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

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me try and explain this again. In wwiiaircraftperformance, the gross weights listed on the test documents show "mean fuel" or average fuel available during the test. I'm not sure exactly which P-39 variant you are speaking of, but the 7300# weight is for the plane with half fuel. This weight number is for calculations of ratios (power/weight, wing loading etc) since there was a 720# weight difference (120 gal) between an empty P-39 and a full (of fuel) P-39. To get the correct published weight for the P-38, P-39 and P-47 in those tests you need to add back half of the fuel capacity. The planes were tested with full tanks but their weights differed drastically from the time they took off until the time they landed because they were expending their fuel during the test. Any calculation involving weight would need to specify which weight, the weight at takeoff or the weight at landing or the weight in the middle of the flight. So for calculations they used mean or average fuel giving a mean or average weight for the plane. So the figures are for a fully loaded (gross weight) plane at a weight after half the fuel has been burned, or the weight that the plane would likely be in actual combat. The planes tested took off with full tanks, the mean weight figure is for calculations. Nobody in combat took off with 60 gallons of fuel. Hope this helps.
 
Regarding the P-39N entering service in Dec '42, Bell produced 277 planes in November and 302 planes in December. There was no gap in production between the M and the N. They used the same engine power section only differing in the substijtution of the 2.23 reduction gear in the N instead of the 2.00 gear in the M. All Airacobras were the same plane with differences in propellers, different versions of the V-1710, different reduction gears and radios. As the new Ns came off the line they were immediately flown a couple of times (90 minutes total) for service test and shipped or flown off to war. Bell had this procedure down pat since they had already produced 2000+ P-39s and obviously their goal was to get the planes in service asap. Entirely possible to have an N in service in December.
 

As several have stated, there is a world of difference between "in service" and "operational". Your dismissive attitude to the operational use of the Spitfire MkIX is indicative of exactly my point, and yet you seem to ignore the challenges of getting P-39Ns to the front line and in operational use.

Were all the P-39s built in November the N variant and, if not, when did N production commence? How long to get a batch of P-39Ns (aircraft aren't shipped individually but in batches) to the operational theatre? And then how long to uncrate, erect and test the aircraft before they can be provided to the squadron(s)? Add to that Peter Gunn's comment about the earliest P-39N casualty apparently being on 15 August 1943 and it simply beggars belief that the type was operational in December 1942. There's no way the USAAF was able to operate the P-39N for 8+ months without losing a single aircraft.
 
P-39 Expert said:
Wrong book. See post #359.
Click to expand...

The info in the Pacific Wrecks website goes beyond what is in the "wrong book". Regarding Park's P-39 it states:

Assigned to the 5th Air Force, 35th Fighter Group, 41st Fighter Squadron. Squadron letter N, nose number 74. Assigned to pilot Edwards Park. Nickname "Nanette". Operated in New Guinea during middle 1942 until late 1943. A single aircraft silhouette was painted on the left side of the nose.

How would Park know to include the mid-1942 arrival of P-39 #74 in his "wrong book" given that he wasn't even in theatre when the aircraft arrived?

Again, please explain how a P-39N could get to New Guinea by December 1942. We're still awaiting an answer that stacks up with known transportation timeframes.
 
Really don't have a dismissive attitude toward the Spitfire IX. One of the finest planes of WWII and the fastest climbing plane. As long as you don't mind the very narrow landing gear and you don't want to actually go any further than Belgium. Just saying that the Merlin 61 was just being developed and real full Mk IX production didn't get into swing until the end of '42, which is what wwiiaircraftperformance and most historians say. My comparisons have all been with the P-39N vs the enemy planes, not the Spit IX. IX had a two stage engine, hard to compare to a single stage engine for altitude performance.
Regarding the P-39N nothing was really in development, the V-1710-85 had been in production since September and had fully passed it's 150 hour test. The Ns were just the next version on the continuing production line and as they were rolled out they were test flown and shipped or flown off. By that time most were going to the Russians or to AAF training bases anyway.
 
