Thoughts on the P39...

[Farky]

1 hour ago, RoflSeal said:

Could also be retrofitted onto -35, 39 and 63 engines, ingame, our P-39L with the -63 has the MP regulator unlike the A-20B and P-40E-1 

 

Our P-39L has automatic MAP regulator, although according to the manual Soviet P-39L never got them. 

 

 

 

[Field-Ops]

Yea, I was hoping to see a manifold pressure regulator as a mod, not the standard configuration. I actually quite like having to monitor gauges after doing it for so long on the P40. Then again the RPM gauge on the P39 is god awful for that. Seems the A20 has the same gauge too.

[Stig]

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Well, it was a very dated design, had a far too cramped cockpit, very limited radius of action, horrid landing gear arrangement, and a dangerous canopy opening arrangement as well.

Not to say it was not successful in expert hands, and it had competitive performance, at least on paper.   But still it was always a point interceptor at heart, and the ways that wars were fought as time progressed simply left it's design philosophy behind.  If the 190s high altitude performance could have been improved early on there would have been no reason to continue with the 109 series.  Given Germany's dire raw materials and manufacturing situation it would have made a lot of sense to completely standardize on one type.

 

A DB605 powered 190 would have been a far better aircraft than the 109.

 

Yet the Bf 109 shot down the highest number of enemy aircraft in he history of air warfare, which mitigates it's many faults to some extent. The same cannot be said of the P-39, whatever success the VVS  may have had with it.

 

I know that it wasn't the Bf 109 design alone; the expert hands certainly were instrumental in it's success. Some perspective is needed, however, as even in expert hands the P-39 is a very long way of the pace in combat performance compared to the 109    

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

4 hours ago, GridiroN said:

 

The Americans also thought the 109 was a shit plane. I wouldn't trust American opinions on aviation design of this era. 

Well, maybe they had reasons for that ? I'd trust American opinions, at least some of them, and especially those from NACA. 

Besides, what he meant was Americas Hundred Thousand, which is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Hundred-Thousand-Production-Fighters/dp/0764300725 

 

Anyway, I'm also a bit at a loss. As indicated in this NACA document focusing on flying characteristics of P-39 there was little to no stall warning - either in form of shaking of buffeting : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39D_Flying_Qualities.pdf

It was also indicated that aileron effectiveness at all speeds was inadequate, which doesn't seem to be the case in our P-39.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

28 minutes ago, Stig said:

 

Yet the Bf 109 shot down the highest number of enemy aircraft in he history of air warfare, which mitigates it's many faults to some extent. The same cannot be said of the P-39, whatever success the VVS  may have had with it.

 

I know that it wasn't the Bf 109 design alone; the expert hands certainly were instrumental in it's success. Some perspective is needed, however, as even in expert hands the P-39 is a very long way of the pace in combat performance compared to the 109    

 

A good statistic for the P-39 though: of the top ten Allied aces of WW2, 5 of them got most of their kills in P-39s, I don't know of the other 5 if they were mostly La, Yak or a mix of both.

 

The qualitative jump for the 109 was the F, coupling a good engine like the DB 601N and E with a very good aerodynamic-wise airframe in 1941, other nations made the aerodynamic/engine power quality jump one or two years later. Also not only the individual skill, but the general training and tactics contributed to this as well.

Edited March 18, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Porkins]

The range issues of the 109 were the same range issues that every single engine fighter had at the time. It wasn't until the Mustang years later that either side had a decent single engine fighter with the range to escort bombers deep into Europe/England and back. 

 

I don't know much about the P-39, but I like how it flies and I love the cockpit. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by Porkins

[CanadaOne]

I'm not even close to being a plane tech expert like many here, but I had one of the most enjoyable scraps I've ever had in BOX this afternoon in the P-39. A bunch of P-39s and 110s in the QMB and it was all hell and smoke and fire and just a blast. Ended up landing in a shredded smoking crate and it was awesome.

 

I didn't think much of the P-39 at first, and I don't like the fixed mirror at all, but it's turning out to be a lot of fun.

[ICDP]

12 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Well, maybe they had reasons for that ? I'd trust American opinions, at least some of them, and especially those from NACA. 

Besides, what he meant was Americas Hundred Thousand, which is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Hundred-Thousand-Production-Fighters/dp/0764300725 

 

Anyway, I'm also a bit at a loss. As indicated in this NACA document focusing on flying characteristics of P-39 there was little to no stall warning - either in form of shaking of buffeting : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39D_Flying_Qualities.pdf

It was also indicated that aileron effectiveness at all speeds was inadequate, which doesn't seem to be the case in our P-39.

