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

[DarrenW]

Hard to believe the N had a higher ceiling than Corsairs and Hellcats.

That's because it really didn't. In most reference books and other well respected sources the F6F-3 will show a reported service ceiling anywhere between 37,300 - 38,400 feet, and I've seen Navy reports showing as high as 38,600 feet in military power with an overload weight of 12,680lbs. The report you are referencing shows a particular P-39N (s/n 42-4400) at 7,274lbs with a ceiling of 38,500 feet. How is that any kind of real advantage? Plus, besides the occasional airplane doing reconnaissance work, who the heck was fighting at 38,000 feet anyway during WWII????

Since the Hellcat was considered the unquestioned master of the Japanese planes, the P-39N should have been able to handle Zeros like the Hellcat. Zeros were 330-340mph planes, Hellcats and P-39Ns were 40-50mph faster at all altitudes.

The Airacobra couldn't "handle the Zeros like the Hellcat" because speed isn't the only ingredient that makes an airplane a good fighting machine.The Hellcat had excellent handling and dogfighting capabilities, the Airacobra didn't. The Hellcat was immensely strong and could take a beating and still get the job done and bring the pilot home alive. The Airacobra wasn't. The Hellcat had long-range capability which allowed it to seek out and destroy the enemy wherever it may be. The Airacobra didn't. Lastly, the Hellcat never had to be stripped of guns, armor, or gasoline just to make it faster, climb better, maneuver quicker, or fly higher. The Airacobra DID!!!!!

Look, the Airacobra was a sleek little ship and did well on the post-war race circuit but it wasn't a truly war winning aircraft like you are trying to make it out to be, in any variant or any guise. I respect the men who flew her and that they were able to achieve some success because the odds were definitely stacked against them. And I really didn't want to pile on even more negative comments about your pet airplane but you left me no choice.

You are definitely a well-educated and learned man who knows a sh--t ton about aviation history. And I happen to like the Airacobra, all it's shortcomings notwithstanding. I have learned great deal about it from this thread and I thank you for it. Problem is, I'm left feeling that the Airacobra was even more of an abysmal failure than I believed it to be in the first place! Just please refrain from the wild-ass comments regarding it's supposed virtues and try concentrating on the proven characteristics of the machine, both the good and the bad. I think that approach might help sway people to your way of thinking, rather than saying the same unsubstantiated fact over and over hoping that it will eventually stick.

But that's just my opinion and one of many here on this forum....

 

[parsifal]

The 8 PG performed an important function for a 1.5 month period, but it is more than a stretch to claim it as responsible for the successful defence of Moresby, much less the defeat of the Japanese at Milne. in the case of the battle across the Owen stanleys, the battle did not begin until 23 July, at which time there were no flying elements of the 8FG left in NG at the time. They did return in September , and may have provided some CAS at that time, but were certainly not that successful at it. Hudon and Wirraway formations backed up by some US B-26 and A-20 formations were the main ground support components. Without a doubt however, the mainstay of airpower supporting in a decisive way the ground fighting were the efforts of 33 sqn (transport). An otherwise disheartening menagerie of various a/c types, this units, more than all the other airborne assets combined provided the necessary logistic support needed to keep the fight going.

In Milne bay, US support was unimportant. 75 and 76 sqns RAAF along with a Hudson sqn (also RAAF unit ID I forget right now) provided the air defence and air support needed to defeat this rather poorly thought out Japanese attack.

but I object to the misrepresentation of the 8FG as the saviours of the pauan campaign. they were a part of it, and in some degree successful, but they were in no way more critical than at least half a dozen other heroic efforts, some Australian, some American.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The story of the fight across the Owen Stanley ranges is not a fight known well to the US.

Nope, it was your ballgame, in your front yard, with all the players from your teams, and all the heroes were yours. RIP. The rest of the free world thanks you.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Ascent]

Not this forum obviously, most people here have studied their history, but I get the impression that a lot of American people don't realise they weren't the only ones fighting the Japanese.

Would that be right?

 

[DarrenW]

Not this forum obviously, most people here have studied their history, but I get the impression that a lot of American people don't realise they weren't the only ones fighting the Japanese.

Would that be right?

Yes, and I would go as far as to say that they know very little if any of the roll America played there as well. To them, Imperial Japan was basically a "victim" of American foreign policy and that they were forced to attack the western powers as they had no other recourse but to do so. Utter nonsense.

 

[pbehn]

That's because it really didn't. In most reference books and other well respected sources the F6F-3 will show a reported service ceiling anywhere between 37,300 - 38,400 feet, and I've seen Navy reports showing as high as 38,600 feet in military power (52" Hg) with an overload weight of 12,680lbs. The report you are referencing shows a particular P-39N (s/n 42-4400) at 7,300lbs with a ceiling of 38,500 feet. How is that any kind of real advantage? Plus, besides the occasional airplane doing reconnaissance work, who the heck was fighting at 38,000 feet anyway during WWII????

