What to expect from your shiny new P39-L1

[KatieLuna]

Disclaimers: Not a playtester, simply getting this from what I know. Also, it's not released yet. Hype train is yet to pull into station.

 

Armament:

• A 37mm hub cannon with a 30 round belt
• 2 .50cal machine guns in the nose
• 2 .30cal machine guns far out on the wings, meaning using them will need good ranging, and good range judgement

 

Characterisitics of the aircraft:

• Wet wing design (with no fuselage tanks) means low-ish roll rate
• roughly 1 hour of flight on a full tank
• armoured glass in the front and back of the cockpit, with excellent (as if you were in a ww1 biplane) rearward visibility owing to canopy and seat design
• poor forward over the nose visibility due to massive dashboard (but you can try by sticking your head up)
• average-poor lateral visibility owing to massive metal doorframe.
• flaps indicator on wing
• high chance of engine damage when enemy is trailing you due to all your engine stuff being right behind the cockpit, including massive oil tanks begging to be shot
• good handling at speed
• good wing strength (3 spars!)
• trim on all 3 axes
• enclosed canopy (e.g. like on the 109), as your door doesn't like high speeds much
• decent turn time, as this is why the Russians liked it (I think), because vertical fighters like the mustang were not good in the battles that took place on the eastern front.

 

Personally, I'm hoping for a "remove 7.62 machineguns" option, becuase they seem useless unless you're fighting ju88s or He111s, due to just how far apart they are. Even then the stated aircraft won't take kindly to your 37mm, so I'd just use the nose mounted stuff anyway.

Edited January 28, 2018 by TheTacticalCat

[Mac_Messer]

I`m particulary wondering how the Allison compares to the one in the old game. From my pov it was rather durable, if not very durable. Most people hit the fuselage when shooting, so theoretically the P39 should have a hard life.

[Feathered_IV]

I'm rather nervously wondering if it will be cold meat like the BoS P-40.

[Wolfram-Harms]

With a decent agility and good rearward and rearward-up vision, we will probably see it mostly at treetop level.

For the big cannon, it will need masterly shooting with only 30 rounds.

When this cannon hits something, it will be devastating. Whole wings may come off.

[56RAF_Roblex]

I know that their use in ground attack was not as common as people think but I am curious about how well it survives when attacking airfields and other well defended targets.  Will that rear engine and heavy armour help?  That is a rhetorical question. We will have to wait and see how the in-game version pans out.    Personally I cannot see it doing that well in dogfights, despite the success the real VVS had.  Anything with powerful guns can get kills on unsuspecting victims but is that enough?  Did it do well because of a high chance of 'one pass kills' where they did not have to worry about dogfighting after?   It will be interesting to see.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Two things to note. The P-39L-1 has four .30cal machine guns (two in each wing).

 

We are getting the ability to remove the .30cal machine guns and the rear armor plate.

 

 

M2 .30 machine gun has good fire rate (1350 shots per minute) and muzzle speed (845 meters per second), close to German MG 17. However, there will be an option in the game to remove 7.62 guns, their ammo and the rear armor plate that protected the oil reservoir, reducing the total weight of the aircraft by 200 kilograms, its time of turn and improving its vertical maneuverability.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=508214

 

Good summary on the P-39. Very curious to see how this slightly quirky fighter's handling gets translated into the flight engine. In the original IL-2 I found the P-39 was one of the aircraft that changed the most dramatically over the years. Fast and slow roll rates, turn times, stall and spin, all of these things seemed to be very much in flux depending on what they were doing with the flight model at the time. So this will be interesting!

I know that their use in ground attack was not as common as people think but I am curious about how well it survives when attacking airfields and other well defended targets.  Will that rear engine and heavy armour help?  That is a rhetorical question. We will have to wait and see how the in-game version pans out.    Personally I cannot see it doing that well in dogfights, despite the success the real VVS had.  Anything with powerful guns can get kills on unsuspecting victims but is that enough?  Did it do well because of a high chance of 'one pass kills' where they did not have to worry about dogfighting after?   It will be interesting to see.

 

Supposedly the mid engine mount gives the aircraft a pretty good turn time... At least vs the Bf109. So it might actually hold its own in the horizontal especially with 200kg of weight shaved off. But you're right that it may be a bit better as a hit and run machine. Good aerodynamics and 1300hp should hopefully give at least something of an edge.

[Finkeren]

My expectations:

 

Great agility but relatively poor stability due to mass being concentrated near CoG.

