Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Many get shot down without realizing the opponent was there
In the Battle of Britain it was much more than half, it was very difficult to make a kill when a lot of planes were in a fur ball, plus it is estimated up to 10% were hit by friendly fire or enemy fire not actually meant for them.... and then there were more than a few collisions too.From the gun footage I have seen, I think it could be easily argued that more than half had no idea they were being attacked until to late.
Cheers,
Biff
Biff, those teste were conducted at Wright Field by AAF staff whose only job was to test those planes under very strict testing standards and criteria. If some guys on a message board try to invalidate a test done 70 years ago then we have no basis for evaluating the differences in those planes. We must assume that the tests were conducted properly and the information is accurate. Otherwise, what's the point if we're making the rules up as we go along?
Here's a photo of the arrangement. Don't think the 37mm horsecollar magazine fits in there, but a 20mm belt feed might.
The Airacobras about held their own (kills and losses about even), but they were always outnumbered. By the end of 1942 the P-39 squadrons in V Fighter Command had claimed 80 victories but had lost a similar number of aircraft themselves at a cost of 25 pilots killed or missing.
You can have just as many aircraft on strength as the enemy, but if he consistently manages to bring more aircraft to the engagement, you're outnumbered. Reliability matters.Maybe they percieved that they were always outnumbered? There was not actually any real difference in numbers of available P-39's vs Zero's.
Amazing, ain't it?81 pages and you are all still arguing about how easy it is to turn a donkey into a war winning by simply removing a couple of .30 cals and some armor????.
You can have just as many aircraft on strength as the enemy, but if he consistently manages to bring more aircraft to the engagement, you're outnumbered. Reliability matters.
Most never knew their opponent was there. 60%+ by many estimates.Many get shot down without realizing the opponent was there
Yes, it was a "favorite" of low-altitude hot dogs and was quite a good aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL.
You can have just as many aircraft on strength as the enemy, but if he consistently manages to bring more aircraft to the engagement, you're outnumbered. Reliability matters.
Erich Hartman said, "At low altitude the P-39 performed like the 109."
Expand above.P-39 Expert, I am with you on respecting the tests as run at the time. But, in this case, we have one test that is markedly different from all the OTHER tests.
The basic differences between the P-39C and P-39D were armor, 2 more guns and ammunition (with an existing two relocated to the wings), and self-sealing tanks. The weight difference you keep harping on, "836 pounds," WILL NOT result in an extra 1,000 feet per minute climb difference. Period. A 12% reduction in weight does NOT give you a 37% increase in climb rate. All those differences were internal. They had no aerodynamic effect whatsoever. The only difference in the two planes was weight.
So, either the P-39C was operated at higher MAP than reported or the other P-39s were operated at lower power. There is no third option. If I'm going to say a test is recorded incorrectly, it makes a LOT more sense to me that ONE test (the P-39C) is misreported than all the rest of them (P-39D, et al) being incorrect. For all I know, the Allison in the P-39C test was "hot-rodded" by being ported and polished to give more power than normal. I DOUBT that, but there is SOMETHING wrong for sure. I hesitate to even question ONE test, but we have this wide discrepancy in climb rate that only shows up in the P-39C test. Same engine, same power below 10000'. Above 10000' the P-39C horsepower was actually slightly less.
Saying that 836 pounds accounts for it just isn't going to cut it because it doesn't account for it. The LEAST history-disturbing conclusion is that the P-39C test was run in some non-standard manner. Testing was standardized, that was the purpose of the tests, to accurately compare different models. Go to wwiiaircraftperformance and look at the Tactical Suitability Tests for the P-38, P-47 and Allison P-51. They all were deficient in climb and the recommended fix was to reduce all non-essential weight. Weight influences climb more than any other factor.
On the ground?
I should have written parked on the ground, but anyway I just being funny (trying to).
Expand above.