Introduction To The P-39 (1942)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 янв 2010
- Training film for military pilots of the Bell P-39 Airacobra pursuit aircraft, examining flight techniques, cockpit layout, and armament.
Click to subscribe! bit.ly/subAIRBOYD #AIRBOYD #AvGeek 
Авто/Мото
I LOVE how this plane sounds like a big old Hemi Truck just chewing away.
Thanks to post it! A warplane not famous as P47 P38 P51, an "underdog". The fighter of the soviet aces in WW2.
One of my favorites acft from WW2. It's a busy cockpit.
Love the videos and great to see our training videos haven't changed much. Watching this, I couldn't help to think that when these pilots got in theater that their squadron commanders were telling them "Ok, so everything you learned in flight school goes out the window when you got Jerry on your 6 . . . "
Lots to love about this plane. Has a lot of character.
Thanks for uploading this.
Thanks for posting!
@UrievJackal
Respect. Pokryshkin was an incredible dude with an amazing story. He was fearless in all aspects.
You should check out the Lockheed P-38 video airboyd has up. The first few minutes are dedicated to proving that it can be safely bailed out of, and how to do it in different ways.
Great clip!
Thanks for sharing.
/mtm
The center of gravity probably took some getting used to compared to the usual front engine mounted plane. I always liked this plane and the thinking outside the box with a center mounted engine with driveshaft to the propeller that gave it more resistance to damage from ground fire that was one of the perks Soviet pilots loved about this plane. It's definitely 'meh' in World of Warplanes for a premium plane.
I like this and the P-36..pretty airplanes
0:56, nice cannon!
@SAsgarters
Must be why the #3 Allied ace of WW2 Alexander Pokryshkin scored most of his kills in a P-39. The Russians stripped everything not needed and removed the wing guns leaving two nose mounted 12.7mm HMG's and the 37mm cannon.
#2 Soviet Ace Grigory Rechlakov scored 44 of his 56 kills with a P-39, most while flying with Pokryshkin.
The Soviets loved the P-39 and called it "Kobrushka" or "Kobrastochka" meaning Little Cobra or Dear Little Cobra.
Great! Now i can get started. Now to find 1 of the 2 that are flyable.
The vapor dilution system sure helps out on those cold mornings.
Plus their Lightnings no longer had the counter rotating engines which changed the handling. I believe these aircraft were put back into the line and rebuilt to later model standards. The P-38s suffered many problems in Eurpoe but they did much better in the warmer climate of the Pacific. The TSC performed great in the later P-47, but all of the ducting contributed to it huge size.
i have always loved the p-39, and the p-40, they were not the draft horses the mustang, and the p-38 were but they were amazing aircraft in their own rites.
"After landing bring your flaps up, not the landing gear..." A good recommendation... Great plane. The Russians loved it and used it at with success at low level. Got one too... a 1.2m RC Model.... no working guns though...
I think you mean the supposed spin tendencies.
This was contoversial.
When reports started coming in that the aircraft enters dangerous flat spins, Bell Aircraft Corporation actually sent test pilots to combat units and they had problems replicating the spins. With normal distribution of weight, the aircraft would not spin as described.
P-39! FIERO OF THE SKIES!
@SAsgarters but when they put the cannon in it, it was great as a tank killer.
Joe Schmoe
Tank killer only for the US Army Air Force, in N Africa and Italy, NEVER for the Russians. The Soviet Air Force / VVS used it nearly ENTIRELY as a fighter, and air-defense platform. 3 of the 5 Top Russian aces together had hundreds of confirmed or witnessed kills in P-39s.
The Russian-language ‘mission’ given to P-39 Guards Air Regiments was called ‘prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk’ (translates in English words to: coverage for ground forces) and is commonly translated by Westerners (US, Canadians, Europeans) as ‘ground support’, further taken or ASSUMED to mean close air support, but it was LITERALLY squadrons and and Air Wings that were assigned to fly from airfields near Soviet Armies and protect the Soviet armor, infantry, artillery and other support elements from relentless German Air attacks - Ju-87s, Ju-88s, Me-109s and FW-190s, as the Russians were driving to push the Nazi forces out and westward in 1943-45.
The Russians never had, never received any armor-piercing U.S. M80 37 mm ammunition for the nose-cannon. Instead, Lend-Lease records show that they received over 1 million rounds of high-explosive M54 rounds, great for knocking down Bombers/dive-bombers, observation aircraft, Me-109s, FW-190s and destroying trucks, armored cars, tents, artillery horses, artillery and of course German soldiers.
there is a way to recover in IL2 it is to fully extend your flaps
The 37mm hit just fine and was ideal in the Pacific theater where ground attack became their strong suit. the problem was ultra light weight Japanese fighters at low altitude. Aircobra was superior in a dive but thats not an option when your already on the deck. Soviets appreciated the big gun because large bore aerial cannons traditionally play a key roll in Soviet aircraft design doctrine.
With separater trigger buttons for guns and cannon. Two questions,
1. Can guns and cannon be fired on same pass?
2. How are sights setup due to different ballistics of weapons?
Il-2 is an extremely realistic simulator on the most realistic settings, or so a lot of Real Life pilots say. That being said some models can be unrealistic or at least not completely true to the actual plane.
