Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'd like to know specifics for you to back up your opinions. Were the Russians running theses aircraft at full RPM too long? Too high Manifold Pressure? Tell me what these setting are?Sorry, I already said and I'll repeat, I don't accept russian sources/performances/histories as representatives of the model. The soviets burned their planes abusing their engines. They used engine settings well avobe those reccomended by the builder and those planes never lasted more than a handful of missions because of that. The P-39 was a model built by Bell, and I qualify it by the performances and traits it had flying according to the builder's manual. The Soviets did not fly them that way, they burned them and then trashed them (it was easy to replace them, as a lot more would come via Siberia or Persia so, why bother?)
if we are to compare "soviet" P-39s we then should do it against hypotetical similarily "souped up" german fighters. And then the P-39 against appears as a dog.
I agree 100% about the Ba.88I never said the P-39 was the worst aircraft of WW2. AS I said my vote went for the Ba-88, with honorary mentions to the Me163 and bachem Natter. The P-39 was a lousy plane, dangerous for it's pilot (almost unrecoverable spin, and easily put into one) overall qualifyable as a dog. But at least was able to regularily beat the Zero, which actually and instantly means it can't be a "worst" in any list of mine (and which means the Zero was a REAL DOG ... yet it isn't the worst for me anyway).
The P39 was obsolete as soon as it passed prototype stage, got it's high altitude supercharger deleted, and a crapload of indispensable combat equipment loaded instead. It's tremendous flying quircks regarding maneouverability and lack of stability didn't help.
The P40 was a honest workhorse. Noble, stable, did it's job, never shined and was quite sometimes outclassed. Contrary to what it might seem here I have a soft spot for the plane in my heart (is one of my favorite rides in flight simulators, for instance). But it's undeniable that, while it could hold out and prevail against the Zero (which isn't too much in my agenda), it was outclassed by contemporary fighters on the MTO and relegated to ground attack duties because of it. That, for me, is a good description of a dog.
Certainly they did in the PTO but against an opposition that wasn't in a very good plane either. Both planes did its job, but that doesn't make them more than mediocre at best (the P39 even worse). I think their (partial) success is more a credit to the air crews that flew them than to the models themselves which were barely acceptable to the job at hand.
Said that, certainly for me the P40 was hands up the best of the two. At least it was an honest performer, a though airframe, a good weapons platform, and a stable, safe plane to fly. IT was outclassed but still served with a style.
The same can't be said about the Airacobra, which was not only a dog, but a dangerous one for its pilot, at that.
All the best.
I read the reports. A few comments.
The report stated the Zero's controls "started" to stiffen up at 225 MPH.
It did not give any indication that the stick loads were unmanageable or that the aircraft's turning ability was falling off.
At speeds below 200 mph, it was obvious the Zero was superior.
...Zero and Oscar did cause great concern at the beginning of the war because of tactics against them.
Although Thatch did recognize and developed tactics, it obvious that on many occasions, there were many pilots who did try to dogfight the Zero and came out on the losing end...
So what do YOU think low speed maneouvering is/ was?
And when was his tactics adopted by the entire fleet?
That was the doctrine of the day - it was thought that the US would fight a war close to home and would have to intercept enemy bombers. Explore the AAF proposal that led to the P-38 and P-39.
Had designers or people at Wright Patterson or Pax River known more about the low speed turning performance of the Zero, that would have been addressed during the concept and design stage of pre-Pearl Harbor aircraft.
Although the battle was overclaimed, damage was inflicted on the Germans and this battle is well documented.
There are a lot of opinions there but I think history actually shows that the P-40 did its job when it had to and despite being outclassed was not a push over.
The Zero was over rated but was till an effective fighter aircraft untill tactics and better aircraft came along. I don't think it was a big lie, just over rated. It still caused a lot of damage.
I'd like to know specifics for you to back up your opinions. Were the Russians running theses aircraft at full RPM too long? Too high Manifold Pressure? Tell me what these setting are?
The P-39 was not unstable or dangerous if one was properly trained to fly it. Chuck Yeager said it was his favorite WW2 aircraft to fly. There were many "green" and inattentive pilots killed flying the P-39 because they allowed it to get away from them. Training, it's that simple.
of the reports I posted only one had performance problems, the A6M2 tested against the P40 and P43 which, for unknown reasons, could only attain 2050 rpm. However control issues had nothing to do with the engine, so that can be sided.
