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.
I agree, there are better things to attend to, after all, it is time to give my goldfish his weekly bath.
 
Tomo - worth noting that all the P-51-1 (and -2) retained by AAF save the two set aside for XP-51B, were modified for Tac Recon. The -1 had the mod performed at Inglewood, all the rest were by Depots.

Also worth noting that the A-36 wing was the precursor for the P-51A/Mustang II. Eliminate the dive brake but all internal plumbing and controls for the bomb/fuel tank rack were passed to the P-51A and B/C with minor changes (landing light, pitot tube, etc).
 

P-39 offered better performance than contemporary Soviet fighters, fit & finish was better, radios were better while being actually available. Soviets didn't needed long range as much that was required by US, while UK have had better performers to choose from.
I don't think that Western pilots hated P-39 that much.
 
You see, this is how these threads should progress. P-39 blah blah blah, get the second string junk out of the way and let the thread evolve to the real meat and potatoes of enlightened WWII discussion. The Mustang.
 


Hurricanes, Spitfires and all other western airplanes sent to USSR "offered better performance than contemporary Soviet fighters, fit & finish was better, radios were better while being actually available. Soviets didn't needed long range as much that was required by US...".

Or Hurricanes and Spitfires were delivered just in the most basical form? It seems we are talking about sports cars, here..."Where is the coffee cup holder"?

The only WWII airplane whose Pilots didn't organize an association after the war, AFAIK...
 
Last edited:

I covered this in an earlier post. in addition to what was mentioned (radios, build quality),

  • P-39s arrived new unlike most of the Hurricanes, P-40's they got up to that point
  • P-39 had a nose gun like other Soviet fighters so was familiar to Russian pilots preferred type of gunnery
  • Soviets did a 4 month training / maintenance workup on the P-39 prior to introducing it to combat (something they didn't do with any other type as far as I know). They did extensive modifications - removing the wing guns but also a lot of maintenance related things.
  • They had spare engines and spare parts for P-39's (this and the work-up eliminatated most of the problems experienced previously with the P-40 and Hurricane)
  • Range and ceiling were not really a factor
  • P-39 could out-dive Bf 109 which no other Soviet fighter could do
  • Soviet pilots were used to 'twitchy' planes. I-16, Yak 1, LaGG-3, MiG-3, etc.
It's worth noting, the Soviets also did well with P-40's, though they had more maintenance problems with them.

All of this and more is covered in the Lend Lease Aircraft article on the P-39

Early Cobra's in Soviet Aviation

Or Hurricanes and Spitfires were delivered just in the most basical form? It seems we are talking about sports cars, here..."Where is the coffee cup holder"?
Click to expand...

Not sure about the Spitfires but the Hurricanes and P-40's were in many cases already worn out from combat when they were sent to the Soviets
 

There was no Yak-1 association, no La-5 association, no Ki-43 association IIRC. Fiat G.50 association?
Hurricanes certainly did not offered better performance equal to the contemporary Soviet fighters from 1941 on. Stalin was also clamoring for more Spitfires (that was not better under 4 km than P-39), while declaring Hurricanes and P-40s not as good. Most of the Spitfires delivered were with 1-stage Merlin.
There was no such thing as "all other western A/C offering better performance than Soviet fighters", since there was o F4U there, no P-51s were sent to the Soviet Union (apart one Mustang I for tests), no P-38, no Typhoon, no Tempest, not even the F6F. The P-47 was not that good under 4 km, and only 200 were shipped, vs. thousands of P-39s. P-40 will not be as good as P-39 under 4 km, provided same generation of engines is installed. P-63 was probably better, was delivered in numbers, but it was too late to matter, and 1st examples were deemed by Soviets as with too weak fuselage.
 
tomo pauk said:
P-40 will not be as good as P-39 under 4 km, provided same generation of engines is installed.
Click to expand...

Disagree with that one! Maybe we need to start a P-40 vs. P-39 thread.

