P-39 or P-40 for rest of war?

[Nikademus]

Continuing to read through Loza's "Attack of the Airacobras." I found this entry to be of particular interest given the subject of this thread. Ancedotal of course......but interesting non the less:

The differing technical and tactical characteristics of the P-39 and P-40 aircraft that made up the patrol [45th Fighter Regiment, 216th Fighter Division, 15aprl 43] made it necessary to fight the battle at two levels, the Kittyhawks at the lower level and the Airacobras above them. Petrov directed his Kittyhawks to go after the bombers and the Airacobras to engage the Messerschmitts. It would have been better of course, had the Soviet patrol been comprised entirely of the P-39, which performed better at altitude than the P-40. [patrol was at 15,700 - 16,100 feet approx] In the current situation, the group leader always had to monitor the location of the P-40's and be prepared to render assistance to them.

 

[billswagger]

It was supposed to be a bit faster than that, 364 at 20,000ft?

Some of the weight saving tricks were reversed, like putting the electric starter and battery back in the plane.

That wouldn't surprise me, considering that delays getting into the air actually made it a slower plane from a tactical standpoint.

i remember reading a pilot that mentioned the Es would start up, roll down the runway and climb to 10,000ft by the time an N could be hand started and get rolling down the runway. Kind of makes for a pressing issue for a front line fighter.

Bill

 

[Shortround6]

Continuing to read through Loza's "Attack of the Airacobras." I found this entry to be of particular interest given the subject of this thread. Ancedotal of course......but interesting non the less:

Which model Kittyhawk and which model Aircobra and did the Aircobra's still have wing guns?

 

[Nikademus]

Which model Kittyhawk and which model Aircobra and did the Aircobra's still have wing guns?

Believe they were Mk I's, (P40E equiv). The Soviets received several different marks of P-39 (C, D, N etc) but per Loza's book, the bulk of them were P-39Q's. All had wing guns as part of the orig design but the Soviets began removing them as a matter of policy and requested that future deliveries delete them for them. Another inovation introduced was the re-wiring of the flight stick so that the Cannon and MG's could be fired via one trigger. (Orig design had seperate triggers for the MG's and the Cannon)

 

[MikeGazdik]

Hindsight being 20/20, I think that the P-39 would evolve into the P-63 is just another plus for going with the Bell product!

 

[tomo pauk]

You got that right; the best production version of P-40 (either -F or -N, as one likes it) was clearly inferior to KingCobra.

 

[Colin1]

Trying to get to the bottom of why a P-39 would be any better than a P-40 at altitude

Engine__________P-39_________P-40___________hp/rpm/alt (ft)
V-1710-17_________XP-39__________________________1150/3000/SL
Block -E2_________________________________________1150/3000/25,000

V-1710-19_______________________XP-40____________1060/2950/SL
Block -C13________________________________________1150/2950/25,000

V-1710-33_______________________B,C,E,G___________1040/2800/SL
Block -C15________________________________________1040/3000/14,300

V-1710-35_________C,D,E,F_________________________1150/3000/SL
Block -E4__________G, Q___________________________1150/3000/11,800

V-1710-37_________YP-39A,B_______________________1090/3000/SL

V-1710-F3R______________________D,E______________1150/3000/11,800
_______________________________XP-46,XP-51,A

V-1710-D2A________YP-39A_________________________1090/3000/13,200

V-1710-47_________XP-39E_________________________1325/3000/SL

V-1710-59_________J______________________________1100/2800/SL
Block -E12________________________________________1100/3000/15,200

V-1710-63_________D,K,L___________________________1325/3000/SL
Block -E6__________________________________________1150/3000/11,800

V-1710-73________________________XP-40K___________1150/3000/SL
Block -F4R________________________K________________1150/3000/11,800

V-1710-81________________________M,N,R____________1200/3000/SL
Block -F20R_______________________P-51A____________1125/3000/14,600

V-1710-83__________L,M,N,Q________________________1200/3000/SL
Block -E18_________________________________________1125/3000/14,600

V-1710-85__________M,N,Q__________________________1200/3000/SL
Block -E19_________________________________________1125/3000/14,600

V-1710-99________________________N________________1200/3000/SL
Block -F26R_________________________________________1125/3000/15,000

V-1710-115_______________________N_________________1200/3000/SL
Block -F31R_________________________________________1125/3000/15,000

V-1710-121_______________________XP-40Q____________1425/3000/SL
Block -F28R_________________________________________1100/3000/26,000

 

[tomo pauk]

That was neat

 

[Colin1]

That was neat

It was definitely tricky...

