Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Close, but she was blonde. Most Italian bars are run by families, or they are where I worked. The "staff" do the job as part of family life, not so much for the money, they frequently have other jobs. I knew one who was a linguist fluent in Latin, another was an art collector/trader, an expert in impressionist art and another was one of only three qualified female football referees in Italy. I cant say they were all beautiful but they were all stylish and interesting.
Not trying any semantic tricks. Squadron #64, #11, and #401 operational July '42 and #402 the next month with the Merlin 61, then from early 1943 with the Merlin 63, 66 and 70. So four squadrons in the last half of 1943. I would call that a good service test batch. They apparently did get into combat with victories in 1942 and having escorted some 8th AF short range missions.This is the crux of the whole discussion and what is slowly driving me nutz. The P 39N was in Production in December 1942 and the Spitfire mk IX was in squadron service during the previous summer. Would you replace Spitfire Mk Vs with P39-Ns or Mk IXs? and it isn't just a question of speed and rate of climb, it is also a question of serviceability, safety and loss rates. The P-39 was dangerous, relative to all other US fighters to its own pilots, even in training, I posted the stats and you made no comment. Using semantic tricks like "full series production" is not impressive, the fact is that the Mk IX was in production in mid 1942, there is a limit to how quickly any new type can be introduced and in terms of logistics switching all factories over when you don't have all the parts just means losing months of production. The Mk V may have been outclassed in 1942 but it was better than nothing.
Before the war started Hawkers were allowed to export Hurricanes because they could produce them faster than the RAF could train all their staff to use them. By 1940 production had doubled and each hurricane just got sent where it was needed because by that time everyone knew what it was, only pilots to fly them was an issue.
As I said before the pilots were no match for the Japanese navy pilots. Our kids were green and the Japanese navy pilots were experienced. The P-39 (early heavy D,F,K and L) were all at least 30mph faster than the Zero at all altitudes. They were hard pressed to defend their base yet with all these disadvantages they managed a 1:1 kill ratio.
Every pilot is "green" when they first fly combat, whether they're lifers or first tour nuggets.What do you mean by 'green'? The first US pilots to fly combat were career USAAC pilots.
My sincere apology. The official government/military tests on the P-39N (10/17/42) show a service ceiling of 38500' and the Hellcat (3/16/44) with 37000'. Top speed at 23000' (Hellcat critical altitude) of 379.5mph for the Hellcat and 375mph for the P-39N. At the Hellcat critical altitude of 23000' climb was 1500fpm while the P-39N climbed at 2285fpm. Thats 150% faster than the Hellcat. Same speed, faster climb. Not hearsay, official government tests. Tell me again how great a dogfighter the Hellcas was.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????
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....
Both were not as good as the 109GMy sincere apology. The official government/military tests on the P-39N (10/17/42) show a service ceiling of 38500' and the Hellcat (3/16/44) with 37000'. Top speed at 23000' (Hellcat critical altitude) of 379.5mph for the Hellcat and 375mph for the P-39N. At the Hellcat critical altitude of 23000' climb was 1500fpm while the P-39N climbed at 2285fpm. Thats 150% faster than the Hellcat. Same speed, faster climb. Not hearsay, official government tests. Tell me again how great a dogfighter the Hellcas was.
What are you talking about? There were 5,656 Spitfire MkIXs built between June 1942 and December 1944. Are you saying there were 4 squadrons in service half way through the total production run? I am tired of this whac-a-mole discussion. Regardless of anything anyone posts you go back to the same issues every few days. I strongly suspect that you continue to insist the Luftwaffe was defeated in March 1944 to explain production of P-39s halting in May 1944.Not trying any semantic tricks. Squadron #64, #11, and #401 operational July '42 and #402 the next month with the Merlin 61, then from early 1943 with the Merlin 63, 66 and 70. So four squadrons in the last half of 1943. I would call that a good service test batch. They apparently did get into combat with victories in 1942 and having escorted some 8th AF short range missions.
Yes I DO get the 120 gallons with the high rate of climb. I'll stand by the P-39N test on 10-17-42 as being at the average weight of that particular flight. The weights listed on the official performance tests (not manifjold comparisons or propeller comparisons on the exact same plane ie weight is the same) all show the test article to be light by about half the weight of the internal fuel with full loads of ammo, oil etc. This was the AVERAGE weight of the plane on that particular flight.excusing the typo of the production date (N production ended in APril '43)
we are back to repeating ourselves over the P-39s fuel capacity and performance. You don't get both the 120 gal fuel capacity and the the high rate of climb. Pick one.
The argument with the Spitfire is your claim that the P-40N could out climb everything but a Spitfire MK IX and your rather absurd claim that the Spitfire IX wasn't in full production until very late 1942 ( I guess the 4 squadrons at Dieppe in Augs were just using dozens of the prototype MK IXs?).
Against the much older MK V your one test P-39N may be technically ahead, but not by much, if any, at certain altitudes and not enough to make a real difference even at 20-25,000ft.
There was no gradually reduced capacity to as little as 86 gallons. you either had the full suite of 12 fuel cells with 120 gallons or you had the 8 tank suite of 87 gallons. The one gallon difference can be written off as a difference in translations or counting full fuel vs usable fuel.
Some loadings of the P-39 count 104 gallons of fuel but that is simply not filling the 120 gallon tanks all the way. Early P-51 loadings show 105 gallons of fuel "normal" and 180 gallons as overload. There were never 105 gallon tanks. Same with some P-40 loadings and many navy weight charts.
