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.
RAF was very unhappy with the p-39s it received. it is not exaggerating to say they basically wanted to return them and get their money back. This is despite the generally favourable combat comparisons carried out at Duxford

One needs to remember the old axiom has it that the bombers deterimine the altitude at which fighters must fight. In the SWPA, the Japanese sent their bombers over generally at between 18,000 and 22,000 ft., sometimes substantially higher, seldom much lower. The air was generally very humid and heavy but with high levels of turbulence due to the frequent presence of large mountains. While the P-39 could get that high, it took it a long time to do so, so the and the opportunities for high altitude intercepts were few. Effectively, it was all done by about 17,000 ft. It was at its best below about 12,000 ft. Considering that the mountains in New Guinea rose to over 14,000 ft., and in the early days of the conflict both sides were going back and forth over those mountains to get at each other, the P-39 was at an instant disadvantage. Despite some rather fantastic claims by the USAAC units defending Port Morseby after March 1942, IJAAF losses to Cobra equipped units have been shown post war to be largely unsubstantiated.
.
The VVS was the other major user of the type. Soviets fought over terrain much like that of Iowa, were based close to the enemy, and the Germans chose to send their bombers over at medium and low altitudes. So none of the factors that worked against the P-39 in New Guinea were present on the Eastern Front.

Also worth noting. An RAF Duxford comparison test of a captured Me 109E and P-39C showed the Bell outperforming the 109 in every category except rate of climb when below 15,000 ft. The P-39 could easily out-turn the 109--it took the 'Cobra less than 720 degrees to get on the tail of an Me that was planted on its tail. So the P-39 should have had no trouble dealing with the 109 at the altitudes common in the East. But this assumes the 109 would accept a full turning fight, which was seldom the case. In the SWPA, however, the P-39 units again opted for manouvre fighting, but this time they were up against an aircraft that excelled at horizontal manouvre. Not only were the P-39s forced to fight at altitudes above where they were competitive, it had to contend with fighters that were much, much more maneuverable than it was. P-39 squadrons routinely stripped off the wing guns to get more performance, and some even ripped out the armor plating (which weighed about 750 pounds) to get yet more performance, preferring to reduce their susceptibility to battle damage (as the Japanese did) at the expense of vulnerability to it.

That said, the P-39 was not a complete failure in New Guinea. The two groups equipped with it--the 8th and 35th--performed quite effectively, but their victory claims are so dicey as to be not worth much consideration. . The two squadrons of the 8FG that relieved RAAF 75 Squadron at Port Moresby at the end of March, 1942, were the only fighter force available to stop the Japanese air onslaught. This they did, although at great cost.
 
I would note that by the time the P39 was coming into service (fall of 1941) the 109E was on the way out and the 109F was equiping more squadrons every month. WHile the 109F may not have turned any tighter than the 109E it could sustain height or speed in a turn much better than the 109E.

I also have doubts about pulling 750lbs of armor out of a P-39. according to the weight tables there wasn't over 275lbs to begin with. Not to mention that an empty P-39D-2/P-400 weighed about 5550-5600lbs, basic weight (empty equipped) with guns, armor, radio, and oxygen was 6330-6420lbs.

Now perhaps you could save 750lbs (or close to it) by taking out the four wing guns (and their ammo) the armor and about another 100-130 worth of stuff (no oxygen over the Owen Stanleys? No radio? leave out 20 gallons of gas?)
I have no doubt that the pilots and crews did strip stuff out of the planes, however the weight saved by stripping the armor seems to be abut as exaggerated as the some of the air to air victories.
 
 
I understood that the Germans took over the FN arms factories in Liegte, when they occupied Belgium in 1940--thus cutting off any ties with American gun companies (Colt) and designers (Browning)--I doubt the US standards for MG's, whether for aircraft, naval vessels or ground and armor troops were set too high--IMO anyway. Hansie
 

Also worth noting, P-39D was the first mass produced variant, about 650lb heavier than the -C. In the Eastern Front, about 1942 it (-D)was against the Bf109F rather than E, a completely better beast. 750 lb armour is not correct. It doesn't pass my BS meter even without checking.
 
