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

[WARSPITER]

Don't eat apricot kernels - they contain amygdalin which converts to cyanide in the body.

 

[MiTasol]

But it is natural so it must be good for you.

 

[Just Schmidt]

So is bacon.

Both can kill you.

Choose wisely...

I gave you bacon. Infer from that what you want.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

So is bacon.

Both can kill you.

Choose Cheese wisely...

Fix't

 

[SaparotRob]

Fix't

I wanted to give you a "creative" but..........

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wanted to give you a "creative" but..........

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

View attachment 667179

Uuuupppppssssss!

That creative slip out of my fingers!

 

[Peter Gunn]

I wanted to give you a "creative" but..........

I think you're overly optimistic...

 

[tommayer]

Hello!
I was intrigued by reading of this interview with Golodnikov, especially by his mention about true performances of German fighters (color plus some correction of the text by me):

"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, if you look at any reference book, the superiority in speed of German aircraft [like] the Bf-109G and FW-190 is indisputable. Minimum 20-25 kilometers at low altitudes and up to 80-100 kilometers at high altitudes. And you say ours did not lag behind?

N. G. No, some difference in speed always exists. At low altitudes we were a bit faster, at high altitudes they were. The difference was on the order of 10-20 km. But this difference was not so great that it ensured overwhelming superiority. In combat it was practically not discernible.

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, sometime relatively long ago I was speaking with a pilot, a frontline veteran. Right after the war they flew in captured aircraft. And no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to attain the speeds the Germans had written in their specifications. The shortfall in speed was significant. In the end, they prevailed upon a German, a high-level specialist, and asked him, "Why this shortfall in speed? Are we using the engine's capability incorrectly?" His response was that they would never achieve the target speed, because the German specifications showed the theoretical speed, and they were attempting to attain that speed on their instruments.

Nikolay Gerasimovich, in your view, is this possible?

N. G. Of course. We had a group of specialists with us from NII VVS. They were examining specifications and were looking at speed. "What speed is indicated at 7,000 meters? 780? Take away 100. And what about 3,000 meters? 700? Reduce it 70 km." This is how they calculated the instrumented speed and, characteristically, almost always hit their target. Perhaps they knew something about our focus on speed."

I wonder what they mean for "theoretical speed": didn't Germans actually test in flight their planes? And what is this "instrument speed" they speak of?

I would be glad to know your opinion. Cheers,
GB

Suggested reading on 39 I have NOT found in skimming this thread. 1) Nanette, Edwards Park. He flew 39s over New Guinea, went on to a long and distinguished career, part of it with the Smithsonian. Wrote very well. His book is full instances where the 39s were unable to engage because of poor climb performance, lethargic speeds at altitude, or insufficient fuel to stay and fight. However, he loved the airplane. 2) Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII, Robin Higham. This very informative book has two sections on 39, one from a guy who flew it off Guadalcanal, the second in the Med. Both noted the performance problems. The Pacific guy did not use the cannon in air to air. The Med guy did. The Med pilot loved the airplane, and tells of an instance you serious investigators may say never happened in which 39s shot down 6-7 MEs w/o loss over Italy. Med pilot later flew P-63 in mock attacks on B-29s, considered the 63 the best of all recip fighters, much better than 51s in everything except range/endurance. All this combing of official records and quoting generals and aces is very well, but I think first hand accounts by squadron pilots are more interesting. They tell you what it was like in the real world. In this vein, I had a friend who flew 39s and then 38s talk to a college class I was teaching. During Q & A a bright young student who'd been doing extra reading asked my friend if he had not been delighted to get 38s. Answer, "Jesus no. I hated the 38. We all had the runs all the time. Six-seven hour missions in 38s, lot of cockpits smelled like untended outhouses. The 39, you were rarely up for more than an hour and half, so your sphincter had a fighting chance."

