P-39 aka Lincoln Towncar?

[Boomtap]

Goddamn, the P-39 rides like a Cadillac on a relaxing drive through the hood. (mind the potholes and passed-out junkies) Was anyone else prepared for that because I sure as hell wasn't. Incredibly agile, insane armament but a really bad rep among allies from what I heard. Can anyone link me to some pilot accounts? I expected the thing to bounce all over the place like a Nieuport 17 but man oh man was it smooth. I think i'm in love!

[Mewt]

You have to take "bad rep with pilots" reports with a grain of salt.

 

LOTS of successful aircraft were initially disliked by pilots and crews, only to then be improved through iterative design and go on to become iconic and successful.

 

Examples are the P-47 and F4U Corsair.

 

With the P-39 it just happened in the east not the west.

[69th_chuter]

Lots of pilots liked the P-39 ... as an airplane.   It was used as a trainer here in the States and was on the whole rather popular.  What was NOT appreciated was the lack of a clear advantage over the enemy.  For some reason American pilots seemed to expect nothing less than dominating performance from their equipment.

[Mauf]

Remember that the bad rep P-39 originated in the Pacific. The Zero there ran miles around it and the P-39 is not a great climber. So unless the P-39 comes in at good altitude advantage (and it didn't have alot to really work with as it lacked a supercharger). So the higher things went, the more things favoured the Zero to begin with.

 

Different scenario on the eastern front. There fights tended to be quite low and the 109 was not the turner the Zero was. Suddenly, a P-39 with some altitude to convert can become a pretty fast beast that turns well compared to its opponent and it delivers a good punch.

 

There's also some model differences. For example Jason mentioned that the notorious flat spins happened because after spending all your ammo, the center of gravity shifted too far back from the nose. They amended this by keeping the spend cartridges in the nose and we got that version. So the flat spins, while still possible, aren't so deadly anymore.

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Why would you want anything less than dominating perfomance from your equipment in combat?

[EAF19_Marsh]

Is it just me or does it run out of negative trim too quickly? I have to hold the stick forward at speed or the nose will instantly start to climb.

 

Otherwise, I like it. Lacks speed and climb of a 109 but can do most things pretty well.

[Gambit21]

20 minutes ago, chuter said:

Lots of pilots liked the P-39 ... as an airplane.   It was used as a trainer here in the States and was on the whole rather popular.  What was NOT appreciated was the lack of a clear advantage over the enemy.  For some reason American pilots seemed to expect nothing less than dominating performance from their equipment.

 

The problem was the altitude at which combat took place in the ETO - period.

[Art-J]

30 minutes ago, Mauf said:

Remember that the bad rep P-39 originated in the Pacific. The Zero there ran miles around it and the P-39 is not a great climber. So unless the P-39 comes in at good altitude advantage (and it didn't have alot to really work with as it lacked a supercharger). So the higher things went, the more things favoured the Zero to begin with.

 

Just to avoid any misunderstandings by anyone who might interpret the above note too literally -  sure it did have a supercharger - the single-stage one in the engine, like pretty much every aero-engine of the era. What it didn't have was any second supercharging stage, as V-1710 never had one developed for it, with US preference of adding a second stage as an external device in form of turbo (i.e. in P-38) or hydraulic one (in P-63).

 

To add two cents to the rest of the Mauf's post, the bad rep in Pacific was exacerbated by notorious jamming of 37mm gun (not an issue in game, as jamming is not modelled for any weapon in BoX series I presume?), plus inability to fly P-400s high at all, because of lack of oxygen bottles compatible with British oxygen installation on these originally export variants haphazardly impressed into USAF service and thrown to SWPA theater of ops.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The P39 DID have a supercharger, a single stage, single speed unit that was optimized for low to medium altitude operations.

 

The P39 was originally tendered by Bell for the USAAC specification for a high altitude bomber interceptor, and the prototype had essentially the same turbo/supercharged engine as the P38.   The Army however put all it's turbo expectations into the P38 and it's heavy bomber force, so the P39 was repurposed as an army cooperation type and the turbo was removed.

 

I always wondered how it would have worked with a two speed, two stage Merlin installed.

