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.
My date of 25 Dec 1943 was itself based on how long a new type aircraft which started to be produced in USA in Dec 1942 would actually be expected to be operational in UK. Shipping and training take much longer than you would think.
 
We may be getting into arguments about semantics. One man's "twitchy" is another man's "highly responsive" .

yes, I actually think the two things very much go together. I-16's were considered very maneuverable AND "twitchy" - so were Fw 190's for that matter (though I know some people will disagree with that) and even early Ki-43's. Hurricanes were very stable but not as dynamic, by contrast.

Handling and maneuverability are two different things, and maneuverability can mean multiple different things too. An aircraft can be slightly unstable but also very agile simultaneously. That is actually what I was alluding to - for a pilot experienced with this particular kind of challenge it isn't really a problem at all. Clearly the Soviets had few problems with this aspect of the P-39, comparatively, but it's also very clear that many if not most American, Italian, and French pilots positively dreaded maneuvering with the P-39 and feared that it would go into a spin that would kill them. A lot of them found the P-39 risky to bail out of too due to the 'car type' doors (though some people in New Guinea seemed to have made a career out of bailing out of them).

I think being comfortable with "twitchy" aircraft, and spending more time in familiarization with the type- is one of the main reasons the Soviets did so much better with the P-39, aside from the requirements / conditions of the Theater.

S
 

And very valuable $.02, indeed !
Many thanks to Schweik for such detailed commentary. And - especially - for bringing attention to:
1. Massive pre-flight preparations, research and improvements. They continued with later models as well.
2. Advanced training that many pilots received. Human factor should not be underestimated.

Just a couple of small things:
- 22 ZAP and other reserve/training regiments were never based in Siberia. Siberian airfields were just transit points for AlSib route.
- Certainly "not the most similar to Soviet fighters". Actually most, if not all qualities of P-39 praised by VVS pilots were not typical to domestic production. As for nose guns orientation - interesting hypothesis, but it needs to be verified.
 
Last edited:
Also, not many kills against JU-87s. I thought they were pretty numerous on the Eastern Front. Were they depleted by this time, or was it due to their agility and their tail gunner?
Cheers,
Wes

Good question. I'd suggest both general attrition and (probably) Ju 87 tactics changes after 1941. If they were more and more used at lower altitudes then their typical opposition would be Yak and La, IMHO. P-39 did not excel very low.
One of Rudel's stories was about P-39 on his tail in long ground level chase in 1944...
As for numbers of Ju 87, if someone has enough time to count them from here or from similar source:
http://www.oocities.org/sturmvogel_66/LWJul42.html#May43
 

Interesting, do you know where the 22 ZAP base was exactly? I thought it was Western Siberia / Central Asia.

Similarity I think is mainly regarding the nose gun and overall streamlined appearance, but also small wings and some other features. Admittedly just a theory. I think the nose gun thing is important because so many Soviet pilots mentioned it.

S
 
The most dreaded thing Italian P-39 pilots feared were the nickname the other pilots, who remained in the Stormo equipped with Macchi gave them: "the truck drivers", for the car style door of their planes...

For Italians, pride is very important of course . A lot of them died in accidents in P-39's though including IIRC at least one important ace, so that is pretty tragic.

S
 
Still, I cannot understand how a plane like P-39 could have had such a good score against Luftwaffe fighters. Difficult handling, not the best suitable armament...

Certainly, while in the Western Front Luftwaffe gave precedence to quality, in the Eastern Front took precedence quantity and, probably, the percentage of unskilled LW pilots there was in the East was higher.

Or was outstandingly high the skill of Russian pilots? Could be, but I doubt: Ulrich Rudel could ride on a Stuka well into 1944, if not 1945 on the Russian Front...
 

From reading Black Cross / Red Star it seems like a lot of German bomber sorties were able to take place without fighter opposition, especially during periods when the LW had achieved local air superiority such as during the first part of Stalingrad.

S
 
For Italians, pride is very important of course . A lot of them died in accidents in P-39's though including IIRC at least one important ace, so that is pretty tragic.

S

Last victory of Teresio Martinoli, top italian Ace in the Regia Aeronautica, was against a P-39 in Tunisia, and then he died in a training flight with an Airacobra. His last victory, a Ju-52 over Jugoslavia, was with a P-39 as well.
Googling "Martinoli, Tunisia" I did find this:

"In the final chapter in "Fighters over Tunisia" (by Shores, Ring & Hess), "Conclusions", there are some quite interesting pilot comments on the various fighter planes used. With earlier discussions on the Airacobra in mind, it is interesting to note that there are several pilot remarks on the Airacobra, and none of them is kind. In fact, no fighter type is torn apart to such an extent by the pilots interviewed in "Fighters over Tunisia" as the Airacobra.

