The P-39 a Zero Killer???

[RpR]

As such it was doomed to be a pre-war design to pre war standards with no growth potential save perhaps the use of the 2 stage engine used in the P-63, which suffered from the same range limitations, poor armament/design philosophy. It was not a Zero killer or even a potential Zero killer. It was Zero food.

Duane

That statement is just a bit obtuse.
The P-51 was a pre-war design also.

Had the Germans in WW II not had the bomber to deal with and went exclusively after the fighters, the kill ratio in Western Europe would probably be a lot different.
The P-39 pilots had to attack bombers first and fighters second, there is a big difference between that and escorting bombers where the pilots can put full effort into destroying the fighters.
On the Eastern front the German pilots did not have massive flights of bombers to deal with the kill ratio shows it.

If you read the story that goes along with much of the P-39 action the pilots are saying they were attacking bombers and defending against being attacked by fighters.

The fact the P-39 shot down as many enemy fighters as it did, despite being crippled by asinine military specs. it had to deal with, makes the Zero food statement rather asinine.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Gentlemen, keep this civil please!

 

[Garyt]

The P-39 did help "hold the line" in the South Pacific but it seems more like a situation in which the Allies could afford to loose P-39s/P-40s (and some pilots) while delaying/stopping the Japanese and the Japanese could NOT afford to loose the planes and more importantly, the pilots, they were loosing fighting the P-39s and P-40s. It might have been very hard for the Allies to over to the offensive using P-39s and P-40s though without a much longer and costlier battle of attrition.

This is an important point that colored the whole war. The US was in far better shape to handle attrition in regards to pilots. The US could handle attrition in aircraft better as well, but the key is pilots. It's funny, Japan was ill suited to replace it's pilots as well as the US - but also had the planes that were the worst for pilot survival.

Guadacanal was actually wonderful for the US war efforts. It was a slow attrition based mini-theatre, in men, materials and machines.

A decisive Naval battle played less into the US hands, it would be less of an attrition based battle. We were fortunate to have won Midway, but a decisive Naval loss would be harder to come back from. Not that the US could not with its manufacturing base - it's just that it takes longer to replace large warships than it does to replace planes and materials.

 

[varsity07840]

That statement is just a bit obtuse.
The P-51 was a pre-war design also.

Had the Germans in WW II not had the bomber to deal with and went exclusively after the fighters, the kill ratio in Western Europe would probably be a lot different.
The P-39 pilots had to attack bombers first and fighters second, there is a big difference between that and escorting bombers where the pilots can put full effort into destroying the fighters.
On the Eastern front the German pilots did not have massive flights of bombers to deal with the kill ratio shows it.

If you read the story that goes along with much of the P-39 action the pilots are saying they were attacking bombers and defending against being attacked by fighters.

The fact the P-39 shot down as many enemy fighters as it did, despite being crippled by asinine military specs. it had to deal with, makes the Zero food statement rather asinine.

You seem to like the "A" word. The P-39 was a PREWAR design based on a spec issued of 1937. It's first flight was
in 1938, over a year BEFORE war broke out. The P-51, with an advanced airframe and airfoil was designed in 1940, AFTER the war broke out. Take the emotion out of the evaluation. The P-39 was a poor performer over 12,000 feet as acknowledged by countless piolts that flew it. It had a lower performance at atitude than the bombers it was tasked with
intercepting and were sitting ducks for escorts that were always above them.

I hope that's civil enough.

Duane

 

[Shortround6]

The US seemed to have a real tendency to over-gun it's fighter planes. I have no idea if this was a result of actual firing tests or "fly by the seat of the pants" specification. This was compounded by the weight not only of the .50 cal gun but the weight of .50 cal ammunition. The P-39 was doubly unfortunate because the US seemed to want the armament of two fighters crammed into one. If all the ammo bins were full it carried 3 times the weight of guns and ammo that an early Zero did and in fact carried a greater weight of guns and ammo than a Hawker Typhoon with four 20mm cannon. A lot to ask of 1150hp in the early models. Unfortunately this also results in structural weight that cannot be easily taken out. The plane is 'stressed' to a service load of 8 'G' s and an ultimate load (safety factor) of 12 'G's. You need a heavier structure to hold the heavier weight of armament ( and the armor and the self sealing tanks) and the structure remains even if you pull some of the guns and fuel tanks out.
This over gunning was built into the specifications of a number of the early war prototype fighters. P-46 had two .50s and eight .30s on 1150hp. P-53 had eight .50s on either a 1600hp IV-1430 or a R-R Merlin. XP-60 continued the eight gun set up but guns were dropped as performance estimates plummeted.

The P-39 was not helped when the Prototype (without guns) came in about 10% over weight. With the armament fit and protection an empty equipped P-39 weighed only a few hundred pounds less than a Spitfire V with full ammo and full internal tanks.

 

[Denniss]

Was the P-400 any better than the P-39? It should weight less due to the 2cm gun instead of the 3.7.

 

[Shortround6]

A bit better but only by about 100lbs or so and since that is out of around 7500-7600lbs ( after a bit of fuel burn off) it shouldn't make a whole lot of difference. The plane was lugging around 260lbs worth of .30 cal ammo (1000rpg) so cutting the .30 cal ammo to 500rpg would 120-130lbs and still leave 25 seconds of firing time.

 

[tomo pauk]

Looking at performance tests at Williams' site, it does not seem that a lighter cannon offers any appreciable advantage for both speed and climb.