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
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
13 March, 1943
Ten P-39s from 93rd Squadron and two from 91st engaged in a strafing mission over La Fauconnerie were bounced by a large formation of JG 77 Bf 109s led by Major Muenchenberg. The Germans claimed 13 kills between seven pilots, The 81st lost seven a/c, with six pilots becoming POWs and one evading back to friendly lines.
source: A History of the Mediterranean Air War 1940 - 1945, Shores, et al.
I've pulled too many aircraft off the runway with a collapsed nosewheel after this sort of landing to accept that it is a good way of landing, regardless of experience level.
My girlfriend watched her favorite airplane in the world, the one she took her Private Pilot checkride in, a Beech Sundowner, make a solid, level attitude three-point landing, then crow-hop off the runway to wind up in a heap in the grass. This due to the ham-fisted efforts of a newly retired full bird Colonel B-52 driver with 10K hours in heavy iron.
Incidentally, both mains and one wing failed laterally, but the nosewheel stayed intact!
Cheers,
Wes
A number of my students over the years have done BETTER than that on their very first flight, making their very first landing entirely unassisted on the controls, albeit with some verbal coaching. And as for the instructor "doing the flare and landing", it wasn't quite like that. Been there, done that. Thousands of times. I can tell when the instructor "took over"; more like "helped out". That happened just before touchdown after the student had set up the flare but wasn't bringing the nose up far enough to curtail the rate of descent. The instructor applied just enough back pressure to prevent a nose plant. This student obviously wasn't yet comfortable with the ailerons; witness the wing rocking going on right down practically to touchdown. That instructor's got bigger cajones than I. I wouldn't get into landing until my student had gotten over that wing-rocking nervousness, 15 or 20 minutes at most.
Cheers,
Wes
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Absolutely. Add to that the US radar would not be in theater until August '42. Just two squadrons of P-39s initially. No plane on earth at that time could intercept bombers between 18-22000' from the ground. They had to have early warning but since there was no radar yet they had to fly patrols and only a couple of planes could be spared at any one time. First contact was 4/30/42 followed by multiple raids daily. With adequate warning the P-39s could (and did) get up to 23000' to intercept the bombers, but they were still outnumbered and very green. They did pretty well considering.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 853
- Feb 16, 2013
I would say that computer flight sims have changed a bit in the 25 years since Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe was released.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Unless they changed enough to provide full movement, simulated pilot g loading and no synthetic latency, they are still nothing but toys.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Sims have certainly come a long way since the 80's/90's, but still cannot provide all the sensory input that a person encounters while flying (or driving).
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
"...but still cannot provide all the sensory input that a person encounters while flying."
Nor do you get scared when you hear an airplane announce as inbound, reporting the same place you are, and you can't find him.
I recall once in particular being about to report I was over the Thomas Bridge at LA Harbor, and hearing another airplane announce as being over the same bridge. Then I looked over and saw I was basically flying formation with a red and orange T-6. I reported I was over the bridge too and had the T-6 in sight.
Nor do you get scared when you hear an airplane announce as inbound, reporting the same place you are, and you can't find him.
I recall once in particular being about to report I was over the Thomas Bridge at LA Harbor, and hearing another airplane announce as being over the same bridge. Then I looked over and saw I was basically flying formation with a red and orange T-6. I reported I was over the bridge too and had the T-6 in sight.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 853
- Feb 16, 2013
I would never suggest it is a potential replacement for actual training. However, to suggest they can play ZERO role is flight training is also incorrect. When I was doing my private license training 20 years ago, my flight school had a few open desktops with whatever the latest Microsoft Flight Simulator installed. We were encouraged to play around with the program, and specifically work on our VOR skills.