Stalin's comments aside, the main issue the Soviets had with the P-40 was with maintenance. They did quite well with the ones they got until the engines wore out ,there were ~40 Russian P-40 aces and 3 double HSU recipients flying them. most of the P-40 units became guards regiments. None of this is true for the Hurricane as far as I know.

Golodnikov noted that the p-40 could out-turn the Yak 7 and could handle the Bf 109 well into 1943.

He was probably flying later (P-40K or M) versions though. And he did still prefer the P-39. Quote from the interview:

"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and maneuverability of the P-40? Did it suit you?

N. G. I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.
Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.

Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.
As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.
When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it.

I flew somewhere around 50 combat sorties and participated in 10�12 aerial engagements in the P-40. Then the regiment became the next in line to replace its equipment�for the P-39 Airacobra."
 
Some interesting commentary by Golodnikov on the 37mm gun in the P-39

Part 3

A. S. Was a 37mm cannon necessary? Wasn�t this too large a caliber for a fighter? You had so few rounds of ammunition. And wasn�t its rate of fire slow?

N. G. One cannot say that the 37mm cannon was a disadvantage or an advantage. Look at it from this perspective. The M-6 cannon had its strong and weak points. One had to take advantage of the strong points and compensate, as much as possible, for its weaknesses.

These were the weaknesses: 1. Low rate of fire. 8 rounds/second [this is incorrect�the correct rate is slightly over 2 rounds/second (130 rounds/minute) � J.G.] This is indeed a low rate of fire.

2. The ballistics of the projectile were abysmal. The flight trajectory of the projectile was arching, which required large lead angles. But again this was at long ranges, especially when firing at ground targets. When firing at ground targets we had to apply two rings of the sight for lead.

3. Minimal ammunition supply. Thirty rounds.

All these deficiencies could be compensated for by proper selection of firing range. If one fired from 70�50 meters, there was sufficient rate of fire, the ballistics at this range were acceptable, and the lead required was minimal. Thus, all the weaknesses of the 37mm cannon listed above revealed themselves only at long ranges.

Now regarding the strengths: 1. The projectile was very powerful. Normally, one strike on an enemy fighter and he was finished! In addition, we fired this cannon at other types of targets. Bombers, vessels at sea. The 37mm cannon was very effective against these targets.

Here is an example. Our patrol torpedo boats had torn apart a German convoy. The majority of them had in some way or other been damaged, but they were withdrawing. One patrol boat was heavily damaged and lagging behind a bit. German �hunter� boats were closing in on it. One of them moved in either to kill or capture it. There were eight of us; my squadron commander Vitya Maksimovich, had flown out in pair slightly ahead of us to reconnoiter the convoy and I was leading the other six. We were listening to the conversations of the PT boat crews (the PT boats, by the way, were American Higgins craft). The commander of the heavily damaged boat said, �They are on top of us!� My squadron commander said to him, �Don�t worry! I �ll get him now!� He dropped down and fired a burst of 37mm cannon. It was a pleasure to watch the German �hunter� go up in flames. Six Bf-109Fs were covering the convoy and supporting the attack on our PT boats. I engaged them with my group of six Cobras. We circled round and round. I shot down two Messerschmitts and damaged one (intelligence subsequently confirmed the damaged 109). Before we had even landed, the crew of the damaged PT boat reported by radio that one of the Cobras had shot down two Messers and another had set the German �hunter� on fire. This had all happened right in front of their eyes. Later Admiral A. V. Kuzmin, commander of the patrol torpedo boat brigade, personally expressed his appreciation to us. All our damaged PT boats made it back to their base.

Thus, a single burst of several 37mm projectiles was sufficient to set fire to or damage a �hunter-type� patrol vessel.