Jerry Collingsworth, who flew as a Lieutenant with US 31st FG in Tunisia, is quoted saying:

"The P-39 [Airacobra] was a miserable fighter for Tunisia; we used to have to escort them because the Me 109 and Fw 190 outperformed them in every conceivable way; dive, climb, manoeuvre, speed - you name it!" (p. 416)

Wg.Cdr. M. G. F. Pedley, who served as a Wing Leader in 323 Wing in Tunisia, is quoted on the same subject:

"P-39 Airacobra . . . Its rate of climb was poor, armament inefficient and engine unreliable." (p. 424)

John L. Bradley of US 33rd FG is quoted to say this on the Airacobra:

"I flew a couple of escorts for P-39s during my tour. Many of the pilots on these aircraft were afraid of them and figured they didn't have a chance if they were jumped by enemy aircraft without top cover." (p. 404)

There is not one positive word on the Airacobra among these harsh condemnations. Hardly suprising, since by looking up the two Airacobra units operating in Tunisia (81 FG and 350 FG) in the index of "Fighters over Tunisia", one gets the impression of a fighter plane which was badly mauled by Luftwaffe fighters without any chance to pay back. In late February 1943 350 FG was withdrawn from first-line service and degraded to coastal patrols with the North-West African Air Force. A little later, the other Airacobra unit, 81 FG, was badly beaten up by II./JG 77.

On 13 March 1943, Bf 109s of II./JG 77 - possibly reinforced by some Bf 109s from III./JG 77 - attacked 12 Airacobras of 81 FG, provided with top cover by Spitfires of 307 and 308 Sqns. In the ensuing combat, seven of the twelve Airacobras were shot down without any loss to the Germans. The shot down Airacobras were piloted by Lt. Murray, Lt. Turkington, Lt. Smith, Lt. Leech, Lt. McCreight, Lt. Lewis, and Lt. Lyons. The Eastern Front veteran Ernst- Wilhelm Reinert scored five victories against Airacobras (at 1744, 1748, 1756, 1756 again, and 1800 hours)

(Earlier that day, II./JG 77 had clashed with 34 P-40 Warhawks of US 57 FG and shot down four of these against one own loss. II./JG 77 claimed to have shot down five Warhawks, including two by Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert; thus, the Eastern Front veteran Reinert scored seven victories against US fighters on 13 March 1943, increasing his total victory tally to 135.)

All of this, including Reinert's feat, is a perfect illustration of the Luftwaffe Eastern Front veterans repeating what they previously had accomplished on the Eastern Front against the same kind of fighters.

To compare with the Eastern Front, 216 SAD, equipped with Airacobras and Warhawks, sustained five Airacobras and a Warhawk shot down in a similar outburst of air fighting on 15 April 1943.

However, to be fair, it should be noted that only a few days before II./JG 77's massacre on US-piloted Airacobras, other Airacobras flown by Soviet pilots of 19 GIAP managed to shoot down three of III./JG 5's Bf 109s in a single engagement (against only one own Airacobra lost). Lt. Jakob Norz's Bf 109 F-4 (WNr 13108), Lt. Gerd Grosse-Brauckmann's WNr 10183, and Fw. Ernst Schulze's WNr 10122 were all reported destroyed as a result of that combat. Without drawing any far-fetched conclusions, I can only note that AFAIK the American Airacobra pilots never managed to accomplish anything similar against Luftwaffe fighters.

In any case, shortly after it had received such a bad beating by II./JG 77, this US Airacobra unit also was withdrawn from first-line service and joined the other Airacobra unit in coastal patrols with the North-West African Air Force - where they were saved from encountering any Bf 109s or Fw 190s."

and also

In late February 1943, the Airacobra-equipped 350th FG was withdrawn from first-line service and degraded to coastal patrols with the North-West African Air Force. It is not quite correct to state that "it returned to front line action", as you will see below.

In fact, the 350th FG Airacobras never were sent back to regular first-line service. From February 1943, their dominant task would remain coastal patrols in the rear area. In November 1943 it was transferred from North Africa to Cagliari/ Elmas, Sardinia."

I'm looking if I will be able to find some pics of Airacobra here in Sardinia...

P-39 is certainly a very controversial aircraft.
 
Last edited:

Thanks Corsning, I just needed the clarification. And just to make clear I enjoy your posts and value your input as always.
 
So are we in agreement that the loaded weight of the Q model was roughly 150-200lbs more than the P-39N (extra weight of guns, ammo, and additional fairings) ? How would an increase like that affect the level speed and climb rate?
 

Good post overall, and yes these were the same quotes included in MAW III which I was referring to about US pilots being "afraid" of their P-39's.

Be careful lumping the P-40 and the P-39, especially the late model P-40's flying with the 57 FG, because based on the newer books by the same author (Shores) which compare actual victories vs. losses on each side, USAAF P-40 squadrons on numerous occasions shot down more Bf 109's than they themselves lost. I cited about ten examples in another thread - I know this too is a controversial topic and I don't want to detail this conversation about the P-39 so if you want to discuss P-40's post in that one probably or create a new thread.