See post #148 for the facts.
 
See post #148 for the facts.

Ok, this is really starting to look like a wind-up. Post #148 makes no mention of self-sealing fuel tanks or O2. You may well think that your pretty graphs make your point but they still miss the fundamental issue that the P-39C was NOT combat capable. The P-39D was the first truly combat-ready variant but it was a much heavier beast...with consequent loss of performance.
 
Last edited:
Pls explain "wind up"?
 
You are truly an expert on crankshafts. My source for the 15 minutes is wwiiaircraftperformance.net. The actual government performance docs. Check them if you like.
 
You are truly an expert on crankshafts. My source for the 15 minutes is wwiiaircraftperformance.net. The actual government performance docs. Check them if you like.
I have looked at some and have no desire to waste any more time, If you have a link to a specific document that says ALL V-1710 engines regardless of model or date of manufacture was cleared to use 15 minutes military power please post it.
I am not disputing that the standard was changed in the summer of 1942, Or that some V-1710 engines manufactured prior to that date were included in the order. But some is not all.
 
#148 is talking about the P-39N, not the P-39C. The N was produced from December 1942 and was in action almost immediately. The FW190A6 was produced from June 1943 and was actually newer than the N. The P-39C was 7075#. It did not have self sealing tanks and armor plate/glass, but would have weighed the same because the self sealing tanks reduced fuel capacity by 50gallons or 300# and we were deleting the 2 .30caliber MGs in the nose so we could increase the 37mm cannon armament to the full 30 rounds. This was not the P-39C that was actually produced, just "what could have been". The P-39N/FW190A6 comparison was straight from the government performance tests.
 
Every other plane in that theater would have to adjust their performance figures too.
 
Wind-up: a joke meant to deceive someone (eg "He's winding you up" meaning "he's pulling your leg" or "he's kidding you").
Wind up, comes from the old clockwork toys, a person being wound up and set off in a particular direction for amusement like a toy. This is definitely a wind up, when you discuss removing armour, radios, fuel and guns to show how effective a plane could be the conversation borders on surreal.
 

Hurricane was not ordered with 2 or 4 RCMGs, but with 8. Ordering them with 4 HMGs instead does not rock the boat.
The CR.32 fighter, perhaps the last of the fighters with un-supercharged engines, was armed with two HMGs, with option for two 7.7mm MGs. French fighters, like the D.510, were armed with cannon + LMGs. Polish P.24 was armed with two cannons. COmpared with these 3 types, having 4 HMGs on a fighter with supercharged engine is nothing outrageous.
Both Italian and Belgian guns are in roduction much before ww2 started, ie. once can have them for Hurricane and Spitfire from the get go.


Or perhaps Belgian technicians/gunners/engineers got to the solution earlier?
At any rate, one can buy earlier, 600-800 rpm models.
 

Per my earlier post, the problem with US 50cals appears to have been belt-fed wing installations. The CR32 carried guns in the fuselage while the P.24 cannons were drum fed.

Having a workable HMG is one thing. Having an operationally viable belt-fed wing installation in the latest generation of 300+mph fighters is something else. If installing multiple HMGs in the wings of high-speed fighters was so straightforward, why did it take the US until late 1942 to get it right?
 
Regia Aeronautica tried experimentally to install two MG in the wings of C.R. 32 but the wings did vibrate so much that shooting with some accuracy was impossible. This was the reason why the following Italian fighters, M.C. 200 and G. 50 had MGs in the fuselage.
Ing. Trojani, designer of A.U.T. 18, more or less contemporary of M.C. 200 and G. 50, had to insist with Gen. Cebrelli, Chief of Technical Services, to install MG in the wings of his aeroplane. But wings of C.R. 32 were maybe 12 cm thick, A.U.T. 18 were 37 cm at the Mg bays.
Chiefs of Technical services in the late 30s were still suspicious about the strenght of monoplane wings with D-boxes and stressed skin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread