SHOULD the P39 have been able to handle the Zero? Was it training or performance?

[wuzak]

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.

I think what Spitfire XII pilots found is that the Germans could not really distinguish between a Spitfire V, a Spitfire IX and a Spitfire XII at distance.

The 109 and 190s in service at that time could comfortable handle a V, the IX was a handful for them, particularly at higher altitudes, and the XII would span them at low altitudes.

Not being able to clearly identify which version of Spitfire was in the area, the Luftwaffe would be reluctant to engage.

PS: Not sure if Spitfire Vs remained in service in the ETO in early 1943, when the XII was deployed.

 

[pbehn]

I think what Spitfire XII pilots found is that the Germans could not really distinguish between a Spitfire V, a Spitfire IX and a Spitfire XII at distance.

The 109 and 190s in service at that time could comfortable handle a V, the IX was a handful for them, particularly at higher altitudes, and the XII would span them at low altitudes.

Not being able to clearly identify which version of Spitfire was in the area, the Luftwaffe would be reluctant to engage.

PS: Not sure if Spitfire Vs remained in service in the ETO in early 1943, when the XII was deployed.

I just read it a few days ago, production Mk XIIs all had clipped wings so perhaps not so difficult to tell at a distance.

 

[Shortround6]

A fair number of MK Vs had clipped wings.

MK Vs with cropped impeller engines had some rather startling climb rates even if top speed was a bit low.

I have thought of another reason that P-39s weren't used as bomb trucks.
This is speculation but the P-39 was a ground loving airplane.
A P-39L with the 1325hp take-off power engine needed 1600ft of runway at 7800lbs, Zero head wind and at 0 degrees C. This weight would be without bomb or drop tank. Other models needed just a bit more.
A P-40E with an 1150hp engine needs the same 1600ft at 8700lbs. That is with drop tank or 500lb with slightly reduced fuel or ammo.
The only US fighters to need significantly more runway to take-off clean, at sea level, were the P-47 and P-61.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Starting from July 1944 all Fw 190 A-8 aircraft will be equipped with "increased emergency". By overridding the supercharger boost regulator, boost pressures are increased at take-off and emergency power in low supercharger setting from 1,42 ata to 1,58 ata and at the high supercharger setting from 1,42 to 1,65 ata.

Nothing on the FW190A8 performance charts shows any boost setting over 1.42. And by July 1944 the air war was truly lost for the Luftwaffe, so too little too late.

 

[Elmas]

Could have been this plane the best fighter of WWII?

Just add somewhere in the airframe a couple of MGs...

 

[P-39 Expert]

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.
Or to make it easier for you, where does the P39 match the Spitfire IX climb rate at sea level of 4,700 ft/min at 7,000ft, I can only find 4,000 ft/min for the P39N. If we wish we can look at altitude but the best I can find for the P39 is 15,000 ft where I can find 3,230 ft/min. The Spit was climbing at 3,480 ft/min at approx. 25,000 ft where the P39N seems to max out at 1,940 ft/min which isn't good.
If you want to compare the P39D against a Spit V feel free.

As you say its 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.

Just the facts, Spit XIV production was started in late 1943 and operational service was mainly from 1944. P-51B entered combat in 1944 (Dec. 1943). P-39N was in service from Dec. '42, a full year earlier.
And no, N could not climb with the Spit IX, but then nothing could. N could substantially outclimb a FW190 at all altitudes.

 

[wuzak]

Just the facts, Spit XIV production was started in late 1943 and operational service was mainly from 1944. P-51B entered combat in 1944 (Dec. 1943). P-39N was in service from Dec. '42, a full year earlier.

Deliveries of P-39Ns started in December 1942. They weren't in service in 1942.