From what I have read elsewhere on this forum the service ceiling isn't the maximum height a plane can reach, it must still be able to do something apart from fly in a straight line. A climb rate of 100ft/min for example, having some fuel and guns on board is also looked at favourably.

 

[wuzak]

P-39N in production between December '42 and April '44 was faster and climbed faster at all altitudes than the Spitfire V. The Spitfire IX was superior in speed and climb to the P-39N and entered full series production about the same time. The comparison I'm making is between the P-39N and the German fighters. Everyone else seems to have me in an argument over the Spitfire.

Not by much.

Considering the Spitfire V was in production in early 1941, and in service very shortly after.

Regarding fuel, the P-39N carried 120 internal and the Spitfire carried 100 US gallons. During N production the Russians requested that we start deleting the wing guns from the factory and reducing internal fuel capacity. The N and Q gradually reduced capacity to as little as 86 gallons. The wing guns stayed until the late Q models. Apparently less fuel and no wing armament worked for them.

It would seem that not all had 120USG fuel fitted from the factory. In fact, most didn't.

After completion of the first 166 P-39Ns, the USAAF requested that four fuel cells be removed in order to reduce the internal fuel capacity from 120 to 87 US gallons, and so to reduce the maximum permissible gross weight from 9100 lbs to 8750 lbs. This kept weight down, but unfortunately it also restricted range. Therefore, kits were provided that allowed the four fuel cells to be refitted in the field.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Yes, and I would go as far as to say that they know very little if any of the roll America played there as well. To them, Imperial Japan was basically a "victim" of American foreign policy and that they were forced to attack the western powers as they had no other recourse but to do so. Utter nonsense.

Japan was a "victim" of its own compulsion to be a first rate world power despite its lack of domestic natural resources to do so. This put it on an inevitable collision course with those empires who had beaten them to it and were already exploiting pretty much all of the available resources.
I find it ironic that the US, arguably the least "imperial" of the major powers, would be the first to step on the tripwire and set off the explosion. If Hitler hadn't had Europe tied up in knots it might have been someone else that set it off. Britain, France, and the Netherlands all had empires in the area.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[pbehn]

Japan was a "victim" of its own compulsion to be a first rate world power despite its lack of domestic natural resources to do so. This put it on an inevitable collision course with those empires who had beaten them to it and were already exploiting pretty much all of the available resources.
I find it ironic that the US, arguably the least "imperial" of the major powers, would be the first to step on the tripwire and set off the explosion. If Hitler hadn't had Europe tied up in knots it might have been someone else that set it off. Britain, France, and the Netherlands all had empires in the area.
Cheers,
Wes

The UK and USA declared war on Japan within hours of each other because both had been attacked, in addition to Pearl Harbour the Japanese attacked Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong.

 

[swampyankee]

Not this forum obviously, most people here have studied their history, but I get the impression that a lot of American people don't realise they weren't the only ones fighting the Japanese.

Would that be right?

Quite possibly, even though most textbooks used in secondary schools are consistent in covering the existence of Commonwealth and Chinese forces, they may understate the importance, by concentrating on US areas of interest.

 

[P-39 Expert]

DO you have ANY evidence that combat weight was at half fuel? You keep repeating but give no proof.

IN fact we may both be wrong.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39_Aircraft_Performance_Characteristics.jpg
Gross weights of Ns at 7393.7 and 7395.? I am not going to argue over a few pounds but both Ns are shown with 87 gallons of fuel.
Many books say that the "N"s were produced with 87 gallon capacity. Kits were supplied to bring them back to 120 gallons that could be installed in the field.
Military power was 44.5in of MAP, full WEP was 57in. this test was done at 50.5in (take-off power) until the supercharger could no longer supply that pressure.
Not WEP but not military power either. and then we have.
http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf

P-39 Q at 7200lbs needs 9.3 minutes to get to 25,000ft using take off power for the first 5 minutes, and uses 33 gallons of it's 87 gallons just to get there.
P-39Q at 7600lbs needs 10.1 minutes to get to 25,000ft using take off power for the first 5 minutes and uses 34 gallons to get there.
the under wing pods created that much drag?????
Elapsed time to altitude was at 0 degrees C or 32 degrees F.

we also have the penciled in chart saying 4.1 minutes to 14,600ft?

and
View attachment 487160
about 300lbs heavier (120 gals fuel?) but even using MIlitary power for the first few minutes ( and NO drag from wing guns) needs over 9 minutes to get to 25,000ft.

We also have the basic Bf 109G climbing to 7000 meters ( 22,966ft) in 8 minutes so your p-39 had better be on watch. which climbed faster where I don't know.
I would also note that a plain Spitfire MK V using 16lbs boost (below 8,800ft) can make it to 24,000ft in 8.15 mins using a single speed single stage supercharger.

