Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Ju 88 was originally designed as a fast bomber with a very thin body, 2 men crew and close to no defensive armament (1 light machinegun). Very similar to what the Mosquito later would become. There were always problems with the bomb bay being too small for 250 let alone 500 kg bombs. Nevertheless it could carry up to 28 50 kg bombs internally (1400kg). Maybe you should be a little more respectful and search twice before calling one of the best planes of the war pathetic?
Do we have data for bomber cruising speed and endurance while carrying a payload? Specifically I would like to see:
He-111H while carrying 8 x 250kg bombs in the bomb bay.
Ju-88A while carrying 2,000kg externally on hardpoints.
True, but it might have been better two split the production into two series: One with the original layout and 2 seat cockpit and one that would become the A-series. The plane would have been a lot more impressive as a fast bomber without the extra weight of the dive bombing equipment, crew defensive armament, bomb racks etc.In any case, the Ju 88A was hugely versatile, and I am not meaning the airframe's adaptability here, but the very single Ju 88A-4 type, you could use it as light fast bomber against soft targets with internal load of 1400 kg as you mentioned (the speed w/o the external racks was pretty high, 510 km/h)
Drgndog, thank you for the reply. I have always been fascinated by the P-39 and have tried to understand more about the politics that went into its manufacture and supply to the USSR (considering its supposed reputation).
The soviet pilots preferred the P-39 to the P-40's and Hurricanes that they received. Yet by popular accounts in the West the P-39 was a death trap and the P-40 and Hurricane were solid performers that in the hands of trained pilots could be very effective.
What is it about the Russian application that made the P-39 appealing?
Dave Bender is correct from all I have read and heard. The strike zone for that Allison was SL to about 15K[/B]
I think the Soviets liked the P-39 because it was 'modern' - sleek, tricycle landing gear, comfortable cabin (when the big gun wasn't in use), but most of all they liked the 37mm gun + 2 50's in the nose. Remember - these are pilots who were taught to get close, closer, before opening up - and they're al medium to low altitudes where the Cobra was responsive.
I believe they junked the 37 and put the 23 in as replacement. Don't know much about Sov attitude toward 'sleek' - Lol. God knows they had enough a/c types that remind one of 'Olga' from fat farm.
Interesting that both the Mig-15 and Mig-17 carried on the same legacy of the 37.
The MiG 37 was one helluva lot better weapon than our worthless POS
There is a website devoted to USSR Lend-Lease material - operated from Russia but with links to University of Buffalo, NY. (sorry, no URL but google it if you're interested). They have great P-39 photo collections and pilot interview transcripts.
The WW2 legacy of Bell and the Russians is, I believe, very note worthy. I just wish people would stop bad-mouthing the P-39. The Russians didn't bust tanks with the 37mm - they only received HE rounds from the US, no AP. The Aircobras flew top cover on the IL Sturmaviks and there were real fur ball fights.
I'd welcome on lines posts with anyone who can bring additional light on the hands-on use of the P-39 or P-63 (any ex-P-63 Pinball pilots out there?).
I knew Chuck Yeager had no combat time in P-39's but he DID do his advanced fighter training in it - and - he liked the cordite fumes in the cockpit (it's claimed). Yeager and the Russians.
Chairs,
MM
Toronto
I'll see what I can find, but this is a good comparison that can be reflected in the Tiger-vs-Sherman tanks. The Tiger was hands-down preferred, but in the time it took to produce one Tiger, the big automakers could produce a dozen Shermans...or more.
Thanks to all who have picked up the P-39 thread. It's great to encounter people as interested (and more qualified) as I am on this subject.
I would add a few thoughts to the last few posts.
I do NOT believe the soviets pulled the Oldsmobile canon from the P-39 and replaced it with a 23mm. The British-ordered P-400 (Caribou) which the Brits declared unsuitable used a 20mm instead of the Olds 37 - and some of these P-400's went to the soviets directly from Britain. Other P-400's went to the Pacific for use by the USAAF. BUT - the Bell-delivered P-39s all used the Olds canon, along with the subsequent P-63 KIngcobra.
