Jump to content
JohnBrownStan

Is the P-39 a plane?

Recommended Posts

I read in a book about Soviet tactics for P39... They used it as top cover. They would fly P39 on high six of Yaks and these Yaks were sometimes on the high six of IL2.

They called the formation Yuri's Steps. Or something like that. At least in the book I read.

 

It is the only plane the Soviets had that performs so well at high speed in dive. Bf109 cannot dive away from it like a Yak or La5. It also can pull more G at high speed than Bf109 can.  We can see why they did well with it flown to strength _ High speed diving hit and run. 

 

I like flying it on TAW as a one pass plane.  It has the firepower to destroy anything in one pass and then continues the high speed dive back to safety of closest airfield Flak, which is usually only a couple of minutes away on TAW.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be a pretty sweet aircraft if you could run its engine a bit harder without having to basically stopwatch it. You can still do ok with it but its too much of a headache with how careful you have to be with the limits for me personally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 9:47 PM, 77.CountZero said:

Probably worst airplane in game, i liked it in il-2 1946, here its crap

 

Crappy in "IL-2 1946" as well, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS you can use the emergency engine power to accelerate to top speed in a shallow dive and then throttle back to combat power and lower RPM... It will still carry the high speed quite well with a very shallow dive all the way back to base.

 

You can do this with all strict engine limited planes. Just use WEP for acceleration hold on the top speed with shallow dive.

 

I wonder how different it would be if the engine limitations were not so strict. I found a direct quote in primary source claiming that engines don't break immediately if engine is used for longer than 2min manual says.

 

This is from a Merlin 45 papers. 

"Any encroachment on these limitations may initiate the development of defects which would eventually render the engine unserviceable before the normal period between complete overhauls."

merlin-45-limitations.jpg

 

The Merlin 45 we have in game breaks immediately and of course there  are no overhauls . 

PPS It might be more realistic if engines would gradually lose max power if you ran them too hard for too long. Instead of just seizing up immediately.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

Crappy in "IL-2 1946" as well, IMHO.

In Il-2 1946, it was great turn fighter, there its 37mm when hit 109 didnt take 3 hits but 1 to shoot it down, and its engine in 1946 was not cripled by some fantasy timers that game here dont even tell you when they get expired or recharged even if you try to use them how game wonts you to use them you cant because buged techchat messages that should inform you when to stop.

If you look just at game, there is no reason why would russian pilot wont P-39 insted any other vvs fighter airplane, and you see that online in practice, most fighters are russian made ones, p-40 p-39 are crap and main reasons are fantasy timers and in case of P-39 its terible modeling of 37mm gun after they buffted airplanes durability.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, RydnDirty said:

 

 

It is the only plane the Soviets had that performs so well at high speed in dive. Bf109 cannot dive away from it like a Yak or La5. 

 

 

 

 

 

Might have been the case IRL but in the game u are not going to outdive yaks or La5s cause they can easily dive 750kph. Maybe if u started diving from 6km alt but yaks rarely want to hang up there...

 

Of course this is just my experience, someone might have  had better luck diving from soviets.

 

I find P-39 lacking maneuverability and engine power (mainly timers fault) compared to yaks...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

In Il-2 1946, it was great turn fighter, there its 37mm when hit 109 didnt take 3 hits but 1 to shoot it down, and its engine in 1946 was not cripled by some fantasy timers that game here dont even tell you when they get expired or recharged even if you try to use them how game wonts you to use them you cant because buged techchat messages that should inform you when to stop.

If you look just at game, there is no reason why would russian pilot wont P-39 insted any other vvs fighter airplane, and you see that online in practice, most fighters are russian made ones, p-40 p-39 are crap and main reasons are fantasy timers and in case of P-39 its terible modeling of 37mm gun after they buffted airplanes durability.

 

It always was falling in stall! But I have to admit that I never made the effort of learning its flight capacities, nor its requirements for flying it properly. A fine plane… only if an expert is on board, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P39 N was the first airplane I really "got" in the original game.  I feared no FW 190 when I was in the P39.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RydnDirty said:

PS you can use the emergency engine power to accelerate to top speed in a shallow dive and then throttle back to combat power and lower RPM... It will still carry the high speed quite well with a very shallow dive all the way back to base.

 

You can do this with all strict engine limited planes. Just use WEP for acceleration hold on the top speed with shallow dive.

 

I wonder how different it would be if the engine limitations were not so strict. I found a direct quote in primary source claiming that engines don't break immediately if engine is used for longer than 2min manual says.

 

This is from a Merlin 45 papers. 

"Any encroachment on these limitations may initiate the development of defects which would eventually render the engine unserviceable before the normal period between complete overhauls."

merlin-45-limitations.jpg

 

The Merlin 45 we have in game breaks immediately and of course there  are no overhauls . 

PPS It might be more realistic if engines would gradually lose max power if you ran them too hard for too long. Instead of just seizing up immediately.  

 

But wasn't the P-39L-1 we have, powered by an Allison V-1710?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The soviet ace maker continues to cause feelings of disappointment, apparently some people are happy with its performance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

 

But wasn't the P-39L-1 we have, powered by an Allison V-1710?

