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.


Indeed, I was thinking about V-1650-1 (note to self - next time be direct, instead of being cryptic).
That engine was able to outperform single stage V-1710 at every altitude, and it was available earlier than the '9.60 V-1710s' show up. Installation of that engine would've dictated also the relocation of (now longer) engine intake into a place not hampered from having the canopy ahead itself, should help to better use of ram effect.
The main problem to get V-1650-1 in P-39 would've been the low availability; also, IIRC the reduction gear was integral with crankcase - not compatible with P-39 power-plant installation.

BTW, the grpah kindly posted by krieghund neatly describes the single-stage V-1710 as an 'altitude rated engine'
 
Well climb and speed are only a few of the factors involved in determining maneuverability. It would appear at face value that the P-39 has the advantage but I would suspect the F4F is the more nimble due to a lower wing loading and able to easily out turn the P-39. The P-39 probably bleeds energy faster than the F4F as well. Remember later in the war the USN used the F4F (FM-2) to simulate the Zero in dissimilar aerial combat training. The P-39 would have to employ AVG tactics against the F4F.
 
Here's a comparison of the engine charts from the flight manuals. The military power recommended duration on the V1710 is 15 minutes and the V1650 is 5 minutes. A clear advantage of the V1650 in military is an increase in critical altitude by over 6000 feet. Of course the V1710 is the without ram. With ram it approaches 14,900 feet
 

Attachments

  • V1650-1_001.png
    159.9 KB · Views: 169
  • V1710-35_001.png
    167.6 KB · Views: 157
The table for the V-1650-1 lists the critical altitudes in the wrong column, under 'with ram', instead under 'no ram'.
 
tomo pauk said:
The main problem to get V-1650-1 in P-39 would've been the low availability; also, IIRC the reduction gear was integral with crankcase - not compatible with P-39 power-plant installation.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the reduction gear was a big issue, tbh. Just needs a new casing with bearing and output shaft, as Rolls-Royce did with the Griffon for the Flying Test Bed (FTB). They could also use a torque tube, as was done in the FTB.

The main issues with the Merlin was the updraft carburettor. A downdraft carby would make fitting easier, but not sure how easy it was to convert.

The V-1650-1 should be a little shorter than the V-1710.

http://www.airpages.ru/draw/merlin25.gif
 

There's more than a little doubt about the 3 kills attributed to Wagner on that mission.

Duane
 
pinsog said:
Do you have any details? Could you please explain what the other side of the story is?
Click to expand...

Officially he's credited with 3 Zeros although contemporary records vary from one to three. None of the narratives from other pilots mention Zeros shot down by Wagner. A total of 4 claims were made for the mission. Until recently, available Japanese records shed no light on the mission, but recent research by Michael Claringbould shows one loss, FPO2c Izumi Hideo. He may have been shot down by George Greene who claimed hits on a Zero that he thought fell to the water.

Duane
 
varsity078740 said:
There's more than a little doubt about the 3 kills attributed to Wagner on that mission.

Duane
Click to expand...

Bottom line, Wagner and his pilots successfully brought the fight to the Japanese and did show the P-39 could at least hold its own uncer the right circumstances.

We could also re-write history and take 3 credits away from one of the first US Aces...
 

I don't think that history needs to be rewritten and I'm not saying for certain that he didn't shoot down the 3 Zeros. But it remains a controversial topic as noted in the 8th Fighter Groups history Attack and Conquer. Nevertheless The Air Force
and the American Aces Association both credit him with 8 victories which includes the 3 from the Lae Mission. But, it's no secret that alot of the stories that came out of the Pacific during the first 6 months of the war were pure propaganda. Witness the variety of stories about Colin Kelly. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. As far as the merits of the P-39 vs. the Zero goes, Wagner's written report on it after the Lae mission is very informative.

Duane
 

And that mission also gave a big boost to the 8FG, it really showed that the USAAF WAS capable of taking on the Japanese even with P-39s and P-40s.
 
Down on the deck, one on one with a Zero, what would you guys want to be in, a P39, an F4F or a P40? Personally, I would take the P39 because it is alot faster and has a very good climb rate down low. Of course, hind sight 20/20, I would also want all the wing guns removed to dump a few hundred pounds of extra weight and I would want the 20mm cannon and not the 37mm cannon.
 
Last edited:
Pinsog, I have noticed the same thing - the charts show the P-39 as faster than the F4F to 24,000 feet, and if we overlaid a A6M-2 chart, the P-39 would likely have a similar paper advantage over the Zero. So why did the P-39 have the reputation of being such a dog at much lower altitudes, sometimes 12,000 to 15,000 feet? I can understand that the Guadalcanal P-400s didn't have oxygen. That's a good excuse, but the New Guinea P-39s had the reputation of being dogs both to the American and the Japanese pilots, and they were U.S. spec.
 

Personally I would take the Zero
 

The P-39 was not a "dog" at 12,000 feet but at 24,000 it needed full throttle to keep from stalling. In the early part of the New Guinea campaign, the P-39 was used as an interceptor against bombers with escorts coming over the target at altitudes over 20,000. They never were able to attain an altitude advantage during attempted intercepts and were constantly bounced by escorts coming down on them from higher altitudes. The 8th Pursuit(fighter)Group was decimated. At Guadalcanal lack of oxygen for P-400s was a mute point. They couldn't get to the same height as the F4Fs with or without oxygen.

Duane
 
The performance charts are all corrected to stand air pressure and sometimes standard temperature. Temperature is usually 59 or 60 degrees F or 15 degrees C. BUT NOT ALWAYS.

See:



Please note that for THIS chart take-off distance and time for climb are figured for 0 degrees C or 32 degrees F and need 15% added to them just to bring them TO STANDARD.

Now adjust for 90-100 degree tropical heat on some days and the climb rate IN THEATER can take a real beating compared to the test results at factory or test center. And no, the air temp at 20,000ft is not the same world over.
 
Wouldn't the performance of all aircraft be negatively affected by the high density-altitudes caused by the high temperatures? Why the p-39 more than the P-40? the navy got loaded TBDs over the Owen Stanleys for Pete's sake. When WWII pilots refer to altitude, are they generally talking about density altitude, or actual distance over sea level?
 
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
943
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