 

Good top speed but mediocre acceleration

 

Field of vision probably not as good as you’d think, but still better than average.

 

Very good durability with sturdy structure and armoured bulkhead behind engine. Oil tank the most likely weak spot.

 

Pretty good armament against fighters, devastating against bombers.

 

Good handling inside the flight envelope. Vicious and unpredictable outside it.

 

Nice placement of gun sight making deflection shooting easy.

 

Best ground handling of any flighter. Easy take offs and landings.

[GridiroN]

When researching the P39, I was surprised how little information about it's actual flight characteristics is easily available. In fact, I was right about to make a thread about it, but you've beaten me to it. Rep for that. I'm incredibly excited for the P39, not only is it MEAN looking, it is one of the most interesting aircrafts we'll have in game. I'm sure I will be garbage with it, and I'm sure it will be uncompetitive in certain areas, but I will be VERY interested to see just why this was one of the top scoring and most well liked airframe designs of WW2 aviation given it's obvious handicaps (engine midmounted will be brutal if anyone gets behind you...)...

 

My guess...this aircraft is going to be the staple of the elite: a great pilot in a P39 is going to dominate. Anything less and it'll be fairly easy prey for 109s.

Edited January 28, 2018 by GridiroN

[EAF19_Marsh]

I expect fun and good memories.

 

I wonder about the spin / recovery modelling. It was a little odd in the old Il-2

[BlitzPig_EL]

The thorny bit will be how the engine limits are implemented.

 

I share Feathered_IV's apprehension on this.

 

If it is as ahistorically modeled as the P40, it won't be worth flying.  Also a fear I have for the A20.

[JtD]

I was surprised how little information about it's actual flight characteristics is easily available

There actually is quite a bit of information available on the P-39. As usual, wwiiaircraftperformance is a good starting place. It includes performance, manual and handling information.

 

Additionally, the NACA technical reports server holds a couple of reports. Some of them are available above, some are not.

 

Handling

Diving to Mach 0.80

Ripping the tail off in high speed stalls

High speed handling I

High speed handling II

High speed handling III

 

There are more reports available from various army trials, but I don't remember where I found them. Generally effective rudder and elevator, poor ailerons, in particular at high speed. Little stall warning, OK stalling characteristics.

 

Youtube has a whole bunch of training films. My favourite is the one discussing spinning characteristics.

Edited January 28, 2018 by JtD

[56RAF_Roblex]

I don't care about its weaknesses. I will try it anyway unless it is very good in which case paradoxically I might not :-)   I like to fly weaker planes just out of curiosity unless I am with my squad or a wingman when it would be unfair on them.  Not that I am a good pilot who can overcome any planes faults, I am rubbish at dogfighting and struggle with the easiest ones    ,  but I find it odd when people tell me they have never tried the Mig or the Lagg because they have been told they are not very good in a dogfight against the best LW fighters so there is no point flying it.  Just  different mindset.   I just enjoy flying and get bored if the aircraft is too easy. Combat and kill ratios is secondary.   I would rather survive a battle by the skin of my teeth and struggle home with bits falling off and try to land on one wheel than get three easy kills and fly home undamaged.   Probably the same reason why I never bail out unless I have lost my tail or the whole wing.  If there is any chance to get home or ditch in a field I will try it 

[KatieLuna]

With a decent agility and good rearward and rearward-up vision, we will probably see it mostly at treetop level.

For the big cannon, it will need masterly shooting with only 30 rounds.

When this cannon hits something, it will be devastating. Whole wings may come off.

Oh yeah. The 37mm on the other planes devastates the wings of any bomber, and I'd imagine cuts through 109s like a hot knife through air.

Two things to note. The P-39L-1 has four .30cal machine guns (two in each wing).

 

We are getting the ability to remove the .30cal machine guns and the rear armor plate.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=508214

 

Good summary on the P-39. Very curious to see how this slightly quirky fighter's handling gets translated into the flight engine. In the original IL-2 I found the P-39 was one of the aircraft that changed the most dramatically over the years. Fast and slow roll rates, turn times, stall and spin, all of these things seemed to be very much in flux depending on what they were doing with the flight model at the time. So this will be interesting!

 

Supposedly the mid engine mount gives the aircraft a pretty good turn time... At least vs the Bf109. So it might actually hold its own in the horizontal especially with 200kg of weight shaved off. But you're right that it may be a bit better as a hit and run machine. Good aerodynamics and 1300hp should hopefully give at least something of an edge.

