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

[pbehn]

You can doubt that the Spitfire doubled in weight but why don't you get off your backside and check it for yourself instead of simply questioning other people's statements and refusing to back down?

Jeffrey Quill's book on the Spitfire definitely made the point that the Spitfire doubled in weight during its lifetime. Oh, and Jeffrey Quill was a test pilot...so maybe you'll trust his statements? Or, since he was British, does that automatically remove him as a trustworthy source?

Dont bring another "joe pilot" into it! P-39 Expert The first Spitfires had a two blade wooden prop, look at the last 5 blade and six blade props how much heavier are they? Then there is swapping 8 mgs for 4 cannon. Installing a hydraulic system, armour plate and glass, self sealing tanks, beefed up undercarriage, thicker gauge duralumin on the wings, more and bigger radiators full of water/glycol. Oh the Griffon engine was obviously bigger and needed stronger supports then there was more fuel and oil and blah blah blah, and dont forget the IFF and oxygen.

Edit I forgot the ballast in the tail which from memory was about 140Lb of lead.

 

[pbehn]

I commend P-39 Expert. No joke. Regardless of position or argument, he has always been civil and polite no matter how heated or derisive comments got.
I hope I can do as well if I'm involved in a controversial discussion.

He does, he just counters any fact with his opinion that the fact isnt true, or rarely true or demands another fact to score in his newly moved goal.

 

[buffnut453]

I commend P-39 Expert. No joke. Regardless of position or argument, he has always been civil and polite no matter how heated or derisive comments got.
I hope I can do as well if I'm involved in a controversial discussion.

Yes, but he also brings a lot of passive aggressive nonsense to the table by refusing to respond to questions and constant deflecting or citing opinions rather than engaging with the facts that others bring to the table. Passive aggression is not being polite. It's disrespectful and prevents an actual debate about the facts of the case.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Well, on paper, the P-39 is faster, has a better climb rate, and a heavier offensive battery than a P-40.
But, the P-40 rolled better, held a turn better, and could take more punishment. Plus it could carry more external armament. And had better range. And was easier to service. There is a reason that P-39 equipped units in the field clamored for better aircraft. By the time better P-39s became available, P38s, P-47s, and P-51s were being produced in quantity. As to the USSR, the P-39 was the best on hand when it was introduced there. It was faster and more maneuverable, and had better pilot visibility, radios, etc., than the early LaGGs, MiGs, and even Yaks, and head and shoulders above the I-153s and I-16s the Russian pilots had been flying.

That's the whole thing, the timing. The P-39 was available when the war started for the US, along with the P-40 and the F4F. That's what we had to go to war with in 1942. P-38s, P-47s and P-51s were in production but they didn't get into the fight until late '42 (P-38), spring '43 (P-47) and late '43 (Merlin P-51). And by the time the P-47s were getting into combat the best P-39 model (N) was already out of production. Hard to compare later planes with earlier planes.

Seems to me that the AAF should have improved 1942 P-39 performance asap, especially since it was so easy to just remove some redundant/unnecessary items at forward combat bases. The improved climb and ceiling would have been of great use at NG and Guadalcanal. Weight was finally reduced by 650lbs at Guadalcanal in October '42, but by then AAF units knew they would shortly get P-38s.

With reduced weight it could have been used very effectively as high cover for P-40s. The P-40 was a very effective combat plane with good maneuverability, heavy firepower and rugged construction when it had top cover. Without top cover it was at a severe disadvantage. The Soviets used the P-39 and P-40 this way before they had acquired enough P-39s to form their own separate groups.

Clean P-39s and P-40s had about the same range, 600 and 650mi respectively per AHT and the calculations from the pilot's manuals made earlier in this thread. And both carried an external tank. The P-40 held 30gal more internal fuel but that was offset by the P-39's higher cruising speed and smaller allowance for takeoff and climb. The P-40 was regarded by AAF pilots as being slightly more maneuverable but rate of turn figures gave the P-39 a slight edge, so I would regard maneuverability as about the same. Faster, a good bit better climb and ceiling, and about the same range and maneuverability. Remember this is 1942 and the other planes are not yet available.

 

[pbehn]

Mustang Mk Is were in production and the USA took the the ones not shipped for their own use, the time they took to see service is how long it takes to get a plane in service. Why was the P-39N taken out of production and replaced with something not so good?

 

[Milosh]

After the arrival of the initial aircraft in the UK in October 1941, the first Mustang Mk Is entered service in January 1942, the first unit being 26 Squadron RAF.

 

[SaparotRob]

That was a great link. 26 Squadron flew a bunch of airplanes I've never knew of. De Haviland Hyena. Some other great names too. I forgot I was looking up the Mustang Mk I !

