Thumpalumpacus
Major
Given its range -- or lack thereof -- the -39 had both shortgoings and shortcomings.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I thought the P-39 had no short comings.
Isnt that what I posted? The Hurricane was always behind the Spitfire in performance, and increasingly behind the Bf109. Putting better engines in the Hurricane to keep it competitive jut shows the gap between to two.I would disagree to some extent. Almost obsolete depends on the opposition and that did change quite a bit in just a few years.
In 1938 there wasn't much around that was any better, most were not as good. The Hurricane didn't fall behind in the ETO until the 109F showed up.
In the Med the Italians couldn't match it until they got DB 601 engines in the summer of 1941.
Japanese would have had a very hard time matching it 1940. Claudes and Nates vs Hurricane Is?
For 2 1/2 years the Hurricane was one of the front runners.
How much of the Hurricanes problems were due to poor tactics in the Med and Far East is also subject to question.
British stuck with the 3 plane Vic formation for far too long.
I agree, I have posted similar myself, but that is more because of ease of production and use than performance. The fact that Park had one as a run about during the BoB shows how the Hurricane took production out of the equation, there was never a shortage of Hurricanes just pilots to fly them.IMO the Hurricane was one of the most underrated aircraft of WW2.
And now I know.It's funny. Guys like Eric Hammel really went out of their way to malign the P-39 by only including pilot memoirs in which they talk about suffering turn stalls in the middle of combat. Or that oft repeated slander that P-39 pilots were ordered to scramble and fly out to sea to avoid danger when Port Moresby was attacked. The reason there is only one reported American P-39 ace is that the performance was so good that the actual combat results remain classified to this day, to protect the reputations of such dogs as the P-38, P47, and P-51. If the actual numbers were ever revealed there would be a huge outcry about the millions of $$$ squadered on these also rans.
Man I wish I thought of that first! Brilliant.Given its range -- or lack thereof -- the -39 had both shortgoings and shortcomings.
Man I wish I thought of that first! Brilliant.
It's funny. Guys like Eric Hammel really went out of their way to malign the P-39 by only including pilot memoirs in which they talk about suffering turn stalls in the middle of combat. Or that oft repeated slander that P-39 pilots were ordered to scramble and fly out to sea to avoid danger when Port Moresby was attacked. The reason there is only one reported American P-39 ace is that the performance was so good that the actual combat results remain classified to this day, to protect the reputations of such dogs as the P-38, P47, and P-51. If the actual numbers were ever revealed there would be a huge outcry about the millions of $$$ squadered on these also rans.
Yes it is. I was just of thinking of the Planes of Fame Museum's P-59.Maybe now is not a good time to bring up the P-59?
Hoo boy, here we go again. The primary P39 model that fought the Zero early days (P39D) COULDN'T outclimb it, and though ultimately faster in an extended chase, couldn't match its instantaneous acceleration, which is a serious disadvantage in combat. Early days combat in New Guinea had P39s defending against bombing raids way above their optimum performance altitudes. Later P39s with more horsepower and less weight would have performed better against Zeke, but by then the P38 had taken over and the Airacobras were going to Russia. It's real shortcoming in the PTO was its limited range.
I sense this thread slipping down to the dark side.I thought we had a groundhog thread?
Hoping it will be averted!I thought we had a groundhog thread?
From the XP-52 project...Just where did you think the XP-59 came from?
Hoping it will be averted!