P-40 vs P-39

[TexasWarbird]

The new P-39 has been released, It's a decent bird but I've been in a bit of a pickle with this new bird. While it climbs quicker, turns steeper, and has a fine 37mm cannon. As much as I'd like to push myself to enjoy this bird. I've been finding myself still prefacing the P-40 over the P-39 . Something about the dive rate and the ease of aiming with the P-40 I've grown accustomed to that's causing me to have a hard time accepting the P-39 as a replacement. So what's the general opinion? Am I alone? Is it really worth pouring more time into?

Edited April 16, 2018 by TexasWarbird

[Stryker07]

Personally, I tend to fly the P-39 more. Don't get me wrong, I love the P-40. The P-39 has a great instantaneous turn rate, and a marvelous nose for deflection shooting. The instrument layout is not optimal IMO, but I've learned to live with it. It's also not bad in a dive, not as great as the P-40. but not bad either. Myself, it's not so much a matter of replacing the P-40, but just including the P-39 to my flying rotation.  

[Ehret]

The major difference between the P-40 and the P-39 is with the latter you can engage the enemy at the deck for few times and run away. With the Kittyhawk you will have commit to the end, bitter or not.

The Airacobra was the La-5/F replacement for me - finally allies got a plane which is fast both in level flight and dive.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Ehret

[CrazyDuck]

My general preference:

 

 

Despite the mighty 37 mm M4 on P-39, I prefer the P-40 with the awesome sextet of .50 cals for bomber interceptions/CAS missions.

[TexasWarbird]

18 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

My general preference:

 

 

Despite the mighty 37 mm M4 on P-39, I prefer the P-40 with the awesome sextet of .50 cals for bomber interceptions/CAS missions.

I've been preforming this chart completely backwards lol, I've been having better luck using the 37mm cannon for G-Attack and Bomber intercept. I plan on sticking to it for a while to learn the feeling of the cannons trajectory a bit better. Although I probably haven't gave the P-39 the right chance I should at Dog fighting. The thing is - I'm really a diving fighter, I can really angle myself pretty well using low bow maneuvers. The P-39 doesn't pick up as much as I'd like it to when I drop the nose. It's tough breaking this habit..

Edited April 16, 2018 by TexasWarbird

[A_radek]

I see what you mean Texas. While this defies all logic I actually feel safer in a p-40. Especially with a wingman in another, compared to two 39's.

 

As a fighterbomber imho the p-40 has a distinctive edge with the 500kg and extra ammo. While I find the 37mm rather difficult to use against convoys and other soft targets.

 

I suppose in my case it's mostly the lack of hours in the 39.

[JtD]

SkyCaptain chose the P-40, and so do I.

 

There's nothing I like about the P-39, there's plenty I like about the P-40. Well, maybe there's one thing I like about the P-39: setting it ablaze with a couple of good hits.

[danielprates]

I would add that the p39 is not a stable gun platform. Maybe it's my fault for not spending the time it takes to get acquainted with its peculiarities,  but in my first flights I found it hard to bring my guns to bear without the nose bouncing all around, and that scared me away from it.

[56RAF_Roblex]

I find the P-39 engine easier to handle.  With the P40 if you get overexcited and max your throttle & rpm in the middle of a fight it blows almost immediately.  With the P-39 I get a couple of minutes to say 'Oh shit! "  and back it off.    Also, maybe it is just me but in the P40 I am constantly checking my settings to see if it is safe while in the P-39 it basically comes to 'Fighting? Then go full rpm and move the manifold to 42.  Not fighting? drop it to 75%/75%'   Technically the P40 should be more or less the same but for some reason I don't find it so easy to do by feel. *EDIT*  It could be because in the P-39 you can clearly hear the engine note change as you change from Nominal to Combat mode.