 

[Nikademus]

The re-occuring theme in Loza's account is vertical maneuvering. Guards Captain Aleksandr Pokryshkin and others felt that the P-39 was "somewhat superior" to the 109F and G in maneuverability in that mode. In the past when i think "vertical maneuvering" the 109 comes to mind first as this was a primary Jagdwaffe method used over Malta and in North Africa when facing Commonwealth forces. They had it easiest against Hurricanes and Tomahawk/Kittyhawks. Spitfires were the toughest and considered equal to their mounts. The one no-no mentioned more than once re: 109 vs. "Curtiss" type fighters (p40) was never get into a turning fight with them, esp at low to med altitude.

Comments like the above regarding P-40's from Shores were echoed in Bergstrom's Black Cross/Red Star. Russian recipiants of Lend-Lease Tomahawks from the UK commented unfavorably about the plane's abilities in general in comparison to the Yak-1, including the vertical plane but noted that it's turning characteristics were superior to enemy Messerschmitts. (like the Airacobra, they were very appreciative of the radio included and considered this the Tomahawk's best feature since Russian fighter planes at the time didn't have them)

What makes Loza's book interesting is that the 216th flew four types of planes simotaniously in the beginning of their operations in the Kuban (Kittyhawks, Spitfires, P-39's and a few Spitfires)

 

[riacrato]

Sorry but Curtiss all the way. I don't know if it has been brought up, but don't you think eventually the Curtiss would've been powered by the R-2800?

 

[Colin1]

...don't you think eventually the Curtiss would've been powered by the R-2800?

Presumably that would be normally aspirated?
Or are we thinking of secretly turning the P-40 into a P-47?

 

[riacrato]

Yes I was thinking that would turn the Curtiss into something like a dirty F4U. Not quite as good but still capable enough and likely still better than any P-39 including the king cobra. Especially if a laminar profile is introduced later (which I don't see why it shouldn't).

The Curtiss probably had the strength to carry such a heavy engine too and it is already proven that it could take a radial.

 

[tomo pauk]

They managed to produce the XP-60 (basically P-40 with R-2800 reworked landing gear), but it was just able to best 400 mph. While still decent speed, it was not enough to compete with what USAAF had in usage in pipeline.

 

[riacrato]

Careful and exhaustive study at wikipedia tells me it managed 666 km/h or 414 mph, arguably good enough for most of the war. Sure it's worse than P-51 or P-47 but imo better than P-39/P-63.

 

[tomo pauk]

As good as Kingcobra - and as fast as Japanese or German opposition.
OTOH, it was judged as not satisfactory by USAAF, proving further that speed was just one category of a plane.

Producing F4U for USAAF (fixed wings, with at least 500 lbs saved) would've been far better step (yet out of scope of this thread).

 

[timshatz]

Yes I was thinking that would turn the Curtiss into something like a dirty F4U. Not quite as good but still capable enough and likely still better than any P-39 including the king cobra. Especially if a laminar profile is introduced later (which I don't see why it shouldn't).

The Curtiss probably had the strength to carry such a heavy engine too and it is already proven that it could take a radial.

Keep in mind the P40 was derived from the P36, which was a radial engined bird. In that respect, putting an R-2800 on it would kinda be a normal evolution...sorta.

 

[Colin1]

The P-40 being described is becoming Uncle Tom's old axe; three new heads and four new shafts.
I don't think there is an evolutionary line between R-1830 and R-2800 simply because both were radials, that's akin to taking the 12Y out of a MS.406 and dropping in a Sabre IIB; the P-40 fuselage would need significant work.

Where is this laminar flow going to exist? Everything directly aft of the prop disk is turbulent and that undercart arrangement is going to spoil everything else, unless we're only seeking it outboard of the main gear.

It's not a P-40 any more.

 

[Shortround6]

Sorry but Curtiss all the way. I don't know if it has been brought up, but don't you think eventually the Curtiss would've been powered by the R-2800?

Not a chance.

unless you turn it into a P-60.
New wing, new landing gear, new fuselage from cockpit forward, New tail.

Yep, it's a P-40, you can tell because we kept the canopy

 

[Shortround6]

Keep in mind the P40 was derived from the P36, which was a radial engined bird. In that respect, putting an R-2800 on it would kinda be a normal evolution...sorta.

Kind of like putting a 7 litre ford V-8 in an old Ford Capri, they were both V engines...sorta....