- Thread starter
- #21
Love Those P-39 Ads!
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
MIflyer
Captain
Just studying the speed curves found here
P-39 Performance Tests
Suggests the P39 was very competitive in terms of speed at or below its full pressure altitude of about 13000ft-15000ft. It was perhaps among the fastest aircraft.
It was a good aeroplane but needed a place to shine. Combat under 15,000ft happens when there is a land conflict, for which the P 39 was ideal. There was no place to shine in Europe until D Day and much conflict in the Pacific was carrier based.
It was used during the landings in the Mediterranean. I recall reading an account by an Me 109 pilot whose "squadron" thought they were having a dog fight with Mustangs but were infact P39. It was clear there wasn't any inferiority in performance because the P39s were aggressive. Post war someone worked out it was P39s not P51s.
I don't think it likely there were any P51B deployed in the Med but the German pilots would be aware of the P51A or A36.
I suspect production of P51 shifted completely from A to B type because the P39,P40 and P63 were completely adaquete.
I suspect the P63 could have achieved the P51 long range escort roll if tailored to the task. It had the laminar flow profile wings, probably the fastest roll rate of ww2. Given its laminar profile wings it should have had plenty of room inside of them for fuel but it's range is given only as 450 miles.
I don't think it likely there were any P51B deployed in the Med but the German pilots would be aware of the P51A or A36.
I suspect production of P51 shifted completely from A to B type because the P39,P40 and P63 were completely adaquete.
I suspect the P63 could have achieved the P51 long range escort roll if tailored to the task. It had the laminar flow profile wings, probably the fastest roll rate of ww2. Given its laminar profile wings it should have had plenty of room inside of them for fuel but it's range is given only as 450 miles.
Last edited:
I was mainly referring to the glamour of public perception. To get recognition as a great a plane generally has to be pretty and do something other planes cant. Fighting above a battlefield a water cooled fighter will suffer losses regardless of how good it is and the battle itself depends more on ground forces than those in the air. On the eastern front little was reported for years and in any case they were Soviet pilots who became adversaries almost as soon as WW2 ended. Without the bomber offensive in Europe the P 51 would probably known as a fast nice plane that suffered because of its water cooled engine, by the end of the war more P51s were lost to ground fire than air combat (I read in a post here). Similarly without D Day and the Falaise gap the Hawker Typhoon would probably be regarded as the greatest failure in British WW2 aviation and the Spitfire will always steal the Hurricanes thunder in the BoB, regardless of the facts, the Spitfire is better looking.
Last edited:
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
you are right about that. and that was due largely to strafing aerodromes on when the ponies were given freedom to sniff out and snuff out the LW where ever they may be. for the first pass they had the element of surprise. passes after that became pretty dicey. but I would say that probably held true for any group or type plane that attacked air fields with regularity.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
1. the 31st Ftr. Grp started getting P-51Bs in April of 1944, changing over from A-36s and Spitfires.
The 52th Ftr Grp of the 15th Air force stated getting P-51s in June of 1944, I don't know what type but that is the same month that P-51Ds start showing up in England in quantity.
The P-40 was far from adequate. A 1943 pilots manual states to pilots starting on the type that no new squadrons will be formed using it and in service squadrons will be re-equipped as fast as possible. The manual does state the P-40 is a good operational trainer and pilots who master it will have no trouble with combat types.
Tailoring the P-63 for the escort roll means keeping the outside appearance and change a host of stuff inside, like the basic wing structure.
I believe the RAF and USAAF developed tactics for working through an airfield or other well defended locations defences. Using pairs of aircraft approaching from different directions. It was very effective but like all things required training and practice. From what I read the most important requirement of the pilots was, surprisingly, patience.
After 8th Sept. 1943 Italian Cobelligerent AF was equipped with P-39. Certainly, they were old and worn out, but all the Italian Pilots, that were without exception all very well seasoned survivors of three years of war, and used to fly honeys of planes like MC-202, 205 and G-55, resolutely hated those old crates, and accepted to fly them just for military reasons. "Is this trash the technical wonder of the Allies?" they used to say.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
But in reality, would they actually say that? Considering all the Mustangs and Thunderbolts buzzing around?
??
Nobody in USA or the UK was rating the P-39 in 1942/43/44 as a techincal wonder. Plus - very few Italian pilots of the Cobeligerent AF flew MC.205, let alone G.55. The P-39Ns the Italians received were in the ballpark with G.55 speed-wise under 6 km.
Please document yourself.
And it is not a matter of just 6 km/h more or less: it is a matter of general flying envelope, stall and landing speeds etc.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Hmm... Still can't see how anyone (short of possibly VVS pilots) would realistically consider the P-39 a "technical wonder of the Allies" by September 1943. Especially in the MTO.
My point was that neither the MC.202, nor MC.205, nor G.55 were ideal aircraft.
There was also a difference between new P-39s of later marque (-N, -Q) vs. heavily used P-39Ns and Qs the Italians got. It was not a 'guilt' of P-39s, that by 1944 were 3rd tier of fighters Allies produced, that ended where the WAllies saw fit.
Are there "ideal" aircrafts?
None, by my personal point of view. An airplane is just the result of a good compromise. There are some aircrafts that have strong points and weakness, but strong points, as circunstances change, can revert to weakness. See the short range of the Spitfire, for example.
Mustang was an exceptional aircaft, but Sottotenente Alberto Scano,
a friend of mine, told me that G-59 was extremely easier to fly than Mustang, that deserved his name, while G-59 was a so called "father of family".
And P-39 was, by my personal point of view, very far of being a good compromise, expecially those completely worn out and out commission that were given to the Cobelligerent Air Force.
The phrase I reported about was told me by an Italian Pilot, Gen. Leandro Meloni, Sottotenente in 1943 and a retired General when I met him in a Service Club in my town. Gen Meloni made the passage on MC-205 just a few weeks before Armistice but unfortunately I can't call it a witness as he died about ten years ago. "We were wondering to fly Mustangs" Gen. Meloni told me " and we were compelled to fly those dangerous "ciofeche..." refused by all Allied Pilots..."
"Ciofeca" in italian is a very bad caffé espresso, the last thing an Italian wants to drink.
The extremely low consideration of P-39 by the Italian Pilots it is well documented, in this book, for example.
Last edited:
It was no wonder that G.59 was far easier to fly than the Merlin Mustang - the wing loading was considerably smaller on the G.59, and we know well that P-51D was not behaving well on lower speeds. Similar are comparisons Mustang vs. Zero or Mustang vs. Spitfire. However, we also know well that neither Spitfire, nor Zero, nor G.55 or 59 would've done what Mustangs were good - combination of undisputed performance and range/radius to bring war to the enemy sky and actaully beat that enemy.
Same was the opinion of the Croatian pilots (of the 'Independent' State of Croatia) about the second hand MC.202s they received - what have we done to deserve this?
- Thread starter
- #40
MIflyer
Captain
And the Israeli pilots thought the Czech-built "Mule" versions of the BF-109 were horrible. They probably were.