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Suggested reading on 39 I have NOT found in skimming this thread. 1) Nanette, Edwards Park. He flew 39s over New Guinea, went on to a long and distinguished career, part of it with the Smithsonian. Wrote very well. His book is full instances where the 39s were unable to engage because of poor climb performance, lethargic speeds at altitude, or insufficient fuel to stay and fight. However, he loved the airplane. 2) Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII, Robin Higham. This very informative book has two sections on 39, one from a guy who flew it off Guadalcanal, the second in the Med. Both noted the performance problems. The Pacific guy did not use the cannon in air to air. The Med guy did. The Med pilot loved the airplane, and tells of an instance you serious investigators may say never happened in which 39s shot down 6-7 MEs w/o loss over Italy. Med pilot later flew P-63 in mock attacks on B-29s, considered the 63 the best of all recip fighters, much better than 51s in everything except range/endurance. All this combing of official records and quoting generals and aces is very well, but I think first hand accounts by squadron pilots are more interesting. They tell you what it was like in the real world. In this vein, I had a friend who flew 39s and then 38s talk to a college class I was teaching. During Q & A a bright young student who'd been doing extra reading asked my friend if he had not been delighted to get 38s. Answer, "Jesus no. I hated the 38. We all had the runs all the time. Six-seven hour missions in 38s, lot of cockpits smelled like untended outhouses. The 39, you were rarely up for more than an hour and half, so your sphincter had a fighting chance."

Well, one thing is to fly in a plane and quite another to fight in it.

I think that Chuck Yeager said that he like to fly the 39, but I doubt he ever considered it worth to go to war with It.

"The Med pilot loved the airplane, and tells of an instance you serious investigators may say never happened in which 39s shot down 6-7 MEs w/o loss over Italy."

If you rember the date (aprox) it should be more or less easy to search for that combat in MAW or any other resource and clarify. Bear in mind that one thing are claims, another one confirmed kills and yet another one true kills (or at least, verificable kills)

 

[fubar57]

".....first hand accounts by squadron pilots are more interesting...."

From MAW, Vol.3...

Jerry Collingworth (a 1/Lt in the 307th Squadron, 31st Fighter Group February - May 1943)

".....The P-39 was a miserable fighter for Tunisia. We used to have to escort them because the Bf and FW outperformed them in every conceivable way, dive, climb, manoeuvre speed - you name it....."

 

[GTX]

 

[drgondog]

Suggested reading on 39 I have NOT found in skimming this thread. 1) Nanette, Edwards Park. He flew 39s over New Guinea, went on to a long and distinguished career, part of it with the Smithsonian. Wrote very well. His book is full instances where the 39s were unable to engage because of poor climb performance, lethargic speeds at altitude, or insufficient fuel to stay and fight. However, he loved the airplane. 2) Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII, Robin Higham. This very informative book has two sections on 39, one from a guy who flew it off Guadalcanal, the second in the Med. Both noted the performance problems. The Pacific guy did not use the cannon in air to air. The Med guy did. The Med pilot loved the airplane, and tells of an instance you serious investigators may say never happened in which 39s shot down 6-7 MEs w/o loss over Italy. Med pilot later flew P-63 in mock attacks on B-29s, considered the 63 the best of all recip fighters, much better than 51s in everything except range/endurance. All this combing of official records and quoting generals and aces is very well, but I think first hand accounts by squadron pilots are more interesting. They tell you what it was like in the real world. In this vein, I had a friend who flew 39s and then 38s talk to a college class I was teaching. During Q & A a bright young student who'd been doing extra reading asked my friend if he had not been delighted to get 38s. Answer, "Jesus no. I hated the 38. We all had the runs all the time. Six-seven hour missions in 38s, lot of cockpits smelled like untended outhouses. The 39, you were rarely up for more than an hour and half, so your sphincter had a fighting chance."

Interesting - did You get dates and unit of the alleged 6 to zero encounter over Italy? Did You research?

As to 'better than P-51s in everything but range and endurance', what evidence did he present - or that you personally researched to verify?

 

[drgondog]

The Med pilot loved the airplane, and tells of an instance you serious investigators may say never happened in which 39s shot down 6-7 MEs w/o loss over Italy. Med pilot later flew P-63 in mock attacks on B-29s, considered the 63 the best of all recip fighters, much better than 51s in everything except range/endurance. All this combing of official records and quoting generals and aces is very well, but I think first hand accounts by squadron pilots are more interesting. They tell you what it was like in the real world. In this vein, I had a friend who flew 39s and then 38s talk to a college class I was teaching. During Q & A a bright young student who'd been doing extra reading asked my friend if he had not been delighted to get 38s. Answer, "Jesus no. I hated the 38. We all had the runs all the time. Six-seven hour missions in 38s, lot of cockpits smelled like untended outhouses. The 39, you were rarely up for more than an hour and half, so your sphincter had a fighting chance."