Please note that a full set of self-sealing fuel tanks for the P-39 weighed close to 290lbs so taking out the 4 smallest tanks/cells with the worst capacity to weight ratio is going to save a lot more weight than just the 33 gallons of fuel. The self sealing material was heavy. The production of the 87 gallon P-39s coincided with several light weight P-40 projects, culminating in the P-40N. Some of the P-40Ls had done the simple strip routine, yank a pair guns, yank some armor, yank a fuel tank and restrict ammo to the remaining guns. The P-40N was a much more thorough job, although yanking the electric starter and reducing the size of the battery went a little far, blaming the Russians for the reduction in fuel capacity for the P-39s seems a bit unfair unless you have actual documentation?
Please remember when judging use on the Russian front that most Russian aircraft had pretty poor armament by western standards. The LAGG-3 and Yaks having for the vast majority, a single 20mm and two 12.7mmm guns at best. Some deleted the 2nd 12.7mm gun due to weight/performance or supply issues? Some flew with a single 20mm, a single 12.7 and a single 7.62. LA-5s had two 20mm guns firing through the prop, lower cycle rate and ammo capacity was ??? Russian 20mm ammo used a light shell, about 75% the weight of the 20mm Hispano shell and with even less HE per shell. I would note that the Yak-9T with 37mm gun is usually credited with a single 12.7mm machine gun as additional armament.
Look, I just went back and re-read the SpitIX vs Me109G comparison and that is what it states exactly. They had four squadrons of Spitfire IXs with Merlin 61s and they went to the Merlin 63, 66 and 70 in early 1943. Read it yourself. Like you said, they only made 5656 MK IXs, not a big run.What are you talking about? There were 5,656 Spitfire MkIXs built between June 1942 and December 1944. Are you saying there were 4 squadrons in service half way through the total production run? I am tired of this whac-a-mole discussion. Regardless of anything anyone posts you go back to the same issues every few days. I strongly suspect that you continue to insist the Luftwaffe was defeated in March 1944 to explain production of P-39s halting in May 1944.
That over a quarter of the entire Spitfire production.they only made 5656 MK IXs, not a big run
And over half of total P39 production.That over a quarter of the entire Spitfire production.
My sincere apology. The official government/military tests on the P-39N (10/17/42) show a service ceiling of 38500' and the Hellcat (3/16/44) with 37000'. Top speed at 23000' (Hellcat critical altitude) of 379.5mph for the Hellcat and 375mph for the P-39N. At the Hellcat critical altitude of 23000' climb was 1500fpm while the P-39N climbed at 2285fpm. Thats 150% faster than the Hellcat. Same speed, faster climb. Not hearsay, official government tests. Tell me again how great a dogfighter the Hellcas was.
Yes I DO get the 120 gallons with the high rate of climb. I'll stand by the P-39N test on 10-17-42 as being at the average weight of that particular flight. The weights listed on the official performance tests (not manifjold comparisons or propeller comparisons on the exact same plane ie weight is the same) all show the test article to be light by about half the weight of the internal fuel with full loads of ammo, oil etc. This was the AVERAGE weight of the plane on that particular flight.
P-39C 6689 test 7075 published weight difference 386# or 64 gallons
P-39D 7525 test 7850 " 325# 54
P-39M 7430 test 7650 " 220# 37
P-39N 7274 test 7650 376# 63
Every plane tested in an official performance test was lighter than published gross weight by roughly half the fuel. I can do this for the P-38 also but I'm not, look it up yourself. They are using an average weight for that particular flight on that day for calculations and ratios.
There certainly WAS a gradually reduced capacity. The N started with 120 gallons and was gradually reduced in subsequent production blocks until the Q had as little as 86 with the full 120 gradually restored in subsequent production blocks. The 104 gallon figure refers to the fuel left after deducting the 16 gallons in the reserve tank, actually a part of the inside left wing tank. Self sealing rubber fuel tanks weighed 260# total for the 12 tanks.
You repeatedly take a factoid and extrapolate it. The 4 squadrons were issued with the MK IX then received an uprated version about 8 months later, but that is about how long a plane was used or superseded in service. The three American "Eagle Squadrons were issued with Mk IXs in September 1942. The Mk V was not being produced anymore, the RAF rarely had more than 1000 front line fighters in service but used over 2000 per year, that is how quickly a front line fighter becomes obsolete, lost, damaged or just worn out.Look, I just went back and re-read the SpitIX vs Me109G comparison and that is what it states exactly. They had four squadrons of Spitfire IXs with Merlin 61s and they went to the Merlin 63, 66 and 70 in early 1943. Read it yourself. Like you said, they only made 5656 MK IXs, not a big run.
No, I was using data from here.Does the 5656 Spitfire IX number include the MXVI which was basically the same aircraft with a different engine and the Mk VIII with a similar performance?
Put the and if I remember the total came to about 8,250 give or take
My sincere apology. The official government/military tests on the P-39N (10/17/42) show a service ceiling of 38500' and the Hellcat (3/16/44) with 37000'. Top speed at 23000' (Hellcat critical altitude) of 379.5mph for the Hellcat and 375mph for the P-39N. At the Hellcat critical altitude of 23000' climb was 1500fpm while the P-39N climbed at 2285fpm. Thats 150% faster than the Hellcat. Same speed, faster climb. Not hearsay, official government tests. Tell me again how great a dogfighter the Hellcas was.
Makes a decent number doesn't itNo, I was using data from here.
Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin-powered variants) - Wikipedia
Mark Built by Numbers Built Notes
F VII, H.F VII Supermarine 140 First Mk VII September 1942
F VIII, L.F VIII Supermarine 1,658 First Mk VIII 11 November 1942
F IX, H.F IX, L.F IX Supermarine, Castle Bromwich 5,656 First Mk IX BR581 June 1942
PR X Supermarine 16 First Mk X May 1944
PR XI Supermarine 471 First Mk XI November 1942
XVI Castle Bromwich 1,054 First Mk XVI October 1944