P-39 vs P-40

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

gjs238 said:
I would much prefer to see a scan of original documentation stating this policy. Otherwise this is speculation.
Click to expand...

Well, I have read this in many articles, books, etc. Not one in particular to scan. Any reading on the development of the P-38 will point out that it was in fact first developed for bomber interception, and very small production numbers to boot. This caused the Lightning to being almost handmade and very costly. Once the Air Corps wanted thousands, Lockheed had to retool and do a redesign to enable the plane to be more easily made on a production line. This is also one of the delays of its arrival to the inventory.

During about this same time, the P-39 and P-40 were either in use or being put into use. I have also read that these aircraft were intended for mid to low altitude deployment, thus no emphasis on turbocharging the aircraft, by both the manufacturers and the Air Corps.

I don't think there is too much speculation.
 
"The Lockheed P-38 was designed in response to a 1937 US Army Air Corps (USAAC) specification designated "Project X608" for a fast high-altitude twin-engine interceptor, capable of 580 KPH at an altitude of 6,100 meters (360 MPH at 20,000 feet). Five companies -- Consolidated, Curtiss, Douglas, Lockheed, and Vultee submitted proposals.

The Lockheed team was under the direction of Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, who would eventually design a string of famous aircraft up to the SR-71 Blackbird Mach 3 spy plane. Johnson's initial concepts for the new fighter covered a range of configurations, but the Lockheed team finally decided on a scheme with twin booms to accommodate the engines, and with the pilot and armament in a central nacelle. The aircraft was designated the "Lockheed Model 22". The engines were to be supercharged 12-cylinder, vee-inline, water-cooled Allison V-1710 engines.

When Johnson selected the Allison, it had not been rated at even 746 kW (1,000 HP), but it was really the only large inline engine available in the US at the time. The propellers would rotate in opposite directions to eliminate the effect of torque. The General Electric B-1 superchargers were positioned in the booms, behind the engines. Armament was to consist of four machine guns in the nose of the nacelle, clustered around a cannon. The design featured tricycle landing gear, making the aircraft one of the first with such a feature."

The Lockheed P-38 Lightning
 
And this on Operation August Storm (1945):

Soviet air force support of the Kuriles invasion [3]

The Soviet air cover and support for the Shimushu landings were provided by the 128 SAD, their 888 IAP had the P-63 Kingcobra, which they had received only in August 1945, before that they remained the last active Soviet fighter regiment with the I-16. The 410 ShAP, also of the same division also had converted to the P-63, in their case from the Il-2 (It is uncertain but possible that they may have been redesignated as 410 IAP.). The third regiment in the division flew a mixture of A-20 and SB bombers, and a few PV-1s which had been interned prior to August 1945.
The naval torpedo bomber unit was the 2 MTAD (division), consisting of the 4 MTAP (Il-4 DB-3), 49 MTAP (Il-4, A-20G, A-20H), 52 MTAP (DB-3).

MM
 
michaelmaltby said:
VG-33 check out the attached link for source of "LL agreement not to use P-63against Germany in the West":

Bell P-63 Kingcobra - History, Specifications and Pictures - World Military Aircraft


MM
Click to expand...

A kind of bullshit i think, your link. Never heard about LL agreement, Kochetov and Suprun went in feb 44 in USA for testing Kingcobras, first one delivered in june 44 via ALSIB. They had twisted one plane (high G) and broke another one during spin trials. Asked for structural enforcements. Both LII and NII tested kingcobras (in SU) from late 1944 to march 1945. In april 45 the comission allowed the use of that plane in VVS units. (That mean no operationnal use before, even in rear training units) The first regiment to be equipped with that plane was the 28th IAP from the Moscow PVO. Followed by 17e and 821e IAP in august. On may the 1st, all PVO units had 51 P-63 on their own.
No King in frontline units, except 2 or 3 ones, somewhere, sometimes, for operationnal study maybe.

From Viktor Koulikov, P-39 and P-63 in USSR, Avions N°90, Sept 2000.

Regards
 
Last edited:
VG:33 - " ... Viktor Koulikov, P-39 and P-63 in USSR, Avions N°90, Sept 2000.... "

A link would be nice.

Bullshit or not - the idea that several pairs of P-63's were put in operation in the Baltic region in 1945 (Kronigsnerg/Danzig ??) seems totally realistic.

MM
 
VG:33:
" ...By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East for an eventual attack on Japan. However, there are many unconfirmed reports from both the Soviet and German side that P-63s did indeed see service against the Luftwaffe. Most notably, one of Pokryshkin's pilots reports in his memoirs published in the 1990s that the entire 4th GvIAP was secretly converted to P-63s in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. One account states they were in action at Königsberg, in Poland and in the final assault on Berlin. There are German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show nothing but P-39s used against Germany.

Believable .. or fantasy like the 777 Squadron ..?

MM
 
The P-39 could outmaneuver Bf-109's in tests all the time...until they added the monster 37mm and the other machine guns. They both performed their best at low altitudes but the cumbersome weapons on the P-39 hampered it's ability. The P-39 was much more rugged against gunfire though...
 
Here are some questions.

Why would there be an agreement disallowing the P63 for use against Germany?

Were there any other such agreements regarding any other lend lease material?

What was to be gained by the Soviets sneaking a few P63s into service against the Luftwaffe where they already had overwhelming numerical superiority? It's not like the P63 was a world beater performance wise.

Why does this document: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/documents/files/Part_7_section_1.pdf
not list any P63s delivered through lend-lease. Where they actual purchases, rather than lend lease?