From an earlier post:

You have an 'interesting' view of the air war in the ETO. You are also seemingly clueless regarding 'gestation period' to introduce a new model, produce it in quantity and deploy it in Group level strength. AFAIK, four US Fighter Groups Began receiving P-39N for combat deployment in Q3/1943 - the 354th, 357th & 363rd destined for 9th AF CAS role for ETO in November-December 1943. The 332nd FG destined for 12th AF and also CAS role went to MTO in November 1943. The decision was made that the ETO bound FG's would convert immediately as the first combat deployed P-51B-1 and prepare for CAS role leading up and through D-Day. The 332nd also left the P-39Ns in the States, and converted to P-40N upon arrival, then P-47D, then P-51B/C in June 1944.

 

[wuzak]

And no, N could not climb with the Spit IX, but then nothing could. N could substantially outclimb a FW190 at all altitudes.

Not much could. But I believe some versions of the Bf109G at around the same time could. Bearing in mind that the IX gained power over its life as it went from the standard F.IX with Merlin 63 to the HF.IX with Merlin 70 and the LF.IX with Merlin 66. It was the latter whose climb statistics are normally quoted. Prototypes of the HF.IX were testing in late 1942, so probably stated appearing in mid to late 1943.

 

[pbehn]

Just the facts, Spit XIV production was started in late 1943 and operational service was mainly from 1944. P-51B entered combat in 1944 (Dec. 1943). P-39N was in service from Dec. '42, a full year earlier.
And no, N could not climb with the Spit IX, but then nothing could. N could substantially outclimb a FW190 at all altitudes.

The Spitfire of course was in service at the start of the war, the prototype for the Mk IX flew in September 1941, the first test aircraft in Feb 1942 and production started in June 1942. The first Griffon Spitfire the Mk XII outperformed the Mk IX up to 20,000 ft and entered service in Feb 1943.

Please note the RAF were not tasked with the single problem of the FW190 over France. They had to also halt high level German recon planes and low level tip and run raids. Additionally they needed to perform high and low level recon themselves against improving opposition and cope with (x) the unknown. Since the USA was producing 2000BHP+ radials and RR were producing 2,000BHP+ water cooled "V"s there was nothing to stop another shock like the FW190 appearing, as it did with the V1 and Me 262.

In all of the above the P39 was either not up to the job at all or about a year behind the curve.

 

[Peter Gunn]

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.

Look, you seem like an intelligent and well read guy, I suggest you read drgondogs post #256 carefully and take it to heart. As I've said, I think the P-39 is one of the best looking fighters of WWII, and I believe that low down over the steppes of Russia it found its niche. But as literally ANYTHING else it was next to useless.

As I stated ( and others as well ), it DID NOT have the performance needed to escort 8th AF bombers ( Range, Speed, Climb, Firepower were all lacking ( dreadfully so ) ) so it was useless to 8th FC.

It DID NOT have the ability to be a bomb truck so it was useless to the 9th AF as its inability to haul any type of useful load any distance squashed that idea.

It DID NOT have the ability to serve as an interceptor regardless of your claims of its outstanding rate of climb ( which seems to have escaped the attention of all the silly pilots that actually flew ( and hated ) the plane ).

As I said earlier, no argument, just fact.

Lastly, referencing the bold type above, I REALLY think you need to catch up on the history of the air war in WWII, because that kind of statement can totally undermine any other argument ( no matter how good ) you bring to the table.

As I said, I think you're an intelligent and well read guy, I hope you'll stick around and learn from some of the most knowledgeable folks on WWII aircraft on the net. ( myself excluded )

Cheers.

 

[Milosh]

Nothing on the FW190A8 performance charts shows any boost setting over 1.42. And by July 1944 the air war was truly lost for the Luftwaffe, so too little too late.

Is that so?

 

[Shortround6]

We seem to be getting into arguing over a one trick pony.

There is no doubt, based on selected facts, that certain models of the P-39 could climb at high rate.