Here is another example. We were flying on a �free hunt� mission, four of us. I was the leader. We came upon a German tanker that we estimated at 3000�3500 tons. Most importantly, it was proceeding without escort! I gave the command, �Prepare to attack!� I dropped down and made my pass, firing a good burst. I pulled out at an altitude of 25 meters. He also fired back at me. OK, fine. My wingman made his pass on the target, then the leader of the second pair, and the fourth pilot reported, �It�s burning. I can�t see anything!� I responded, �OK, pull out, don�t engage.� We got a look at it, moving toward shore totally engulfed in flames. We flew back to our airfield and reported, �We set a tanker on fire, 3,500 tons.� And he replied, �Right. You set a tanker on fire with all of 38 rounds expended!� He didn�t believe what I was telling them. 38 rounds for 3,500 tons! I said to him, �Isn�t that enough? We put 38 rounds into that box!� At first everyone laughed at us, but later our agent intelligence gave us confirmation of that number. A German tanker of 3,500 tons displacement had been burned out. Everything fit. There you have it�38 rounds of 37mm cannon destroyed a 3,500-ton vessel!

2. The M-6 cannon was very reliable. If it was properly maintained it worked very reliably. We could charge the cannon only one time from the cockpit, but this one re-charging was completely sufficient. If this cannon malfunctioned, it was due entirely to unqualified maintenance.

I was involved in another incident. A young, inexperienced armorer installed the belts upside down, so that the teeth of the links of the belt were on top, for both machine guns and the cannon. We were flying in pair. This was my wingman�s second combat sortie. We spotted a pair of Fokkers[Fw-190 � ed.]. I attacked the lead Fokker, who went into a vertical climb. I fired a shot from my cannon, the glowing ball of the projectile�s tracer crossing the path of the enemy aircraft. The German, naturally, abruptly dove; the range closed rapidly and I had him in my sights. I got off one round from each machine gun and experienced a complete stoppage! I re-charged both guns�to no avail! None of my weapons worked! It was a good thing that I had hit him with these two rounds. The German was smoking heavily and had lost a great deal of speed. I had nothing to kill him with! I called to my wingman, �Get the Fritz!� But he was circling in a merry-go-round with the German�s wingman and continued to circle until the German shot him up. Except for �his own German,� my wingman did not see anything, and the damaged Fokker got away. On the ground it was discovered that my wingman had not fastened his earphones to his helmet, and during the high-G maneuvers his earphones had come off. He had not heard my commands. A month later someone shot down a German pilot in a Fokker, and during his interrogation by the division commander he asked, �Why, a month ago, did a pilot from this regiment not finish me off? Two of my cylinders were shot up.� (The German well knew that only the pilots of 2d GSAP VVS SF flew �red-nosed� Cobras. A. S.) Our division commander replied to him, �Yes, he was something of a screw up, kind of like you, but he didn�t get shot down.�

They badly wanted to send the armorer to a tribunal [courts martial], but he got off with a reprimand. I was categorically opposed to a tribunal. He was a young kid, still a �newbie�. The fault really lay with the armaments mechanic. It was his direct duty to check the correctness of the loading of the rounds. He knew that his armorer was inexperienced, but he did not stop to check and simply took the armorer�s word. �Is it ready?� �Yes, it�s ready.�

Also interesting commentary on the Allison Engines in the P-39's. Problems with them wearing out quickly (~50 hours) just like with the P-40's, though they seem to have been able to get some new ones.

"
A. S. What about the engine in the P-39. Was it weak? They say that it was unreliable, it was never good for the recommended 120 hours, and it �threw� connecting rods.

N. G. We had Allison engines. They were powerful, but . . . the engines in the Cobras were unreliable, especially early on. These were on the English variants, the Q-1 and Q-2. Their engines were weaker. After the first three or four air combats, all ten Cobras were laid up for engine repairs.