[Warpig]

1 hour ago, chuter said:

For some reason American pilots seemed to expect nothing less than dominating performance from their equipment.

I'll take a super wild guess and assume American pilots aren't the only humans who would want "dominating performance" with their machines during wartime....

 

Maybe that's a crazy assumption though... I don't know.... LMAO!!!!

[Eicio]

there is also another "thing" to consider, the ground crew hated it cause it was really painful to work on and maintain.

10 minutes ago, Warpig said:

I'll take a super wild guess and assume American pilots aren't the only humans who would want "dominating performance" with their machines during wartime....

 

Maybe that's a crazy assumption though... I don't know.... LMAO!!!!

 

Sure but the americans were expecting the holy graal while they ended up with "just" a good plane which wasn't flawless.

 

When your expectations are too high you can easily be disappointed.

[Stryker07]

I am a fan of the P-39 anyways, and the version we have doesn't disappoint. I was surprised with the amount of instantaneous turn rate I can get out of it. The only other aircraft I have to be that careful with the stick back pressure is the Spit. It does lose energy quickly doing that but it's there when you need it. The 37mm has excellent hitting power as expected, and it's not impossible to hit a fighter with. All in all, I'm pretty happy with it.  

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

46 minutes ago, Eicio said:

there is also another "thing" to consider, the ground crew hated it cause it was really painful to work on and maintain.

 

Sure but the americans were expecting the holy graal while they ended up with "just" a good plane which wasn't flawless.

 

When your expectations are too high you can easily be disappointed.

Or................you can get the P-47, P-51, F6F, F4U, P-38, Spitfire, Ta-152, 109K, La5FN, Tempest, etc, etc, etc...................

[Bearcat]

2 hours ago, -W-Mewt said:

You have to take "bad rep with pilots" reports with a grain of salt.

 

LOTS of successful aircraft were initially disliked by pilots and crews, only to then be improved through iterative design and go on to become iconic and successful.

 

Examples are the P-47 and F4U Corsair.

 

With the P-39 it just happened in the east not the west.

 

 

I agree..  Chuck Yeager loved it..  

[Stig]

2 hours ago, Mauf said:

Remember that the bad rep P-39 originated in the Pacific

 

It's rep was no better in the MTO, where it did no better against Bf109's and Fw190's than it did against Zeros in the Pacific. 

 

[GridiroN]

I filmed a first impression video yesterday and BoK crash ruined it so I'll have to do it again, but my first impression of the P39 was that it is a very capable aircraft. I thought the gas tanks in the wings would ruin it's roll rate, but it's roll rate is perfectly competitive. It outrolls the yak7. I expected it to be fairly fast given its spec sheet, and it can keep up with a 109 on 1500hp but in cruise it's rather slow.

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by GridiroN

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

How the Hell do People expect an Engine to run 60" Manifold Pressure without forced Induction? That's [Edited] Level Stupid. 

 

 

Keep politics out of this.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Bearcat

[Boomtap]

Grain of salt taken. It's not wrong to want the best tools available to do your job especially if your government can afford to give them to you, worse so if they try and do it on the cheap which in my personal experience is like, 99% of the time local and federal(1% being if it affected management then they'll spend the money ) but I just posted a pic of a p-39 skin on steam and it had quite a few stars painted on the cowling. I'm glad that even though the it didn't quite fit the build the RAF was looking for that the soviets were able put it to good use. Your opinions and facts are always welcome guys thanks for the info.

[Swing]

Not yet the had time to test the yak7, the G6 or the Beast (I mean the LA5FN )...but the P39 has totally seduced me...a pure pleasure...I am studying the engine settings to get the best of it...This small plane (yet quite heavy...) is really agile...!

[216th_Jordan]

You can run it at full boost for about 2 minutes which is really nice and appears a lot closer to reality than the P-40 limits. Overreving is the biggest problem.

[=BES=Senor_Jefe]

8 hours ago, chuter said:

Lots of pilots liked the P-39 ... as an airplane.   It was used as a trainer here in the States and was on the whole rather popular.  What was NOT appreciated was the lack of a clear advantage over the enemy.  For some reason American pilots seemed to expect nothing less than dominating performance from their equipment.

