Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Three comments. First the mixed armament thing, trying to deal with two different trajectories when deflection shooting. That is why I suggested an all 50 cal armament package. Second, history tells us the most US versions of the 20mm Hispano cannon had almost as much trouble with jams/un-reliability early in the war as the 37mm. Another point for staying with just Browning 50 cal guns. Finally, as far as I know, during WW2 'wet wings' implied unprotected fuel tanks. I am suggesting adding self-sealing rubber bag tanks as per other American fighters.
Problem is real world people don't get the benefit of hindsight.history tells us the most US versions of the 20mm Hispano cannon had almost as much trouble with jams/un-reliability early in the war as the 37mm
Problem is real world people don't get the benefit of hindsight.
If U.S. 20mm cannon had worked as advertised it would have been far superior to .50cal MG. Which btw also had problems with jams in early war P-40s. I wouldn't be surprised if .50cal MGs in P-39 jammed also.
If all your weapons tend to jam it's understandable that early war P-39s would have a tough time in combat.
CobberK said:Like a lot of people, I think the P-39 was a missed opportunity for the USAF. At a time when pretty much all other US single engine fighter designs were sound but uninspired, it was genuinely forward thinking. Pity the same couldn't be said of the Air Force theoreticians who neutered it.
That's fine - employ the P-39 at at an altitude where it works best, say 10,000 feet. All we have do do now is assume that the Japanese fighters won't be so unsporting as to use their superior altitude performance to position themselves for an attack from above.
If the P-39 was going to make an impression against the Zero or Oscar in the kind of situations typical of the early to mid PTO it would need to have been able to tackle them at or above 15000 feet, but it couldn't and it didn't. Being a good performer at low altitude isn't much use if the opposition can climb faster, fly higher and has the opportunity to do so. Under those circumstances the superiority in speed and dive don't confer competitiveness, they just give you a chance for escape.
I suggested somewhere else that the two most important performance characteristics in air to air combat are speed and climb/altitude performance, on the grounds that I can't think of any fighter that significantly lacked both of these characteristics relative to the opposition and still proved superior overall, irrespective of other qualities. Compared to the Zero, the P-39 was faster but badly lacking in altitude capability. As covered by Tomo earlier, the tactical situation in the PTO meant that thenJapanese fighters could therefore usually engage from above. The Wildcat was somewhat slower than the zero but like the P-39 it could outlive the Japanese fighters, and it's much better altitude performance gave it the chance of using that advantage offensively as well as defensively.
Like a lot of people, I think the P-39 was a missed opportunity for the USAF. At a time when pretty much all other US single engine fighter designs were sound but uninspired, it was genuinely forward thinking. Pity the same couldn't be said of the Air Force theoreticians who neutered it.
Best guess at what altitude they would be dead even at? Wouldn't the P39 be faster than an F4F even at 20,000 feet?
That's fine - employ the P-39 at at an altitude where it works best, say 10,000 feet. All we have do do now is assume that the Japanese fighters won't be so unsporting as to use their superior altitude performance to position themselves for an attack from above.
If the P-39 was going to make an impression against the Zero or Oscar in the kind of situations typical of the early to mid PTO it would need to have been able to tackle them at or above 15000 feet, but it couldn't and it didn't. Being a good performer at low altitude isn't much use if the opposition can climb faster, fly higher and has the opportunity to do so. Under those circumstances the superiority in speed and dive don't confer competitiveness, they just give you a chance for escape.
I suggested somewhere else that the two most important performance characteristics in air to air combat are speed and climb/altitude performance, on the grounds that I can't think of any fighter that significantly lacked both of these characteristics relative to the opposition and still proved superior overall, irrespective of other qualities. Compared to the Zero, the P-39 was faster but badly lacking in altitude capability. As covered by Tomo earlier, the tactical situation in the PTO meant that thenJapanese fighters could therefore usually engage from above. The Wildcat was somewhat slower than the zero but like the P-39 it could outlive the Japanese fighters, and it's much better altitude performance gave it the chance of using that advantage offensively as well as defensively.
Like a lot of people, I think the P-39 was a missed opportunity for the USAF. At a time when pretty much all other US single engine fighter designs were sound but uninspired, it was genuinely forward thinking. Pity the same couldn't be said of the Air Force theoreticians who neutered it.
In late 1941, if you had been sitting on a USAAF Review Board, why would you single the P-39 as a fighter to invest in for the future when both the P-47 and P-38 were faster, more heavily armed and a much greater performance vs altitude bandwidth.
Had Allison been capable of a two stage supercharger then, the story would be different. The P-63 was much better but too late for USAAF. Only the P-38 and P-63 survived the war with Allisons as the powerplant of choice for US Fighters.
"... Neutered how?
And if not neutered when would it have entered large scale squadron service?"
The USAAF had no engagements that in any way replicated the totality of the Eastern Front where the Soviets were able to utilize the P-39 as an under 11,000 ' down to the deck dogfighter, supporting Sturmoviks .... but, that said, during Guadalcanal, the P-39 was an effective fire support platform over land and sea. The 20 mm canon from the British rejects and later the 37 mm Olds canon, were good at barge busting. The AC was less vulnerable to ground fire than the P-40 due to the engine location. Range wa less an issue in this theatre, and the idea of accepting that the P-39 was not ever going to be a high altitude interceptor and hence getting on with using the AC for its strengths, seems obvious to me. It was a flawed concept in 1941-42 but by 1944 the Q model was very good and the P-63 took the best and made it better. The Soviets certainly benefitted, and those American who mastered the P-39, like Chuck Yeager, knew it had sass.
MM