From the research I've done the p39 and 400 s main issues was the pilots were trained on front engine aircraft and even though the mid engine design gave it an advantage they didn't really know how to use it
Nice one. Another good reference book is 'Bell P-39 Airacobra' by Robert F. Dorr and Jerry C.Scutts in the Crowwood Aviation Series, ISBN 1 86126 348 1. I've always thought the P-39 got a partly-unjustified bad rap, and this book does much to confirm that. What particularly annoys me is when people use the P-39's poor reputation to undermine the validity of the mid-engined concept in general, when in fact, many of the P-39's issues were due to detail design decisions, NOT inevitable consequences of it's layout, and many of the layout-related problems were either illusory or exaggerated.
My father flew 2 tours with the 5th AF, 49th Fighter Group, 9th Fighter squadron, 1943-45, in the SW Pacific in New Guinea, the Philippines, Okinawa, and finally Japan. He flew P-47D, and P-38E & P39L. His sentiment with the P-39 as told to me, was it tended to ground loop unpredictably, and was scorned by P-47 & P38 pilots. Dad is a healthy 98 years old, and I will see what he has to say when I have my daily chat with him.
Glad to read your comment, and especially that your father is still available to you. When I was a kid, one of the instructors at my school started out as a P-39 pilot in the Southwest Pacific. Col. Haney said little but that flying low and sneaky was what he learned.
Sounds like whoever made that comment about ground looping the P-39 was either confusing it with a tail dragger fighter, or simply has his head were the sun don't shine. The P-39 has tricycle gear. You have to be a total idiot to ground loop a plane with tricycle gear.
@@charleskuss8538 G'day, Bullshit. Go and check the Statistics. When General Aviation transitioned from Conventional Taildraggers to Tricycles (with a Training-Wheel under the Nose...) the Ground-Loop rate per 1,000 Hours of operation actually increased markedly. Partly from people exceeding allowable Crosswind Component & Airframe capabilities, and weathercocking..., partly from people failing to flare, or flaring too high bouncing, and "Wheelbarrowing" on the Nosewheel & only one Mainwheel..., and partly because Ham-fisted Buffoons who would have been weeded out by Taildragger Training Aircraft could, when everything went right, be taught to drive themself up into the Sky, and given a reasonable Descent-Rate, with the Nose up & some Power left on, if aligned more or less with the Runway Centreline and arriving somewhere near the correct Threshold - then the Trike-ised Trainers will land themselves. Thus, setting the Clumsy Ham-Fisted Aviator Wannabes up for an expensive Lesson whenever they let their Misunderconstumblings lead them astray ; and then the Aeroplane Bit them on the Bum. Just(ifiably ?) sayin', Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
Several years ago I read an interview with a former Soviet P-39 pilot, who said that a major factor in the better performance of the Airacobra in Soviet hands was that they threw out the manual for the Allison engine. Apparently the manual focused on maximizing the time between overhauls; but the Soviets treated aircraft as basically disposable, which freed their pilots to run the engines well outside of the manufacturer's parameters. After all, what did it matter if the engine could go 200 hours between overhauls if the plane it was installed in was only going to survive 20-30 hours before being shot down?
I've read similar stories. The Russians would literally burn out the engines. After late 1942 i think the US was delivering two spare engines for every P-39 because of it. On a positive note P-39 losses were nowhere near as heavy as other aircraft types in Russian service. I don't have the numbers handy but i believe it was only around 28% being written off, and yes that's low for the Russians lol!
There are other reasons why the Soviets liked the P-39: 1) The radio in the P-39 actually worked - good comms is a force multiplier; Soviet radios weren't and reliable; 2) The perspex used in the cockpit of the P-39 didn't yellow with age, as did the low-quality perspex used in native-build Soviet fighters - good visibility is important in an fighter, 3) The Soviets stripped away a lot of extraneous weight, which improved its performance a bit (some of that extraneous weight was some of the guns).
@@killersalmon4359 basically, you stated a single real advantage being radio. Or do you really think a fighter on the Eastern front would last that long for perspex to go yellow?
Back in the 80's I had the pleasure to have coffee with Gen. Charles Yeager, who had flown pretty much every aircraft fielded by these United States. When I asked him his favorite, he surprised me by naming the P-39. He said it was a sweetheart to fly with no bad characteristics at all. And he still remembered the start-up procedure and Vspeeds for it. I was amazed.
I also had conversation with fighter pilots over 30 years in the RCAF. At some point, I learned that there is a world of difference between flying and fighting a plane. Ex: An F-18 is easy to fly (made that way) but hard to learn to fight it with all its potential. And that's the point of a fighter. Boyington said the Brewster Buffalo was a sweet plane too, before they put armor plating, guns and self-sealing fuel tanks on it.
@@PappyGunn If Boyington flew one it must have been with the Marines prior to his going to the AVG. Those USN/USMC aircraft were the heaviest which also Included a liferaft as part of their equipment. The Finns stripped their Buffaloes down with good results.
If already in the air and being pursued, the P-40's disadvantages could be somewhat compensated by proper tactics. I am sure that these tactics were learned at the cost of quite a few lives.
My grandfather was an engineer at Bell Aircraft that worked on the Aerocobra design. He was very proud of it. He said it was designed to be a great low altitude aircraft. he then stated that the army ruined it by loading it up with a bunch of unneeded equipment. He said the design was vindicated because it won all the air races after the war. He would go on to work on the X1 project.
My mother bucked rivets on P-39's in Buffalo (she was a pixie and spent most of her shift in the tail cone. Every once in a while "Pursuit" pilots would visit the factory as morale boosters. She told me the Army Air Corp loved the P-39, BUT when they changed the spec and dropped it down to a single-stage supercharger which made it worthless as a Pursuit above 10k feet.. She had a pilot tell her the P-39 well well-armed and could really dive so they'd try to get above, make a diving gun-run, and scram. He said that Zeroes were too light to dive - they had to be "flown downwards".
However, Russians liked that plane. One of the best Russian pilots in WWII - Pokryshkin flew on P-39N-0 (btw he asked mechanics to take off 7,92 machineguns, so his cobra had only 2 12,7 Brownings and 37mm gun
I believe Larry Bell had it designed as a high altitude interceptor. A bomber destroyer if you will. The prototype had a turbo-supercharger on it for high performance at 20,000 feet. Unfortunately the Army decided to have the Airacobra as a ground support aircraft therefor taking the turbo off and fitting it with a low altitude rated Allison engine. It did have good performance at low altitude which is why the Russians did so well with it since most of the combat on the Eastern front took place at low to medium altitudes, but wasn't suited for combat in the Pacific against high altitude Japanese aircraft.
to get into the airplane and take off when you knew you were outmatched ...with bad tactics for your plane....and you still did it...these were brave men...never forget
Well, it's very common for one side to field equipment that is inferior to their opponents. Genoese crossbowmen tried to face off against English longbow men at Crecy, the Iraqi army in the Gulf War, The early Viet-Minh against the French army to name but a handful. No question those fliers were bloody brave, but they weren't exceptionally brave, there will be countless examples if men being just as brave in combat all throughout history.
Really enjoyed the topic and getting an excuse to have Justin back on, I do agree with him that the P-400's nickname was probably one of my favorites too.
A Soviet Air Attache post WW2 said the P39 was good but not for old men to his RAF counterpart. When asked why the Soviet said "Balls get trapped in propshaft"
My dad served in a unit with some of these aircraft. According to him, the main complaints in his unit were limited fuel, lackluster performance, and the the issue of nose wheel failure. This last problem resulted in the prop impacting the ground, which caused drive line failure. Some pilots were dismembered in the cockpit by separated drive line parts. (He was often one of the first personnel on the scene of a crashed plain at the airfields where he was stationed.)
The Russian pilots on the Eastern front held it in very high regard and some of their aces ran up very high scores with it.The difference being that most of the air battles there happening at a far lower altitude than in the west under which conditions it was a very capable fighter.
The Soviets used their own autocannon that didn't jam after firing a few rounds and had better range. They also modified the Allison V12 to increase it's performance and run-time between rebuilding.
@@billwilson3609, no we didn't use own autocannon. First Aircobras were delivered with 20mm British cannon, later it was replaced with 37mm American M4. Nobody has replaced them in Soviet VVS neither by ShVAK nor by NS-37. The only 2 common weapon modifications were removing wing MGs and also getting autocannon and MGs fire switches under 1 trigger button instead of 2 to fire them simultaneously. Not every unit or pilots inside units used those modifications, but they were quite common. There have been also no modifications to the engine. Pilots simply ignored any limitations in battle reducing it resource. So, run-time between rebuilding was actually reduced not increased. It is true not only for P-39 but also for P-40 as well.
There's also the fact that Soviet Union received a handfull of P-400 but the vast majority of planes they got were later P-39's with more powerfull engines and somewhat lightened airframes.
@@TomTerrific-vm3qg The VVS rarely used P-39's for ground attack missions, by the time the P-39 became avialable in numbers they were mostly using purpose made ground-to-air aicraft (like the IL-2 and the Pe-2) and, less commonly and generally in lower intensity parts of the front, fighter types that were considered obsolete (like the I-153 and I-16). Keep in mind that the Aircobre was only really becoming available in large numbers as the tide of the war was swinging decissively in favour of the Soviets, during the dark time of 1941 and early 1942 all available aicraft were used to try to stop the advance of the Wehrmacht.
One thing I've always wanted to know about motor cannon mounts... How much more of a headache is that for the ground crew to service? There's also something else I wonder about - barrel harmonics and temperature. Even in a simple rifle, you putting pressure on the barrel can change the point of impact. And, even in a rifle, at longer ranges, heating of the barrel can cause changes in the point of impact (although the ranges where most firing was done with aircraft would see very little change to the point where it probably would rarely make any difference). I have to wonder how much more difficult it was getting a cannoning through an engine block and getting that to work properly.
@@matchesburn , I used to work on aircraft weapon systems and have looked at the M2, the 20mm, and the 37 auto cannons on the old aircraft. The M2s have belts of ammo, not too bad to load. Also, the .50 cals (M2) have timing gears that controlled the firing. That didn't look too difficult to work on. The hard thing is "boresighting" the systems. That can take an afternoon. The 20mm guns were actually somewhat standardized. They were also fed from a feed tray, not too bad. Loading the 37mm gun was hated by the crews. You had to feed in one round at a time and mechanically move the drum. On the P-63 the system was redesigned. The gun system was a real issue in a bore sight. The P-39 could have been a real killer because the guns fired on the same axis of the airplane. Wing mounted machine-guns have to converge on a cone from 250 to 500 yards in front of an aircraft. Had the P-39 used a 20mm gun which had very similar flight ballistics to the .50 caliber then the P-39 would have been a real savage beast. If Bell had been able to knock 1,000 pounds of weight off the P-39, install a 20mm cannon, and shoe horn in the 1400 HP merlin then the P-39 would have been a real snake in the air. The British let the USAAF/USN copy their electronic gunsight and that allowed easy "deflection" (off to the side) shots.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory What I'd like to suggest might not be worth a whole video, if there even is much written about it, but maybe you or Justin can give an insight about it: Fuel tank fire extinguishers! Quite many people don't even believe they were a thing in WWII fighters, but they were indeed. I have only read about Japanese using them in Ki-61, Ki-100, N1K2-J and late A6M variants. Obviously it was not meant to replace self sealing tanks, because all but the Zero already had them from the beginning, but simply to further improve their survivability. It would be nice to know how successful they were and if other nations experimented with them at all.
In his autobiography a German test pilot called Lerche, he test flew the Do 335, said he used a captured P39 as his hack transport because it had such delightful handling and control harmony. It seems test pilot quality fliers like him, Yeager and Eric Brown loved it and had no problems with it at all.
Brown used one as his own personal transport, until he asked a visiting Bell test pilot to try it out. 'I have never flown in an aeroplane in such an advanced stage of decay' said the white-faced pilot, so Brown took it up for one last aerobatic session and then scrapped it.
It's been a few decades since I read his autobiography but my memory of it was that Yeager hated the P39 and was thrilled that after training he got to fly the P51 instead.
@@talmagecleverly7718 I remember him saying just about the opposite of that in his autobio. I don't remember him comparing the two, but just saying that he really liked the P39.
@@scottkremer8660 He flew P-39's in training. IIRC - he talked about getting air sick but that all the time he got to spend flying a real fighter plane like a P-39 was "hog heaven" - so - he may have been talking about the experience of getting to fly something better than a trainer - or - just fly in general. I don't recall him ever contrasting a P-39 with a P-51 - but I can't remember him ever specifically saying anything against either one of them. I think Yeager's attitude was that he loved flying and flew what he was told to fly, pretty much just like everyone else. I think he was on ... like ... his 5th mission when his formation got jumped by some 190's and they blew the wing off his '51 (iirc) and he had to bail out over France. .
The picture at 16:22 is Capt.Rasmussen who got up during the attack at PEARL HARBOR and shot down a Japanese Zero.Was all shot up and made a dead stick landing.Retired as a LT.Col.
The Zero pilot Rasmussen shot down was either Takashi Atsumi or Saburo Ishii from the Soryu Fighter Squadron (both of them were lost in that particular action). In turn, ace pilot Iyozo Fujita from the same unit shot Rasmussen's plane up and downed Rasmussen's comrade Gordon Sterling. Rasmussen and Fujita befriended one another after the war.
Heavy armament, poor high altitude performance, and heavy armor. It really seemed like they were designing an aircraft custom made for ground attack right from the beginning.
Which is what the Army Air Force wanted. Why do you need a turbocharger for a ground attack plane? The P40 was in the same situation. The only true interceptor the AAF had available at the start of the war was the P-38 with its turbos. And it was designed as a bomber interceptor.
@@2lotusman851 similar story with the F-105 perfectly good interceptor that got a bad reputation because someone had the brilliant idea of using them for ground attack roles It’s almost like using a machine for a purpose it wasn’t designed for doesn’t work
@@2lotusman851 No. Both the P-38 and P-39 were designed as intercepters and all aircraft started to become multirole as there was nothing to shoot down.
@@killdizzle reminds me of the time they decided to take a rifle design to be a simiauto battle rifle and turn it into a magical do everything gun that was supposed to be a sub machine gun, assault rifle, support machine gun and marksman rifle only to realize it was terrible at all those rolls and promptly unadopted it but some poor grunt is still being issued an mk14 EBR today dispite the AR-10 and HK 417 being better .308 platforms because the army will never admit that it’s wrong The army r&d devision are the type of people who would suggest getting rid of screw drivers because you can nail screws in with a hammer
What's funny is a P-39Q flown by Tex Johnston won the 1946 Thompson Trophy Race beating a Lightning, 2 Mustangs, King Cobra and Corsair over a 300 mile closed course. It averaged 373mph. Cleveland’s Hopkins Airport is near sea level.
The P39D was the model that most Americans operated early in the war. It was under-powered. The P39Q did not show up until 1944. By then the aircraft already had a bad rep. So most went to Russia. The early P39D did not have a supercharger or turbo charger. As such its performance fell off above 10,000 feet. Above 10,000 feet it was outclassed by almost everything. The cannon firing thru the propeller hub also was prone to jamming issues. The P63 was the final variant of this line. All the issues that the P39D had were fixed in the P63. But it still had to overcome the bad rep its predecessor created.
@@danhammond9066 > The early P39D did not have a supercharger or turbo charger. It had a supercharger. EVERYTHING in military aviation did. What it lacked was a second supercharger and/or variable speed. All navy planes in WWII had two superchargers with second having dual speed plus off, I believe. Thunderbolts and Lightnings had a supercharger attached to the block, plus a turbocharger. But at lowest altitude, all planes could run at their maximum allowed manifold pressure with just one 'charger and anything above that was dead weight--and dead weight the P-39 didn't have.