Fun plane to fly in War Thunder
Very true as a War Thunder P-39 and P-63 A serie fighter Pilot ,Hehe
@SAsgarters Not so, many of the Russian top Aces flew this plane and were quite happy with it. Pokrishkin, Russia's top scoring Ace was very fond of it and scored nearly 2/3 of his kills in it. The russians weren't very happy w/ the P40 the got the equivelant of the P40B model and for varies reasons were not enthused w/it. I'm using the Jan/Feb 2011 issue of warbirds for on of my reference sources, and there is much more material on the internet to support this
My favorite of WWII. Too bad they did not digitalize it (clean up the picture and sound). For not having a super charger @ 368 M.P.H. it was a hot rod. A dream come true to fly one.
@Greenhornet270 I donno it had alot of weight and lil bitty wings BUT yes I agree it would have been better.
It just didn't have the range for a strategic fighter. As for the turbo being removed, you have Larry Bell himself to thank for that. There just wasn't enough room in the plane to properly install a turbo, and the way it was the turbo installation hurt speed quite a bit at low altitudes in spite of the high altitude improvement. It was better to just start over - the P-63 - although they didn't fully address the range problem.
@FrancoHitlini and there are a few russian p-63's still around.
This 'lovable loser of a plane' also has the distinction of scoring the highest number of individual kills attributed to any U.S. fighter type.
A small feat for the mighty soviet air force!
Rob Devard actually I believe the F6F Hellcat has that record, but he’s certainly wrong.
Soviets racked up very high numbers with this plane. It actually was a good plane.
Unfortunately the Allison with the turbosupercharger was reserved for the P38. A good low level and ground attack plane. With more time a more advanced engine might have made a difference. Still, held the line with the P40 til more advanced airplanes came out. The Russians loved them.
@@agoodchristianpilot159 The top allied aces actually did in-fact fly P-39, aces like Alexander Pokryshkin scored more victories in the P-39 than any American did in a P-51, F6F, F4U, P-38 or P-47. It was actually a extraordinarily good aircraft, ruined by a bad reputation due to American flying doctrine and a lack of super charger. As such the United States trained pilots to use the P-39 just like we trained pilots to use any other American aircraft, and that involved very high altitudes. The lack of supercharger crippled it at those altitudes, that and it's odd flying characteristics due to the mid engine earned the P-39 a less than stellar reputation. However on the eastern front airbases where often just tens of miles apart, sometimes right on the front lines. This lead to very short and very low altitude engagements, also aided by Soviet flying strategy using aircraft like the IL2 at extreme low altitude forcing the Germans to also fly low to contest them. In this environment the P-39 was a real beast, the engine operating in ideal conditions and the odd mid engine arrangement actually provided a advantage to talented pilots, not a machine for a rookie, but in the hands of a veteran it could really move.
I know, I did get into a flat spin IL-2 with the P-39 and some other planes. I don't think I ever recovered from a flat spin.
first time that iv heard of this aircraft...
They just flew them different from what they had to do in the west front.
In the ETO, and especially on the Soviet VVS, missions were typically either ground attack sorties, which the P-39 was well suited for due to good forward visibility and strong armament, or escorting the Soviet primary ground attack aircraft, the IL-2.
At low altitude the weakness of the Airacobra - low engine power at high altitude - didn't matter, and the pilots could use the aircraft's advantages to the fullest.
@jaymoe67 Okay, let's put it this way: Our pilots flew against it and were quite happy with it.
Well , I'd figure that there were not many fighter types that relied on doors for entry or exit. It would make sense to spend alot of time covering that.
Hiya fellows! Gee what a swell airplane..Golly I can’t wait to fly it
Hey, Wally! How's Beaver?
OKOK, heard you the first time. How about a spitfire then? Handsome and lethal.
"No turn should be attempted at less than 150mph." LOL, he never said why. Flat spin, anyone?
I think to someone who has gone threw basic pilot training this is pritty obvious. After all, this is not a basics training film, this is a film which is supposed to make people familiar with the specific plane which they were designated to fly.
Thanks for posting, very interesting.
So to get checked out you just read the book and took it for a ride huh?
Don't give me a P-39; the engine is mounted behind. She'll tumble and roll, and she'll bore a deep hole. Don't give me a P-39.
Love oscar brand! I think it’s “shell tumble and spin, and she’ll auger you in”
The P-63 (essentially a much improved P-39) DID have a supercharger. But by then, the USAAF had the Mustang and Thunderbolt, so P-63s were not much used by it. Thousands went to the Soviets (who loved the P-39) and hundreds went to newly-liberated France. The French later used them in Vietnam, and P-63s *may* have made an appearance in the Korean War, on the communist side.
They were troublesome: Larry Bell said of dropping them from the P-39 “…we have eliminated a million and one problems by removal of the turbosuperchargers”. Donovan Berlin said of them in the Curtis XP-37: “The supercharger simply was not working and we didn’t have time to develop that too. The troubles like regulators problems and the throwing of buckets off the turbine wheel remain to be solved.” At this time Allsion, Curtis, and Bell all felt they should be removed.
Heard me the 1st time? That was the 1st time I've made a comment here. Anyway, I don't know any Spitfire songs. I know only a few about American planes.