Of the rest of the tests, well the Alleutian zero was (and is) renowned for falling on american hands virtually intact. All the americans had to do was to change the propeller (not difficult for the Zeke flew with a licenced american propeller) and the plane was ready to go. Pretty much similar with the Type 52, was captured in almost pristine status.
So no, I don't think "damage" is an issue in this captured planes tests.
Read it well: it says controls start to stiffen over 160 Knots IAS. Translated to Mph, that's 175mph, not 225mph.
At the point where it could not roll is where it gets really serious, at that point the progressive stick forces will be subject to the pilot and what he can handle. I have flown planes with high stick forces where I was able to control the aircraft with no problem but another pilot would have difficulty.a plane that is stated as developing heavy controls at 175mph IAS and not being able to roll at all at speeds of 300mph IAS means that in the mid-range of the 200s is progressively worse and worse. Even more, the plane not only gets unresponsible, heavy controls mean that any kind of maneouver will tire the pilot fast, and put himself in a serious situation in protracted fights.
And again all this is progressive. Would it mean that a P-40 SHOULD dogfight a Zero at 250 mph?Adding up to that, the reports also mention severe vibrations developed over 250mph IAS (275mph IAS). So at 275mph you have a cemented control plane vibrating, and demanding an exhausting ammount of strenght to fly. You can guess how those effects developed in the mid range of 200 to 300mph, I have a pretty much clear idea of it in my mind: VERY FAST because a Zeke reaching those speeds most of the times meant a diving Zeke building up speed pretty fast (not as fast as the allied planes anyway). An allied fighter with a Zeke on it's back only had to do a tight diving spiral; the Zero would be left in the dust in no time. Follow on move would be a pull-out the Zeke would also be hard pressed to follow, and a Zoom, something the Zero wasn't good at. After that sequence the initially advantaged position of the Zero was inverted with a Zeke seeing an allied plane higher than himself getting ready to start a BnZ sequence he couldn't run away from.
Perhaps, but the tactic of the day was not to maneuver with the Zero.It's not strange that the reports say that over 250mph the allied iron could outmaneouver a Zero. Was easy to achieve. And was easily done during the air fights of the Pacific.
Well it did happen early in the war and some who tried this were AmericanNo sane allied fighter would fly at 200mph IAS while fighting a Zeke. Well, yes, in the DEI where they were all untrained and had no idea what they were flying against. Elsewhere, any fighter that slow would initiate a power dive the Zero simply coudln't follow.
Their myth grew out of any possible proportion, but as much as the deeds of the plane over the DEI and phillipines as for the fact that it was a fighter designed by an "inferior race". Racial considerations had a lot of impact for the allied mind of the era; they didn't give Japan any chance to compete with their own designs and the Zero came as a harsh surprise. And the reaction to it was an OVER reaction.
Mostly happened when caught by surprise. If the Zeke was able to would the enemy before he could put his plane into a steep dive, then the enemy would surely die. Target fixation also happened: pilots moving in for the killing shot being shot to pieces by a Zero slipping on their backs without them noticing it.
But that would've been true had the Japanese flown a very different plane than the Zero.
I thought it was implicit in one of my prior messages. If high speeds are speeds over corner speed where inertia/aerodynamics are of bigger importance than acceleration/wingloading, it's plain to see that by slow speeds I mean speeds under the corner velocity of the plane, where acceleration/wingloading play a bigger part than inertia/aerodynamics.
It not about the data - its about your statement. Do you really think pre WW2 aircraft were "designed" heavy on purpose or were developed with a heavy wing loading on purpose? Do you think that the US "could have" designed an aircraft just as manoeuvrable as the Zero? The CW-21 had similar properties as the Zero and Oscar but it could not accelerate or climb like the Japanese planes. Bottom line, it was on the same track of design philosophy was the Japanese and it was made in the USAOh, BTW; do you --REALLY-- want me to go through the pain of going to every home page of each of the fighters list I gave, in order to give you a link so you can double check my data on order dates?...
come on, man, you can check in any book you own on american planes. Is late and I hate to browse online sources as I'm posting. Those dates are real...don't make me go to each the Corsair, Hellcat, Thunderbolt and Lightning's webpages to give you a link so you can read from someone else :O.
So I guess it made no difference about the Zero's performance below 300 mph?!?Thatch weave itself was adopted as a general maneouver after midway, and wasn't an instant process. By guadalcanal it was more or less standard (even while some pilots didn't know it yet at that time).
However we're talking about a SINGLE maneouver here. The lesson "stay fast-don't turn with a Zero" was GENERALLY accepted among navy and Marine Corps pilots already by the time of the Coral Sea battle. And actually "stay fast and don't turn with a Zero" was enough to keep the Zero at bay and deny it any kind of decisive victory in the meantime. When we're talking about F4Fs here, that some big stuff to achieve.