The post war race winning P-39 aircraft were fitted with late model high horsepower Allison engines. ALL Allison engines are equipped with a supercharger. But where the early Allison F series V-1710 engines were making 1250 to 1450 HP, the late model F series could make 1875 HP, and the H series could easily exceed 2000 HP. And that was within the military accepted operating and tuning ranges. They were commonly pushed harder. Even during the war. There were crew chiefs and pilots who were rigging and flying the P-38L-1Lo (and some late J models) at 80" of manifold pressure and 3200 RPM in combat with 150 octane fuel. The military didn't like anything over 66"-70" and 3,000 RPM, despite Allison proving to them that 80" and 3,400 RPM was possible, and they were reliable there.
This was fun. I loved the Revell P-39. Served me quite well in all my missions as a kid. Until my brother ' flew ' it across a frozen lake with bottle rockets strapped under it's wings. RIP
Great combat story! Sounds like the motorized sub-chaser model I had in my youth; it motored pretty well until I decided to send it on a suicide mission behind my grandfather's camp on Cox Brook (probably to blow up the Bismarck, my obsession of the moment - right around the time the song "Sink the Bismarck!" was on the radio!). It was stuffed to the scuppers with firecrackers (including an illicit atomic-caliber cherry bomb or two) and made a highly satisfactory explosion . . . far short of its intended target, alas, and sank to the depths of the brook, whilst the "Bismarck" continued on its path of destruction.
@@dave131 Don't know why I sacrificed that sub chaser . . . it was a trim little craft with lots of missions left in it! Prob'ly coulda taken down Cox Brook's most notorious predator, Moby Minnow!
Modeled the P-39 in 1967 and recently scanned the pics I took of it back then. It was probably my best plastic model and I was very proud of it as a 16 year old high school student. Full camo paint scheme! Wish I could upload a couple of those pics to share.
For a firsthand experience by one who flew the P-39 while in New Guinea, get a copy of "Nanette" by Edwards Park. Excellent read! He wrote a second book entitled "Angels Twenty" which covers his squadron's transition to the P-47 while still in New Guinea. Both books present a very honest view of the aircraft, the living conditions and the early Pacific airwar tempered with a fighter pilot's sense of humor. Enjoy!
Thanks for presenting this. My father in WW2 managed to escape from Singapore in 1941 and managed to get to New Guinea in 1942. He was seconded into the US marines as an aircraft and instruments tech. He has memories of working on the P39 and P40's and spoke how the planes came back to base with peppered holes but the sc fuel tanks and pilot were safe and ready to go again after the plane repairs.
My favorite P-39 story was told to me by a family friend when I was a kid. He was an Air Corps air traffic controller in Florida during the war. He was assigned to gunnery range duty along the coast one day when a gaggle of P-39s came straggling along in very loose formation. While each pilot struggled to retain his relative position, our friend radioed the lead aircraft and ordered them to obey the large red warning flag by circling until ordered to proceed. He further advised them that the ground crews were replacing worn-out targets. The flight leader mumbled something unintelligible and rolled into a dive. He was followed successively by the rest of his flight. Horrified at the tragedy about to unfold, our friend screamed repeatedly over the radio for them to brake off their attack. Instead they hammered away with cannon and machine gun fire, peppering the range into a cloud of dust that obscured everything from view. As the aircraft loosely regrouped and proceeded home, he turned his attention back to the range where the smoke was beginning to settle. To his utter astonishment, not a single man had been injured, nor a single target hit. It turned out the pilots were all Chinese nationals going through advanced fighter training. Note: To my knowledge the Chinese Air Force did not operate the P-39 or P-400, but these planes were used a lot for fighter transition training.
Dean Grennell was a noted firearms writer. In one chapter of one of his books he was telling of how he conducted machine gun training for troops at a camp in the desert southwest. The troops had the machine guns set up and he was having them fire, one crew at a time, at downrange targets. When the first crew fired a few rounds at a target, a coyote who had been resting behind the target, took off running. As I recall, Grennell put it something like this: "It would have taken the best disciplined troops in the world for every crew to refrain from lining up on the coyote and squeezing the trigger. This was boot camp with untrained troops. Every crew opened up on the coyote. There would be a cloud of dust, the crews would cease firing and the coyote would emerge running from the cloud of dust. This was repeated until the gunners ran out of ammo. You will have to take my word for it that several hundred rounds of ammo from those machine guns were fired at that coyote and not one hit."
@@ksman9087 I can believe it. I have a similar story that occurred at Camp Bullis outside of San Antonio, TX. A group of Air Force based defenders (Security Police, now called Security Force) were training with M60 machine guns. As hundreds of rounds pelted the dirt backstop, an Army UH1 helicopter which, unknown to them, had previously landed behind the berm, unwisely decided to take off from its relative safety. As it rose above the berm, errant rounds struck it and the craft sank back down. All firing ceased while the range officers inspected the damage. Aside from a few holes in the aircraft, nobody was hurt. I attribute this good fortune to the fact that the trainees were not aiming at the Huey, otherwise I suspect they would have completely missed.
"I liked the Cobra, especially the Q-5 version. It was the lightest version of all Cobras and was the best fighter I ever flew. The cockpit was very comfortable, and visibility was outstanding. The instrument panel was very ergonomic, with the entire complement of instruments right up to an artificial horizon and radio compass. It even had a relief tube in the shape of a funnel. The armored glass was very strong, extremely thick. The armor on the back was also thick. The oxygen equipment was reliable, although the mask was quite small, only covering the nose and mouth. We wore that mask only at high altitude. The HF radio set was powerful, reliable and clear." --- Soviet pilot Nikolai G. Golodnikov, recalling his experiences of the P-39
@@stuartnoelte3932 If you like good war writing, the best book I've read on PT boats was "PT-105" by Dick Keresey. You feel like you are riding along with them.
I was going to mention that too. A really interesting and well written book. Park described it as "An exaggeration" but there's clearly a lot of truth in there.
I imagine that it having tricycle landing gear also made it a lot safer to operate since fewer planes were crashed on landing & takeoff. Flight sim experience taught me that tail draggers can be pretty accident-prone.
It's not just in flight sims. Taildraggers have certain advantages when you're doing bush flying, but they can be a real bear in a crosswind. You have to always apply precisely the right amount of rudder precisely when it is needed. No more, no less, not a second too soon, and not a second too late. I can be done and plenty of people fly taildraggers all the time, but there is a significant learning curve. There's a reason why it requires a special endorsement in the civilian flying world.
As the late Chuck Yeager put it in an interview about the 37mm accuracy: "First round would land straight. Second round would throw high. Third round, by that time you might as well be throwing grapes into the open air."
I remember viewing a P-63 King Cobra at an airshow in NAS Pensacola when I was a flight student. A plaque explained that the P-63 was one of the fastest piston fighters in the War. It looked like a P-39 with a different tail.
I had 2 grandfather's in the 2nd world war 1 was a medic in Tubruk (really crazy survival story) The other was a mechanic for the P40s and p400s in New Guinea. He always loved the Beaufighters and P40s but found the 400s to be a pain in the a** because all the men he would never see return and some problems with trying to fix certain problems. Don't remember exactly because he passed 10 years ago and he told me this when I was like 8
Back in another life I was in the USAF and worked on weapon systems. The sergeant of the shop was in Vietnam & stationed in Thailand. Over beer he told us it was the best time he ever had and the worst he ever had. He lived like a king in Thailand. Conversely, he worked on F-105s and hated the airplane. 12 aircraft would go on a strike, 11 would come back. The next day 12 would go on a strike and all would come back. The day after 12 would go on a strike, 11 would come back,. On one of the strikes all came back, one had damage with a hung bomb, it landed hard, the bomb exploded, killed the pilot, and the munitions crews who "safe-ed" the aircraft at end of runway. Yep, 30 years later after WWII with same types of results.
My grand uncle was a desk jockey in the PTO. He was in SE Asia in '42 and Stillwell's air officer for part of '43. I think he said morale was so bad that he was scared of theater wide collapse. He didn't fly there, he had a perhaps worse job, he drafted or helped draft the flight rosters and thus was deciding who'd likely die that day. He got pretty dark thinking about it and he told me some of his stories 40 years ago. Mostly I only remember how sad he was about the affair.
@@vicnighthorse Young men, who should be starting their lives are sent out to fight against other young men and too many never come home. War is horrible and should only be undertaken when there are no other options.
I have heard a P-39 pilot say that it had poor stall characteristics. So, when the Russians removed the wing guns it might have solved that problem by lightening the wing loading.
The problem with stall characteristics was not so much with wing guns, but the engine placement which made the aircraft naturally tail heavy. And as you spend fuel and ammo, CG moves even further towards the tail.
Many things contributed to the stall, tumble & spin of the P-39. CofG moved aft when ammo was depleted, the roll-yaw coupling was pronounced near the stall, extremely light stick forces while pulling g's, and an airfoil (NACA 0015) that exacerbated recovery from the stall, to name a few.
The P-39 and follow-up P-63 were such unique beauties. Like a lovely woman with unconventional, yet attractive features. I've always been drawn to these types, the ladies and the machines.
Always had a soft spot for this beauty, such ashame there has never been a full documentary on her (to what i know of). Wouldnt mind seeing a video of "unloved" aircraft of ww2 on all sides and even not well known, like the Rogožarski IK-3, Avia aircraft company would be interesting. Keep up the great videos 👍
It's interesting how much doctrine and operational use can turn something that was viewed unfavorably into something that was well regarded. The P-39 is an excellent example of this. Another one is the P-38, which in the European Theater of Operations was not well received at all (Who would've thought that gutting P-38s and installing a Norden bombsight and overloading the aircraft with bombs - turning into an impromptu tactical bomber - and also utilizing it for low-level strafing missions would've impacted poorly on an aircraft... Complete and total surprise.) whereas it shined in the Pacific Theater of Operations and was the bane of existence for the Imperial Japanese.
One pilot said that in the early days on Guadalcanal, when there was an alert the Wildcats and Corsairs would climb to take on the Zeros and bombers, and the P-39s would go patrol the island and perhaps pick up a low flying straggler or damaged enemy craft.
No Corsairs at that point im afraid. The P-39 stood no chance at intercepting high altitude bombers but Japanese dive bombers and strafing fighters quickly found out to their dismay that the P-39 was very lethal low down.
If memory serves, the Allison V1710 engine powered the P-38 and early P-51A (pre-merlin) in addition to the P-39 & 40. It was in the P-38, with a properly tuned 2-stage turbosupercharger, that the engine acquitted itself quite well - allowing for excellent speed performance and maneuverability for a 'heavy fighter' (in actuality, an interceptor-turned-fighter) along with superb high altitude performance - in terms of both service ceiling and climb rate (actually quite impressive for pre-war, late 1930s design). In other words, the Allison V1710 had respectable performance when matched with an appropriate turbosupercharger.
Apart from "good climb rate" (albeit at low-med alt), I don't see any accurate statements there about the P-38. The Allison continued to have issues and was never a good high altitude engine.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Frankly, who gives a shit whether "you see accurate statements" (i.e. your opinion) - compared to actual measured performance metrics and the associated documented statistical data on the topic (of P-38 performance at altitude)?
@@TyroneSayWTF I don't write opinions, just researched facts. Clearly, you haven't done your homework. There's a reason that the P-38s were replaced as high alt escorts in the ETO.
@@TyroneSayWTF not my opinion, just the facts. Even the P-82 engines were a maintenance nightmare. On the P-38, they were known as the Allison time bombs. Allison finally developed a new intake manifold and implemented it by mid-late '44. The P-38 dive brake helped control it at tactical mach, but it remained the poorest diving fighter until the end of the war, making it unsuitable for high altitude dog fights. One of the reasons that Kindelberger started looking for an alternate engine in '41 was the Allison design team. Good 'ol GM ! So no, NOT my opinion, son. Facts.
Is it forbidden to mention a certain game made by a company with a snail mascot? P-39, P-63 and even P-400 have always been rather fun to fly in that game, for me.
Issue is in that game ypu spawn stupidly close to your enemies. IRL you would be engaging after already climed to your prefered altitude. Something american plames are usualy slow at. Buffing planes with high climb rate artificaly/unrealisticly. And the aircobrs/kingcoba have better climb than other american planes.
I remember building the wee 1/72 Heller P-39Q in Olive Drab topsides and grey undersides, with white nose cone, tail and wingtips. It was the cutest little thing!!!
@@harv5425 I remember a war movie from ww2 it was in black and white it focused on a ace in the Pacific flying airocobras,the car like doors are what cought my eye.they just look cool
I really like the recommended reading section at the end - can you do more of those in the future? I’ve been slowly getting into military aviation, and I’ve had difficulty finding good and accessible works, so recommendations are a huge help.
There is an excellent book called red star against the swastika that covers sturmovik pilots in the Red Air Force. Some pilots removed their barely workable soviet radios out of fear that the Germans could tap in and listen to them or track them!
@@JAV1L15 to be honest sounds like bullshit, if it's said about the war period (and not the pre-war one). Germans were listening to most radios the soviets had, both soviet and american models. Having dug in various memoirs of fighter pilots, none of them has ever mentioned such actions performed by any kind of a pilot. The only more or less fitting example is in Pokryshkin's memoirs, when a pilot decided to cut his shoulder belts off to "look behind easier", that exact person soon flipped over the plane at landing and got crushed because he slipped out
In Edwards Park book Nanette and Angels 20 he talks about flying the P 39 in the Pacific. His squadron always flew the plane within its limits and were not shy in taking on the Japanese pilots when they could get after them. It was not a hated plane but had to be flown within its limits and turned out to be a really good fighter bomber in support of Australian and US troops. He never got a kill in a P 39 but did in a P 47 right before he rotated home. He liked flying the P 47 with its altitude and speed advantage over anything the Japanese had.
"Nanette" and "Angels 20", both by Edwards Park, are two of my favorite WWII aviation books. Anyone curious about this airplane would enjoy these books.
Its not junk. It just wasnt was the USA were looking for. Give them the Yak 3 in 1944 and tell them its to escort liberators at 7500meters over 2000 kms and ask them how awesome the Yak 3 is. The perfect fighter doesnt exist. Use it wisely.
Thanks for the interesting video. I referenced the USAAF experience with the P-39 in my own 2013 work (The Arsenal of Democracy: Aircraft Supply and the Anglo-American Alliance, 1938-1942) and another factor brought out by experience of combat reports in New Guinea was the vulnerability of the engine cooling system to fire from the rear arc of the aircraft. With a frontal engine installation, a bulkhead and pilot armour, the P-40 was apparently less vulnerable in that respect. The problems experienced with the P-39 as a high-altitude interceptor were serious enough that the USAAF even recommended that the USN F4F Wildcat was used in preference, which is notable given the inter-service rivalry of the time. The USAAF continued to have problems with the reliability of the 37mm cannon in the P-39 as late as the North African campaign in early 1943.
Buzz Wagner lead a squadron of p39s in new guinea and taught his men to stay at low altitude and use their slightly faster speed and teamwork to overcome the zeros maneuverability in his first encounter with them his squadron was credited with 12 zeros of which he scored 3
About 20 years ago while walking around a small airshow in Lancaster Ohio, I found the cockpit section of a P-39 sitting in an open air shed. I was stunned to see it there and no one else seemed to know what it was and sadly no one cared. I thought it was pretty cool myself
Fantastic video , please note that the Allison 1710 with a single stage supercharger was not just used on the early p40 variants and the p39 , but also the early models of the mustang. Later p40s did have Merlin engines and the mustang was later converted by the British to a Merlin 66 used by the spitfire mk9. And we know what happened then. A lot of promising designs were basically sidelined because of engine performance in a lot of aircraft.