 

As for usage in air-to-air or air-to-ground,   I find the 37mm almost useless in deflection shots against a weaving fighter though the guns are very effective . You have to follow the adage 'Guns to damage then cannon to kill.'  On the other hand if anything is more or less flying level, eg a fighter damaged by the guns or a bomber,  the 37mm allows you to kill it quickly and move on.   Despite the cannon being hard for deflection shots  in the air,  I have found it works well against AAA, vehicle convoys etc. as long as you know your ranges.    The P40s guns are fantastic but the P39s kill bombers and ground targets quicker. You can kill a vehicle in one shot and immediately shift your aim to the next one.  The P40 kills each vehicle fast but you do need to hold your aiming point a little longer on each one so ultimately you will run out of air sooner. Same for bombers, in a P39 you fire one shot and move on while with a P40 you give a long burst, possibly moving to the other engine before leaving it mortally damaged.  Where the P40 excels though is long range deflection shots against turning fighters because not only can you hold down the trigger and walk your shots onto the target, doing away with fiddly calculations of speed & G-force etc,  but you can do it at 600yds when your enemy is thinking he is still safe :-)     The P-39 is not so good on tanks but neither is the P40.

 

Note  that I have stated all these findings as 'my experience' so no need to flame me for, disagreeing with your experience.  I am not giving anyone instructions on which to use and how to fly it.

Edited April 17, 2018 by 56RAF_Roblex

[Art-J]

^ I don't think anyone will disagree about the engine part. The extra feature of MAP regulator on the Cobra makes a ton of difference compared to Warhawk - pretty much one less gauge and lever to worry about in combat!

[Leon_Portier]

The warhawk is just great to me, guns, dive and that engine. The coblra has not clicked jet.

[Pict]

4 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

You have to follow the adage 'Guns to damage then cannon to kill.' 

 

I agree with all you've said, but I just wanted to focus on this point in particular, which after much testing I follow myself in everything I fly.

 

I have read many times that Pokryshkin rigged his Kobra so that all the guns fired off one button. This leads me to think that the idea was not to engage in prolonged maneuver type combat and go for the hit & run style, with bombers or recce aircraft as the preferred target, I may be wrong, it's just my take on what he said and showed with his hands...

 

...as only just recently I came across the interview by Burt Lancaster of all people where Pokryshkin gives up his anecdote about the P-39 at just after 40.26 into the video The Unknown War Ep9 War in the Air he also speaks at the beginning.

 

Good series, well worth a watch if you've never seen it The Unknown War

 

The other big pluses attributed to the P-39 by Soviet pilots was the tricycle landing gear and high standard of radio equipment, but that would possibly have applied to the P-40 too?

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Pict

[Farky]

3 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

I find the P-39 engine easier to handle.  With the P40 if you get overexcited and max your throttle & rpm in the middle of a fight it blows almost immediately.  With the P-39 I get a couple of minutes to say 'Oh shit! "  and back it off.    Also, maybe it is just me but in the P40 I am constantly checking my settings to see if it is safe while in the P-39 it basically comes to 'Fighting? Then go full rpm and move the manifold to 42.  Not fighting? drop it to 75%/75%'   Technically the P40 should be more or less the same but for some reason I don't find it so easy to do by feel.

...

 

Here is a tip - do not use 3000 rpm in P-40E. If you run engine on 2800 rpm, you have with same manifold pressure same power as with 3000 rpm (at least from sea level up to around 12 000ft or so). I can usually say by sound of engine if I am on combat power, emergency power or if I can push engine little bit more. But that is because right now I am flying almost exclusively P-40E i guess.

 

28 minutes ago, Art-J said:

^ I don't think anyone will disagree about the engine part. The extra feature of MAP regulator on the Cobra makes a ton of difference compared to Warhawk - pretty much one less gauge and lever to worry about in combat!

 

Fun fact - IRL automatic MAP regulator wasn't installed in P-39L, engine behavior should be in this regard same as in P-40E.

 

----------------------

I like P-40E in game, strong, plenty of fuel, tough AF and those "fifties" are just beautiful. Not the best airplane in the sky, that's for sure, but this baby save my live in career numerous times.