They CAN play a small role in flight training - as a procedures trainer, which is what you were working on. Even having posters of hte cockpit layout is an aid to training. But they are just that - a training aid, for a very specific part of the training, which isn't what was shown on the video.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I agree that on the whole Japanese pilots were a very aggressive lot that fought with a lot of tenacity and vigor, rarely "bugging out" when the going got tough for them. This made them a very difficult enemy to defeat because you'd more often than not have a fight to the death on your hands, regardless if he had sufficient stick time to be fully proficient at his trade. The problem is that the Luftwaffe has been held in such high regard by postwar authors that it's extremely hard to separate the legend that was created from actual reality.....
Don't forget authentic sound, vibrations, weather effects...
As a crew member, private pilot and former maintainer, I will never agree that your average sim is anything more than a game. Full motion commercial flight sims are a different thing though. There is a reason you can log sim time for IFR training.
Speaking of full motion flight sims though, I have one hour booked in a 737-800 full motion sim with flight instructor this weekend.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And I've used them for my instrument rating and when working on y CFII and they were great for precision flying "by the numbers" but to believe that you're going to determine how a high performance aircraft is going to perform during simulated combat conditions is ridiculous.
My girlfriend, who's had one initial and three recurrent training sequences in those (737-800) at American, says you'll never mistake it for real flight, but it'll still make you sweat. She says it's faithful to reality except in situations where complicated transitions and interactions are happening together, such as flare to landing. Then the computer gets a little bit overloaded with all the motion calculations and lags slightly behind the pace of events, such that the same flare technique that gets you a greaser in the plane will give you a thump in the sim. And if you master greasers in the sim, be ready for a rude shock in the plane.
Cheers,
Wes
parsifal
Colonel
On paper, P-39 exchange rates in the air with A6M looks quite favourable. Unfortunately most accounts are based on post war claims data by the US forces, which ended up being summarised in the USSBS. Problem is, the claims, like all claims data is generally wildly inaccurate. As an example, the first raid in which P-39s rose to fight A6Ms over Moresby occurred May 9 1942. I don't think there was a combat between A6Ms and P-39s before that date in this TO. Allies claimed three A6Ms downed for no losses in the air. problem is, there were no losses to the A6Ms, not even a scratch. this kind of inaccurate reporting continued for the entire first deployment of the 8FG to the end of July.
To be fair, I don't think it was the aircraft mismatch alone. Average approach altitude for the IJA bombers was 24000 feet, coming in over the owen Stanleys. Because of those mountains, early warning until the end of 1942 in this TO was limited to about 40miles. there wasn't time for the P-39s to reach them, and even them at 24k the p-39s handled like pigs, hence their nickname. Most days the p-39s just took off in the opposite direction....better to be airborne and out of harms way than airborne targets I guess.
The second unique factor to consider at this time was the quality of the pilots. it was the tainan air gp, including the famous lae wing. Lae Wing included such greats as Sakai and nishizawa. In the whole of 1942, only two pilots of this super elite group were lost in the air (according to one source at least...put it this way, there were just 15 a/c and about 39 pilots, and nearly all of these guys fought on in later campaigns. in 1943-4, where the wing member did suffer a lot more fatalities. .For 1942, there were other losses over moresby which I haven't tallied from Rabaul.
For me guys, claiming the p-39 was fully the equal to the A6M over port morersby does not hold up to scrutiny.
To be fair, I don't think it was the aircraft mismatch alone. Average approach altitude for the IJA bombers was 24000 feet, coming in over the owen Stanleys. Because of those mountains, early warning until the end of 1942 in this TO was limited to about 40miles. there wasn't time for the P-39s to reach them, and even them at 24k the p-39s handled like pigs, hence their nickname. Most days the p-39s just took off in the opposite direction....better to be airborne and out of harms way than airborne targets I guess.
The second unique factor to consider at this time was the quality of the pilots. it was the tainan air gp, including the famous lae wing. Lae Wing included such greats as Sakai and nishizawa. In the whole of 1942, only two pilots of this super elite group were lost in the air (according to one source at least...put it this way, there were just 15 a/c and about 39 pilots, and nearly all of these guys fought on in later campaigns. in 1943-4, where the wing member did suffer a lot more fatalities. .For 1942, there were other losses over moresby which I haven't tallied from Rabaul.