These first Allisons did not deliver even one-half of the recommended engine hours. 50 hours was its limit, and frequently less. Normally 10�15 sorties if they were in combat. They seized, the bearings melted; this happened to me once. I sat out for a while with no engine. They monitored these engines closely. As soon as any metal showed up in the oil, they changed out the engine. The supply of replacement engines was plentiful, but it was not always possible to get delivery of them. Sometimes they brought them in on an Li-2 [Soviet-built C-47], four in a load, such was the demand for new power plants. But just the same, despite our best efforts, there were seizures. True, this engine did not �throw� connecting rods, at least this never happened to us. On type-5 and later models the engines were more powerful and reliable.

Now regarding power settings. In principle the RPMs were regulated by a conventional throttle. In the Cobras there were two regimes of throttle operation, �normal� and �war emergency�, which was characterized by increased manifold pressure. The throttle quadrant was mounted in the [left side of the] cockpit and the pilot controlled it. The �war emergency� regime had a lever position that we called �51 inches and 57 inches of boost�. If we were flying on Soviet B-95 fuel, then �war emergency power� was set at 51 inches. If we were using American B-100 fuel, then �war emergency power� was set at 57inches. Although it was mounted in the cockpit, on the throttle quadrant, the pilot did not adjust this setting. The position of the �war emergency power� selector was controlled by a piece of wire that could be broken easily with greater forward pressure on the throttle quadrant.

One time I sensed a lack of power (I needed to get ahead of a German) and I thought, �The hell with it�! I broke the wire and selected �57�. Then I experienced what �57� meant! My airplane leapt forward! The Germans spotted me from above and dove immediately, which was what we wanted.

American gasoline was better than ours. Not more powerful, but better. The anti-detonation qualities of our gasoline came from the addition of tetraethyl lead. After every two or three flights the engine mechanic had to clean the lead from our spark plugs. If he waited too long, a lead droplet would form between the electrodes. But this was not a special problem. Normally our spark plugs were quickly cleaned after every sortie. But with the American gasoline, this did not happen. Either they used higher octane to begin with and added less lead or they raised the octane rating with benzol [another additive]. Perhaps it was just the benzol. Because our gasoline was pink in color and the American gasoline was dark blue.

Incidentally, the Allison �made metal� on any gasoline. Realistically the Allison engine began to live up to its full 100 hours of use only in 1944. These engines came in the Q-25-30. But by this time the intensity of air combat had already fallen somewhat, and the primary distinction of these types was the perceptible decrease in power output. Therefore we removed the wing machine guns. They were heavy [one Browning .50 caliber under each wing], slowed the airplane down, and their recoil was felt in combat."
 
Last edited:
Schweik said:
*snip*

Not sure about the Spitfires but the Hurricanes and P-40's were in many cases already worn out from combat when they were sent to the Soviets
Click to expand...


This could be certainly a convincing reason.

Furthermore, as has been suggested in a post, politics had a play in that, as relationship between U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. were far better than between U.K. and U.S.S.R. (Or, better, relationship between F.D. Roosevelt and Stalin were better than Churchill and Stalin...)

Could have been some other reasons, mentioned in a very useful link poste before.


Early Cobra's in Soviet Aviation

"The process of assembly was organized in the best Soviet traditions: foreign specialists, naturally, were absent; instructions, naturally, were in English; of the NII VVS specialists, naturally, no one knew English; the [female] translator, naturally, was an academic to whom "fonar'" [canopy in Russian airplane jargon, in usual sense a light source], for example, was a "light source" only; the aircraft, naturally, was absolutely unfamiliar to the specialists; and the period of time allotted for the work, naturally, was minimal.

The resourcefulness and ingenuity of the people and "His majesty, chance" helped out. The team leader I. G. Rabkin knew French. At that time, there was a group of British RAF specialists at 22 ZAP, engaged in assisting in the assimilation of the Hurricanes. The leader of this group, an engineer in the rank of captain, fortunately also spoke French. In addition, some of his team members were familiar with the Airacobra. Therefore the consultations went something like this: I. G. Rabkin submitted questions of interest to the British engineer in French. He consulted with his colleagues in English and responded to the questions in French. Our leader passed along the responses to his subordinates in Russian. This process somewhat speeded up the work for translating the instructions.