Don't five me an old Shooting Star; she goes, but not very far
She'll rumble and spout, and will surely flame out
Don't give me an old Shooting Star
Don't give me a Peter-four-oh; it's a hell of an airplane, I know
A ground-looping bastard, you're bound to get plastered
Don't give me a Peter-four-oh
The British specified no turbos and turned down these "castrated" Lightnings only after test flying the first one at Burbank and almost leading to litigation with Lockheed over the contract until the USAAF took the planes over after December 7, 1941. exhaust driven turbochargers were never troublesome. The problem with the Allison (all versions had mechanical 1st stage supercharging) in the P-38 was fuel fowling from poor mixing of the high octane fuel required by US fighters.
Interesting you say that.
The prototype P-39 was equipped with a turbo-supercharger, was beautifully prepared, and was a stunning performer. However, it suffered some issues with CoG as a result, and once radio, oxygen, and other field equipment was installed, the CoG fell too far back. The turbo-supercharger installation was removed, making production versions with the engine mounted supercharger only.
Still, below 15,000 feet, it was a good performer!
Good training for War Thunder.
They give alot of instruction on how to bail out. The instructor must have known something.
Yeah, do NOT get into a flat spin
Yeah. His contacts at the War Department told him that there was one happening.
Uh, no actually, let me tell you a bit of history:
air war in europe was mostly high altitude engagements, where the airacobra was totally worthless, might as well use a brick.
air war in the east instead was low altitude, where the airacobra performed fine.
That's why the soviets liked it and the american didn't. It was still a flawed design, but it worked well at low altitude.
The reason for poor high altitude performance was that these did not have 2 stage supercharging.
The Soviets also liked the fact that it had a decent radio and a windshield that wasn't made out of cellophane.
We with the brains don't expect you who should be working and quiet to understand everything. But you feel empowered today and want to run things.
So where is the cannon located ? The Bf109 had its 20mm cannon shooting thru the hallow crankshaft of the engine then propeller spinner . I think the P39 cannon sits in front of the pilot with its cannon barrel running through the reduction gearing shaft then out the propeller spinner ? Help me out here guys !
The entire nose section was the armour housing, for the cannon and the 50’s.
@FrancoHitlini the survivability was pretty good actually. also you can find a lot about the russian p-39's. Just look at all the p-63 king cobras bought. there isn't much difference to my recollection.
bad74maverick1
As one P-39 warbird restorer said it best, in 2018: they look almost the same, and have the same arrangement, but they are nearly nothing shared in parts; they are very different from one another.
The P-63 Kingcobra is: larger, its heavier, has longer wingspan (4 feet longer), it is a lot faster, of course has a remotely-mounted hydraulic clutch-actuated 2nd Supercharger (in addition to the mechanical single-speed, single-stage Supercharger that equipped P-39s ) but the Kingcobra also a shorter chord (so different aspect ratio), but on top of that has a different airfoil, and different thickness to the wing, and the fuselage is longer by 2 feet. Many areas that were considered ‘cramped’ or ‘too tight’ by US AAF maintainers, and Soviet maintainers were addressed in the new XP-63, and were given ‘a little more room’ in the newer airplane’s engineering.
The aft-most end of the CG range in the P-63A fuselage was moved forward, to greatly help reduce the danger to enter into a flat-spin in certain stall situations.
The P-39 had 37mm cannon as it was intended as a bomber interceptor. The 20mm Hispano Suiza cannon came on the UK models. Brits didnt like theirs and shipped them off to Russians who loved P-39. UK models still in US at start of war were seized by USAAC and known as P-400's. Gauges were in English and had UK oxygen systems which were incompatible with US O2 systems so pilots had no oxygen.
Her design was ahead of her time: so sleek and svelte : more so than her successors: sad that performance wise she wasn't tops.
Russians modificated a few, made the planes even more lighter: removed machineguns from the wingtips, and most of the fuel tanks (!) from the wings. Ace pilots adored the P-39N-0 that time...
The Alison engine lost power at height, same problem for the early P-51. Sorry the didn't fit the Merlin in the P-39 as well. The 37mm Oldsmobile canon was another faillure. The RAF rejected the P39 thats why they ended up in Russia
God I love hearing glenn miller in these old films! Song at the song is “The Army Air Corps - Glenn Miller and the Army Air Force Band”
J
The brass took out the turbo she was designed with, then wondered why she lacked power at high altitude. Duh! That 37mm could hit like a destroyer. In the hands of an expert at low altitude she'd kick serious rear end!
She did, many Soviet pilots became aces on their P-39s and P-63s!
Zak Malamane What are you talking about, gooberbutt? This is an American plane. How can you say Soviet pilots became aces on it? We would never give Russia those planes.
Just kidding I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Side note, I ate WAY too much Oreo ice cream and I'm seriously regretting it. How's your day going?
David "Miscarriage" Miscavige Oh, I was like Seriously!? at first, then I read the rest of the reply XD
Well I'm doing very fine, and you?
Chuck Yeager, a very famous WWII American pilot LOVED the P39 and said he thought it was one of the greatest fighters of WWII. He started in the P39s and moved to P51's eventually, but even after the war still praised the P39, during an afterwar airshow he flew a pink Air Cobra (I forget the name of the lady who owned and was supposed to be flying it) and wowed the crowd with moves they didn't think it could do.
That comes from his own book.
"Pink"?
"Lady who owned it"?
Are you sure you're not thinking of Sue Parish and her Pink P-40 Warhawk?
Yeah, a lady owned a P39 she painted pink and was supposed to fly it at an airshow, but she talked with Chuck prior to the show and offered to switch out after taxi so he could fly it. He did and apparently put on one hell of a show.
