraft. If you had watched the video, you would see the PROFESSIONAL PILOT actually did the flare and touchdown. YOU'RE BUSTED!



-Irish
 
Unfortunately I have grown up and grown old with the internet, Just because someone says they have no experience doesn't make it a fact. Every day my television has shows of dancers and singers becoming "brilliant" after little training, it invariably turns out they have private coaches or even went to schools for years.
 
US pilots in the PTO called the P39 the "Iron Dog" - it was not a term of affection. There was very little combat between P-39s and Zeros or Oscars. In 1942 beggars couldn't be choosers and the US did have some P-39s to send to Oz and then to Port Moresby. If raided at Moresby by Zeros from Lae, the Japanese obviously had to come over the Owen Stanleys - that meant if 39s came up to fight, they were looking up: very bad. If bombers came to raid the 39s couldn't make the high altitudes the IJ planes usually dropped from. So the 39s would fly out sea and avoid being targets. Some US pilots called units the "Fishing Fleet." I kept my eyes open for a P-39 ace in the PTO and I don't think I found any. (Wikipedia claims there was one 39 ace. I checked their squadron records and they did not have many kills. But again, there simply wasn't that much combat.) Oz pilots were not given P-39s so they did better at Moresby with P40Es in early war. There was a squadron of P-400s at Guadalcanal. They did down a handful of Zeros because Japanese fighters would often end up low after a dog fight and then strafe Marine positions on the ridgelines around Henderson. But Henderson based 39s did not try to climb and join normal festivities - no pilot wanted to fight looking up and double that in a 39.
There were potential fixes for the 39 considered (how about a turbo, like 38s?) but its real problem was its low range. So it took on utility duties for the US and its minor allies - Free French and "our" Italians flew them. On paper the King Cobra (P-63 as I recall) was a fine plane, but had such short legs all went to the USSR.
Russians had a lot to like in the 39. All American planes were rugged and the Allison was reliable. Tricycle landing gear was a better system if you were willing to accept the weight trade-off. Even with multi-caliber armament, the 39 could put out a lot of lead in a strafing attack. I read that Soviet pilots believed the 39 deterred head-on attacks by LW planes. The ballistics on the 37mm was poor, but image what would happen if you got hit with one in a "header"? And if the thing didn't jam, and a pilot was a decent shot, that cannon would have damaged or destroyed almost any German vehicle or AFV. As I recall however, Soviet fighter pilots strafed but rarely carried bombs figuring the common IL2 was a better choice. The Russians had P-40s, Hurricanes and Spit Vs and used them all. (Lord they were using I-16s in 1942.) But 39s were part of the armada until 1945. Do recall that until 1991 Soviet sources were very reluctant to say anything good about Lend Lease, but they praised the 39 even during the Cold War. The Russians must have liked it. So maybe Yeager was right about the 39s good qualities.
 


I wonder if people are ignoring a possible explanation for the poor repute of the P-39 in the Pacific: the Japanese combination of pilots and aircraft was better than the Luftwaffe.
 
ODonovan said:
That's not ENTIRELY true. Check out the guy in the first vid. He even sticks a three pointer. Luvz me mah trikes!
Click to expand...
The OP on this was comparing flying a high performance WW2 fighter to a game flight simulator. You show two clips where 2 "sim" pilots completed 2 landings (at least one admitted that he didn't complete the full landing) in a very light, GA aircraft that were designed for training and to be as forgiving as possible, let alone with an instructor in the next seat. I'm a flight instructor and had folks with no flight experience landing within their first hour, some people have do the knack, but there is about no chance in hell you're going to see a gamer do that in say a P-39, let alone any WW2 tail dragger fighter aircraft! What is not shown is if the instructor(s) were inputting rudder corrections or tapping the bottom of the yoke as a prompt. With all this said, you're comparing apples with oranges and grapes. Take the same zero time gamer and put him in a high performance aircraft, the results will not be as pleasant and if they are in a two place aircraft, the IP better be on his top game combined with balls of steel.