Ah yes, sorry I meant to put 4 not 2. good news that we can remove some of the semi-useless stuff.

I expect fun and good memories.

 

I wonder about the spin / recovery modelling. It was a little odd in the old Il-2

The model there was accurate. Mid engine airframes are EXTREMELY poor at dealing with spins, and are almost always irrecoverable. If you get into a spin, and are =<500m, bail immediately.

I don't care about its weaknesses. I will try it anyway unless it is very good in which case paradoxically I might not :-)   I like to fly weaker planes just out of curiosity unless I am with my squad or a wingman when it would be unfair on them.  Not that I am a good pilot who can overcome any planes faults, I am rubbish at dogfighting and struggle with the easiest ones    ,  but I find it odd when people tell me they have never tried the Mig or the Lagg because they have been told they are not very good in a dogfight against the best LW fighters so there is no point flying it.  Just  different mindset.   I just enjoy flying and get bored if the aircraft is too easy. Combat and kill ratios is secondary.   I would rather survive a battle by the skin of my teeth and struggle home with bits falling off and try to land on one wheel than get three easy kills and fly home undamaged.   Probably the same reason why I never bail out unless I have lost my tail or the whole wing.  If there is any chance to get home or ditch in a field I will try it 

I concur. A good flight is a memory for the night. A rough flight is a memory for all time. Edge of your seat, locked flaps, 1 aileron gone and half a stabilser missing, and STILL landing the aircraft is my definition of fun. In war thunder I used to love gliding as far as possible, trying desperately to get back to base and trying to keep the enemy and my own plane from downing me. Those are the best memories. Also, I genuinely love emergency landngs, and sometimes I do a quick mission at 300m, when I immediately kill the engine and try to keep the plane intact "so the engineers can fix me up". A broken prop is 100% failure.

All those episodes of air crash investigation when I was 8 or 9 have made me want to do this in the Boston

Edited January 28, 2018 by TheTacticalCat

[Ehret]

The biggest difference, going from the P40, should be speed and backward visibility.  Instantaneous turns and velocity retention (P39 is a very clean frame) have to be the Aircobra's strengths, too.

[Luger1969]

Apparently the cannon has a firing rate of 150 rounds per minute. So at least 10 seconds of fire. This will help with ammo shortage I think.

[szelljr]

...new template.

[Finkeren]

Apparently the cannon has a firing rate of 150 rounds per minute. So at least 10 seconds of fire. This will help with ammo shortage I think.

But it’s surely not going to increase its usefulness against fighters.

[GridiroN]

But it’s surely not going to increase its usefulness against fighters.

150 rounds per minute is garbage. It's clearly an anti-bomber weapon. You'd have to be an excellent shot to hit that, unless the muzzle velocity is high, which im sure it's not, then it'd be more of a snipe/one shot, one kill gun.

Edited January 28, 2018 by GridiroN

[Archie]

I expect it to be very, very average. I'll still fly it though. 

[GridiroN]

I expect it to be very, very average. I'll still fly it though.

Say that to it's face whydon'tcha?

[Luger1969]

The 50 calibers are 200 rounds per gun. Does anybody know whether there was a 20mm option on these aircraft in place of 37mm?

[Stig]

P-400

[Eicio]

150 rounds per minute is garbage. It's clearly an anti-bomber weapon. You'd have to be an excellent shot to hit that, unless the muzzle velocity is high, which im sure it's not, then it'd be more of a snipe/one shot, one kill gun.

 

Absolutely not.

 

It makes almost 2 rounds per seconds and unlike a machinegun you just have to hit one time to get a score.

 

If this kind of canons were "garbage" russians wouldn't have used it for more than 20 years with MiG 15/17/19 and so on....

[-SF-Disarray]

The 50 calibers are 200 rounds per gun. Does anybody know whether there was a 20mm option on these aircraft in place of 37mm?

 

I saw an old USAA training film used to familiarize crews to the P-39 that said that it can carry either a 37 mm cannon or a 20 mm cannon. Don't know if that will be in game though.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Disarray

[GridiroN]

The 50 calibers are 200 rounds per gun. Does anybody know whether there was a 20mm option on these aircraft in place of 37mm?

The D had a 20mm. The L has a 37.

I saw an old USAA training film used to familiarize crews to the P-39 that said that it can carry either a 73 mm cannon or a 20 mm cannon. Don't know if that will be in game though.

a 73mm cannon is like a tank gun. I think it's mistaken. The duck had a 75mm gun at one point, but I think the flight characteristics were awful with it.