+James brown The P-39 was a popular plane to pimp out for air racing, at least it was in the 1960's...must have been the availability of them and someone found a way to juice or replace that Allison with the long drive train..
She was a pretty good little bird.
+martianshoes Nothing wrong with the Allison. Had a blower designed for 12,000 feet, that's all. At low altitude it could keep up with most any other WWII fighter.
@FrancoHitlini yeah true but you'll be hard pressed to find a better low altitude fighter.
The turbocharger had to be taken out because they never solved the overheating problem it created. I agree with you that this is a sad "What If?" for this aircraft.
warden phil
Wrong - The Turbosupercharger was largely, actually removed from all the variants AFTER the original XP-39 submitted to Air Corps for Circular Proposal X- 609, because the aerodynamicists (Bell Aircraft Co, and NACA) and their wind tunnel test data PERSUADED the Army AF Pursuit Technical Engineering Department at Wright Field, that the production P-39s could achieve 400 mph top airspeed at 13,000 - 18,000 feet altitude (the 400 mph top speed that Bell Aircraft had told the AAF and the RAF it would attain) , IF they reduced drag in several small areas, and eliminated the Turbosupercharger’s scoop / shutter on the intercooler and of course all the ducts and valves, linkages, with it, and just utilize the mechanical single-stage, single-speed Supercharger that all 9,000+ P-39s and the P-400s were built with. Unfortunately, No.
Not especially when the USAAF added more armor, a bulkier (but better ) radio transceiver, and other weight additions.
P-39
The russians loved this plane because it was a great plane for what they where using it for. High roll rate ( one of the fastest in the war). High G loading, (USAAF planes where built for 8G+, British planes were built for 5.66G+). Heavy Armor for pilot, and systems. Although modicum levels of ammo for heavy MG's, 900 rounds per gun for the .30 caliber guns were available. More than enough to fry the tropic built planes it flew against.
I don't think the loss of interest in the P-39 was unwarranted. It's not that the plane was all that bad, it's just that the USAAF had little use for the role. Low altitude providing air cover close to the front Russian lines was fine, but what use was that for the US and UK that constantly needed to project power over distance, and at higher altitudes. The P-38 was far more desirable in theatres that might of featured the P-39/P-40, because it could take the war farther to the enemy.
+dobravery The P-39 was envisioned as a short range interceptor. To that end, its original internal fuel capacity of 120 gallons was reduced on some models to only 80 gallons (that is US gallons which is about 82% of what the English called an imperial gallon). By comparison the P-40 had 140 gallons, the Spitfire and Bf-109 had about 110 US gallons in combat trim. Altogether the P-39 (and P-400) achieved about 280 kills for the USAAF. . The problem in the Pacific was the P-39's lack of range and its inability to climb to altitude fast enough to intercept attacking Japanese bombers. Also the P-400 built for England with 20 mm instead of 37 mm cannons were supposedly equipped with English oxygen systems that were incompatible with US oxygen masks limiting the pilots to 12,000 to 14,000 feet - above which they would lose their ability to think fast.
In the European war, battles usually occurred over 20,000 ft where the P-39 performed poorly. On the Russian front. the P-39 was used to defend ground attack aircraft like the IL-2. At low altitude the P-39 could compete with the Bf-109 and FW-190. Russians would strip the P-39 down to reduce weight and operate the engine beyond recommended settings. They achieved the best results with the P-39 and several Russian P-39 aces are credited with more kills than Dick Bong, America's top ace.
@@danzervos7606 Most of the info is correct, but I'd add on to the role of P-39 on Eastern front. It was less of a support aircraft and more of an air superiority one, intercepting enemy bombers (most important) from bombing soviet ground forces and enemy hunters from interrupting other tasks. For the role of support/cover aircraft Yaks (especially Yak-9, being the most produced and having the most ammount of modifications) were suited way better, having better turn and power/weight ratio, what let them counterattack Bf.109's after getting them off Il-2s' six.
In an alternate universe, P-39s had superchargers and were used in Europe alongside Mustangs, Lightnings and Thunderbolts. A pity the Airacobra wasn't allowed to be its true turbosupercharged self in this universe : (
Even with the turbo charger performance did not greatly improve. On the Eastern front high altitude combat was the exception not the rule. Most air to air combat occured under 14000 feet. At those altitudes it could out turn almost everything. In the East the P39 had more kills than any American fighter in any theater of the war. Over 4000 kills.
The 37 was for ground attack. It had only 15 rounds and was always too slow for any air to air work, even agst bombers.
It's been a long time since I've heard this song... "Up Into The Air, Junior Birdmen'.
The P-39 didn't live up to expectations, however the lend-lease planes that went to Russia, were loved by the Russian pilots, as the planes turned out to be great tank busters.
As the west knows now, or has been finding out for the past 25-30 years, they were not ever used as Tank busters by the Russians.
The Russians had an airplane called the IL-2 Sturmovik, and others such as the Petlyakov Pe-2 that they used for ground attack and for anti-tank / panzer destruction, but never the P-39.
The Russians never had and never received U.S. 37 mm M80 armor-piercing ammunition during the war, and the 1 million+ rounds of High Explosive M54 ammunition they received for the M4 37 mm cannon was useless against tanks and armor.
The Russians used the P-39 as an air-to-air fighter, air defense / Combat air Patroller, bomber interceptor ( one of the uses the US Army Air Force originally ordered the P-39 for) and free-hunting for enemy aircraft.