This high rate of climb was achieved using WEP and while the Alison was rather justly noted for tolerating abuse this interpretation of the ability of the P-39 needs a bit closer examination. WEP is, War Emergency power, not climb to intercept altitude power. Most of the time WEP was limited to 5 minutes but yes, in combat you sometimes have to do what you have to do. HOWEVER, ANY USE of WEP had to be noted in logbooks, Crew chiefs and engineering officers made decisions about more frequent spark plug changes and oil changes and repeated use of WEP could affect how soon the engine was pulled for overhaul.
Tests were sometimes run, like the one for the P-39N in which the time limit was considerably exceeded, however such tests were done at air bases/test facilities in non combat zones and within easy access to spare engines/aircraft. The test gave them a good idea what the aircraft was capable of in actual combat, not as an indicator of how quick it could climb to altitude XXX to intercept an incoming force.
As the war went on WEP settings were used a bit more and on occasion were used for getting heavily loaded aircraft out of short runways but that was not the original intention and you had better be pretty sure of your support system to do such things on a regular basis ( not cleaning and re-installing used spark plugs like was done in the Pacific in the early part of the war).

I would note that the British did a few tests of Spitfire Vs using combat ratings for the full climb instead of the "normal" rating and got some rather impressive results. Especially considering that they used full fuel tanks on take-off and not 1/2 filled tanks. In one case they used a Vc that had two cannon and four machine guns but was ballasted to represent a four cannon version.


The later P-39s, for the American and British forces, it didn't bring a lot to the table.
Other aircraft had showed up that could do more different jobs and devoting the pilots, ground crews, and logistic support to a fighter of limited capability didn't make sense.

For the Russians the equations were a bit different. Or a lot different. The Russian fighters were lightly armed, you could pull guns from the P-39 and still be comparable. The Russian engines were notoriously short lived. You could beat up on the Allisons until they crapped out at 1/2 the hours the US and British wanted and they still lasted longer than most Russian engines. almost all air combat in Russian was at very low altitudes. Russian planes (well over 90%) had engines that were crap much above 12-15000ft so the P-39 fit right in. Russian single engine fighters had crap for bomb loads so the P-39 didn't look bad that way either.
The Russians could allocate the same number of pilots, ground crew and logistic support ( fuel, fuel transport, ammo supply, food and shelter for ground crews, etc) to a P-39 squadron/group and have a very similar combat capability as the same effort devoted to a squadron/group of their own planes. One can argue if it was better or worse than certain Russian planes but the differences are not all that great.

 

[pbehn]

The conflict in Russia was completely asymmetric, at the start of operation Bagration the Germans had 1,000-1300 aircraft while the Russians had 7-8,000 this on a front of over 1000 miles. The German aces may have made big scores where they operated but there were huge areas where they didn't and even where they did they were simply out numbered.

 

[michaelmaltby]

" ... For the Russians the equations were a bit different. Or a lot different. The Russian fighters were lightly armed, you could pull guns from the P-39 and still be comparable. The Russian engines were notoriously short lived. You could beat up on the Allisons until they crapped out at 1/2 the hours the US and British wanted and they still lasted longer than most Russian engines. almost all air combat in Russian was at very low altitudes. Russian planes (well over 90%) had engines that were crap much above 12-15000ft so the P-39 fit right in. Russian single engine fighters had crap for bomb loads so the P-39 didn't look bad that way either.
The Russians could allocate the same number of pilots, ground crew and logistic support ( fuel, fuel transport, ammo supply, food and shelter for ground crews, etc) to a P-39 squadron/group and have a very similar combat capability as the same effort devoted to a squadron/group of their own planes. One can argue if it was better or worse than certain Russian planes but the differences are not all that great."

The Eastern Front was a battleground like none other ... if the P-39 was effective there, that in itself is a tribute to the machine and to Larry Bell.

The P-39s in the USSR were well-supplied from the US ... replacement engines were regularly supplied along with octane boost ... crew chiefs regularly checked engine oil for metal .. and pilots in Guards Squadrons flew the P-39 very aggressively and used combat power regularly. [Dmitriy Loza: Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces American P-39s & The Air War Against Germany]

 

[P-39 Expert]

Deliveries of P-39Ns started in December 1942. They weren't in service in 1942.

