BlackSheep
Banned
- 443
- May 31, 2018
How many guns does she come with?
P40 Vs all other fighters in Europe
- Thread starter denny
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
How many ya' want?
drgondog
Major
Edgar Schmued was a great design engineer and project manager - but Dutch Kindelberger (and otherd like Paul Ruud) were the genius behind the production methods and kindness. Kindelberger and Atwood were also fine engineers - both key at Douglas for the DC-3 before going to NAA.
I think there are several reasons the Soviets liked the P-39 so much, but the most important IMO were -
The P-39 was more like a Soviet fighter (relatively small, low drag, short range).
It's main flaws ('twitchiness' and potential for a flat spin) were not as unfamiliar to them (I-16, LaGG-3 and MiG-3 had the same problems). So Soviet pilots could handle them.
It was faster than other Lend-Lease fighters and had good climb (at low altitude).
It had the nose armament (they almost always removed the wing guns) and they apparently did like the big gun.
They did a 3 month workup on it before the brought it into combat, working out maintenance issues and tactics.
By the time you get to the later models, the P-39 was basically a Soviet fighter. I think they got most of them. The P-63 was actually built with direct input from two Soviet officers.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Hahah sorry yeah I kinda figured but wasn't sure... I'm not up on all the inside jokes around here...
Thumpalumpacus
Major
It's all good, brotha. I still appreciate you posting that info, though I'd already learnt it from the Thread That Shall Not Be Named®.
Yeah I get it. We all have tendencies to beat a dead horse sometimes. Some more than others...
For as stupid as that thread and several others got, the P-39 is a bit of a baffling mystery, related to some others of a similar nature; chiefly why did some types do so much better in one place than others. I don't think it's as simple as 'the Soviets just lied about everything'.
For as stupid as that thread and several others got, the P-39 is a bit of a baffling mystery, related to some others of a similar nature; chiefly why did some types do so much better in one place than others. I don't think it's as simple as 'the Soviets just lied about everything'.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The I-16 was very light on the controls and had good aileron control. To say all 3 had a potential for a "flat spin" is a broad brush because all 3 had different stability issues and different control responses. Reading the book "Some Still Live" by Frank Tinker, an American mercenary pilots who flew the I-16 during the Spanish Civil War, he seemed to like the aircraft, spoke well about it's guns and said it was faster, more maneuverable and a better climber than the early Bf109s used by the Condor Legion.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I think it's a matter of it working for them because their circumstances (low-altitude, short-range combat environment) minimized the -39's weaknesses. I think also the pilots themselves matter. In SWPA, P-39 pilots who tried to turn-fight a Zero or Ki-43 was usually not long for this earth. You fly the airplane to its strengths, because you know your enemy is going to be trying to expose and exploit your plane's weaknesses.
The Eastern Front's aerial combat regime naturally masked two of the P-39's flaws (anemic performance at altitude, and range). Gritty Soviet pilots did the rest.
I think the I-16 was in many ways an excellent fighter. I agree it had superb aileron control, in fact I gather it had a very high roll rate. That sometimes goes along with a certain amount of instability - as does a short fuselage. My comment about the proclivity for spin is based on the comments by several Soviet pilots, including in that interview with Golodnikov.
I-16, especially once they put 20mm cannon on it, always had potential as a fighter, and it certainly did well in the Spanish Civil War and in Manchuria, it just fell behind in terms of raw speed and power as the war progressed. I don't think any version of I-16 was really competitive with a Bf 109F. The degree of control problems varied with different engines and configurations of guns and other equipment which varied quite a bit with different sub-variants over time. The Soviets liked the I-16 for a long time, but it was regarded as a 'twitchy' plane, and became obsolete during the first year of the war, if it wasn't already.
For that matter, I think the LaGG-3 (eventually) was a good, or at least decent fighter design. They had enormous production quality problems with it, and it was initially underpowered, but both issues also affected the early Yak-1 and other types. By the time they had a 'good' LaGG-3 variant (sometimes in modern times called the -66 variant, though probably some earlier blocks as well) the La-5 was already out and was probably better all around for most purposes.
Being a bit 'twitchy' doesn't make a fighter bad, it's just a characteristic. The P-39 was definitely 'twitchy', the P-40 was also a little bit especially at higher speeds. The Hurricane was much more stable but it didn't do so well in Soviet use (though it still played an important role for them in the early days, because they were so short on decent planes, and it was certainly faster than an I-153).
I agree with a lot of that, and the three month workup the Soviets did with the plane meant they had a head start in understanding it's strengths and weaknesses. Allied units in the early Pacific fighting were often rushed into battle with little to no training on type, I know that was the case with almost all the early P-40 squadrons for sure. But I also suspect there may have been some other issues, like field stripping, and also maybe something to do with the temperature. I gather some aircraft did better in cold or cooler temperature vs. tropical and humid. Which obviously affects air density.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Check out "Density Altitude".
I know this is Wiki, but it gives a good overview:
Density altitude - Wikipedia
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
Nor the Bf 109E. The I-16 may have had some advantages over the Jumo powered Messerschmitt's over Spain, but was thoroughly outclassed by the E-3's and E-7's that it met in the summer of 1941.
Well the I-16 was certainly weaker - especially without radios, but they did occasionally seem to get some victories. There were several I-16 Aces in Russia and I don't think they were all made up (YMMV).
Even if it's say, 20% -30% as good, that can still be of some value and (with the right tactics) offer some challenge.
Even if it's say, 20% -30% as good, that can still be of some value and (with the right tactics) offer some challenge.
Check out "Density Altitude".
I know this is Wiki, but it gives a good overview:
Density altitude - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Thanks. A lot of that is over my head as I lack the math and engineering chops, but this sentence seems to help:
"In hot and humid conditions, the density altitude at a particular location may be significantly higher than the true altitude."
So if I read that correctly, if it's say 100 F and 95% humidity in Guadalcanal, that may mean that performance at Sea Level is equivalent to some number (thousands?) of feet higher. Which might explain P-39 having some trouble.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It's called density altitude and it effects all aircraft.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
Think of density altitude as the altitude that the aircraft FEELS its at. It may be operating at sea level, but with a density altitude of 3000' for example