The P-38 was designed as an interceptor. It became apparent during its development that it could perform other roles. Needs during WW2 also dictated additional roles.CErtainly ,and the P38 had noticeably different design emphasis than either the F4U, F6F or P-47 (its plain to see as the P-38 was a notably better climber/accelerator than either of them).
Actually that's easily answered - SYSTEMS. The P-47 introduced a huge turbocharger, air conditioning and was advertised as a high altitude fighter. Additionally the AAF wanted it to be able to carry bombs and shoot up things. It was only natural that this aircraft was going to grow in size.However, those other models also were chosen for production and awarded contracts much prior to Pearl Harbor. You can't really explain how a fighter as the P-47 (which accelerated as a truck and had the same wingloading and low speed turning radious as the A-20 Boston) achieved such a contract without aknowledging that those who asked for it (the USAAC) were well aware than future air combats would rely on dive/zoom/firepower/speed rather than in close slow turnfests.
Same goes for the F4U and F6F, btw.
Proof?!?That's easily proven wrong. The designers of Grumman had good forewarning about the Zero capabilities when the plane was still in prototype stage.
And that was based on a design philosophy from Leroy Grumman.Did they make it lighter? no.
Did they make it better turning at low speeds? no
Did they try to lower it's wingloading? No.
Actually the only thing they did was giving the plane a bigger, heavier engine (increasing wingloading in the meantime, thus hurting low speed turning ability) so the plane could have more power available and as such a higher top speed. By increasing weight they also improved dive/zoom (where inertia,and as such, mass, plays a very big part). But they didn't try to make their plane any better at slow turning.
Ok...As I said, if I mistook that battle report for another, my bad. But there was one instance of a high number of 109s claimed as shot down by american planes over Sicily in a day the Luftwaffe records show no 109 losses in the MTO.
Again your opinion, history shows otherwise..few if any planes in history were "push overs", even when totally outclassed. Mostly because in many occasions of outclassed fighters soldiering on, the pilots behind the controls usually showed a high quality and did their best to put up the difference in performance in pilot skill, so avoiding being totally wiped out.
Such was the instance of the P-40s in the mediterranean, at least for me.
Actaully things changed in Early 1943 when you saw more P-38s in theater as well as other aircraft such as the F6F.The problem is that tactic superiority only lasted 6 months (at best) in fading away. And better aircraft lasted just roughly one year in entering service. After that, the Zeros were simply were exterminated.
Actually that's not true - in the very early going in 1942, there were many times the allies did not have air superiority over New Guinea and Port Morsby . Read the book "Bloody Shambles"Wouldn't be as bad if in the meantime the model achieved decisive air superiorities, thus at least justifying it's fame as a great fighter. But the fact remains that out of the DEI/Phillipine area (flying mostly against mid-30s hopeless dustbins with wings), the Zeke failed time after time to establish any kind of sizeable air superiority even when flying against much inferior (on paper) planes as the american models of the era.
Your opinionI don't rate that as an "effective" aircraft. Not even close.
And given a desperate situation, any other combatant of the day would have done the same thing.again, too far from my sources to give detailed data at the moment. Could look for it in the internet, but will have to wait until tomorrow the soonest (is late here at Europe).
Roughly speaking, the soviets overboosted their engines well avobe what the Allisons could sustain. Russian service records show that, while the allison had an (theoretical) expected operational life of 250 hours between overhauls, the soviet P-39s were good at the most for 60% of that time, and after that the engines were totally burned out and was more economical to wait for the next lend-lease P-39 batch to come rather than overhauling the engine.
Of course, lower grade russian fuel only worsened the situation. Overboosting was bad enough, but running the engines on lower grade aswell was a killer.
Ok...I'll try to dig for more details on this tomorrow, to give you some hard data on it. I know where to ask for details.
The Soviets did nothing different than other operators of the war. So they deleted guns and armor. That was their decision. The US put 75mm cannons on B-25s. What's the difference?!?AS a further note, Soviet planes not only ran on crazy boosts, they also chopped their aircraft down. Soviet P-39s had erased machineguns and deleted armor that lightened up the model a lot. As I said, I'm sorry but a P-39 flying for the soviets was a VERY DIFFERENT machine than the P-39 flying for the USAAF. You can't say the USAAF P-39 was "decent" because a very different creature was succesfull when flying for the soviets.