The Russian description for P-39 and other VVS squadrons was ‘prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk’ ( translates in English to ‘coverage of / for ground forces ) and is commonly translated in English to say ‘ground support’ - erroneously, because it is often taken to mean close air support. In fact, the true Russian meaning was meant to describe ‘Protection of Russian Armor and Infantry from bomber / fighter Air Attack ‘. Soviet-operated P-39s did sometimes make strafing attacks on infantry, artillery, on horses that the Germans used to pull artillery and ammunition, and on trucks, tenrts, trnches, - but it was what Russian historian Col Dmitry Loza says, "never a primary mission or strong suit for this aircraft".
Until the implementation of ‘glasnost’ and the fall of the Soviet Union 1985-1990, western leaders, military, authors, historians and scholars assumed - wrongly - that the P-39 was used as a ground support aircraft. After the Soviet Union was opened, and many WW II records, unit histories and access to photographs were made available, Americans, Canadians and Western Europeans learned that it’s role was as a fighter plane, for nearly all of its Soviet service. Many former surviving Russian pilots and support personnel were interviewed from the 1990s until now, about their experiences with P-39s as fighters. Understandably, they are often puzzled or amused that Americans, British, Canadians, etc. have been told for decades by western history books, magazines and model kits that they spent the The Great Patriotic War destroying tanks - when none of that occurred.
3 of the Top 5 Soviet aces had - together - hundreds of confirmed or witnessed air-to-air victories in the Airacobra, and even against early and midwar Me-109 variants and FW-190s, as well as shooting down a fair handful of Luftwaffe ‘Experten’ / ace pilots.
@@rocknative70 , correct. The P-39 was used to attack ground troops and vehicles such as trucks.
John Uscian
They did strafe trucks and ground targets if the opportunity arose, but its primary role was air defense and air to air. I’m just now about 1/2 way through reading Russian P-39 Ace Evgeniy Mariinsky’s autobiography ‘Red Star Airacobra: Memoirs of a Soviet Fighter Ace 1941-1945’ - Translated from Russian to English, its kind of ‘clunky’ or ‘clumsy’, especially the translated idioms and slang, but his descriptions of air-to-air combat against Luftwaffe fighters and bombers, day after day, often 4-5 missions in a day, with his VVS squadron are intense and sometimes terrifying and glorifying, especially shooting down a Bf 109 or a Ju 87.
@@rocknative70 , thanks for that very interesting information. I would probably enjoy learning more about the P-39's role in Russia from that book. Thanks for alerting me to it and all best.
It was a superb air superiorty fighter in the Eastern front. It was rarely used in ground attack, the Russians had better aircraft for ground attack Russias top aces all flew P39s.
26:34
Let's remember - British were offered P-38s but only w/o.the turbos - they declined. In the prewar world of tight budgets, small aircraft orders & no concept of a world war, the decision was made to lose the troublesome turbos. It was felt a ground support aircraft was needed more. Plus the P-40 based on the proven P-36 had an Allsion with a single stage SC. So a turbo equipped P-39 wasn't needed. Too bad it wasn't developed more & installed. With it , ithe P-39 would be a better aircraft.
If this plane was as good as it is in War Thunder, the yanks would never have made another plane in WW2.
that flat spin killed alot of pilots....
The P 39 Aircobra was good for one thing only and that only when very well protected by fighters in close escort, otherwise they are easy meat on the table for any fighter that happens across them, and that ground attack where it's .four 308 caliber wing mounted fast firing machine guns can actually make a difference and it's two fuselage mounted .50 cal firing through the prop arc and 20mm cannon through the prop hub, like the FW190, can really pound ground targets. The version with a 37mm cannon instead of the 20mm can be a tank.killer, although it only has one single very slow firing cannon instead of the two of four of the other types meant as tank killers.
The Russians used the p39 for ground attack, as fighters they were slaughtered, as they didn't care about pilot and troop losses so they would just send them out even when fighters couldn't escort them. Americans however would never accept those kinds of losses and the idea of having to heavily escort an aircraft that's was designated as a pursuit/interceptor fighter is just stupid. Then again a pursuit interceptor fighter that only flew at around 190 or 200 knots (250mph) is stupid also, the bi planes of the mid 30s flew faster than that. The Stuka dive bombers flew somewhere around that speed, actually I think it was something like 295 mph or so, and it's slow speed resulted in losses so high that Goreing pulled them out of the battle even when escorted by 109s. In fact that was the end of land based dive bombers and no.more were produced for either side. Dive bombers did realize lots of success in the Pacific though, with them even seeing service beyond the end of the war but even still no new designs were pursued. 200 to 300 knots in environments were the fighters were in the 400 to 500mph ranges just didn't fair well and even the heavy bombers were as fast with many faster and they had serious defensive firepower and were always supposed to have heavy fighter escort. Heavy bombers were worth expending the resources of a heavy fighter escort, p39s were not worth it.
I believe the 39 didn't even see the end of Guadalcanal before it was pulled and shitcanned where it should have never been allowed out of in the first place. Why this horrible plane was ever accepted ill never know because when it was putting up speeds of 250 mph while being developed as a pursuit interceptor fighter the corsair being developed around then was posting speeds well over 400 mph in level flight. Go figure that one out, but then again the army wanted nothing to do with the mustang when it was began flying for the brits at the start of the war and accepted something like the P39 turd pile. Sometimes the military moves in unfathomable and very stupid ways.