 

Thanks for the links.  In hindsight I should have included actual factual documents to backup my post rather than just referring to them.

 

I think based on these documents it is clear the BoX P-39 is too docile and forgiving.

[Stig]

14 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

A good statistic for the P-39 though: of the top ten Allied aces of WW2, 5 of them got most of their kills in P-39s, I don't know of the other 5 if they were mostly La, Yak or a mix of both.

 

Those aces may have got just as many kills flying another type. Either way it's not really a useful parameter; overclaiming was probably the most excessive of any theater (by both sides),

only rivalled perhaps by the Far East. Without knowing the total number of enemy aicraft the Soviet P-39's claimed/ were credited with and having some idea of how many the Axis lost to P-39's; it's difficult to say how well they actually did. 

[56RAF_Roblex]

20 minutes ago, Stig said:

 

Those aces may have got just as many kills flying another type. Either way it's not really a useful parameter; overclaiming was probably the most excessive of any theater (by both sides),

only rivalled perhaps by the Far East. Without knowing the total number of enemy aicraft the Soviet P-39's claimed/ were credited with and having some idea of how many the Axis lost to P-39's; it's difficult to say how well they actually did. 

 

Two choices, 'Everyone lied by the same amount so P-39s still shot down more actual enemies.'  or 'P-39s did not shoot down as many enemies as the Yaks & Las but P-39 pilots exaggerated more.'    Hmm I wonder why P-39 pilots exaggerated more.  Maybe  they were embarrassed about having to fly a POS so lied to make it sound like they were lucky to be given the best plane? :-)

[blitze]

My experience with the P39 is that it's not a bad mid to low fighter.  At least in regards to career in Kuban.  She handles relatively well and can keep pace with the 109's and 190's encountered.  Keep her water rad open at 50% or you burn through the engine in combat.  Also dial her in for combat with elevator trim and use flaps to 10% if needed but sparingly.

 

What I don't like, the .30 Cals (I find them distracting with not much hitting power, pity we can't ditch them and carry extra .50 cal ammo).  I also don't like the cockpit frame.  It is quite different to other cockpits and although rear view is good, forward can be annoying to track the fight in when playing Full Real.

 

The Cannon up front is a great addition for both air and ground work.  Make every shell count though as you don't get many.

 

She flys well and spins are not an issue if you get on top of them early.

[Brano]

55 minutes ago, Stig said:

 

Those aces may have got just as many kills flying another type. Either way it's not really a useful parameter; overclaiming was probably the most excessive of any theater (by both sides),

only rivalled perhaps by the Far East. Without knowing the total number of enemy aicraft the Soviet P-39's claimed/ were credited with and having some idea of how many the Axis lost to P-39's; it's difficult to say how well they actually did. 

Only 3 IAPs equipped with cobras participated in Battle over Kuban as we know it (early spring till mid june 1943). 16.GIAP, 45 IAP and 298.IAP. Airacobras never exceeded more than 15% of all fighters participating in BoK. Yet they were given credit for 40% of all aerial victories. There were 2 main factors involved. First of all VVS finally got airplane in adequate numbers with excellent radio equipment. This allowed to revolutionize the fighter plane tactics,untill then heavilly dependant on visual communication ( many LaGG-3 equipped IAPs continued to use old tactics over Kuban). This has been stressed by many pilots ( Pokryshkin or Ivan Babak). The second factor was its strong firepower.

 First factor can hardly be reproduced in computer game MP environment (DF servers). Maybe coop mode could come closer. Second factor depends on pilots marksmanship. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Brano

[Ehret]

15 hours ago, Porkins said:

The range issues of the 109 were the same range issues that every single engine fighter had at the time.

 

Not all of them - the P40 had better endurance than the 109, and without drop tanks. The Me was just over-engineered and over-optimized with very small cramped frame. That's why the 109 has excellent power-loading, but short range and poor extensibility. You can see it in the G6 version with all those bulges.

 

Besides the P-39 is also a victim of over-optimization - her fuselage streamlined to the point the original turbo-supercharger couldn't fit anymore. Thus the poor high altitude performance of the Aircobra.

 

[variable]

22 hours ago, Lemon said:

my experience with the p39 ... from my g4 pov ,  the wings of p39 made me confused them with 109 s few times in my first missions..

 

For the times I've been friendly strafed in a P-40, that's a pretty valid concern in the the P-39 with those wings.

[Lemon]

9 minutes ago, variable said:

 

For the times I've been friendly strafed in a P-40, that's a pretty valid concern in the the P-39 with those wings.