Edited January 28, 2018 by GridiroN

[-SF-Disarray]

ya, typo, I fixed it

[MeoW.Scharfi]

An important part in flight quality of P39, it's tendency to spin. The P-39L was one of the first P39s that the soviet union received.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhrF92tQe6g#t=51m10s

 

The documentary is worth it. 

[KatieLuna]

150 rounds per minute is garbage. It's clearly an anti-bomber weapon. You'd have to be an excellent shot to hit that, unless the muzzle velocity is high, which im sure it's not, then it'd be more of a snipe/one shot, one kill gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

 

says on the wikipedia page that it has a 610m/s muzzle velocity so uh, yeah.

An important part in flight quality of P39, it's tendency to spin. The P-39L was one of the first P39s that the soviet union received.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhrF92tQe6g#t=51m10s

 

The documentary is worth it. 

Sharfi? The woman herself?! Very nice videos.

[MeoW.Scharfi]

Thanks! I had some help from well known youtubers. 

[GridiroN]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

 

says on the wikipedia page that it has a 610m/s muzzle velocity so uh, yeah.

Sharfi? The woman herself?! Very nice videos.

 

Better than I was expecting. Still not exactly fast. Nearly 100 slower than MG FF. 

[KatieLuna]

Thanks! I had some help from well known youtubers. 

Is this you? (jk)

[MeoW.Scharfi]

More like this 

Edited January 28, 2018 by MeoW.Scharfinova

[GridiroN]

Absolutely not.

 

It makes almost 2 rounds per seconds and unlike a machinegun you just have to hit one time to get a score.

 

If this kind of canons were "garbage" russians wouldn't have used it for more than 20 years with MiG 15/17/19 and so on....

 

Yea, no...

 

150 rounds a minute is no where near well suited for aerial combat against fast movers. It's an anti-bomber weapon. As far as the muzzle velocity, that has already been corrected, and it somewhat makes up for the low rate of fire. 

 

The MG 151/20 has a RoF of 750. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by GridiroN

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Even the MK 108 seems too slow for attacking fast-moving fighters, despite firing 4.3 times faster. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[AndyJWest]

For what it's worth (this is from Wikipedia), the majority of Pokryshkin's P-39 claimed victories seem to be against Bf 109s. And quite a few of them flown by experten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pokryshkin#1943

[senseispcc]

For most of Soviet/Russian P-39 the wing guns where removed. Those in the wings or those in gondols.  

And the 37 mm engine was replace by a 20 mm one of Soviet/Russian construction how rate of fire where higher.   

[AndyJWest]

 

... the 37 mm engine was replace by a 20 mm one of Soviet/Russian construction how rate of fire where higher. 

 

Do you have a source for that?

[ShamrockOneFive]

I saw an old USAA training film used to familiarize crews to the P-39 that said that it can carry either a 37 mm cannon or a 20 mm cannon. Don't know if that will be in game though.

 

Bell Aircraft received an order from the RAF for the Airacobra Mark I. These were lightly modified P-39s with Browning .303 (instead of the .30) wing guns, standard .50cal in the nose, and a Hispano Mark I 20mm cannon firing through the hub. When the aircraft were rejected some of them were sent to the Soviet Union and others were reabsorbed into the USAAF as the P-400 and sent to New Guinea. These and the P-39D-1s are essentially the same spec.

 

From the D-2 and on they were all armed with 37mm M4 cannons in the nose mounting.

 

For most of Soviet/Russian P-39 the wing guns where removed. Those in the wings or those in gondols.

And the 37 mm engine was replace by a 20 mm one of Soviet/Russian construction how rate of fire where higher. 

 

I've never read anything that suggested they used anything but the Hispano on the Airacobra/P-400 lend lease and the M4 37mm on all other variants. Have any sources?

[Ehret]

P39' 37mm is not a greatest cannon, but hardly unusable and its projectile was hard hitting. Enough so 190 drivers stopped h2h with Aircobras.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Very good durability with sturdy structure and armoured bulkhead behind engine. Oil tank the most likely weak spot.

That plate is only behind the engine, it doesnt extend to its sides, top or bottom which is a problem. Considering engine was behind the pilot it was found that explosions occurring in tail section had high probability of damaging engine, plenty of evidence of that was found in New Guinea combat. 

Seeing as most online combat looks like and how often people hit tails I feel like the weakest point of P-39 will be its engine.