As for P-39 - I got only few jumps in it so far, but it was my favorite plane in "Il-2 clasic" and it feels good to me. I need much more time in it and I don't like the way engine is modeled, but it looks like to me that P-39 is better performer than P-40. P-39 never was for everyone, key to P-39 is imho good use of that 37 mm gun - that's what can make the average plane great.

[curiousGamblerr]

41 minutes ago, Sambot88 said:

So for the ignorant among us, what is the advantage of the tricycle? Just looking at pictures it seems unstable, like it is just waiting to tip back on its tail. Does having the extra wheel in the front get rid of that swaying that happens with tail draggers on takeoff?

 

Yup. In a tail dragger, the center of gravity is behind the main gear, making them more difficult to control than a tricycle.

 

Interestingly, a similar phenomenon is present in racing, where the position of the engine fore or aft leads to a trade off between maneuverability and stability. I'm no expert on either of these situations, but I wonder if the two situations are similar from a physics standpoint.

 

Another benefit of the tricycle gear is forward visibility, since the nose isn't pointing up while on the ground.

 

And as you alluded to, one drawback is the risk of tail strikes on take off and landing. I was just reading about how modern passenger aircraft often have tail skids that deploy with the gear to protect from that situation, like the 777 apparently.

[CrazyDuck]

One of the disadvantages of tricycle, or more specifically, nose leg compared to tailwheel is the increased complexity, weight, cost, vulnerability and a chance of disastrous consequences if it fails (to deploy before landing, for example). Another one is that tricycle gear is less suited for crudely prepared airstrips compared to taildraggers - which is kind of interesting, considering conditions in Russia in WW2.

[Porkins]

Maybe I'm not flying it right, but the P-39 feels under powered. It feels like 109's and particularly 190's can disengage from the 39 at will. Also, the 39 feels more fragile than almost any other fighter that I've flown. That being said, just when I'm about to give up on it I manage to hit a bomber with the 37 mm cannon and sheer the bomber's tail clean off.

 

The P-39 is like playing golf, you hit terrible shot after terrible shot, and you're about ready to give up on it when you hit a gorgeous drive that hits the green and stops 8 feet from the pin. And then you're ready to go out and try it all over again. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

I've tried pretty hard to really get into the P-39 but so far its just not been a "me" kind of fighter. I'm not sure what it is because it seems like a very good fighter but with some quirks that seem to hold it back.

 

I find its not as stable a gunnery platform as the P-40 and that the firepower is all over the place with three separate trajectories. The six .50cals was definitely the better way to go....but when that 37mm connects. Woohboy! That's awesome.

Edited April 16, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

46 minutes ago, Porkins said:

Maybe I'm not flying it right, but the P-39 feels under powered. It feels like 109's and particularly 190's can disengage from the 39 at will.

Compared to the fighters it frequently faces, the P-39 is slightly underpowered. 

 

P-39L-1

Maximum power in Take-off mode at sea level: 1325 HP

Standart weight: 3508 kg

0.38 HP/kg

 

Bf 109 G-2

Maximum power in Combat mode at sea level: 1310 HP

Standard weight: 2994 kg

0.44 HP/kg

 

Fw 190 A-5

Maximum power in Combat mode at 700 m: 1520 HP

Standard weight: 3926 kg

0.39 HP/kg

 

Of course, the power-to-mass ratio does not tell the entire story. However, it does give the 109 a considerable advantage.

 

The gun is rather temperamental. Occasionally destroying bombers in a single hit is fun, but it's not very impressive when one remembers that a quick burst from the .50s can disable a bomber quite reliably. The damage models in Il-2 don't seem to work in the P-39's favour.  

[GridiroN]

I have been flying the P39 since the day it was released pretty exclusively with the exception of maps that don't allow it, and whilst I'm not the best dogfighter around, my take-aways are these...

 

Pros:

• A long, decent dive that matches German aircraft. I did not feel outclassed when 190s try to yo-yo against me. 
• It's firepower: if you get behind a german, he is pretty much guaranteed to take a hit.  
• Tricycle gear makes emergency landings drastically more survivable
• Lazy 109 pilots charge you all the time, which is your best case scenario
• It's 5min 1500HP mode is FAR MORE competitive against German planes than most other 1942 models Russia has.   

