Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Three of the five top Soviet aces (Grigori Rechkalov, Nikolai Gulaev and Dmitri Glinka) got most of their kills while flying P-39s and Rechkalov and D. Glinka ended the war in May 1945 still flying P-39s with Guards units operating inside Germany. Gulaev was badly wounded in Aug 44, still flying P-39 with 129 GIAP. And at least still in March 1945 Airacobras operated with Leningrad area PVO with Guard interceptor units. So guard units used P-39s to the end of the war in Europe in air superiority and interceptor roles.
Juha
In Malta they came up with their own solution which were 2 x 45 gallon tanks from Hurricanes fitted under the fuselage. They were used to extend the distance from Malta that convoys could get air cover
Yup, if you put a civil servant in charge of things even a Spitfire can come out fugly.
Thanks for the chart fubar57. Seeing that the majority flew a wide variety of types, is there any way to know which aircraft they were most successful with? Did any score exclusively with the Airacobra?
...To the Russians, who never were too worried for the lives of their pilots, this did not seem to have been of particular importance, but for the American, British, Australian, Italian pilots, that were particularly attached to their skins, it was...
I read that Il-2 pilots would be ordered to continue "attacking" German positions even when they had no weapons left, just to keep their heads down. Excluding the material cost of the airplane, it is quite possible for a "dummy attack" to save many more lives than that of a single pilot.Strickly speaking that was not true, pilots were specialists, expensive to train, so in normal situations they were valued, Soviet planes had back armour for pilots already in 1939 and at least their fighters and medium DB-3 bombers had self-sealing fuel tanks also at that time. Of course in desperate situations as in 1941 e.g. strafing attacks were ordered regardless the cost.
Thanks Juha for the valuable information. Through your research were you able to ascertain the overall validity of the "kills" awarded to these top Soviet fighter pilots? And how much, if any, were their scores "influenced" by the Soviet propaganda machine?
Strickly speaking that was not true, pilots were specialists, expensive to train, so in normal situations they were valued, Soviet planes had back armour for pilots already in 1939 and at least their fighters and medium DB-3 bombers had self-sealing fuel tanks also at that time. Of course in desperate situations as in 1941 e.g. strafing attacks were ordered regardless the cost.
I agree completely, the performance presented shows a wonderful use of the Allison engines power to achieve results no other manufacturer achieved, but actually no one flying a P-39 achieved either. The same goes for the P-400 that the British received, it didn't do 400MPH at any height ever, even the quoted speeds of the P-39D under test were wide of the mark, it should have been slightly slower than the Spitfire V above 15,000 ft in fact it was much slower. The same goes for aerobatic performance, from test pilots taking other pilots word for the plane being satisfactory to "issues being raised" it eventually was barred from use as a front line fighter after it had been used as a front by many nations. To me the issue of spent nose armament is a complete red herring, it progressed into a flat spin while under test by a test pilot, that is all just "plausible denial".I do not have the skills to plot/chart the results of the tests for the P-39.
What I am referring to is that the test results for the P-39N that form the basis for this argument seem to be out of the normal expected results.
That is like testing 10 aircraft and finding 8 are within 2-3% of each other, one is 5% slow and one is 5% fast. The slow one could be checked for poor engine (multiple reasons) or poor airframe causing drag. The fast one has only a few answers, bad test instruments, out of the ordinary weather conditions or an engine that is making more than ordinary power.
Please note that in many of these tests they had no way of actually KNOWING what the engine was making for power, they simply recorded the RPM and manifold pressure and consulted a chart to get the power. Some radial engines had torque meters built into the reduction gearbox and by measuring the RPM and the torque reading they had the actual power that engine was making at the moment. Not what engine XX made on a test stand when they have engine YY in the airplane.
The P-39N test could be true/accurate. It is just that it is so much better than the P-39M & Q that weren't that different.
Is the N test accurate and the M & Q tests the result of poor engines?
We also have operational charts showing no difference in performance between the N and Q (or not enough to list) and cruise charts showing little or no difference in the needed by the high drag gunpod Q and the earlier aircraft.
I would note they hung a 90 imp gallon fuel tank under a MK V Spit (790lbs on a 6695lb plane) and got 560 less fpm at 20,000ft change in rate of climb while the P-39Q lost 430fpm at 20,000ft after adding 600lbs to to 7274lb plane. I would note that the Spitfire was fully tropicalized with that fugly air cleaner and tropical radiator and oil cooler setups.
The first combat report on WW2aircraft.net for a Spit IX is 28th July 1942 approx. 12 months before the P39N entered service.
As an aside I believe that the first USAAF units equipped with the Spit VIII started operations in Aug 1943