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.
P-39 Expert said:
Hard to believe the N had a higher ceiling than Corsairs and Hellcats.
Click to expand...

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????

P-39 Expert said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Ascent said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

Not by much.

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




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

 
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.
 
Ascent said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
[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.
 

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".
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Just Schmidt said:
[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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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
942
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