The assembly of the aircraft was accomplished directly on the airfield. Despite the severe winter, work went from dawn to dusk, and than for several more hours the team members conducted exercises in classrooms for ZAP specialists or were involved in translating instructions. Thanks to this unstinting effort, the first airplane was assembled and prepared in a minimum amount of time."


And, knowing personally the accuracy of the "foolproof manuals" whenever a piece of U.S. built machinery is involved, this probably helped a lot…
 

We have a P-39 that is equal of better than German fighters down low, and P-40N that is worse or equal. That should point out that P-39 was a better A/C for the Soviets.

Schweik said:
Some interesting commentary by Golodnikov on the 37mm gun in the P-39
...
Click to expand...

Too bad that Americans didn't make a shorter and thus lighter HE shell for the M4, with more propellant so the ballistics were less different to the .50 than historically.
 
tomo pauk said:
We have a P-39 that is equal of better than German fighters down low, and P-40N that is worse or equal. That should point out that P-39 was a better A/C for the Soviets.
Click to expand...

By the time the Russian pilots got P-40N's they (P-40's) were already basically phased out of front line use. P-40Ns mostly saw action in the Pacific, the RAF also used some in Italy. But for the most part that variant was late to the war*.

The Russians were using P-40 B/C / Tomahawk initially, then P-40E, and then P-40K and M, plus a few (I think just a few dozen) P-40F.

Most Russian high scoring Kittyhawk aces (Kuznetzov etc.) got most of their victories while they were flying P-40K, which had a 1,300 hp engine and could reach 1,500 hp at optimal altitude at WEP. P-40K or F/L could handle the German fighters at lower altitude - this is also evident from North Africa. The English tested the P-40K and rated it's top speed as 370 mph.

Too bad that Americans didn't make a shorter and thus lighter HE shell for the M4, with more propellant so the ballistics were less different to the .50 than historically.
Click to expand...

In air to air they mostly shot at very short range anyway, ~150 meters or less. This was true for all the Soviet fighters with nose-mounted guns as well. The drooping arc was more of an issue for strafing, as Golodnikov and others have noted. But P-39's were mostly used for air-to-air.

S


*Most of the P-40Ns produced were 'heavy' lower-powered FB variants, though the early and some later ones were lightened by about 1,000 lbs and with 1,300 hp enginges made 378 mph so probably capable against Luftwaffe fighters. But they were not really used as such.
 
Last edited:
pbehn said:
Bingo! so it was possible with all the specified equipment, without woodfiller and twenty coats of paint. The British requests were in no way unreasonable or unattainable, just that Bell couldn't do it when they said they could.
Click to expand...
Also had a newer engine with 100HP increase and 200# less weight.
 
I'm not saying that P-39 could not have been useful in the Russian Front, I'm not convinced that it could have been a Me-109 or a FW-190 destroyer, in spite of her rocket-like appearance...

"Our Me-109 (G-10s) flew faster and climbed and turned better than a Thunderbolt: but if, even for a few seconds, you were inside the eight MGs trajectory of a Thurderbolt, you were done."
M.llo Carlo Cavagliano, II° Gruppo Caccia, 4° Squadriglia "Gigi tre osei", A.N.R.

My bold. English is a second language for me and certainly I do not master it as I would like to. Sorry.

 
Last edited:
Sorry I haven't been able to keep up, my day job has been interfering.

You and I have a running battle about the weight of the P-39N. You say the test plane was lighter than normal. Yes, it was, but so was EVERY other plane in those performance tests.

