Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 44,489
- Mar 26, 2007
Annnddd we are back in business!!!
Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)
- Thread starter greybeard
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
This thread has more lives than a Tony Robbins promo video ... it might last as long as Cher's music career.
Somebody has to stick up for the weak and defenseless!!! LOL!
fubar57
General
Not sure where I said anything about the Russians. At least they knew about the P-39 spin problems compared to our long gone "expert"
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Aparently, the P-39 flew perfectly fine, right up to the moment it hit the ground...
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 44,489
- Mar 26, 2007
If only they removed the radio
And W warbird51 you have stumbled on a notorious thread.
A lot of info and a champion of the P-39 that not always listened or wanted to see sence in manuals or even thoughts of real life fighter pilots.
It not you. ... its us.
Start reading from day 1. You will learn and have a laugh or 2.
Cheers.
And W warbird51 you have stumbled on a notorious thread.
A lot of info and a champion of the P-39 that not always listened or wanted to see sence in manuals or even thoughts of real life fighter pilots.
It not you. ... its us.
Start reading from day 1. You will learn and have a laugh or 2.
Cheers.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
No P-39 ever hit the ground. The ground jumped up in an ambush, that was the only way it could catch one.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Thought so.
Soviet use of the P-39 was quite different.
They used fighters for close air support. Missions were short, so lack of range did not matter. They analyzed the Kobra and figured out that it would get ugly if it expended the cowl gun ammunition, so their loadouts were much heavier there. They also ditched the .30 caliber popguns in the wings. They operated the engines in a manner well outside the manual limitations and wore them out quickly.
The Soviets liked fuselage mounted armament and didn't like wing armament. The P-39 fit into this pattern quite well once the wing guns were removed. Compared to most Soviet fighters which were relatively lightly armed, the P-39 had heavy guns and good duration of fire.
The Kobra was unique among fighters operated by the Soviets. It actually performed as advertised. Many Soviet aircraft did not for one reason or another or had manufacturing faults that might result in structural failure.
-Ivan.
Actually I've read the thread since it started and while I didn't agree with the champion of the P-39, I admired his passion for the aircraft. Every fighter plane ever built is a compromise based on what the customer wants and what the manufacturer can deliver. And the evolution of fighter tactics from the start of the war to the end required the manufacturer and customer to refine their needs and products. It was an ever changing process that required advances so you don't get beat on the battlefield. My point was that the Russians utilized the P-39's strengths, combined with their tactics, to produce results which other operators couldn't. Is that the fault of the aircraft? Or is it how the aircraft was utilized. The Russians seemed to like the aircraft, warts and all.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Fortunately for the Soviets, the Ost Front was a low to medium altitude, short range aerial theater.
Otherwise, the P-39 would habe been a liability rather than an asset.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
As we all know the Russians over-boosted, and to a lesser extent over-reved most if not all US and British engines.
Has anybody ever collected, or better still collated, the mean time between failure (MTBF) and time before overhaul (TBO) of US and Brit engines in Russian service and compared those figures with the US and Brit reliability records?
Callum unfortunately has left the site. S Shortround6 and
WJPearce
and
kmccutcheon
all come to mind as persons who know much and who also know other such sources of great knowledge.
Has anybody ever collected, or better still collated, the mean time between failure (MTBF) and time before overhaul (TBO) of US and Brit engines in Russian service and compared those figures with the US and Brit reliability records?
Callum unfortunately has left the site. S Shortround6 and
WJPearce
and
kmccutcheon
all come to mind as persons who know much and who also know other such sources of great knowledge.My point exactly! The Russians utilized the Cobra's strengths while minimizing its weaknesses. If it was only used for close ground attack, how could it rack up the aerial kills it did. So it's not quite the groundhog that's reflected from reading the comments in this thread. Was it a top line fighter? Not even close. But used in the right circumstances, it performed well.
fubar57
General
The groundhog reference comes from the repetitive postings of one expert poster as in the movie "Groundhog Day" The title of the thread was changed to reflect this by a Moderator
Last edited:
Actually the word I wanted to use was Turd instead of groundhog as to how Cobra was referred to in this thread. But was trying to clean up my posts.
