why the P 40 wrecked plane and not the P 39 ?

[=LD=Hethwill]

Only the soviet "nuts" could bring the Cobras to shine. TBH i don't think it was a plane suited to be flown like they taught the Yankees ( and all other cadets ) in the academies, but the soviet would fly anything just to push the invaders out of their home land, right ? Apparently they flew tested the Cobras to success and found out it was a beautiful bird ( with armament that the soviets preferred ! no argue with a nose cannon ! )

 

BTW the P40 suited them as good. IIRC ( have to check the books ) one 'hawk downed two LW birds... by ram-slash attacks and made it back to base. Talk about roughness.

 

Last example was just to illustrate the mindset of the soviet pilot and why most planes did shine in the hands of their aces, they did take them beyond what manuals and common sense would dictate. ( although so so so many got shot down, you just need to read about the first months after the La-5 got introduced, guys would go for head ons intentionally most of the time ).

Edited November 2, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[Descolada]

the p40 honestly really isnt that terrible of a plane

 

from what i understand it was usually considered better in the horizontal than the yak-1 but worse in the vertical, which makes sense given its much heavier weight and lower power to weight ratio

 

but it has some nice advantages like a high cruising speed, pretty good diving characteristics, decent armament, and excellent cockpit visibility

 

sure it can't compete with a f4 at high altitude, but the russians also really didnt care about flying at high altitude anyways

[YSoMadTovarisch]

BTW the P40 suited them as good. IIRC ( have to check the books ) one 'hawk downed two LW birds... by ram-slash attacks and made it back to base. Talk about roughness.

Not really, Soviet pilots appreciated the sturdy construction, pilot protection, good dive speed and that's it. They found it to be inferior to their Yaks and Lavochkins because of it's poor climb rate and acceleration it was not suited for the combat on the Eastern front, still Soviets pilot found successes when they deviated from the standard tactics and used group tactic(boom and zoom tactic I would have guessed) instead.

from what i understand it was usually considered better in the horizontal than the yak-1 but worse in the vertical, which makes sense given its much heavier weight and lower power to weight ratio

 

Nope, Soviet tests found that the Yak 1 was superior to the P40 both in horizontal and vertical maneuverability.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Only the soviet "nuts" could bring the Cobras to shine. TBH i don't think it was a plane suited to be flown like they taught the Yankees ( and all other cadets ) in the academies, but the soviet would fly anything just to push the invaders out of their home land, right ? Apparently they flew tested the Cobras to success and found out it was a beautiful bird ( with armament that the soviets preferred ! no argue with a nose cannon ! )

 

BTW the P40 suited them as good. IIRC ( have to check the books ) one 'hawk downed two LW birds... by ram-slash attacks and made it back to base. Talk about roughness.

 

Last example was just to illustrate the mindset of the soviet pilot and why most planes did shine in the hands of their aces, they did take them beyond what manuals and common sense would dictate. ( although so so so many got shot down, you just need to read about the first months after the La-5 got introduced, guys would go for head ons intentionally most of the time ).

 

The biggest problem with the USAAF and their P-39 experience is that they were sent to Port Morseby - a backwater in terms of the WWII supply chain. In the early days of the P-400/P-39 deployment there was a shortage of parts and expertise in how to maintain the aircraft. The pilots there had little or no combat expertise at all and the P-39 was wholly unsuited to G4M Betty interceptions at 20,000 feet above the Owen Stanley mountains. The negative reputation of that deployment really destroyed any credibility as a frontline fighter that the P-39 might have had. The type did continue on there and did fairly well after tactics changed and the P-39s were used as low level attackers providing air support to the troops.

 

The VVS had different challenges but the P-39 brought with it a bunch of redeeming qualities - the radio, the high quality canopy (Russian aviation canopies tended to yellow quickly in the sunlight), and good low level performance. The Russian P-39s didn't need to fight at 20,000 or 25,000 feet intercepting Japanese raids so that put the P-39 on a more solid footing. So it's not really about stereotypically crazy Russian pilots... the circumstances surrounding the deployment and the lens that aircraft received their reputation through plays a significant role IMHO.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

The biggest problem with the USAAF and their P-39 experience is that they were sent to Port Morseby - a backwater in terms of the WWII supply chain. In the early days of the P-400/P-39 deployment there was a shortage of parts and expertise in how to maintain the aircraft. The pilots there had little or no combat expertise at all and the P-39 was wholly unsuited to G4M Betty interceptions at 20,000 feet above the Owen Stanley mountains. The negative reputation of that deployment really destroyed any credibility as a frontline fighter that the P-39 might have had. The type did continue on there and did fairly well after tactics changed and the P-39s were used as low level attackers providing air support to the troops.

 

The VVS had different challenges but the P-39 brought with it a bunch of redeeming qualities - the radio, the high quality canopy (Russian aviation canopies tended to yellow quickly in the sunlight), and good low level performance. The Russian P-39s didn't need to fight at 20,000 or 25,000 feet intercepting Japanese raids so that put the P-39 on a more solid footing. So it's not really about stereotypically crazy Russian pilots... the circumstances surrounding the deployment and the lens that aircraft received their reputation through plays a significant role IMHO.

The Russians also removed the wings guns, most of the armor and thus took a few hundreds kgs off the aircrafts, they also cruised at high boost while Western Allies pilots pretty much flew them by the book.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The early Hawk 81 models had very high roll rates (as did the Hawk 75), only the FW 190 was better in the roll than an early P40.  Even the later Hawk 87 models had very good roll rates.

 

The P40 was also quite good in the turn.  It gets it's bad reputation for not being a good turner because they got out turned by the Mitsubishi A6M and Nakajima Ki 43 early on in the war.