James M. Taylor
Soviets didn’t use them as Ground Attack aircraft. And they did not ever use them against Tanks, or armor. The 37 mm (and the 37 mm cannon was by far - by a count of over 4400 aircraft - the cannon that Soviet P-39s were equipped with). The 20mm was only used in a small percentage of Guards IAP airplanes. The M4 37 mm *did* have a low muzzle-velocity and low rate of fire, but it was designed in the mid-1930s to shoot down bombers and fighters.
However -,The M54 High Explosive 37 mm ammunition that the Russians were given under Lend-Lease was *NOT* an armor-piercing round, and it is not capable, in any scenario of piercing armor. Western Allied leaders, military officers, WW II reporters and engineers misunderstood the Russian term for ‘Aerial protection of Ground Forces’ (Infantry, Artillery and Armor) to be the same as ‘Ground Support’, because the Russian language terms for the 2 different missions, is nearly the same in English. So, the Anti-armor mission was widely reported in WW II US propaganda, US training and in the news. The Russian Air Force NEVER used the Airacobra for Anti-Tank duty. That was the role of the IL-2 Sturmovik and the Pe-2.
It was intended for use against aluminum or fabric aircraft. The US M80 37 mm round was the armor-piercing round, and the US government never sent the Soviets any, under Lend-Lease, despite inquiries. It has been conjectured, but never proven that this resulted from instructions by Pres Roosevelt and the White House, to purposely NOT give M80 ammunition to the Soviet allies.
The Russian unit histories unearthed in the 1990s, and interviews with Grigory Rechkalov - a 61 kill ace, and over 35 kills in P-39s - all show that the Russians often REMOVED the wing-mounted .30s and the later .50 gondola-mounted machine guns, because this improved the P-39s already PHENOMENAL rolling-rate ( tested by the USAAF Wright Field, determined to be 65 degrees per second , at speeds 230-290 mph) , and made the Airacobras rolling-rate higher by reducing the mass out in mid-wing.
3 of the Top 5 Russian aces had a majority of their kills in the P-39. Nikolai Gulayev had 55 individual, confirmed kills, over 40 in P-39s. Aleksandr Pokryshkin had 44 kills in P-39s, more than any American pilot had and the most of any US-built fighter aircraft. By the way - Pokryskin’s autobiography, and interviews give many important, previously unknown details (most of this information was UNAVAILABLE to US and European interviewers before the fall of the Soviet Union/ 1990s) about his unit, the Soviet offensives in 1943 - 1945.
The Russian P-39 Guards Regiments of the VVS were used to protect the Soviet Armor and Infantry from attacks by Ju-87s, Ju-88s, Hs-123s, Hs-129s and they often did successfully dogfight Me-109s and FW-190s, and under 14,000 feet proved to be more than a match for Me-109E (‘Emils’) and the early FW-190 variants, as Luftwaffe and Soviet records, photos and eye-witness histories show.
The 250 mph speed you quote is puzzling, unless it is for air combat above 20,000 feet ??
Ju-87s were easy prey for P-39s, with a top speed of around 235 mph (Jumo 210D) at 13,000 feet ( 235-240 was tp speed for the Ju-87) , vs an Airacobra’s speed of 345 at that altitude.
While true that the Soviets loss almost 1/4 of their 4700+ P-39s ( lost about 1,050) but that is from ALL causes, and accidents, engine, propeller and system failures played a large cause in losses when the Guards IAP Air Regiments nearly always flew from unprepared and grass / dirt fields, and when weather - which is known for changing rapidly in western and central Russia - caused a part in aircraft equipment failures or pilots becoming lost.
Do no, the narrative you wrote about them being ‘slaughtered’ is laughable, unfortunate and a bit ‘silly’. You are lacking key facts and time-lines in the development and introduction of the P-39, P-51 and other fighters, it could be / would be addressed by more serious reading and research - unfortunately, there is a lot of wrong information, mis-conceptions, myths, lack of scientific, mechanical and aeronautical knowledge and bias, as well as BS on the internet. Even books, magazines and model kits from the 1940s-1980s repeat wrong data and historical facts.
Absolutely did use them as ground attack. In fact the Soviets were the only ones who actually liked the P39. Why would you think they would not or did not use them in this role. The Russians weren't stupid after all. You're getting your ass kicked by a flood of German Panzers, troops, and other armored vehicles, then America sends you lots of Bell P39 air and king cobras, one with 20mm cannon and the other with 37mm Cannon (in fact one of the very few fighters armed with even 20mm cannon and the only one with 37mm Cannon at that point in the war, the 20 would knock out a somewhat lightly armored vehicles and the 37mm would kill any tank at that time in the war). And they absolutely suck as fighters, in fact you couldn't even fly them above around 13 thousand fed because, whoops, America didn't equip them with the oxygen systems that you would need. So either you use them in the ground attack anti armor role, when you desperately need exactly those kinds of aircraft, or you really just don't use it at all. Being the communists they were and are and placing zero value on the lives of their own people, they still attempted to use them as fighters in some places. And as there are exceptions to every time a couple of their pilots actually faired very well using them against German aircraft like the stukas. Mostly though a p39 pilot trying to fight other German aircraft of most types, especially the 109s , would end up dead.