 

Cons:

• It is slow. It's cruise is only about 430kph, which is outclassed by even some bombers. 
• ^That's not even the real issue though...the real issue is it's acceleration/energy play is abysmal. I've said before, I think this requires a second look by devs. I'm not an aeronautical engineer but I don't get how this plane is so bad with it's energy. It doesn't feel any better than the P40
• Whilst it can actually climb just fine, it's climb is slow at 150mph suggested. 
• Engine in the rear means anyone gets behind you, you're dead. 
• Whilst the plane has ok maneuverability, I find it stalls on me and flatspins right when I need it not to. Removing the wing guns helps, but then you can't spam bullets at your foes which is one of the strongest points of American planes imo. 
• 5min 1500HP mode is not long enough to do much if the German survives.
• Whilst it has rear visibility, the strut that holds it creates a massive blindspot right where the German is likely to dive on you; not that useful

Ultimately, I've found while the P39 is a terror offensively, it's pretty hopeless defensively. It gets shafted by the devs "timed WEP" model of simulating wear and tear (i personally don't have a problem with this model, but I think it does handicap certain planes more than others) and most of the benefits of the P39 it may have had in real life aren't relevant in sim. Even the fact that 109s can fly a sortie at 1.2-1.3ata instead of 0.8 which would be more realistic is a problem for planes like the P39. 

 

Ultimately, I play the P39 like a shark...hide in clouds, wait for a German to reveal himself, usually attacking an ally, fall on him, trap him with the 1500HP mode, hope you can kill him in time, run away before any of his allies see me. 

 

It looks f*cking sexy though, so that's really all that matters. Right? ....right?

Edited April 17, 2018 by GridiroN

[=FEW=Hauggy]

I have to agree with Gridiron I haven't used the P-39 a lot but I know for sure it doesn't retain energy at all (not entirely sure why) on top of being slow as a snail and also the awful engine limits making your engine blow everytime you throttle a bit too much has always been subject to controversy and for very good reasons I have to wonder if this result came from yet another obscure Soviet flight manual that doesn't necessarly reflects actual use in combat or what we could know from other nations who used the exact same plane.

It's hard to believe this plane was that awful to fly...I wonder what pilots and especially Soviet ones mentionned about this plane and this specific model and it's behavior.

I struggled a lot in the P-40 but now It's like my second home and I have no problem shooting down pesky Germans with it, unlike the P-39 that has a long list of problems one of the worst being for me how it doesnt seem to retain energy while bleeding it rather fast, the visibility and above all the fact that you get into flat spins very easily after spending some of your ammunition since the center of gravity shifts back with the weight dropping in the nose (Im still not sure how severe it gets and what different degrees of severity there might be in the simulation of that event in game).

Edited April 17, 2018 by =FEW=Hauggy

[GridiroN]

5 minutes ago, =FEW=Hauggy said:

I have to agree with Gridiron I haven't used the P-39 a lot but I know for sure it doesn't retain energy at all (not entirely sure why) on top of being slow as a snail and also the awful engine limits making your engine blow everytime you throttle a bit too much has always been subject to controversy and for very good reasons I have to wonder if this result came from yet another obscure Soviet flight manual that doesn't necessarly reflects actual use in combat or what we could know from other nations who used the exact same plane.

It's hard to believe this plane was that awful to fly...I wonder what pilots and especially Soviet ones mentionned about this plane and this specific model and it's behavior.

 

Engine management is much easier if you RPM to about 90% first, then adjust your MP. The real reason for engine damage most of the time is that the RPM gets pushed past 3000 and the engine over-revs before the governor can bring it back down again. 

[Ehret]

Set the water/oil radiators to 60%/45%! With 30cals removed on the autumn Kuban map, on the continuous (76/76 for thr/rpm) the P-39 goes 478km/h at SL and you can hit 520km/h on the combat (I use 84/94 thr/rpm) setting.

