Hello, since i did not have any answer:
RAM:A) the russians were flying P-39s using engine settings that trashed their engines in 4-5 flights. They cared nothing about the lifetime of their machines.. They also retired part of the weaponry and most of the armor of the plane to make it lighter.
Armor? Have you got concrete examples? Except the gear box and the oxygen bottle's one, it seems the the back' seat armor plate was finally maintained, for firewall rule despite TsAGI considered the engine as being a good protection by itself.
So the P-39 flying in Soviet service wasn't the P-39 in US or british service, was a completely different plane with an abused engine and much lighter than the standard plane, and that was expected only to last for anything between 3-5 sorties before being trashed.
Do you have statistics? It seems that life expectancy of a P-39 was much longer in soviet service.
About 220-230 hours for Alisson (250 h TBO), and 70-80 (100 TBO) for Klimov 105 PF from 5th Air Army statistics. I agree that a soviet 3200-3300 kg P-39 si very different from a 3800 kg british one.
The undisputed tittle of "Hangar Queen" is for the AM-35A with only
35 hours. It explains why the P-39 played a major rule in the VVS and MiG-3 did not!
C) all the above mentioned points are backed up by raw numbers. German fighters did shoot down russian planes in droves and a lot of them were P-39s.
Maybe you speak english. They certainly claimed in droves, just as the opposite side. How do you prove that the claimed planes were shooted down. Have you got numbers? Life expectancy being about 160 war missions for the P-39 on eastern front from memory, (0.6% loss rate, compare with the B-17 one...) that means a rather poor Luftwaffe and Flack success.
As for the I-16 "having no fault on it's own", well, yet another plane that was so unstable on every and each of the three axis that the pilots had serious trouble keeping it in controlled flight "has no fault on it's own". Suprising to say the least.
Unstable? Where is it taken from? An old urban legend, like it was a P-26 copy. The CG of the I-16/M-22 was about 30% on the MAC and the I-16/M25 about 28% the AF being placed aft and CP even after, so
no unstability phenomenum was observed until some 1939's planes before 36% position
and +2° positive tail angle.
So even if the pitching moment was sometimes light for the I-16 and inartia moments very small, the plane was ttwitchy, i. e. prone to react
not unstable, never...
It's not the same thing
Do you have statistics? It seems that life expectancy of a P-39 was much longer in soviet service.
About 220-230 hours for Alisson (250 h TBO), and 70-80 (100 TBO) for Klimov 105 PF from 5th Air Army statistics. I agree that a soviet 3200-3300 kg P-39 si very different from a 3800 kg british one.
Not all the statistics being the same, naturally:
>Там же приводится и статистика вырабатываемых ресурсов и по другим самолетам 5-й Воздушной армии.
>Аллисон - 220-230 часов, ВК-105ПФ - 70-80 часов
Also:
В августе 1944 года из 67-го гвардейского полка в отношении Р-39 "Аэрокобра" сообщали: "Мотор положенные ему по ресурсу 250 ч. но норме не вырабатывает... За два года эксплуатации не было, чтобы мотор в боевых условиях нарабатывал хотя бы 60-70% от положенного".
From 67th guards regiment in 1944, august: after 2 years of intensive use no more that 60-70% of the planes reach the official 250 hours of work...but mainly to WEP overuse and abuse and low quality soviet oil and fuel B-78 ranges from 78 to 92/94 octane rate, and B-70 from 70 to 85...The last one was used during Leningrad siege.
The last Allison 83-85 series were also repported as being much more reliable than first ones of 63 family.
Regards