BlitzPig_EL Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Still looking forward to the P 39 more than the other new planes coming our way... 11
SAG Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 p39 and a20 will both be my babies, its too bad that they were left for last
ShamrockOneFive Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 I'm pretty excited for the P-39 as well EL! Really interested to take it out for a spin. It and the A-20 will add some interesting breadth to the aircraft lineup in terms of some unique features (tricycle landing gear especially). 1
Archie Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Really interested to take it out for a spin. With the CoG won't it do that a lot? 4
Trooper117 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Looking forward to flying it to find out if it will give me the same feeling as flying it in the original game... (enjoyment, tinged with the fear factor wondering if I would end up in a 'spin of death') ... it was 50/50 whether I managed to correct it in time. I can remember reading that (probably Bud Anderson) stating that if you hadn't sorted it by 2 turns then just bale out, otherwise you would just follow it into a hole in the ground.
A_radek Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Till then I squint and play pretend in a Lagg with the 37mm. Very much looking forward to this series interpretation of it. Even if it turns out to be a coffin at anything below 400kmh. Always wondered if they attempted something weird with FM of the p-39 in the old il2 series. I remember it had no hope of turning inside the 109, same for climb rate. But in a co alt merge and with continuous looping it would soon have the upper hand over the 109.
Finkeren Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 For such a heavy and relatively low-powered aircraft the P-39 was supposedly pretty good in the vertical. The P-39 FM in IL2-1946 always was a little weird, probably a result of an attempt to make it feel unique. In any case, the P-39 should fill out a gap in the VVS planeset nicely: A fighter that performs its best at medium altitude.
Herne Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) Will be kind of strange not getting all that smoke from a damaged engine billowing out from the nose, and covering your canopy in oil Edited October 17, 2017 by =11=herne
Finkeren Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Will be kind of strange not getting all that smoke from a damaged engine billowing out from the nose, and covering your canopy in oil Indeed. People who fly without technochat won’t know that something’s wrong half the time.
Tag777 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Hope the engine performance won't be same as the P-40. If she can attain 600 km/h and have a dive speed over 700 km/h will be an improvement in the VVS planeset.
Herne Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Hope the engine performance won't be same as the P-40. If she can attain 600 km/h and have a dive speed over 700 km/h will be an improvement in the VVS planeset. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39.html Came across this, it doesn't talk about dive speeds though
Herne Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) Oh yes it does from one of the links on the above documenthttp://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39D_Flying_Qualities.pdf Edited October 17, 2017 by =11=herne
Gambit21 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 I can remember reading that (probably Bud Anderson) stating that if you hadn't sorted it by 2 turns then just bale out, otherwise you would just follow it into a hole in the ground. That wouldn't be Bud obviously as he never flew one in actual combat, and certainly never bailed out of one. Gunther Rall did say to him years later regarding the P-39 "I must have shot down 50 P-39's - you would hit them any old place and they would go tumbling in. Did you ever fly one?"
busdriver Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) That wouldn't be Bud obviously as he never flew one in actual combat, and certainly never bailed out of one. It's been years since I read Anderson's book, but I thought he flew P-39s stateside. Or perhaps it was Yeager's book, could have sworn both of them mentioned flying the P-39. Edit: From Hess & Ivie's P-51 Mustang Aces, summary from page 25, Anderson's first assignment after getting his wings in Sep 1942 was the 328th FG at Hamilton Field CA, flying P-39s. If I read it correctly he flew the P-39 for 12-14 months before going to England with the 357th FG. Edited October 17, 2017 by busdriver
Gambit21 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Anderson flew them stateside in Oakland Ca Edit - just saw your edit My point was only that he never flew combat in one.
busdriver Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Anderson flew them stateside in Oakland Ca Edit - just saw your edit My point was only that he never flew combat in one. Fair enough, but you would agree that Anderson certainly would know about spin recoveries in the P-39 which is what Trooper117 typed (Trooper made no reference to combat flying in the 39, which perhaps you inferred).