 

i pay attention to  the fuselage from the wing to the nose now, if i am not mistaken it look much longer on the p39

Edited March 19, 2018 by Lemon
because often i do english mistakes

[Stig]

3 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

Two choices, 'Everyone lied by the same amount so P-39s still shot down more actual enemies.'  or 'P-39s did not shoot down as many enemies as the Yaks & Las but P-39 pilots exaggerated more.'    Hmm I wonder why P-39 pilots exaggerated more.  Maybe  they were embarrassed about having to fly a POS so lied to make it sound like they were lucky to be given the best plane? :-)

 

I don't think the P-39 pilots exaggerated their claims anymore or any less, than Yak or La pilots. Point is, we don't know how many the P-39's shot down; nor do we know how many the Yaks or the La's shot down,

[MAJ_stug41]

While it feels anemic and has frustrating dive characteristics, I enjoy its unique gun package and maneuverability. Enjoyed it enough so to put this together from the first two sorties Von Luck and I made in it!

 

 

[Tag777]

However, Pokryshkin and other Russian aces recomended to their novice pilots to fight vertical with the P-39, not in turning dogfights.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Tag777

[Brano]

44 minutes ago, Stig said:

 

I don't think the P-39 pilots exaggerated their claims anymore or any less, than Yak or La pilots. Point is, we don't know how many the P-39's shot down; nor do we know how many the Yaks or the La's shot down,

According TsAMO archives there were 800 enemy aircrafts claimed and confirmed as destroyed for the most fierce months of April and May fighting over Kuban.

16.GIAP....133 kills

45.IAP.......69 kills

298.IAP.....117 kills

Remaining 60% was credited to the rest of fighter and bomber units = 6 divisions of VVS, 8 regiments of Black See Fleet and 5 regiments of PVO.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

According TsAMO archives there were 800 enemy aircrafts claimed and confirmed as destroyed for the most fierce months of April and May fighting over Kuban.

 

Err, confirmed? Sounds awfully high.

 

Surely number of P-39s vs number of other VVS fighters vs. relative number of claims vs number of Luftwaffe aircraft listed as lost would give a rough correlation of 'effectiveness', though this would represent unit / pilots as much as aircraft.

[Stig]

Luftwaffe losses April-May '43, for the whole Eastern Front range from 523 to 569, destroyed and written off. Low number is Salonen and high number is Murray.

 

Dan Zamansky

 

[Brano]

Confirmed by soviet system. Same as LW had their own statistics based on their system. Finding the only "truth" somewhere inbetween is a futile endevour. Overclaiming or not,cobras were the most succesful fighters over Kuban on VVS side. Not because they were superb machines . New tactics based on non-visual radio comms was the key for success. 

[Stig]

1 minute ago, Brano said:

Not because they were superb machines . New tactics based on non-visual radio comms was the key for success. 

 

Agreed.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

Confirmed by soviet system. Same as LW had their own statistics based on their system. Finding the only "truth" somewhere inbetween is a futile endevour. Overclaiming or not,cobras were the most succesful fighters over Kuban on VVS side. Not because they were superb machines . New tactics based on non-visual radio comms was the key for success

. 

It's not 'futile'; it's called checking the opposing side's loss records. Then a lot of hard research. The P-39 may well have been the most 'successful' fighter in theatre for several reasons, but rating this solely by the claimed success of one side is an incomplete assessment.

[Ehret]

Just now, Brano said:

Confirmed by soviet system. Same as LW had their own statistics based on their system. Finding the only "truth" somewhere inbetween is a futile endevour. Overclaiming or not,cobras were the most succesful fighters over Kuban on VVS side. Not because they were superb machines . New tactics based on non-visual radio comms was the key for success. 

 

New machines (P-39) enabled those new tactics and communications. So in a way the Aircobra was superb for Soviets.

Why consider the P-39 under-performing? It is not apparent because of the artificial time limiter in the game, but you can approach 570km/h at deck in the P-39 - not much slower than the La-5FN.

 

[Brano]

LL aircrafts were quite well documented by VVS down to individual serial numbers. So just for illustration what has been lost in BoK:

P-39 (D-2,K,L,M) from 16.GIAP,45.IAP and 298.IAP lost 35 machines....LW claimed 108

Spitfire Mk.V from 57.GIAP lost 17 machines....LW claimed 48

P-40 from 45.IAP lost only 1....LW claimed 15

Some historians put the values around 320 aircrafts lost for LW and 500-600 aircrafts lost for VVS.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

LL aircrafts were quite well documented by VVS down to individual serial numbers. So just for illustration what has been lost in BoK:

 

Does that not rather undermine your point? 'Confirmed' might be less than 'claimed' but is still usually 2 / 3 x reality.