And also note that p40 did struggle to get to attitude when not getting advanced warning , the book rising sun , falling skies covers the south east Asia campaign covers that pretty well
Ok , I would also like to add that bell must have got some of this feedback and that is what lead to the p63 king cobra , it must be added that in life in general , once something has got a stigma attached to it , it’s very hard to remove it. I think that the p39 suffered from that but also because it was seen by some pilots as a unique one for its big cannon , but also for the tricycle landing gear , car door and the engine behind the pilot, the tricycle landing gear might be seen as negatively because of the different technique to landing but also the training aircraft as was most aircraft in ww2 were tail draggers , the engine behind the pilot with the shaft going through the cockpit might have caused some consternation. Mechanics might have had a bad reputation for the engine being in a odd place but also the cannon which might have caused supply chains, (American planes normally used 30 and 50 cal machine guns ,the p38 is the only other plane in the USAAF that used cannons). What’s more with the p39 is that you should have mentioned that the RAAF had some in its inventory at one point , but also the RAF had received some p39 in Europe and rejecting them some similar reasons the Americans. I have read the report and also seen a picture of one in raf mid war camo. There’s a lot of planes that had stigma attached that stopped them for getting their full potential or to be accepted. 1. Vought f4u Corsair , rejected originally for carrier use , due to cockpit visibility and its tendency to bounce , its bad reputation for being a beast was given to the marines who first flew them and it was quickly changed. The British saw them as carrier based planes and immediately put them into service , they addressed the issues and showed that it was very capable, thus the Americans accepted the Corsair as a Carrier based fighter in 1944 with techniques developed by the brits. 2. Hawker typhoon, early structural issues but mostly to do with the unreliability of its power plant , the Napier Sabre. 3. Fw190 d9 , most pilots didn’t like the engine as it was a bomber engine ( the avia s199 comes to mind as it had the bad character landing traits of the bf109 but with a bomber engine with more torque , hence it nickname mule ) and also the decreasing of its agility. 4. Republic p47 because of its sheer size , minor issues and finally too pilots not using it to its strength. 5. Martin b26 marauder , pilots not use to landing the way it should be due to high wing loading 6. Curtiss sb2c helldiver , hated by its pilots because of being underpowered , improved with better propeller , however it took a long time to fix die to issues with Curtis , but also because it was seen negatively by the pilots who flew previously the Grumman avenger or the Douglas dauntless which were easy to fly and loved by their pilots , but also had a longer range. Hence its nickname “son of a bitch , second class “ That’s a few
I just wanted to post some agreement with this; 'Fire in the Sky' provides very effective context for a theatre which is normally ignored by a lot of WW2 aviation historians.
One of the prototypes for the later P-63 Kingcobra used a (Packard) Merlin Engine, but the idea was scrapped since those engines were prioritized for other planes like the P-51. The Allison engine the P-63 got later wasn't a bad deal because it was so powerful at low- to-mid altitude
@@neilturner6749 actually, the Packard Merlin ran hotter than the RR Merlin. Lancaster FE's and pilots were always concerned with their one P-Merlin running hotter than the other 3 RR Merlins. It was the perfect environment for comparison. As for the Allison, a Merlin is designed to have 10% of it's heat removed through the oil; the Allison 25%, so the Allisons ran hot in the climb. The P-63 had an aux s/c but no intercooler, no aftercooler, no backfire screens and no extra radiator to cool it. Detonation problems with Allisons at altitude, even in the P-82.
My father was a carrier pilot and instructor in WWII. He flew Wildcats and Hellcats and near the end of the war the Bearcats. He also managed to get checked out on the P38L and the Corsair. He did have a chance to talk with other combat pilots . According to him the Buffalo and the P39 were simply outclassed by the Zero. What made matters worse at the beginning of the war was the Zero pilots were very experienced and quite good. He ststed that flown properly by many pilots the Wildcat was still inferior. The F6F Hellcst evened matters up. He liked the Hellcat. His reaction to the P38 was that it was a great plane but that it should not be used in a low altitude low speed turning fight with a Zero. His reaction to the Bearcats was that he wished it had be e n available in 1941. He felt that a reasonably good pilot in this plan could have killed most Zero pilots it encountered if flown properly Same for the Corsair He was quite dismissive of the P39 and Buffalos however and felt that it was a waste of pilots to send them up against Zeros.
You start to fight with what you have based on the plans that you had before you started that fight. It is easy to be dismissive of many early to even mid war types, but many lessons have to be learned the hard way through experience. Sometimes your design is based on a flawed concept, or even a good concept that comes with a price - compromise - again, hindsight has 20/20 vision. F4Us and F8Fs in 1941/42, sure. That is not meant as disrespect, but of course these mid to late war designs were far superior to their early war counterparts. That the A6M had to soldier on until the end of the war wasn’t ideal nor by choice, but again, you have to fight with what you have. As for this video, if there was one weak point it was that it only mentioned the A6M-series as the Pacific adversary.
Chuck Yeager flew these in combat before the P-51. In his autobiography, he said he loved the plane. He said the problem with inexperienced pilots was the negative CG which made them dangerous in a stall.
Rubbish. Chuck Yeager never flew a P-39 “in combat.” He trained as a fighter pilot in a P-39 with the 357th Fighter Group at Tonopah, Nevada. When the 357th FG shipped out to the UK in late 1943, they did not take their P-39s with them. Yeager’s squadron was sent to RAF Leiston where he flew only P-51 Mustangs.
Great topic! There's a fascinating report from Lt Col Boyd "Buzz" Wagner--the USAAF's first ace, the commander of the 8th Fighter Group, and an aeronautical engineer--about the P-39D's combat debut on April 30, 1942. Wagner opined that the P-39s actually needed MORE armor (or at least armor in different places). Wagner wrote, "All [three] P-39s before going down had apparently been hit in the coolant system as glycol spray could be seen streaming behind. [...] Lack of armor plate rear protection for the engine and the resultant high vulnerability are the greatest disadvantages of the P-39 type airplane." Wagner also criticized the P-39's landing gear when he wrote, "Main landing gear tires are too small causing the plane to bog down very easily in soft ground or spongy runway. [...] Nose gear is too delicate to withstand normal operations on the type landing strips now in use. Many have been broken even while taxying." Wagner also noted that the P-39D had slower intial acceleration, a slower climb rate, and poorer maneuverability compared to the Zero. The P-39D only outdid the Zero in speed, as it could do about 325 mph at sea level. Wagner griped more about unreliable weapons (the 37mm cannon was prone to jamming, firing solenoids for the .50s failed, guns were too hard to charge, etc), although he had special praise for the 37mm as "an extremely desirable weapon". He had some complaints about high-altitude poor perfomance, although his complaints were more about the fuel system than the lack of boost. Wagner griped, "[The] P-39 gives very poor performance above 18,000 feet. The hand wobble pump or emergency electric fuel pump must be used to maintain sufficient fuel pressure for good engine operation." As a side note: Guadacanal-bound P-400s sent to New Caledonia would have another altitude-related problem. They'd been intended for Lend-Lease, but after the RAF roundly rejected them, they'd been sent to the USAAF. Unfortunately, their British-compatible high-pressure oxygen system wasn't compatible with American low-pressure systems. But despite all these flaws, Wagner concluded, "Comparatively speaking in performance the P-39 airplane is believed to be about ten percent better in every respect than the P-40 airplane, except in maneuverability in which case the P-40 is slightly better." Of course, the P-40 would end up outlasting the P-39 in the PTO. But the assessment of the P-39 as better than the P-40 was certainly shared by the Soviets, although that's a topic for another comment...
Chick Yeager liked itso that's to say something. But once the decision was made to strip the engine of it turbo supercharger it was a second rate aircraft as used. The decision made by the USAAC in the 1930s that the V-1720 would be turbocharged meant Allison never put the engineering effort into a good mechanical supercharger that firms like Rolls Royce, Damiliar Benz, Junkers and Pratt & Whitney did. By the time the V-1720 had a good supercharger it was too late. Looking at post war usage in say unlimited hydroplanes were in a lot of ways it was favored over the Merlin tells me the engine had much more potential than really used.
The heavy front armour clearly tells it was meant to fight bombers, although those wing fuel tanks were still vulnerable to larger calibers. To rear fire it doesn't seem that tough. In that aspect late Bf 109 seems the toughest, having the only fuel tank thickly armored and with divided cooling system.
The Army Air Corps (AAC) was responsible for the decision to not pursue development of a second stage 2-speed supercharger for the Allison V-1710. Allison was very much in favor as were Bell, Curtis, North American, etc. but the AAC did not want to incur the additional cost. In addition to the positive attributes mentioned in the video, the P-39 had some additional features like good maneuverability about all three axis due to the engine's location at the aircraft's center of mass. Also not mentioned was excellent pilot visibility due to the forward cockpit.
I read a poem in a book about unsuccessful aircraft a few years ago: "Oh Please don't give me a P39, It will pitch and roll and dig a big hole oh please dont give me a P39!"
NO! Don’t give me a P-39 The engine is mounted behind She’ll tumble and roll And dig a big hole Don’t give me a P-39 NO! Give me Operations Way out on some lonely atoll- For I am too young to die I just want to grow old!
I'd always heard it as "Don't give me a P-39, the engine is mounted behind, it'll tumble and spin and auger you in, don't give me a P-39" It was told to me as a rhyme that was usually drunkenly sung/recited by pilots stateside in the US
It was a verse from an Army Air Corps drinking song, had verses about all fighter types, the Aircobra verse was def the least flattering: Don't give me a P-39, with an engine that's mounted behind..... It will tumble and roll and then dig a big hole, so don't give me a p-39..Ah, hell for the sake o completeness......Don't give me a P-38 with props that counter-rotate They'll loop, roll and spin but they'll soon auger in Don't give me a P-38! CHORUS: Just make me Operations Way out on some lonely atoll For I am too young to die I just want to go home.* Don't give me a P-39 with an engine that's mounted behind It will tumble and roll and dig a big hole Don't give me a P-39. Don't give me an old Thunderbolt. It gave many pilots a jolt It looks like a jug and it flies like a tug Don't give me an old Thunderbolt! Don't give me a Peter Four Oh, a hell of an airplane, I know A ground loopin' bastard. You're sure to get plastered Don't give me a Peter Four Oh. Don't give me a P-51, it was all right for fighting the hun But with coolant tank dry. you'll run out of sky Don't give me a P-51. Don't give me a P-61, for night flying is no fun They say it's a lark. but I'm scared of the dark Don't give me a P-61. Note: Oscar Brand sings," I just want to grow old" which is a less bad rhyme. DE WWII, Pacific Theater From There I was, Flat on My Back, Bob Stevens.
Thank You, Thank You! That you have to post a video explaning your dificulties, speaks volumes to the REAL effort you put into these videos. Your work is very welcome.
Another good book, Saburo Sakais' book 'Samurai'. He is one of the piolets in that Japanese unit mentioned. He tells about his experiences from China until the end of the war. One of the best books I've ever read.
I remember from that book a part where Sakai was chasing a P-39 whose pilot panicked and bailed out. Sakai noted that the P-39 was faster and would have been fine if the pilot had continued flying straight.
@@sheeplord4976 They did test the first XP-39 with a turbocharger installed in early 1939, but they had major reliability problems, constantly having to remove the engine for servicing and repair. I think NACA also did a study pointing out that the lack of available space in the P-39 restricted the volume of ingested air that could be compressed by the turbocharger. The turbocharger installations in the P-38 and P-47 were troublesome, but they offered a lot more potential, largely down to the space factor as you point out.
GE sold the Army on turbosupercharging and they told Alison to not work on two stage supercharging (like the Merlin had) but to concentrate on turbo for their high altitude engines. The P-38 and the P-39 went to production about the same time and production of turbo engines would not support both programs so the Army told Bell to do what they could using the single stage supercharged V-1710 engine and that is how the P-39 turned out the way it did. P-51 was built by N. American Aviation (which was owned by GM which also owned Alison) and after being told not to build a two stage supercharged V-1710 there was a reluctance to put a Merlin into the Mustang. That's a big part of why the P-51A had an Alison and the RAF bought them and converted them to Merlin power. Anyway lots of corporate politics weaved into the history of the high altitude versions of the Alison V-1710 and the planes built with or without them.
"Iron Dog" as a nickname for the type might not be intended as negatively as it sounds. That was the nickname British WWI sailors gave the German battlecruiser Derfflinger because she seemed to shrug off numerous shell hits. Given the P-39's armour protection it could indicate aircrew felt the plane was tough - though probably implying that they got hit a lot too. Do the sources offer any insight on this?
The more I learn about WW2 and aviation, the more surprised I am that the rear-mid engine design was not common for water cooled fighter planes. The large cannon placement, the weight and torque distribution, the excellent rear protection for the pilot, the easier use of turbochargers.
The P-39 had poor handling qualities. Wt & bal was an issue when cannon rounds were used up and even the P-63 had stability issues. The P-39 pilots' mantra was "It’ll tumble and spin and soon auger in.’”
My father was a test pilot and flew P-40s in Panama and P-38s in Germany before getting into the F-86 and F-100 in Korea. He took one of first P-39s the factory delivered to be tested and took up and put it through maximum G maneuvers. After he got it back on the ground, it was determined that the airframe and wings had bent and it never flew again.
A major reason the Zero had such impressive range and performance was because of it's light weight which was achieved by a weaker airframe, non-sealing fuel tanks and very little armor. So yes, it had impressive performance but it paid a high price to achieve that performance and that was eventually it's Achilles heal. They tended to either flame out or break up with much fewer hits than it took to take down allied fighters. Not even mentioned here and a major characteristic of the A6M's.
I loved this plane. It's built like a LeMans race car with its mid-engine design and sleek body. Such a clusterfcuk that they didn't fit it with a dual stage turbo- supercharger.
@@glennsimpson7659 after it first flew NACA test it aerodynamic and found that removing the turbo supercharger (meaning removing its intake) could make it past the speed requirement And you know what happen after that
I've always had a soft spot for the P-39. It seems like an underappreciated, and somewhat forgotten model compared to other American fighters. Recently had a big spur on the Airacobra, it may look like a garden snake, but it packs one helluva bite!
The Soviets loved it. They used it as a system. The soviets had a copy of the British radar and radio systems. So, the P-39s were vectored to the German aircraft. Also, the war in the east was a tactical air war. The Ju-87s, He-111s, Ju-88s all operated low. A vectored in P-39 with good ground control is going into a fight with situational awareness. Good systems are always a war winner.
Battlefield forward radar sets gave the Luftwaffe a pounding in the west too. Read Pierre Clostermann’s ‘The Big Show’. They ran down any German fighters in Hawker Tempests, the powerful fighter the Sea Fury was developed from.
My uncle was a mechanic during WW2 and had some experience of the Aircobra. He told me that they had a problem with RAF pilots who forgot it had a tricycle undercarriage and landed it on the tail.
Nonsense. It would just pivot nose down normally once the main gear touched, the centre of gravity is forward of the main gear. So you are something like 75 to 85 years old eh? EH? You know the RAF didn’t even use the P-39?
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 ''You know the RAF didn’t even use the P-39?'' Make sure to do some proper research before you make statements like that, as the P-39 (P-400 in this case) was used for 1 or 2 sorties by the RAF. And the center of gravity can move behind the main landing gear if the pilot were to hold the nose wheel too high of the ground.