 

 

The V1710 was every bit as robust as the Merlin, if not moreso.  It was/is common for air racers to use Allison connecting rods in the Merlin because they are stronger than the original Rolls Royce rods.  Exceeding the peace time training manual limits would never cause either the Merlin or V1710 to seize like they do in this series.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a famously reliable engine, which is why it attracted so many other uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Exceeding the peace time training manual limits would never cause either the Merlin or V1710 to seize like they do in this series.

It's really disappointing. Instantly exploding engines as a way to counter inability to track TBO is a lame solution. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

 

But wasn't the P-39L-1 we have, powered by an Allison V-1710?

 

 

Yeah the principle is what am getting at. These engines such as Merlin and Allison, DB....world have shorter maintenance cycles from running at high power for too long they generally didn't break down immediately.  The devs found a way for us to resist using emergency power unless we are in an emergency. It's a compromise they chose since we don't have maintenance modeled.

 

In my opinion it may be more realistic if the engines just slowly lost power as timer went past the stated limits. Instead of stopped dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 11:39 AM, RydnDirty said:

Yeah the principle is what am getting at. These engines such as Merlin and Allison, DB....world have shorter maintenance cycles from running at high power for too long they generally didn't break down immediately.  The devs found a way for us to resist using emergency power unless we are in an emergency. It's a compromise they chose since we don't have maintenance modeled.

 

In my opinion it may be more realistic if the engines just slowly lost power as timer went past the stated limits. Instead of stopped dead.

I guess it depends on whats "slowly"

If you have 5-10 min of emergency. Plus 10 minutes to "degrade" the engine while on emergency mode, I can garantee some people would game the game and use emergency since they cross the frontline. 20 min at maximum Power is enough to go into a fight and get back.

I dont think many do longer than 40 minutes sorties regularly, counting take off and landing.

 

I usualy don't go over combat mode for More than a minute on any plane, maybe for a very specific climb or dive. And even then not 100-100

 

If I'm going at maximum full Power, I've [edited] probably dead anyway.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Language
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 1:13 PM, Mollotin said:

 

Might have been the case IRL but in the game u are not going to outdive yaks or La5s cause they can easily dive 750kph. Maybe if u started diving from 6km alt but yaks rarely want to hang up there...

 

Of course this is just my experience, someone might have  had better luck diving from soviets.

 

I find P-39 lacking maneuverability and engine power (mainly timers fault) compared to yaks...

That is because the Yak is a real winner compared to other VVS equipment. The series featured in BoK have little to fear of 109s and nothing of 190s.  Only when you fly them all, on both sides, then you get the geniune perspective of what the P39 is.  Overall like the FW190 it is a great fighter - versatile, easy to fly, relatively sturdy and has a narrow performance envelope advantage over the enemy.  How you use it is your case.

 

If the coop multiplayer was strong / popular in the series, the P39 would get far more recognition as it did in IL2 : 1946.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bubo942 said:

I would take the A-20B as fighter over P-39L-1 any day of course ( in BOK).

The A20 is very manouverable, but if not because of the rear gunner, you'll be shreaded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the current grenade-timer engine model, I'd say it's not a plane;  It's an AT-AT with a drawing of a plane painted on the side.

 

So is the P40, for that same reason... Even the spitfire to a lesser extent.    One can hardly fly into (and definitely not out of) combat with an engine made of glass...

 

Just knowing the timebomb is steadily and surely clocking down while you're in a fight is plenty enough to throw a pilot off his game.  You power up and hear "tick, tock" in the back of your mind, while the back of your plane resounds with "Wham! Blam!" from bullet impacts...

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hrdina said:

"The P-39 Airacobra Was The Most Underrated American Fighter Ever Built".

 

According to the TFA, the RAF flew one mission with a P-39, decided that they'd seen enough, and shipped all of theirs off to Russia (who loved them).

 

I remember having some fun with the P-39 years ago, maybe in Aces of the Pacific.

 

I don't think the RAF liked the rear engine or tricycle undercarriage much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Georgio said:

 

I don't think the RAF liked the rear engine or tricycle undercarriage much.

 

I understand the dislike of the rear engine, but I thought all pilots preferred tricycle gear to tail draggers.  I guess it added more weight compared to a tail wheel . . . ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was being flippant, their main dislike was that it simply couldn't fight at altitude as it was designed primarily for ground attack. Pilots who tried it found it a delight to fly at low to medium alts it just couldn't compete at the higher altitudes in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Georgio said:

 

I don't think the RAF liked the rear engine or tricycle undercarriage much.

 

I think part of it is that they were annoyed that it couldn't hit the speeds the Americans claimed without heavy modification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bird!

 

It's a plane!

 

It's a P-39!

 

 

I actually like to fly the P-39 and P-40 a lot.

The only issue we have is the glass-Allison.

Honk if you want a more resilient Allison!

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 9:28 PM, [Pb]Slegawsky said:

The soviet ace maker continues to cause feelings of disappointment, apparently some people are happy with its performance.

 

The LW pilots is happy with its performance

1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

It's a bird!

 

It's a plane!