I can't point to a specific P-39N that was manufactured by Bell and was issued to Lt. Park when he arrived in NG. He says in his book "Angels Twenty" (not the fictional "Nanette") that he got to PM in December and was issued a brand new P-39N. All I know is the N was in production and could have been in NG by that time. Park is long dead or you could take it up with him. Is it a deal killer if a few Ns snuck out of the factory in late November and were in NG in late December?
 

And there is the whole problem. Aircraft don't "sneak out of the factory" and miraculously end up at a remote operational field just a few weeks later. They are shipped in batches, which means completion of an individual airframe does not mean it started it's journey to the front lines. Again, you cite the lack of break in P-39 production between the M and the N variant which, presumably, means there were established transport mechanisms to take the newly-built airframes to wherever they needed to go. They don't "sneak out" in ones and twos, they are shipped in more sizeable quantities.

Simply (re)stating "the N was in production and could have been in NG by that time" doesn't answer the fundamental question. In order for a P-39N to be in NG in December 1942, it would have had to be produced right at the start of the month (hence my question about when N production started), and then had virtually no holdups on the way across America and then across the Pacific.

The nub of the problem here is that one man's personal account mentions that he flew a P-39N in December 1942 when all other evidence suggests he was mistaken. What's more likely, that Mr Park is correct or that he simply got confused writing down things that happened decades previously? Occam's Razor applies, methinks.
 
My sincere apology, obviously I have struck a nerve. P-39Ns were in production in December and Park said he had one in NG. Seems plausible to me. Now please dissect every word of this post, get on the Google machine and prove me wrong again. Like Rodney King once said "Please stop hitting me". I give up.
 
You know, both of those books are good but he says something opposite.

In Nanette he says that the P-47's fondest desire was to return to earth and it rumbled happily coming down final. And that the Thunderbolt was just a cold machine, not a living thing like his P-39, Nanette.

In Angels Twenty he says that the P-47 loved playing in the sky and grumbled about the fun being over as they slid down final.
 

Not hitting you nor have my nerves been jangled. I'm just asking for some reasoned evidence for your claims.

I've learned a lot from members on this forum, occasionally because I've been on the receiving end of some detailed critiques of statements I've made. The downside of being such a good learning environment is that the BS detectors are pretty well attuned.

All I'm asking is that claims are backed up with evidence or at least a reasoned explanation of why something might be true. In the absence of any such data, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Having worked in shipping for two years nothing gets "immediately shipped off" to anywhere especially from USA. From the USA you need to ship to the port, wait for a vessel, then load, then at the destination unload, that is if any vessel goes directly to your destination and no trans shipment is involved. Flying even if it is physically possible also needs its own infrastructure of pilots transports accommodation etc. In peacetime we didn't have vessels routinely getting sunk as in WW2 but I did experience vessels just being diverted to take more valuable cargo, or more frequently with "tramp" vessels calling at non scheduled ports to load and unload other cargos. When a vessel is sunk not only is the crew, ship and cargo lost but its projected routes are too.
 
Yes and this is a message board so opinions are the order of the day.

Let me make a few statements of fact: Information about the P-39 has been made available since the fall of the Soviet Union (the main combat user of the type). Also P-39 information was made available in late 2012 on wwiiaircraftperformance.org that I have not been able to locate before then. This new information somewhat contradicts what we have been told for 60 years, like (but not limited to) the Russians used the P-39 for ground attack, the P-39 had terrible performance over 12000', it would spin or even tumble at the drop of a hat, it had a rearward center of gravity, the airwar in Russia was all at low altitude, the 37mm cannon didn't work and on ad nauseum.

I would much rather debate (all of) you on the merits of the P-39 than arguing with you about how the damn thing was shipped from the factory.

I maintain (as the Russians did) that the P-39 was the equal of the German fighters (FW190 and Me109) at all altitudes, not just down low. They found that the 37mm cannon (properly maintained) was very reliable and even more reliable than the US 20mm cannon. It didn't have any real handling problems.