@@martijn9568 with *legal* (in accordance with the certificate of airworthiness) centre of gravity limits observed? That is flight testing regime, envelope exceeded stuff. Planes would fall on their tails if that was routine ...... it does happen sometimes and it is very expensive. The RAF used four planes in anger once before giving them all to the Soviets.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Usually the few aerodynamic forces should get the plane level, but only f the pilot releases back pressure causing the nose to drop.
@@martijn9568 601 Squadron did more than 1 or 2 sorties on the Airacobra at the end of 1941, but I agree they really didn't do much more than that. It's been a while since I read their Operations Record Book, but I'm not aware of any landing accidents involving tipping the aircraft on its tail during landing by them or the AFDU or MU pilots who flew it in the UK. I seem to recall there were several instances of them being run off runways in bad weather and rain, though, which might be attributable to the brake controls which were atypical for a British aircraft.
"The tricycle landing gear made things nice, especially on rough terrain." 100% untrue: the nose gear, especially the long skinny one on the P-39 was a set-up for gear collapse on rough terrain, which is why taildraggers were the norm until well-paved airfields became more common.
You might think that intuitively, but P-39s were very capable of rough field ops, and even sustaining hard landings. The mid mounting of the engine made a huge difference, as the nose wheel wasn't taking the brunt of the aircrafts weight as it would have in a plane with a more conventional nose mounted engine
Ever seen a Cessna 172 take off from a small dirt strip in the backcountry of Utah or Idaho? Yes me too and that plane could easily take regular bad airstrips.
Well, yes, agreed in that if their specialist fighter guys were put on fighter-bomber or ground attack duty, then yes, they called for the P-39. As a straight fighter.... not so much. But, yes, the Russians loved the plane and got the best out of it.
@@robertwilloughby8050 The Soviets actually used it as a straight up fighter, and did quite well with it. There was a miscommunication where Americans thought "ground support" meant being a ground attacker, but in Soviet Doctrine "ground support" also includes combat air patrols.
@@mikkykyluc5804 Fair enough! Yes, I guessed that ground support for the Soviets also meant what us in the UK would have called "Rhubarbs". Have a nice day, bud.
I've dreamed about building a kit plane based on the p39 aerocobra with a LS Chevy mid mounted. There's even some guy's in Australia who have made a V12 using 2 LS aluminum blocks cut and joined together with a custom crank. ...from Wyoming USA 🇺🇸 🤠
Maximize your bird’s strengths and minimize it’s weaknesses. Best example is the AEF with its lackluster P-40’s. Dive in on the zeros and Oscars from out of the sun and don’t dare tangle up with one in a dogfight. Now the Flying Tigers are legends.
In World War II, the P-39 shot down more enemy aircraft PER PLANE than any other type. For example, more enemy aircraft were shot down by P-51s, but there were a lot more p-51s flying. In general, the P-39 did a great job if combat was conducted at lower altitudes, like it was in Russia.
A commonly repeated myth with zero evidence. P39 was not really used for ground attack. The Russian phrase was translated as "supporting ground forces" meant - protecting ground forces by shooting down attack aircraft. So no, it was not a Soviet ground attack aircraft, the IL2 was that plane.
The problem with the P-39 is the way it looks means everything. It has a sleek advance look to it except it was way under-powered. Pilots first stepping into the craft felt like they had a wild cat, instead the had a very mean House cat.
The particular aircraft that you have presented in this video is one of the aircraft that I and my fellow workers have put a lot of time and efforts into to get her back to the skies. I was a member of the Pioneer work force for some 10+ years and in that time got to work on and build wwII aircraft of different types. I loved my time on each and every airframe. I have had the pleasure of working on both the allison and merlin v12 engines. It is always a great feeling to watch a newly restored vintage aircraft take to the air again and bellow it's sweet sound around the skies of the Ardmore airfield.
It's interesting how poor design choices often have, at their root, a desire to avoid spending money, thus leaving the machine sub-optimized for the sake of avarice. People died because of greed.
Dad ferried P-39s from the factory in Buffalo to bases in the US and Alaska in '43 and '44. He said the takeoff speed was critical. His major complaint the poor quality control and lots of manufacturing errors.I am certain any deficiencies would be corrected by deployment overseas, but he had stories of fatal accidents on trips.
My Grandad flew the P-39 stateside in training, he never flew it in combat, but he told a story that there was certain maneuvers you did not do in a P-39. Anyways him and one of his buddies were flying over Los Angeles in P-39 and his buddy started doing these maneuvers and he went into a unrecoverable spin and had to bail our over Los Angeles. My grandad said it looked like you grabbed the plane by the wingtip and jut flung it across the room like a throwing star. He said that after they got back to base they got an ass chewing over that ordeal. He ended up flying the P-38 in combat which he regarded as a beautiful plane to fly.
It'll tumble and spin, and soon auger in. Gen. Yeager told me that while hunting quail in Texas. He baled once in training. ( engine blew). He also " secured " rations for squadronmates (pronghorns) with the 39. I am proud to have known him, and honored that he called me a friend! American icon, hero, greatest generation 🇺🇸 RIP General, my friend 🌟
It'll tumble and spin, and soon auger in. Gen. Yeager told me that while hunting quail in Texas. He baled once in training. ( engine blew). He also " secured " rations for squadronmates (pronghorns) with the 39. I am proud to have known him, and honored that he called me a friend! American icon, hero, greatest generation 🇺🇸 RIP General, my friend 🌟
Great video! Thanks. I thought the Soviets used them mostly in the ground attack role, with great success. I image the 37 mm cannon would be useful in that role.
16:05 "Thev P-400 is just a P-40 with a zero on its tail" may be one of the best airplane joke/nicknames I've heard as well, but I really like the lore if the XP-55 Ascender. It has a propeller right behind the pilot that pushed the plane thru the air. It has been nicknamed "Ass Ender" instead of Ascender. Brings me a good chuckle
When I was in 8th grade back in 1982 my teacher had her father, a WWII fighter pilot come in and talk to the class. He flew P-39s and P-51s in the Pacific. I asked him what his favorite plane to fly was and he suprisingly answered the P-39. He said nothing beat having that big cannon in the nose.
It's not often I hear the Eastern Front operations considered _short range._ :D I think this should really give an idea of the enormous distances on the Pacific.
Read Don Davis' book Lightning Strike about Operation Vengeance, the ambush of Admiral Yamamoto. It was the longest fighter intercept of the war. The approach had to be flown 50 -100' off the water for 600 miles to avoid Japanese radar and then 400 miles back at higher altitude. There are also several books about B-29 operations in the Pacific and the long distances they had to fly. Now bombers can take off from the middle of the US, refuel in flight (there and back) and bomb targets in Afghanistan, about halfway around the world.
Another issue that the P-400 had when in U.S. service (my info was gleaned from reading about the Cactus Air Force at Henderson Field) was that the changes for Brittish service included a different oxygen system for the pilot. The Brittish used a high pressure air system, and the U.S. used a much lower pressure one. Since the CAF didn't have the necessary equipment to fill and pressurize the oxygen tanks, the CAF pilots had to fly without supplimental air, thus reducing their combat ceiling.
My grandfather preferred the P-38, as it had two engines to get you home over that vast Pacific if one went out. He bailed out of a sketchy sidelined from operations P-39 he was joy riding in where he should of been to get his hours in, and hit the silk when the engine crrrped out on him over the Australian outback.
Actually, the P-39 is a great airplane. Innovative and beautiful, it was just not a great fighter airplane. Until Hellcat and Corsair and a few P-38s in the right hands, nothing could win a dogfight with a Zero. Even they could not win a turning, slow-speed dogfight with a Zero. That was Zero's most outstanding characteristic. However, once Zero's limitations and weaknesses were understood, things changed drastically in the air over the Pacific. Those early (1942) P-39s were in the wrong place at the wrong time and on the wrong mission (bomber interception). Even a P-39, properly flown using its superior speed and its diving capability could have beaten the Zeros using hit and extend tactics, like P-38s and F4Us. The extremely light Zero sacrificed durability, armour, speed, and diving capability for maneuverability (but only below 300 mph), and range. A less than one-second burst by virtually any opponent was sufficient to flame a Zero.
At high speed the zero's ailerons were very difficult to move. So the prescription was to stay fast. Bong said he tried to keep the fight above 300 mph.
@@PappyGunn Yes, and A6M2b Type 0 Model 21 "Zeros" (Zekes) couldn't dive a damn as their two-barrel carbureted Nakajima NK1C Sakae-12 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine would cut out when in a negative g condition (like early Spitfires and Hurricanes). They had made their bones earlier against far inferior aircraft which tried in vain to dogfight with them until they fought the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps who learned how to beat them, although Chennault's AVG gave them a good fight with the faster and sturdier Curtiss Tomahawk IIBs, similar to the U. S. Army's earlier P-40B models. The sturdy F-4-F Wildcat, essentially a monoplaned F-3-F, initially had a very hard time against them until data obtained through captured Zeros showed their weaknesses. However, even so, the Wildcat had a decent kill-ratio (6.9:1) in the War, fighting mostly Zeros.
@@jimzeleny7213 Hard time or not, it's true. The Wildcat's speed, diving ability, extremely sturdy "Grumman Iron" build, its self-sealing fuel tanks, and mostly the valiant and skilled performance of its pilots gave the WiIdcat the advantage over the lighter, fragile, slower Zero. The Wildcat in all of its variants had a kill ratio of 5.9:1 in 1942 and 6.9:1 for the entire war partially against Zeros. Do you think I made this up? Check it out for yourself as I did.
Interceptors need a good rate of climb. Seems like $$$ was the major factor at the design stage that kept this airframe from seeing its full potential.
That's not how it works. I suggest you read why the P-39's turbosupercharger was deleted as it's quite an interesting and important story to understand the P-39.
Another problem I did not see mentioned. When the Japanese raids came in they were G4M bombers escorted by A6M's at 20,000 to 25,000 ft. The P-400's were the British spec P-39's with British oxygen equipment, British .303's in the wings and the Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon in the nose. The British oxygen system was not compatible with the American gear so it was unusable and was removed. There was no ammo for the .303 wing guns so they were removed. This left a lighter than normal P-39 with a still respectable 1 x 20mm cannon and 2 x .50cal in the nose and a pilot with no oxygen system so forced to stay at lower altitudes.
Chris, love your stuff! I'm an aero-engineering student and we spend a lot (perhaps too much) of time in class talking about unusual design choices they made during the war - we've been trying to get any data on the BV-141 (with no luck) but if you were to do a video on that machine, we'll all buy you a beer next time you're in the neighborhood.
Follow Justin on Twitter and say hey from me: twitter.com/cbi_pto_history
From the research I've done the p39 and 400 s main issues was the pilots were trained on front engine aircraft and even though the mid engine design gave it an advantage they didn't really know how to use it
Sometimes this is just what I need, love you Bismarck very good video as always!
You're never gonna stop teasing him about that username, are you?
the P-39 sure looks good! I'm glad some pilots liked it and found its strengths.
Nice one. Another good reference book is 'Bell P-39 Airacobra' by Robert F. Dorr and Jerry C.Scutts in the Crowwood Aviation Series, ISBN 1 86126 348 1.
I've always thought the P-39 got a partly-unjustified bad rap, and this book does much to confirm that. What particularly annoys me is when people use the P-39's poor reputation to undermine the validity of the mid-engined concept in general, when in fact, many of the P-39's issues were due to detail design decisions, NOT inevitable consequences of it's layout, and many of the layout-related problems were either illusory or exaggerated.
My father flew 2 tours with the 5th AF, 49th Fighter Group, 9th Fighter squadron, 1943-45, in the SW Pacific in New Guinea, the Philippines, Okinawa, and finally Japan. He flew P-47D, and P-38E & P39L. His sentiment with the P-39 as told to me, was it tended to ground loop unpredictably, and was scorned by P-47 & P38 pilots.
Dad is a healthy 98 years old, and I will see what he has to say when I have my daily chat with him.
Glad to read your comment, and especially that your father is still available to you. When I was a kid, one of the instructors at my school started out as a P-39 pilot in the Southwest Pacific. Col. Haney said little but that flying low and sneaky was what he learned.
Sounds like whoever made that comment about ground looping the P-39 was either confusing it with a tail dragger fighter, or simply has his head were the sun don't shine. The P-39 has tricycle gear. You have to be a total idiot to ground loop a plane with tricycle gear.
@@charleskuss8538
G'day,
Bullshit.
Go and check the Statistics.
When General Aviation transitioned from Conventional Taildraggers to Tricycles (with a Training-Wheel under the Nose...) the Ground-Loop rate per 1,000 Hours of operation actually increased markedly.
Partly from people exceeding allowable Crosswind Component & Airframe capabilities, and weathercocking..., partly from people failing to flare, or flaring too high bouncing, and "Wheelbarrowing" on the Nosewheel & only one Mainwheel..., and partly because Ham-fisted Buffoons who would have been weeded out by Taildragger Training Aircraft could, when everything went right, be taught to drive themself up into the Sky, and given a reasonable Descent-Rate, with the Nose up & some Power left on, if aligned more or less with the Runway Centreline and arriving somewhere near the correct Threshold - then the Trike-ised Trainers will land themselves.
Thus, setting the Clumsy Ham-Fisted Aviator Wannabes up for an expensive Lesson whenever they let their Misunderconstumblings lead them astray ; and then the Aeroplane Bit them on the Bum.
Just(ifiably ?) sayin',
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot Nicely said there sir!!
@@dandel351
G'day,
Thanks mate.
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
the P-400....a P-40 with a Zero on its tail lol... this always gave me a laugh
Its honestly so clever
i had forgotten that joke until he said it. definitely a stroke of genius in it
Great insight into the past and its humor
ja ja ja ja ja good one!!!!
I have have a question the p-400 & p-40, is like the same aircraft know?
Several years ago I read an interview with a former Soviet P-39 pilot, who said that a major factor in the better performance of the Airacobra in Soviet hands was that they threw out the manual for the Allison engine. Apparently the manual focused on maximizing the time between overhauls; but the Soviets treated aircraft as basically disposable, which freed their pilots to run the engines well outside of the manufacturer's parameters. After all, what did it matter if the engine could go 200 hours between overhauls if the plane it was installed in was only going to survive 20-30 hours before being shot down?
I've read similar stories. The Russians would literally burn out the engines. After late 1942 i think the US was delivering two spare engines for every P-39 because of it. On a positive note P-39 losses were nowhere near as heavy as other aircraft types in Russian service. I don't have the numbers handy but i believe it was only around 28% being written off, and yes that's low for the Russians lol!
They were also operating over much shorter ranges than in the Pacific.
I might add a quote of a veteran soviet pilot: "You either make the engine last the promised 200 hours or don't get shot down"
There are other reasons why the Soviets liked the P-39: 1) The radio in the P-39 actually worked - good comms is a force multiplier; Soviet radios weren't and reliable; 2) The perspex used in the cockpit of the P-39 didn't yellow with age, as did the low-quality perspex used in native-build Soviet fighters - good visibility is important in an fighter, 3) The Soviets stripped away a lot of extraneous weight, which improved its performance a bit (some of that extraneous weight was some of the guns).
@@killersalmon4359 basically, you stated a single real advantage being radio. Or do you really think a fighter on the Eastern front would last that long for perspex to go yellow?
Back in the 80's I had the pleasure to have coffee with Gen. Charles Yeager, who had flown pretty much every aircraft fielded by these United States. When I asked him his favorite, he surprised me by naming the P-39. He said it was a sweetheart to fly with no bad characteristics at all. And he still remembered the start-up procedure and Vspeeds for it. I was amazed.