From an earlier post:

Dec. '42 to Dec '43 is one year.
Regarding the "gestation period" for a new model, the P-39N was a mature model with the main difference from prior models being a newer version of the same engine (V-1710). "Gestation" was very short, production began in December '42 and P-39Ns were serving that same month in New Guinea. "Gestation" for this model consisted of transporting them to New Guinea. Now I will admit gestation for a new fighter can take an agonizingly long time. The first P-47 Thunderbolt was built in 1941 but first combat was April 1943.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Not much could. But I believe some versions of the Bf109G at around the same time could. Bearing in mind that the IX gained power over its life as it went from the standard F.IX with Merlin 63 to the HF.IX with Merlin 70 and the LF.IX with Merlin 66. It was the latter whose climb statistics are normally quoted. Prototypes of the HF.IX were testing in late 1942, so probably stated appearing in mid to late 1943.

Nothing could climb with a SpitIX. A two stage engine mated with a 7500# airframe will get you some climb. P-39N outclimbed the FW190 at all altitudes. P-39N outclimbed the Me109G substantially to 20000' and then climbed with the G ti their ceiling.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Look, you seem like an intelligent and well read guy, I suggest you read drgondogs post #256 carefully and take it to heart. As I've said, I think the P-39 is one of the best looking fighters of WWII, and I believe that low down over the steppes of Russia it found its niche. But as literally ANYTHING else it was next to useless.

As I stated ( and others as well ), it DID NOT have the performance needed to escort 8th AF bombers ( Range, Speed, Climb, Firepower were all lacking ( dreadfully so ) ) so it was useless to 8th FC.

It DID NOT have the ability to be a bomb truck so it was useless to the 9th AF as its inability to haul any type of useful load any distance squashed that idea.

It DID NOT have the ability to serve as an interceptor regardless of your claims of its outstanding rate of climb ( which seems to have escaped the attention of all the silly pilots that actually flew ( and hated ) the plane ).

As I said earlier, no argument, just fact.

Lastly, referencing the bold type above, I REALLY think you need to catch up on the history of the air war in WWII, because that kind of statement can totally undermine any other argument ( no matter how good ) you bring to the table.

As I said, I think you're an intelligent and well read guy, I hope you'll stick around and learn from some of the most knowledgeable folks on WWII aircraft on the net. ( myself excluded )

Cheers.

Thanks for your comments.
Regarding post #256, please read my reply in post #275 "Gestation Period".
P-39s did at times escort 8th AF heavies.
Was an excellent dive bomber with a 500# bomb, in New Guinea squadrons went on dive bombing missions with no special training and got excellent results. Also had the 37mm cannon to make short work of trucks.
Wasn't an interceptor? N would climb to 25000' in 8 minutes, better than any contemporary (1943) Mustang, Thunderbolt or Lightning and had a 37mm cannon.
And yes, the air war FOR FIGHTERS was pretty much over after March '44. Still tons of bombing missions but escort fighters were instructed to attack ground targets because they had already gained air superiority. The D-Day invasion in June was successful because the Luftwaffe was defeated and couldn't attack the invasion beaches. Truly, just sighting an enemy plane was very rare after March 1944.
Thanks for the compliment. Obviously I have done a ton of research on the P-39. A lot of new information has come from the Russians since the fall of Gorbachev that sheds new light on this. And the official performance docs on the P-39 in wwiiaircraftperformance came out in 2012. The P-39 was a lot more capable than we have been led to believe for the last 60 years. You know, like the Russians used the P-39 for ground attack, no power above 12000', low ceiling, poor rate of climb, the 37mm cannon wouldn't work, all Russian work was at low altitude, blah blah. If you chart the performance right on top of the FW190 and Me109 graphs, the P-39N comes off much better than people think. The Russians didn't defeat the Luftwaffe by flying around at 10000' and waiting for the Germans to dive on them. But 60 years of lies has buried this plane.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

The British sure accepted a lot of P-40s, and they were in no way comparable to the SpitV or P-51A.