And you're quoting totally inaccurate information. First off a good fighter SHOULD have a level of instability. Second I don't know what your background is but every aircraft will give you indication when it is about to stall. Some more pronounced than others but the P-39 was easily mastered by an experienced pilot. Bottom line, if you're properly trained and master your aircraft you will not have problems and I can tell you that the P-39 did not just fall out of the sky. It was touchy, but there were many other aircraft of the day that had similar or even worse characteristics.That would be really good if the plane was just meant to fly around. P-39s were fighting machines and as such they were repeatedly used in air combat. Air combat means that sooner or later you're going to pull some high AoAs on your plane.
If said plane has a nasty, almost unrecoverable, accelerated spin developed from a terrific stall that kicks in with absolutely NO Forewarning at all, that means that even an experienced pilot in the middle of a combat is in a serious,constant, danger of losing his plane and probably his life. Actually there were quite some experienced pilots who either lost their life in, or had to jump out of, a P-39 they had unexpectedly put into a spin.
Have you ever flown a taildragger? Just by design a taildrageer is inherently more dangerous than any tricycle aircraft. Look at the accident rate of the Bf.109! Even the Spitfire had its share of landing accidents. Now does that mean it can't be mastered? Not at all, but in reality, look around and see how many modern combat aircraft planes are tail draggers.As for the P-40 being actually more dangerous because being a tail dragger...come on, then most every other fighter of the WW2 era was more dangerous than the P-39 aswell?. The P40 was a pretty stable and noble platform with a very wide separation between landing gears, meaning it was pretty safe to operate in takeoff/landings. INstead the model never really gave any kind of serious problem in that department.
The Alleutian Zero was basically in tact true, but was flipped on its back - it was damaged
At the point where it could not roll is where it gets really serious,at that point the progressive stick forces will be subject to the pilot and what he can handle. I have flown planes with high stick forces where I was able to control the aircraft with no problem but another pilot would have difficulty.
And again all this is progressive. Would it mean that a P-40 SHOULD dogfight a Zero at 250 mph?
Perhaps, but the tactic of the day was not to maneuver with the Zero.
Possible scenerios but not always the case
And again - in your opinion what are "high speeds?"
It not about the data - its about your statement. Do you really think pre WW2 aircraft were "designed" heavy on purpose or were developed with a heavy wing loading
Proof?!?
That for the most part is a myth. The Grumman proposal for the aircraft that eventually became the F6F was sent to the Navy in late 1940. Grumman was awarded the F6F contract in June 1941. The Zero entered service while the F6F was on the drawing board and there was little if any intelligence sent to Grumman about the Zero. There were reports about the Zero floating around and Chennault knew about it, but the Zero no way influenced the,,,
And that was based on a design philosophy from Leroy Grumman.
Actaully things changed in Early 1943 when you saw more P-38s in theater...
Actually that's not true - in the very early going in 1942, there were many times the allies did not have air superiority over New Guinea and Port Morsby . Read the book "Bloody
The Soviets did nothing different than other operators of the war. So they deleted guns and armor. That was their decision. The US put 75mm cannons on B-25s. What's the difference?!?
You fail to grasp that the US also used the P-39 and P-400 in the ground attack role and it served well.
I don't see what the Soviets modding their aircraft has to do with anything.
background is but every aircraft will give you indication when it is about to stall
Have you ever flown a taildragger? Just by design a taildrageer is inherently more dangerous than any tricycle aircraft. Look at the accident rate of the Bf.109! Even the Spitfire had its share of landing accidents. Now does that mean it can't be mastered? Not at all, but in reality, look around and see how many modern combat aircraft planes are tail
Hmmmm - So that's specific for an aircraft? So it should be in the flight manual, right?Already answered it before. Speeds over corner speed of the model flown, where inertia/aerodynamics play a bigger part in the aircraft Energy management than sustained climbrate/Acceleration or wingloading.
Point takenProof? well, the Hellcat was still in prototype stage when the Alleutian Zero was captured and tested (first test flight: September 20, 1942). At the time the F6F prototypes were flying in two variants, one with the Cyclone, another with the more powerful and heavier R-2800 engine. The Cyclone prototype was lighter and had better low speed maneouverability, the P&W engined prototype was heavier but sported better top speed and power. The chosen prototype was the second.
The first production F6F didn't came out of the line until the 3rd of October 1942. That's 13 days after the Zero started being tested by the americans and their low speed traits were aknowledged (aswell as many of its drawbacks). Had the US Navy been in a hurry to improve the low speed traits of its next gen embarked fighter, they very well coudl've done it.