[Ehret]

10 hours ago, Pict said:

...as only just recently I came across the interview by Burt Lancaster of all people where Pokryshkin gives up his anecdote about the P-39 at just after 40.26 into the video The Unknown War Ep9 War in the Air he also speaks at the beginning.

 

He lists armaments as: 1x 37mm, 2x heavy MG and 2x MG - it's certainly possible - the Airacobra has the place for four machine guns in the nose. It is unlikely he would speak about the wings 30 cals or... did he?

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Ehret

[Pict]

2 hours ago, Ehret said:

It is unlikely he would speak about the wings 30 cals or... did he?

 

As what he said was translated into English, there is always a possibility for 4 to become 2 and so on...

 

For eg., he may have said, "...2 smaller caliber machine guns in each wing...", which may have been translated as "...2 smaller caliber machine guns in the wings...". This sort of minor mistake is easily done when translating.

 

Equally, he may just have made a mistake, after all the interview was at least 30 years after the events  

 

So I'd say he was talking about the 1 x 37mm, 2 x .050", 4 x .030" armament, just because the smaller caliber in the wings was mentioned.

 

Later P-39's had .050" wing pods, one under each wing in place of the 4 x .303"' inside the wings, but I don't think he was speaking about this set up.

 

From what I've read, the wing pods were not popular with Soviet pilots as they added drag and slowed the plane down, which can be understood if we use the in game Kobra as a benchmark for speed   

Edited April 17, 2018 by Pict

[Ehret]

49 minutes ago, Pict said:

From what I've read, the wing pods were not popular with Soviet pilots as they added drag and slowed the plane down, which can be understood if we use the in game Kobra as a benchmark for speed   

 

The L is 3rd fastest plane in the BoX, currently... Set the rads 60/45, remove 30cals, set auto-level (or trim manually) and on the Kuban autumn she is doing +570km/h at SL on WEP - or are we talking about different games?!

 

[Pict]

The P-39 is fast enough for me...but I'm also happy flying the LAGG-3  

 

15 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Set the rads 60/45, remove 30cals, set auto-level (or trim manually) and on the Kuban autumn she is doing +570km/h at SL on WEP

 

Out of interest how fast is it when flown without WEP & auto pilot at SL on the Kuban autum map? and what does 60/45 for the rads mean without the HUD?

 

WEP after all being a temporary solution

Edited April 17, 2018 by Pict

[=FEW=Hauggy]

Like there is an actual indicator that shows how open the rads are?

If so you just have to activate the hud and see for yourself if not activate the hud and keep it that way that will help you avoid burning multiple engines and being uncompetitive.

Surely there must be some kind of lever of crank I remember counting how many times i'd crank open the rad on the 109 in Clod, that was kind of a shore.

[Ehret]

3 hours ago, Pict said:

Out of interest how fast is it when flown without WEP & auto pilot at SL on the Kuban autum map? and what does 60/45 for the rads mean without the HUD?

 

WEP after all being a temporary solution

 

The P-39-L as in the game: 478km/h continuous and 520km/h on combat power for around 10 minutes. Full WEP is for 2m, but you can extend it (reduce rpm and boost a little) to over 3m and still be running 550km/h. WEP by definition is for a temporary relief - just enough to get out of the enemy's gun range or to get that final gun solution.

 

The rpm and oil radiator levers have rulers. The throttle and water radiator don't so setting the latter precisely without the techno chat could be difficult. The 60/45 means 60% for water and 45% for oil radiators.

 

I had flown without auto-level and manually trimming - the result was the same.

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Ehret

[Pict]

9 minutes ago, Ehret said:

478km/h continuous

 

Thanks...that's over 90 kph of a difference.

[Art-J]

6 hours ago, Pict said:

As what he said was translated into English, there is always a possibility for 4 to become 2 and so on...

 

 

Bingo. Even with my limited knowledge of Russian I can clearly hear the phrase about "four normal" machine guns being mentioned at the end his sentence, after 37 mm and .50s.

 

Sloppy translation to Eng, nothing more.