 

[pbehn]

That was a great link. 26 Squadron flew a bunch of airplanes I've never knew of. De Haviland Hyena. Some other great names too. I forgot I was looking up the Mustang Mk I !

I think they ran out of names, who would admit to flying a Dormouse?

 

[Shortround6]

The P-40 was a very effective combat plane with good maneuverability, heavy firepower and rugged construction when it had top cover. Without top cover it was at a severe disadvantage.

Top cover= P-40F.

They tried taking weight out of the P-40, See how that went.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_Operational_Suitability.pdf

 

[BiffF15]

P-47 didn't see combat until April 1943. I doubt the Spitfire doubled in weight but horsepower roughly doubled also. Weight did matter when the engine only developed 1150hp. Tell the Soviets that the P-39 was rubbish. And it had a radio, and armor plate/glass, and large caliber guns, and the engine wasn't crap. It was definitely a military machine. As long as you keep saying obviously false statements like this I will keep disagreeing with you.

P-39 Expert,

Context can be everything. The Russians didn't have a product that was as good as the '39, plus it was free, and the motor took pretty good abuse above the book numbers, and it was available in quantity, and it was free, and they fought to it's strengths (low altitude, short range). OF COURSE THEY LIKED IT. In the context of the battle plan they liked to operate in (low altitude, close to the front, over your own country) it was perfect. Did I mention it was free, and available? The rest of the Allies had availability of other "better" aircraft. So you have your choice of a good product (A) which is better than product (B). Which do you keep and which do you give away? It's a rhetorical question, you give away B. Which is exactly what the Brit's did. And the US. We were probably happy that the Russians liked an aircraft we didn't so there was no arguing over what we kept vice gave away via lend lease.

And since you are so hung up on test pilots, don't you think the Brits used theirs while evaluating the P39? Also, look at it in the context of the Brits. They had been flying combat before the P39 arrived, and they came to the conclusion that it was inferior to what they already had, or would soon have, and got rid of it.

Here we are 124 pages into ANOTHER thread on the P39, all because literally hundreds of guys couldn't figure out in WW2 what you have figured out 70+ years later. How could they have been so far off?

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

P-39 Expert,

Context can be everything. The Russians didn't have a product that was as good as the '39, plus it was free, and the motor took pretty good abuse above the book numbers, and it was available in quantity, and it was free, and they fought to it's strengths (low altitude, short range). OF COURSE THEY LIKED IT. In the context of the battle plan they liked to operate in (low altitude, close to the front, over your own country) it was perfect. Did I mention it was free, and available? The rest of the Allies had availability of other "better" aircraft. So you have your choice of a good product (A) which is better than product (B). Which do you keep and which do you give away? It's a rhetorical question, you give away B. Which is exactly what the Brit's did. And the US. We were probably happy that the Russians liked an aircraft we didn't so there was no arguing over what we kept vice gave away via lend lease.

And since you are so hung up on test pilots, don't you think the Brits used theirs while evaluating the P39? Also, look at it in the context of the Brits. They had been flying combat before the P39 arrived, and they came to the conclusion that it was inferior to what they already had, or would soon have, and got rid of it.

Here we are 124 pages into ANOTHER thread on the P39, all because literally hundreds of guys couldn't figure out in WW2 what you have figured out 70+ years later. How could they have been so far off?

Cheers,
Biff

Great post but as far as the part in bold it wasnt in the UKs "gift" to give anything away. The UK had ordered it but it was nowhere near what they ordered and by 1941 it would be supplied on Lend Lease. There was no argument for the UK having it. It couldnt be used from the UK itself and in N Africa it added nothing to what was already there. In Russia anything was useful for something, like Gloster Gladiators on Malta. The Po-2 had a military use in Russia and it had a maximum speed on par with a front line fighters stall speed, such things can happen on a front thousands of miles long. The P-39 was used in UK to familiarise Russian pilots and engineers on its future use in the Soviet Union, just as pilots and ground crew went to Russia to familiarise Russians with the Hurricane in exactly the same period.

 

[nuuumannn]

Great, naked pilot with 20lb parachute.

Imagine the surprise of the Japanese pilots watching butt-nekkid P-39 pilots descending past them under their parachutes...

If a GI weighed 140 pounds, he was either suffering from dysentary or was a POW.

And naked...

Anybody sharing in my experience of being relegated a status as below average, is recommended to join us in the movement for equal heights.

Well, I'm 6' 2" and weigh over 100 kgs and I definitely struggle to fit in most WW2 fighters. In a Spitfire I have to sit with my head bowed forward with the canopy closed. In a Buchon (Bf 109) I can't close the canopy. There's room for my bulky frame and fat head in a P-51D though...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

P-39 Expert,
The Russians didn't have a product that was as good as the '39, plus it was free, and the motor took pretty good abuse above the book numbers, and it was available in quantity, and it was free, and they fought to it's strengths (low altitude, short range). OF COURSE THEY LIKED IT. In the context of the battle plan they liked to operate in (low altitude, close to the front, over your own country) it was perfect. [...]