Yes, in Gen. Yeager's autobiography he stated that the P39 was his favorite. This might not have had armor
I also had conversation with fighter pilots over 30 years in the RCAF. At some point, I learned that there is a world of difference between flying and fighting a plane. Ex: An F-18 is easy to fly (made that way) but hard to learn to fight it with all its potential. And that's the point of a fighter. Boyington said the Brewster Buffalo was a sweet plane too, before they put armor plating, guns and self-sealing fuel tanks on it.
@@PappyGunn If Boyington flew one it must have been with the Marines prior to his going to the AVG. Those USN/USMC aircraft were the heaviest which also Included a liferaft as part of their equipment. The Finns stripped their Buffaloes down with good results.
"P-400 is a P-40 with a Zero on its tail"
Clever honestly.
If already in the air and being pursued, the P-40's disadvantages could be somewhat compensated by proper tactics. I am sure that these tactics were learned at the cost of quite a few lives.
The lion's share of the Tainan Kokutai Zero aces' kills (including those of Saburo Sakai) were Airacobras.
Brit humour.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
My grandfather was an engineer at Bell Aircraft that worked on the Aerocobra design. He was very proud of it. He said it was designed to be a great low altitude aircraft. he then stated that the army ruined it by loading it up with a bunch of unneeded equipment. He said the design was vindicated because it won all the air races after the war. He would go on to work on the X1 project.
Great story, thanks much.
My mother bucked rivets on P-39's in Buffalo (she was a pixie and spent most of her shift in the tail cone. Every once in a while "Pursuit" pilots would visit the factory as morale boosters. She told me the Army Air Corp loved the P-39, BUT when they changed the spec and dropped it down to a single-stage supercharger which made it worthless as a Pursuit above 10k feet.. She had a pilot tell her the P-39 well well-armed and could really dive so they'd try to get above, make a diving gun-run, and scram. He said that Zeroes were too light to dive - they had to be "flown downwards".
However, Russians liked that plane. One of the best Russian pilots in WWII - Pokryshkin flew on P-39N-0 (btw he asked mechanics to take off 7,92 machineguns, so his cobra had only 2 12,7 Brownings and 37mm gun
Unfortunately the equipment wasn't unneeded, it was equipment that combat experience had shown was needed if an aircraft was to be viable.
I believe Larry Bell had it designed as a high altitude interceptor. A bomber destroyer if you will. The prototype had a turbo-supercharger on it for high performance at 20,000 feet. Unfortunately the Army decided to have the Airacobra as a ground support aircraft therefor taking the turbo off and fitting it with a low altitude rated Allison engine. It did have good performance at low altitude which is why the Russians did so well with it since most of the combat on the Eastern front took place at low to medium altitudes, but wasn't suited for combat in the Pacific against high altitude Japanese aircraft.
to get into the airplane and take off when you knew you were outmatched ...with bad tactics for your plane....and you still did it...these were brave men...never forget
The RAF were using Brewster buffalos against zeros in 1942...
Well, it's very common for one side to field equipment that is inferior to their opponents. Genoese crossbowmen tried to face off against English longbow men at Crecy, the Iraqi army in the Gulf War, The early Viet-Minh against the French army to name but a handful. No question those fliers were bloody brave, but they weren't exceptionally brave, there will be countless examples if men being just as brave in combat all throughout history.
Thank you for that comment. It gets to the heart of the matter.
Really enjoyed the topic and getting an excuse to have Justin back on, I do agree with him that the P-400's nickname was probably one of my favorites too.
It's a pretty good one, aye :)
A Soviet Air Attache post WW2 said the P39 was good but not for old men to his RAF counterpart. When asked why the Soviet said "Balls get trapped in propshaft"
Nice, apparently I'm the only one who got this!
@@TheReal_Pim_Tool
The Jackass movie guys did a spoof on the hanging 'old man ballz'.
My dad served in a unit with some of these aircraft. According to him, the main complaints in his unit were limited fuel, lackluster performance, and the the issue of nose wheel failure. This last problem resulted in the prop impacting the ground, which caused drive line failure. Some pilots were dismembered in the cockpit by separated drive line parts. (He was often one of the first personnel on the scene of a crashed plain at the airfields where he was stationed.)
The Russian pilots on the Eastern front held it in very high regard and some of their aces ran up very high scores with it.The difference being that most of the air battles there happening at a far lower altitude than in the west under which conditions it was a very capable fighter.
The Soviets used their own autocannon that didn't jam after firing a few rounds and had better range. They also modified the Allison V12 to increase it's performance and run-time between rebuilding.
@@billwilson3609, no we didn't use own autocannon. First Aircobras were delivered with 20mm British cannon, later it was replaced with 37mm American M4. Nobody has replaced them in Soviet VVS neither by ShVAK nor by NS-37. The only 2 common weapon modifications were removing wing MGs and also getting autocannon and MGs fire switches under 1 trigger button instead of 2 to fire them simultaneously. Not every unit or pilots inside units used those modifications, but they were quite common.
There have been also no modifications to the engine. Pilots simply ignored any limitations in battle reducing it resource. So, run-time between rebuilding was actually reduced not increased. It is true not only for P-39 but also for P-40 as well.
There's also the fact that Soviet Union received a handfull of P-400 but the vast majority of planes they got were later P-39's with more powerfull engines and somewhat lightened airframes.
The Soviets were fighting a defensive land war. The p-39 could be used as ground attack from the beginning.
@@TomTerrific-vm3qg The VVS rarely used P-39's for ground attack missions, by the time the P-39 became avialable in numbers they were mostly using purpose made ground-to-air aicraft (like the IL-2 and the Pe-2) and, less commonly and generally in lower intensity parts of the front, fighter types that were considered obsolete (like the I-153 and I-16).
Keep in mind that the Aircobre was only really becoming available in large numbers as the tide of the war was swinging decissively in favour of the Soviets, during the dark time of 1941 and early 1942 all available aicraft were used to try to stop the advance of the Wehrmacht.
Can we have a video about motor-cannons? Their history, developments, problems encountered, and was it worth it in the end? Great videos!
good suggestion!
One thing I've always wanted to know about motor cannon mounts... How much more of a headache is that for the ground crew to service? There's also something else I wonder about - barrel harmonics and temperature. Even in a simple rifle, you putting pressure on the barrel can change the point of impact. And, even in a rifle, at longer ranges, heating of the barrel can cause changes in the point of impact (although the ranges where most firing was done with aircraft would see very little change to the point where it probably would rarely make any difference). I have to wonder how much more difficult it was getting a cannoning through an engine block and getting that to work properly.
@@matchesburn , I used to work on aircraft weapon systems and have looked at the M2, the 20mm, and the 37 auto cannons on the old aircraft. The M2s have belts of ammo, not too bad to load. Also, the .50 cals (M2) have timing gears that controlled the firing. That didn't look too difficult to work on. The hard thing is "boresighting" the systems. That can take an afternoon. The 20mm guns were actually somewhat standardized. They were also fed from a feed tray, not too bad. Loading the 37mm gun was hated by the crews. You had to feed in one round at a time and mechanically move the drum. On the P-63 the system was redesigned. The gun system was a real issue in a bore sight. The P-39 could have been a real killer because the guns fired on the same axis of the airplane. Wing mounted machine-guns have to converge on a cone from 250 to 500 yards in front of an aircraft. Had the P-39 used a 20mm gun which had very similar flight ballistics to the .50 caliber then the P-39 would have been a real savage beast. If Bell had been able to knock 1,000 pounds of weight off the P-39, install a 20mm cannon, and shoe horn in the 1400 HP merlin then the P-39 would have been a real snake in the air. The British let the USAAF/USN copy their electronic gunsight and that allowed easy "deflection" (off to the side) shots.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory What I'd like to suggest might not be worth a whole video, if there even is much written about it, but maybe you or Justin can give an insight about it: Fuel tank fire extinguishers! Quite many people don't even believe they were a thing in WWII fighters, but they were indeed. I have only read about Japanese using them in Ki-61, Ki-100, N1K2-J and late A6M variants. Obviously it was not meant to replace self sealing tanks, because all but the Zero already had them from the beginning, but simply to further improve their survivability. It would be nice to know how successful they were and if other nations experimented with them at all.
@@Teh0X The Russians used cooled exhaust gases to purge the fuel tanks on some of their airplanes.
In his autobiography a German test pilot called Lerche, he test flew the Do 335, said he used a captured P39 as his hack transport because it had such delightful handling and control harmony. It seems test pilot quality fliers like him, Yeager and Eric Brown loved it and had no problems with it at all.
Brown used one as his own personal transport, until he asked a visiting Bell test pilot to try it out. 'I have never flown in an aeroplane in such an advanced stage of decay' said the white-faced pilot, so Brown took it up for one last aerobatic session and then scrapped it.
It's been a few decades since I read his autobiography but my memory of it was that Yeager hated the P39 and was thrilled that after training he got to fly the P51 instead.
@@talmagecleverly7718 I remember him saying just about the opposite of that in his autobio. I don't remember him comparing the two, but just saying that he really liked the P39.
@@scottkremer8660 He flew P-39's in training. IIRC - he talked about getting air sick but that all the time he got to spend flying a real fighter plane like a P-39 was "hog heaven" - so - he may have been talking about the experience of getting to fly something better than a trainer - or - just fly in general. I don't recall him ever contrasting a P-39 with a P-51 - but I can't remember him ever specifically saying anything against either one of them.
I think Yeager's attitude was that he loved flying and flew what he was told to fly, pretty much just like everyone else.
I think he was on ... like ... his 5th mission when his formation got jumped by some 190's and they blew the wing off his '51 (iirc) and he had to bail out over France.
.
The decrepid Bell plane that the Farnborough crowd pranked the Bell company pilot with was an _on its last legs_ primitive P-59 Airacomet JET. JET !!!
The picture at 16:22 is Capt.Rasmussen who got up during the attack at PEARL HARBOR and shot down a Japanese Zero.Was all shot up and made a dead stick landing.Retired as a LT.Col.
In a P-36, no less.
The Zero pilot Rasmussen shot down was either Takashi Atsumi or Saburo Ishii from the Soryu Fighter Squadron (both of them were lost in that particular action). In turn, ace pilot Iyozo Fujita from the same unit shot Rasmussen's plane up and downed Rasmussen's comrade Gordon Sterling. Rasmussen and Fujita befriended one another after the war.
Heavy armament, poor high altitude performance, and heavy armor. It really seemed like they were designing an aircraft custom made for ground attack right from the beginning.
Which is what the Army Air Force wanted. Why do you need a turbocharger for a ground attack plane?
The P40 was in the same situation.
The only true interceptor the AAF had available at the start of the war was the P-38 with its turbos. And it was designed as a bomber interceptor.
@@2lotusman851 similar story with the F-105 perfectly good interceptor that got a bad reputation because someone had the brilliant idea of using them for ground attack roles
It’s almost like using a machine for a purpose it wasn’t designed for doesn’t work
@@2lotusman851 No. Both the P-38 and P-39 were designed as intercepters and all aircraft started to become multirole as there was nothing to shoot down.
@Cancer McAids oh yeah your right my bad
@@killdizzle reminds me of the time they decided to take a rifle design to be a simiauto battle rifle and turn it into a magical do everything gun that was supposed to be a sub machine gun, assault rifle, support machine gun and marksman rifle only to realize it was terrible at all those rolls and promptly unadopted it but some poor grunt is still being issued an mk14 EBR today dispite the AR-10 and HK 417 being better .308 platforms because the army will never admit that it’s wrong
The army r&d devision are the type of people who would suggest getting rid of screw drivers because you can nail screws in with a hammer
What's funny is a P-39Q flown by Tex Johnston won the 1946 Thompson Trophy Race beating a Lightning, 2 Mustangs, King Cobra and Corsair over a 300 mile closed course. It averaged 373mph. Cleveland’s Hopkins Airport is near sea level.
In each postwar Thompson Trophy race, the first plane to the first pylon was a P-39.
The P39D was the model that most Americans operated early in the war. It was under-powered. The P39Q did not show up until 1944. By then the aircraft already had a bad rep. So most went to Russia. The early P39D did not have a supercharger or turbo charger. As such its performance fell off above 10,000 feet. Above 10,000 feet it was outclassed by almost everything. The cannon firing thru the propeller hub also was prone to jamming issues.
The P63 was the final variant of this line. All the issues that the P39D had were fixed in the P63. But it still had to overcome the bad rep its predecessor created.
@@danhammond9066 > The early P39D did not have a supercharger or turbo charger.
It had a supercharger. EVERYTHING in military aviation did. What it lacked was a second supercharger and/or variable speed. All navy planes in WWII had two superchargers with second having dual speed plus off, I believe. Thunderbolts and Lightnings had a supercharger attached to the block, plus a turbocharger. But at lowest altitude, all planes could run at their maximum allowed manifold pressure with just one 'charger and anything above that was dead weight--and dead weight the P-39 didn't have.
The post war race winning P-39 aircraft were fitted with late model high horsepower Allison engines. ALL Allison engines are equipped with a supercharger.
But where the early Allison F series V-1710 engines were making 1250 to 1450 HP, the late model F series could make 1875 HP, and the H series could easily exceed 2000 HP. And that was within the military accepted operating and tuning ranges. They were commonly pushed harder. Even during the war. There were crew chiefs and pilots who were rigging and flying the P-38L-1Lo (and some late J models) at 80" of manifold pressure and 3200 RPM in combat with 150 octane fuel. The military didn't like anything over 66"-70" and 3,000 RPM, despite Allison proving to them that 80" and 3,400 RPM was possible, and they were reliable there.
Air racing in a modified stripped down aircraft vs combat. Apples vs trucks. LOL
Normal engineers:designs plane around engine
Bell Aircraft engineers:designs AA battery with wings
Fairchild: "There is that crass gatling gun, if that could fly, it would be a bummer"
Result: A-10.
Funny: I get offered an A-10 video on the right.
@@feedingravens the algorithm is becoming to aware need to get the BBRRT Box to set it in its place lol
@@feedingravens Corsair: the largest winged engine you can find.
@@feedingravens A-10, Cold War Stuka. If you can hear it, you're a friendly.
@@Joshua_N-A But the Ju-87G variant, that had 2 37mm-cannons added.
This was fun.
I loved the Revell P-39. Served me quite well in all my missions as a kid.
Until my brother ' flew ' it across a frozen lake with bottle rockets strapped under it's wings.
RIP
Great combat story! Sounds like the motorized sub-chaser model I had in my youth; it motored pretty well until I decided to send it on a suicide mission behind my grandfather's camp on Cox Brook (probably to blow up the Bismarck, my obsession of the moment - right around the time the song "Sink the Bismarck!" was on the radio!). It was stuffed to the scuppers with firecrackers (including an illicit atomic-caliber cherry bomb or two) and made a highly satisfactory explosion . . . far short of its intended target, alas, and sank to the depths of the brook, whilst the "Bismarck" continued on its path of destruction.
@@richardcleveland8549 haha Nice !!!
@@dave131 Don't know why I sacrificed that sub chaser . . . it was a trim little craft with lots of missions left in it! Prob'ly coulda taken down Cox Brook's most notorious predator, Moby Minnow!
Your brother sounds like he was a visionary .
Modeled the P-39 in 1967 and recently scanned the pics I took of it back then. It was probably my best plastic model and I was very proud of it as a 16 year old high school student. Full camo paint scheme! Wish I could upload a couple of those pics to share.
"What type of gun do you have in your plane?, "An Oldsmobile." , "No, I said gun not engine."
Yet another reason to love that P-39, the automobile standard of manufacturing in the cannon.