They also accepted quite a few WW1 destroyers under Lend-Lease--I'll omit the rest, and save it for a more fitting thread, should someone start one. My apologies, gents, I intended no offense to Britain-they were a strong Ally then, are remain so now. Hansie

 

[buffnut453]

The air war for fighters would be basically over three months later in March 1944.

There is a former B-17 crewman who frequents this forum whom, I suspect, would disagree with you.

They also accepted quite a few WW1 destroyers under Lend-Lease- what did we get: (1) a few islands we didn't need, and (2), a chance, once again ( ala Woody Wilson in 1917) for England to be indebted to America for bailing out the Brits, again. Why FDR felt the US should be involved in another European conflict that would cost many American lives and gain us nothing (Stalin carved up the post-WW2 real estate) is beyond belief.

I don't think I've ever seen a more partial perspective on WW2. America gained nothing from WW2? Really? Apart from becoming a global superpower, a role that it has maintained in the intervening 70+ since 1945.

As for "bailing out Britain", please remember that Britain had already ensured its own security in the summer of 1940. It's also worth pointing out that, had Britain not prevailed, America would have been surrounded by totalitarian regimes, with virtually the entire globe being carved up between Hitler, Stalin and Tojo. How would America have fared under those circumstances without the ability to influence world affairs and with no launching point for any liberation of Europe?

 

[Peter Gunn]

Thanks for your comments.
Regarding post #256, please read my reply in post #275 "Gestation Period".
P-39s did at times escort 8th AF heavies.
Was an excellent dive bomber with a 500# bomb, in New Guinea squadrons went on dive bombing missions with no special training and got excellent results. Also had the 37mm cannon to make short work of trucks.
Wasn't an interceptor? N would climb to 25000' in 8 minutes, better than any contemporary (1943) Mustang, Thunderbolt or Lightning and had a 37mm cannon.
And yes, the air war FOR FIGHTERS was pretty much over after March '44. Still tons of bombing missions but escort fighters were instructed to attack ground targets because they had already gained air superiority. The D-Day invasion in June was successful because the Luftwaffe was defeated and couldn't attack the invasion beaches. Truly, just sighting an enemy plane was very rare after March 1944.
Thanks for the compliment. Obviously I have done a ton of research on the P-39. A lot of new information has come from the Russians since the fall of Gorbachev that sheds new light on this. And the official performance docs on the P-39 in wwiiaircraftperformance came out in 2012. The P-39 was a lot more capable than we have been led to believe for the last 60 years. You know, like the Russians used the P-39 for ground attack, no power above 12000', low ceiling, poor rate of climb, the 37mm cannon wouldn't work, all Russian work was at low altitude, blah blah. If you chart the performance right on top of the FW190 and Me109 graphs, the P-39N comes off much better than people think. The Russians didn't defeat the Luftwaffe by flying around at 10000' and waiting for the Germans to dive on them. But 60 years of lies has buried this plane.

First off, you're welcome, no harm no foul, hope you don't take offense to anything I type, it's not intended to belittle or insult.

Uh, there are guys here far more able than I to address some of your points above. Actually, I think they already have but YMMV.

Again though, a P-39 ( any ) able to climb faster than say a P-38 to 25,000'? If that were so why weren't they used in New Guinea for that purpose? Or Guadalcanal?

As for the air war being over for fighters by March of '44... Perhaps drgondog or bobbysocks can enlighten you on that a bit, seeing as how their fathers were Mustang pilots at the time.

Lt. Runnels can set you straight on that as well.

I will unequivocally call bollocks on your contention of this myself as my uncle on my mothers side ( her brother ) was there at the time in Mustangs as well, if he were still alive I believe he'd have quite a good laugh ( or scoff ) at that statement.