Now just for balancing things out a bit, the super P-39N is climbing at 1940fp at 25,000ft, the Spitfire V is climbing at 1740fps at 24,000ft and the 109G (basic?) is climbing at at least 2066 at 22,966.
A P-39Q at 7871lbs was climbing at 1570fpm at 25,000.

The P-39 has to be very careful about weights and altitude or it can get into big trouble.
Falling into the ocean because you don't have enough fuel can also ruin a pilots day

Notice that the P-39 is doing 400mph at 16000'? Ever see that in any reference book?

Just asking, how do you get the whole graph to appear in your post? Everytime I try to upload a graph it attaches as a pdf that must be opened. Yours shows up already open. Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[wuzak]

Just asking, how do you get the whole graph to appear in your post? Everytime I try to upload a graph it attaches as a pdf that must be opened. Yours shows up already open. Thanks in advance for your help.

Attach a picture, not a pdf file

 

[Just Schmidt]

[QUOTE="

Oh, the P-39 drove like a limousine on the ground, which must have been comforting to the pilots struggling to reach an altitude where they could engage the enemy aircraft sent to bomb the shit out of the airfield.[/QUOTE]

We might be missing something here. The P 39 beats all other contemporary aircraft in its ability to double as a light tank while still on the ground. The trajectory of the 37' even means the nose up attitude is no problem, in fact allowing it to lob in the grenades from above.

 

[Shortround6]

Keep in mind a few salient points, first these were older P-39s with the lower rated engine and way too much weight. With the ever present drop tank their combat ceiling (altitude above which any plane will climb at only 1000fpm or less) was about 18000'. The Bettys came in at between 18000' and 22000' with their Zero escort at about 24000'. These older P-39s (D,F,K,L) could have easily been modified in the field by simply removing the 4 x .30 wing guns along with their mounts, chargers heaters and ammunition boxes (and of course the ammo itself which was the heaviest component) and these planes would climb with the P-38s that, by the way, were not even available until very late in the year.

ANd why were they flying with drop tanks?
These older, low powered planes had the full 120 gallon internal capacity.

The K and L had 1325hp engines for take-off and a near 1600hp in WEP once authorized, it was only good for a few thousand feet (in cool weather) but calling them low powered is a bit of a stretch. However they probably didn't get to the combat theaters in 1942 as they didn't have Star Trek transporter to get them there that you think the P-39N had.

I would also note that many of the performance tests are done with 262lbs of ammo. This is also the weight of ammo listed in the some of pilots manual. This TOTAL weight of ammo for the 37mm, the .50 cal guns and .30 cal guns. For the the .30s it is 300rpg, not the often listed 1000rpg max. So book and test performance figures are already using 168lbs (aprox.) less ammo than max. The guns are worth 99lbs and the remaining ammo is 72lbs.
Nobody held guns to the heads of the pilots in the combat areas and forced them to fly with full ammo boxes, especially when the the 300rpg load was considered "normal" and the 1000rpg load was considered overload or "alternative loading".

 

[MIflyer]

I got interested in the Battle of the Coral Sea and read a few books on it; there is not that much around. Then I read the Osprey book on P-39's and something popped out at me.

When the IJN headed into battle, the objective being the invasion of Port Moresby, they requested that seaplane units in the area provide recon support. The response from those units was that they could not help.

A few days before the battle Buzz Wagner led a force of P-39's to attack Japanese seaplane bases along the coast of NG. This resulted in a huge furball that led to the loss of some P-39's as well as a like number of Zeros. I doubt it was even a coordinated attack in terms of overall strategy, but the P-39's contributed to the Battle of the Coral Sea.

 

[Elmas]

[QUOTE="

Oh, the P-39 drove like a limousine on the ground, which must have been comforting to the pilots struggling to reach an altitude where they could engage the enemy aircraft sent to bomb the shit out of the airfield.

We might be missing something here. The P 39 beats all other contemporary aircraft in its ability to double as a light tank while still on the ground. The trajectory of the 37' even means the nose up attitude is no problem, in fact allowing it to lob in the grenades from above.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the only problem is that the main armor ( more than 1400 pounds) is behind, and not in front, of the Pilot...

 

[pbehn]

Attached is a document from a lecture given by A.C. Lovesey in 1945 on the development of the Merlin, there are many graphs and charts, a good read.
http://wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-lovesey.pdf

One shows the increase in power from 1000BHP on 85 Octane fuel to 2600BHP for 15 mins max on 150 oct fuel and water injection.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

No!
Damnit! How do you delete a post you've screwed up??

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Yes, the only problem is that the main armor ( more than 1400 pounds) is behind, and not in front, of the Pilot...

No, he's there to shield poor Allison!

 

[pbehn]

No, he's there to shield poor Allison!

I thought he was there to resolve a CoG issue, in lieu of ammunition?