Cheers,
Biff

Doctrine does actually matter. The -39 didn't provide anything the USAAC could use it didn't already have from a more-trusted company, and could not provide any capability that other planes couldn't.

The Russians could use the -39 well because, in part, their doctrine accepted and used short-range, high-speed, limited altitude sorties.

 

[Greg Boeser]

And we sent the 100 octane avgas that fueled them.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Tell the Soviets that the P-39 was rubbish. And it had a radio, and armor plate/glass, and large caliber guns, and the engine wasn't crap.

And it also had armor around the prop gearbox that they were smart enough not to remove.

That's the whole thing, the timing. The P-39 was available when the war started for the US, along with the P-40 and the F4F. That's what we had to go to war with in 1942. P-38s, P-47s and P-51s were in production but they didn't get into the fight until late '42 (P-38), spring '43 (P-47) and late '43 (Merlin P-51). And by the time the P-47s were getting into combat the best P-39 model (N) was already out of production. Hard to compare later planes with earlier planes.

Seems to me that the AAF should have improved 1942 P-39 performance asap, especially since it was so easy to just remove some redundant/unnecessary items at forward combat bases. The improved climb and ceiling would have been of great use at NG and Guadalcanal. Weight was finally reduced by 650lbs at Guadalcanal in October '42, but by then AAF units knew they would shortly get P-38s.

With reduced weight it could have been used very effectively as high cover for P-40s. The P-40 was a very effective combat plane with good maneuverability, heavy firepower and rugged construction when it had top cover. Without top cover it was at a severe disadvantage. The Soviets used the P-39 and P-40 this way before they had acquired enough P-39s to form their own separate groups.

Clean P-39s and P-40s had about the same range, 600 and 650mi respectively per AHT and the calculations from the pilot's manuals made earlier in this thread. And both carried an external tank. The P-40 held 30gal more internal fuel but that was offset by the P-39's higher cruising speed and smaller allowance for takeoff and climb. The P-40 was regarded by AAF pilots as being slightly more maneuverable but rate of turn figures gave the P-39 a slight edge, so I would regard maneuverability as about the same. Faster, a good bit better climb and ceiling, and about the same range and maneuverability. Remember this is 1942 and the other planes are not yet available.

Would have, could have, should have - actually what you say actually happened to a point when you look at the performance of V fighter command P-39 squadrons through the summer of 42 and some of the operations they were flying, they were definitely holding the line to a point. Holding the line however wasn't good enough. In the spirit of Groundhog day, I'll repeat, everything changed when the P-38 arrived.

 

[GrauGeist]

It was the P-40, however, that was able to counter the Japanese and forced the Japanese to fight on their terms, once they figured out that the A6M and KI-43 were not energy fighters.
Of all the PTO/CBI pilot accounts I've read from the early days of the war, where tactics evolved and solutions against the IJA and IJN fighters were taken into account, none included any accounts from P-39 pilots.

None.

 

[pbehn]

In the spirit of Groundhog day, I'll repeat, everything changed when the P-38 arrived.

Only because the Americans wriggled out of the contract with the British, or was it the other way around.

 

[P-39 Expert]

You can doubt that the Spitfire doubled in weight but why don't you get off your backside and check it for yourself instead of simply questioning other people's statements and refusing to back down?

Jeffrey Quill's book on the Spitfire definitely made the point that the Spitfire doubled in weight during its lifetime. Oh, and Jeffrey Quill was a test pilot...so maybe you'll trust his statements? Or, since he was British, does that automatically remove him as a trustworthy source?

Spitfire I weighed 5819lbs. Spitfire XIV weighed 8500lbs. Hardly double. Late war Spitfires did have 2000hp engines though.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Only because the Americans wriggled out of the contract with the British, or was it the other way around.

As I understand it (possibly wrong), didn't the British, in an attempt to maintain engine commonality and avoid turbocharger complexity, wind up spec-ing a Lightning that couldn't be competitive in the ETO? IIRC, the British-speced machines were used stateside as trainers, as they were deemed unsuitable for combat.

 

[pbehn]

Spitfire I weighed 5819lbs. Spitfire XIV weighed 8500lbs. Hardly double. Late war Spitfires did have 2000hp engines though.

Do you read anything? Why do you quote one of the heaviest versions of the Mk I? The prototype, ballasted for guns weighed 5,322Lbs, why dont you quote the last versions of the Spitfire/Seafire which were up to 12,000Lb loaded weight. And no, I am not going to get into dates and uses and name definitions. The first Spitfires only had circa 660BHP of thrust available at take off so the growth was bigger than at first sight.