Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm comparing the performance of two fighter planes that were used at the same time in WWII, the FW190A6 and P-39N. They had different weights and different engines, mainly because they were manufactured by different countries and opposed each other in battle. P-39N was as good (at least) as the FW190A6. Government performance figures prove this.You are comparing two different airframes, that differed in weight by 1800lbs with different types of engine, using different fuel and trying to draw a conclusion about the type of supercharger????
Lets try to compare apples to apples and not apples to brussel sprouts.
P-39N came out in December 1942, how is that too late for the ETO?Military power duration went to 15 minutes, both take off ans WER were set at 5 min duration (though that duration was many times exceeded in heat of combat).
Thing with backfire screens removed in mid 1942 is that it does not help the RAF in 1941 or in 1st half of 1942. The P-39D even with engines making 1150 HP at 12000 ft will not cut it against the LW opposition, while P-39M/N is too late to matter for ETO.
Fw 190 was capable to take off with much greater extenal load, almost 4000 lb total, due to having plenty of power for take off. Having the low speed S/C to choose from was worth 400-600 HP for take off. That also meant that it was capable to make 1900 HP at low level from mid-1943 on, time to climb to 26000 ft was reduced to just 8.5 min on 2700 rpm, speed went to 400+ mph above 13000 ft. link
If a plane has no performance above 10,000ft then if your enemy has, he just climbs straight to 10,000ft. and looks down at you laughing. This happened to early Griffon Spitfires.
It doesn't matter if your vaunted N "came out" in December '42, it's not too late for the ETO, it's too useless for the ETO. Range is unsuitable for 8th AF escort ops, performance is useless for 8th AF escort ops at bomber altitudes, payload and range is useless for 9th AF tactical ops, no climb performance above 10,000 ft for interception duties, and on top of all that, it's too GD slow for the theater as a whole.
Not argumentative, just fact.
Also, after March of 1944 Luftwaffe fighters were so scare that just to see one made you a hit at the O club? Riiiight. Might want to rethink that gem.
P-39N came out in December 1942, how is that too late for the ETO?
Check your date on the linked document in the upper right corner, 12/13/1943. The air war for fighters would be basically over three months later in March 1944. Plenty of bombing and ground attack missions yet to go, but if you even saw a Luftwaffe or Japanese plane after then you were the hit of the officers club that evening. So the FW190 would have this performance for about 3 months. I'll stick with my figures for the FW190A6.
I'm comparing the performance of two fighter planes that were used at the same time in WWII, the FW190A6 and P-39N. They had different weights and different engines, mainly because they were manufactured by different countries and opposed each other in battle. P-39N was as good (at least) as the FW190A6. Government performance figures prove this.
And below 5km altitude (16500') the P-39Ns advantage in both speed and climb is huge. Now, please let me hear from all you "two speed" and crankshaft experts about how big an advantage low gear is. As you can see from the charts the two speed supercharger results in a "sawtooth" speed and climb curve while the single speed P-39N develops its maximum power at 3km (10000') and then gradually declines from there up to the combat ceiling.
The special thing about the Spitfire was it did increase its weight, power firepower but it was as good as the best of the opposition, the P39 never was and was always trying to play catchup. The Spitfire didn't need to lose weight to match with the oppositionThe Spitfire doubled in weight from first to last versions, I cant remember anyone suggesting it would have been a better plane with less guns, armour thinner skin covering etc, possibly because it was a bit of a lightweight next to a "Jug".
Did you look at the graphs? P-39N performance was about the same as the FW190A6 except the P-39 climbed a lot better. No climb performance above 10000'? Did you look at the charts, post #148? Plenty of climb at all altitudes.
It doesn't matter if your vaunted N "came out" in December '42, it's not too late for the ETO, it's too useless for the ETO. Range is unsuitable for 8th AF escort ops, performance is useless for 8th AF escort ops at bomber altitudes, payload and range is useless for 9th AF tactical ops, no climb performance above 10,000 ft for interception duties, and on top of all that, it's too GD slow for the theater as a whole.
Not argumentative, just fact.
Also, after March of 1944 Luftwaffe fighters were so scare that just to see one made you a hit at the O club? Riiiight. Might want to rethink that gem.