Lol would you want to expect shite?  Biggest bankroll in the world at that time, you better have the best stuff! Or, just stay at home.

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

51 minutes ago, =BES=Coyote-66 said:

Biggest bankroll in the world at that time, you better have the best stuff! Or, just stay at home.

They were behind to a certain extent in production of aircraft and aircraft technologies at the start of the war. Big bankroll is only good if used correctly.  

[BlitzPig_EL]

C

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

How the Hell do People expect an Engine to run 60" Manifold Pressure without forced Induction? That's Green Party Level Stupid. 

 

Klaus, the P39 has a supercharger, just as the P40 does.  it is a single gear ratio, single stage unit, optimized for low to mid level altitudes.

[Vig]

I'm having great fun with the Iron Dog, just the kind of fun I expected!

 

 

 

For some reason American pilots seemed to expect nothing less than dominating performance from their equipment.

 

Maybe true but the USAAF did use P--39s in several theaters, even continuing to use them for a pretty good while in the Pacific where the Zeke's strongpoints of exceptional turning ability and rate of climb dovetailed depressingly with the P-39's weaknesses.  Compare to the RAF, which after only two days of combat disbanded its sole P-39 unit and shipped its Lend-Lease P-39s to the USSR!   

Spoiler

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_P-39_Airacobra_UK.html

   

Edited March 16, 2018 by Vig

[Blitzen]

Love landing with the tricycle gear very similar to when I took flying school & learned to mis-handle a Cessna 150.Ground loops were never a problem! I'm guessing the A-20 will be equally sweet on final!

[Ehret]

4 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

You can run it at full boost for about 2 minutes which is really nice and appears a lot closer to reality than the P-40 limits. Overreving is the biggest problem.

 

The combat and the emergency settings seem to have own timers... That's up to 20m of the combined increased power.

 

 

[216th_Jordan]

The timers don't combine though AFAIK one reduces the other too. But you can gain emergency/combat time by cruising in continous for some time.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

10 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

C

 

Klaus, the P39 has a supercharger, just as the P40 does.  it is a single gear ratio, single stage unit, optimized for low to mid level altitudes.

Nope, it has the Lower Blower Ratio which allows for the higher Boost Pressures at Cost of Altitude Performance. (3000ft loss)

My Point still stands that you need some sort of Forced Induction, be it Super or Turbocharging to get intake Pressures higher than Outside Pressure. 

You'd know that if you just looked at the MAP Gauge and spared a Second to think.

 

Why do People still utter this "No Supachagaa" Bollox? It immediately just disqualifies you from any further Discussion.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Now I'm confused.

 

You say it doesn't have one so how can it get to 60",  then you say it does.  The V 1710 in both the P40 and P39 do indeed have single speed superchargers.

 

Hitting the schnaps a bit too much?

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

What's so confusing? There simply is this, let's not even call it Myth, that lead to the common Misconception of many Allision Powered Aircraft not having Superchargers. I simply do not understand how such a fundamental piece of Misinformation can spread so Efficiently? 

 

So if I ask someone how they expect to get 60" of Manifold Pressure without a Supercharger all I imagine I get is a sheepish Look of someone who lacks any understanding of what Engines even are. 

[Art-J]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Now I'm confused.

 

You say it doesn't have one so how can it get to 60",  then you say it does.  The V 1710 in both the P40 and P39 do indeed have single speed superchargers.

 

Hitting the schnaps a bit too much?

 

 

I'm confused about your confusion, and even more confused about your reply to his first post on the subject . Klaus' post was very clearly a dig at people thinking the plane didn't have a forced induction, at least that was my non-native ENG speaker understanding of his sentence. Thus he very much agreed with you from the beginning, which makes the rest of post exchange somewhat redundant (and confusing ).

Edited March 16, 2018 by Art-J

[GridiroN]

In my combat testing, it has a sharp power drop off starting at 13,000ft. So going over 4K is a no no. 

 

Unfortunately even with the rear window, I found it hard to see behind me. Most of my deaths were ironically from getting jumped. 

