Thumpalumpacus
Major
I had no idea.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A wee bit of thread drift, the US spelling is in fact the original spelling of the word. It was initially written by an Englishman as aluminum, but it was changed to aluminium, again by the English sometime later to fit with other elements in the periodic table, such as uranium, sodium etc...
As you were, Pee Thirtyniners...
Now there's a thoughtWas there ever a match up with a P-39 vs. a B-239 during the Continuation War?
Although some times made fun of, or some pictures of rodent were placed, it is a noteworthy you created one of the most active threads here. In the end all of us will know a lot more of facts about this plane. I learned things about the p-39. And i like the darn thing.Admin/mods have graciously allowed me to post P-39 information in this thread to keep from cluttering/hijacking other threads. This seems very fair to me since each of my posts on the other threads usually generate about 10 replies ranging from angry rebuttals to ridicule to pictures of rodents which does indeed clutter/hijack the other threads. Hopefully the angry rebuttals, ridicule and rodent photos will be confined to this thread only.
Any P-39 discussion is welcome here. No matter if you believe the P-39 was a useful fighter or it was useless junk that tumbled during every turn and the engine quit at 12000'.
Before being banished to this thread I had posted a chart of the P-39K from wwiiaircraftperformance.org that reflected the performance of the Merlin P-40F superimposed in blue. It is posted here again to show that a Merlin P-40F had about the same performance as a standard P-39K (an early version with the lower rated Allison V-1710-63 with a critical altitude of 12000').
Again all your comments are welcome. Including rodent photos if you feel them necessary. Thanks.
Read the thread and it will make sense...
Best running joke, EVER!Although some times made fun of, or some pictures of rodent were placed, it is a noteworthy you created one of the most active threads here. In the end all of us will know a lot more of facts about this plane. I learned things about the p-39. And i like the darn thing.
So keep at it. Be the champion for it. Right or wrong, its all about learning and you do seem to know how to get the fellows to the books.
Regards
The first P-39s (P-400) sent to the UK were literally some of the first P-39s manufactured, there were some bugs as with any new plane. The problems you mention were soon worked out. The P-39K/L were produced July/September 1942 and were on Guadalcanal by September. P-400s were there from the beginning (August 1942) albeit they were those with the British oxygen system which was incompatible with the Marine equipment on Guadalcanal, so their altitude was limited to 12000'. The P-39/400 was there for combat from the beginning of the war. Over 700 had been produced by Pearl Harbor and almost 3000 were produced by the end of 1942.It isnt as if we havnt covered this before, the question is when? The P-39s that were first sent to UK did much more than you describe. Compasses didnt work, the cabin filled with smoke when guns fired, they overheated and the landing gear broke, as you know. So when was the first P-39K in squadron service? The Mustang Mk I, Spitfire MkIX were introduced in early 1942 and the P-47 in late 1942/early 1943. The P-39 was what it was, it was behind the curve, it didnt start to arrive in UK until after the P-40 was in service there and N Africa.
That's the point I am trying to make. A lot (most) P-39 information was incorrect according to wwiiaircraftperformance.org. The P-39 information there (official performance tests) was not released publicly until September 2012. This was before the William Green/Gordon Swanborough and AHT reference books came out. Most of their performance data on the P-39 is wrong. Remember for decades the P-39 in Soviet service was known as a tank buster? We know now that it was one of their primary air defense fighters, not a ground attack plane.Although some times made fun of, or some pictures of rodent were placed, it is a noteworthy you created one of the most active threads here. In the end all of us will know a lot more of facts about this plane. I learned things about the p-39. And i like the darn thing.
So keep at it. Be the champion for it. Right or wrong, its all about learning and you do seem to know how to get the fellows to the books.
Regards
There were more than a few bugs, they were grounded after being issued for service and only 4 aircraft ever were used in operations in UK "Only one RAF squadron ever received the Airacobra. No.601 "City of London" Squadron swapped its Hurricane IICs for Airacobras in August 1941, just in time to see the aircraft withdrawn to have twenty-five modifications made to the fuselage. The first four aircraft were finally declared operational in October 1941." There is a difference between production, arrival in UK, issued to squadrons, and being used on operations/in combat. The same difference applies to all aircraft. Six squadrons of Spitfire Mk IX and a similar number of Mustang Mk Is were used at Dieppe, just 10 months after the only missions P-39s performed in UK. As an operational, sorted type the three were contemporaries of each other. For British forces the P-40 and F4F had far more utility and were there first, as sorted aircraft.The first P-39s (P-400) sent to the UK were literally some of the first P-39s manufactured, there were some bugs as with any new plane. The problems you mention were soon worked out. The P-39K/L were produced July/September 1942 and were on Guadalcanal by September. P-400s were there from the beginning (August 1942) albeit they were those with the British oxygen system which was incompatible with the Marine equipment on Guadalcanal, so their altitude was limited to 12000'. The P-39/400 was there for combat from the beginning of the war. Over 700 had been produced by Pearl Harbor and almost 3000 were produced by the end of 1942.