I am checking other references. First the D-1 which was the Lend Lease version to both RAF and USSR replaced the 37mm M4 with the 20mm Hispano. Quite a few of these were delivered to Soviets by Bell with the Hispano.
Second the succeeding versions including the P-39N and Q as well as the P-63 were delivered with the 37mm M4.
I know I have seen references to the both the Hispano and the M4 being replaced by the 23mm because of a.) continued jamming problems, and b.) logistical availability of the 23mm. Until I find those references I stand corrected
Aircraft Deliveries
From this link you can navigate to the airtcrast pix and first-person accounts.
Chairs,
MM
Toronto
All true - altho the Wildcat - as delivered to the Cactus AF - was also outclassed by the Zero - and like the P-39 - went on to modification and continued production by GM right up to the war's end.
Very true. It served the USSR well and was replaced by better fighters more aligned with eveolving USAAF tactics after 1942. The 39 and the 400's were what we had - and that is what we fought with early along with the P-40
Humor me a little here - the P-39 was called Iron Dog for a good reason. But the blame for that moniker goes to USAAF decision makers, not Larry Bell and his design team. A fully turbocharged P-39 with 20 mm canon might have done very well in the Solomons - we'll never know.
True, and the same can be said for the P-51A/A-36. A bastard stepchild until the airwar in ETO splashed cold water on the strategic bombing doctrine that said the bombers could get through with no escort.
Here is one reference regarding replacement of the 37mm M4 and the 20mm M1 by USSR but not clear if immediate or mid operations when spare parts were scarce.
Airacobras in the Soviet Union
As I admitted in my first post: I'm fascinated by the "poltics" of weapon production - especially aircraft. And I love the "one man's meat is another's poison" factor. The P-39 was overshadowed by the P-38 in the minds of USAAF planners (rightly so). The P-39 was designed around the Olds canon. While not quite the case with the P-38 - it too was originally armed with the big gun.
The P-38, like the P-47 was designed as high altitude interceptor - hence the focus on high altitude performance and firepower
History - especially wartime history - is full of delicious twists and ironies. I see the development and deployment of the Bell platforms as examples of those twists and turns. Did it change the course of the war - certainly not. But did it reveal the thinking of both Americans and soviets (and alter their respective views on subsequent production): most definately yes.
[I'm willing to bet that there were Soviet pilots flying Mig-15's against Sabres and B-29's in Korea, 1951 that flew P-39's and/or P-63's against the Japanese in 1945. Not unreasonable, is it? I'd love confirmation]
There was a high percentage of MiG 15 aces that were Guards pilots in WWII - have no idea whether theu flew against Japanese - but certainly against the Germans in P-39s
BTB - have you encountered this mythical 777 American volunteer group serving in Russia - that I referenced?
Thanks for the clarifications. Your reference to the P-51A/A-36 system is another "ironic" twist. The specs were from the RAF and were essentially intended for Curtis - as I understand it - but N. American said - "why not design a new platform" - and not just refine the P-40. And the N.American team came up with the Allison-powered P-51 [roughly the same price as as a Curtis P-40].
A slightly different view was that the RAF was on a buying mission for P-40's and Curtis was out of capacity trying to fill USAAF orders. NAA was able to convince the RAF that they had ability to a.) design a better fighter, and b.) achieve the same production numbers as Curtis if they built another plant.
The price for the P-51A was about 10K/unit higher on initial order but the Curtis team couldn't deliver to RAF schedule at any price.
As the A-36 dive bomber in Italy and the Med, it reportedly acquitted itself very well ... BUT ... it was the marriage of the airframe and laminar-flow wings to the RR Merlin ... that created the dream machine.
Unquestionably - and the Mustang I/P-51A and A-36 were all flying low to medium altitude missions - either Recce or fighter bomber. While not as good against 109 and 190 comparatively, the 51A still was a relatively close match in those engagements
Did you take in the news within the last day or two that the Soviet pilot [claimed] that shot down Senator McCain died of cancer in Moscow ...? Talk about IRONY and twists and turns.
Chairs,
MM
Toronto
Hello Drgondog
only few Soviet AF Cobras had their M4s replaced by 23mm cannon, vast majority fought with M4.
Juha