GregP
Major
Watching this thread is better than watching The Big Bang Theory, unless Penny is in the scene. If she is, I'd go with Penny and her assets as better.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Testing was factual and comparable. Pilot reports were hearsay and opinion.
As in the test all the pilot had to do was adjust the mixture control slightly. It was a lever on the throttle quadrant. Again we're talking about 3mph.
Glad you finally found your 335mph reference. Most other references say 330mph. You're fighting over 5mph like it won or lost the war.
.....
P-39K did 370mph at 16000' and was still achieving 364mph at 20000'.
Look at the P-39K graph in post #1006. I think you'll find the climb rates very comparable.
Probably?
.....
Correct or not, you're talking 5mph.
7850lbs was the listed weight of the P-39D-1.
More tricks? The pilot overboosted the engine at takeoff indicating he either was new in the P-39 or was a lousy pilot.
I have always stated that this weight was easily achievable at forward bases and this was hypothetical. You have not proven anything either.
Mea Culpa, DerAdler. I was trying to make a funny and perhaps got carried away. Will correct it. Cheers to all.
Perhaps, but the P-51B had the Packard-Merlin V-1650-3 @ 1,620hp. and the P-51D had the Packard-Merlin V-1650-7 @ 1,695hp.
So there was an increase of hp. but again, there was also an increase in weight between the two variants.
Surprised me too, not least the way the combat records are interpreted; 44 P-39's were lost in engagements with Zero's, of which 15 also were lost. All 15 Zeros were shot down by P-39's, and 15 P-39's were shot down by Zeros. Some P-39's were lost to AAA, running out of fuel, mechanical defects, etc; but in many cases no one actually saw what happened and there were some MIA with no probable cause given.
Perhaps it would be more right to say that it cost 44 P-39s too shoot down 15 Zeros.
Try reading P-39/P-400 vs A6M3 Zero New Guinea 1942 by Michael John Claringbould. It has some good combat accounts, some of which will say the P-39 and A6M were close in speed, some were the P-39 was faster, likely due to acceleration being close for the two aircraft. But the main reason to read the book is the in-depth look at combat records; the P-39 and A6M were even in the win-loss stats. That surprised me.
Surprised me too, not least the way the combat records are interpreted; 44 P-39's were lost in engagements with Zero's, of which 15 also were lost. All 15 Zeros were shot down by P-39's, and 15 P-39's were shot down by Zeros. Some P-39's were lost to AAA, running out of fuel, mechanical defects, etc; but in many cases no one actually saw what happened and there were some MIA with no probable cause given.
Perhaps it would be more right to say that it cost 44 P-39s too shoot down 15 Zeros.
I believe that is how most kill ratios for US aircraft are traditionally calculated; all combat losses vs combat kills of the enemy. As I remember the book, there were some records of Zeros disappearing on their homeward flights, well after combat. Don't know how many.
My overall take was this; USAAC had to figure out how to maintain a new type of engine (V-1710 - almost all previous aircraft had radials) in a jungle under attack. They also had to fight a more experienced foe with little advanced warning of the attacks. Add to that conservative engine use doctrine developed from a time when funding was scarce (priority given to reducing maintenance over performance) and you see they had an uphill battle. Yet, they managed to hold the Japanese at bay for the first two 'lean' years of the war.
As for the P-39, there was not a USAAC fighter that would have faired any better at that time.
My overall take was this; USAAC had to figure out how to maintain a new type of engine (V-1710 - almost all previous aircraft had radials) in a jungle under attack. They also had to fight a more experienced foe with little advanced warning of the attacks. Add to that conservative engine use doctrine developed from a time when funding was scarce (priority given to reducing maintenance over performance) and you see they had an uphill battle. Yet, they managed to hold the Japanese at bay for the first two 'lean' years of the war.
As for the P-39, there was not a USAAC fighter that would have faired any better at that time.
Also interesting, and something I don't see many talking about, is that of the USAAC single seat fighters, the P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, and P-51, the P-39 was by far the smallest of the lot, for whatever that's worth.
Did you note how the P39s taking off had to rotate to an exaggerated nose high attitude to break ground, and climbed out in the same exaggerated attitude? Betcha a high speed high positive lift airfoil would have performed better than the symmetrical one they had. The only true benefit of a symmetrical airfoil is a better L/D in inverted flight or negative G maneuvering, performance arenas that are not tactically or doctrinally relevant to the P39. Did it even have a pressure carb and inverted fuel and oil header tanks? If not, then why the symmetrical airfoil? AFAIK it was a positive G airplane, and could have benefited from a positive lift wing. I believe most planes of the era that were inverted capable had header tanks of limited (seconds rather than minutes) endurance, though I've read of Zeroes flying inverted for extended periods when exuberant young pilots were (in the vernacular) "showin their ass".P-38, P-39 and P-40 ops in New Guinea. Note comments at 4:35 and 19:35
The First Fighters in New Guinea 1942-1944
The only drawback to this approach is likely higher torsional loads on the center section to wing panel attach points, which the center section points may not be stressed to handle. IIRC, that problem arose with the Sturmovik, and turned out to be more than a simple bolt-on field mod.Considering that the outer wing sections about even with the inboard side of the main gear wells were detachable, it would not have been too difficult to integrate a new outer wing section to the rest of the aeroplane and also add some sweep similar to IL 2/M3 or P-39E to push the center of lift back a bit and correct the CoG issues.
If you want to include all causes
I. AM. SPEECHLESS.Testing was factual and comparable. Pilot reports were hearsay and opinion.
You said 15 P-39s were shot down by zeros, 44 lost total, this against 15 zeros lost to P-39s, this is a 1 to 1 ratio in the air. If you include the total 44 lost P-39s this comes out to 2.9 to 1It is all losses in engagements between P-39's and Zeros ; 44 P-39's lost vs 15 Zero's. Both sides suffered other losses in combat and operational non-combat losses so the overall totals are higher for both sides.