I believe you are a little off on combat introduction of the Spitfire IX Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing The first squadron was introduced at the end of July and initially only 4 squadrons were in combat. Series Mark IX production began in early 1943 with the introduction of the Merlin 63, 66 and 70. The initial P-47 combat mission was on April 30, 1943 coinciding with the 8thAFs first 100 plane raid. The Mustang Mk I first combat was in May '42 and only 138 had been produced in 1941. The 100 units per month mark was not achieved until April 1943.
The P-39, P-40 and F4F were the only US planes available through almost all the first year of the war. The P-39 and P-40 were the most numerous AAF fighters in the Pacific until September 1943. The P-38 saw combat in late '42, the Corsair in February '43, the P-47 in late April '43, the Hellcat in August and the Merlin Mustang in late '43.
The bugs were worked out in time for AAF service in 1942. Brand new production models all had numerous bugs to work out. The British didn't want those planes anyway. The Battle of Britain was past and they had adequate production of internal fighters to meet their needs. They did the same thing with P-38s ordered as Lightning II. They ordered them in wierd configurations (no turbochargers, no handed propellers) and refused to pay for them when production began after the BoB was over. They no longer needed them. Personally I believe that both the P-400 and Lightning II were ordered as ground attack planes. The P-400 was vastly overweight (excessive armor plate and .30cal wing guns) and the Lightning II had no turbochargers.There were more than a few bugs, they were grounded after being issued for service and only 4 aircraft ever were used in operations in UK "Only one RAF squadron ever received the Airacobra. No.601 "City of London" Squadron swapped its Hurricane IICs for Airacobras in August 1941, just in time to see the aircraft withdrawn to have twenty-five modifications made to the fuselage. The first four aircraft were finally declared operational in October 1941." There is a difference between production, arrival in UK, issued to squadrons, and being used on operations/in combat. The same difference applies to all aircraft. Six squadrons of Spitfire Mk IX and a similar number of Mustang Mk Is were used at Dieppe, just 10 months after the only missions P-39s performed in UK. As an operational, sorted type the three were contemporaries of each other. For British forces the P-40 and F4F had far more utility and were there first, as sorted aircraft.
When the USA entered the war why werent the Tiger Squadrons in UK issued with P-39s? New production models may have small problems, the P-39s problems were those experienced with a prototype not a production model, the modifications took them up to what they should have been as production planes, Bell were using the RAF for product development, NA didnt do that with the Mustang1 neither did Curtiss with the P-40.The bugs were worked out in time for AAF service in 1942. Brand new production models all had numerous bugs to work out. The British didn't want those planes anyway. The Battle of Britain was past and they had adequate production of internal fighters to meet their needs. They did the same thing with P-38s ordered as Lightning II. They ordered them in wierd configurations (no turbochargers, no handed propellers) and refused to pay for them when production began after the BoB was over. They no longer needed them. Personally I believe that both the P-400 and Lightning II were ordered as ground attack planes. The P-400 was vastly overweight (excessive armor plate and .30cal wing guns) and the Lightning II had no turbochargers.
I was told many years ago by fellow Lockheed employees who worked at the Burbank facility in the pre and post war years that the "castrated" P-38s were ordered by the British Purchasing Committee with a "wink and a handshake" behind the scenes as Lockheed did not have a contract for the next expected block of P-38s to be ordered and did not want to build aircraft "at risk" or with company funds, let alone shut down the production line. This alleged back door deal was mentioned in at least one publication, can't remember if it was Brody or Miller who mentioned this. I was told that the British never intended to purchase the P-38 in large numbers and this deal was done behind closed doors. I never did research the validity of this and I think this could be verified by contract dates.The P-38 is another issue, I believe the British took over the French order and the French ordered them with all Allison engines the same, unsupercharged and not handed to be the same as the P-40s they ordered.
Perfectly possible, or some similar variation that suited the politics of the day. When the P-51 is ordered as a dive bomber simply because it goes under a different budget column anything is possible. Until the USA was actually in the war it would suit all concerned for production lines to be kick started or kept running by others, even if only on paper.I was told many years ago by fellow Lockheed employees who worked at the Burbank facility in the pre and post war years that the "castrated" P-38s were ordered by the British Purchasing Committee with a "wink and a handshake" behind the scenes as Lockheed did not have a contract for the next expected block of P-38s to be ordered and did not want to build aircraft "at risk" or with company funds, let alone shut down the production line. This alleged back door deal was mentioned in at least one publication, can't remember if it was Brody or Miller who mentioned this. I was told that the British never intended to purchase the P-38 in large numbers and this deal was done behind closed doors. I never did research the validity of this and I think this could be verified by contract dates.
Now back to the P-39, don't want to hijack this thread!
Remember for decades the P-39 in Soviet service was known as a tank buster? We know now that it was one of their primary air defense fighters, not a ground attack plane.
The bugs were worked out in time for AAF service in 1942. Brand new production models all had numerous bugs to work out. The British didn't want those planes anyway. The Battle of Britain was past and they had adequate production of internal fighters to meet their needs. They did the same thing with P-38s ordered as Lightning II. They ordered them in wierd configurations (no turbochargers, no handed propellers) and refused to pay for them when production began after the BoB was over. They no longer needed them. Personally I believe that both the P-400 and Lightning II were ordered as ground attack planes. The P-400 was vastly overweight (excessive armor plate and .30cal wing guns) and the Lightning II had no turbochargers.