Continuing to disagree with you, go to wwiiaircraftperformance.org. Their latest update to the P-39 was in 2012, fairly recent for research. All the other WWII fighters are there (except Russia) with the official government docs for performance. Compare the performance graphs head to head and chronologically. You will find that the German and Japanese planes were not super planes. The P-39 had surprisingly good performance especially after all the negative propaganda you have heard about them for the last 70 years. Fascinating reading and no editorial license, just facts.The special thing about the Spitfire was it did increase its weight, power firepower but it was as good as the best of the opposition, the P39 never was and was always trying to play catchup. The Spitfire didn't need to lose weight to match with the opposition
In 1940 the two best fighters in the world were the 109E and the Spitfire. When the Fw190 entered service it was the best until the Mk IX arrived on the scene. Even late war The Mk XIV was a fighter that could take on the best.
It wasn't perfect but few would deny that range was the one big problem from start to finish. That said the specialised PR versions were arguably the best PR aircraft of the war with an almost astonishing range. It wasn't a great GA aircraft but carried up to a 1000lb of bombs and some (I think) up to 1,500Lb.
The important part of this posting was it (the Spitfire) was as good as the best of the opposition, the P39 never was and was always trying to play catchup.
Oh for goodness sake, we have now entered 1944 with the P-39-N, put your performance figures against the Tempest, Spitfire Mk XIV, P51-B, Corsair and Hellcat.Did you look at the graphs? P-39N performance was about the same as the FW190A6 except the P-39 climbed a lot better. No climb performance above 10000'? Did you look at the charts, post #148? Plenty of climb at all altitudes.
And yes, German and Japanese fighters were extremely scarce (or inept) after March 1944. Air superiority had been won clearing the way for the D-Day invasion in June. The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot that same June proved the Japanese were beaten when the Navy shot down 350 Japanese planes for the loss of 30 some odd Hellcats. The Axis were beaten in the air, everybody knew it and sightings of opposing fighters was indeed rare.
Your link to the FW190 is interesting in that it is dated December 1, 1943 and in the first paragraph says that this investigation is to increase boost in the FW190A8 which began production in Feb 1944. A FW190A5 was used as test bed since they had the same engine. These increases in boost were obviously never put into service as the performance graphs for the A6 and A8 (both later models) do not reflect these performance increases. Go to the site that your link is from, wwiiaircraftperformance.org and look up the FW190A8.Military power duration went to 15 minutes, both take off ans WER were set at 5 min duration (though that duration was many times exceeded in heat of combat).
Thing with backfire screens removed in mid 1942 is that it does not help the RAF in 1941 or in 1st half of 1942. The P-39D even with engines making 1150 HP at 12000 ft will not cut it against the LW opposition, while P-39M/N is too late to matter for ETO.
Fw 190 was capable to take off with much greater extenal load, almost 4000 lb total, due to having plenty of power for take off. Having the low speed S/C to choose from was worth 400-600 HP for take off. That also meant that it was capable to make 1900 HP at low level from mid-1943 on, time to climb to 26000 ft was reduced to just 8.5 min on 2700 rpm, speed went to 400+ mph above 13000 ft. link
Did you look at the graphs? P-39N performance was about the same as the FW190A6 except the P-39 climbed a lot better. No climb performance above 10000'? Did you look at the charts, post #148? Plenty of climb at all altitudes.
And yes, German and Japanese fighters were extremely scarce (or inept) after March 1944. Air superiority had been won clearing the way for the D-Day invasion in June. The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot that same June proved the Japanese were beaten when the Navy shot down 350 Japanese planes for the loss of 30 some odd Hellcats. The Axis were beaten in the air, everybody knew it and sightings of opposing fighters was indeed rare.
P-39N came out in December 1942, how is that too late for the ETO?
Check your date on the linked document in the upper right corner, 12/13/1943. The air war for fighters would be basically over three months later in March 1944. Plenty of bombing and ground attack missions yet to go, but if you even saw a Luftwaffe or Japanese plane after then you were the hit of the officers club that evening. So the FW190 would have this performance for about 3 months. I'll stick with my figures for the FW190A6.
I have done and must have missed something - can you point out to me where the P39 matches the 440 mph of the Spit XIV because I cannot find it, in fact I cannot find where is matches the 413mph of the Spit IX.Continuing to disagree with you, go to wwiiaircraftperformance.org. Their latest update to the P-39 was in 2012, fairly recent for research. All the other WWII fighters are there (except Russia) with the official government docs for performance. Compare the performance graphs head to head and chronologically. You will find that the German and Japanese planes were not super planes. The P-39 had surprisingly good performance especially after all the negative propaganda you have heard about them for the last 70 years. Fascinating reading and no editorial license, just facts.
Edit - As a low altitude aircraft in Europe GA missions are certain. Can you tell us how the P39 compares to other aircraft in this role. I honestly have no idea of the GA capability of the P39 but suspect its little if any apart from the guns.