 

As for the water rad, one can always try to count how many crank revolutions full opening takes and estimate then how many are needed for the "60%" (non-technochat user here as well).

[GridiroN]

Guys, he probably just meant of the 4 rifle calibers, he only had 2 removed instead of all 4. 

 

6 hours ago, Art-J said:

As for the water rad, one can always try to count how many crank revolutions full opening takes and estimate then how many are needed for the "60%" (non-technochat user here as well).

 

Turn technochat on, regard where your dial or whatever controller you have is at 60% and then turn it off again. 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

22 hours ago, GridiroN said:

Even the fact that 109s can fly a sortie at 1.2-1.3ata instead of 0.8 which would be more realistic is a problem for planes like the P39.

 

Why instead of 0.8?

[GridiroN]

9 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Why instead of 0.8?

 

Because 0.8 is the economy cruise setting that burns considerably less gas for the 109 and as far as I'm aware, is a more realistic MP setting one would find a 109 at. Having a 30min combat power setting actually benefits the 109 a lot when gas and time is not an issue. 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Wait what?

 

I do get how flying a sortie at 0.8 ata would be less of a problem to a P39. I don´t see what that has to do with realism at all though

[GridiroN]

5 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

Wait what?

 

I do get how flying a sortie at 0.8 ata would be less of a problem to a P39. I don´t see what that has to do with realism at all though

 

Have you ever flown a 109 at 0.8? It's cruise speed is significantly slower. In a P39 even with an energy advantage, I found it difficult to catch 109s who didn't even know I was there in shallow dives. A slower 109 can make a significant different if you lock it in combat before he has the opportunity to speed up. 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Yes I have. The cruise setting is 1.15. In a combat zone a 109 would rather be flown at 1.3. So no, there is nothing realistic about your 0.8 statement.

It is also beside the point since all AC are not flown in economy mode most of the time.

Edited April 17, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Farky]

49 minutes ago, GridiroN said:

Guys, he probably just meant of the 4 rifle calibers, he only had 2 removed instead of all 4.

 

No, Pokryshkin never removed guns from his P-39s. Removing of wing guns from soviet Airacobras was VERY rare in general, pictures of such modification are almost nonexistent. Almost like soviet P-40E with only 4 guns in the wing - it never happened. They did remove almost always underwing pods with machineguns from P-39Qs, not wing guns on early models up to P-39N.

[GridiroN]

4 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

Yes I have. The cruise setting is 1.15.

 

That doesn't mean anything. You can cruise at anything you want.  

 

Quote

 

So no, there is nothing realistic about your 0.8 statement.

It is also beside the point since all AC are not flown in economy mode most of the time.

 

 

Then it's the same difference as if you're suggesting the 109 can fly around at 1.3 "most of the time", the P39 should capable of the same thing, but whatever. 

 

4 hours ago, Farky said:

 

No, Pokryshkin never removed guns from his P-39s. Removing of wing guns from soviet Airacobras was VERY rare in general, pictures of such modification are almost nonexistent. Almost like soviet P-40E with only 4 guns in the wing - it never happened. They did remove almost always underwing pods with machineguns from P-39Qs, not wing guns on early models up to P-39N.

 

Someone posted a source a while ago stating he removed all 4.

Edited April 18, 2018 by GridiroN

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

4 hours ago, GridiroN said:

Then it's the same difference as if you're suggesting the 109 can fly around at 1.3 "most of the time", the P39 should capable of the same thing, but whatever. 

 

:D let´s not "whatever". Again, how is it more "realistic" for a 109 to fly around at 0.8 ata

Btw I am not suggesting anything you said.

Edited April 18, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

6 hours ago, GridiroN said:

Someone posted a source a while ago stating he removed all 4.

 

I've read two of his memoirs and watched whatever was filmed for TV including interviews and documentary movies Trust me, Pokryshkin has never ever asked to remove armament on a fighter. He flew all of his P-39s with the standard armament, all wired to fire on the machine gun trigger, because at the right convergence that salvo would wipe anything from the surface of Earth.

Edited April 18, 2018 by 216th_Lucas_From_Hell