Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Statistics. 3300 built 1100 losses. 2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories. 1/3 Fighters. So max 2200 available for combat duty. 730 for fighter duty. 260 victories IIRC. So about 3 fighters produced for every 1 aerial victory, which is about the average for Anglo-American fighters. N.B. Luftwaffe, 33,000 Bf 109's produced, 12,000 aerial victories or 2.75 to 1.
Air density (temperature, humidity, altitude) has a HUGE impact on aircraft performance, and a marginally performing plane feels it more than a strong performer. Take a tired Cessna 150 with 1600 hours on the engine since its third overhaul, stuff it with full fuel and 425 pounds of instructor and student, and go flying on a 5°F winters day. You will get adequate, but certainly not stellar performance. Now repeat on a 90°F, 95% humidity day in August, and you will find yourself driving a slugcraft that needs 3x the runway to get airborne, climbs slower than a thermaling glider, and has to be flown like a glider, searching for thermals and avoiding downdrafts. I once sank into a sinkhole in the hills in conditions like that and spent 45 minutes flogging the engine, with the stall horn singing, fighting downdrafts, searching for rising air, and looking for a place to put it down if necessary. Two big guys in a Cessna 150 makes for mighty tight accommodations.I gather hot humid weather has been brought up about the Solomons etc. too, I have to admit I don't grasp what the issue is precisely
The problem is that except for "ground tethered" missions like CAS, you can't COUNT on the combat being down low as long as the bad guys have altitude capable aircraft. On the eastern front down low is where the action was; in the Med it was all over the sky.The altitude was definitely a thing, but a lot of the fighting in the Med was down low.
Okay, Meier, how many? I'm pretty sure I got the info from a youtube documentary on it. I always thought it was 15000 before that.If Bf 109's had a mere 12000 aerial 'victories' you can call me Meier.
Okay, Meier, how many? I'm pretty sure I got the info from a youtube documentary on it. I always thought it was 15000 before that.
Okay, so you're talking about claims. Is that the total of confirmed, probables and damaged? IIRC during the BoB the Luftwaffe claimed to have shot down about 2000+ Spitfires and 1200+ Hurricanes, an over claim ratio of almost 4 to 1. You've got to wonder what these guys were on. Ah. I remember, crystal meths, pervitin.Jg52 claimed more than 10000 victories and only flew the Bf 109. How many altogether were claimed by Jagwaffe pilots flying the 109 I don't know, but 12000-15000 is not even going to be close; though I would hazard a guess that it's probably about 3 times the numbers you are mentioning.
It's the WEIGHT. Russian P-39s performed much better in climb because they fought them at around 7200# without wing guns, the IFF radio etc. The AAF flew them at 7650-7850#, even heavier for the Q. 450 pounds equates to 550fpm better climb. Completely different performance."Nice try?" Lol. I really don't get where some of y'all are coming from half the time. I was kidding a little but only about the political feasibility of it, I really was not being tongue in cheek in terms of the training angle. I'm quite serious. It just seemed unlikely to bring Soviet pilots in even though they did work with the Soviets on the design of late model P-39s and especially, the P-63.
What I meant specifically is that US pilots expressed a dismal level of trust in flying the P-39 which I suspect came down to training. There is a quote from one of the pilots in MAW IV to that effect though I don't remember it verbatim, the gist was the US pilots were afraid to put the P-39s through their paces (apparently with good reason given the number of fatal crashes) and couldn't wait to get out of them. The mystery of why the Soviets did so well with the P-39 and liked it so much is something many have tried to get to the bottom of. I certainly can't claim to know definitively but my theory is that it came down largely to training and experience in the following ways:
Your theory that the P-39 didn't fly as well in hot weather doesn't seem likely a complete answer to me. Do you have evidence of that? I can imagine some differences but I am doubtful that would fully account for the differences.
- they were more used to 'twitchier' planes since many Soviet pilots transitioned from planes like the I-16, LaGG-3, or MiG 3 which were notoriously prone to stalls and spins.
- they were forced to use it in Russia where for all it's faults it was one of their best available fighter options (they had Yak-1 and Yak 7 but not enough, and many pilots were going into combat in 1942 and even 1943 in far less capable types) vs. in the Med where there were other options, (though the US were forced to use P-39s in the Pacific for a while). So in Russia in other words there was a kind of training crucible where pilots either died or figured out how to fly P-39s in combat (or both, in many cases).
- they spent a long time, including an initial 4 month workup, doing transition training and figuring out the P-39, where as some US and Allied units had relatively little transition training. The same was true for P-40s as well and they also had trouble, but eventually figured them out I think largely with British / Commonwealth help (most US units and in particular unit leaders embedded with RAF squadrons before going independent)
People think it's always winter in Russia but they have summer every year, and summers were hot in particular in certain parts of the Russian Front, notably in the Caucasas around the Kuban and Crimean zones where P-39s scored some of their more famous victories.
The high today in Tiblisi is expected to be 93 F / 34 C, and it's not even August yet.
No idea. May '42 Bell supposedly distributed how to take 1000# off a P-39. Now some of that was undoubtedly fuel which IMO the P-39 sorely needed. Just removing the wing guns and nose armor plate saved 300#. That alone would have added 360fpm climb.Well even that is a bit confusing because they took wing guns out of Hurricanes, Spit V's and P-40s in North Africa, and took out other things too to reduce weight, so why not do the same with the P-39s?
No matter where you start you end up putting them thar guns and tank in and out, I prefer it in N Africa to be honest.LMAO
No matter where you start you end up putting them thar guns and tank in and out, I prefer it in N Africa to be honest.
I'm probably being over generous to the Typhoon and its production to loss ratio is like the Thunderbolt at 4.5:1. Imagine a flight of four Typhoons going into attack in pairs. The first 2 get away with it, but when the second pair go in the AA is on the ball, and either the 3rd or 4th in the flight gets shot down. Losses were horrendous. Top cover was either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.
In the Med, I have USAAF victories of 592 and British Commonwealth of 420 for the Kittyhawk / Warhawk versions. Don't know what the Tomahawk totals were. Never added them up.
So the cost effectiveness of the Warhawk is far superior to the Typhoon and Kittyhawk as a production:loss ratio.
Oh by the way, I have that DAF had 77 Tomahawk victories were scored in the Middle East / North Africa from a quote in a book, though I don't know if that includes South African squadrons - they ended up using Tomhawks far later than anyone else. Just need to count them up in MAW.
Pacific Victory Roll shows an additional 150 Australian and 99 New Zealand P-40 victory claims in the Pacific. US P-40 pilots claimed 660.5 in the Pacific
If only I could get hold of Soviet numbers...
Well even that is a bit confusing because they took wing guns out of Hurricanes, Spit V's and P-40s in North Africa, and took out other things too to reduce weight, so why not do the same with the P-39s?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't guns removed from the Spitfire V for the specific task of intercepting very high flying German reconnaissance aircraft, namely the Ju-86P (or R?)?