In ground attack the Russians loved them and the Americans were surprised they kept requesting them.They used the 39 in this role very very well. In fact the only place America ever used the P39 was in Guadalcanal as ground attack and it did well in the role there too. The Soviets continued using the Bell aircraft until the far far superior Stormoviks came along, when they produced sufficient numbers of those they retired the P39s. Why fly those when you could use the same pilot to fly a stormovik which was superior in all respects, armor, armament, payload, range, speed, and manuverability.
I don't know where it is you got the idea that the Russians didn't use them in the ground attack anti armor role especially when their need was beyond desperate for that exact thing, they would have used a piper fun in ground attack if they could have strapped a cannon on it, literally. Dig around a bit and do some more research, it's not like that is obscure information or a closely held secret, lol
A very lengthy article, but not actually true, some of the top Soviet aces used the P-39
If they just slapped a turbo on that thing and did some rebalancing, it could probably have held its own with the Mustang...
Kyle Tekaucic : There really wasn’t room for the turbo, inter cooler and ducting necessary, and wind tunnel tests indicated a higher rate of speed by eliminating the turbo scoops and using the Allison supercharger. But the SC was a simple unit that couldn’t provide the high altitude performance of German and British equipment and the aerodynamics were inferior to the Zero. A nice try but it was really just a second class effort. And who in God’s name though a car door was a good way to get in and out?!
@dapper189 Not really. The cannon had a very low muzzle velocity (600-something m/s). Planes weren't very useful against tanks until the allied started using rockets.
LOL. Tell that to the ghost of Hans Ulrich Rudel. Or, the Russians who piloted the Sturmovik.
@@edpolk1262 Consider them told. Now what?
@jaymoe67 The Soviets used it as a fighter and it sucked at it.
Как интересно! а парашют-то у него под жопой?
Была проблема при проектировании ТУ-4 насчет парашюта под жопой или за спиной.
Где еще можно сохранить парашют? Крометого, это делает хорошее место.
I've tried to go into a flat spin in the IL-2 flight simulator. Recovery procedure:
Full aileron in same direction of spin + Full rudder in opposite direction of spin + Full negative elevator.
Admittedly this is a sim so it's not 100% accurate. So to know the full truth we'll just have to wait for a war vet to post a comment... Hopefully.
The modern simulators are an incredible tool for modern pilots and one of the more important factors contributing to greatly reduced accident and fatality rates in all areas of aviation. The advent of highly realistic yet very inexpensive simulators have made a huge impact on general aviation as for many years old military surplus link trainers were about the only simulators most general aviation pilots ever experienced and even though link trainers were helpful and much better than nothing they were a long ways from being realistic and the more realistic a simulator the greater the benefit to the average pilot. It wasn't until recently with the advent of extremely powerful, fast, yet inexpensive personal computers (using a technology of multiple processors each processing a small! Part of a program at the same time, called a string, that was said to be impossible by the experts at the time. In fact the college student who did his thesis on multi processing actually was given a failing grade for his thesis because the professor discarded his whole premises as completely impossibe. After he graduated a short time later he went on and invented the impossible computer using a couple hundred processors initially. He named it "The Dream Machine" in honor of its impossibility, and It went on to become the first computer to beat the vaunted Cray II Supercomputer, at a fraction the cost and space too. Today even the Cray Supercomputer used multiple processors, only now it's thousands of them not hundreds. All these will soon be rendered obsolete in every way by the Quantum Computers they are now developing.just an interesting side story for you.). But it wasn't until then that high quality rea!oh useful.simulators became available to the general aviation pilots and there too it's consequences proved to be greatly improved pilot competency and reduced accident/fatality numbers.
A huge mistake many are now making is that they believe it they can fly the simulators with no.prob!ems then flying the airplane in reality would also be easy, flying one means you can automatically fly the other. In lots of ways that's like saying it you're great at flying remote controlled aircraft then you can jump in a Cessna 172 and fly fine. And maybe both could take off and land.
Thing is most of what being a great pilot is about is feeling. Feeling what the aircraft is doing what the winds and weather is doing and how they're doing it to gather and even more important what they're going to do in the seconds ahead. My ex wife when she flew with me used to be amazed how I would make constant small corrections with the ailerons and rudder to keep the plane flying straight and level as if I knew what the winds and other turbulence was going to do before it occurred and correcting instantly. I told her that after awhile a plane stops feeling like a machine you climb in something disconnected to yourself and your body. It becomes like an extension of yourself after a time, kind of like you wear it like a glove sort of or an extension of your brain and other senses sort of like a new arm or leg of something. It's hard to explain in words but for good pilots it's like that, part of what they call a good seat of the pants pilot, you don't need the guards and instruments to tel! You how the airplane is doing what it's dojng, ect you know cause you sense and feel it but competent pilots use the instruments just as much for verification of nothing else. But that kind of thing will never be able to.be simulated. That's the key thing missing and unfortunately it's exactly that with constant and continual training and practice that makes the difference between life and death in critical situations where fractions of a second can make the difference and usually multiple things are going wrong combined with lots of other stuff happening all at the same instant. If you was It in a simulator no big deal just reset and try again and being able to pull it off 8 or 9 times out of ten is just great. The real world requires 10 out of 10 times of your dead you killed all your passengers, possibly the pilot and passengers of another aircraft doing nothing wrong and of course anyone unlucky enough to just happen to be underneath you when you kill everyone else along with self. Even a pleasure pilot carries a huge responsibility with them every single time they fly even if they're by themselves. And that one incident, that one span of only seconds might not ever occur for the entire time as a pilot, might come on your very last flight of any in between and al! Those thousands of hours of training, practice, sim time ect is all to.be able to handle it with a chance of survival.