 

If anything is infront of you though, it's pretty much a guaranteed kill as long as you halfway accurate though. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Life is so confusing sometimes.

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

4 hours ago, Art-J said:

 

I'm confused about your confusion, and even more confused about your reply to his first post on the subject . Klaus' post was very clearly a dig at people thinking the plane didn't have a forced induction, at least that was my non-native ENG speaker understanding of his sentence. Thus he very much agreed with you from the beginning, which makes the rest of post exchange somewhat redundant (and confusing ).

Well, he obvioulsy thinks of me as an absolute Imbecile, how else could he think of me as this Ignorant? It was a basic assumption of Mental Retardation of mine on his Side, which I could take as an Occasion to take Offense, but I will refrain from it in Service of Maintaining Peace. 

[216th_Jordan]

2 hours ago, GridiroN said:

In my combat testing, it has a sharp power drop off starting at 13,000ft. So going over 4K is a no no. 

 

Unfortunately even with the rear window, I found it hard to see behind me. Most of my deaths were ironically from getting jumped. 

 

If anything is infront of you though, it's pretty much a guaranteed kill as long as you halfway accurate though. 

 

Rear vision is a pain, huge blindspot there, exactly there where they are when they track you...
Got taken from the sky today while even looking back at that moment and swinging the plane to the sides to see lol

[GridiroN]

1 minute ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

Rear vision is a pain, huge blindspot there, exactly there where they are when they track you...
Got taken from the sky today while even looking back at that moment and swinging the plane to the sides to see lol

 

[Max_Damage]

It has extremely good instantaneous turn and very good roll.

 

It can do defensive scissors like a fw190 or better.

 

Cant see anything out of this cockpit though. Surprisingly the rear mirror does its job fairly well.

 

Rear engine always gets hit first its quite bad in this regard.

 

Regarding its performance, its selling point is that it is somewhat equal with a me109 speed wise between 0 and 4 km.

[69th_chuter]

On 3/15/2018 at 9:08 AM, Mauf said:

For example Jason mentioned that the notorious flat spins happened because after spending all your ammo, the center of gravity shifted too far back from the nose. They amended this by keeping the spend cartridges in the nose and we got that version.

 

Version?  This actually applied to all P-39s.  The Russians were apparently complaining to Bell that their early P-39 test and evaluation program was showing a very dangerous tendency to stall/spin and when a Bell rep arrived on site and looked into it found the tests were being conducted without any ammo, empty cases or ballast in the nose against the dire warnings in the unopened English language manuals (my kind of guys!).  I believe the 1946 FM was based on these early tests ...

 

As far as my (snarky? lol) comment about American pilots not being happy, I wouldn't expect anything less.  The job of a fighter pilot is to win the sky not engage in a test of equals.  No matter how good your plane is there's always some way it can be improved and good pilots are always going to push for that improvement. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

9 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

Rear vision is a pain, huge blindspot there, exactly there where they are when they track you...
Got taken from the sky today while even looking back at that moment and swinging the plane to the sides to see lol

I disagree with that sentiment. Yes, it has blindspots but clear 6 o'clock vision nd the mirror which is covering your high 7-5 pretty well (saved my a couple of times from sneaky 109s yesterday). Combined I find the rear visibility more than adequit.

 

16 minutes ago, Sambot88 said:

 

It is amazing to me that this kind of historical factoid could lead to whether or not you have an accurate flight model.

Interestingly enought during my ressearch I've found multiple US manuals stating opposite things about the Cobra's spin behaviour. One saying it's completely calm and easy to exit, the other that you can't get out of it without extreme measures and 3 rotations. Even combat training films of the USAF emphasize it's ease of controll and ability to quickly exit a spin.

[Ehret]

Position your head diagonally to the opposing rear column and you may peek a little what is behind. The P39 rolls fast enough, so you can do a quick 360 degrees scan looking backward. The other way to check 6 is to look at the mirror, then pull up and down.

 

It's weird but I'm sure that with some practice it will become a second nature.

 

A very unique, for a single engine fighter, is the ability to peek forward slightly below the Aircobra's nose.