I've seen it lots of times and actually prevented it from happening a few times - and you're also talking to some folks that have more time flying real aircraft than you have behind your monitor and tabletop joystick. I recommend you cool your jets.
 
Last edited:
Part of the poor repute came from the fact that many of the pilots flying them were right out of flight school with zero time in fighters. Combine this with abysmal facilities and non-existent supplies. Front line units had serviceability of less than %50 most of the time. This was theater wide, not just P-39 units. Pilots preferred the P-400s because the 20mm was more reliable than the 37mm, and the oxygen systems were scavenged from wrecked P-39s to allow them to function above 13000 ft. as better aircraft arrived in theater, the P-39s were quickly relegated to ground support and convoy patrol duty. That their weren't a lot of aces is no surprise. The best pilots were quickly transferred to the P-38 squadrons.
 
Don't forget tactics.

The P-38 didn't reach theater until late 1942. For the most part the best pilots didn't transfer to P-38 squadrons, whole squadrons and groups converted when the P-38 became available.
 
True, but those squadrons and groups were often brought up to full strength by cherry picking the other squadrons in theater.
You want your best flying your best.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
I'm a flight instructor and had folks with no flight experience landing within their first hour, some people have do the knack
Click to expand...
Back in my instructing days I found that if carefully prepared, about one student in 10 could make the very first landing of their first lesson unassisted by me except for intensive coaching. When an unsure, not very confident student realizes what he/she has just accomplished on the very first lesson, it comes as an earth-shaking epiphany and a powerful motivator.
Cheers,
Wes
 

Well said Wes, some things you never forget, the first solo, first landing, first kiss, first ride in a '67 Stingray (427 C.I.D. w/3x2 Carbs) etc.

After my first landing I was all "YES!!!" swelling with pride/euphoria... then about fell over when I got out as the rush subsided. But man that sense of accomplishment!
 
swampyankee said:
I wonder if people are ignoring a possible explanation for the poor repute of the P-39 in the Pacific: the Japanese combination of pilots and aircraft was better than the Luftwaffe.
Click to expand...

The 81st FG lost more P-39's in one engagement with Jg 77 than EA kiils they were credited with in the entire period they flew in the MTO.
 
Last edited:
Stig1207 said:
The 81st FG lost more P-39's in one engagement with Jg 77 than they were credited with in the entire period they flew in the MTO.
Click to expand...
I found reference to this at several locations, this citation is not completely accurate as several squadrons make up a fighter group.

The 91st, 92nd and 93rd FS made up the 81st FG. Rather than identifying the actual squadrons, many authors list the whole group as the participant when if fact it may be one squadron (and it probably was).

I found reference where in March 1943 7 out of 12 "81st FG" P-39s were shot down, possibly by JG 77 Me 109s. The P-39s were being escorted by RAF Spitfires (Fighters over Tunisia)

81st Fighter Group, 350th Fighter Group and two squadrons of the 68th Observation Group in North Africa, coming into action by the end of 1942. All of these units struggled to find a full complement of aircraft during the fighting in North Africa, and also struggled against the Luftwaffe. During the fighting in North Africa and Italy the USAAF lost 107 P-39s, most of them lost to ground fire while undertaking ground attack missions. In return the P-39 pilots scored twenty confirmed aerial victories and destroyed a similar number of aircraft on the ground, but their main role by now was no longer as a air superiority fighter. The final aerial victory for a USAAF P-39 probably came on 6 April 1944.

Bell P-39 Airacobra in American Service
 
Last edited:
Hi everyone. I have read Alexadar Pokriskhin's memoirs, and he basically found his "Bucephalus" in P-39 (he flew an all-up P-39N with all weapons wired to one trigger). The true value is that he used its strong points and advanced tactics. Values were above average armament, radio equipment, adequate performance in combat. Advanced tactis were many, including use of radar situation information (yes, Soviets used radars!), high crusing speed (resulting in much reduced engine lifetime), constant climbing and shallow diving while cruising (up to compressibility point). Served his squadron well until the end of war (it was still frontliine fighter of his unit in Germany, based on a section of Autobahn serving as an airstrip).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
717
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
658
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