And Chuck Yeager in his book said that the P-39 was his favorite plane in WWII and would "gladly fly that little plane off to war". Now he qualifies that statement by saying it was his favorite plane until he got a Merlin P-51B, but again the P-39 was in use from December 1941 and the P-51B didn't get into combat until December 1943.

Now if anyone wants to debate this (in a normal tone of voice) then I'm here for you. I don't really care when (or how) the damn things were shipped.

Bring it.
 
I doubt very much you've "struck a nerve" here, you've just run across the most knowledgeable group of guys on the subject at hand, namely WWII aviation. Sure is sounds plausible a P-39N could have been manufactured in December '42 and been in action the same month. What you'll learn here is not what is plausible, but what actually happened. Logistics dictates ( to me at least ) the P-39N could not have made it to any combat zone in two weeks time, I've learned that from reading many threads on this forum by posters with far more knowledge and source document resources than I can imagine.

SR6 and others have continually tried to explain 2S/2S superchargers v. 1S/1S etc. not to mention crankshaft differences etc. etc. A person can learn a lot from these guys, you just have to be humble enough to realize that sometimes you may have to pony up with valid references to make your point.

Not to single any one poster out, but for example, when drgondog posts, read carefully and take it to the bank that what he says is based in fact. Not coffee table history book "accepted" versions of events, but dyed in the wool, right from the source documentation and education. And that's just the tip of the ice cube, I could name almost a dozen more posters that have knowledge and source material to back up what they say.

So when you start to rewrite history, you best have source documentation ( and a fair amount of it ) to back up what you're trying to say. Everyone here is always open to new interpretations or new discoveries of data, no one is so hidebound in their beliefs that they close their eyes to new information. But the BS meter is finely tuned and will be used immediately when needed.

I cite the example of your statements about the air war being over by March '44, it may sound like I'm nit picking one point, but it's a very important point. You won't find many here that will agree with that for a reason i.e. it's false. When you attach that type of assertion, it calls into question your entire argument, firmly sticking to such an assertion only lowers your credence going forward. One might posit that it would have been better to ask why many here think that statement is false, and ask them to cite sources.

Pardon the long post, as I said, you seem a well read intelligent bloke and you've come to the right place for information and the exchange of same, I just hope you take this to heart and stick around as I think you could contribute to the group here.

Cheers
 
I would value Chuck Jaegers opinion on all things, however before he flew a P-51B how many other planes did he fly? Wikipedia states he initially flew P-39s at Tenopah and then P-51s at RAF Leiston. So basically he found the P-39 better than his training mounts and not as good as a P-51B, but the Allison powered P51A was comparable in performance at low altitude. Also, he broke the sound barrier in a Bell aircraft and was an employee of Bell post war.
 
Last edited:


Sorry you didn't make it down the Google list to my source. In "Attack and Conquer, The 8th Fighter group in WWII" by John C. Stanaway and Lawrence J. Hickey. The 8th FG's two squadrons (35th & 36th) in May 1942 was all that was standing between the Japanese on the north side of New Guinea and Australia.


8th FG was part of the shuttle style defences that the allies utilised to blunt and finally defeat the hitherto unstoppable Japanese. It was deployed to relieve 75 sqn at the end of April, having undergone some further training in Australia before receiving its deployment orders. Its initial deployment was to 7 mile airfield near Moresby, 37 were despatched, but only 26 arrived.

The remains of 8th FG, the flying element at least, remained in the front line of Moresby's defences. though to 16 June (according to one source), , when allegedly it was shipped out after having sustained some heavy losses....I have serious doubts about some of the dates from that source, I admit. Some ground elements did remain behind until the end of July, but there were no deployments of either of the fighter formations until a month or so later.

The Group HQ had arrived in Australia in March 1942, the last of three pursuit groups to reach Australia in the first wave of American reinforcements. The group itself operated in detachments in New Guinea, helping fight off the most direct land threat to Australia. Significant detachments moved back to Australia in June 1942 to recover from malaria with both squadrons fully withdrawn by early August (I think)..