For a firsthand experience by one who flew the P-39 while in New Guinea, get a copy of "Nanette" by Edwards Park. Excellent read! He wrote a second book entitled "Angels Twenty" which covers his squadron's transition to the P-47 while still in New Guinea. Both books present a very honest view of the aircraft, the living conditions and the early Pacific airwar tempered with a fighter pilot's sense of humor. Enjoy!
Thank you another book to read added to my list I just read Neptunes Inferno great read.
Thanks for presenting this. My father in WW2 managed to escape from Singapore in 1941 and managed to get to New Guinea in 1942. He was seconded into the US marines as an aircraft and instruments tech. He has memories of working on the P39 and P40's and spoke how the planes came back to base with peppered holes but the sc fuel tanks and pilot were safe and ready to go again after the plane repairs.
I assume he was RAF. What Sqn... 242? 605?
My favorite P-39 story was told to me by a family friend when I was a kid. He was an Air Corps air traffic controller in Florida during the war. He was assigned to gunnery range duty along the coast one day when a gaggle of P-39s came straggling along in very loose formation. While each pilot struggled to retain his relative position, our friend radioed the lead aircraft and ordered them to obey the large red warning flag by circling until ordered to proceed. He further advised them that the ground crews were replacing worn-out targets. The flight leader mumbled something unintelligible and rolled into a dive. He was followed successively by the rest of his flight. Horrified at the tragedy about to unfold, our friend screamed repeatedly over the radio for them to brake off their attack. Instead they hammered away with cannon and machine gun fire, peppering the range into a cloud of dust that obscured everything from view. As the aircraft loosely regrouped and proceeded home, he turned his attention back to the range where the smoke was beginning to settle. To his utter astonishment, not a single man had been injured, nor a single target hit. It turned out the pilots were all Chinese nationals going through advanced fighter training. Note: To my knowledge the Chinese Air Force did not operate the P-39 or P-400, but these planes were used a lot for fighter transition training.
Wow. Guardian angels workin' overtime that day!
Dean Grennell was a noted firearms writer. In one chapter of one of his books he was telling of how he conducted machine gun training for troops at a camp in the desert southwest. The troops had the machine guns set up and he was having them fire, one crew at a time, at downrange targets. When the first crew fired a few rounds at a target, a coyote who had been resting behind the target, took off running. As I recall, Grennell put it something like this: "It would have taken the best disciplined troops in the world for every crew to refrain from lining up on the coyote and squeezing the trigger. This was boot camp with untrained troops. Every crew opened up on the coyote. There would be a cloud of dust, the crews would cease firing and the coyote would emerge running from the cloud of dust. This was repeated until the gunners ran out of ammo. You will have to take my word for it that several hundred rounds of ammo from those machine guns were fired at that coyote and not one hit."
@@ksman9087 I can believe it. I have a similar story that occurred at Camp Bullis outside of San Antonio, TX. A group of Air Force based defenders (Security Police, now called Security Force) were training with M60 machine guns. As hundreds of rounds pelted the dirt backstop, an Army UH1 helicopter which, unknown to them, had previously landed behind the berm, unwisely decided to take off from its relative safety. As it rose above the berm, errant rounds struck it and the craft sank back down. All firing ceased while the range officers inspected the damage. Aside from a few holes in the aircraft, nobody was hurt. I attribute this good fortune to the fact that the trainees were not aiming at the Huey, otherwise I suspect they would have completely missed.
"I liked the Cobra, especially the Q-5 version. It was the lightest version of all Cobras and was the best fighter I ever flew. The cockpit was very comfortable, and visibility was outstanding. The instrument panel was very ergonomic, with the entire complement of instruments right up to an artificial horizon and radio compass. It even had a relief tube in the shape of a funnel. The armored glass was very strong, extremely thick. The armor on the back was also thick. The oxygen equipment was reliable, although the mask was quite small, only covering the nose and mouth. We wore that mask only at high altitude. The HF radio set was powerful, reliable and clear."
--- Soviet pilot Nikolai G. Golodnikov, recalling his experiences of the P-39
In case nobody mentioned it already, there is the memoir of a P-39 pilot in the Pacific titled "Nanette: Her Pilot's Love Story".
@@stuartnoelte3932 If you like good war writing, the best book I've read on PT boats was "PT-105" by Dick Keresey. You feel like you are riding along with them.
I was going to mention that too. A really interesting and well written book. Park described it as "An exaggeration" but there's clearly a lot of truth in there.
Enjoyed that book.
I imagine that it having tricycle landing gear also made it a lot safer to operate since fewer planes were crashed on landing & takeoff. Flight sim experience taught me that tail draggers can be pretty accident-prone.
It's not just in flight sims. Taildraggers have certain advantages when you're doing bush flying, but they can be a real bear in a crosswind. You have to always apply precisely the right amount of rudder precisely when it is needed. No more, no less, not a second too soon, and not a second too late. I can be done and plenty of people fly taildraggers all the time, but there is a significant learning curve. There's a reason why it requires a special endorsement in the civilian flying world.
Well the tricycle landing gear was new & scary at the time ... everyone learned & trained in tail draggers!
You miss a tail dragger flight instructor in a PC sim.
Depends what you're used to, I suppose...
Does flight sim simulate snapping off nose gear on rough field?
As the late Chuck Yeager put it in an interview about the 37mm accuracy:
"First round would land straight. Second round would throw high. Third round, by that time you might as well be throwing grapes into the open air."
It you were shooting at another plane one round from that 37mm should get the job done.
I suspect grapes taste better.
John McMickle though you must hit
@@johnmcmickle5685 sure, if you hit the first round that is.
@@comediangj4955 that's why succesfull ace pilots opened fire from close range, 100m or so., when the target filled the crosshairs.
Being a different type of fighter meant I immediately liked this plane when I was a kid. I still like it today.
Me too and I had built a plastic model of it.
I remember viewing a P-63 King Cobra at an airshow in NAS Pensacola when I was a flight student. A plaque explained that the P-63 was one of the fastest piston fighters in the War. It looked like a P-39 with a different tail.
I had 2 grandfather's in the 2nd world war
1 was a medic in Tubruk (really crazy survival story)
The other was a mechanic for the P40s and p400s in New Guinea. He always loved the Beaufighters and P40s but found the 400s to be a pain in the a** because all the men he would never see return and some problems with trying to fix certain problems. Don't remember exactly because he passed 10 years ago and he told me this when I was like 8
Back in another life I was in the USAF and worked on weapon systems. The sergeant of the shop was in Vietnam & stationed in Thailand. Over beer he told us it was the best time he ever had and the worst he ever had. He lived like a king in Thailand. Conversely, he worked on F-105s and hated the airplane. 12 aircraft would go on a strike, 11 would come back. The next day 12 would go on a strike and all would come back. The day after 12 would go on a strike, 11 would come back,. On one of the strikes all came back, one had damage with a hung bomb, it landed hard, the bomb exploded, killed the pilot, and the munitions crews who "safe-ed" the aircraft at end of runway. Yep, 30 years later after WWII with same types of results.
My grand uncle was a desk jockey in the PTO. He was in SE Asia in '42 and Stillwell's air officer for part of '43. I think he said morale was so bad that he was scared of theater wide collapse. He didn't fly there, he had a perhaps worse job, he drafted or helped draft the flight rosters and thus was deciding who'd likely die that day. He got pretty dark thinking about it and he told me some of his stories 40 years ago. Mostly I only remember how sad he was about the affair.
@@vicnighthorse Young men, who should be starting their lives are sent out to fight against other young men and too many never come home. War is horrible and should only be undertaken when there are no other options.
@@moistmike4150 wars should be fought by the old men who start them, not the young men who end them.
@@The_Original_Brad_Miller Truer words were never spoken.
I became friendly with a chap when I was playing Aces High 2 who flew P39s in the Mediterranean Theatre. He had nothing but praise for it.
I love em'..... I think with the capable pilot they were quite deadly down low
I have heard a P-39 pilot say that it had poor stall characteristics. So, when the Russians removed the wing guns it might have solved that problem by lightening the wing loading.
The problem with stall characteristics was not so much with wing guns, but the engine placement which made the aircraft naturally tail heavy. And as you spend fuel and ammo, CG moves even further towards the tail.
Many things contributed to the stall, tumble & spin of the P-39. CofG moved aft when ammo was depleted, the roll-yaw coupling was pronounced near the stall, extremely light stick forces while pulling g's, and an airfoil (NACA 0015) that exacerbated recovery from the stall, to name a few.
The P-39 and follow-up P-63 were such unique beauties. Like a lovely woman with unconventional, yet attractive features. I've always been drawn to these types, the ladies and the machines.
Well, the Bell Beauties sure has hell never liked it on top.
Always had a soft spot for this beauty, such ashame there has never been a full documentary on her (to what i know of). Wouldnt mind seeing a video of "unloved" aircraft of ww2 on all sides and even not well known, like the Rogožarski IK-3, Avia aircraft company would be interesting. Keep up the great videos 👍
It's interesting how much doctrine and operational use can turn something that was viewed unfavorably into something that was well regarded. The P-39 is an excellent example of this. Another one is the P-38, which in the European Theater of Operations was not well received at all (Who would've thought that gutting P-38s and installing a Norden bombsight and overloading the aircraft with bombs - turning into an impromptu tactical bomber - and also utilizing it for low-level strafing missions would've impacted poorly on an aircraft... Complete and total surprise.) whereas it shined in the Pacific Theater of Operations and was the bane of existence for the Imperial Japanese.
One pilot said that in the early days on Guadalcanal, when there was an alert the Wildcats and Corsairs would climb to take on the Zeros and bombers, and the P-39s would go patrol the island and perhaps pick up a low flying straggler or damaged enemy craft.
The Corsairs didn't fly out of Guadalcanal until the month the Japanese evacuated, Feb 1943.
Well they might find a low flying straggler, but there were other things to shoot. It could be troops in the open or boats of some type.
No Corsairs at that point im afraid. The P-39 stood no chance at intercepting high altitude bombers but Japanese dive bombers and strafing fighters quickly found out to their dismay that the P-39 was very lethal low down.
@@adamjaquay4279 The first F4U Corsairs arrived on Guadalcanal in February 1943.
@@johnmcmickle5685 interesting. Im taking this was after both sides had beat each other into a bloody pulp. Were they actively involved in combat?
If memory serves, the Allison V1710 engine powered the P-38 and early P-51A (pre-merlin) in addition to the P-39 & 40. It was in the P-38, with a properly tuned 2-stage turbosupercharger, that the engine acquitted itself quite well - allowing for excellent speed performance and maneuverability for a 'heavy fighter' (in actuality, an interceptor-turned-fighter) along with superb high altitude performance - in terms of both service ceiling and climb rate (actually quite impressive for pre-war, late 1930s design). In other words, the Allison V1710 had respectable performance when matched with an appropriate turbosupercharger.
It took time for the P38 to have a dependable set up for the allison. Over Europe the P 38 would blow engines up at high altitude
Apart from "good climb rate" (albeit at low-med alt), I don't see any accurate statements there about the P-38. The Allison continued to have issues and was never a good high altitude engine.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Frankly, who gives a shit whether "you see accurate statements" (i.e. your opinion) - compared to actual measured performance metrics and the associated documented statistical data on the topic (of P-38 performance at altitude)?
@@TyroneSayWTF I don't write opinions, just researched facts. Clearly, you haven't done your homework. There's a reason that the P-38s were replaced as high alt escorts in the ETO.
@@TyroneSayWTF not my opinion, just the facts. Even the P-82 engines were a maintenance nightmare. On the P-38, they were known as the Allison time bombs. Allison finally developed a new intake manifold and implemented it by mid-late '44. The P-38 dive brake helped control it at tactical mach, but it remained the poorest diving fighter until the end of the war, making it unsuitable for high altitude dog fights. One of the reasons that Kindelberger started looking for an alternate engine in '41 was the Allison design team. Good 'ol GM ! So no, NOT my opinion, son. Facts.
Is it forbidden to mention a certain game made by a company with a snail mascot?
P-39, P-63 and even P-400 have always been rather fun to fly in that game, for me.
yeah in that certain game like the 20mm armed p39 and is fast at low level, it gives fw190 a good run for its money
Issue is in that game ypu spawn stupidly close to your enemies. IRL you would be engaging after already climed to your prefered altitude. Something american plames are usualy slow at. Buffing planes with high climb rate artificaly/unrealisticly. And the aircobrs/kingcoba have better climb than other american planes.
It's a shame... The P-39 is one of the prettiest fighter aircraft ever made IMO.
I remember building the wee 1/72 Heller P-39Q in Olive Drab topsides and grey undersides, with white nose cone, tail and wingtips. It was the cutest little thing!!!
@sean burke that’s in the eye of the beholder. To me it’s almost unbelievably ugly. Looks like what it is: a flying death trap
It has an art deco fighter look.the allison engine and the cooling system was its problem, the first ace in the Pacific was in an airocobra.
agreed it looks incredibly modern compared to other fighters around that time
@@harv5425 I remember a war movie from ww2 it was in black and white it focused on a ace in the Pacific flying airocobras,the car like doors are what cought my eye.they just look cool
I like the fact that you corrected your misquotes in the graphics text. That was honest and I appreciate it.
I really like the recommended reading section at the end - can you do more of those in the future? I’ve been slowly getting into military aviation, and I’ve had difficulty finding good and accessible works, so recommendations are a huge help.
20:20 “quality of life improvements... like a working radio and heat 🤣😂🤣”
they matter ;)
@@MilitaryAviationHistory "You see comrade, who will need a heater when there is a constant 50°C in the cabin?" - Lavochkin, probably
There is an excellent book called red star against the swastika that covers sturmovik pilots in the Red Air Force. Some pilots removed their barely workable soviet radios out of fear that the Germans could tap in and listen to them or track them!
@@JAV1L15 to be honest sounds like bullshit, if it's said about the war period (and not the pre-war one). Germans were listening to most radios the soviets had, both soviet and american models. Having dug in various memoirs of fighter pilots, none of them has ever mentioned such actions performed by any kind of a pilot.
The only more or less fitting example is in Pokryshkin's memoirs, when a pilot decided to cut his shoulder belts off to "look behind easier", that exact person soon flipped over the plane at landing and got crushed because he slipped out
In Edwards Park book Nanette and Angels 20 he talks about flying the P 39 in the Pacific. His squadron always flew the plane within its limits and were not shy in taking on the Japanese pilots when they could get after them. It was not a hated plane but had to be flown within its limits and turned out to be a really good fighter bomber in support of Australian and US troops. He never got a kill in a P 39 but did in a P 47 right before he rotated home. He liked flying the P 47 with its altitude and speed advantage over anything the Japanese had.
For those of you who do not know Angels was WWII pilot slang for a thousand feet of altitude. Angels 20 would be 20,000 feet.
"Nanette" and "Angels 20", both by Edwards Park, are two of my favorite WWII aviation books. Anyone curious about this airplane would enjoy these books.
Its not junk. It just wasnt was the USA were looking for. Give them the Yak 3 in 1944 and tell them its to escort liberators at 7500meters over 2000 kms and ask them how awesome the Yak 3 is. The perfect fighter doesnt exist. Use it wisely.
Thanks for the interesting video. I referenced the USAAF experience with the P-39 in my own 2013 work (The Arsenal of Democracy: Aircraft Supply and the Anglo-American Alliance, 1938-1942) and another factor brought out by experience of combat reports in New Guinea was the vulnerability of the engine cooling system to fire from the rear arc of the aircraft. With a frontal engine installation, a bulkhead and pilot armour, the P-40 was apparently less vulnerable in that respect. The problems experienced with the P-39 as a high-altitude interceptor were serious enough that the USAAF even recommended that the USN F4F Wildcat was used in preference, which is notable given the inter-service rivalry of the time. The USAAF continued to have problems with the reliability of the 37mm cannon in the P-39 as late as the North African campaign in early 1943.