The Med pilot 'misremembered' the 6-7 ME's over Italy. The ONLY example of more than 2 of Any Type Axix fighter in MTO by P-39 in one day was 93FS/81st FG with 3 on 6/11/43. At that time the 81st FG based at Monastir Tunisia..Far WEST Tunisia - well over 200 miles to make contact of the 'toe' of Italy. It didn't happen.

 

[Greg Boeser]

You callin' me a liar?!!
[Reaches for gun]

 

[GrauGeist]

You callin' me a liar?!!
[Reaches for gun]

 

[Snautzer01]

Suggested reading on 39 I have NOT found in skimming this thread. 1) Nanette, Edwards Park. He flew 39s over New Guinea, went on to a long and distinguished career, part of it with the Smithsonian. Wrote very well. His book is full instances where the 39s were unable to engage because of poor climb performance, lethargic speeds at altitude, or insufficient fuel to stay and fight. However, he loved the airplane. 2) Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII, Robin Higham. This very informative book has two sections on 39, one from a guy who flew it off Guadalcanal, the second in the Med. Both noted the performance problems. The Pacific guy did not use the cannon in air to air. The Med guy did. The Med pilot loved the airplane, and tells of an instance you serious investigators may say never happened in which 39s shot down 6-7 MEs w/o loss over Italy. Med pilot later flew P-63 in mock attacks on B-29s, considered the 63 the best of all recip fighters, much better than 51s in everything except range/endurance. All this combing of official records and quoting generals and aces is very well, but I think first hand accounts by squadron pilots are more interesting. They tell you what it was like in the real world. In this vein, I had a friend who flew 39s and then 38s talk to a college class I was teaching. During Q & A a bright young student who'd been doing extra reading asked my friend if he had not been delighted to get 38s. Answer, "Jesus no. I hated the 38. We all had the runs all the time. Six-seven hour missions in 38s, lot of cockpits smelled like untended outhouses. The 39, you were rarely up for more than an hour and half, so your sphincter had a fighting chance."

 

[drgondog]

Med pilot later flew P-63 in mock attacks on B-29s, considered the 63 the best of all recip fighters, much better than 51s in everything except range/endurance. All this combing of official records and quoting generals and aces is very well, but I think first hand accounts by squadron pilots are more interesting. They tell you what it was like in the real world. In this vein,

Ah yes, 'real pilots'. Perhaps you might pick up Report of the Joint Fighter Conference, Patuxent River Oct 1944. Let your fingers and attention skip to the pages comprising the Questionnaires of the 80+ Army, Navy, RAF and Manufacturer Test pilots that few all the primary fighters - even the XF8F.

If you look at the 32 individual categories ranging from best controls, cockpit, elevator authority, flight characteristics, dive stability, figter bomber, strafer, Best ailerons at 100mph and 350mph, Best Overall above 25K, Best overall below 25K you will only occasionally note P-63 above 2%. Notably Worst Cockpit at 4% and Nicest Arrangement of cockpit Controls (12%). Everything else at or below 2%.

OTOH, P-51D in top four ranging from Best Overall Below 25K (#1), Best Overall above 25K (#2), Best Strafer (#4), Best Visibility (#1), Nicest Arrangement of Engine Controls (#1), Best Cockpit (#2), Nicest Harmonization of flight controls (#2), Best Ailerons at 350mph (#1), and so on.

The P-63 was not ranked Best with more than 1% for any combat capability other than Dive Stability in which it was just behind the P-51D and Nicest Overall Stability (3% to P-51D 6%).

The P-63 wasn't even ranked at or above 1% for Best Fighter above or Below 25K, Best Ailerons at 350mph or 100mph, Best for Overload Take Off from small space, Best Fighter Bomber, Best Strafer (2%).

In other words, the P-63 was not very impressive to a whole lotta good pilots sent to the Conference to compare different fighters and share ideas. In all fairness the P-38J barely ranked above the P-63 and it was far down the list when compared against P-51, P-38, P-47, F4U, F6F, Even the Mosquito and P-61 outranked the P-63 for best Ailerons above 350mph and at 100mph and best Strafer and Best Fighter Bomber.

In all fairness, however, it may have been the best Gunnery Target.

 

[Snautzer01]

It was the best pinball.

 

[buffnut453]

It was the best pinball.

Was it a Pinball Wizard?




Yep...wearing my coat already!