Below is a little chart that I did just for you. More of my pencil scratch. But as you can see, every one of the tests in wwiiaircraftperformance used a plane that was lighter than standard published gross weight. The gross weight listed in the test was using some form of "average" or "mean" fuel to give an average weight for that particular flight. There are exceptions, like the P-38G tested 2/10/43 that was 2000# light and the test said that only 180gal fuel was carried (normally 300gal), only 50 rounds for the 20MM (normally 150) and only two MGs (normally 4) and the performance of this plane was well above other P-38F and Gs as shown by the performance graphs in the P-38 section.

But the rest of the P-38s, P-39s, P-40s, P-47s and P-51As were ALL lighter than published gross weight to account for "average" fuel.

So please stop referring the the test P-39N as being "lightened" in any way. Same as the others, that was the way the AAF tested planes back then. And "gross weight" (aka "all up weight") is defined as being the total aircraft weight AT ANY MOMENT DURING THE FLIGHT.

The comparisons that I have made are accurate and the P-39N numbers are accurate. Thanks.
 

I don't think any of your comments were accurate.
  • The very close approach before shooting was a standard Soviet practice particularly with all their fighters that had nose-mounted guns (i.e. almost all of them), and whatever you think of Soviet propaganda, the Germans lost quite a few aircraft as well. Obviously it did work at least some of the time.
  • Quite often with nose mounted cannon, both German and Soviet pilots would get kills with just 1-2 well--placed rounds. Joachim Marseille was famous for this in North Africa. Obviously with the 37mm cannon it didn't even have to be particularly well placed. Also don't forget they also had two heavy machine guns in the nose as well, which was plenty to shoot down a fighter (2 x 12.7mm nose guns was standard armament for early Italian fighters).
  • At low altitude German speed advantage was not so pronounced, or depending on the type, even apparent against the better P-39 variants (Q-5 for Golodnikov), or for the Yak 1B, Yak 7B, La 5 and 5FN, and Yak 9 and later Yak 3.
  • Most P-39 victories were against fighters. See Black Cross / Red Star.
  • If you are one of those people who just assumes that all Soviet victory claims were made up, you probably can't be convinced, but this ground has already been covered.
 
Last edited:
You may want to recheck your figures,
For example the design gross weight for a P-40E was ..............wait..............8011.5 lbs as per the pilots manual.

This included a 180lb pilot instead of the late 200lb pilots but heavier than the 160lb pilots in the P-39
it included only 120 gallons of fuel, tank behind pilot was not full. But the rear fuselage tank on the P-36/40 has a long and somewhat twisted history/use.
IF you fly at over 8011lbs you no longer have the 8 "G" service load/12 "G" ultimate load margins.
BTW a P-40E wvwn with full internal fuel was closer to 8259-8300lbs than to 8400.

I can't be bothered to look up the rest.
 
Peter Gunn said:
You see, this is how these threads should progress. P-39 blah blah blah, get the second string junk out of the way and let the thread evolve to the real meat and potatoes of enlightened WWII discussion. The Mustang.
Click to expand...

! Uh, Mmmmm? Here we go...I am not saying that the P-39N was God's gift or anything
like that, but since you brought the P-51 in early/mid+ 1943 into the conversation and assumed
IT was all that:
Atitude / MPH / FPM
P-51A vs. P-39N
S.L.......376/3500 vs. 344/4140
1000m.387/3625 vs. 362/4275
2000m.400/3750 vs. 381/4410
3000m.412/3405 vs. 398/4085
4000m.413/2925 vs. 394/3620
5000m.410/2455 vs. 388/3160
6000m.405/2025 vs. 382/2705
The Russians didn't care up higher altitudes.
The P-39N could outturn the P-51A pretty much at any speed.
The P-39N could out roll the P-51A (probably up to 300 mph.) The D-1 could up to 263 mph.
and I believe the Ns acceleration into the turn was improved from the D's.
Power loading of the two fighters at combat weights= 5.405 vs. 5.122 lb./hp.

P-39 blah, blah, blah... those were not my words.

Truth is guys, I agree that the P-39 was not made for the ETO or the PTO. But it was an
excellent addition to the VVS in 1942-1944.
 
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
941
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