Buzz Wagner lead a squadron of p39s in new guinea and taught his men to stay at low altitude and use their slightly faster speed and teamwork to overcome the zeros maneuverability in his first encounter with them his squadron was credited with 12 zeros of which he scored 3
About 20 years ago while walking around a small airshow in Lancaster Ohio, I found the cockpit section of a P-39 sitting in an open air shed. I was stunned to see it there and no one else seemed to know what it was and sadly no one cared. I thought it was pretty cool myself
At RENO 1999 I sang “Don’t give me a P-39” to Bob Hoover and it brought a smile to his face. True story. A treasured memory.
Fantastic video , please note that the Allison 1710 with a single stage supercharger was not just used on the early p40 variants and the p39 , but also the early models of the mustang. Later p40s did have Merlin engines and the mustang was later converted by the British to a Merlin 66 used by the spitfire mk9. And we know what happened then.
A lot of promising designs were basically sidelined because of engine performance in a lot of aircraft.
And also note that p40 did struggle to get to attitude when not getting advanced warning , the book rising sun , falling skies covers the south east Asia campaign covers that pretty well
Ok , I would also like to add that bell must have got some of this feedback and that is what lead to the p63 king cobra , it must be added that in life in general , once something has got a stigma attached to it , it’s very hard to remove it. I think that the p39 suffered from that but also because it was seen by some pilots as a unique one for its big cannon , but also for the tricycle landing gear , car door and the engine behind the pilot, the tricycle landing gear might be seen as negatively because of the different technique to landing but also the training aircraft as was most aircraft in ww2 were tail draggers , the engine behind the pilot with the shaft going through the cockpit might have caused some consternation. Mechanics might have had a bad reputation for the engine being in a odd place but also the cannon which might have caused supply chains, (American planes normally used 30 and 50 cal machine guns ,the p38 is the only other plane in the USAAF that used cannons).
What’s more with the p39 is that you should have mentioned that the RAAF had some in its inventory at one point , but also the RAF had received some p39 in Europe and rejecting them some similar reasons the Americans. I have read the report and also seen a picture of one in raf mid war camo.
There’s a lot of planes that had stigma attached that stopped them for getting their full potential or to be accepted.
1. Vought f4u Corsair , rejected originally for carrier use , due to cockpit visibility and its tendency to bounce , its bad reputation for being a beast was given to the marines who first flew them and it was quickly changed. The British saw them as carrier based planes and immediately put them into service , they addressed the issues and showed that it was very capable, thus the Americans accepted the Corsair as a Carrier based fighter in 1944 with techniques developed by the brits.
2. Hawker typhoon, early structural issues but mostly to do with the unreliability of its power plant , the Napier Sabre.
3. Fw190 d9 , most pilots didn’t like the engine as it was a bomber engine ( the avia s199 comes to mind as it had the bad character landing traits of the bf109 but with a bomber engine with more torque , hence it nickname mule ) and also the decreasing of its agility.
4. Republic p47 because of its sheer size , minor issues and finally too pilots not using it to its strength.
5. Martin b26 marauder , pilots not use to landing the way it should be due to high wing loading
6. Curtiss sb2c helldiver , hated by its pilots because of being underpowered , improved with better propeller , however it took a long time to fix die to issues with Curtis , but also because it was seen negatively by the pilots who flew previously the Grumman avenger or the Douglas dauntless which were easy to fly and loved by their pilots , but also had a longer range. Hence its nickname “son of a bitch , second class “
That’s a few
Bergerud's book is outstanding. Glad to see it mentioned.
I just wanted to post some agreement with this; 'Fire in the Sky' provides very effective context for a theatre which is normally ignored by a lot of WW2 aviation historians.
I just took delivery of this.
You just wonder what a P39 would have done with a Merlin engine with proper boost.
One of the prototypes for the later P-63 Kingcobra used a (Packard) Merlin Engine, but the idea was scrapped since those engines were prioritized for other planes like the P-51. The Allison engine the P-63 got later wasn't a bad deal because it was so powerful at low- to-mid altitude
Ones of the Merlins weaknesses was that it ran “hot” and required lots of cooling ie wouldn’t have been suitable for an enclosed engine location
@@neilturner6749 actually, the Packard Merlin ran hotter than the RR Merlin. Lancaster FE's and pilots were always concerned with their one P-Merlin running hotter than the other 3 RR Merlins. It was the perfect environment for comparison. As for the Allison, a Merlin is designed to have 10% of it's heat removed through the oil; the Allison 25%, so the Allisons ran hot in the climb. The P-63 had an aux s/c but no intercooler, no aftercooler, no backfire screens and no extra radiator to cool it. Detonation problems with Allisons at altitude, even in the P-82.
My father was a carrier pilot and instructor in WWII. He flew Wildcats and Hellcats and near the end of the war the Bearcats. He also managed to get checked out on the P38L and the Corsair.
He did have a chance to talk with other combat pilots .
According to him the Buffalo and the P39 were simply outclassed by the Zero. What made matters worse at the beginning of the war was the Zero pilots were very experienced and quite good.
He ststed that flown properly by many pilots the Wildcat was still inferior. The F6F Hellcst evened matters up. He liked the Hellcat.
His reaction to the P38 was that it was a great plane but that it should not be used in a low altitude low speed turning fight with a Zero.
His reaction to the Bearcats was that he wished it had be e n available in 1941. He felt that a reasonably good pilot in this plan could have killed most Zero pilots it encountered if flown properly
Same for the Corsair
He was quite dismissive of the P39 and Buffalos however and felt that it was a waste of pilots to send them up against Zeros.
Zero was an excellent fighter throughout most of the war. Whereas American pilots were not as experienced.
You start to fight with what you have based on the plans that you had before you started that fight. It is easy to be dismissive of many early to even mid war types, but many lessons have to be learned the hard way through experience. Sometimes your design is based on a flawed concept, or even a good concept that comes with a price - compromise - again, hindsight has 20/20 vision. F4Us and F8Fs in 1941/42, sure. That is not meant as disrespect, but of course these mid to late war designs were far superior to their early war counterparts. That the A6M had to soldier on until the end of the war wasn’t ideal nor by choice, but again, you have to fight with what you have. As for this video, if there was one weak point it was that it only mentioned the A6M-series as the Pacific adversary.
wishful thinking for the Bearcat aside, most of his other opinions are acceptable as opinions.
Good, accurate testimony.
Chuck Yeager flew these in combat before the P-51. In his autobiography, he said he loved the plane. He said the problem with inexperienced pilots was the negative CG which made them dangerous in a stall.
Rubbish. Chuck Yeager never flew a P-39 “in combat.” He trained as a fighter pilot in a P-39 with the 357th Fighter Group at Tonopah, Nevada.
When the 357th FG shipped out to the UK in late 1943, they did not take their P-39s with them. Yeager’s squadron was sent to RAF Leiston where he flew only P-51 Mustangs.
@@orcinus6802 sorry I ruined your day, bro. It's been a long time since I read it. Lol
Hard to find personal accounts are so cool
Great topic!
There's a fascinating report from Lt Col Boyd "Buzz" Wagner--the USAAF's first ace, the commander of the 8th Fighter Group, and an aeronautical engineer--about the P-39D's combat debut on April 30, 1942.
Wagner opined that the P-39s actually needed MORE armor (or at least armor in different places). Wagner wrote, "All [three] P-39s before going down had apparently been hit in the coolant system as glycol spray could be seen streaming behind. [...] Lack of armor plate rear protection for the engine and the resultant high vulnerability are the greatest disadvantages of the P-39 type airplane."
Wagner also criticized the P-39's landing gear when he wrote, "Main landing gear tires are too small causing the plane to bog down very easily in soft ground or spongy runway. [...] Nose gear is too delicate to withstand normal operations on the type landing strips now in use. Many have been broken even while taxying."
Wagner also noted that the P-39D had slower intial acceleration, a slower climb rate, and poorer maneuverability compared to the Zero. The P-39D only outdid the Zero in speed, as it could do about 325 mph at sea level. Wagner griped more about unreliable weapons (the 37mm cannon was prone to jamming, firing solenoids for the .50s failed, guns were too hard to charge, etc), although he had special praise for the 37mm as "an extremely desirable weapon".
He had some complaints about high-altitude poor perfomance, although his complaints were more about the fuel system than the lack of boost. Wagner griped, "[The] P-39 gives very poor performance above 18,000 feet. The hand wobble pump or emergency electric fuel pump must be used to maintain sufficient fuel pressure for good engine operation."
As a side note: Guadacanal-bound P-400s sent to New Caledonia would have another altitude-related problem. They'd been intended for Lend-Lease, but after the RAF roundly rejected them, they'd been sent to the USAAF. Unfortunately, their British-compatible high-pressure oxygen system wasn't compatible with American low-pressure systems.
But despite all these flaws, Wagner concluded, "Comparatively speaking in performance the P-39 airplane is believed to be about ten percent better in every respect than the P-40 airplane, except in maneuverability in which case the P-40 is slightly better."
Of course, the P-40 would end up outlasting the P-39 in the PTO. But the assessment of the P-39 as better than the P-40 was certainly shared by the Soviets, although that's a topic for another comment...
Good testimony.
Those restoration photos are brilliant. There are so many cool details shown. Thanks for sharing that.
Chick Yeager liked itso that's to say something.
But once the decision was made to strip the engine of it turbo supercharger it was a second rate aircraft as used. The decision made by the USAAC in the 1930s that the V-1720 would be turbocharged meant Allison never put the engineering effort into a good mechanical supercharger that firms like Rolls Royce, Damiliar Benz, Junkers and Pratt & Whitney did. By the time the V-1720 had a good supercharger it was too late. Looking at post war usage in say unlimited hydroplanes were in a lot of ways it was favored over the Merlin tells me the engine had much more potential than really used.
The heavy front armour clearly tells it was meant to fight bombers, although those wing fuel tanks were still vulnerable to larger calibers. To rear fire it doesn't seem that tough. In that aspect late Bf 109 seems the toughest, having the only fuel tank thickly armored and with divided cooling system.
The Army Air Corps (AAC) was responsible for the decision to not pursue development of a second stage 2-speed supercharger for the Allison V-1710. Allison was very much in favor as were Bell, Curtis, North American, etc. but the AAC did not want to incur the additional cost. In addition to the positive attributes mentioned in the video, the P-39 had some additional features like good maneuverability about all three axis due to the engine's location at the aircraft's center of mass. Also not mentioned was excellent pilot visibility due to the forward cockpit.
Congress told them they would NOT proceed with that development
GM controlled congress. Just look at who was head of the War Production Board - ex president of GM, William Kundsen..
I read a poem in a book about unsuccessful aircraft a few years ago:
"Oh Please don't give me a P39,
It will pitch and roll
and dig a big hole
oh please dont give me a P39!"
That's actually from a WW2 song, "Give Me Operations". There's a verse for every aircraft type. "Peter-Four-Oh" is my favorite verse.
NO!
Don’t give me a P-39
The engine is mounted behind
She’ll tumble and roll
And dig a big hole
Don’t give me a P-39
NO!
Give me Operations
Way out on some lonely atoll-
For I am too young to die
I just want to grow old!
I'd always heard it as
"Don't give me a P-39,
the engine is mounted behind,
it'll tumble and spin and auger you in,
don't give me a P-39"
It was told to me as a rhyme that was usually drunkenly sung/recited by pilots stateside in the US
“Don’t give me a P-51
The airplane that’s second to none
She’ll loop, roll, and spin
But she’ll auger you in-
Don’t give me a P-51”
It was a verse from an Army Air Corps drinking song, had verses about all fighter types, the Aircobra verse was def the least flattering:
Don't give me a P-39, with an engine that's mounted behind.....
It will tumble and roll and then dig a big hole, so don't give me a p-39..Ah, hell for the sake o completeness......Don't give me a P-38 with props that counter-rotate
They'll loop, roll and spin but they'll soon auger in
Don't give me a P-38!
CHORUS: Just make me Operations
Way out on some lonely atoll
For I am too young to die
I just want to go home.*
Don't give me a P-39 with an engine that's mounted behind
It will tumble and roll and dig a big hole
Don't give me a P-39.
Don't give me an old Thunderbolt. It gave many pilots a jolt
It looks like a jug and it flies like a tug
Don't give me an old Thunderbolt!
Don't give me a Peter Four Oh, a hell of an airplane, I know
A ground loopin' bastard. You're sure to get plastered
Don't give me a Peter Four Oh.
Don't give me a P-51, it was all right for fighting the hun
But with coolant tank dry. you'll run out of sky
Don't give me a P-51.
Don't give me a P-61, for night flying is no fun
They say it's a lark. but I'm scared of the dark
Don't give me a P-61.
Note: Oscar Brand sings," I just want to grow old" which is a less bad rhyme. DE
WWII, Pacific Theater
From There I was, Flat on My Back, Bob Stevens.
Thank You, Thank You! That you have to post a video explaning your dificulties, speaks volumes to the REAL effort you put into these videos. Your work is very welcome.
Great summation and some of the best pictures of the P39 & P400 I have ever seen. Thanks , Mark Battista
Having a longer range at a lower power setting isn't that strange, the faster you go the higher the drag.
Parasitic drag increases at higher speeds, yes, but induced drag decreases; there's a balance
Google ‘best range power curve’, a picture is worth, well you know what a picture is worth.
Another good book, Saburo Sakais' book 'Samurai'. He is one of the piolets in that Japanese unit mentioned. He tells about his experiences from China until the end of the war. One of the best books I've ever read.
I remember from that book a part where Sakai was chasing a P-39 whose pilot panicked and bailed out. Sakai noted that the P-39 was faster and would have been fine if the pilot had continued flying straight.
same
First book I read that I chose. Great book. Still have it, what’s left of it, in box in the basement.
@@auerstadt06 Except that he was flying in the wrong direction to return to his base.
The first test models were supposed to be pretty good at altitude, but the army wanted ground support (below 10,000 feet) so they were de-tuned.
The Soviets used the plane the way it was intended. For whatever reason the US in the pacific refused to listen to logic.
No, the turbocharger didn't fit. Simple as that. Look at a plane like the P-38 for an idea of the size of a turbocharger for a A-1710 at the time.
@@sheeplord4976 They did test the first XP-39 with a turbocharger installed in early 1939, but they had major reliability problems, constantly having to remove the engine for servicing and repair. I think NACA also did a study pointing out that the lack of available space in the P-39 restricted the volume of ingested air that could be compressed by the turbocharger. The turbocharger installations in the P-38 and P-47 were troublesome, but they offered a lot more potential, largely down to the space factor as you point out.
@@gavinbailey8827 it is a shame that the metalurgy just wasn't there at the time.
GE sold the Army on turbosupercharging and they told Alison to not work on two stage supercharging (like the Merlin had) but to concentrate on turbo for their high altitude engines. The P-38 and the P-39 went to production about the same time and production of turbo engines would not support both programs so the Army told Bell to do what they could using the single stage supercharged V-1710 engine and that is how the P-39 turned out the way it did. P-51 was built by N. American Aviation (which was owned by GM which also owned Alison) and after being told not to build a two stage supercharged V-1710 there was a reluctance to put a Merlin into the Mustang. That's a big part of why the P-51A had an Alison and the RAF bought them and converted them to Merlin power.
Anyway lots of corporate politics weaved into the history of the high altitude versions of the Alison V-1710 and the planes built with or without them.