The Hawk 81 could out turn a Spitfire below 15,000 ft.  Again this point is all but forgotten now a days.

 

Of course the P 40 was good in the dive, most folks do know that much.

 

The P40 also turned out to be quite good in the attack role, and was used extensively in New Guinea and North Africa for that.  It's robustness was certainly a bonus here.  

 

The P40 flew in every theatre that the Allies operated in, and was produced through November 1944.

 

It served with distinction at a time when often there simply was nothing else available.

 

Not bad for a design that can be traced directly to the initial drawings done for the Hawk 75 in 1934.

 

It is my favorite virtual aircraft to fly, and you discount it at your peril.  

 

[FlatSpinMan]

I loved the P39 in the original IL2.  It was so different with the nose gear and engine placement.  The only way I could ever get out of that flat spin alive was by bailing.

Flying it in the original IL2 demo (on PC gaming magazine I think) gave me my username. As I recall, I tried FlatSpinBoy, but that was taken.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Hawk 75A also outturned Spitfire in high speed But in sustained low speed turns the Hawk did not keep up though. Finns fared quite well with the Hawk 75A's, most of them brand new when acquired. But they did not perform anywhere near the advertised figures. After they were painted, armor, eeapons and pilot survival kits added etc. the plane lost a lot of it's performance. But not the good handling qualities.

 

 P39 could have been much more, but didn't they remove the high altitude power(charger) from it thus making it a bit of a dog up there. Before that, form what I read, it was performing quite well actually. Finns called the P39 "Rocking chair" as the cannon made it rock forth and back because of the recoil. And that recoil also made it not so accurate if firing longer bursts.

[BlitzPig_EL]

You are correct Flanker,  as originally specified, the P 39 was meant as a high altitude interceptor, and was to have been turbocharged.   The US Army changed it's role to what the Brits call "Army co-operation" after dedicating all turbocharged Allison V-1710 production for the P 38.

 

So the poor P 39s and P 40s had to make do with a single stage/single speed supercharger optimized for low/medium altitudes.

 

Interestingly, Pratt & Whitney, on their own initiative, took a P 40 airframe and installed an R-2800 radial engine on it.   If this had been built, the US Army would have had a P 40 with performance that matched the current Bf 109 at all altitudes.

 

Oh well...

Edited November 3, 2014 by ElAurens

[Voidhunger]

6 machine guns in P40 would be massacre in BOS DM.

[=LD=Hethwill]

6 machine guns in P40 would be massacre in BOS DM.

 

.50 slugs are quite massive, the amount per second by 6 of them is immense. No mere machine guns.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

6 machine guns in P40 would be massacre in BOS DM.

 

Being down range range of 6 .50s is not especially safe anyway.

[Voidhunger]

I know, I know, but still. Since the DM spots are not detailed enough, small burst will put out of action every engine in sight.

[JG1_Pragr]

The Russians also removed the wings guns, most of the armor and thus took a few hundreds kgs off the aircrafts, they also cruised at high boost while Western Allies pilots pretty much flew them by the book.

 

Actually this is totally wrong assumption. There was huge difference between what was allowed by official regulations made in peacetime conditions in USA and what used squadrons during frontline service. You can find more on peril's page about P-40 here:

 

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/p40_data.htm

 

In example the "official" War emergency power boost for Alison V-1710-39 (in P-40E) was 56''. While squadrons in Australia and Middle East used 70'' boost for prolonged time. The same problem experienced frontline units using P-38. The official maximum power was far bellow what the engine could hold in reality. The main reason was due bureaucracy. While the war ministry main concern was to same as much money they can (so decrease allowable limits for maximum service life of engine) the pilots main concern was to get the best out of their planes. So if they could get beyond limits shortened the life of engine to 20 hours instead of 100 they simply did it. Especially if such breaking of rules could save their life.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Actually this is totally wrong assumption. There was huge difference between what was allowed by official regulations made in peacetime conditions in USA and what used squadrons during frontline service. You can find more on peril's page about P-40 here:

 

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/p40_data.htm

 

In example the "official" War emergency power boost for Alison V-1710-39 (in P-40E) was 56''. While squadrons in Australia and Middle East used 70'' boost for prolonged time. The same problem experienced frontline units using P-38. The official maximum power was far bellow what the engine could hold in reality. The main reason was due bureaucracy. While the war ministry main concern was to same as much money they can (so decrease allowable limits for maximum service life of engine) the pilots main concern was to get the best out of their planes. So if they could get beyond limits shortened the life of engine to 20 hours instead of 100 they simply did it. Especially if such breaking of rules could save their life.

This was from 1942 onward i believe, by then Allies pilots were less green and weren't as afraid of pushing their machine. Unfortunately by then the P39's reputation was forever tarnished.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

 While squadrons in Australia and Middle East used 70'' boost for prolonged time. 

 

 

That is pretty amazing - that is a good little bit of pressure.

 

I wonder how they knew?  The MP gauges in the -40s seem to go up to 50 inches.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Maybe they could measure it with external gauges or something? Hard to find any detailed data what they did, how they did it and how wide spread it was.

Edited November 3, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[BlitzPig_EL]

The over boosting of P40s was covered in a thread at the old UBI forums years ago.

 

There is also a document that was sent out by Allison about it.  I have a copy and will post it later as I have no time now.

 

What they did was change the gearing of the supercharger drive.  This enabled the V-1710 to produce on the order of 1400+bhp, if I am correctly recalling the numbers, at low levels.

 

More on this later.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Allison engines had a reputation for durability, but I think that this was due to the creators themselves seriously underrating their engines.

Edited November 4, 2014 by GrapeJam