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.
P-39 Expert said:
You and I have a running battle about the weight of the P-39N.



.View attachment 488539
Click to expand...

Geez I hope this hasn't turned into something other than just a good natured disagreement? And while I haven't seen EVERY test report on the website (I have a life too), I can say that it would be incorrect to lump all of them in together as having "lightened" test aircraft. The only documents that I have examined in great detail are those of the F6F Hellcat (no surprise). And while there have been testing performed at varying weights, the vast majority of Hellcats tested were in a "fighter overload" condition. This means maximum internal fuel and ammunition load (for machine guns only). This amounts to roughly 12,400lbs (the gross weight of an F6F-3 as given by the manufacturer). I do agree that there is test data where the loaded weight of some Hellcats was less than this standard, but this situation was more of an exception than the rule.
 
Last edited:

Two things my friend, first, which would you want to take into combat? Don't quote numbers, if you asked an AAF fighter pilot which he'd prefer I doubt it would be the P-39. No RAF pilot with two brain cells to rub together would, of that I would bet the farm... as did the RAF.

Second, you seemed to have missed my point entirely.
 
When looking at some of these tests the date and purpose of the test (not always stated) have to be taken into account as these were not all standardized tests with same goal/objective in mind.
And "standards" changed over time.

You also sometimes have to take into account the original specification of the aircraft. AS I pointed out, the P-40E, had a 'design" weight.
This had gone up from the earlier P-40s. The Original P-40 had a design gross weight of 6782lbs. This included two .50 cal guns and 380rpg of 50 cal ammo. NO .30 cal guns, it included 120 gallons of fuel although tankage was provided for 181 gallons (unprotected).

In order to maintain the load standards, especially in peace time, the aircrafts structure has to be beefed up as it gains weight and the P-40 gained an awful lot of weight. Once the shooting started they didn't pay quite as much attention to the load standards on the older planes. But until they get a good idea of what is going to happen they flew first test flights or performance tests at DESIGN weights in order to get baselines.
It took a while for combat experience to sink in too. For example in the summer of 1942 the US has about zero combat experience with land based fighters fighting anybody or what ranges will be needed. It takes until the Fall/winter of 1942for the combat experience of North Africa, New Guinea and Guadalcanal to sink in.
 
That's good because most all the sources out there quote different weights. 8400# was most common in my readings.

But every one of the tested planes was light vs. published weights. Had to be something to do with fuel.
 
There's another P-39 graph a few pages back that shows P-39Q (no wing guns) just about 10mph slower. If it was me flying, I will almost always take the highest climb rate. The N outclimbs the P-51A substantially at all altitudes and 650fpm at 20000'. And only 10-15mph slower.
 
P-39 Expert said:
That's good because most all the sources out there quote different weights. 8400# was most common in my readings.

But every one of the tested planes was light vs. published weights. Had to be something to do with fuel.
Click to expand...

It often was but not because they were testing at 1/2 fuel or average fuel or some other made up condition.

The early (before and part way through 1942) tests were often done at the design weight which is the official contract weight.
Many of the "published" weights are from latter or as used in combat area weights. And some (like for just about every P-51 built) are over the standard load limits. P-51s weren't 8 G aircraft unless running VERY light.
 
I'll take the plane that will get me to where the enemy is and be able to fight there.
 

I have been known to go brain dead from time to time.
 

Which MUST by why the RAF couldn't get enough P-39s and used them until the end of the war. /sarc

Second, you seemed to have missed my point entirely.
Click to expand...

Seems you have as well.
 
CORSNING said:
I have been known to go brain dead from time to time.
Click to expand...

You're not the only one my friend.

As I posted waaaaay back earlier in this thread, I agree that the P-39 found its niche as a low altitude fighter with the VVS... yay.

To me that is irrelevant to the needs of the USAAF, RAF, RAAF and RNZAF in the ETO, MTO, PTO and CBI, basically everyone else, everywhere else.
 
Absolutely just a good natured disagreement, would be better over a couple beers.

Now, data for the original question posed 1155 posts ago: "Should the P-39 have been able to handle the Zero? Was it training or performance?" The attached performance chart for the P-39K with the Zero (Zeke 32 Hamp) superimposed in pencil. Flame away.
 


Hello
in fact Soviets saw P-39 as a low- and medium altitude fighter, see my message #197 , according to Soviet tests P-39's good altitude to fought against Bf 109 G-4 was appr. 3 750 – 5 300 m and against Fw 190 A-5 appr. 2 000 – 6 000 m. That was how the Soviets saw it, not necessarily how it was in reality.
 
P-39 Expert said:
Absolutely just a good natured disagreement, would be better over a couple beers.
Click to expand...

Now that we are definitely in agreement on!

But to be totally frank, I'm also in agreement with Peter Gunn and others on this forum. IMHO this thread has long outlasted it's usefulness and except for a minor few nobody really changed their opinion about the P-39. Those who think it was unjustly kept from being a bigger player with the AAF still feel that way, while others will always think of it as a second rate fighter that just held the line until more capable fighters came along. I'm just on the side of history, so other then brushing up on my Airacobra facts, this thread offered me very little if any new information. Sorry but that's just how I feel. But by all means keep the good fight going if you must. I'm certain that there will always be those willing to discuss the topic with you because everyone here has a passion for aviation and in that sense we should at least try to be civil and treat each other with the respect that we all want and deserve. Peace.
 
I hear you. My contention is that the 2012 information in wwiiaircraft put a new light on the P-39 and that it was a match for the FW190 and Me109 (as well as contemporary Hellcats, Corsairs, Lightnings etc, but not Merlin Mustangs or Spitfire IX) , but everybody has read and heard all the old information and changing their minds is impossible. Interesting reading anyway, if anyone will actually go there and look. Oh well.
 
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
938
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