Why do so many articles claim the Soviets downplayed the contribution of lend lease aircraft (when they are taking about the P63), yet everyone knows the Soviets gave plenty of praise to the P39 Kobra? Cold War era, sure, but now?

And here's something the aeronauticaly inclinded might find interesting. ClMax figures for the P39D.
 

Attachments

  • P39Dclmax.JPG
    70.5 KB · Views: 185
Last edited:
hello Flyboyj
you can find test results from here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/soviet-turning-time-tests-comments-please-19130.html
on the first page are the test results with my comments with info on Finnish tests, there are two of them, lower is an updated version. I'll post a still more updated version soon with at least Polikarpov's bi-plane info added, that info is from VG-33's post in the thread.

Altitude 1000m, if 2 times they are left/right turn times.
Tested 109 types, F-4, this seems to have had some problems, at least its top speed was a on low side.
G-2 and G-2/R6, both seemed to have been in good condition. Soviet also tested at least some 109Es

Juha
 

Juda;

Those were turn test and I remember seeing them, thanks for posting. Our friend's statement "The P-39 could outmaneuver Bf-109's in tests all the time" leave some very subjective questions and arguments. In actuality I think its make by someone who plays a lot of IL-2 rather than researching actual performance data.
 
Hello Flyboyj
sorry, my bad. In a hurry I added in my mind the words "on horizontal plane" in the claim "The P-39 could outmaneuver Bf-109's in tests all the time".
In vertical maneuvers, which IMHO were more important than horizontal maneuvers in air combat, 109 was better than contemporary P-39 version.

Juha
 
claidemore said:
Why does this document: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/documents/files/Part_7_section_1.pdf
not list any P63s delivered through lend-lease. Where they actual purchases, rather than lend lease?
Click to expand...
Maybe in some appendices. Since this is not the deliveries list, just the agreement act.



And here's something the aeronauticaly inclinded might find interesting. ClMax figures for the P39D.
Click to expand...

Very informative thank you, even high Cl values seemed to be obtained in kind of dynamic way. They are far higher than those obtained by the NII-VVS for the Me-109E-3.

This might explain a lot of things.

VG-33
 
Last edited:
claidemore said:
Why do so many articles claim the Soviets downplayed the contribution of lend lease aircraft (when they are taking about the P63), yet everyone knows the Soviets gave plenty of praise to the P39 Kobra? Cold War era, sure, but now?
Click to expand...

What they were downplaying, as far as I understand, was the quantity of the aid, not the quality of the planes received. Their Heroes Of The Great Patriotic War could praise the P-39 as much as they wanted, as long as the Party made it clear that those handfuls of planes were drops in the bucket compared to Soviet aircraft production.
 
Hello Demetrious
I'm not sure, because what you wrote mean that Communist Party of SU was ready to accept that gready capitalists with they lackeys could produce as good products as the First Socialist State in history in spite of the guiding hand of its never erring Politbyro directing its glorious scientists and in spite of all the resources its beloved leader and always efficient peoples had directed to aerodynamic research institutes.

Juha
 
Claidemore - you've asked three good questions.

I've been thinking about the "Agreement of 1943" re P-63 use by the Soviets. It may well have been an agreement about aircraft delivery -- after all - the Bell plant started P-63 deliveries in late 1943. Until then, more P-39's had been delivered in crates via sea to Iran, assembled there and delivered to the front - than had been flow in via Alaska. Virtually all P-63's were flown - which makes sense if they were for use in the Eastern Campaign (August Storm).

My previous post (#64) quotes a reference to a participating unit in August Storm re-equipping from I-16's to P-63's in August 1945. If this is indeed true (VG 33 why don't you confirm or disprove) the unit would have had no time whatsoever before taking the P-63 operational.

BUT - it suggests that the Soviets didn't see the P-63 as a replacement for the P-39 units but rather as an upgrade for air units operating obsolete or less competitive machines (such as the I-16).

Having a few seasoned P-39 pilots evaluate the P-63 in combat in the west would make a lot of sense - new laminar flow wing, new C of G with the 37 mm canon shifted. etc. etc.

Why there is no mention of P-63's in L.L. documents? -- I can't fathom. Are there other examples of controls on L.L. aircraft -- the Russians wanted the B-17 and the answer was no -- they wanted the B-26 and the answer was no. (We know how they got the B-17 technology and the B-29 anyway)

But, all in all, I don't think there is anything conspiratorial about P-63 delivery and use - just the Soviets staging material into East in preparation for a HUGE, HUGE OFFENSIVE. Which the Soviet Command pulled off on schedule - three months to the day after V.E. Day - per their Yalta commitment.

Unlike the western allies - who had plans to transfer resources to the Pacific for the final fight - the Soviets had the resources to mount August Storm without transferring a single plane.tank or soldier out of Europe.

All in all quite a feat and little appreciated in the west.

MM
Toronto
 
Last edited:
Further to the above: [From www.lendlease.ru]

"... American Lend-lease to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

- "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941
- first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
- second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
- third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)

- fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered only 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to Russia was terminated..."

MM
 
MM:
What it looks like to me, just a theory, was that there was no stipulation to 'not' use the P63 against Germany, just an understanding that the P63's would be used to build up for the operation against Japan.
This makes sense, as there was no urgent need for another new fighter design to use against the Luftwaffe, and no reason for the Americans to stipulate that it not be used there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
1K
Snautzer01
M
P-39 Turbo - Here We Go Again
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregP
P-39-style fighter by other people?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
GrauGeist
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CHen10
Menu
Log in
Register