For me guys, claiming the p-39 was fully the equal to the A6M over port morersby does not hold up to scrutiny.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Have you read Eagles of the Southern Skies?
Ruffato does a pretty good job corroborating allied and Japanese claims during April to November 1942.
The first encounter with P-39s occurred on 6 April 1942. The Japanese claimed 2 P-39s and three other fighters for no losses, and did get 2 RAAF Kittywawks, but no P-39s.
The first Airacobra kill vs a Tainan Zero occurred on 30 April 1942, near Lea (FPO2c Izumi Hideo KIA), and the first kill over Port Moresby occurred the following day when Lt Don McGee bounced FPO2c Arita Yoshisuke while strafing.
Ruffato compares claims and losses day by day for the Tainan AG and their opponents to build a more accurate picture of the air fighting over New Guinea and Rabaul during the tenure of the Tainan AG. Based on reported losses, the Tainan shot down 81 a/c of all types over New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago, losing 42 pilots to all causes. This does not include fighting in the Solomons.
Ruffato does a pretty good job corroborating allied and Japanese claims during April to November 1942.
The first encounter with P-39s occurred on 6 April 1942. The Japanese claimed 2 P-39s and three other fighters for no losses, and did get 2 RAAF Kittywawks, but no P-39s.
The first Airacobra kill vs a Tainan Zero occurred on 30 April 1942, near Lea (FPO2c Izumi Hideo KIA), and the first kill over Port Moresby occurred the following day when Lt Don McGee bounced FPO2c Arita Yoshisuke while strafing.
Ruffato compares claims and losses day by day for the Tainan AG and their opponents to build a more accurate picture of the air fighting over New Guinea and Rabaul during the tenure of the Tainan AG. Based on reported losses, the Tainan shot down 81 a/c of all types over New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago, losing 42 pilots to all causes. This does not include fighting in the Solomons.
parsifal
Colonel
Tainan AG after its deployment to 17AA command in NG initially concentrated its aircraft at Lae to prosecute the Australian and American forces stationed at Moresby. Between April and July, the Tainan Air Group flew 51 missions, totalling 602 sorties. Not all of these were offensive and not all the missions that were offensive were flown against moresby. According to the translated version of Hata, during this time, the unit claimed to have destroyed 300 enemy aircraft, an obviously far fetched number. The Tainan's losses were 20 aircraft, however the majority of these losses were either from ground fire or due to non-operational losses, like getting lost, About half those pilots were killed. Replacement aircraft gave the unit a total of 24 Zeros by August 1942, flown by 55 pilots. Because of the surplus in aircrew, only the most experienced pilots were allowed to fly combat missions. There were virtually no losses in actual air combat to allied units until very late in 1942, notwithstanding the source material that you are quoting..
As I said the majority of loss reports in nearly every western book written on the subject are massively flawed for the simple reason they accept, lock stock and barrel the claims based figures of the reports done at the time. At the end of the war, the USN (and I think the USAAC) conducted a detailed survey of losses, weeding out some of the more obvious errors from the wartime daily returns but retaining the same basic flaw….they rely on one side's only loss reports. Because the japanese never did get around to publishing their own loss reports, many authors think its okay to do that. I don't.
Hata, Ikuhiko; Yasuho Izawa (1975 (original) 1989 (translation)). Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II. Translated by Don Cyril Gorham. Annapolis: US Naval Institute Press
As I said the majority of loss reports in nearly every western book written on the subject are massively flawed for the simple reason they accept, lock stock and barrel the claims based figures of the reports done at the time. At the end of the war, the USN (and I think the USAAC) conducted a detailed survey of losses, weeding out some of the more obvious errors from the wartime daily returns but retaining the same basic flaw….they rely on one side's only loss reports. Because the japanese never did get around to publishing their own loss reports, many authors think its okay to do that. I don't.
Hata, Ikuhiko; Yasuho Izawa (1975 (original) 1989 (translation)). Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II. Translated by Don Cyril Gorham. Annapolis: US Naval Institute Press