People believing they can learn to fly real.aircraft from flying simulators and then when they have successfully managed to take off, navigate, and land then that's it they've learned it and go on are just people dead already they just don't know it. They missed what flying actually is. It's not just being able to take off and land and getting to and fro that's just the tip of it, flying is the mountain of acquired skills afterwards. That's why many experienced pilots cal! The private pilots license the license to die if they choose never to.progress beyond the private licence level. They consider a pilot with private pilots licensce, instrument and .multiengine ratings the first point where a pilot can be considered basical!y competent and safe. Then They go.on to gain the hundreds of hours of experience to form all that into being a good pilot, and yes those hundreds of hours of actual flight time include thousands of hours on the ground in simulators simulating all the possible emergencies a million times over and a million instrument approaches, landings, and missed approach to arounds till you can do them in a coma in every kind of weather and wind condition. That's what flying is, what being a pilot is, the entire package of that, and that's why you kind of have to.love flying to do it because far and away the biggest bulk of being a pilot is all those hours of repetition and boredom practicing procedures, approches, missed approaches, emergencies a million times over for fluorescence you might need it.
The P39 in IL2 Sturmovik was a blast to fight in, except the devs toned down the 37mm to give the weenie Bf109 players a chance.
It would seem that we really missed the boat in the B of B. The P39? It did not perform well at higher altitudes because of having a not so great an engine with no super charger so why not put a Merlin engine with super charger? The P39s fire power was in Matched by any of our single seater fighters and they called it a pea shooter? A 37 mm canon? Can you imagine what a single 37mm canon would do to a Heinkel. What we had was true pea shooters 303s
"Hello fellas".
Did aircraft ever leave the factory with the cockpit labeled in Russian ? Might as well …
@trilingual Or put a Merlin/Packard in it...
Can't obtain spitfires, hurricanes, p38s, p40s, p51s or YAKs? Here is the plane for you!
A fighter that's had a bad press, but the Russians loved them, some of their top aces flew them
The point is to destroy a tank and you need a big bullet to hit the metal many times.
If only the P-39 Cobra would have had a super/turbocharger and less armor (for a fighter it had way too much armor protection which made it extremely heavy) then it would have been a excelent interceptor fighter and would have probably outclassed the P-40 Warhawk. Sadly 2 wrong design choices doomed the planes capabilitys, at least for the U.S. airforces needs.
America gave a lot of these planes to the russian to fight the german panzer divisions on russian front - they loved this plane and it took out a lot of tanks - think of it 37mm cannon that is an inch and a half round for gods sake - it is a howitzer with wings.
Gez 13
It was never used as an anti-tank aircraft by the Russians.
There is an episode in Konstantin Sukhov's book "Squadron is fighting" about Pokryshkin changing his old "number 37" aircobra to a new "number 100", where they discuss 37mm's capability. Pokryshkin himself said there that AP shell's speed is too low to penetrate tank armor, being only 600 m/s. Aircobras were never used as anti-tank aircrafts.
@@MDzmitry is it correct what the other contributor said that they didn't use them as antitank against german armour - it doesn't sound right - the germans used the stuka with similar cannon to destroy a lot of russian armor?
@@rupert5390 the similarities end on caliber. Stukas' high-caliber guns had completely different characteristics, including shell penetration
7:14 out of sync
10:40 Аварийное сбрасывание двери.
Don't know what you wrote, but it sure looks impressive!
@@Juscz emergency door reset
@@Tolianchig , спасибо. Я уже просмотрел его на сайте русско-английского перевода. Просто развлекаюсь, шучу над тобой. Все самое лучшее и наслаждайтесь большим количеством плоских видео. Твое Здоровье, Джон
Beautiful plane.
Year, Russians loved the aircraft a lot. I know that for sure. 'cause I'm Russian :)
They loved its firepower. They loved when this fighter overlooked minor mistakes in piloting.
See the story of Alexander Pokryshkin, Russian Ace. He said: "I like Aircobra. There is no need of 2nd approach if you don't miss foe plane".
Here is instructional film that shows the correct real life spin recovery procedure 9txNloVkLhs?t=14m47s
Ha? Didn't you mean *we with the brains that's filled with air*? Told you not to forget your medication *finger wagging*....
Wow. That is the most uninformed post I have read in awhile. Are you aware Russians used P-39 primarily as a air superiority fighter? Are you aware that most of the top Russian aces started out flying P-39's and scored the majority of their kills in P-39's?, Alexander Pokryshkin, Nikolay Gulaev, Grigory Rechkalov, Dimitri Glinka, Are you aware that the P-39 was as fast if not faster than 109E, F, and was as fast as early G's and turned and dove better? P-39 was faster than most bombers in WW2.
I love how the americans hate their own well made plane, because their pilot just couldn't hit with the 37mm, while the Soviets were full of praise for it. xD
That plane even sounds slow.
This unique fighter looks somewhat like a light training plane. No match to the Bf109 or the Fw190.
Never understood the rational of putting a huge cannon with only a few rounds in storage on such a little plane. A 20mm cannon would have made much more sense. Little wonder many P39s were so modified indeed.
No high altitude no dice, good for shooting tanks up though, They let you fly in a ball cap? Yikes.