"Iron Dog" as a nickname for the type might not be intended as negatively as it sounds. That was the nickname British WWI sailors gave the German battlecruiser Derfflinger because she seemed to shrug off numerous shell hits. Given the P-39's armour protection it could indicate aircrew felt the plane was tough - though probably implying that they got hit a lot too.
Do the sources offer any insight on this?
Interesting. Could ''Iron Dog'' have been meant in both ways. As in it was very sturdy, but also a bit fat (For atleast the initial variants).
@@martijn9568 Seems reasonable
The more I learn about WW2 and aviation, the more surprised I am that the rear-mid engine design was not common for water cooled fighter planes. The large cannon placement, the weight and torque distribution, the excellent rear protection for the pilot, the easier use of turbochargers.
The P-39 had poor handling qualities. Wt & bal was an issue when cannon rounds were used up and even the P-63 had stability issues. The P-39 pilots' mantra was "It’ll tumble and spin and soon auger in.’”
The P39 Aero Cobra is actually one of my favorite WW2 fighters. It was loved in Soviet service I am told.
My father was a test pilot and flew P-40s in Panama and P-38s in Germany before getting into the F-86 and F-100 in Korea. He took one of first P-39s the factory delivered to be tested and took up and put it through maximum G maneuvers. After he got it back on the ground, it was determined that the airframe and wings had bent and it never flew again.
A major reason the Zero had such impressive range and performance was because of it's light weight which was achieved by a weaker airframe, non-sealing fuel tanks and very little armor. So yes, it had impressive performance but it paid a high price to achieve that performance and that was eventually it's Achilles heal. They tended to either flame out or break up with much fewer hits than it took to take down allied fighters. Not even mentioned here and a major characteristic of the A6M's.
Great info and great photos! Some of the nose art is really cool and extravagant!
I loved this plane. It's built like a LeMans race car with its mid-engine design and sleek body.
Such a clusterfcuk that they didn't fit it with a dual stage turbo- supercharger.
Imagine what the fuel consumption would be on boost!
Do you know why they didn’t?
@@glennsimpson7659 after it first flew NACA test it aerodynamic and found that removing the turbo supercharger (meaning removing its intake) could make it past the speed requirement
And you know what happen after that
Hi Bismarck nice video keep up the work
Will do
I've always had a soft spot for the P-39. It seems like an underappreciated, and somewhat forgotten model compared to other American fighters. Recently had a big spur on the Airacobra, it may look like a garden snake, but it packs one helluva bite!
The Soviets loved it. They used it as a system. The soviets had a copy of the British radar and radio systems. So, the P-39s were vectored to the German aircraft. Also, the war in the east was a tactical air war. The Ju-87s, He-111s, Ju-88s all operated low. A vectored in P-39 with good ground control is going into a fight with situational awareness. Good systems are always a war winner.
Wasn't copied off a british design.
Battlefield forward radar sets gave the Luftwaffe a pounding in the west too.
Read Pierre Clostermann’s ‘The Big Show’. They ran down any German fighters in Hawker Tempests, the powerful fighter the Sea Fury was developed from.
Razgriz well said! 👍 I feel the same way
My uncle was a mechanic during WW2 and had some experience of the Aircobra.
He told me that they had a problem with RAF pilots who forgot it had a tricycle undercarriage and landed it on the tail.
Nonsense. It would just pivot nose down normally once the main gear touched, the centre of gravity is forward of the main gear. So you are something like 75 to 85 years old eh? EH?
You know the RAF didn’t even use the P-39?
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 ''You know the RAF didn’t even use the P-39?'' Make sure to do some proper research before you make statements like that, as the P-39 (P-400 in this case) was used for 1 or 2 sorties by the RAF.
And the center of gravity can move behind the main landing gear if the pilot were to hold the nose wheel too high of the ground.
@@martijn9568 with *legal* (in accordance with the certificate of airworthiness) centre of gravity limits observed? That is flight testing regime, envelope exceeded stuff. Planes would fall on their tails if that was routine ...... it does happen sometimes and it is very expensive.
The RAF used four planes in anger once before giving them all to the Soviets.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Usually the few aerodynamic forces should get the plane level, but only f the pilot releases back pressure causing the nose to drop.
@@martijn9568 601 Squadron did more than 1 or 2 sorties on the Airacobra at the end of 1941, but I agree they really didn't do much more than that. It's been a while since I read their Operations Record Book, but I'm not aware of any landing accidents involving tipping the aircraft on its tail during landing by them or the AFDU or MU pilots who flew it in the UK. I seem to recall there were several instances of them being run off runways in bad weather and rain, though, which might be attributable to the brake controls which were atypical for a British aircraft.
"The tricycle landing gear made things nice, especially on rough terrain." 100% untrue: the nose gear, especially the long skinny one on the P-39 was a set-up for gear collapse on rough terrain, which is why taildraggers were the norm until well-paved airfields became more common.
You might think that intuitively, but P-39s were very capable of rough field ops, and even sustaining hard landings. The mid mounting of the engine made a huge difference, as the nose wheel wasn't taking the brunt of the aircrafts weight as it would have in a plane with a more conventional nose mounted engine
Ever seen a Cessna 172 take off from a small dirt strip in the backcountry of Utah or Idaho?
Yes me too and that plane could easily take regular bad airstrips.
What plane are we talking about?
P39 in the thread title
P49 at 0:27 1:43
P46 at 1:15
Chuck Yeager said in his autobiography that he would have gladly gone to war flying the P-39.
General Chuck Yeager actually liked the P-39. Also the Russians really loved the plane, their fighter aces were almost always using the P-39.
Well, yes, agreed in that if their specialist fighter guys were put on fighter-bomber or ground attack duty, then yes, they called for the P-39. As a straight fighter.... not so much. But, yes, the Russians loved the plane and got the best out of it.
@@robertwilloughby8050 german ace Hartman admits you could not out loop the P-39 with a Mess 109g.
@@robertwilloughby8050 The Soviets actually used it as a straight up fighter, and did quite well with it. There was a miscommunication where Americans thought "ground support" meant being a ground attacker, but in Soviet Doctrine "ground support" also includes combat air patrols.
@@mikkykyluc5804 Fair enough! Yes, I guessed that ground support for the Soviets also meant what us in the UK would have called "Rhubarbs". Have a nice day, bud.
@@robertwilloughby8050 You too comrade!
It’s such a beautiful and cool airframe
I've dreamed about building a kit plane based on the p39 aerocobra with a LS Chevy mid mounted. There's even some guy's in Australia who have made a V12 using 2 LS aluminum blocks cut and joined together with a custom crank. ...from Wyoming USA 🇺🇸 🤠
Maximize your bird’s strengths and minimize it’s weaknesses. Best example is the AEF with its lackluster P-40’s. Dive in on the zeros and Oscars from out of the sun and don’t dare tangle up with one in a dogfight. Now the Flying Tigers are legends.
In World War II, the P-39 shot down more enemy aircraft PER PLANE than any other type. For example, more enemy aircraft were shot down by P-51s, but there were a lot more p-51s flying. In general, the P-39 did a great job if combat was conducted at lower altitudes, like it was in Russia.
chuck yeager famously said he loved the p 39
The Soviet Doctrine of using ground attack aviation as "forward artillery" really played to the strengths of the P-39/63.
A commonly repeated myth with zero evidence. P39 was not really used for ground attack. The Russian phrase was translated as "supporting ground forces" meant - protecting ground forces by shooting down attack aircraft.
So no, it was not a Soviet ground attack aircraft, the IL2 was that plane.
The problem with the P-39 is the way it looks means everything. It has a sleek advance look to it except it was way under-powered. Pilots first stepping into the craft felt like they had a wild cat, instead the had a very mean House cat.
The particular aircraft that you have presented in this video is one of the aircraft that I and my fellow workers have put a lot of time and efforts into to get her back to the skies. I was a member of the Pioneer work force for some 10+ years and in that time got to work on and build wwII aircraft of different types. I loved my time on each and every airframe. I have had the pleasure of working on both the allison and merlin v12 engines. It is always a great feeling to watch a newly restored vintage aircraft take to the air again and bellow it's sweet sound around the skies of the Ardmore airfield.
It's interesting how poor design choices often have, at their root, a desire to avoid spending money, thus leaving the machine sub-optimized for the sake of avarice. People died because of greed.
Soviets liked Cobras for their comfort... It was literally - limo compared to anything they had.
Dad ferried P-39s from the factory in Buffalo to bases in the US and Alaska in '43 and '44. He said the takeoff speed was critical. His major complaint the poor quality control and lots of manufacturing errors.I am certain any deficiencies would be corrected by deployment overseas, but he had stories of fatal accidents on trips.
My Grandad flew the P-39 stateside in training, he never flew it in combat, but he told a story that there was certain maneuvers you did not do in a P-39. Anyways him and one of his buddies were flying over Los Angeles in P-39 and his buddy started doing these maneuvers and he went into a unrecoverable spin and had to bail our over Los Angeles. My grandad said it looked like you grabbed the plane by the wingtip and jut flung it across the room like a throwing star. He said that after they got back to base they got an ass chewing over that ordeal. He ended up flying the P-38 in combat which he regarded as a beautiful plane to fly.
-"no - don't give me a P-39,
the engine is mounted behind
she'll tumble & spin & she'll auger you in
don't give me a P-39"-
"Give me operations
way out on some lonely atoll
for I am too young to die;
I just want to go home".
It'll tumble and spin, and soon auger in.
Gen. Yeager told me that while hunting quail in Texas. He baled once in training. ( engine blew). He also " secured " rations for squadronmates (pronghorns) with the 39. I am proud to have known him, and honored that he called me a friend! American icon, hero, greatest generation 🇺🇸 RIP General, my friend 🌟
It'll tumble and spin, and soon auger in.
Gen. Yeager told me that while hunting quail in Texas. He baled once in training. ( engine blew). He also " secured " rations for squadronmates (pronghorns) with the 39. I am proud to have known him, and honored that he called me a friend! American icon, hero, greatest generation 🇺🇸 RIP General, my friend 🌟
Finally! John Donaldson got the lyrics right! (At least as sung by Oscar Brand...)
Great video! Thanks. I thought the Soviets used them mostly in the ground attack role, with great success. I image the 37 mm cannon would be useful in that role.
16:05 "Thev P-400 is just a P-40 with a zero on its tail" may be one of the best airplane joke/nicknames I've heard as well, but I really like the lore if the XP-55 Ascender. It has a propeller right behind the pilot that pushed the plane thru the air. It has been nicknamed "Ass Ender" instead of Ascender. Brings me a good chuckle
When I was in 8th grade back in 1982 my teacher had her father, a WWII fighter pilot come in and talk to the class. He flew P-39s and P-51s in the Pacific. I asked him what his favorite plane to fly was and he suprisingly answered the P-39. He said nothing beat having that big cannon in the nose.
It's not often I hear the Eastern Front operations considered _short range._ :D
I think this should really give an idea of the enormous distances on the Pacific.
Read Don Davis' book Lightning Strike about Operation Vengeance, the ambush of Admiral Yamamoto. It was the longest fighter intercept of the war. The approach had to be flown 50 -100' off the water for 600 miles to avoid Japanese radar and then 400 miles back at higher altitude. There are also several books about B-29 operations in the Pacific and the long distances they had to fly. Now bombers can take off from the middle of the US, refuel in flight (there and back) and bomb targets in Afghanistan, about halfway around the world.
Chuck Yeager didn’t hate the P-39
He LOVED the P-39.
Another issue that the P-400 had when in U.S. service (my info was gleaned from reading about the Cactus Air Force at Henderson Field) was that the changes for Brittish service included a different oxygen system for the pilot. The Brittish used a high pressure air system, and the U.S. used a much lower pressure one. Since the CAF didn't have the necessary equipment to fill and pressurize the oxygen tanks, the CAF pilots had to fly without supplimental air, thus reducing their combat ceiling.
My grandfather preferred the P-38, as it had two engines to get you home over that vast Pacific if one went out. He bailed out of a sketchy sidelined from operations P-39 he was joy riding in where he should of been to get his hours in, and hit the silk when the engine crrrped out on him over the Australian outback.
Actually, the P-39 is a great airplane. Innovative and beautiful, it was just not a great fighter airplane.
Until Hellcat and Corsair and a few P-38s in the right hands, nothing could win a dogfight with a Zero. Even they could not win a turning, slow-speed dogfight with a Zero. That was Zero's most outstanding characteristic.
However, once Zero's limitations and weaknesses were understood, things changed drastically in the air over the Pacific. Those early (1942) P-39s were in the wrong place at the wrong time and on the wrong mission (bomber interception). Even a P-39, properly flown using its superior speed and its diving capability could have beaten the Zeros using hit and extend tactics, like P-38s and F4Us.
The extremely light Zero sacrificed durability, armour, speed, and diving capability for maneuverability (but only below 300 mph), and range. A less than one-second burst by virtually any opponent was sufficient to flame a Zero.
At high speed the zero's ailerons were very difficult to move. So the prescription was to stay fast. Bong said he tried to keep the fight above 300 mph.
@@PappyGunn Yes, and A6M2b Type 0 Model 21 "Zeros" (Zekes) couldn't dive a damn as their two-barrel carbureted Nakajima NK1C Sakae-12 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine would cut out when in a negative g condition (like early Spitfires and Hurricanes). They had made their bones earlier against far inferior aircraft which tried in vain to dogfight with them until they fought the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps who learned how to beat them, although Chennault's AVG gave them a good fight with the faster and sturdier Curtiss Tomahawk IIBs, similar to the U. S. Army's earlier P-40B models.
The sturdy F-4-F Wildcat, essentially a monoplaned F-3-F, initially had a very hard time against them until data obtained through captured Zeros showed their weaknesses. However, even so, the Wildcat had a decent kill-ratio (6.9:1) in the War, fighting mostly Zeros.
@@Glicksman1 6.9:1? I have a hard time believing that
@@jimzeleny7213 Hard time or not, it's true. The Wildcat's speed, diving ability, extremely sturdy "Grumman Iron" build, its self-sealing fuel tanks, and mostly the valiant and skilled performance of its pilots gave the WiIdcat the advantage over the lighter, fragile, slower Zero. The Wildcat in all of its variants had a kill ratio of 5.9:1 in 1942 and 6.9:1 for the entire war partially against Zeros. Do you think I made this up? Check it out for yourself as I did.
@@Glicksman1 I presume that kill ratio is what the US credited them with, before the post war check against actual Japanese losses.
Interceptors need a good rate of climb. Seems like $$$ was the major factor at the design stage that kept this airframe from seeing its full potential.
That's not how it works. I suggest you read why the P-39's turbosupercharger was deleted as it's quite an interesting and important story to understand the P-39.
The US Navy were more on .... solid ground.
Another problem I did not see mentioned. When the Japanese raids came in they were G4M bombers escorted by A6M's at 20,000 to 25,000 ft.
The P-400's were the British spec P-39's with British oxygen equipment, British .303's in the wings and the Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon in the nose. The British oxygen system was not compatible with the American gear so it was unusable and was removed. There was no ammo for the .303 wing guns so they were removed.
This left a lighter than normal P-39 with a still respectable 1 x 20mm cannon and 2 x .50cal in the nose and a pilot with no oxygen system so forced to stay at lower altitudes.
Chris, love your stuff! I'm an aero-engineering student and we spend a lot (perhaps too much) of time in class talking about unusual design choices they made during the war - we've been trying to get any data on the BV-141 (with no luck) but if you were to do a video on that machine, we'll all buy you a beer next time you're in the neighborhood.