PLease note: I don't say the Alleutian Zero INFLUENCED the US fighter design. Never said so and never will because that is NOT true. What I say is that the american Navy COULD'VE modified their next gen fighter design, which was intended to be the workhorse against the Zero, to give it better low speed traits. They only should've needed to change their decision and return to the Cyclone based F6F. They never did so (and weren't even tempted). THAT is what I say.
I still disagree. Overboosting an engine and removing some armor and the wing guns is not a "heavily customized" modification. The Russians showed the true potential of the aircraft despite it being outclassed bu other aircraft. In reality they operated it in its element despite frying engines along the way.So when I say that the P-39D was a dog (and a dog it was) based on their performances and traits when flown by US Forces, you can't tell me the model was OK because the soviets did great with it. Because the soviets weren't flying that plane, they were flying a heavily customized one which largely differed from the base model the americans flew. You would be comparing apples to oranges.
Usually a buffeting would warn the pilot. However certain planes gave near t onil warning to the pilot, and stalled almost without any kind of warning. A good instance would be the Fw-190, a plane that "dropped" it's left wing almost instantly with little or no feedback for the pilot that they were on the verge of doing it.
Same with the P-39, it gave little or no forewarning at all. But where the Fw190 had a nasty, sudden and unwarned stall, it had a very noble recovery. The P39 had a nasty, sudden and almost no warning stall, and unless the pilot had instant, perfect reaction, the plane would enter an unrecoverable spin almost instantly thereafter.
If that's not unforgiving, what is?.
I can tell you that flying a tail dragger is WAY different than an aircraft with a tri cycle landing gear and there is greater risk of landing accidents in the tail dragger. If you had flown one, you'll know what I am talking about and I say this from experience. Even in a T-6, landing in a cross wind can me hazardous. A T-6 IS NOT a joy to fly in a crosswind. I have a good friend who is a flight instructor on them and they are not as docile as you state. You fly a taildragger from the minute the engine is started.ACtually I have, at Cuatro VIentos, Madrid. I flew with an instructor by my side. Most fun of my life, BTW. I've also flown Cessnas a couple times. Know the differences myself.
But I digress. You bring here two planes that had some serious landing/takeoff/ground rolling quircks. Which can be attributed to their NARROW TRACK UNDERCARRIAGE, not to the fact that they were tail-draggers. It was easy to ground loop a spit or a 109 if one wasn't careful because of the short distances between gears that made the plane very little stable on the ground. But that had nothing to do with the fact they were tail draggers.
most of the WW2 combat aircraft were tail draggers. Hell the T-6 Texan is a tail dragger and is a joy to fly, land and takeoff in (you tell me). the Fw190 was a taildragger and was easy to land and take off. Same with the P-47 or P51. Others like the Typhoon were nasty because of inverted torque (pulled to the right instead of the left) going against the pilot's instincts when compensating with rudder during takeoffs, and because sheer torque and little rudder authority at low speeds...all of them factors which had nothing to do with the plane being a tail-dragger.
Nose gear planes have a distinct advantage over taildraggers because they give an unrivalled view to the front when on the ground, taking off or landing. That I give you. But that doesn't mean the taildraggers are "dangerous" while the P-39 was not. I'd rather be in a taildragger that has noble flying qualities than in a nose-gear plane which gets me in a spin without almost no forewarning at all.
That's your opinion and you have no proof of that. the combat was actually confirmed on the German side...
"confirmed"please where are this conform from german side?
"confirmed"
An air battle between 317th Fighter Squadron and a mix of Bf 109s an Mc 202s on July 30, 1943. 20 P-40s were jumped by 25 to 30 Bf 109s and Mc 202s. The 317th claimed 21 enemy aircraft destroyed with the loss of one of their own.
317His
sure confirmed
the link it's not from german side
Page 517, "America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean: "Aug 9 '43- The first raised cockpit aircraft appear starting with the 950th, the informally -designated F4U1As, used by Vought, but never officially approved by Navy Bureau of Aeronautics." I'll go with Dean.
A description by Boone Guyton of flying the Zero: " So was it's greatest maneuvering failure--excessive aileron forces required to rotate the airplane, in any maneuver, above 240 mph. Moving the stick, with both hands, at 260 mph produced a ridiculously slow rolling motion. It was like tugging at a box of concrete."
More than likely that would be indicatedit's very important know if this are IAS or TAS speed
Look at the post times for your post and mine.
I posted less than a minute after you.
I didn't see that you had already posted again.
Wheels