Gambit21 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Fair enough, but you would agree that Anderson certainly would know about spin recoveries in the P-39 which is what Trooper117 typed (Trooper made no reference to combat flying in the 39, which perhaps you inferred). Of course. "2 turns or bail" though if uttered, certainly sounds like a Russian pilot to me is all. Flying with your buddies or sparring with the Navy guys over SF Bay didn't lead to such results. I interviewed Anderson once - good guy and not full of himself...unlike others I could mention.
Tag777 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Oh yes it does from one of the links on the above document http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39D_Flying_Qualities.pdf Good!!
Gambit21 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Andersons comments in that book are responsible for my years long misconception that the P-39 was more often used as a ground attack aircraft in Russia
busdriver Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 I interviewed Anderson once - good guy and not full of himself...unlike others I could mention. That had to be a great conversation. Lucky guy. I enjoyed his book.
=WH=PangolinWranglin Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 5 minutes of takeoff power! This thing is going to be so fun!
Nil Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 P39, a really fantastic piece of engineering. This bird is so special for me, even though am not into fighters.
ShamrockOneFive Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 With the CoG won't it do that a lot? LOL maybe. It was sometimes known for its nasty spin... though I don't expect that to happen all the time.
Feathered_IV Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 What I really look forward to is flying the P-39 against the Zero. Such good times ahead. 1
Wulf Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 So essentially, a mid-engined LaGG-3. Pretty, but NFG. I'm also looking forward to it. Hehehehehehe (evil laugh) heheheheheheh .............
Tag777 Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) So essentially, a mid-engined LaGG-3. Pretty, but NFG. I'm also looking forward to it. Hehehehehehe (evil laugh) heheheheheheh ............. No, the P-39 has almost 300 hp more power and a better rate of climb. It is also better armed and has a higher dive speed. Besides, is a sturdier aircraft considering its all metal airframe. Edited October 18, 2017 by Tag777
Wulf Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 No, the P-39 has almost 300 hp more power and a better rate of climb. It is also better armed and has a higher dive speed. Besides, is a sturdier aircraft considering its all metal airframe. Perhaps, but according to Wikipedia, the RAF abandoned the thing after its very first combat mission in the ETO. Also, the version received by the RAF had a max speed of just 350 mph. It will be interesting to see what the devs dish up.
=WH=PangolinWranglin Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) The RAF didn't like it because the thing just wasn't competitive at the high altitudes of the western front like the spitfires were. There's a reason its niche was on the eastern front, and that's because most all fights are down low. The thing will be one of Russia's most competitive fighters when we get it hopefully. That was also probably an early 1940/41 version as well, so not as many refinements as on our L model. Edited October 18, 2017 by =VOE=PangolinWranglin
Y29.Layin_Scunion Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 Perhaps, but according to Wikipedia, the RAF abandoned the thing after its very first combat mission in the ETO. Also, the version received by the RAF had a max speed of just 350 mph. It will be interesting to see what the devs dish up. The RAF version was mostly "C" and "D" variants if I recall correctly. The "L" variant is what will be in game. If you're savvy on your ABCs I'm sure you can figure out the L variant came much later and will be able to go much faster. Also, you're clearly referring to a P-39 C/D's level speed in flight...not top speed. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39.html
Venturi Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 Spins only occurred when 37mm ammunition was used up. The plane is the lightest and smallest of the common American WW2 fighters. Turn performance should be very good.
FTC_Riksen Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 (edited) It is one of the prettiest planes out there for sure Edited October 19, 2017 by 4./JG52_Riksen
Venturi Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 Chuck Randall gets it right Note the discussion of detonation when MP is increased without concomitant RPM increase at 7:45 into the video. Great find! 1
1PL-Husar-1Esk Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 (edited) Note the discussion of detonation when MP is increased without concomitant RPM increase at 7:45 into the video. Great find! I would like to see that engine behavior and consequences of misbehaving it modeled in the game. Edited October 19, 2017 by 307_Tomcat
216th_Jordan Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 I would like to see that engine behavior and consequences of misbehaving it modeled in the game. This and advanced fuel system modeling would push this sim way ahead. Would certainly love it, hope the devs find time for that next year.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now