The group moved to New Guinea in September 1942, after the battle of milne Bay had been fought and won by the Australians, but it then suffered from a serious outbreak of malaria again and had to withdraw to Australia in February 1943.

The group resumed operations in April 1943 and remained active for the rest of the war. At first it operated over New Guinea, supporting the series of Allied landings along the New Guinea coast, attacked Japanese airfields and provided bomber escorts. It also supported the US Marine landing at Cape Gloucester in February-March 1944.

It was not the sole defence in NG at the time.

Sorry you didn't make it down the Google list to my source. In "Attack and Conquer, The 8th Fighter group in WWII" by John C. Stanaway and Lawrence J. Hickey. The 8th FG's two squadrons (35th & 36th) in May 1942 was all that was standing between the Japanese on the north side of New Guinea and Australia.

Its news to me that I used google. I didn't. In May 1942, in case you've forgotten, the main defences of NG were the USN, which fought a hard battle in the Coral Sea. In terms of the land based air assets, there were still a few of 75 sqn remnants present in early may. There were 7 un-airworthy P-40s available. The squadron cannibalised 2, to get the last 5 airborne, 3 were shot down over the next two weeks. The last of 75 sqn was withdrawn by mid-may, leaving the 8th FG as the sole fighter defences until the end of June, at which time both 75 and 76 returned, as well as the first Beaufighter units.,

The 8th Fighter Control squadron (not pilots, but radar operators) arrived in Milne Bay on August 7, 1942 to set up and operate the new radar station there.

Work on the first airfield, which became known as No 1 Airstrip, and later gurney, had commenced on 8 June, with Papuan workers under the supervision of ANGAU (No 6 Mobile Works Station RAAF) being the main unit supported by elements of the CMF militia and native labour. These formations commenced construction work from 8th June as stated above. Later elements of the 96th General Service Regiment (GSR) US army and company E of the 46th GSR arrived after 30 June to also to assist. About 500 personnel were involved overall, the vast majority Australians and natives

The first radar unit to be set .up was number 37 RAAF, which did later receive a few radar operators from the US forces which may well have been drawn from 8FG. But was not an American operation, it was an Australian formation, and the radar station had already been set up when the Americans arrive. Number 37 was declared operational at Milne from 8 August, though initially radar performance was disappointing

Now you are googling Milne Bay on google maps and you can clearly see that Milne Bay is at the far eastern tip of New Guinea and provides an unrestricted view of not only the Lae and Salamalua Jap bases but also New Britain and the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal et al) and was the ideal location for GCI radar in the area.

Thanks for the offer to google the whereabouts of Milne Bay, but I don't need to because ive been there several times whilst serving in the RAN. Dismal place.

With regard to your comments about Milne enjoying "unrestricted view of not only the Lae and Salamalua Jap bases but also New Britain and the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal et al) and was the ideal location for GCI radar in the area", you have got to be sh*tting me. Milne suffers the same problems as Moresby as far as radar shadows except to the south and south east. It has a 12000' high mountain immediately behind it and is about 582 mi to lae. There are mountainous islands to the north, north east and east of radar. Station.

Maximum radar range for the radars available in 1942 was about 140 miles theoretically, but in practice in the atmospheric and topographic conditions that existed, for many months the range was typically, about 40 miles.


Milne was never seen as a solution to this problem. You are kidding yourself and trying to mislead anyone who might be listening to you (I doubt anyone is though). It was intended solely (or initially) as an early warning base, to prevent seaborne movements by the Japanese via the Louisiade Archipelago channels. Those channels are treacherous and restrictive I can tell you. They needed seaplanes to provide that surveillance, which was mostly provided by 11 sqn PBYs

probably the "google maps" you are relying on in turn rely on some of that work still. Milne Bay was important also because it provided a deep water port (well sort of) and a relatively safe channel to that anchorage

I didn't need google to find out any of that. Back in the 70's when I was last there, I was aboard vessels carrying out survey work of those areas, that enabled the area to be finally adequately charted.

