SHOULD the P39 have been able to handle the Zero? Was it training or performance? (1 Viewer)

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:
And by the way, am I a moron? I have a masters degree and I read pretty good. Am I not capable of reading a page of information and commenting on it?
Click to expand...
Not sure if you are a moron or a troll, but you are definitely a fanboy. Masters degrees frankly don't mean a thing, plenty of people on this site have them, even me. Reading you seem to do ok, comprehension not so much. Your alma mater may not be proud.
Beggars can't be choosers, which is where the P-39 got its big break. I'm not sure I'd take one over a P-40 or F4F but it was more like P-39 or P-36, and there the AirColon is better.
Choose a P-39 over a P-38, P-47, Hellcat or Corsair? Only if you are deranged. Or if you really needed a sub-par point interceptor that was for all practical purposes just an inferior copy of the spitfire & 109.
Sounds about right, IMO. A monument to inspire salesmen everywhere.
FFS. In what way is a six year old website sharing public domain Ww2 flight tests "a new light" on the P-39? It's a marvellous gift to the community, a treasure to the plane geek and an monumental labour of love from an enthusiast, sure. Somewhere probably every visitor of this sub forum has visited many many times.
But the full horrors of P-39 performance have been available to serious researchers and authors for decades. If anything putting it all up in such an accessible form has punctured a lot of the old myths about this particular aircraft being high performing, but clearly your obsessions need a special class of puncturing.
 
No hard feelings I hope and I apologize now if it seems that I've treated you unfairly concerning your position. I for one can appreciate what you are trying to do here, really I do. And even if people don't agree with every point you are trying to make at the very least you have fueled discussion on this and other topics as well which is always a good thing.

But we are definitely done here.
 
Last edited:
No problem at all, I enjoy the discussion. Just thought a little newish information would be fun. Most are comfortable with their long held views. But then facts are facts and most haven't even bothered to look at them. Oh well.
 
Some of us have looked at them, and just like some of the claims Bell was making in 1939-40 and 41, we aren't swallowing them.
test flights that never happened, specially prepared/modified test planes, planes operating below service weights. These are also facts that some people don't want to acknowledge. Oh well.
 
P-39 Expert said:
No problem at all, I enjoy the discussion. Just thought a little newish information would be fun. Most are comfortable with their long held views. But then facts are facts and most haven't even bothered to look at them. Oh well.
Click to expand...

What are my long-held views? Long held - for how long? Those of Shortround6? Parsifal's? Pbehns?
You are the only one declaring itself as an expert, what are your published works? Peer-reviewed ones? Time spent to bring out new data? Being a fan-boy of an aircraft does not qualify one as expert. We have had a long history of fan-boyism on this site, it will not last long until one is spotted.
Most of the people here are reading about ww2 aviation for long time, myself for perhaps 40 years. While I will not declare me as an expert on the anything, I stil reserve the right to call a mis-information, mud-throwing or cherry-picking as such the very moment I see it.
 
I have actually changed my opinion. I thought it was a bad plane, actually it was a badly sorted plane. As S/R pointed out (I believe) it was a new type, higher landing speed, tricycle undercarriage, different performance in stall and sensitive to weight distribution. The Russians perhaps saw that when they flew it with 601 squadron and had the time learn about it and prepare their tactics.
 
Last edited:


The Russian experience is also colored by expectations or previous experience. Figuring out Russian comments is like playing detective. Two comments about the Mig 1 and 3 . !st one says the plane had CG problems and was difficult to handle, 2nd one says all the problems were fixed and that pilots transitioning from I-16s had little or no problem. Then you read comment 3. I-16s had CG problems and were a bit squirrely or had handling problems. Please note that in 1940-41 when the Migs were introduced (ahead of the Laggs and Yaks) a fair number of russian pilots were flying biplanes of some sort.
Also please note that may LA-5 pilots flew with open canopies due to vision problems or difficulty in bailing out with canopy closed. Some Russian planes didn't have compasses so one that possible screwed up when the nose guns fired was no big deal.
The Russians would have flown anything that offered a chance against the Germans, they only phased out the last of the I-16s around March of 1943. One of the last missions when 8 I-16s escorted IL-2 in a mission in the breaking of the Leningrad blockade. The eight I-16s were supposed to have successfully stopped an attacking group of FW 190s without loss to themselves and shooting down one Fw 190. Doesn't mean the I-16 really should have been kept in service.

Or consider the Yak-9D with 650 liters fuel capacity instead of the previous 440 liters. Some were given to the French Normandie squadron who reportedly, plugged the outer wing tanks and flew using the wing root tanks. Experience with the 18th fighter guard regiment showed they using only 270 liters (71 US gallons) per flight on average. Once they figured out that mixing the 9Ds with the shorter ranged 9s wasn't a good idea the 9Ds were used for longer ranged work but were hampered by lack of such things as a gyro horizon or radio compass. Other problems included having a range (not radius) of 562 miles but a two radio range of only 37 miles.

P-39s would seem like luxury machines.
 
My opinion if it matters at this point is it was the best plane we had available for combat in 1942, it was grossly overweight (easily corrected) and actually did well at Port Moresby in May considering lack of early warning radar and overwhelming odds. Then in August the P-400s with the wrong oxygen system couldn't fly above 14000' they were relegated to ground attack duty. The AAF turbocharged superplanes (P-38 and P-47) were in production and about to enter combat in late '42-mid '43 and they would be used. The much improved P-39N started production in late '42 but the bad reputation from PM and Guadalcanal got it shipped off to Russia where it shined and not just at low altitudes. And it had a substantial training role in the US. But to this day people still say it was hard to fly and was a low altitude plane.
 
You continually use the royal "we" the British had the Spitfire MkIX in June 1942. The rest of your post is getting back on one of your three main hobby horses and you have done it to death. It is not a discussion, it is you continually stating the same things and disregarding everything everyone else says unless you can bring in one of your hobby horses. It really is beyond tiresome.
 
It is interesting comparing this thread with another one currently taking a revisionist approach, looking instead at the P-40. Both threads endeavour to go against the usual assessments, that the P-39 and P-40 were outdated and out-performed, and were just used as stopgaps until more capable fighters replaced them.

The big difference in the threads, though, is that the P-40 thread asks us to re-evaluate the P-40 using the experiences of the air forces using it at the time, and shows that those using it, while not regarding it as the greatest fighter in the world, were reasonably happy with it, and used it to good effect. In contrast, this thread asks us to disregard the evaluations of fighting pilots at the time, who regarded the P-39 by-and-large as a piece of junk; and instead look solely at some performance figures and so conclude that the P-39 was really a complete world-beater cruelly sidelined, probably by perfidious Albion.

While all received opinion on historical matters should always be open to re-evaluation, we should be very careful in discounting contemporary evaluations, in favour of theoretical results more applicable to a games forum. I am quite prepared to believe that post-war authors were wrong in their assessment of the P-40, and that users at the time were reasonably happy with it. I am not prepared to believe that the users at the time were wrong when they rejected the P-39. They were there, and were the experts; we are not.
 
P-39 Expert said:
No problem at all, I enjoy the discussion. Just thought a little newish information would be fun. Most are comfortable with their long held views. But then facts are facts and most haven't even bothered to look at them. Oh well.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you source facts that have been systematically refuted by a ton of source material. You just parted with a comment that implies that everybody that you have debated is simply too stupid to comprehend your lofty perspective on 'facts".

As a trump card you threw down a Master's degree? In what - that you consider an intellectual achievement that trumps those 'with an insufficient portfolio of facts' to debate You?
 
Well said, Doctor! A fitting requiem. Adios amigos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

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