 

It's a P-39!

 

 

I actually like to fly the P-39 and P-40 a lot.

The only issue we have is the glass-Allison.

Honk if you want a more resilient Allison!

Honk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

It's a bird!

 

It's a plane!

 

It's a P-39!

 

 

I actually like to fly the P-39 and P-40 a lot.

The only issue we have is the glass-Allison.

Honk if you want a more resilient Allison!

 

HONK

2 hours ago, Georgio said:

 it was designed primarily for ground attack. 

 

WRONG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Georgio said:

I was being flippant, their main dislike was that it simply couldn't fight at altitude as it was designed primarily for ground attack. Pilots who tried it found it a delight to fly at low to medium alts it just couldn't compete at the higher altitudes in Europe.

The expectations from allied suppliers was that the Russians would use it as a ground attacker. 
But it was never designed for it. 
Squadrons that got them was fighterpilots and they really was successful 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Georgio said:

...it was designed primarily for ground attack.

 

Not the case.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am given to understand is that it was designed really as a fighter, with perhaps a multi-role option to use in ground attack as a secondary purpose.  

 

However, due to the nature of the air war in the Western Front, (usually slugging it out over B17s up in the stratosphere) any plane without a proper 2-stage blower quickly became sidelined, being unable to cope with the thin air up that high.

 

Yet in Russia, none of the sides employed strategic bombing as much, sticking mostly to tactical ground attacks and troop covering missions. (That is, they were mostly bombing the tanks themselves, rather than the factories that made them) This resulted that most engagements in the East took place at fairly low altitudes. Much as we see in multiplayer servers in this sim, fights stay usually down low, because that's where the bombers are going.

 

So planes like The P39 and P40, or anything else that in the West had been obsolete for lack of high-altitude performance, were found to be very adequate to this lower altitude war over the steppes.

 

The P39, having that giant tank gun in front, and that all-american armor everywhere style construction, quickly proved itself quite adept at ground attack runs.  And that'a how it ended up being used for that so much. 

 

 

That's what I recall off the top of my head, correct me if I'm wrong there.  :salute:

 

Edited by 19//Moach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All except the gun being a “tank gun” :)

Anderson said that in his book and it sort of stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, 19//Moach said:

it proved itself quite adept at ground attack runs.  And that'a how it ended up being used for that so much. 

 

 

Not really. All soviet fighters outfit were employed in ground attacks. Even more so with the lowering numbers of german fighters encountered by mid-1944 / 1945. The P-39 was never truly an exception to that and was used as a fighter thoroughly

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As originally specified, the P39 was intended to be a high altitude bomber interceptor, hence it's heavy cannon, however, the P38 had priority on turbocharger use, so the turbo was deleted from the P39 design, which put the Airacobra into a place it was not meant for, a medium to low altitude fighter.

 

Imagine the P39 with 500 more BHP available.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange as I’m sure I read that the P39 was designed purely with ground attack in mind primarily to combat any Japanese sea borne landings, think A-10 light.

The whole plane certainly seems better suited in that role than as an interceptor, except maybe for knocking down low flying bombers.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly people have invented all sorts of nonsense about the P-39. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Sadly people have invented all sorts of nonsense about the P-39. 


I am not a aeronatical engineer. But I do know one thing. P 40, P 39, P 47 engines All known to have massive solid enduring engines. Are acting like made of glass. 
And it aint right. In special the allison engines when it comes to endurance. 
the radial of P 47 tolerate less damage than any other engine in game and it was known for the opposite. 
So what is invented ?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Sadly people have invented all sorts of nonsense about the P-39. 

 

I remember reading in Yeager's book (many years ago, so maybe a hazy memory) that it was used for training in the US and was universally hated by the pilots. Being stall prone was one of the main reasons. It just stuck with me: p39 equals bad plane. When later on I found out they were shipped in numbers to the SU I though, "well, that figures". But knowing that the soviets liked it amazed me. How could they like a "bad plane"? 

 

I really only understood here, in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, it had a working Radio, very good glass (compared to soviet glass)  so you could see something outside without opening the canopy, good armament, was well build (!), good dive speed and acceleration.

 

The P-39 was well liked and heavy used by VVS Guard Fighterregiments - has i to mention Pokryshkin!

 

Over Europe or NewGuinea it lacked hight alt Performance. As already mentioned, no problem over the eastern front.

Edited by III/JG53Frankyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, danielprates said:

Being stall prone was one of the main reasons.

 

No, the reason was it would depart easily when mishandled. IIRC Yeager and Hoover liked it.

 

12 hours ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:


I am not a aeronatical engineer. But I do know one thing. P 40, P 39, P 47 engines All known to have massive solid enduring engines. Are acting like made of glass. 
And it aint right. In special the allison engines when it comes to endurance. 
the radial of P 47 tolerate less damage than any other engine in game and it was known for the opposite. 
So what is invented ?

 

Also the P-38's glass controls are a bit oversensitive. When I'm shot down, I'm usually (like 9 out of 10 times) knocked out with the first hit, killing the controls and the aircraft breaking apart.

It's a bit overdone and kind of kills the P-38 online.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...