[Royal_Flight]

23 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Could also be retrofitted onto -35, 39 and 63 engines, ingame, our P-39L with the -63 has the MP regulator unlike the A-20B and P-40E-1 

 

This being the case, maybe there's an argument for getting the manifold pressure regulator on the P-40 as well?

[Brano]

17 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Does that not rather undermine your point? 'Confirmed' might be less than 'claimed' but is still usually 2 / 3 x reality.

What point? 800 is number from TsAMO. If you dont know what it is = Central archive of russian ministry of defense. Those are numbers found in historic documents. Nothing more,nothing less. If they are true or not we will never know. What stands against these numbers are the numbers from german archive documents. True or not,we will never know. Historians can argue over validity of these datas untill cows come home.

You can divide claims by whatever factor you want, cobras will always be the most succesful VVS fighters over Kuban.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

What point? 800 is number from TsAMO. If you dont know what it is = Central archive of russian ministry of defense. Those are numbers found in historic documents. Nothing more,nothing less. If they are true or not we will never know. What stands against these numbers are the numbers from german archive documents.

 

And they seem not to stand, which is the important point. That would be the difference between Soviet credited claimed and German actual losses. That is the important disparity.

 

Quote

Historians can argue over validity of these datas untill cows come home.

 

Historians compare claims to actual losses. That is what they do.

 

Quote

You can divide claims by whatever factor you want, cobras will always be the most succesful VVS fighters over Kuban.

 

That might well be true, but that is not specifically demonstrated by the relative claims, so it is difficult to prove. However, there may be very good wider reasons for concluding that it might well be true and I am perfectly willing to believe that P-39 units were the most successful but would not solely go by the credited success awarded by the VVS claims department.

[Farky]

3 minutes ago, Royal_Flight said:

 

This being the case, maybe there's an argument for getting the manifold pressure regulator on the P-40 as well?

 

Well, let's be honest - there is no argument for automatic manifold pressure regulator on the P-39L in first place. There was indeed an option to install this device in V-1710-39 and -63, however P-39Ls (and P-40Es) never get automatic manifold pressure regulators, USAAF and VVS 1944 manuals do not show such thing. 

 

[DSR_A-24]

So how is the engine life?

 

I hope it isn't anything like the P-40 where you're more worried about destroying your engine than the enemy destroying you. 

[Ehret]

Just now, DSR_T-888 said:

So how is the engine life?

 

Much harder to blow up - higher boost levels are 2-3x longer than in the P40. 100% for throttle and rpm take 2 minutes to damage engine in the Aircobra, when Kittyhawk will seize just after 30s. There is automatic MP regulator, too.

 

 

[Cloyd]

Well, it's no F4, but it sure is pretty and fun to fly. 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Cloyd

[Zirashi]

2 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

So how is the engine life?

 

I hope it isn't anything like the P-40 where you're more worried about destroying your engine than the enemy destroying you. 

It does not like sudden power changes. On day 1, people were online were blowing out their engines on take off.

[Trooper117]

Enjoying getting to grips with the old girl again... time for the 'spin of death'  next, wish me luck

 

 

 

 

[mort]

2 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

That might well be true, but that is not specifically demonstrated by the relative claims, so it is difficult to prove. However, there may be very good wider reasons for concluding that it might well be true and I am perfectly willing to believe that P-39 units were the most successful but would not solely go by the credited success awarded by the VVS claims department.

 

If one is willing to assume that within the same dataset the factor by which the values are off is roughly the same for all plane types then you can make comparisons between the types within the same dataset given the difference in values between types is non-negligible. Whether that's a reasonable assumption to make, I don't know.

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

This was nice but I am guessing it was more to do with a lucky hit to the ammo than the general strength of the P-39s cannons.  Note that I was not firing the 37mm.   AI target from career.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by 56RAF_Roblex

[=RvE=Windmills]

I wonder what actually triggers this sort of explosion, I've only seen it happen once to a target I was shooting and that was on the first day of this patch. Never in the hundreds of other kills previously.

 

It has to be an incredibly unlikely thing that triggers it, not sure if its even intended to happen with how rare it is.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It's been introduced a fair while ago, and happens if a bullet of yours hits and detonates the target's high-explosive ammunition. Since most aircraft either don't have cannons or have them mounted in the nose, these don't happen very often. The Fw-190 and I-16 with ShVAK cannons however are easy to hit like that.