The problem with trying to put the radar in the Port Moresby area (or Australia) was the 12000' Owen Stanley mountain range between PM and the Japanese on the north side of NG. Most of the problems you site above come from that mountain range blocking radar signals.

Milne Bay had the same problems, but worse than seven mile. Neither base was of any use in detecting the Japanese in their bases anyway, because of range issues. Even under the most ideal conditions, they were both simply too far away to be used as advanced radar stations "chain Home" style.

Attack and Conquer is a really good book by the way, a daily diary of the 8th's activities throughout WWII. Big book with lots of pictures

Im sure it is, and its good that its got lots of pictures for you. By the look of it you might try reading it as well.
 
Last edited:
Well,
We have a fictional book that features a P-39 called Nanette and we have a real P-39 (type unknown) with the call letter N and nicknamed Nanette. Flown by the man who wrote the fictional book.

We also have that faaasstt shipment of P-39s from the factory to exactly the right airfield.
P-39Expert claims Bell built 277 planes in Nov of 1941, AHT says 268 "acceptances" not enough to get to into a tizzy about, there is often a discrepancy between built and "accepted" when you are building and test flying 9-10 planes per day.
However Another source claims that Bell built 240 P-39Ms starting at some point in November. SO even if the change over from the P-39L to the M was done at midnight of Oct 31st that mean a max of 37 P-39Ns built in Nov. and at the production rate stated that is about 4 days worth.
By Edwards Park's account it took 4 weeks by ship to get personnel from San Francisco to Australia. so for this scenario to work we need to get "a few planes" to "sneak" out of the factory and somehow get to the west coast in a matter of a few days, make the 4 week sea voyage to Australia, get unloaded, unpacked (reassembled), test flown and issued to the 41st squadron by Dec 31st. Or 35 days from acceptance flight to issue in a combat squadron over 9000 miles away by air. Maybe they used a fast freighter and only took 3 weeks? It is roughly 6150 nautical miles form San Francisco to Townsville. 17 days at 15 kts with absolutely no deviations and no zig zagging.

For some further information on the 35th fighter group of which the 41st squadron was part of see;
Wayback Machine
 
The P-39 was popular with pilots of the caliber of Chuck Yeager not because it was easy to fly but because it was hard. The gearing between the stick and the ailerons was so high you barely had to move the stick. That's fun if you really know what you are doing but a nightmare if you are a green pilot with limited experience and moderate ability. Capt "Winkle" Brown of the Fleet Air Arm flew a P-39 to evaluate tricycle gear for use on carrier decks, and he loved to fly the airplane.

Probably 20 years ago a friend of mine ferried an airplane to a museum and found they were distraught. They had finished restoration of a P-39 but had no one who knew how to fly it. He said he could fly it and wrung it out for them. He had been a ferry pilot during WWII and had the job of flying the airplanes that had some problems that were beyond the abilities of a typical ferry pilot. One day he went to Nashville to pick up a P-51 that had been parked there by another ferry pilot. The ferry pilot said they were told not to fly the P-51 with any fuel in the rear tank. And with that airplane the rear tank started out empty but kept filling up as it flew. Turned out that for some reason on that airplane they had routed the pressure carb fuel return to the rear tank instead of the right tank.
 
Brown was the first to land a tricycle undercarriage plane, P-39, on a carrier . I don't know how many times but when Bell saw it they recommended it be scrapped.

from Wiki
The Airacobras already in the UK, along with the remainder of the first batch being built in the US, were sent to the Soviet Air force, the sole exception being AH574, which was passed to the Royal Navy and used for experimental work, including the first carrier landing by a tricycle undercarriage aircraft on 4 April 1945 on HMS Pretoria Castle,[48] until it was scrapped on the recommendation of a visiting Bell test pilot in March 1946.[49]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
938
Ivan1GFP
I
G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
MIflyer
M
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
1K
Snautzer01
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register