But here are a few examples involving USAAF P-40 F/L vs. Bf 109s specifically:

23 March 1943
(USAAF 79 FG P-40F vs. JG 77 & JG 51) 2 Bf 109s lost to P-40's / 0 P40's lost
29 March 1943
(USAAF 33 FG P-40L vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (4 destroyed +2 crash-landed) and 3 He 111's and 1 Ju 88 / 2 P-40's lost (1 to AA)
31 March 1943
(USAAF 33 FG P-40L vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (3 destroyed +3 crash-landed) / 1 P-40 lost


Good point and absolutely true. I believe the reasons are as outlined in my previous post. It's certainly a striking contrast.


Quite true but even as the P-39 was relegated to coastal patrol duties, it's worth noting that multiple RAF, Free French and USAAF squadrons were still using the P-40 for front line combat operations, including escort and fighter sweep missions, well into the middle of 1943, with some units continuing until 1944. In Shores MAW P-40 squadrons are still scoring kills against the Luftwaffe well into 1943 as I noted above. it's also worth pointing out that while there was only 1 US ace flying the P-39, and no others in the West that I know of (at least, none who made 5 kills in a P-39) there were at least 80 P-40 aces in the Med Theater alone and something like 15 or 20 double aces. The Soviets also had dozens of P-40 Aces and several double, triple and even quadrouple aces flying the type, including 3 HSU recipients.

S
 
Since most P-39s sent to Russia were the N and Q versions, is it possible these were quite well sorted as far as engine and CoG issues went while the earlier versions just shouldn't have been put into service?
 
So are we in agreement that the loaded weight of the Q model was roughly 150-200lbs more than the P-39N (extra weight of guns, ammo, and additional fairings) ? How would an increase like that affect the level speed and climb rate?
The weight alone has a negligible impact on speed. It is the drag associated with the weight that causes the speed reduction.
For instance if you were add internal ballast with NO exterior changes the only increase in drag would be a very marginal shift in the angle of attack of the wing and the induced drag, since forces on the plane (both drag and lift) go up with the square of the speed adding a few hundred pounds to an aircraft does very little to the speed.
However, pods, protruding gun barrels, gun ports/troughs, cartridge ejection slots can cause a much bigger disruption of airflow and increased drag.

When climbing there is a bit of a double whammy. Since climb speed is relatively low, in fact it is a cross/blend between lowest speed with good controllability and the lowest drag speed ( lowest drag caused by lift and lowest drag caused by speed/shape). I am not explaining that well.

Picture worth 1000 words. Climb is done near the minimum drag speed, an increase in weight is going to cause the lift induced drag to rise at low speed in greater proportion than at high speed. This leaves less power to perform the climb with and when climbing you are lifting every pound.

Hope that makes sense?
 
Since most P-39s sent to Russia were the N and Q versions, is it possible these were quite well sorted as far as engine and CoG issues went while the earlier versions just shouldn't have been put into service?


I am not sure how bad things really were and how much was "hanger talk". The P-39 certainly had a higher landing speed than a P-40 but then so did a P-47. The P-39 may have been more responsive than some other fighters, more results (change of angle of aircraft)for the same movement or effort on the stick/rudder pedals.
The P-39 may parallel the B-26? Early pilots transitioning from easier to fly aircraft had trouble with it (and inexperienced instructors didn't help) while later pilots had a better training program?
Once a plane gets a bad reputation it takes a LOOOOOOONG time to live it down.

IN combat in 1942 and early 43 the P-39 was usually going to be the plane being dived down upon and seldom being the plane doing the diving upon others, which means it is at a disadvantage a larger percentage of the time.

I am not saying the P-39 was a great combat plane in the west, just that some pilot's comments have to be put in context.
 
Great post, the proof of that particular pudding is the Mustang Mk I (P51A) bigger and heavier than the P39 but faster, it actually did do 400MPH with and Allison engine, and the P51B bigger and heavier than the Spitfire but faster at all altitudes on the same engine. Rates of climb may have been slightly lower but not seriously behind.
 
The pilots of 601 sqdrn RAF had previously flown Hurricanes, the take off of the P-39 was much longer, so much that it couldn't be used on some RAF bases. The landing speed and I presume take off speed was much higher, the pilots manual says that you can side slip to lose height but the rate of descent means this shouldn't ne necessary. However of the planes used by 601, one crashed after take off with engine failure killing the pilot, another crashed during aerobatics killing the pilot while another had to do a wheels up landing. The actual tests by Boscombe down said it could be used as a low altitude fighter, it just happened that the pilots actually using it hated it. Personally I think Operation Barbarossa and Japanese activities in the Pacific trumped all discussions. The British were already sending planes and tanks to Russia starting June 1941, sending P39s to UK while UK was sending Hurricanes and later Spitfires to Russia makes no sense at all.
 
Nikademus time ago posted him sum from Shore's books on war in Africa this give 522 P-40 losses vs 206 109 losses (my sum for both the books)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread